The panicked reaction that some drivers have to the sight of a speed camera may in fact be a significant cause of accidents. The group CameraFraud.com yesterday released an Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) accident report that describes a July 25 incident in which a gray Chevy Camaro collided with a red 1994 Toyota 4Runner SUV on Interstate 17 in Yavapai County, sending two people to the hospital. Although DPS maintains that it hired an Australian company, Redflex Traffic Systems, to operate speed cameras to improve safety, the department’s own report tells a far different story. “All the witnesses reported seeing the gray passenger car lose control of the vehicle as it passed the photo radar van, and was apparently trying to slow down for the photo radar van,” the police report explained.
Scottsdale resident Tracy O. was about 500 feet from the accident. She told the police that, “The Camaro [was] trying to slow down because of speed camera.”
Scottsdale resident Helene S. told police that, “I saw the Camaro swerve out of control and hit into the red SUV. It happened after the Camaro passed a speed camera.”
Sedona resident Allison S. was about 150 feet away. “[While] driving northbound in rain right near photo radar enforcement vehicle, [we] saw [the] car fishtail ahead of us, spin and hit red SUV which then also spun off the road.”
Although no video of the Arizona incident has been released, the same panic-braking reaction was captured on tape by police in Norfolk, England. The government-owned BBC news service inadvertently aired the video clips from two such incidents last year (see below). Shortly after the news program aired, the BBC removed all copies of the footage from its website. The Norfolk Speed Camera Partnership and the UK Information Commissioner cited “technical difficulties” in refusing to release the full videos of each crash.
Source: 
Arizona Traffic Accident Report 2009-038077 (Arizona Department of Public Safety , 7/25/2009)
[courtesy thenewspaper.com]
Okay, I don’t like or agree with the use of speed cameras, but if this guy wasn’t speeding, he wouldn’t have had to lock ’em up and lose control. Blaming the accident on the camera is ridiculous.
While I’m not a fan of traffic cameras I think again we have an issue of judgment, possibly vehicle maintenance and driver skill.
The cause of the panic stop is really not all that important IMO but the driver was unable to execute a panic stop safely (the problem) due to either poor judgment (deciding to slow when not necessary thus creating an unsafe situation) or due to a poorly maintained vehicle which was unable to decelerate in a straight line. Then we have the possibility of the driver being poorly skilled, perhaps he/she fed the car the wrong combination of inputs (skill) which led to a situation where the driver was unable to recover from (skill).
This is America where nobody is personally accountable for anything they do particularly when damages or injuries are involved.
This is America where nobody is personally accountable for anything they do particularly when damages or injuries are involved.
And that goes double for the video.
Like the other two have said, I’m in noway a fan of speed cameras. However, if the person wasn’t able to slow down and maintain control, he was traveling too fast, or the Camaro wasn’t maintained right. It would have been just as hard for him to slow down for an accident, disabled vehicle, etc.
Isn’t the same kind of result just as likely if an inadequate driver sees a squad car? It’s not the camera van per se, it’s the driver’s panic over knowing that he is likely to get dinged for speeding.
“… but if this guy wasn’t speeding, he wouldn’t have had to lock ‘em up and lose control. Blaming the accident on the camera is ridiculous.”
How many times have you been traveling in a group of cars at the speed limit and had several of them hit the brakes when they see a cop car beside the road? Same situation. It doesn’t even matter if the cop beside the road already has a customer.
I’ve ridden with a few people whose first reaction to any problem on the road is to hit the brakes. Gust of wind? Hit the brakes. Big truck passes you? Hit the brakes. Phone rings? Hit the brakes. Kid screams? Hit the brakes.
So, it’s difficult to say the speed camera caused the accident. Did it contribute? Yes, in the same sense that the weather or another driver might.
But at the same time it is very difficult to argue that speed cameras make any contribution to safety. The contribution they make is to the pockets of their sellers and to governments.
This, actually justifies the use of speed cameras.
1) The driver is speeding big time. From my own experience, traffic police aren’t totally unreasonable. I typically drive at limit + 15% and NEVER got a ticket. There will always be drivers driving at +20% or more for the police to catch.
