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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @07:23PM (1 child)
The safe (and correct) way to do it is to have all lights red for 2 seconds.
This is known to reduce accidents substantially.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Friday July 20 2018, @10:53PM
Around here, people have just adjusted to that and consider it okay to go through a red light if it has "just turned red". Of course, you risk a ticket doing so, but we don't have red light cameras and the chances of getting pulled over are pretty low so most people do it. Since people have a different idea of what "just turned red" means, it's always a guessing game of whether the guy behind you is going to stop or is anticipate that you might stop. And of course the hilarity that ensues for the occasional traffic light that doesn't implement the all-red delay.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it might be better left to the few intersections that really need it than just applied across the board everywhere.