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: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 20 2018, @10:41PM
The key to this is selective enforcement [wikipedia.org].
Selective enforcement is, briefly, the policy that an individual or body charged with enforcing rules or laws may do so selectively and constructively as circumstances dictate, rather than ruthlessly and literally according to the letter of the law*.
For example, someone who is driving safely and catches a tiny bit of red light, under selective enforcement, would be ignored by a traffic enforcement agent, while someone who blows right through the light would receive a citation from the same agent.
Someone who pushes through a light just turning red to avoid an accident due to unsafe driving behind them (following too closely, excessive speed, etc.), under selective enforcement, would not be bothered, while someone who appears simply to be in a hurry and not overly interested in following the law would be cited.
It would be better if we could have all laws written reasonably and precisely such that enforcing them at all times would benefit everyone, but life isn't like that; selective enforcement, using human judgment, seems to be the next best thing.
Whether or not drivers are articulate enough to put this understanding into words, they know and understand it--that it's "fair" and therefore more likely to get a ticket for certain behavior, and "unfair" and therefore less likely to draw a ticket for other behavior, regardless of whether that behavior is or is not technically against the law. Through selective enforcement, drivers and enforcement officers can cooperate and work together for good**.
Red light cameras, in contrast, are a way for money-hungry government bodies to eliminate selective enforcement together with all the safety-enhancing and cooperative benefits that come with it, and replace it with a ball-crushing letter-of-the-law hangman's approach to ticketing everyone and everything that moves if a technical violation is so much as suspected in error.
Since drivers know about selective enforcement and the cooperation that exists between law enforcement and drivers who prioritize safety over technical violations, these same drivers also know that the cameras violate that--they are a statement that the agreement has been rescinded, and now they will be penalized for being around that camera during any moment that the light is red, regardless of whether the intent is to promote safety or not. The government with jurisdiction over the camera is telling the motorist that the priority has changed away from safety and towards a deadly game of whack-a-vehicle.
Understanding this, drivers faced with situations in which, to act in the safest manner, they must technically violate a law, and who would otherwise have chosen safety, will now choose to drive unsafely but technically legally--braking suddenly while being followed too closely, drawing up to a sudden stop in front of a transfer truck that literally because of the laws of physics could not possibly stop in time to avoid an accident, etc.
Now, in such situations, these drivers are generally not going to be cited when struck from behind. Those doing the striking were following too closely and generally get ticketed. (Of course, it's possible that the driver stopping suddenly could get a generic unsafe driving ticket--"too fast for conditions" could be made to fit--but that's less likely than a 100% certain red-light-camera-ticket.)
Thus the single goal of a stoplight camera (prioritize revenue over safety) has been accomplished, to the detriment of those living under the jurisdiction of the government body that became corrupt enough to institute the camera's use.
In trying to make a balanced post including both sides of the argument, I considered a possible case such as that of an intersection that has a high rate of fatalities because of motorists not paying attention to the signal (such as the intersection of US Highway 52 and US Highway 521 near Greeleyville, SC, that happens at a rural spot at which traffic on both highways is moving at full highway speed). But even here, the cameras would likely shift, and not eliminate, the steady tide of accidents***.
Basically, if you had any hand in promoting or allowing a traffic light camera to coerce motorists into driving unsafely so you can make money by so doing, you are the enemy of your fellow man and everyone knows it. Those who tell you different are doing so because they get something out of the camera's presence, whether it's business, money, or a sense of revenge against that ticketed that makes their lives falsely seem less bleak.
Repent and choose safety before any more accidents happen.
-----
* Selective enforcement also gets bad press for being a mechanism to allow discrimination against certain classes or groups of people, but I am talking about its good and intended uses in this post.
** That stoplight cameras are even worse than the "cooperation between drivers and law enforcement", which itself is negligible, is telling.
*** I believe they have addressed the problem by placing numerous and difficult to ignore flashing lights within and approaching the intersection, a solution that actually has safety as its motive and result.