2) The driver’s decision to slow down is proof that speed cameras do serve as an effective deterrent. Now we hear this one guy got hurt “due to” the sight of speed camera. But what we didn’t hear was that 1,000,000 speeding cars slowed down (without a crash) due to it.
To bad stability control systems where not a priority and made standard on vehicles years ago.
I’m no fan of speed cameras, either. But isn’t this really a case of a driver doing something stupid and then exceeding his/hers and the car’s performance envelope?
Anyone who drives on the highways is familiar with the “rubber-necking” phenomenon. If there’s a police car with emergency lights on by the side of the road doing a traffic stop, people put on the brakes to check out the action. Doubly or triply so, if there’s a wreck.
I don’t think that’s an argument for not having the police do traffic stops, when there’s a reasonable basis for doing so.
IMHO, the biggest argument against speed cameras and their cousins, the red-light cameras, is the possibility for abuse, given their dual purpose of safety and revenue-raising. Red light cameras can be used at intersections with a short yellow, and speed cameras can be set too close to the posted limit, in an effort to get more “violators.” Does this promote safety? Certainly not.
But citing people going 70 in a 55 zone or flagrantly running a red (not “pink”) light is something worth doing, in my opinion.
I disagree that this accident ‘justifies’ the speed camera. It shows that speed cameras present hazards on roadways just like any other hazardous feature.
Putting something that a driver does not expect in or around the roadway is contradictory to driver safety. When you then couple that with the ludicrous penalties that someone would face for doing something that was not necessarily unsafe, you set up a chance for bad reaction. Doing that on a roadway design is bad design. Sticking something on the road after the fact is still bad design.
This case no more justifies speed cameras than a similar situation would justify wildlife running across the road as a full-time speed reduction tool. It’s highly likely the speed limit is set very poorly for the road, in an attempt a social engineering and/or revenue generation. Until you could show me that the speed limit was set properly for that road, and that driver was going significantly faster than that *proper* speed limit, I place the blame on the speed camera for setting up the situation.
citing people going 70 in a 55 zone or flagrantly running a red (not “pink”) light is something worth doing, in my opinion.
When the prevailing travel speeds are that much higher than the limit, then the problem is probably with the limit, not the drivers.
The problem with these limits is that they are usually chosen by legislators who know nothing about traffic engineering. Most speed limits on Interstate highways should be based upon the flow of traffic. The safety problems arise from those drivers who go much faster or more slowly than the flow, not from a particular speed per se.
Freeways are supposed to encourage a smooth flow of traffic traveling at relatively high speeds. The whole idea behind the design standard is to eliminate the need to brake as much as possible. There really isn’t much point in having an Interstate highway system in the first place if it doesn’t move traffic quickly.
This, actually justifies the use of speed cameras
What it justifies is more speed cameras. Or to be more accurate: fixed, signed and consistently spaced ones.
Now, I know this is heresy to some, but I used to drive from Niagara Falls to Oshawa when Ontario put cameras in and, quite frankly, after the first week or two I’d never seen traffic behave so well. The reason? The people who weave through traffic at high rates of speed, didn’t, and thusly the people who panicked, didn’t.
Enforcement was consistent, uniform and expected and it got results. Heck, after the first few months the citation rate settled down to something reasonable. When the next government came in and ripped it out, traffic went right back to it’s old self, riddled with weaving nitwits and panicky brake-addicts.
I agree that the problem isn’t speed per se, but the differential and the resulting inpredictability. Short of physically segregating traffic into “idiot” and “cruiser” lanes, I can’t see how you’d do this without blanket enforcement.
I’m sure things like this cause accidents, but that has more to do with implementation than nature: just like with parenting, if you’re fair and—this is important—consistent and uniform with enforcement, you get good behaviour. Having random, moving speed camera vans, cops on patrol, speed traps and blitzes just increases unpredictability. Cameras and signs every two or three kilometers take away the guesswork, and keep the worst of the bad drivers at bay.
The problem is that our policing culture is built around “blitzing”. Part of this is because it’s easy, both in terms of social acceptance and logistics; the other part is that it’s far more lucrative to everyone involved.
I’d love to say “just raise the limits” to, say 140km/h, but without effective lane and speed discipline, what you’d end up with is people doing a range of 90-110 (or so, if they’re “normal” drivers) to 160 or more (if they’re sociopaths), which would be worse than the current 20-30km/h delta. The driving culture that makes Autobahns work doesn’t exist here, and I don’t think that it’s easily impartable, not without significant redesigns of the highway system and a sea-change in enforcement.
