Subject:
|
red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:48:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
362 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Now here's a situation in Ontario (and prob'ly elsewhere)--red light
> cameras--the camera takes a pic of a car if it drives thru a red light. A
> ticket then gets mailed to the owner of the car. The owner rants and raves
> about his rights being violated, especially if he or she wasn't driving said
> vehicle at the time. As well, people say that these cameras invade their
> privacy.
>
> I like to think that these cameras would make driving safer--less folks
> driving thru red lights can only be a good thing, but if it is an
> infringement of privacy, then I don't know...
Don't get me started on these cameras... they're bad. It's not the rights
violation claim (which is false, unless you report the car stolen because it
actually was stolen, you're responsible for what people do with your
property), it's the fact that these cameras actually seem to cause more
accidents than they prevent. (remember, the idea was to cut down on
intersection accidents by making sure people stopped rather than running red
lights and getting tboned)
The reason for that is a bit convoluted. (I'm citing from a recent issue of
Car and Driver, which admittedly may have a little bias here but the
underyling facts check out elsewhere.) At least in the US, most of these
cameras are put in place by companies under contract to the jurisdictions,
and these companies apparently are getting paid a cut of each ticket.
Well, you get what you measure for. So guess what... these companies have
started shortening the length of the yellow so that more cars run the red.
The idea behind yellow is that there should be a period sufficient for the
driver to see the yellow and bring his car to a safe stop short of the
intersection before the light goes red. But if you cut the yellow length
enough, there is no way to stop safely because you're almost in the
intersection when you see it go yellow.
Voila.... more tickets. Company's happy.
Unfortunately that (teaching citizens that their government is rigging the
law) isn't the worst of it. Because, after all, people need the yellow in
order to stop, and after the yellow is over, it's GREEN in the other
direction As soon as the yellow length is cut, two bad things happen..
1. people who know about this scam do *anything* to stop in time. They then
get rearended, or slide out into the intersection just as it goes green in
the other direction and get t-boned or cause swerve accidents
2. people who don't know, either rearend the guy in front of them trying
like blazes to stop, or think they still have sufficient time on the yellow
not to have to stop (if they're first)... thus they get t-boned or are the
t-boner to someone else.
Note here that this happened because what is being measured is the wrong
thing, the ticket rate, not the accident prevention rate. NOT because the
function was privatised, per se... After all, many jurisdictions have ticket
quotas and you see similar bogus behaviour among publicly employed traffic
cops (don't be 1 mph over on the last day of the month or you'll get nailed
by a quota short cop)
Perfect example of "you get what you measure for" or "law of unintended
consequences"
In some jurisdictions the yellow has been cut to 3 seconds!!! Think about that.
Ya, "you'd like to think" they would make things safer. And uncritical
thinkers would surely think just that. But it ain't so.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) See? I've always told you that you can't trust private corporations to run things! Seriously though, I'd be interested to hear more about the truncated yellows. If the cameras are "causing" accidents because people are pushing the existing (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| Hm, interesting. I have seen reports of fewer accidents, but I wonder how well you can trust them. The incentives sure are wrong, and certainly present a true risk of incorrect reaction (cutting short the yellow light time). Another interesting (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) We have a similar issue with speed camera's in the UK: "The effect of the camera on driver behaviour can create new problems such as erratic braking and acceleration and distract drivers from the traffic flow." See: (URL) (...) Which is just (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) I have a SEVERE issue with this statement. If someone borrows your car (with your blessing) and commits a crime with it, how could you possibly say it is the car owner's fault? Unless the owner is sitting next to the driver when the crime was (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
