Red Light Cameras Raise Crash Risk, Cost

concealment writes with news of dissatisfaction with a pilot program for stoplight-monitoring cameras. The program ran for several years in New Jersey, and according to a new report, the number of car crashes actually increased while the cameras were present. "[The program] appears to be changing drivers’ behavior, state officials said Monday, noting an overall decline in traffic citations and right-angle crashes. The Department of Transportation also said, however, that rear-end crashes have risen by 20 percent and total crashes are up by 0.9 percent at intersections where cameras have operated for at least a year. The agency recommended the program stay in place, calling for 'continued data collection and monitoring' of camera-monitored intersections. The department’s report drew immediate criticism from Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, R-Monmouth, who wants the cameras removed. He called the program 'a dismal failure,' saying DOT statistics show the net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million at intersections with cameras." Other cities are considering dumping the monitoring tech as well, citing similar cost and efficacy issues.

Comments

Cost vs injury

[EdZ]

Hard to tell without access to the raw figures, but if the number of T-bone crashes has reduced, replaced by more rear-end incidents, is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased? Even if the net cost in car damage increases, that would still be a win in my books.

Re:Cost vs injury

[IndustrialComplex]

T-bone crashes aren't the type of crashes prevented by red-light cameras to any significant degree.

A T-bone crash can only occur a few seconds into the light when the other lane of traffic has already begun to pass through the intersection. No driver WANTs to run a true red-light. Those times you see someone blow through a red-light that wasn't just someone squeaking through or missing a yellow? Those mid-red light runners completely missed that there was a redlight there at all! They didn't run the red-light because they wanted to, they ran the red-light because they weren't paying attention.

So what effect does a red-light camera have on people who aren't paying enough attention to see that there is a red-light there in the first place? Well, as we can see by these numbers, not much of an effect at all.

I'd be willing to be that there are fewer T-bone style crashes, because of an increased number of people stopped at the intersection, providing something else for the inattentive driver to see (or as the numbers suggest, rear-end)

Re:Cost vs injury

[artor3]

According to this article, which references the same study, the cameras actually seem to make things much better.

On the two intersections where the cameras have been in place the longest, t-bone accidents are down 86%!! And this isn't a revenue stream either, as the number of tickets issued, while spiking initially, drops off substantially as drivers get used to the cameras.

Of course, the article submitter wanted a good ole fashioned anti-government hate-fest, and was happy to massage the numbers accordingly. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

No, what is needed are not cameras. What is needed are some combination of:

• Stripes on the pavement to indicate that at the speed limit, you should not stop if you are past this point. This reduces the guesswork that currently makes it difficult to assess whether to enter a light or not.
• Countdown timers on lights to indicate how long the driver has before the light changes to yellow. Again, this reduces the guesswork.
• Longer yellow cycles. Studies consistently show that above a few seconds, drivers do not ever adjust to longer yellow cycles. Thus, lengthening the yellow cycle by only a couple of seconds reliably and reproducibly reduces red light violations to near zero.

Any one of these would result in a far, far greater reduction in traffic light violations and the resulting collisions than any camera system possibly could. The combination of all three would almost (if not completely) eliminate the problem entirely.

The whole rear-end collisions thing is bunk with respect to the cameras. The at-fault is always the driver who is following too closely to the vehicle in front of them so they can't stop in time for the braking vehicle--not the stationary red light camera.

Technically, yes, but the fact of the matter is that increasing the probability of a driver slamming on his or her brakes increases the probability of a rear-end collision, which is a simply inexcusable thing for law enforcement to be doing, given that there are so many better ways of solving the problem in question that do not result in such a negative side effect.

Therefore, given that red light cameras are significantly less effective than alternative techniques, the only real reason to consider them is revenue generation. And if that's the government's only purpose for enforcing traffic laws in a given community, its leaders should resign.

Re:Cost vs injury

[dgatwood]

For those folks who don't want to take the time to read the article, briefly put, the number of T-bone crashes decreased, but the average severity of those crashes increased, presumably because of people racing to try to get through the light so that they wouldn't get ticketed, failing to do so, and thus being at an unsafe speed at the time of collision.

Thus, even the costs associated with T-bone crashes increased, and although this study did not break down the cost into medical and non-medical costs, one can reasonably assume that although the injury rate decreased because the total number of accidents decreased, the severity of injuries was probably greater, resulting in increased medical costs. That's just not a very good trade.