There is, of course, a line between effective enforcement and Big Brother-ism. That cameras work is a given; keeping the operators honest, open and just is harder—just as keeping a police force or local government honest and open is hard. Sometimes, people get apathetic and the rot sets in.
I agree that the problem isn’t speed per se, but the differential and the resulting inpredictability. Short of physically segregating traffic into “idiot” and “cruiser” lanes, I can’t see how you’d do this without blanket enforcement.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. The 85th percentile is no mystery. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/determining_the_85th_percentile_speed.htm
The problem is that governments in the US and Canada don’t use it. They set limits at perhaps the 50th-60th percentile at best, and then complain that nobody obeys them.
Drivers typically shouldn’t “obey” limits. Instead, the limits should be set based upon how drivers actually use the road when given the opportunity. The safe speeds are those speeds that conform to the flow. It is usually the flow that determines safety.
Excessively low limits encourage drivers to use less safe back roads that have less enforcement, which increases overall accident rates. They have the opposite effect of what is intended.
The smart and safe thing to do would be to post appropriate limits, while encouraging traffic to use these more safely designed freeway-style highways instead of minor roads when given the opportunity. But when cash takes priority, smarts and safety get pushed down the to-do list.
Once again, speed cameras in AZ are preceded by a large yellow warning sign letting you know you’re approaching a speed camera.
Actually you get two warning signs.
Even traveling well over the posted limit I’ve never had trouble slowing to within the non-ticket zone from the first sign to the photo truck. I’ve even managed it (safely) from the second sign to the truck.
If the driver missed the 2 warning signs and then felt he had to lock ’em up when he saw the truck maybe he’s just not that aware of what’s going on around him.
Get a dozen or so responses to something and at some point a person will nail it.
Highway27: I disagree that this accident ‘justifies’ the speed camera. It shows that speed cameras present hazards on roadways just like any other hazardous feature.
A tip of the fedora to the post.
Traffic cameras have a dark side. Do not pretend they don’t.
Traffic cameras have a dark side. Do not pretend they don’t.Traffic cameras have a dark side. Do not pretend they don’t.
The problem with that statement is that it tends to imply that cameras have a bright side. They don’t. All of the “evidence” used to promote the use of speed cameras is falsified. The only thing cameras do is promote the two worst driving habits:
1. Staring at the speedometer instead of the road
2. Slamming the brakes for no reason, other than to avoid a ticket
1. Staring at the speedometer instead of the road
Amen. My number one reason why I hate speed limits in general, let alone artificially low ones.
Speeding shouldn’t be a primary offense. It should definetely be a significant factor in determining penalties (executing an unsafe maneuver at twice the recommended speed should land you in jail, vs give you a 1-point $50 slap on the wrist), and speed limits have their use in special places like construction and school zones, but highway speed limit is nothing but a cash cow with a side of false security.
Try this: when it’s really dark out, adjust the dash lights all the way out so that you can’t see any of your instruments. Now drive, and see just how nice it feels. You’re actually driving the car 100% instead of glancing over your gauges all the time. That’s how it should be.
psarhjinian:
One note is that a more realistic speed limit, based on the speed of the road, would go a long way toward encouraging proper lane discipline. It would get the people who justify their poor lane discipline on ‘Well, I’m going the speed limit, so I have every right to be in the left lane’ out of that left lane. With the black and white sign giving them cover for being jackasses, they will continue to do so, and infuriate the rest of the population while causing more accidents and congestion.
“The problem is that our policing culture is built around “blitzing”. Part of this is because it’s easy, both in terms of social acceptance and logistics; the other part is that it’s far more lucrative to everyone involved”
Part of that on/off pattern springs from police knowing that they represent a road hazard when they are visible. They don’t generally target the higher volume flow of traffic, or set up speed traps during poor conditions, because they are 100% aware that panic braking is inevitably the result, and their ass in on the line as much as those of the driver’s involved (as said by a NYS trooper, it’s not just about staying dry was the point he was making). On a calm day where the vast majority of drivers are regular commuters a camera road will obviously be fine, throw in one little variable (say rain or tourist traffic) and it’s hard to justify increasing the likelihood of a panic brake incident.
