SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-they-do-work-to-raise-ticket-income dept.
Red-light cameras don't reduce the number of traffic accidents or injuries at intersections where the devices are installed, according a new analysis by Case Western Reserve University.
Touted by supporters as a way increase public safety by ticketing drivers who continue through red lights, the cameras actually shift traffic patterns: More drivers tend to brake harder and more abruptly, increasing fender-benders and other so-called "non-angle" collisions.
"Once drivers knew about the cameras, they appeared to accept a higher accident risk from slamming on their brakes at yellow lights to avoid an expensive traffic citation—thereby decreasing safety for themselves and other drivers," said Justin Gallagher, an assistant professor of economics at Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve.
Accidents didn't decrease, only shift.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Friday July 20 2018, @11:58AM (12 children)
I'm sorry, why do you think that enforcement of a traffic rule has anything to do with safety? That's a red-herring, and I'm not just jumping on your bandwagons here, I literally hate bad drivers, and by extension most of the comments on here about this really annoy me because you're more upset that you can't play games with the law/safety of the situation than about your own bad driving.
If people ARE NOT STOPPING FOR RED LIGHTS, whether they cause an accident or not, they shouldn't be driving. Make them pay, take away their licence. It's SO SIMPLE not to go through a red light, it's even colour coded for you.
This isn't about "you're mowing down pedestrians", it's about "obey the laws as they were set down". "I sneaked through on red" means "I broke the law", the same way "I was only doing 31mph" means "I know I was breaking the law on purpose." If you don't think it's necessary, campaign to raise speed limits, convert to open junctions (not controlled), etc. NOBODY EVER DOES THAT. They all just moan that they weren't allowed to break the law for their own interpretation of what the law should say instead.
If you don't enforce the law, it becomes pointless. Whether or not the yellow is short or people slam their brakes on late (i.e. a bad driver brakes because he wasn't paying attention and the bad driver behind him who hadn't left a gap brakes hard to avoid an accident - the problem here is NOT the lights. It's the people not looking / travelling too close! And I'd much, much, much rather bad-driver hits bad-driver than either of them take out a pedestrian or another innocent car who's on green. Quite literally, make them pay for their own mistake/ignorance/arrogance).
Hint: Most civilised countries have speed cameras, average speed cameras, and red-light cameras. Some places even have "hashed box" cameras for those junctions that you MUST NOT stop in, even if by accident because your exit wasn't clear. Those cameras CANNOT FINE YOU if you don't break the law (ordinary error margin coped with by a standard appeals process, before you whine - there's a reason they send you PHOTOS of you doing it, because it's hard to argue with time-stamped photos). So don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about. No law breaking = no fines = no profit in those systems.
If you want change, saying "I broke the law, but I want to get away with it" is dumb and it's never going to work. Campaign for a change in the law instead. And it's REALLY hard to argue that a red light with appropriate warning shouldn't mean DON'T GO PAST THIS POINT. Speed limits, sure, you could argue those - there are real-life, modern examples of motorways where the upper speed limit is basically anything you like, so the precedent is there and active and works. But red-lights are there for a reason. Whining about them isn't going to change anything.
Personally, I'd happily set all the lights to the minimums, and not just fine but penalise you (points on licence, culminating in removal of said licence, and I'd make it much harder to get it back once you lost it - and jail time instantly if you're caught driving without a licence), all the speed cameras to 1mph over the limit, and the white-line markers to dead on the line. Because then all you have to do is NOT want to play games and take everything to the line, but err on the side of caution and stay a good portion under a maximum speed limit, which is what it's supposed to be for, and a good line behind the lines, which is what they are supposed to be for, not edging your way over them inch by inch.
I drive an awful lot. I see an awful lot of idiots I'd prefer to see off the road. But the expense is huge to do that and catch them. So I'm *more* than happy for the funds for that to come FROM those same people: People too stupid to not cross a line, on their speedo or on the road, when in charge of tons of moving metal that requires a licence to operate.
And you know what? Once we got people learning that the limit is the limit... THEN it would be safe to raise a lot of the limits, to extremes in some places, and I'd be right behind that at that point. But while we can't be trusted, as a generic population, to stop when a big red warning lights up in your face in plenty of time for any safe driver to react sensibly, then no, we can't be trusted to go speeding around like a loony either, even on a flat, straight, empty road.
Rather than whine and moan about enforcement of the limits set down for DECADES in very clear terms, because enough people break them that we can now fund devices to find even more people breaking them, which ends up actually making local government money (which can replace some of your tax AND pay for even more cameras) try driving vaguely sensibly, and campaigning for other things - things that do COST money, INCREASE safety and could be useful to the flow of traffic, ease of driving, etc.
