
Study: Chicago red light cameras provide few safety benefits - greenburger
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-red-light-camera-safety-met-20141219-story.html#page=1
======
GoodIntentions
>get rid of the red light cameras because they increase rear crashes.

A better solution would be enforcing a sane minimum yellow light timing on
camera intersections. Shortening the yellow to the point where the normal
traffic sometimes brakes hard to avoid entering the now yellow, soon to be red
camera intersection is the reason for this increase in rear-ends.

Per the article, this is something Chicago was guilty of, in addition to
placing the cameras in areas that had no problematic history of accidents.

The real problem with these things is that they are used as another way to
milk money out of the populace, rather than as a way to modify behaviour and
improve safety.

These cameras ( and short lights ) are something that really really annoy me
as a motorcyclist. I can stop fast any time but the SUV-clad soccer mom
texting behind me probably wont. I sometimes find myself dropping a gear and
hammering through a yellow I could easily stop for because of this.

/rant

~~~
vinceguidry
Atlanta had red light cameras for about a year, until enough people complained
and they made a mandatory minimum yellow light duration for lights with
cameras. By the next year, none of the cameras were operational anymore, the
company that was running them said they weren't making enough money off the
program so they shut it down.

~~~
Someone
I would say this is the perfect example of the need for taxation.

The best solution for the people involved shifting money from the people to an
entity that installs and maintains those cameras. So, to get there, you need
some method for moving money from the people to said entity.

Let's say those cameras decrease property damage/hospital costs/costs of lost
time by an amount of X, what is against taxation of the total costs of that
are smaller than X?

------
w1ntermute
Was it ever actually about safety? The whole point of it seems to be just to
create another revenue stream for thousands of corrupt local governments all
across the country.

~~~
Shivetya
Some were, there are two intersections in Georgia, one is Windy Hill Road and
I forget the other but it is in Gwinn ette county where they had real numbers
to show the crashes went down. Windy Hill was just damn nasty and its a big
intersection. I still prefer those where traffic is only going one direction.

Still I do think many are in place only for revenue, much like speed limit
cameras. I would rather see red light cameras than speed limit cameras,
however I want the later to come only under specific circumstances with full
public accounting. I think if they really want to sell us on safety it should
all go to charity.

~~~
Zak
Something I've seen a lot in Europe is speed cameras in places that have a
specific good reason for people to slow down. Several seconds before
encountering the camera is a sign with the speed limit and a camera icon or
the word "radar". The purpose isn't to issue tickets, but to get people to
slow down for the dangerous section of road.

~~~
Adirael
Some are there because they need to be, some aren't. In my country most of
them aren't there to keep you safe but to have a revenue stream.

I know a couple of signals that are there to just make people slow down, and
they work even if a lot of us know that there's no radar there.

------
bbarn
The other massively understated thing about Chicago's red light cameras is
that Chicago, compared to other areas with similar or even much lower traffic
volumes, has very few left turn lanes, and even fewer left turn arrows when
they are there. As a result, the general population is habituated to only
being able to turn left at the last second on a yellow signal, which
complicates the short yellow timings even more.

------
bsder
The problem is that there are lots of other choices to make an intersection
safer than cameras.

Generally, the psychology of the timing matters. Most of the intersections
that I see people crash aggressively are busy intersections and have lights
that take _forever_ to cycle. So, there is a huge time penalty for missing the
light (something like 4-5 minutes).

If you cycle the light faster, it may let fewer cars through, but it tamps
down the aggressiveness with which people are willing to crash the light.

------
laoba
I don't know how common these lights are around the world (I have never seen
them in the US but have not been EVERYWHERE), but in China I regularly saw
lights that also had a timer to the side of it counting down so the change
from yellow -> red was more easily expectable. I think this would work rather
well if we were all really concerned with safety.

~~~
derekp7
I'm not sure where I read it, may have been an article posted on HN a while
ago, but just the opposite actually happens. I think it was where a countdown
timer is present for the pedestrians, but since drivers can see them they tend
to speed up if the light is about to change. Which causes more accidents, esp
with pedestrians.

~~~
dexen
_> since drivers can see them they tend to speed up if the light is about to
change._

This is easily solved. For example, intersection just outside my window [1]
has LED timers next to traffic lights, but the countdown is blanked (turned
off) for the last five seconds, not to encourage reckless speeding.

The blanking appears to work just fine, judging by the way the traffic flows.
I pass the intersection daily, both by car and on foot.

[1] in a mid sized city in Poland

------
talos
In almost 3000 words, this article didn't see fit to mention the effect on
pedestrian/vehicle collisions. I wonder if this is due to lack of data? I
would check the Chicago Open Data Portal
([https://data.cityofchicago.org/](https://data.cityofchicago.org/)) but it's
down right now for maintenance!

------
revelation
This article seems to make a point that we should get rid of the red light
cameras because they increase rear crashes.

Ignoring for a moment that T-bone crashes are likely to produce much more
severe injuries than someone crumpling up the rear of another car, this should
suggest that we instead need ways to monitor motorists for keeping proper
distance and attentiveness.

The solution can't be to stop monitoring for one offense because it causes
incompetent motorists to cause more offenses of another sort.

~~~
themartorana
The solution is well known - increase yellow light times. [0] It reduces
accidents (both rear and t-bone) and violations.

But it's crap for generating more revenue, which is quite often seen as more
important.

[0] [http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-
myths](http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths)

~~~
mc32
I think it's both. Increase times and also enforce red-light cameras --but
within reason. Where I live, at some intersections there aren't always
dedicated LH turn lanes, so people have to wait till oncoming traffic has a
large enough gap to make the left. Often times, the only time left to make the
left is to wait for the yellow... and the 3 or four cars behind have an option
of going through a red light or waiting again for a yield on green... In this
situation, people have little option but going through a red (or possibly
taking a more circuitous route).

That said, for the most part, I feel red light cameras are a racket.

------
jacalata
Is the actual study available anywhere? I am wary of trusting a journalists
interpretation of data, especially when it comes in an article that gives the
impression "this study our paper funded demonstrates exactly what we thought
it would!"

~~~
incongruity
While I can't give you a link to this study, I can say that it supports and
extends work I did as part of a graduate stats class for my MBA - we looked at
the data that was publicly available at the time and it was clear that the
cameras weren't making a statistically significant difference at most
intersections... So, just another piece of anecdotal evidence but if you
really want it I can try to dig up our work.

Retrospectively, I guess we should have been better about sharing our
findings.

------
blisterpeanuts
Phoenix has red light cameras as well, because of numerous scofflaws from
south of the border. I have no idea how effective they are, but there are
still a lot of horrible accidents.

To reduce if not halt such incidents, we should simply build crossing gates as
at railroad crossings. When the light is turning yellow, a gate lowers, with
flashing red lights and clanging bells. When the light cycles to green, the
gate lifts. Problem solved.

Alternatively, hire more traffic cops to enforce the laws. It costs money, but
the carnage on the roads calls for some kind of a real fix and not just a
cosmetic patch like cameras that merely bring in more revenue.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-
stu...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-study-finds-
red-light-cameras-not-safer-cause-more-rear-end-injuries/), which points to
this.

~~~
jessaustin
The new URL seems paywalled. Possibly one could use some user-agent setting to
see it, but I just read the the original article instead.

~~~
dang
Unfortunately there is a tradeoff between two of HN's preferences: for
original sources and accessible ones. In cases like the current one, where an
article is clearly definitive and not so paywalled that none of the standard
tricks can get at it, the preference for original sources wins. It's not a
great situation but I know of no satisfying fixes for it.

