Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read what you wrote. Still doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it's because I'm predominantly a pedestrian in this city, but there are laws to ensure that when I have a walk signal, I can start walking without having to worry about getting plowed down. People who live here know where the red light cameras are and the speeding cameras and their presence undoubtedly affects behavior at those intersections / stretches.
Precisely. *Anything* that cuts down on red light runners, speeders, and people who generally do not think that traffic laws should apply to him/her garners my support. Speaking only for myself, I don't even think about runnign red lights throughout central DC, because I'm fairly certain that I'd receive a ticket in the mail about a week later.
As for the argument that "it's dangerous to stop"--well, that's just a load of you-know-what. If you're driving safely, it should never be "too dangerous" to stop at a red light or stop sign. If you repeatedly find yourself in situations where stopping at traffic signals presents a safety hazard, you need to rethink your approach to driving, before you injure or kill somebody.
Precisely. *Anything* that cuts down on red light runners, speeders, and people who generally do not think that traffic laws should apply to him/her garners my support. Speaking only for myself, I don't even think about runnign red lights throughout central DC, because I'm fairly certain that I'd receive a ticket in the mail about a week later.
As for the argument that "it's dangerous to stop"--well, that's just a load of you-know-what. If you're driving safely, it should never be "too dangerous" to stop at a red light or stop sign. If you repeatedly find yourself in situations where stopping at traffic signals presents a safety hazard, you need to rethink your approach to driving, before you injure or kill somebody.
The IIHS study looked at the issue of increased rear end collisions. They incorporated that into their findings and conclusions. There was a small increase in rear end collisions, but it was modest and rarely led to fatality. The most dangerous collisions are the high-speed, side-impact crash typically associated with red light running.
First of all, fewer people are running red lights--meaning that safety has improved. It's not particularly difficult to see that. The cameras never promised to completely eradicate poor driving behavior, but rather to decrease it. Which it has.
Secondly, I fail to see why a study that encompasses five years worth of data, up to and including 2008, is "invalid". It's statistically significant, and controls for other factors. I don't see any issues with this study that should make it "invalid".
Methinks you are simply opposed to the concept of traffic cameras for whatever reason. Personally, I supported them before the studies came out showing that they were effective deterrants.
Fewer people are running red lights, that's a given but do they reduce crashes?
I am opposed to these traffic cameras, not because I want to break the law because they aren't implemented well which brings me back to the article at the beginning of the thread. Now they want to use it for blocking the box. That's the same as catching someone attempting to clear the intersection as a result of red light cameras. There need to be more time to clear the intersection.
Most red light cameras include short yellow light cycling. People approaching intersections just as the light changes to yellow, they have to make a quick and sudden decision involving, checking the mirror for vehicles behind them and whether they should stop or go.
Fewer people are running red lights, that's a given but do they reduce crashes?
That is what the study says. It's quite short. Perhaps you could read it and then tell us what its weaknesses are. One can always improve a study, but this one is impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
I am opposed to these traffic cameras, not because I want to break the law because they aren't implemented well which brings me back to the article at the beginning of the thread. Now they want to use it for blocking the box. That's the same as catching someone attempting to clear the intersection as a result of red light cameras. There need to be more time to clear the intersection.
Actually you aren't allowed to enter the intersection on green unless you can clear through it. The exception is a single vehicle turning left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
Most red light cameras include short yellow light cycling. People approaching intersections just as the light changes to yellow, they have to make a quick and sudden decision involving, checking the mirror for vehicles behind them and whether they should stop or go.
I don't know of a single traffic signal in the district with photo enforcement that has a short yellow cycle. Could you list those that are short cycling. We can check that easily.
Bunch of coincidence. Nothing in that study proves that red light cameras are responsible for reducing crashes. One thing, there's more than 99 cities with a population of 200,000. Second, the results varied from the 14 cities that had cameras. Some cities reduced crash, while others increases. Last, he study also ignores other possibilities such as less people driving due to increase in gas, or increase in carpooling.
I'm done with this discussion. I'll agree to disagree. I believe that delaying red lights at intersection is a more efficient way to reducing crashes and making sure intersections are clear. Motorist can't control the vehicles behind them and neither does a camera.
Bunch of coincidence. Nothing in that study proves that red light cameras are responsible for reducing crashes. One thing, there's more than 99 cities with a population of 200,000. Second, the results varied from the 14 cities that had cameras. Some cities reduced crash, while others increases. Last, he study also ignores other possibilities such as less people driving due to increase in gas, or increase in carpooling.
Two cities with red light cameras had an increase, twelve had a decline. That's the reality of actual data and why you sample 99 different cities and use statistical analysis to evaluate the data. The data are overwhelming and incontrovertible: red light cameras reduce accidents and fatalities, not only at the monitored intersections, but city wide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
I'm done with this discussion. I'll agree to disagree. I believe that delaying red lights at intersection is a more efficient way to reducing crashes and making sure intersections are clear. Motorist can't control the vehicles behind them and neither does a camera.
Everybody can have an opinion, some are based upon factual data, other are not.
Bunch of coincidence. Nothing in that study proves that red light cameras are responsible for reducing crashes.
Actually, it seems that you don't *want* the evidence to suggest that the cameras are having an appreciable impact on safety and a reduction in crashes. With a sample size such as the one in the study in question, the correlation is too high for the results to be cast off as merely a string of coincidences.
It's one thing to have a philosophical disagreement on the issue. It's another to simply refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your particular views on the subject.
Actually, it seems that you don't *want* the evidence to suggest that the cameras are having an appreciable impact on safety and a reduction in crashes. With a sample size such as the one in the study in question, the correlation is too high for the results to be cast off as merely a string of coincidences.
It's one thing to have a philosophical disagreement on the issue. It's another to simply refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your particular views on the subject.
Well Justin Bieber won 4 awards at AMA, does that make him a great artist?
Quote:
One thing, there's more than 99 cities with a population of 200,000. Second, the results varied from the 14 cities that had cameras. Some cities reduced crash, while others increases. Last, the study also ignores other possibilities such as less people driving due to increase in gas, or increase in carpooling.
How does that contradicts the so called evidence when I pointed out how one-sided the study is to begin with? Those data aren't inconclusive.
As stated before, I'm not going to discuss this issue anymore.
Well Justin Bieber won 4 awards at AMA, does that make him a great artist?
I have no idea what analogy you're trying to draw here. I'm pointing to academic transportation studies related to the reduction in fatalities as a result of traffic cameras. You're talking about a pop star who has won some awards.
Quote:
How does that contradicts the so called evidence when I pointed out how one-sided the study is to begin with? Those data aren't inconclusive.
You're right, the data isn't inconclusive--it concludes pretty strongly that traffic cameras play a rather significant role in promoting traffic safety.
How does that contradicts the so called evidence when I pointed out how one-sided the study is to begin with? Those data aren't inconclusive.
Actually the study specifically controls for the objections you cite, with a 99 city sample size and by using cities that did not implement red light cameras as the control group. This is a very rigorous study and the finding are robust.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
