Red Light Cameras (RLCs) specific points

[glhs837]

So, this ones about RLCs and why they are not a good thing. Every point below can be backed up with real independent verifiable data, as I have done multiple times in the past.

1. They do reduce the incidence of red light running. Although available data indicates that they mostly reduce the last second go/no go sort, the person who see's the yellow might make it, might not and makes a choice to go. Since our lights in question have a full second overlap, meaning that if you are facing red, the green folks will be red for a full second before you get green. meaning if they run it at the quarter second of yellow, nobody is in the intersection when they do. Folks who just blow through long after it's red, like the lady who killed Commissioner Morgan's wife, the cameras do not reduce those much if at all, since those people are usually mentally checked (phone, drunk, kids screaming in the back, whatever) out when they run the red.

2. They might reduce the incidence of T-bone crashes, data's a bit mixed on that. Studies go either way

3. They increase the amount of rear end collisions, all studies agree on that. How much compared to the decrease-bones? Studies seem to come down on the side of, at best, it's a wash. Counting costs, seems it's about the same. You of course have a greater individual benefit to those who are saved from T-bones, at a greater overall cost to the larger numbers of people involved in rear end collisions. So, if in three years, you have one T-bone with serious injury, and that's prevented, but over those three years, you increase the rear end collisionsfrom 5 to 15, is that a better deal?

4. So, if you want to know if your deployed systems are effective, you must have either control intersections similar to the ones you change, or you must have before and after data. Do we have either of those? I submit no. Not enough similar intersections to the proposed ones (basically every light from Route 4 down to Gate 2) and unless I miss my guess, no accurate before data. I think the "study" used to pick them was a survey by the vendor of traffic counts per hour and spotted incidences of red light runners, with no actual crash and result data being considered.

End result, IMO, not enough chance of a significant increase in public safety to make the downside

So, the above is about effectiveness. The next bit is about the cost.

1. So, it's a money making venture. More citations = more money. No points, no insurance notification, of course, so the deterrence factor is lower. Do I think there is really enough light running in the county at $75 bucks a pop to make both the company and the county money? Nope, but as many jurisdictions are doing I would expect them to go right into "right on red" citations, tons of money to be made there. and the ever popular "Stop Line" offense, which causes oh so many accidents

2. The biggest issues with these other than effectiveness is shenanigans with review, since that is one of the biggest cost drivers. There is supposed to be a sworn officer reviewing these things, each and every one. One deceased Baltimore officer signed off on 2,000 of them Combine that with a streamlined "appeal" process, and getting out of an erroneous one can be a bit of a pain.


So, at the end of it, once you remove the profit/revenue factor, do we as a county get enough of a gain in safety from some slight decrease in what I imagine is an already low incidence of crashes from red light runners to accept to inevitable increases in rear end collisions? Do we have enough data on what the historical data has been? On crashes, not some guy in a car counting runners who don't hit anything.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Is there a link between the Commissioners and cameras companies? You may want to look at one or more of them. I think one of them has already admitted to the link.

 

[Concern4Calvert]

Very informative article. Thanks for sharing!

What better way to answer the above questions than a good old-fashioned experiment. Each of the counties should pick 1 intersection that has statistically high numbers of light runners or accidents and collect data.

Practically speaking, if speed OR red light cams are placed in the wrong area they can do more harm than good, unfortunately.

3. They increase the amount of rear end collisions, all studies agree on that. How much compared to the decrease-bones? Studies seem to come down on the side of, at best, it's a wash. Counting costs, seems it's about the same. You of course have a greater individual benefit to those who are saved from T-bones, at a greater overall cost to the larger numbers of people involved in rear end collisions. So, if in three years, you have one T-bone with serious injury, and that's prevented, but over those three years, you increase the rear end collisionsfrom 5 to 15, is that a better deal?

This is my biggest fear with red light cameras. People become so paranoid about being ticketed that they over-react on yellow.

 

[glhs837]

Is there a link between the Commissioners and cameras companies? You may want to look at one or more of them. I think one of them has already admitted to the link.

I can't imagine so, I really dont think it's a corruption sort of thing, more of a misguided good intentions thing. Based on the interview responses they gave the Enterprise, they are woefully underinformed about these systems. I suspect what little data they have been given has been cherrypicked pretty carefully. And I could be wrong, but someone told me the Sheriffs advisory committee for RLCs was pretty much a rubber stamp, not wanting to even consider any data not vendor provided. And every article about speed cameras references a vendor conducted study for any statements about effectiveness of those. I'm not sure why no reporter ever has the idea to actually investigate these things......










C4C, it's far easier to just rely on vendor supplied studies. Usually funded by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or by the industry directly. Remember, in the minds of a lot of LEOs and local poiticians, like our buddy in that speed camera thread said "Meh, I don't really care if it makes anyone safer, I'm getting revenue from lawbreakers, so I don't want to consider anything that might upset that idea". And one intersection is a tiny dataset, hard to draw larger conclusions from just one. Too many things could skew that data. Construction three miles away might send traffic another direction, local employer could cut hours, that sort of thing. Nobody in MD has shown any interest in independent studies.

 

[Rommey]

So, at the end of it, once you remove the profit/revenue factor, do we as a county get enough of a gain in safety from some slight decrease in what I imagine is an already low incidence of crashes from red light runners to accept to inevitable increases in rear end collisions?

I truly wonder how the government agencies would act (deciding to install/implement cameras - speed and/or red light) if they were going to receive ZERO revenue from infractions. Without the financial implications to fund other government activities from cameras, I doubt they would be all that interested in the pain of having cameras.

