Red light cameras and the suburbs

   I'm not sure how I feel about putting cameras at intersections to catch people not stopping at red lights. The concerns that opponents have about privacy and about this being nothing more than a money grab by revenue-starved municipalities are legitimate.

   What I do know is that it strains credulity to believe that Buffalo is the place where safety will be best served by them. I point out in my column today that the suburbs are home to far more dangerous intersections than Buffalo, by virtue of more traffic, more people - collectively - and higher speed limits.

   Would you like to see suburban towns ask for the cameras? Or should they stay in Buffalo and the state's other large cities?

   --- Bruce Andriatch

Read the full story.

 

Comments

[AJ]

So those in favor of red light cameras... are you aware that you will no longer be able to make a right turn when the light is red? Did you think about when you must make a left turn? waiting for a break in traffic to pass through...you better hope to god you dont get caught in the intersection when the light turns red. What about trucks? When is the last time you saw someone yield to a truck? Sounds like those in favor of red light cameras don't mind sitting in traffic, and wouldn't mind more upon installing of red light cameras.
I thought we wanted to attract people to the city, not give them another reason not to come.

[my2cents]

Cash Grab, another layer of tax supported patronage jobs, Government protecting us from ourselves, Bla Bla Bla!!!

Suburbs dont have all the cameras yet - they will. Suburbs have cameras in schools, drug dogs in schools - protecting those inside from those outside - or - is it protecting those outside from those inside?

Either way - create more tax funded programs - more tax funded careers - and please include more government in our already overtaxed - freedom losing lifes.

When the tax collector calls and says,"You still have $1.98 in your bank account." - then and only then will I believe we have reached our limits.

[BobbyCat]

Dear Lord,

Save us from well meaning people who want more and more government to protect us from ourselves. They live in fear. Help them. Puhleeeze. Meanwhile keep the friggin govenment off our backs. Lord!

[Facts Not Hype]

Chris, I did provide "the greater picture" via the link I included which links to all of the reports I mentioned and others.

It's interesting to see your reply selectively ignores findings in those reports.

For example, T-bone right-angle crashes actually increased by 30% at the D.C. camera intersections:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

"D.C. Red-Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents

By Del Quentin Wilber and Derek Willis Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A01

The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.

But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.

The D.C. government installed the first of its red-light cameras in 1999. By the following year, 37 intersections were covered in the city, some with more than one camera. The number of traffic accidents at the 37 intersections has gone up since the cameras were installed. The increase is the same or worse than at the 1,520 intersections with traffic lights that do not have red-light cameras.

... Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or collisions.

"The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras."

The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.

The number of crashes and injury collisions at intersections with cameras rose steadily through 2001, then dipped through 2003 before spiking again last year.

The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent. ..."

[Jax]

"Unless people have something to hide, there is no real reason to complain about traffic cameras"

You should have no objections to police having drug sniffing dogs at various places throughout the city to find drugs on people if they happen to walk by. If they don't carry drugs then they have nothing to worry about right? Same with tracking internet purchases via credit cards, if the people are paying taxes on purchases, then they should have nothing to hide or worry about, right? No problem with employers putting cameras near your desk to track productivity to ensure that employees are truly working, if you are doing what is expected then you shouldn't have anything to worry about, right? Why not just institute random car and person searches, watching you as you surf the web and listening in on phone calls. If you aren't searching for anything illegal or doing anything wrong, then you should have nothing to worry about, right?

[Chris from NoVA]

To "Fact Not Hype", did you read the facts or the study???

Or how about the conclusions, "The conclusions are as follows:

• Virginia’s photo-red enforcement programs are technically feasible in terms of meeting Virginia’s legal requirements, performing with sufficient accuracy, and enjoying the support of Virginia’s public.

• The fiscal feasibility of Virginia’s programs will depend on efforts to bring
operational costs in line with revenue. A full determination of economic feasibility would depend on the outcome of a complete crash analysis.

• With regard to operational feasibility, there are indications that Virginia’s programs potentially improve safety. The number of crashes attributable to red light running has decreased, although the number of rear-end crashes has increased. These two findings are consistent with those in the majority of the literature surveyed. The number of citations mailed has also decreased. Thus, the cameras do appear to be affecting driver behavior. The unresolved question, however, hinges on the injury
crashes: the cameras are associated with an increase in total injury crashes and a
decrease in red light running injury crashes. As discussed in this report, the injuries associated with red light running crashes may be more severe; this evaluation,however, did not encompass crash severity (except to classify crashes as injury or non-injury).

Thus, it can be said only that Virginia’s programs potentially improve safety but that additional data are needed to fully determine the merits of the cameras."

The keys findings of the report are, (1) when applied at intersections with certain types of configurations, traffic and crash patterns, camera enforcement is a technology tool that holds the potential to dramatically reduce angle crashes – the most severe – associated with red light running; (2)camera enforcement is likely to result in increased rear-end crashes, which are considered a lower risk of severity than angle crashes; and (3)camera enforcement should be instituted on a case-by-case basis, based on a thorough review of signal timing, length of the yellow phase, intersection sight distance, and the history of red light running and rear-end crashes at the intersection.

