Red Light Cameras or Longer Yellows?

[glhs837]

Which is more effective in reducing crashes? Oakland knows for sure. In the middle of their first year of a red light program, they went to longer yellows four four months. Then the police officer in charge of the program complained about reduced citations, and the signal timing was switched back. Money speaks louder than safety in Oakland.

Of the 22 accidents in that year, only one occurred during the four months when the yellows were longer.

Combine this with the Texas study, which concluded that adding one second to yellows not only resulted in %53 fewer citations, but more importantly, a %40 reduction in accidents. And not at the cost of increased rear end accidents, just straight reduction.

If your goal is truly increased safety, it's clear that the best method is longer yellows, not profiteering private companies willing to increase the risk of accidents in the name of profit.

Links avaialable upon request. I would post them, but most people who want to argue the point wont bother to read and learn anyway

 

[GWguy]

I don't know if longer yellows would curb accidents, but they seem awful short. Many times I've approached an intersection, light turns yellow. Not enough time to stop without locking up the brakes, but it turns red before you get thru the intersection.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

I don't know if longer yellows would curb accidents, but they seem awful short. Many times I've approached an intersection, light turns yellow. Not enough time to stop without locking up the brakes, but it turns red before you get thru the intersection.

A few years back, I borrowed Dad's 1980 Chevy pick up to go to work one snowy, icy morning. Got to the intersection where Taco Bell is and the light turns yellow. I step on the brakes and the back end whips around.
I leared how to "back-pedal;" a drag racing term for those who don't know;
in a hurry that day. Just glad there wasn't anybody in front of me.

 

[glhs837]

Well, the studies show they do. I know on 235, all signals are 4 seconds. SHA guy assures me they strictly adhere to the MUTCD guidelines. But the key there is that those are mimimum recommendations, you can of course go higher, and that's what the studies found, was that higher ones reduce accidents. And it's all about the reduction in accidents.

 

[Baja28]

Which is more effective in reducing crashes? Oakland knows for sure. In the middle of their first year of a red light program, they went to longer yellows four four months. Then the police officer in charge of the program complained about reduced citations, and the signal timing was switched back. Money speaks louder than safety in Oakland.

Of the 22 accidents in that year, only one occurred during the four months when the yellows were longer.

Combine this with the Texas study, which concluded that adding one second to yellows not only resulted in %53 fewer citations, but more importantly, a %40 reduction in accidents. And not at the cost of increased rear end accidents, just straight reduction.

If your goal is truly increased safety, it's clear that the best method is longer yellows, not profiteering private companies willing to increase the risk of accidents in the name of profit.

Links avaialable upon request. I would post them, but most people who want to argue the point wont bother to read and learn anyway

Dude! In the other thread YOU said a year wasn't a long enough study but now 4 months is??!! You can't have it both ways pal.

 

[glhs837]

But there are difference here. The other thread, it wasnt that the timeframe want long enough, but there was other data that showed the drop in fatal accidents wasn't related to the installation of the speed cams. There has been a constant drop over the last three years. And if the longer yellow study was one year before cams, one year with cams, and one with longer yellows, then looking at previous years, it would make sense to look at a longer period to see where the trends were going before.

But it's two different scenarios. If for instance, you looked at the data from the previous year, and December - Mar showed that there was a significant drop in accidents every year for that timeframe, that would invalidate the finding that longer yellows reduced accidents.

But I suspect you wont find that. The conclusion that four months out of the year, with no other changes, had almost no accidents, with the rest of the years accidents spread around the other eight months, would not make sense. You look at the variables.

So, it's apple and oranges.

 

[glhs837]

Here's how to analyze for cameras effectiveness. Multiple years before, multiple years after, accounting for rise in population. And whats nice about this one is that it's small numbers make it a good fit for us here. Given the paucity of red light running accidents here, I think this study has relevance.

http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/ca-ssmurrieta.pdf

Cliff notes.

Summary:

As can be seen from the above analysis, while the photo enforced intersections experienced a cumulative 78% increase in the rate of red light related collisions after the cameras were installed, every other major intersection we surveyed, as well as the city as whole, showed a reduction in the rate of red light related collisions during the same period. The non-photo enforced intersection that did show an increase, showed a significantly smaller increase than at photo enforced intersections.

The point being that anyone that says "If you dont run red lights, the cameras won't affect you" is wrong, they could very well affect you. They don't make you or anyone else safer, all they do is raise money. Now I have heard that we are looking closely at Charles County system, which as far as I know is NOT a contractor operated profit driven model, but I have seen no study details showing it's effectiveness. I have heard numbers, but never any raw data showing hoe they arrived at them.