accidents fall at Houston red light camera locations (Dallas, San Antonio: cul-de-sac, appointed)

[baytownb]

Thanks to everyone who voted against the scameras and made our streets safer!

Accidents fall at Houston red-light camera intersections | Newswatch | a Chron.com blog

In the five months after Houston voters forced city officials to turn off a camera surveillance system that fined motorists for running red lights, traffic accidents at those 50 intersections with 70 cameras have decreased 16 percent, according to recently released data.

[Bily Lovec]

...who say a possible explanation is the unusually dry weather during recent months has made driving conditions safer.

Assistant Chief Brian Lumpkin said he had assumed accidents at those intersections were increasing since HPD is still receiving raw data from the camera vendor indicating motorists were running lights with much greater frequency at many intersections. The HPD records show accidents decreased at 32 intersections, increased at 21 and stayed the same at 17.

come back in a year....

[fordlover]

Running a red light sounds so bad, until I got caught doing it, and had to pay the $75 dollar fine.

Oh, and by running the red light, I mean didn't come to a full and complete stop for a right turn on red (because there was no oncoming traffic). Talk about extreme danger! Thank God for the camera and the 75 dollar fine, it probably saved a non existant innocent family of four from certain death that day!

[14Bricks]

Originally Posted by fordlover

Running a red light sounds so bad, until I got caught doing it, and had to pay the $75 dollar fine.

Oh, and by running the red light, I mean didn't come to a full and complete stop for a right turn on red (because there was no oncoming traffic). Talk about extreme danger! Thank God for the camera and the 75 dollar fine, it probably saved a non existant innocent family of four from certain death that day!

Don't you know that red light cameras can physically stop cars from red lights. Its the greatest thing since slice bread. I'm so disappointed that the people voted them out. Its not like it was a crash grab, the city was just trying to keep us "safe". I mean its not like they could just have their traffic engineers time the lights, so that at a four way intersection all four lights are red at the same time for a couple of seconds. That would be too hard.

[tstone]

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

Its not like it was a crash grab, the city was just trying to keep us "safe".

They cash grab one way or another. After red light cameras were turned off, all the sudden HPD started going through neighborhoods, giving parking tickets to cars that are parked blocking a sidewalk. Nevermind the homeowners also 'own' the sidewalk and have to make repairs whenever the tree roots crack it.

Same goes for cars parked on neighborhood streets, facing the wrong way, "head-in" on those extremely busy cul-de-sacs, etc. I guess all of that is a new way to keep us safe now the cameras are off.

[Sunderpig2]

That would make sense. The red light cameras changed the dynamics of major intersections, and introduced off-normal issues with the flow of traffic. On one hand, folks would slow down and stop quickly and unnaturally to avoid going through a red light (often times creating rear end collisions from behind the stopping vehicle). Of course, people are to maintain a safe distance, but even that couldn't be relied on. Or people would speed up to avoid being in the intersection as the light started to go from yellow to red, and increase the chance of running into the vehicle ahead.

The dynamics of busy intersections vary quite a bit because there are often businesses around the intersections as well. People may be slowing down to turn in, or folks exiting, near the intersections. That variance, plus the stress of avoiding being in the intersection while the light is turning red, made for quick / knee-jerk reactions that often lead to collisions.

If the idea of red-light cameras was so great, and made driving so much safer (as some argue), then the cameras would have started long ago (say 1960s-1970s). No, this is a modern-day idea of greed and big-brother mentality.

Shame on those involved with using tax-payer money to buy and set up something destined to be revoked. It would be good to see the connections between the approvers and the installation companies to look for connections (and personal profits). And then see if these folks are still in office.

[Malvie]

Know what the worst thing is?

Traveling to Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio and forgetting that THEIR red-light cameras still work!

[baytownb]

LOL! Keep up the faith, I am sure if we had an icy winter and downpours all spring and accidents were up you would be telling us to wait a year it doesn't mean it was because the cameras were turned off! Thanks for the laugh. Oh, BTW quoting ATS who has been caught manipulating and fabricating stats to try to save their revenus isn't going to score any points.

Originally Posted by Bily Lovec

come back in a year....

[DanielWayne]

Originally Posted by Sunderpig

That would make sense. The red light cameras changed the dynamics of major intersections, and introduced off-normal issues with the flow of traffic. On one hand, folks would slow down and stop quickly and unnaturally to avoid going through a red light (often times creating rear end collisions from behind the stopping vehicle). Of course, people are to maintain a safe distance, but even that couldn't be relied on. Or people would speed up to avoid being in the intersection as the light started to go from yellow to red, and increase the chance of running into the vehicle ahead.

I believe this because I found myself doing this exact same thing.

Red light cameras weren't going to change rude, careless drivers across the board - only at intersections.

[oceangaia]

I think it's hilarious how officials are scrambling to come up with alternate explanations or why the data doesn't mean anything. You know if accidents at red light intersections had been up relative to other intersections, even if only 3% higher, they would be tripping over themselves to say how it definitively proves we need the cameras back.

One thing is for sure, turning off the cameras didn't cause accidents to sharply increase as the doomsayers predicted.

One more thing, what's this BS about ATS continuing to report violations to HPD? How can they do that if the cameras are turned off? Oh that must mean the cameras are not really turned off. Is this somehow part of settling the claims against the city by ATS? Maybe they are being paid to monitor and report data?