Red light cameras do not merely encourage positive behavior. They equally encourage both positive behavior and far more reckless behavior, and on average, make things worse according to nearly every metric. Increasing yellow light times (by starting the yellow cycle a second earlier) make things better by nearly every metric. Why don't we do this? Greed. Write your legislators and demand a ban on red light cameras and a return to more reasonable yellow light times.

Re:Cost vs injury

[hduff]

So what effect does a red-light camera have ...

It increases government revenue by ticketing mostly people who make rolling-right turns on red, a practice that does not result in traffic fatalities for the most part.

Re:Cost vs injury

[icebike]

Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?

You've probably hit on the principal reason for the mixed results. The systems were designed to serve one purpose, but the money was just too good to pass up. The system was perverted to serve a different purpose.

People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping when the safest thing to do is just to roll across the intersection. Most intersections have an all-ways-red interval to handle the guy who enters on what he thought would be a late yellow, but actually was red due to a shortened yellow.

If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.

Re:Cost vs injury

[TheGratefulNet]

There are a lot of folks out there who think stopping at lights is optional.

my friend had this strange habit; when we approached an intersection he would speed up and plow thru the red lights. I would ask him why and he would say 'relax, my brother does this all the time'. every time, the same thing: running past a red light and telling me not to worry. it all worked up until we came to a green light and, yes, he slams on his brakes. when I ask why he does *that*, his reply was 'look, my brother could be on that road!'

Re:Cost vs injury

[Dahamma]

Actually, it's damn lies in the slashdot summary, too. From TFA:

"The DOT’s report noted that two intersections in Newark have been part of the camera program for two years, and that 24 others in six communities have been recording violations for at least one year. At the Newark sites, the report said, crashes in the latest year were down by 57 percent from the “pre-camera year,” with decreases of 86 percent for right-angle collisions and 42 percent for same-direction crashes.

It said the number of citations issued at the Newark intersections fell by 85 percent over the two-year period. “

So, crashes are up a total of 0.9% in a year, but the intersections that have had cameras for 2 years are *way* down, as are citations. So, it's also very possible (though still a hypothesis) that it takes a year or so for locals to get used to the concept of cameras, at which point they really start proving their worth.

And even in the "new" cameras, an increase of only 0.9% means while there was a slight increase overall, it's practically a given that a collision from behind because someone couldn't stop fast enough in reaction to hard braking is going to be less dangerous that T-boning someone trying to beat the light...

Re:Cost vs injury

[dasunt]

No, what is needed are not cameras. What is needed are some combination of:

One thing you missed: Better traffic lights.

Traffic lights do contribute to delays of traffic flow. They slow down traffic, and the contribute to useless delays, as anyone who has sat at a long red light, waiting for cross traffic that doesn't exist.

I'd argue that any large country (I'm looking at you, US) has an incentive to improve traffic light. Right now, the most common intelligent traffic light has ground loops to detect when cars are at the intersection. In this day and age, couldn't we do better?

Imagine a traffic light that could "see" traffic approaching from a distance. It could also see traffic backed up to the light. Instead of turning red when a car or two is approaching and the cross traffic is non-existent, it could remain green. Instead of turning green when traffic is backed up to the light, it could let other traffic, which is clear to continue, go.

Just imagine the time and fuel savings!

And finally, I'd have to say, in this day and age, sometimes intelligence is overrated (even though this negates the above). As a young adult, the traffic lights in my town sensibly shifted to blinking yellow and red at late hours when the traffic was light. The most common through traffic would get blinking yellows. The underused cross streets would get a blinking red. Then, years later, they replaced the traffic lights with a more modern type that would detect when a car was waiting and change the light. This was useless in a small town - approaching from a cross street would result in a longer delay (as the other light would go through a yellow/red change), and if you were on the main street when a car had to cross, you'd have to wait for the red/green change for just one vehicle.

Really, considering how much time Americans spend on the road, and how much time is lost, small improvements result in a big gain in time not lost and gas not burned.

Re:Cost vs injury

[NIK282000]

That sounds like logic! I wont have any logic when it comes to traffic control and regulation, its obscene!

Re:Cost vs injury

[Concerned Onlooker]

"People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping..."

That's a basic misunderstanding of safety. The people tailgating are the ones causing the accidents.

Re:Honestly...

[qeveren]

What honest excuse do you have for running a red light? It isn't like you don't get plenty of warning that the thing is going to change.

Re:Why not

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually did happen in Korea several years ago:

Float back several years in time with me for a moment. There was once a time in Korea when the government got really serious about curbing traffic violations. This was probably due to ranking highly on all sorts of international statistic lists for traffic fatalities.

