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

no-harm no-foul

[topham]

No problem.

No-harm, no foul. However, you fuck up, spend life in prison. seems reasonable to me.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[0123456]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[schon]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.

They've been installed in my city at a few intersections - they were originally intended for pedestrian signals, but they work *really* well for drivers - it tells you exactly how much time you have to make the light, and you can start slowing down earlier.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jimmyfrank]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[causality]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

I know a good way to stop people from running the red light. Increase the duration of the amber light. Put a countdown timer (like an LED display) telling the driver exactly how long until the yellow light turns red. Then have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light. The steel plate lowers back into the ground when the light turns green so that cars can safely roll over it.

Problem solved! Of course this would adversely impact ticket revenues...


Incidentally -- watch someone take this post seriously. I should have omitted this line to see how many would.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I agree with your solution with one additional step - after the light has turned red and the steel plate is raised up, but before the light for the other direction can turn green, the center of the intersection should open up like a trap door and dump in to a pit all the cars who entered an already full intersection so they wouldn't have to stop for the red light and wait for their turn. I'm not sure what should be in the pit -- hungry tigers, or maybe a pool filled with ill-tempered sea bass - either of those would be fine.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Posting=!Working]

The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.

Interesting theory, but not one that agrees with the studies I've read. Citation definitely needed.

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

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Kreigaffe]

Yes, saving 5 seconds of your time 99% of the time is sure great. It's that 1% of the time you cause an accident which causes *everyone* to lose many minutes of their travel, and potentially causes you and/or others to lose their *LIFE*.. that's what really throws things off.

Stop at the fucking stop sign. You want to save 5 seconds, run to and from your car instead of walking. I find it amusing yet depressing that people are concerned about shaving a few seconds off their travel when driving their car -- potential risks be damned! -- but when it actually would require physical effort on their part to move faster -- moving faster than a slow crawl when walking -- those same people won't step up to the plate.

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.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[garyebickford]

You remind me of an incident that I watched some years ago at an intersection between two major six-lane boulevards. A guy driving a very new Porsche noted the light change and quickly stopped. The guy in the 20 box truck behind him ... didn't. There was no way the truck was going to stop that fast. He pushed the Porsche all the way into the middle of the intersection. The guy in the Porsche jumped out of his car, and - the only time I've ever seen this - was jumping up and down and screaming in the middle of the intersection, literally "hopping mad". I doubt there was a printable word from his mouth in several minutes. I was amused. :) I'm bad. :(

Yield signs

[kehren77]

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.

I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.

Re:Yield signs

[rotide]

That's because the morons who make decisions to put yield signs at the end of _on_ ramps onto major interstates create a system where you learn to ignore them.

If you actually stop and yield to traffic on an interstate, one of two things will happen. Either you will be stopped forever, or you will be plowed into by the guy behind you.

Now, on normal roads, at least I yield to traffic when I see them. I know they have their place, but interstate on ramps, no.

Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[kbreak]

So, the big question is, "did the redlight cameras reduce accidents or increase them?" Here in Los Angeles, a TV station got ahold of the records, and in most cases, accidents *increase* at camera intersections.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[rtaylor]

The stats for some of my cities intersections clearly show a decrease in the T-Bones and an increase in rear-endings. Stats are not public.

If you believe T-Bones are the more fatal of the two, then the trade-off is likely appropriate. Note, light timing did not change and there are 100+ intersections with camera boxes but only a handful actually have a camera installed (randomly rotated).

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[mbone]

This is not about public safety, it's about raising money for the municipality. Period.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[MozeeToby]

On the other hand if you just want to reduce all accidents you make the yellow light longer. Almost 0 cost, and actually effective. On the other hand it doesn't generate thousands of dollars in revenue for the police department so it's a no go.

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[Misch]

Washington DC says no. 1998-2003 study shows that at red light camera intersections, collisions more than doubled, Injury and fatal collisions increased by 81%, and t-bones increased by 30%.

At intersections without red light cameras over the same time period, collisions up by 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

Source

Re:Accidents at Camera Intersections go up/down?