Pay your stupidity tax. Because if nobody was stupid, then it wouldn't be profitable to put these things in, so they'd stop bothering. And instead use that stupidity tax - not expecting it to entirely eliminate stupidity - to fund the safe and sensible drivers on the road, the pedestrians, and everyone else.
P.S. Yes, if you didn't see the no-right-turn sign and got fined for doing that, you shouldn't be driving. Whether on that day, whether you were driving distracted, whether you're just not observant enough to notice a large metal sign with simple symbols, or whether you just didn't care.
But honestly, I don't get why it's controversial. Red light means no-go. It's not hard. Stop driving like a loony and you will NEVER cross a red-light.
(Score: 4, Informative) by urza9814 on Friday July 20 2018, @12:45PM (2 children)
It'd be great if the people installing these cameras had a similar attitude, but they don't. They regularly break the laws themselves (ie, by reducing the duration of a yellow light below the legal minimum when installing the cameras). Which proves that they also don't give a fuck about obeying the law, their only concern is how much money they can get through their ILLEGAL SCAM.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday July 20 2018, @03:34PM (1 child)
Kinda like when you see cops speeding: "hey, buddy, you're breaking the law", but he IS the law, so meh.
I do love it when cops speed, though: i just follow right along behind them.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 20 2018, @05:15PM
When I see 'em speeding, I note down the license plate number and contact their department's chief. Not that I expect they do much about it....
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 20 2018, @12:56PM (1 child)
...and one additional point: LAWS MUST EXIST FOR A REASON!
If the person proposing a law claims the reason for doing so is to improve public safety, and that law can be proven to NOT improve public safety, then that law should be repealed. Just saying "That's the law so we're stuck with it forever and we should just do as it says" is not a legitimate argument in any nation with any form of representative or democratic government. The law must exist for a reason, and if the reason sucks then the law also sucks and should be revoked. If the reason they give in public is different from the reason they give in private, then the law is a scam and should be revoked. This is not E=mc^2, this is not some immutable law of physics...we must always question every law and ensure it is actually in the best interests of the people that it is supposed to represent, and if it is not we must rescind that law. And in fact our founders have even provided explicit mechanisms into the structure of our government which are intended to allow us to flagrantly ignore a law that we find to be unjust. That's one of the reasons why you have a right to a jury of your peers in a criminal trial -- look up "jury nullification". If the jury thinks your guilty, but they don't agree with the law you're accused of violating, then they have every right to vote you innocent. That's the system working as intended. The right to ignore crappy laws is itself part of the law that you feel we must always obey.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think "Stop at a red light" is a crappy law, but "install right light cameras" absolutely is, because it does not accomplish the stated goal and it has been shown to be very frequently abused by criminals.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 20 2018, @01:55PM
That is an excellent proposal.
In 21st century democracy, in the Second American Republic (and next iteration of other democracies), laws must include sunset provisions, such that once their purpose has been fulfilled, or they have failed to meet their goals, then they automatically get archived and scrubbed from the books.
Imagine the cruft that would eliminate! It would make things much more transparent to the people who are supposed to understand and obey laws, too.
As a humble addendum to your proposal, each law should clearly report who wins and which politician's cousin is getting rich from the sweetheart deal wrapped up in the fine print.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Friday July 20 2018, @01:34PM
Tell that to the poor bastards who receive speeding fines for their parked cars on the street.
https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/local/orleans/traffic-camera-issuing-speeding-tickets-to-parked-car/289-535670008 [wwltv.com]
Bullshit. It's ALL ABOUT MONEY. If they stopped being profitable, the cities will resort to other tactics to generate revenue like shortening yellow times. Quit sucking up to the people who care not one whit about safety and only want yours or my money. This is no different that you asking me to pay protection money to the mafia. In Ohio, the governor asked the legislature to pass a bill to reduce state funding to all cities who used traffic cameras by the amount they collected, because it's not about the money, right? https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-410 [ohio.gov] The cities that use cameras howled how unfair it was and threatened to go to court to preserve their revenue. Cities cannot be trusted to be fair and honest about your beloved traffic cameras.
https://www.journal-news.com/news/new-miami-speed-camera-appeal-denied-ohio-supreme-court/WFbxqjCJfO2bgpr4IkFMnO/ [journal-news.com]
https://jalopnik.com/ohio-village-might-someday-pay-back-3-million-to-drive-1822742590 [jalopnik.com]
Jawohl, mein Fuhrer.
