Safe Speed Forums

4/12/2010 - Arizona: Police Report Shows Speed Camera Caused Accident
Anti-photo radar group uses police document to demonstrate how a speed camera caused an accident in Gilbert, Arizona.

Although independent studies have shown a link between the use of photo enforcement equipment and a statistically significant increase in the number of collisions, opponents of photo radar have produced few concrete examples of these incidents. In Arizona, the group CameraFraud.com has begun using freedom of information laws to get its hands on examples of accidents that would not have happened but for the presence of a speed camera van (view studies).

At around March 17th at about 4 p.m. a gray 2005 Ford SUV was driving on State Route 202 passing through the city of Gilbert. Traffic was light on the six-lane, 65 MPH freeway on a clear and bright day. When the 32-year-old Ford driver saw a speed camera van up ahead, he slammed on his brakes and slowed to just 35 MPH -- a common reaction near cameras as drivers seek to avoid receiving an expensive citation in the mail.

At the same time, a 22-year-old in a red 2008 Pontiac G6 was following behind without speeding, according to police estimates. The Pontiac driver briefly looked away from the car in front of her so that she could change lanes to the right. She did not expect the car ahead to suddenly scrub drop its speed by 30 MPH. As a result, the two cars collided just a few yards from a Redflex speed camera van.

Such incidents are quite common. A 2007 study by Arizona State University concluded that there was a 54-percent increase in rear-end collisions and a 9-percent increase in injuries from rear-end collision on the Loop 101 freeway during the state's first experiment with automated freeway ticketing. The study's author, paid by the city of Scottsdale, dismissed the significance of this finding by saying, "Increases in rear-end crashes are traded for reductions in other crash types."

According to a comprehensive British Medical Journal study published in 2006, that trade-off may not actually be worth making. The report found that police claims of a safety benefit from the use of speed cameras turned out to be false. To the contrary, an examination of actual hospital records showed an increase in the number of patients admitted from road accidents following the widespread introduction of automated ticketing machines in England (view study).

A copy of the accident report obtained by CameraFraud is available in a 400k PDF file at the link below.
Source: PDF File Crash Report 2010-013387(Arizona Department of Public Safety, 3/24/2010)

It seems to me that the most likely cause of the collision was that she was too close to the car in front.

the camera made tailgating 100's of times more dangerous.

Surely tailgating is always dangerous, whether something untoward happens or not?

I agree with Odin. Sure, tailgating is not a good thing to do, no argument. But this is just trying to muddy the waters between "cause" and "blame". The following driver was to "blame" for the accident, but the "cause" was the camera. In this case, no camera, no accident!

Surely tailgating is always dangerous, whether something untoward happens or not?

You could, with that justification, blame the manufacturer of the vehicle. After all - no car, no accident!

It is fairly obvious the presence of the camera is what instigated the event. Yes there are other factors too, but it doesn’t detract from the point that the presence of the camera was a contributory factor.

If the tail-gater had been driving properly the accident would not have occurred, however many cameras were on the road.

I repeat: this may not have been a case of tail-gating.

I suspect that "tail gating" is about to become one of those Humpty Dumpty words with which one can always win an argument so I will stop using it.

If a driver crashes into the car in front (s)he is, ipso facto, travelling too close for the prevailing conditions - those conditions including speed, surface conditions, propensity to be distracted and so on.

You could, with that justification, blame the manufacturer of the vehicle. After all - no car, no accident!

[
So that truck driver who crashed and killed the couple, must have been "travelling too close", even though he was something like 40 seconds behind?

Returning to our case: what if the person who hard-anchored is or had just changed lanes? Surely your "ipso facto" would actually be void?

I am not familiar with the case in question.

He said Mr da Silva had not seen the queuing traffic ahead because he was not paying attention.

"If he had looked he would have seen the queuing traffic for himself because the road was straight for over a mile before the queue started.

"He had plenty of time to see the queue because the trucks in front had been there for between one and two minutes before he arrived.

For over a mile before the point of impact the defendant was not paying proper attention to the road - it was gross inattention
Andrew Thomas QC

"For over a mile before the point of impact the defendant was not paying proper attention to the road. It was gross inattention," he said.

But if the truck driver was doing something which took his attention from the road ahead for 40 seconds he would have been wise to leave himself at least that stopping time.

I am not familiar with the term 'hard-anchored'.

If a slow moving vehicle changed lanes unpredictably there might be some excuse but good observation would usually allow you to anticipate that.