Lstest Red Ligt Camera update

[glhs837]

So, read the news reports on Baynet and in the Enterprise about the Sheriffs presentation and caught some interesting points.

1. Evidently, two years (2013 and 2014) countywide crash statistics were presented. And the point was made that most of the county's accidents happen on 235 from Pegg Road to Route 4 between 3pm and 6pm. Of course, since that is the most heavily traveled route and time, statistically that's like presenting the fact that water is wet. If specific stats on red light intersection crashes due to folks running red lights were presented, neither reporter felt the need to mention it.

So, the question that arises from that is, if you do not have accurate (or any) data on the thing your are trying to reduce, how the hell can you judge the effectiveness of what you did? If you can't say how many crashes happened due to red light runners, then you can never say if what you did actually made a difference. And of course, if you don't know how many rear end collisions you have at stop lights now, how can you know if you increased them?

2. Each source gave a different pathway for citations, with the Baynet saying that the citations went to the state before coming to the county, but that was not mentioned in the Enterprise version. I suspect the Baynet reporter misunderstood the MVA records check done by the vendor to pull the vehicles registered owners data to be a state function. I have never heard of the state doing any review of any automated citations other than the states construction zone program, SafeSpeed

3. The Sheriff stated that he has the personnel onboard to review citations already.

I do wonder about that, since from what I read, the only position added was Station Clerk III who was hired to review school bus camera citations. I could be wrong, but according to what I read, that is not a sworn officer position. And state law requires any citation review to be conducted by a sworn officer. I wonder if the Sheriff is aware of that. Would truly suck for him were it to come out later that every citation was void because it wasn't reviewed properly.

4. The Sheriff mentioned that light timings might need to be tweaked, and that what constitutes a violation needs to be decided.

Since the state controls that timing, and as far as I know, it all conforms to or betters the timings recommended by the Fed (yellow timing should be based on not the speed limit, but the 85th percentile speed of traffic) I can't see why that might need tweaking unless he feels they are too generous. Heck, go ahead and ask the state to ask 1/2 second, and get more effect on red light runners than cameras. As to what constitutes a violation, that makes me wonder if perhaps he has been pitched that if he adds the "failed to stop at stop line" function the cameras have, it can make a helluva lot more money.


Lastly, still not one itoa of discussion about the actual effectiveness of these things in reducing crashes.

 

[BernieP]

you realize his presentation was prepared by the vendor, which is why it doesn't make sense and why the lights will have to be tweaked.
It's a kangaroo court

 

[glhs837]

Well, the articles seemed to say that there was data presented from the vendor in addition to what the traffic squad deputy presented. The below is from the the baynet article. I think the vendor in question is ATS, they are the leading vendor on a national scale for school bus cameras.

http://www.thebaynet.com/articles/0116/red-light-camera-pros-and-cons-debated.html

"Once the intersections are selected then a vendor would have to be chosen to run the system. The vendor who runs the school bus camera program for the school system also runs red light camera programs and data was presented from them as an example."

 

[3CATSAILOR]

I believe our good Sheriff is referring to the person that reviews the camera tickets on school buses. They have been on some, but not all of the buses for while. Perhaps you should examine whether or not these cameras are paying for themselves; or is the money for the contract not reimbursed at all from the school bus cameras and is instead paid within the school budget, which of course means the taxpayer.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Also, there was an interesting editorial in Wednesday's Enterprise about red light cameras.

 

[glhs837]

No information on the SCBs, deal was described that the county paid nothing, the vendor covered it all and recieved all the ticket money till it is paid for. What happens after that was never defined. Roy made a good case but a bit too long. Most folks won't read a letter that long

 

[vince77]

People that run red lights contribute to accidents moreso than people who don't. If you rear end someone at an intersection, you are failing to maintain a safe distance between vehicles.

 

[glhs837]

People that run red lights contribute to accidents moreso than people who don't. If you rear end someone at an intersection, you are failing to maintain a safe distance between vehicles.

I have to take exception to your phrasing, Vince. People who run red lights contribute more to crashes in red light controlled intersections than those who do not. Sounds petty, but it's very important. Far more crashes happen elsewhere, I think. But this is the important part. If you don't know how many of your crashes are caused by folks running red lights compared to your total crashes, how can you state that red light running is the area you need to focus on? Do you remember years back, the Sheriff expressing concern about them darn red lights? I don't. If it wasn't a huge deal before it was going to make money, but now that it can, it is, perhaps it's not the problem we are being told it is.

To you second point. Yes, if you crash into someone from the rear, you were not either maintaining a safe following distance or paying proper attention to driving. True statement. Which doesn't actually change the fact that more people will be rear ended. Bemoan it all you wish, but if you get more of those (do you have a plan to mitigate that?) and you don't affect intersection T-bones, what have you gained beyond money?

I find myself having to say this over and over. I do not think running red lights is good. And I feel rear ending someone is bad too. These are indeed bad things. And if I thought the camera systems would actually reduce crashes and make people safer, I would support them. School bus cameras, that's fine. I argue against blindly assuming that the red light cameras actually increase safety.

 

[BernieP]

Not sure if it was the editorial or a letter, but the point was made that the person who ran the light and killed Maria Morgan would not have been deterred by the camera.
So if you are trying to reduce fatal accidents, so called T-bone collisions, red light cameras are not likely to reduce them. What you might stop is the parade of cars that come off Chancellors Run Road (turning left on to NB 235) that are clearly coming thru on a red (since the left turn arrow is green on 235).
And you know what, it happens night after night and I've not seen on accident there because the people on 235 are adhering to another rule, don't proceed into an intersection if there is traffic there.
It's clear what they see as a money maker, catching rush hour traffic in the intersection after the light turns, because the traffic in front stops because of a light further down the road.
The intersection at Wa Wa (bet you catch plenty of people caught over the white line,
The intersection at Walmart / Cheseldine , which is similar to Wa Wa in that the intersection is pretty wide (from the white line it's not clear where the other side is.)
Traffic just stops due to the light further up.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Maybe. But, it looks like all of the information he had was interesting, factual and to the point. What I found in College is that when you can maintain the person's interest, they tend to read along no matter how long it is. I bet you read the whole thing! (lol)!