red light camera statistics

[rewc]

Dorset camera partnership publish statistics for their red light cameras on their web site. I have placed a typical site spec below:-
There are no fatal or serious injuries at the site before or after the camera was installed.
slight injuries: 1998=2, 1999=3, 2000=0, 2001=1, 2002=1, 2003=1, 2004=1, 2005=1.

The camera was installed in August 2002. I cannot see any improvement since the introduction of the camera and in fact they are worse than 2000. The figures for 98 and 99 were used as the justification in the case put forward for the camera.

Most of the sites have similar findings - I cannot see the justification for the cameras on casualty reduction grounds only.

[BiggusLaddus]

I really can't see why you would argue against a red light camera?

One of the biggest gripes against speed cameras is that they only measure speed, and don't assess the standard of driving. Surely jumping red lights is awful driving in anyones books?

[flemke]

BiggusLaddus said:

I really can't see why you would argue against a red light camera?

One of the biggest gripes against speed cameras is that they only measure speed, and don't assess the standard of driving. Surely jumping red lights is awful driving in anyones books?

Unless you're trying to let an emergency vehicle past so that someone's life might be saved.

[twister]

BiggusLaddus said:

Surely jumping red lights is awful driving in anyones books?

What would you suggest if, having been sat at a set of red lights for significantly longer than you *know* you should have been sat there, you come to the fairly safe conclusion that the lights are in fact borked and that the only way you'll get to continue your journey along that particular bit of road is to proceed through the red light? What if the best alternative route to avoid that set of lights would involve adding several miles to your journey?


Calling it "jumping" the lights makes for quite an emotive image - some scrote, in a warmed-over hatch with a catering-sized bean can for an exhaust, paying absolutely no heed whatsoever to their own or anyone elses safety, and blasting across a busy junction through red lights at warp factor stupid. That's bang out of order, but RLC's will also flash-flash for the sane, safe, trying-to-do-the-right-thing motorist who, for whatever reason, has decided that driving past the red light is the best option they have.

Question is, of those two types of driver, who's more likely to be driving a car registered to them (or which can be easily traced back to them) and so is more likely to end up with the fine and points... Answer, probably not the driver who's behaviour most needs to be changed.

[puggit]

BiggusLaddus said:

I really can't see why you would argue against a red light camera?

I would agree in principle - but there has been a massive rollout of red-light cameras in the US and the evidence is pretty damning. By and large accidents are UP atbred light camera sites, particularly rear-end prangs where someone has stopped suddenly to protect their wallet/licence.

[flemke]

puggit said:

BiggusLaddus said:

I really can't see why you would argue against a red light camera?

I would agree in principle - but there has been a massive rollout of red-light cameras in the US and the evidence is pretty damning. By and large accidents are UP atbred light camera sites, particularly rear-end prangs where someone has stopped suddenly to protect their wallet/licence.

Let's not forget the conspiracy between RLC manufacturers and some US jurisdictions through which, at the same time, they installed RLCs and shortened the yellow phase, for the express purpose of generating more revenue.

[LongQ]

puggit said:

BiggusLaddus said:

I really can't see why you would argue against a red light camera?

I would agree in principle - but there has been a massive rollout of red-light cameras in the US and the evidence is pretty damning. By and large accidents are UP atbred light camera sites, particularly rear-end prangs where someone has stopped suddenly to protect their wallet/licence.

That and the perception, proven in some cases I understand, that the things were a scam to raise money in that they were not as reliable in operation as the manufacturers claimed AND the manufactureres colluded with the local enforcement to shorten the light sequences thus 'catching' more drivers, at the same time increasing the danger at the lights.

Of course such things couldn't possibly happen here could they?