“I think again we have an issue of judgment, possibly vehicle maintenance and driver skill”
It’s really easy to bemoan the ignorance that leads to the phenomenon, and then say “screw it” if they couldn’t stop themselves from panicking, but it will remain a problem regardless. A majority of drivers regularly speed, nobody likes tickets, many cars are running with underinflated or uneven tires, and a huge number of people will never in their lives hear the derisive scorn we heap on the term “panic braking” and those who do it. It’s here to stay in other words, and responsible public policy takes it into account.
With the black and white sign giving them cover for being jackasses, they will continue to do so, and infuriate the rest of the population while causing more accidents and congestion.
This bugs me. By a long-shot, left-lane hoggers (LLH’s) are not common and not really much of a threat to accident-free driving. I’m sure they bug enthusiasts, but they’re not really a cause of problems.
The people who cause accidents are people who do unpredictable things or are inattentive, such as the person who weaves through traffic at a high rate of speed, tailgates, doesn’t watch the road and, in general, scares the bejeezus out of other drivers. You’ll note that insurance premiums and accident frequency is highest among young males, and higher for drivers of sportscars. These aren’t LLH people at all, and blaming them is really just an excuse. The people who get into accidents, quite frankly, are people who take risks on the road.
Look, I wish cameras weren’t needed, but quite frankly we have a population who is not ready for German or Scandinavian driving discipline and likely will never be.
left-lane hoggers (LLH’s) are not common and not really much of a threat to accident-free driving.
They are a problem, because they increase the level of speed variance within a given lane. Not only do they create a variance with the faster traffic behind them, but they also push the faster traffic into other lanes, increasing the speed variance in the lanes that are designated for the slower traffic.
Excessively low limits only seek to criminalize normal, safe driving behaviors. We should distinguish between speeds that are unsafe and speeds that are illegal, as these two concepts often don’t match up in North America.
One of the problem with cameras is that they increase the temptation to maintain excessively low limits. Since there is cash on the line, the pursuit of cash encourages the creation of laws meant to extract more cash, just for the sake of the money. Since it is well known that a change in speed limit will have minimal effect on travel speeds, authorities know that a low speed limit coupled with a strict enforcement plan will inevitably generate more cash, while barely impacting the actual speed of the traffic itself.
As citizens, it is in our best interests to ensure that traffic prosecutions are costly enough to the state that they are used in only limited circumstances. Take the profit out of enforcement and the enforcement should become more reasonable.
In Massachusetts, the idiots that are in charge of our state police have been experimenting with speed traps on freeway ramps. Not only do you come around the curve to be surprised by a cop with a radar gun, you have to dodge the cars getting back onto the roadway after they’ve been ticketed and hoping that anyone coming up from behind is awake as you brake.
It’s a disaster waiting to happen with the most likely victim being a cop ordered to do something unsafe by his irresponsible superiors in order to bring in more revenue.
OK, if this guy was driving so fast, or his car was so poorly maintained, that he lost it trying to slow down to avoid a speeding ticket, then in either case, I’d rather have a live policeman handle the problem than some stupid traffic camera.
It is possible that the driving discipline is worse in the US than it is in Scandinavia or Germany. Anyway the death rate is rather much higher in the US. In the US, the number of killed people on the roads is 9.0 per billion vehicle kilometers (according to OECD, see http://www.irtad.net). In Sweden the number is 6.1 and in Germany it is 7.2.
If we look at motorways the corresponding numbers are US 5.0, Germany 2.7 and Sweden 1.8.
In Sweden we do use traffic cameras quite a lot, but only on ordinary roads, not on motorways. Their effect on safety has been thoroughly investigated. On average, traffic cameras decrease the number of killed people with 30 %. Now they are set up on spots that have a history of many accidents, so some part of the effect might be a so called “regression effect”. But it is a fact that traffic cameras save lives.
Before you meet a camera you will be warned by traffic signs and you can find the location of cameras at the road administration´s web site. If you have a gps in your car you can programme it to warn you for cameras. So braking at cameras is not a big problem in Sweden.
Björn Abelsson
Transportation Planner, Sweden