Do you support cutting off a hand for stealing too?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 20 2018, @01:56PM (1 child)
What I want, and expect, is that the law makers follow standards. Traffic engineers spend a lot of time in school, learning how to make highways safe. They ARE the experts. If the traffic engineers tell the city that the speed limit should be 60, then the speed limit should be 60 - not 50, to generate money, and not 70, to placate their kids, and some deep-pocketed interests.
I don't care a whole lot whether the engineers make the limit 25, or 95 - I trust them to have done the math.
Likewise with the damned traffic lights. The engineers know what is safe, and what is unsafe. You follow their suggestions, and remain within their high and low recommendations, or you're a corrupt bastard. It's really that simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21 2018, @05:08AM
Around where I live, I feel the speed limits are way too generous. They were put in place before the economy soured and all these cars are parked alongside the road in front of everyone's houses, and then often miles away wherever those people who live in those high density apartments can find to park. I often see two families in an apartment that was designed for one person, two at most. And the complex has no parking for all the cars, and their homeowner neighbors are all in a snit going down to city council meetings to get permit parking in place so they can park in front of their own house. I could see the speed limit being OK for a small maneuverable sports car with young attentive driver, but for me, and old guy in a big van, there is no way I am pummeling that thing down my neighborhood streets at 25MPH. Someone pop a car door open from a parked car as I pass and I won't have any choice but flat take the door off. If the other lane is in use with other cars, I probably am clearing the cars on my right by about 18 inches or so. If one parked another large vehicle on the side, sometimes I flat have to stop until there is a break in the counter traffic so I can use part of the other lane.
And at any time, kids can dart out between the parked cars, and I do not see 'em until they are actually right in front of me.
And I would definitely love to have a longer yellow. I have a lot of inertia in this thing. If I slam forward, I emit black diesel soot, which I absolutely hate to do. I avoid doing that - this engine seems to burn quite clean unless I do that. If I drive as fast as signed, then any light flipping causes me to go into panic stops and causes all my cargo to rearrange itself. So I end up going quite a bit slower on the main roads because I flat do not have enough time to react to short yellows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @08:19PM (3 children)
Parent's rant is up to +5 so I'm going to be bucking the mods...
When I'm awake and paying attention I'm smarter than that red light. Even modern adaptive controls don't have much of an IQ. You probably are smarter than traffic control devices too--if you are awake and paying attention (not impaired or distracted).
Most of the time traffic signals make sense and I follow them. But, driving home late from a volunteer gig there was a red light keeping me from turning left into my motel, it didn't make sense, and I rolled right through. Note that there were street lights in the area and excellent sight lines in all directions--no moving cars in sight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21 2018, @05:16AM (1 child)
In my city, it seems like the traffic lights are pretty well adjusted.
The ones in the city just West of me though has the damndest lights. They turn green for no-one on side streets. Stay green for the longest time on little streets no one is much on, while blocking off major streets.
I will go down a major four lane street at 3 AM and get stopped about every third light on little side-streets... for nobody!
Its wear and tear for me, and air pollution from uselessly burned fuel.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday July 21 2018, @07:07PM
It's politics. Count on it. The local businesses probably believe making travelers wait longer in front of their stores generates more business. Gas station owners want you to burn more gas, and local law enforcement is hoping to nail travelers with big fines for the thinnest of violations.
Screwing travelers has been on the rise in recent decades. Lot of cities got on the bandwagon for imposing much higher sales tax rates specifically for motel rooms, rental cars, and anything else a traveler would be much more likely to need.
It's not new. Screwing travelers has a long tradition dating back to before the robber barons of the Middle Ages. One of the chief things an empire did was remove most of the roadblocks, tolls, delays, and crap that the locals would use to fleece travelers. In modern times, a private road system arose in the early 20th century to serve travelers as badly as they could get away with. Some refused to post clear markers so travelers would get lost and have to burn more gas and time, and when signs were present, it was to direct them on roundabout routes. The AAA organized to fight back against those shenanigans by publishing maps and guides. And then the federal government stepped in and cleaned things up with the introduction of the numbered highway system in 1926. Today, just look at such things as cities fighting against the completion of an interstate highway within city limits. I have heard that Alexandria, LA delayed I49 as long as they could, mainly because one of the local politicians had an interest in a restaurant on the old highway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 22 2018, @01:37AM
Tour Guide Voice:
"And if you look up and to your left a bit, you will see a classic early 21st century example of the 'Dunning-Kruger Effect' in action."