The communities around here have been discovering the free money to be made from red light cameras and are sticking them up everywhere they can. (Keep that money rolling in, baby.)

As many of us know, they don't reduce accidents or injuries, but DO increase the incidence of rearend collisions, as people try to avoid those effin' $75 tickets.

So yesterday it's rainy and the roads are slick, and as I approached one of those dreaded intersections, the light goes yellow. So I clamp on the binders and grind to a halt just behind the white "trigger" line. Then I hear *bump*, *bump* behind me. Three cars pile up behind me like dominoes falling. Fortunately, they didn't hit me, but there were 3 not-so-happy drivers back there getting out and inspecting the destruction. As the light changes to green, I motor away with a clear conscience and no red light ticket.

BTW, there's an excellent editorial in the March, 2008 issue of Car and Driver by editor Patrick Bedard on these red light cameras. Here's a link to it: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...e_fired_column

.
.

 

Ouch, glad to hear you are ok, but the poor folks behind you...

 

Mike glad you ain't get hit but I echo your story. I find myself slamming my brakes on the yellow on intersections with these money making cameras.

Pathetic, I mean people get TAXED enough, so lets rape our American people some more with these cameras.

NOT ONE study proves they HELP stop accidents. Not ONE.

D.C. Red-Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents

By Del Quentin Wilber and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A01

The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100301844.html

Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or collisions.

"The data are very clear," said **** Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras."

 

just lengthening the yellow light duration reduced accidents, and you didnt have to spend money making a red light camera system

 

My brother in law got busted joyriding in his dad's vette after he blew a red light down town Chicago. They sent his dad a picture of the vette going through the light with the top down and it sure wasn't him!

 

Not quite.

Here in VA (my home town, would you believe it, was the FIRST town in the U.S to get them), studies showed that they reduced side impact (T-Bone) accidents but, conversely, increased rear-enders (not surprising, since more people were braking at the last second). So, in July 2005, the state legislature stopped their use. But, last fall (2006), their use was started up again....with some new restrictions, like longer yellow-light times and only one allowed per 10,000 population zone.

The reason (right or wrong) they were brought back is that it was felt that rear-impact accidents are usually not as severe or as likely to kill people as vehicles running red lights and causing severe T-Bone impacts....they often are far more deadly.

 

In Mexico City, they won't implement red light photo cameras, though we do have photo speed cameras on some sections of local roads (non-local vehicles can't get dinged). However, the reason they won't have the red light cameras, is because at some hours of the night it is not a good idea to be stopped at some corners all by yourself. In fact, after 11:30 p.m., you can treat it really like a yellow light, stop briefly, check both ways and then go.

 

They have some around where I live. I didnt know there was one at this intersection. It was 12midnight. I saw the main road traffic light go from yellow to almost red, and i started to coast forward, all of a sudden that stupid flash of light, and i said o @#$^&^. I got a letter in the mail a few weeks later. I signed the thing, said I wanted to fight it in court, and mailed it in. A few weeks after that, i got a call, from an attorney for the city, asking why I wanted to fight it. I explained that it was late, and the roads were slippery (luckily we had just had an ice storm that night), and i was unable to come to a complete stop. She said she had reviewed the video, and that i would get notification by mail. I got another letter that said my case was dismissed

 

Our City Council in Lubbock just voted to get rid of the cameras after a six month trial period. Revenue went down and accidents went up. I guess they didn't count the increase in revenue from people rear ending each other.

 

I read a CAR article on the smart in Mexico City. The author (presumably British) was talking about red lights and how they're optional lol.

 

There's one city down here (Aventura) is planning to install a few of these red light cameras this summer. Unlike the ones I've seen in California, these will only be taking a picture of the back of the car 1)since cars don't have front tags in Florida and 2) to make these acceptable with those who think it is an invasion of privacy.

I totally agree though, it will probably cause a decrease in T-bone accidents, but will see an increase in rear-end accidents. Some people just don't think though, if you pass through these intersections on the regular, you would think people would keep their distance not knowing if the person in front of them will stop or not.

 

I'm not sure what all of the complaints are about. If you aren't going too fast for conditions then they aren't an issue.

They only take your picture if you literally begin to enter the intersection after the light has ALREADY turned red. At least that's how they are here. If you are already inside of the intersection when it goes red, then no big deal.

If you are entering the intersection after the light has already turned red, yet when the light first turned yellow you didn't think you had time to safely stop, then either:
-You have very poor judgment in regards to timing.
-Your first thought wasn't "can I safely stop without panic braking", it was "can I make it", which is what so many people do and is the wrong first thought to have with a yellow light... thought you could beat it and initially kept accelerating and then reconsidered

If somebody behind you hits you then they were following too closely to begin with not to mention you either panic braked or they weren't paying attention.

Personally I think red light cameras are GREAT though they might want to consider extending yellow lights a little bit more in the intersections so people with slower reactions and not so great judgment don't get forced into a situation they can't react to quickly enough.

The best thing of all about red light cameras is that they provide a 24/7 witness to all accidents that occur in that intersection.

 

whenever i approuch an intersection with a stale green light, i judge the distance and, more or less, "know" how long it will take me to stop until i hit the point of no return I'm pretty good at judgeing my stopping so it works for me

 

I've found if I make a sudden deceleration at an intersection with one of these cameras that my rapid approach will trigger the camera (at least it flashes) but my stop at the line means it's taking a picture of an empty intersection.

BTW, I'd never do that with someone behind me.

It also wears out the brakes unnecessarily.

 

I've heard that some red light cameras look for oncoming cars and then time the flash by the speed the car is traveling.

Something to do with the delayed reaction of the camera... it needs a very slight heads up to know you're coming through and when to expect you.
However lots of red light cameras these days operate on video, instead, so the system just detects you going through the light and retroactively retains the cached video footage from when you went through.