Post by
ESP »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/esp-u95451.html
Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:30 am
Ugh...Daan, don't get me started on the green-light camera business.
- A 2008 University of South Florida report found: "Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety."
- A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found: "The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."
- A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found: "The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."
- A 2005 Virginia DOT study found: "The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."
- In 2005, The Washington Post found: "The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."
- A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found: "Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."
- A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found: "Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."
- A 1995 Australian Road Research Board study found: "The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals."
Just the mere fact that speed cameras and red light cameras exist should tell you something. They do almost to improve safety, and in fact might actually make our roads more dangerous, leaving the only useful purpose being revenue generation (much like pushing local police to do nothing but write speeding tickets all day long). Adjusting speed limits to appropriate levels (instead of keeping them low for revenue generation) and adjusting traffic light timing properly is the safest way to handle these sorts of concerns. Seriously...having all sides of the intersection facing a red light for a full two to three seconds would drastically reduce the number of accidents IMHO.
Instead of being reasonable, the city continues to milk the traffic camera cash-cow at the expense of the safety of its citizens. But then again, how often are cops truly reasonable?
...once again, my apologies to the OP for the highly unwarranted thread jack and my obtuse ranting & raving...