Stop!
by The Panda Man · 09/05/2006 12:15 pmDo red-light cameras really reduce accidents and improve “safety?” Washington D.C. has been a photo-enforcement pioneer, and now that Houston has jumped on the camera bandwagon it might prove useful to look at the results achieved by the District after years of using the devices.
Late last year the Washington Post analyzed the numbers from the District’s cameras, and the results are very interesting.
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.
But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.
The D.C. police cite a sixty percent reduction in citations for red-light running as evidence of the cameras’ success, but that fly in the ointment remains.
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 Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University’s Center for Public Safety. “They [camera equipped intersections] are not performing any better than intersections without cameras.”
The D.C. system is much like our own proposed fifty camera setup, with forty-five installed cameras and a $75 citation for offenders. For those curious about camera placement, the Post also discovered evidence backing up the claim that the cameras are installed to generate revenue.
AAA and other critics have accused the city of installing cameras in high-volume locations where they could generate thousands of tickets, regardless of how many accidents happened there.
The analysis raised questions about where police installed the cameras. Nine intersections with cameras had two or fewer crashes annually in 1998 and 1999; seven reported no crashes that led to injuries or fatalities during that period. Officials installed cameras at six of the 20 most crash-prone intersections in 1998, data show.
So let us review.
- Quite a few D.C. cameras were installed at intersections with few or no serious crashes to begin with, while many crash-prone intersections were passed over.
- The camera-equipped intersections in general have fared the same or worse in crashes when compared to non-camera intersections.
- The District of Columbia and their camera vendor have raked in tens of millions of dollars in fines from the camera system.
That’s right, “it’s all about safety.”
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
21 Responses to “Stop!”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
It’s always been about the money that it would generate. The cameras can cause an accident as drivers suddenly stop, trying to avoid being photographed. It is a matter of paying attention. How about cameras photographing drivers using cell phones!!!! You talk about not paying attention!!!!! Or how about using the cameras for overseeing high crime areas????
From the beginning no right, free thinking person will believe that this has been anything but a revinue generator. Like pulling police off crime details to write jay walking tickets downtown.
#1
Chief Hurtt already proposed the cameras to watch high crime areas and around houses with repeated police calls, and they already do that in Chicago and some other cities. Not sure it’s made them any safer though…
Maltboy: Are you listening?
452*-9999999999999////////////////////////////
The second line was typed by my cat as she walked across the keyboard. Too good to erase!
The cameras are to increase income not increase safety.
#1 Robert
Areas like?..
Mayor Protem’s office
City Counsel Meetings
HCAD
Legislative Budget Board meetings
Hogfan if you want high crime areas, how about anywhere where politicans and lobbyists meet or any close door meeting involving politicans.
#7 - I bet it would be a good investment of tax dollars to webcast every single congressman’s meeting of any official nature, and quite a few of ‘unofficial’ nature…
At least these “red light cameras” weren’t sold to us as being “for the children”……
Can someone tell me how these cameras can be confronted in court by the accused? I am honestly curious about this.
As I have stated previously, Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Here is a legitimate study that shows how a study like the one done by the Washington Post is flawed.
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1034.pdf
And if that’s not enough, then here’s their review of the WP study that Jeremy hangs his hat on (see page 7). This should make you think twice about believing everything you read, especially one done by a newspaper known for its liberal stance on most issues.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4009.pdf
As for my thoughts on this study: In God We Trust. All others bring a peer-reviewed study and supporting data.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3604.pdf
The WP study has been reviewed and found to be fundamentally flawed. This type of junk science is typical of the drive-by (or should I say drive through?) media. Y’all should know better than to take the bait.
Bottom line: Don’t believe everything you read, and if it’s a product of the liberal MSM, don’t believe anything you read.
LivelyDJ, et al
Exactly — Follow the money!
MONEY was the reason.
SAFETY was the excuse.
trl3
#12
Couldn’t have said it better or briefer!
#12
Thats always the excuse.
Maltboy, let me just say this (and Jeremy has expressed similar sentiments): There are simply too many other problems, capacity for abuse, due-process issues, margin for error, follow-the-money type issues to make red-light cameras a good idea. The “safety” that they bring (which the jury is out on, IMO) isn’t worth the numerous drawbacks. I could make my point with your quote:
Meaning that either side trotting out accident statistics is meaningless in light of the very real legal problems with the cameras.
Besides, does your study address this question?
?
#10
So we should we believe the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a group that never met a traffic regulation it didn’t like? I’ll second #15’s comments on this point.
I also notice that you did not challenge the Federal Highway Administration study cited by the Chron in my “Camera Goodies” post and even mentioned at the end of the WaPo article, that shows essentially the same thing. Crashes are simply moved from one category to another by red light cameras. That is not a convincing “safety” performance.
…not to mention all the “kick-back” monies paid by the ’selected’ vendors!
If and when I get called in, I’ll be demanding the code, proof that the yellow light was long enough to be safe and efficient, and schematics of all electronics as well as technical manuals for any OEM equipment.
Once provided with that, I’ll find so many holes in the scheme, that I’d be able to drive every car in Houston through it, side-by-side.
If they won’t give me what I ask, I’ll cite my right to confront my accuser, and demand the case be dropped.
Maltie: Like we stated yesterday, we have the cameras whether we like them or not. Time will tell. It will be interesting to see a report in three months or so as to the number of accidents (both t-bone and rear enders)at the camera intersections for the last three months vs. the previous three and see how many citations have been issued and how much revenue has been generated.
I would also like to have an independent auditor do the review and reporting of the findings. I would NOT want the report being generated and coming from the mayor’s office or Metro.
It is amazing to me that you cannot see or refuse to see the validity of the revenue generating side of this versus the safety aspect.
wino
#18
You and me bro!
For those interested, the Federal Highway study can be found here:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/11.htm#Toc97949059
Pay special attention to table 14, which shows the results from the 7 cities studied. A couple did reduce total crashes, but others broke even, while a couple actually did WORSE, all because rear end collisions increase with cameras. So what’s the benefit? Apparently it comes from rear end crashes being cheaper to clean up after. Small consolation after some guy plows into you from behind as you stop at a yellow light.