A large percentage of red light running accidents are alcohol related so
cameras have no impact on those but the most recent studies in the U.K.
and Australia show a 12% decrease in accidents at intersections with
cameras provided the cameras were promoted and not hidden.
Rear ending increase at these intersections by 5%.
The rear ending accidents cause less physical injury overall but the
data here is incomplete.
In California the most recent study showed a red light running decrease
in accidents of 29%, and injury reduction of 68% and no corresponding
increase in rear end accidents.
Matt Labash's study is out of date and the above recent meta-analysis
from the WHO contains the most up to date data.
Increasing the length of time of the amber light has shown similar
reductions at a much reduced cost to cameras but there is no doubt
cameras increase revenue in most places in excess of their cost. The
fact that such a delay is in place almost everywhere doesn't change the
fact that increasing that delay shows reductions in accident rates. I am
unaware of any studies that show at what length diminished returns make
any additional increases worthless. Many municipalities have decreased
their amber light times in a misguided effort to help traffic flow since
this is obviously much less expensive than building infrastructure so in
this municipalities are moving in the wrong direction.
So yes cameras work but there is good evidence that there is a less
expensive alternative, albeit one that doesn't increase revenue, thats
give decent but lower decreases when compared to cameras.
If safety is your concern cameras do increase safety without a doubt but
of course some contrarians still debate the connection between
cigarettes and lung cancer so the 'debate' over cameras and safety will
never end regardless of how many studies are done and how good their data.
John Thornton
Jim Dincau wrote:
> Dave,
> Traffic lights have been that way (delayed green) for quite a long
> time.
> Jim in Palmdale
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Parks, David" <David.Parks@lfr.com>
> To: "Land Speed Digest" <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Land-speed] Arizona Speed Traps
>
>
>
>> I am convinced that the whole red light violation thing is just another
>> way for the local Govt's to make money. If it were solely about safety,
>> they would just program in a several second delay before the green comes
>> on. End of problem from a "safety" standpoint (and relatively
>> cost-effective, too), but no ticket income for the locals. Red light
>> cameras are big business, with many localities turning the operation
>> over to a "for profit" companies that get a piece of the action. So much
>> for "serve and protect"...
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Land-speed mailing list
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/land-speed
|