After a year of use, red light cameras have failed to deliver the promised safety benefits in Baytown, Texas. The Houston suburb activated the majority of its cameras on July 13, 2008. Since then, the number of accidents at eight camera locations has increased 40 percent, contrary to predictions from city officials. The increase in accidents has not been in minor “fender benders,” as is frequently claimed by photo ticketing advocates. Rather, the number of collisions resulting in an injury jumped 75 percent. Rear end collisions increased 39 percent. Results from comprehensive, independent studies elsewhere in the country have yielded similar results.
“Clearly this shows no remedial effect on driving habits over time,” Byron Schirmbeck, the leader of a grassroots effort to ban the cameras in Baytown, told TheNewspaper.
The accident figures are based on the annual reports city officials by law must provide to the Texas Department of Transportation. Schirmbeck insists that the accident jump is evidence that automated ticketing has failed and that the automated ticketing machines should come down. Last week, the city clerk certified that a sufficient number of Baytown residents agreed, forcing the city council next Tuesday to vote either to adopt a ban on red light cameras or place Schirmbeck’s ban on the ballot for voters to decide. City leaders so far have been reluctant to back away from the lucrative program.
“Despite widespread evidence that red light cameras actually increase accidents many cities like Baytown and Houston continue to cling to the revenue generating red light camera program,” In light of this new information that demonstrates no safety improvement and increased accidents at camera monitored intersections we urge the council to immediately adopt our resolution and break their contract with the red light camera company that has engaged in numerous examples of voter intimidation and spent over $230,000 to fight the citizens of Baytown and Houston to keep the issue off the ballot.”
Schirmbeck believes that the harder camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) battles the public vote, the less residents are inclined to support the company’s red light cameras. ATS is especially anxious to keep the measure off the ballot because no photo enforcement program has ever survived a public vote.
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
I’d much rather have a camera system that picked up tailgaters and those who change lanes without signaling.
I’m sure the red light camera companies are looking for a system that catches people doing stupid stuff that will actually reduce accidents.
+1 for turn signal cameras and following distance cameras.
In southwest Washington State, the City of Longview believes none of this and has decided they must run their own tests. The city is also blind to that fact that the tickets are being thrown out in an increasing number of courtrooms. The city is within days of signing up with ATS to be on the hook for $460,000. Odds are increasing this will be a bad bet for the city, but they press on to make this yet another bad fiscal decision.
The first question to ask is whether the city is deep in the red because of financially irresponsible spending. The answer to that is “Yes”.
It’s easy to make bad decisions when you’re spending other people’s money. Just ask any bureaucrat.
It’s even easier to make bad decisions when you’re called out for being soft on crime or safety; ask the elected officials making the deals and don’t blame the bureaucrat who has to abide by those decisions.
And when was the last time a police chief went on record recommending against red light cameras?
Politicians are bureaucrats.
bu·reau·crat
/ˈbyʊərəˌkræt/ Show Spelled[byoor-uh-krat] Show IPA–noun
1.an official of a bureaucracy.
2.an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.
Origin:
1835–45; < F bureaucrate. See bureau, -crat
I would say definition number two covers it nicely.
Well, it’s pretty clear to me the reduction of fines (from officer to camera) caused the increase of accidents.
Try increase the fine to $1000 for each camera ticket and keep it for two years (yes, people need time for a steep learning curve).
How do you account for the increase in rear end collisions? The cameras appear to alter driver behavior in a way that panics the driver in front, causing a rear-end collision. Your proposal of higher fines would only lead to MORE rear end collisions, resulting from more panicked drivers fearing a $1000 fine.
Please stay the hell away from any public policy while you inhabit this earth.
-ted
At what point does it become necessary to create a law that says something to the effect that if there is an X% increase in accidents within the first, say, 1 year of installation of a camera that cameras must be removed from the intersection?
I guess its never changed….revenue generation in the name of safety….but now that governments are getting desperate, at what point does this thing end? $1000 for running a redlight?! Are you nuts? Punishment must also fit the crime. Some of the fines for speeding, or speeding in a work zone, or running a red light with 0.5 sec yellow intervals are absolutely outrageous. And the way they also manipulate the whole insurance crap makes it even worse (do that this way and you’re insurance rates don’t increase….don’t do this and you are a “bad” driver and have to pay higher rates). The whole thing is a complete joke. If it is about safety, then why don’t you get points for camera violations? If you are a bad driver, then why can you take a joke of a traffic “school” for an extra fee and avoid insurance reporting?