Tennessee Town Releases Red Light Camera Stats

SonicSpike links to what he calls "a transparent look at some statistics released by a small town's red-light camera program," writing "Specifically, in the last fiscal quarter, 7,213 incidents were recorded, 2,673 incidents were rejected by the reviewing officer, and 662 incidents were not processed due to technical issues or lack of information. All in all 3,878 citations were issued between April 1 — June 30 in a town of 17,000 residents. Interestingly enough there are two nearby cities claiming that individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras." Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

Comments

Traffic Cameras are Free Money...

[Anonymous Coward]

The amazing thing is that the "fines" are $50, and do not get counted against your driving record, no matter how many you get, due to the state constitution... It doesn't allow blatant ripoffs.

You know none of the current politicians had a hand in crafting it, lol.

Our state constitution makes it illegal for them to charge more than $50 also.

The "Speed/Traffic" cameras in nearby Oak Ridge, (which used to be a nice place, but is now Crack Alley) have at least three digits; it's become a game to see who gets the highest number. :)

165 in a 25 zone? that's $50 please. :)

It costs $167 to contest one of these tickets. Due process, anyone? Remember the golden rule, "the guy with the gold gets to make the rules."

I don't spend money or time in places with these cameras; if enough people have that attitude, they will go away. Hopefully before the town does.

Farragut is the rich section of Knoxville; Snobs, Bimbos, and teenagers driving/wrecking their BMW's daily, lol.

You don't want to see the poor section of Knoxville; look up "Shannon Christian" on Knoxnews.com :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Re:public safety should never be a revenue source

[Local ID10T]

and you have the right to face your accuser so you can get out of these tickets pretty easily. If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.

See the second link in the summary...
The court filing obtained says offenders "are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof."

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

Agreed about the signs. I love having those. I'd love it even more if there were a timer right in the center beside the stoplight with big numbers.

That said, I think you're wrong about drivers adjusting to the longer yellows. Humans don't estimate time very well beyond a few seconds unless they are actively counting. Thus, unless drivers got into the habit of ignoring the yellows entirely and slowing down on red, drivers adjusting isn't likely beyond about seven or eight seconds. And there have been studies that bear that theory out, IIRC, though I'm too lazy to search for them right now.

The other thing that significantly improves safety as far as light timing goes is having a second or two of "all ways red" before giving the green light to the other direction. The first thing I noticed about traffic lights when I came to California from Tennessee was that in California, there was often no delay at all before the cross direction turned green. No surprise that California had to implement the stupid red light cameras to cut down on the T-bone crashes, which in turn, increased the rate of rear end collisions. It's all completely predictable by anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, really.

There's one other really simple thing that cities can do: mark outer limit lines on the asphalt. After all, assuming cars are traveling at the speed limit, you can trivially calculate how far they can travel in the yellow time. Subtract the length of a typical vehicle, subtract the width of the intersection, measure that distance away from the intersection, and mark an obvious line (maybe we should standardize on a particular color so that it has meaning) that goes all the way across the street.

By doing this, drivers know that if they haven't reached that line when the light turns yellow, they need to stop, and only if they have passed that line do they need to judge stopping based on their speed. Admittedly, if you're traveling under or over the speed limit, an outer limit line is less useful, but it at least gives you a general ballpark. And it costs a lot less than electronic countdown timers.... Combine them with longer yellow lights and even a second of "all ways red", and things will improve significantly.

Such outer limit lines also have the convenient effect of being an affirmative defense if cities later decide to shorten yellow light timing to try to raise red light camera revenue (not to mention making it almost certain that they will get caught if they attempt to do so without first repaving the road). But I digress.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[bl968]

That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.

"The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." - The Influence of the Time Duration Of Yellow Traffic Signals On Driver Response, Stimpson/ Zador/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1980

"Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow." - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985

"Olson and Rothery reported in 1972 that their research showed that drivers were "virtually" certain to stop if their required deceleration rate was less than 8 feet per second squared and virtually certain to continue if the deceleration rate required was in excess of 12 feet per second squared" - Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985

"The average implied deceleration rate of the group with the highest crash rate was slightly over 13 feet per second squared, and the deceleration rate for the group with the lowest crash rate was 8.5 feet per second squared" - "Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections", Zador/ Stein/ Shapiro/ Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1985

Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work, but I don't object to them also requiring a prepare to stop timer as well.

Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.

Start here...

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/05/15/traffic-enforcement-cameras-lead-to-increased-accidents-injuries-and-deaths/

the move on to

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/

and a oldie but goodie...

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/23/red-light-cameras-in-the-volunteer-state-unsafe-unconstitutional-and-unnecessary/

I started out leaning towards being pro-camera figuring like most people they are a good thing, then I started doing research to prove the point I wanted to make. I had to change my views on the matter and oppose them.

It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.