More People Will Die as a Result of Texas’ Red Light Camera Ban | Hacker News Reader

More People Will Die as a Result of Texas’ Red Light Camera Ban

usa.streetsblog.org

24 pointsmalshe27 comments

AND WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE.

Pretty shrill piece. Absolutely no mention of previous investigations showing that the perverse incentive (ticket revenue) of the cameras was killing people by using extremely short yellow lights.

Example:

> 2) Dallas, Texas

> An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...

I find the cameras irritating, and sketchy for due process reasons, but I’m not affiliated with either side here.

However, as a developer I do have some mixed emotions about how much money these cities are being charged by the people who developed these systems (it’s a lot, but software, like remodeling, always costs more than you expect due to unknowns).

If they had made a law that cameras can only be used on intersections with yellows longer than the DOT’s recommendation, many of these lights would be turned off anyway unless the cities accept the lights as a preventative measure (ie a cost center).

If the cameras had been placed only at locations that were dangerous and where it would be important to have video evidence to be used in criminal or civil proceedings, and done in a revenue-neutral way, then I might agree with the article. Unfortunately, they were used as a way to screw as many people as possible out of money and generate as much profits as possible for the companies. And that business model is one that I violently disagree with.

It entirely seems fair to me that those that are driving in a way that increases risk for others should give something back in the form of a sort of extra tax. If the companies are making too much money then the solution would be to have the city take over the operation of the cameras or have the city do better in negotiation.

It's not up to the city, this was a Texas state-level legislative change just like when the Texas state legislature in recent years pre-empted municipal regulations regarding plastic bags, tree removal, ride-hailing, time-off from work, and other municipal enacted regulations.

More people still will die as a result of Texas’s refusal to lower the speed limit on all roads to 5mph.

It would take six days to cross Texas. Is that a typo or are you being funny?

It blows my mind that you don't get the point.

Better yet, get rid of transportation entirely. Boom no more road accidents.

I personally feel that driver assistance systems (unrelated to red lights) provide a substantial increase in driver safety over revenue generating traffic camera systems. Red light cameras increase accidents[0], and currently only serve to generate revenue. Redflex[1] is a notorious offender whose CEO is actually serving time[2] for his company's malfeasance.

Excerpt from the executive summary of [0]:

"The results do not support the view that red-light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes."

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253044721_A_detaile...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redflex_Holdings#Bribery_inves...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-redflex-ceo-sent...

I’ve gotten 3 red light camera tickets in Chicago and each of them was for a no turn on red that I didn’t see, where both streets had long unobstructed views of oncoming traffic and similar roads nearby allowed turn on red. The video recorded showed that it was raining, obviously late at night, and with no other cars in the shot for the duration of the video. Also my speed was at most 5 mph and I came to a full stop.

Those cameras do nothing to promote safety and are nothing but a hidden tax on drivers.

I spend probably 30 years thinking off and on how to remove the moral hazard of government using bogus fines to raise revenue.

I basically have it; fines have to be paid to the social security administration and booked against their account as a contribution.

I like it. Aka remove local incentives for corruption.

This seems like a very one-sided write-up. Other cities/states have done away with red light cameras based on fraud or because they turned out to just be revenue generators (installed at intersections with few/no fatal accidents).

Knowing that and reading this, it makes me wonder what someone would say on the other side.

My sense in Los Angeles is that traffic laws mostly go unenforced. This allows persistent, continuous safety hazards for pedestrians and compliant drivers.

We have a situation where running stop signs and red lights, speeding, reckless driving and gridlocking behaviors are rewarded and very, very rarely penalized. State laws require revenue from traffic violations to flow to the state of California rather than to the locality so the LAPD's incentive to spend costly officer time on traffic enforcement is quite weak.

In this particular situation, automated enforcement measures would seem to be worthwhile.

There's something to say about how statistics can be interpreted.

Using their their own data on Houston [1] when the cameras were in operation there were 10 fatal accidents, and with them banned there were 13 fatal accidents despite there being over twice as many overall accidents reported.

That's plenty within margin of error or normal variance which doesn't say much about the red light camera's effectiveness as far as fatalities are concerned (the article says "people will die").

Says nothing as to why people would run a red light as well. Are there new distractions between 2010-2014 that weren't as common in 2006-2010? Are they distracted by cell phones? I don't know, but there's more variables at play than just "is there a red light camera here" when it comes to people running red lights.

[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/08/12/crashes-doubled-after...

Just increase the yellow light time in the name of safety and everything else will follow. I know when cities were installing red light cameras in California they would decrease the yellow light time in order to ensure revenue to pay for the cameras. Then the state raised the minimums and many places dropped the cameras because they become too expensive.

Is this a paid placement? It goes against what I've read in the past showing that these cameras increase risk of accidents because people are so worried about not making the yellow.

Red light cameras are a simple extortion racket. In the US, people blowing red lights on purpose isn't really an issue. Accidentally yeah, but the cameras don't help with that.

The 'more deaths' conclusion comes from cherry picking the only data that might support red light cameras. The reality is that red light cameras do great deal of harm with increased accidents overall which means a greater number of injuries and property damage. https://phys.org/news/2018-07-red-light-cameras-dont-traffic...

Folks who like red light cameras and the profit they bring are perfectly fine the wrecked lives that come with them.

It is better to have 100 guilty men go free than to have 1 free man jailed. I'd rather have no traffic cameras than any that have even one false positive.

I really don‘t get it. Most countries don‘t have red light cameras and nobody is stating that it‘s less secure.

Red light cameras sound for me like a „solution“ for an effect which is happening but not the cause. Are really so many people driving on red lights? Is there some other problem like a very short phase of yellow light like someone already stated? Anything else?

Here in the US traffic fines, being the victimless crime they are, seem to be a backdoor taxation method.

in AZ to have a crime you have to have a victim, ask the nice officer who the victim is when you go 5mph over ?

Surprised nobody else commented but there's a bunch of studies that suggest red light cameras greatly increase rear collisions.

This is because the second the light turns yellow people freak the fuck out and stand on the brakes. I've even seen times in NJ when we had the pilot program... someone would slam the brakes on, be concerned they were still sticking out too far into intersection, then throw car into reverse. Now imagine if I'm the guy following behind on a motorcycle. Yeah, I can probably stop as fast, but I'm not going to get away from them backing over me.

Example of some studies: https://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-ac...

My googling also turned up a motorists.org article.

If anyone working on SEO for motorists.org is reading this: you should ask for a raise.

More people will die because Texas does not forbid driving to people older than 60.

Sorry don't care. If that's the cost of not being watched everywhere then so be it.

A red light camera doesn’t watch you everywhere, it watches you at a traffic intersection where you are already watched by highway cameras, other people. It only retains a photo (of a car, usually the back) if you run a red light too.

The letter I got in Oregon had a zoomed in photo of my face squared also with an algorithm, a pic of my license plate, and a link online of a video of the actual rolling right turn and the state of the lights in the video. I had no out after seeing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com