Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue May 26, 2026 13:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 03:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
http://cbs2.com/goldstein/Red.Light.Cam ... 01941.html

CBS wrote:
Do Cameras Make Intersections More Dangerous?

Videos, provided to us by companies that sell red-light camera systems, show gruesome accidents and red light violators caught on tape. It is images like these that sell cities on the use of red light cameras.

The pitch is that these cameras will increase safety and reduce accidents. Also, the cities will make some money on the side at more than $400 a ticket!

In Los Angeles the LAPD claims accidents are down after they installed cameras, but are they telling the whole truth or just trying to make money off motorists?

We crunched the numbers and the results may surprise you.

"Your data is shocking to me," Sherman Ellison said.

Ellison is a ticket attorney and part time judge, who believes the cameras are there for one reason.

"No question. Purely a revenue generating device," Ellison said.

Is it money or safety? We wanted to know actual numbers of accidents at red light camera intersections to see if they really went down.

When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, "The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program."

So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500 for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.

We looked at every accident at every red light camera intersection for six months of data before the cameras were installed and six months after.

The final figures? Twenty of the 32 intersections show accidents up after the cameras were installed! Three remained the same and only nine intersections showed accidents decreasing.

At Manchester Avenue and Figueroa Street, accidents more than tripled from five before the cameras were installed to 16 afterwards. Westwood Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard tripled from three to nine. At Rodeo Road and La Brea Avenue, collisions nearly tripled from seven in the six months before the cameras were installed to 20 in the same period afterwards.

The reason?

"People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes," Ellison said. "That's just human nature. As a result, more accidents, more rear end accidents."

That's what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead had a camera.

"Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it's so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no inclination to stop," Stephens said.

"They" are the two cars that hit him from behind.

David Goldstein: "Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?"

Dale Stephens: "Yes, definitely."

He's not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice.

Montclaire, Upland, El Monte and Fullerton all discontinued red-light cameras in part because of accidents. Huntington Beach broke its contract before it even officially began.

"There are quite a few studies out there that will show an increase in rear end accidents in these intersections," a spokesperson from the Huntington Beach Police said.

David Goldstein: "And that wasn't acceptable?"

"No, not as part of the total package."

"The use of red light cameras actually put the public at a greater risk," said University of South Florida professor, Dr. John Large.

Dr. Large looked at all the studies and came to one conclusion.

"Our opinion is that there is quite a lot of money to be made with the use of these cameras," Dr. John Large said.

Los Angeles made over $4 million in 2008 on violators caught on red light cameras.

But the LAPD says it is safety, not money. They say accidents are down. They showed me statistics putting the drop at nearly 34 percent.

But they only count collisions caused by someone going through the red light, not by rear end accidents or any others at an intersection.

"It would be improper to draw a correlation between all accidents going up and the red light cameras," a spokesperson from the LAPD said.

"We need the overall picture," Los Angeles Councilman Dennis Zine said.

Councilman Zine says all accidents should be evaluated. He had been told accidents were down due to the cameras and didn't know the LAPD was excluding many collisions until I told him.

"If that's the case, we need to re-evaluate this program if in fact we are having more collisions," Councilman Zine said.

He says he will take the issue to the City Council because the contract for the cameras is up soon. And if they conclude, as we did, that accidents are up, the red light cameras may soon be coming down.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 18:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
I suppose if they now did some proper engineering and research into why people ran the lights that would show the true cause, and have trafpol about to then chat to them to understand why.
It could be complacency - no one is ever about situation (not seen the roads)
the lights stay on realistically long and frustration build until one day they 'go', nothing happens so a false sense of security is built up, someone else sees it and maybe then thinks that the lights are broken, and so on the pattern builds - IF that is what happens ....
6 months is not a long time for the before and after but at least they balanced it out from the time installed to prior alteration, but that will of course not take into consideration weather patterns altering driver behaviours ...

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 20:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
The collision figures are only one measurement the proper performance measurement for a road safety treatment is the casualty count before and after NOT a collision count.

There may well be an increase in collisions; note the collisions mentioned here are "rear-end shunts, most probably resulting in less serious casualties and I would say many fewer casualties in total.

The type of collision that is significant at a red-light cross-roads is a t-bone collision that is high in the incidence of serious and fatal casualties.

I am amazed that members of this forum have not picked up on the naive analysis relayed in this article. Perhaps this is deliberate as the numbers given are convenient to your campaign.

After all of this time you should also be aware that road safety performance is assessed in casualty differences with the treatment being identified by collision, casualty and speed characteristics when speed enforcement is considered for road safety treatment. You should all be doing better by now....really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 22:01 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
... the proper performance measurement for a road safety treatment is the casualty count before and after NOT a collision count.

Wrong! Such a claim would be expected from someone who is/was associated with the SCPs.

The proper performance measurement is the difference of casualty count that one treatment yielded compared to that one treatment not being applied (within the same timeframe).

'Before and after' comparisons invite time dependent variables; the SCPs tried that trick (among others); perhaps that was deliberate as the numbers they gave are convenient to their (highly lucrative) campaign...

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 21:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Well having looked at their map (most interesting) here we can clearly see a small and very varied accident numbers, before and after, very like the RTTM figures that one may expect. And with the negative RTTM effect taking hold it is only right to recognise the effect, before it becomes worse and that is what they are trying to appear to be genuinely doing, - do they carry on or stop now - it is really good or not .. that genuine thinking appears to be sadly lacking in this Country by those at the helm, (at least for the most part) that I can see.

As much as it might be attractive to find a one stop solution, there really is no substitute for good quality driving skills being enhanced and police on the roads to enforce appropriately.
Latest dft information clearly shows that they are trying to replace police with cameras which is shameful when research has shown that the Police presence on the roads show that roads are safer than without.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.034s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]