However, I wonder if the cameras have conditioned drivers over the long run. In other words, at the intersections where cameras are installed, has the mere presence of the cameras influenced drivers that regularly use a specific road to be more aware of those particular intersections? Is the mere threat of possibly getting caught made them less likely to take the chance of "running the yellow/red"? I know that I'm cognizant of those intersections when a light is changing and am less likely to chance mistiming the intersection.

 

[glhs837]

I truly wonder how the government agencies would act (deciding to install/implement cameras - speed and/or red light) if they were going to receive ZERO revenue from infractions. Without the financial implications to fund other government activities from cameras, I doubt they would be all that interested in the pain of having cameras.

However, I wonder if the cameras have conditioned drivers over the long run. In other words, at the intersections where cameras are installed, has the mere presence of the cameras influenced drivers that regularly use a specific road to be more aware of those particular intersections? Is the mere threat of possibly getting caught made them less likely to take the chance of "running the yellow/red"? I know that I'm cognizant of those intersections when a light is changing and am less likely to chance mistiming the intersection.

I think that it's maybe a vanishingly small percentage of systems installed with no revenue generation expectations. Charles County, as far as I know, ran a county owned and operated Red Light Camera system for years (started maybe in the late 90s, they got a special dispensation that allowed it, like Montgomery County has to place speed cameras wherever they want) that made no money. County bought the equipment, and fully operated the system in house. And I think it finally started paying itself off enough to make money just about the time that the state allowed anyone to set up a system. At which time, they went full vendor based for profit system. Wicomico county has announced they are shutting down their system due it's revenues dropping. So, do non-profit systems exist? In onesies and twosies, yes. But as a rule, if it aint making money, it gets the ax.

Any driver conditioning gets lost pretty fast once the system gets shut down. That's one reason engineering solutions are better than enforcement ones. Extending a yellow by .5 seconds drops the incidence of running more than RLCs do, increases the amount of rear end collisions not at all, and has zero cost. Would seem to be a win-win, but rarely happens. Controlling speed can be done through engineering also, but that spending, not making money and so it gets short shrift.

 

[bilbur]

I guess I don't see the big deal because I have never been ticketed by one of these and I pass at least 2 of them a couple times a week. I normally do between 5 and 9mph over the speed limit and I have passed speed cameras and speed traps with live officers and they don't seem to mind. My father was ticketed by a red light camera in DC and when we looked at the picture he was obviously guilty. It was one of the lights on the side that was slightly obstructed by a tree so he could have gone to court and pled his case but he decided to just pay it and move on. Has anyone on here ever been ticketed for doing under 10mph above the speed limit or been ticketed wrongly? Remember, be honest, no one likes to admit they were in the wrong. I don't know anyone who has gotten a ticket when they didn't deserve it, by a live cop or by one of the cameras.

 

[glhs837]

I guess I don't see the big deal because I have never been ticketed by one of these and I pass at least 2 of them a couple times a week. I normally do between 5 and 9mph over the speed limit and I have passed speed cameras and speed traps with live officers and they don't seem to mind. My father was ticketed by a red light camera in DC and when we looked at the picture he was obviously guilty. It was one of the lights on the side that was slightly obstructed by a tree so he could have gone to court and pled his case but he decided to just pay it and move on. Has anyone on here ever been ticketed for doing under 10mph above the speed limit or been ticketed wrongly? Remember, be honest, no one likes to admit they were in the wrong. I don't know anyone who has gotten a ticket when they didn't deserve it, by a live cop or by one of the cameras.

Well, I did have two false tickets from Baltimore, but the "big deal" isn't so much being ticketed incorrectly, although it is a factor, since the profit driven nature of these can make proving you were tagged falsely a problem. The real issue is that the supposed benefit we as a society gain, increased safety, doesn't really exist. And if you don't get any increase in safety for the citizens, the basis for any traffic enforcement, then it's not a thing we should be doing.

Enforcing the law solely for profit is a flawed concept. Would we let food inspectors just walk in, get a check from the place with roaches and rats, and not make them correct the problem? Should we let police officers have a percentage from all citations they write? These are the concepts automated enforcement operate under, where we don't really care if the offender stops, as long as we are making money, and allowing the organization setting up the system get more money if they write more citations.

The most recent wrinkles, here in MD, is when RLC revenues drop, what they do is shift modes. Suddenly, the systems get set to cite for simply breaking the stop line, even if you never even encroach the crosswalk. And the ever popular right on red citation. Nobody with half a brain thinks those two offenses contribute anything towards collision rates, especially injury ones. And the places that do it don't even try to justify it, they just act like a five year old quoting Mom back to her "Well, it is an offense, so we can cite for it". any pretense of it being about safety goes right out the window.

Now, you might say, well, if the citizens don't like it, they can vote the damn things out. And, in virtually every case that has ever been put to referendum, they do just that. Like over 95%. But, the industry has come up with a new legal dodge. Used to be, they would find some gullible local citizen to form a "GRassroots" movement in favor of the cameras. then they would hire the lawyers and take out the ads in that "local" groups name. Never worked. Hence the 95% loss rate. So the new deal is slick. What they do is simply go after the citizens themselves, and challenge the citizens rights to even hold a referendum. First tried in WA state and it worked. the conention is that citizens cannot bind the govt in safety issues, or that only the State can decide such matters. They have won maybe three or four this way now.