The Hook - QUESTION OF THE WEEK- Are red-light cameras a good idea?

Search SiteWebBizes

QUESTION OF THE WEEK- Are red-light cameras a good idea?

By
Published March 1, 2007 in issue 0609 of the Hook

Now videocast online.

Kannan Vasudevan: "I think it'd be a good idea if the county looked at other counties where they already have a system like that in place and see if there have been any long-term studies of how effective it is in reducing accidents."

Hillel Maximon: "I think it's totally ridiculous. There are so many other circumstances that can cause somebody to go through a traffic light, like avoiding an accident, avoiding a pedestrian, avoiding a disaster, being chased. A camera's never going to catch any of that."

Lori Nicolaysen: "I don't think it's a good idea because, from what I've read, studies showed that there's an increased risk of accidents and no real benefit."

Comments

Jim3/5/2007 2:24:23 AM Before contracting for cameras, the city should consider alternatives to them. Any discussion of alternatives assumes that the city's interest in cameras is not for the revenue, but out of a sincere desire to improve safety. One alternative to cameras is to lengthen the yellow light. A 2004 paper (fn. 2) showed a 69% decrease in violations when a yellow was increased from 4.0 seconds, to 4.5 seconds. There are many other studies (fn. 1) with similar results. Lengthening the yellow also reduces severe accidents. A 2004 study (fn. 3) by the Texas Transportation Institute found, "…an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 second is associated with an MF [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes." A second alternative to cameras is to improve street markings. 2005 research (fn. 4) sponsored by Florida's Department of Transportation concluded that improving street markings near intersections reduced red light running by up to 74 percent without increasing the likelihood of rear end collisions (which cameras increase). I hope the city will investigate alternatives before it installs cameras. But if it decides to install cameras, it should be careful about the compensation agreement with the camera vendor. In many other cities, the camera vendors have offered "cost neutral" contracts. A typical "cost neutral" contract offers to protect the city by limiting the monthly amount owed to the camera company to the amount of money collected in fines, up to a monthly cap of roughly $6000 per camera. Unfortunately, such an arrangement gives the camera vendor an incentive to manipulate the system so that more tickets will be issued, Something else that needs to be discussed ahead of time is whether there will be ticketing on rolling right turns. Regards, Jim Footnotes/References: 1. http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp (Red Light Camera Studies Roundup) 2. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06242004-230619/unrestricted/Thesis_3.pdf at page 67 3. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf at page 2-20 4. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf at page 69

Jim3/5/2007 2:24:23 AM

Before contracting for cameras, the city should consider alternatives to them.

Any discussion of alternatives assumes that the city's interest in cameras is not for the revenue, but out of a sincere desire to improve safety.

One alternative to cameras is to lengthen the yellow light. A 2004 paper (fn. 2) showed a 69% decrease in violations when a yellow was increased from 4.0 seconds, to 4.5 seconds. There are many other studies (fn. 1) with similar results.

Lengthening the yellow also reduces severe accidents. A 2004 study (fn. 3) by the Texas Transportation Institute found, "…an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 second is associated with an MF [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."

A second alternative to cameras is to improve street markings. 2005 research (fn. 4) sponsored by Florida's Department of Transportation concluded that improving street markings near intersections reduced red light running by up to 74 percent without increasing the likelihood of rear end collisions (which cameras increase).

I hope the city will investigate alternatives before it installs cameras. But if it decides to install cameras, it should be careful about the compensation agreement with the camera vendor. In many other cities, the camera vendors have offered "cost neutral" contracts.

A typical "cost neutral" contract offers to protect the city by limiting the monthly amount owed to the camera company to the amount of money collected in fines, up to a monthly cap of roughly $6000 per camera. Unfortunately, such an arrangement gives the camera vendor an incentive to manipulate the system so that more tickets will be issued,

Something else that needs to be discussed ahead of time is whether there will be ticketing on rolling right turns.

Regards,

Jim

Footnotes/References:

1. http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp (Red Light Camera Studies Roundup)

2. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06242004-230619/unrestricted/Thesis_3.pdf at page 67

3. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf at page 2-20

4. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf at page 69

Your Name:
Your Email (optional):
Comment:		Word Count: 0 500 word limit
Image Verification:
Please type the letters above:

	* People say the darndest things, but language stronger than "darn," insulting words like "stupid," ethnically or racially disparaging language, and comparing people to Hitler usually results in deletion of the comment and may get you blocked from further commenting. Ditto for posting unverified and/or potentially libelous allegations, and even off-topic digression. And to avoid spam, any comment containing more than two weblinks gets eaten by Bigfoot.

by HOOK STAFF published on 3/1/2007 in the Question of the Week category

by HOOK STAFF

published on 3/1/2007

in the Question of the Week category

Email this Story

Print this Story

Write a letter to the Editor

Comment on this Story

most read
most commented