Common sense is that rear-end crashes should increase, but you are ever involved in a car accident, THIS is the type of accident you want to be in. What if the guy that killed the mother with her son in hand a few months ago stopped due to a red camera??

Also, Virgina is a bad example to use. Unlike Buffalo, DC is growing exponentially and ALL of the tests of your report were performed in Virginia which is considered the DC Metro due to its proximity. With a massivly growing population, especially since you cite a 2005 report stating going "from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year" Just from 2000 to 2004, the population increased by 245,000 residents in Northern Virginia.

Don't throw out "facts" to fool people without providing the greater picture.

Unless people have something to hide, there is no real reason to complain about traffic cameras. They only track the law breakers. I am sure if one or two cops were positioned at these same intersections, we would be blogging on how that is about taking money from people or being big-brother.

[jd]

Only a few days ago I came very close to getting broad sided, if I didn't look both ways after I got my green light it could have been lights out [pardon the pun.] I noticed a car approaching her now red light for at least a full 3 or 4 seconds with no attempt to stop a young girl with a baby seat blew the red light, she was looking down and appeared to be texting. Cameras hell yes' heavy fines hell yes, I don't care what they do with the money. If you don't run red lights you don't have to worry about getting a ticket.
There are some out there that make a game out of running red lights, it's their way of beating the system, I say cameras in the city, county, state, everywhere and fine accordinly 1st offense $100.00 2nd offense $500.00 3rd your license suspended for 6 months. After the 6 month suspension if caught again then your hung from the nearest tree or overpass.

[Facts not Hype]

A question for Bruce and other supporters of the cams:

Are you aware that a lot of objective studies have found that red light cameras have resulted in more accidents, not fewer?

For example:

2008 University of South Florida report found: "Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... "

2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found: "The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase..."

2005 Virginia DOT study found: "The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."

2005, The Washington Post found: "The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."

Links to full text of those and other studies can be found here:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

[Jeff]

Bruce,

Your article completely misses the point.

The issue here is simple- the government is to blame for allowing lights to be run. It's not their fault people run the lights- it's their fault they allow people to get away with it. Why is this only recently a problem? What changed that made this happen? Ever consider our money would be better spent addressing that?

Buying these lights- and sucking out revenue locally then shipping it out of state is just 'more of the same' in WNY.

It's not even touching on the rather peculiar constitutionality of the 'guilty no matter what' these things will bring into out courtrooms.

Rather than complain about people running red lights, why not ask the state or feds to mandate a minimum length for the time a yellow light can be shown? Why not sync the lights? Why not make the roads safer w/out wasting money? Is this an alien concept to you?

Isn't the point of our roads to allow SAFE transportation? Apparently, you think it's to generate revenue.

City after city has realized this doesn't solve the problem. But, since this is Buffalo, apparently, we need to learn a 15-year-old lesson firsthand.

Here's an idea- why not have the police start enforcing existing traffic controls? There's more to do than the usual- looking for speeders.

Has the news published an editorial asking the local PD's to start enforcing existing traffic laws?

We both know the answer to that already.

[jts]

Yes, the red light cameras are a cash grab and as with raising taxes its benefits are fleeting. Maintaining and defending the system along with adding another item to the long list of reasons to leave the city make it a loser. Most suburban board members understand this.

Funny, how people complain about assessments instead of paying attention to the establishment of the budgets.

List your house for $200,000 and complain out the $175,000 assessment. “Oh it went up 25% for the last reval 8 years ago, oh I’m so outraged”. Give me a break!

[Rob]

Chris: How was Kevin's comment racist? He simply stated that people in the city drive like animals, something I can attest to. He made no mention of color, background or any other group.

Perhaps you should calm down.

[Chris]

Thanks, Kevin, for your racist contribution.

If you think that suburbanites do not contribute to traffic problems in the city, I suggest you pull your head out of your * so you can see better.

[Kevin]

Red light cameras in the suburbs would be much less successful than in the City.
People in the City drive like animals with no regards to traffic rules and regulations. I am not talking about people who commute through the City but people who live and drive there. As a person whose job involves driving in the City on a regular basis, I am convinced half the people on Bailey Ave do not even have licenses.If you don't have a license, why would you care about a red light ticket?

[Chris]

Emphasis should be placed on upgrading current light systems and traffic control, and not at ways to increase punitive revenues.

The city needs to reassess its current traffic light system. The most basic light synchronization, at rush hour downtown, is touch-and-go at best. Even when properly working (and they often are not) traffic patterns in the city are not adjusted for construction projects, lights that should be covered or decommissioned during a temporary project are not.

The city administration is hell-bent on increasing revenue at the expense of making the city a more pleasant place to do business. Who wants to come into the city for work or events when there's just a greater chance that they're going to get a ticket? Just another reason to avoid those areas.

Maybe if there are as many red-light cameras in the burbs it will be more of a level playing field. But in my humble opinion, they will merely be veritable scarecrows, scaring away potential revenue. Online shopping will gain, Buffalo will lose.

[Jack]

Let's call this what it is, a cash grab. In a poor city, people just can't pay anymore.

In the burbs, simply hike the assessments and property taxes.