Anyhow, the Korean government’s solution was to implement a reward system whereby normal citizens would receive a monetary reward for submitting photos of other drivers violating the law. Brilliant idea right? Yeah, and it failed brilliantly too. Wanna guess why? The Korean government failed to take the following into account:

1. The number of false reports and staged photos was absolutely through the roof.

2. People began CAUSING traffic violations in order to profit. For example, they’d block a street momentarily so that an intersection would get filled up with cars during a red light, and then they’d have a friend photograph all the cars stuck in the intersection.

3. People began blackmailing each other. Instead sending the photos into the police, they started trying to sell the photos to the drivers of the cars being photographed while breaking the law, and it turned out to be even MORE profitable.

4. Korean people began quitting their jobs, buying expensive camera gear, and setting up elaborate photograph traps in areas where they knew they could make money. That’s right, people actually quit their day jobs because blackmailing or turning in their fellow citizens all of the sudden became more profitable than working in an office.

5. The government didn’t consider that they would receive hundreds of thousands of photographs, and without some type of standard or rules set in place, would be obligated to pay out insane amounts of money to the thousands of amateur photographers who suddenly materialized across the peninsula. The profits generated by traffic fines went to pay off the photographers, which means no profit for the government.

6. Traffic violators would see another person photographing them, and then they’d get out of the car and beat the shit out of the cameraman.

7. Men would take pictures of women violating traffic laws, and then demand sexual favors in exchange for not submitting the photos to the police.

Thus the “turn in your poorly driving neighbor” policy was scrapped almost as quickly as it started. And no, this isn’t fiction. Ask a Korean about it.

Simple way to improve intersection safety

[fiannaFailMan]

Roundabouts.

They also improve traffic flow and eliminate the need for 4-lanes in each direction to store stopped idling cars.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[ionix5891]

Oh god no! In ireland all we have are fucking roundabouts, and are now being replaced by traffic junctions and traffic flows much better at rush hour

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[alcourt]

They are also correlated (according to the state transportation official I talked to who was pushing one in my area) with higher car on pedestrian injuries, and are more likely for new drivers to have loss of control accidents compared to more traditional intersections. These loss of control accidents often end up with the vehicle striking the very areas pedestrians are expected to stand, waiting for minutes for a break in traffic to safely cross.

Re:Simple way to improve intersection safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Roundabouts are a bit like transistors. When a heavy flow starts in one direction, the side directions are blocked indefinitely until the flow lightens, but both directions of flow stop or slow down before entering because they are unsure as to the behavior of the car in the circle (is it going to exit? continue around?). Thus they act as bottlenecks.

Re:So...

[norpy]

If you rear end someone you are by definition following too close and the accident is your fault. That means that if you get rear ended the person you should be suing is the one that dented your ride.
At least that is the law where I live (not in the US)

Scrap signs altogether!

[mcrbids]

There's a movement growing rapidly in Europe to reduce traffic signs and lights, and they are finding that removing signs and lights can cause a rather dramtic reduction in accidents. A number of cities have done away with traffic lights and signs entirely with surprisingly good results. (EG: average trip times drop dramatically, accident rate plummets, people report greater satisfaction, etc)

I'm not saying that we should do away with all signs everywhere, but there is sufficient evidence available that the "common sense" utility of the traffic sign or a traffic light is clearly unproven.

Re:Why not

[D'Sphitz]

You must have skipped over #1 and #2.

Re:You want lawsuits ...

[Spy Handler]

1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).

They wouldn't be in harm's way if they're positioned somewhere sensible where cars don't travel, such as a sidewalk.

2. Drivers get into accidents for all kinds of stupid reasons. Cops sometimes appear at busy intersections, as well as hookers, protesters, news cameramen, fruit vendors, etc. I don't see any outrage to ban these.

3. Little girls in cars, oh my... won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!

Re:Why not

[MickLinux]

Actually, I prefer web cams placed all along the roads, each reachable from a city website. line the roads with stripes, so speed can be digitally measured, and keep the last day of footage for public review.

Then, when someone gets cut off, or sees reckless driving, they can post a pointer to the police. Police either confirm or deny claim -- as well as any OTHER infractions they see in the incident. Appropriate citations get mailed out [fine to license only, no points]. Citizen who pointed out the incident first gets 10%. Citizens whose claim is denied cannot register another claim for a week, by automatic lockout.

Now, the unemployed can freelance in traffic patrols, and the wealthy who flaunt the law can fund them. The poor who flaunt the law can stop driving. The reckless can learn a cheaper way to drive.

I think it'd be a win-win situation .