RLCs found to cause more injuries

[sadako]

canada.com said:

Cameras at traffic-light intersections have cut down on T-bone collisions but not necessarily on injuries, says a U.S. study that found cameras led to a hike in rear-end accidents because motorists braked sharply to avoid tickets. University of Virginia civil engineering professor Nicholas Garber, who specializes in traffic operations and safety, said Wednesday his study has caused some consternation in the state, where officials are being questioned on the effectiveness of red-light cameras. "We saw a reduction in angle crashes and crashes that are attributed to red-light running, but we also saw some increase in rear-end collisions," he said in an interview with The Vancouver Sun. But what's yet to be studied is which of the two types of collisions causes the most severe injuries, he said, explaining the traffic records he used did not disclose this although there is a "probability" that side crashes cause more injuries. "Unfortunately, although we saw a reduction in angle crashes, we cannot definitely say there has been a reduction in serious injuries crashes." Garber said that in some instances, the cameras are blamed for a 50-per-cent increase in the number of rear-end collisions. It's a figure also used by the Insurance Corp. of B.C. In a 2004 submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission, the corporation's road safety manager, Laurie Baker, said an analysis of studies in several countries that use cameras reveal they have not proved quite as effective in reducing collisions as they have in reducing red light violations. Baker said the studies showed right-angle collisions decreased by 30 per cent to 50 per cent, but rear-end collisions increased about the same amount. ICBC introduced the cameras in the province in 1999 and by the end of the following year, there were 30 cameras rotating among 120 high-collision intersections. The numbers haven't changed since then. The ICBC submission said a 2003 study of the effect of the cameras on 68 test intersections, mostly in the Lower Mainland, revealed similar results to those in other countries. Baker wrote that while there was a reduction in the number of crashes, the number of injuries didn't decrease, so the expected cost-savings didn't materialize. Based on its results, ICBC is assuming the cameras have led to a 14-per-cent reduction of all crashes but cannot say how many rear-end accidents are blamed on them. "But given the choice of an increase in rear-end collisions and the impact of angle collisions, I think the choice is pretty clear," spokesman Doug McClelland said Wednesday. McClelland said T-bone collisions caused more damage. "Naturally, as people change their behaviour at intersections, there may well be an increased risk of being rear-ended," he said. However, Burnaby RCMP crash investigator Cpl. Peter Somerville believes motorists are now much more aware of the cameras and are unlikely to brake suddenly at intersections. "The majority have started to learn that yellow means stop so we're not getting panic stops where they suddenly see the camera and slam on the brakes," he said. Since the cameras were introduced, there's been a drop in red-light running, he said, adding the $167 fine was the reason. In 1999, a camera recorded 490 violations at Kingsway and Royal Oak, one of the city's worst crash sites. Cpl. Lloyd Holtzmann of the provincial traffic service camera unit said the cameras were introduced to reduce fatalities, injuries and damages, and statistics show that they're doing that. The unit would like to see more cameras, at a cost of $60,000 each.

sauce = www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/soundoff/story.html?id=53eee32d-c5a7-48fd-a95b-6759137bae27

[8Pack]

I must say, I like the system used in Vienna, where the amber light goes through a flashingphase before becoming a solid amber for about 3 secs, before turning to red. It gives information to the driver who can then make a judgement according to his speed and distance to the light.

Of course this is a far too sensible solution for the UK. MMmmmh! Just put a cash camera up, that'll sort it

[sadako]

While in theory RLCs are a good thing in theory so are speed cams. The problem comes when at the same time the camera goes up the yellow phase gets much shorter.

[Globulators]

sadako said:

While in theory RLCs are a good thing in theory so are speed cams.

Using which theory?
People slow down for them, then annoyed they speed away - bad for safety and pollution.
If people get caught they are still speeding.
Focussing on speed ignore the big 80% cause of accidents - distraction. Cameras increase distraction.
Cameras focus peoples attention on their speedo. It's not a reminder, its a smack if you get it wrong - so you check you speed, and run into anything you weren't checking.
Cameras cause the wrong priority for drivers:
Priority 1: Check speed dial
Priority 2: Check limit signs
Priority 3: Below limit = safe
Priority 4: Ignore all speed related danger signals

Now if you see a trafpol - you make sure you're driving safely.

Cameras = cheap and crap
Trafpol = expensive and usually good (apple eated excepted)

Guess which one the Bliar/Campbell alliance will use for us?