[SleazyRidr]

Then of course is the case where you get rear-ended which pushes you into the intersection, where you get t-boned.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[clang_jangle]

Yes, and we all know how infallible those revenue-generating ticket machines are. Also your local government would *never* cheat...

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Yakasha]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent? Bear in mind that red light cameras don't tend to trip below about 5mph, so "I just pulled into the junction to let the ambulance past" won't fly.

Just a few:

• The city improperly shortened the timing on the yellow light.
• The date on the camera is wrong.
• The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws
• My brakes were broken
• That isn't my car

no-harm no-foul my a**

[cruff]

Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me

Perhaps you have never been side swiped by someone who failed to stop at a red light or stop sign? It can be much worse when you are a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorcyclist without a steel cage to protect you. You might think differently then.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[kehren77]

Okay, I'm not advocating the complete running of stop signs or traffic lights. I'm saying that rolling stops for stops signs (ie you get to the stop sign, make sure nothing is coming and continue on before your vehicle has come to a complete stop) aren't a big deal.

Just down the road from me there was a 3 way intersection that was cut down to a straight through road. But they left the stops signs up as a way of slowing traffic through that area. That sort of crap shouldn't happen and people definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop in that location.

Re:no-harm no-foul my a**

[ceoyoyo]

So if nobody gets hurt (this time) it's okay?

The problem with rolling stops is that they turn into slow-down-a-bits, and it's much harder to look around for pedestrians or bicycles when you're still moving forward. Just stop and look.

I wonder how many...

[RingDev]

were cops?

I'm not sure about Tennessee, but in my small town, the local cops treat most laws or the road with little regard. Rolling stops, speeding, high speed/reckless driving. Heck, I had to file a complaint one evening after a cop damn near ran into a group of young boys walking down the side walk. Apparently, pulling over to the curb and calling them to the car, or getting out and approaching them were the lesser options when compared to flooring it and jumping the curb to park on some company's apron to block the side walk. His excuse was that someone had reported their teen daughter missing and the officer thought the boys might know where she was.

Or heck, when I was working 3rd shift years ago, we used to have two squad cars that would run 1/8th mile laps around the block in front of my work place. They would turn on the lights, but no sirens, then scream up and down the divided business road.

Just last night on the drive home I saw a cop come to a complete stop and make a 7 point turn IN THE MIDDLE OF A BRIDGE, blocking traffic in both directions on a 55mph high way during rush hour. If he had driven 100 feet, he could have pulled into a country lane and done his turn faster and with out obstructing any traffic.

Then again, I guess if you can just brush away any pics of cops blowing lights due to 'technical issues', there won't be many of them getting tickets.

-Rick

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

If the light is red and you drive past it, how can you in any way claim to be innocent?

Many ways. It could have been wild kids putting printouts of my plate on theirs, and then blowing threw the lights so that I could be mailed the ticket, it could be a computer error (those never happen), it could be foul play, maybe a database problem. The prevailing assumption from this line of rationale is that even though technology progresses, nothing is absolute. And if you are willing to risk your criminal history, driving record, insurance cost, etc against an electronic system sold to people who haven't been known to be the most honest with matters of money and law, well good sir, keep pissing it away.

Innocent until proven guilty.

But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[CLorox]

The article doesn't state how many residents of the town were ticketed as opposed to out of town drivers passing through, but lets pretend it did. Nearly 50% of people in this town flagged, and a little under a quarter were ticketed.... in 3 short months? Not sure how many were drivers from outside the town, but that is a ridiculous sum. Change the law or scrap the camera, this is not working and is a burden to the citizens. I wonder how many traffic collisions will occur because people are slamming on the breaks trying to avoid getting ticketed.

How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court. Burden to the court, burden to the citizen and a significant expense of time and money. What a racket.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[blueg3]

If you have to slam on your brakes to stop in the amount of time it takes a traffic light to change from yellow to red, you're going too fast for the conditions.

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:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

And what happens if I own the exact same model of car, same color, same look and feel, and somebody drives through that light with a well done forgery of the innocent persons plates, landing them a ticket, with the picture as 'proof' and all.

Oh but the picture shows them guilty. They must have done it. Don't be so willing to throw away the "Innocent until proven guilty" clause to the heralding of new technology. Because that just means you will see ten-fold increase in convictions by 'no presumption of innocence', as you have happily given away your right to fight by not voting the county-city-state 'tards out who made it all possible.

I partially stand up

[egandalf]

There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't. You either break the law, or you don't. Not harming someone or their property doesn't make it any more legal to disobey rules of the road.

This whole concept reminds me of the George Carlin bit about staying seated until the plane comes to a "complete stop." There is no such thing as a partial stop. If you roll through a light, get caught and fined, at least own up to it. Any driver who does this knows they are taking the risk, knows it's against the rules, and, while I'm not saying they deserve to get caught, should at least take personal responsibility if they do.

I roll through stops sometimes, though I do try to make a conscious effort to not do so. I also speed - and have no shame in doing it. If/when I get caught, I accept the consequences unless I have what I feel is a justifiable reason for what I did.

Re:I partially stand up

[interkin3tic]

There is no such thing as a rolling stop - you either stop or you don't

Yes, you've spotted an oxymoron, good job and all, but it's not actually "rolling on through" either. There is a significant difference between a car driving past a stop sign at 30 mph and a car that slows down to 5 mph at the stop sign: one of those gave the driver enough time to make sure they weren't going to t-bone a car or smash a person, satisfying the intended function of a stop.

It's a widely accepted term, the fact that literally it doesn't make much sense doesn't matter.

Re:I partially stand up

[burquedout]

But slowing down to 5mph is often slow enough to determine if you have right of way or not and continue through. The fact that it's equally illegal is the stupid thing, there is no reason to come to a complete stop other than the law. The law needs to be changed in my opinion.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[operagost]

If one photograph is all we need to prove guilt for all crimes, then with one copy of Photoshop and a few minutes, I can rule the world.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

The photograph IS the proof.

If the driver is not positively identified then it is only proof of the vehicle's role in the infraction; not the identity of the perpetrator.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[MozeeToby]

There are legal requirements for the length of the yellow that are dependent upon the speed limit on the road. The city violating those requirements would significantly weaken their position that you could have avoided going through the red light. Taken to the logical extreme, imagine the city shortens the yellow light to 0 seconds and then fines everyone for going through on red.

Camera date is the weakest of his arguments, but it does point to general problems within the system and chain of evidence. If nothing else, if the camera says you were at intersection X at 1pm on Tuesday and you can prove that you and your car were somewhere else it weakens their case considerably.

Police departments have recently been using wiretap laws to argue that it is illegal to film them in public. This is simply turning that argument around on them, more in protest to their not wanting to be filmed than an argument to your innocence. Still a point worth mentioning since the argument has worked for others (the police) in the past.

Broken brakes would result in a fix-it ticket, generally little to no fine if you provide proof that the issue has been professionally repaired. Yes, this is absolutely a valid defense assuming that it is true.

Stolen plates, you let someone borrow the car, stolen car... all situations which would end up with you getting a ticket that for an action that you never performed. You might have to prove that one of these was the case, but it is a valid argument.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[twoallbeefpatties]

The photograph IS the proof.

I've gotten hit twice in the past year on making legal right-hand turns on red lights. The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me. For the second one, I'm waiting to get my hearing date. Either way, I think that sometimes the "proof" can be logically disputed.

I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[netsavior]

Obviously they don't work.

The obvious solution is RED LIGHT SPIKE STRIPS.

Severe tire damage has 3 awesome consequences:
1) no court proceedings
2) no appeals
3) stimulates local economy

Why not?

[Posting=!Working]

I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)

What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[Mitreya]

The first one I thought it so obvious that I was making a legal right turn that I requested a hearing without my presence, figuring that the judge would get it. They still charged me.

Sorry, what? A hearing without your presence? Are you not aware that any hearing/lawsuit is an automatic win for one party if the other party does not show up?? That's why the recommend going to contest your tickets even if you are fully guilty - if the accusing officer does not bother to show up, you automatically get the ticket tossed.
Also, you would lose because you are showing lots of contempt for the judge by not showing up and he would actively look for a way to screw you over.