| | Lights, Cameras...
Do red-light cameras curb the number of accidents? In Houston, the first of these cameras went live on September 1st, 2006. One week later, the Lone Star Times quoted the Houston Chronicle:
| | The department projects the [eventual total of fifty] cameras will record about 360,000 violations annually or $27 million potential revenue. But the city expects only about a quarter of the violators to pay the fine, which would bring in $6.7 million. Tuton said that estimate is low, and most cities using ATS technology see a payment rate of 75 percent to 90 percent. | |
As the Times sarcastically asks, "But remember, it’s all about 'safety,' right?" The article goes on to cite a study by the Federal Highway Administration in which statistics were collected from seven jurisdictions using red-light cameras. These jurisdictions did experience an average 23.2% reduction in right-angle crashes; however, they also experienced an average 17.4% increase in rear-end collisions. Three of the jurisdictions actually experienced a net increase in number of crashes.
When factoring in the Washington DOT stated increase of rear-end collisions that occur with traffic lights in general, this is not a reduction in accidents but an overall increase when compared with the alternatives I will present later.
In October 2005, the Washington Post reported on the District of Columbia's red-light cameras. The Post's analysis showed an overall increase in the number of collisions at intersections with these cameras, an increase equal to or greater than collision increases at intersections without red-light cameras.
| | 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. | |
Considering that the cameras have "generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years," it’s not surprising that this situation has been allowed to continue. The article quotes Lon Anderson of AAA: "They are making a heck of a lot of money, and they are picking the motorists' pockets on the pretense of safety." Looking at the statistics, it's hard to disagree.
Can laws change physics?
By their very nature, traffic lights do not and cannot constitute a physical barrier to speed. This results in the following two problems:
| | ·Due to the physical capabilities of automobiles, it is easy for a driver to run a red light due to inattentiveness, excessive speed, or unexpected adverse road conditions (e.g., slickness).
·Psychologically speaking, it is often in an individual's self-interest to deliberately speed through yellow or even red lights. | |
If Joe Leadfoot is running late for work, what can a law do to physically prevent him from passing through a red light?
Every Problem Should Have a Solution
So are there alternatives to traffic lights? The answer, according to the Insurance Journal and Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, is the roundabout: an intersection with a raised island at the center. Traffic is directed counterclockwise around the island; a car leaves the circle in the driver's desired direction. As stated in the article, the roundabout has been improved considerably in design, over a century's time, to adapt to the most complicated of intersections. The modern roundabout features a triangular island in each approach to the intersection, to help force cars to slow down as they enter the circle.
The Insurance Journal reports the following:
| | Researchers at Ryerson Polytechnic University, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the University of Maine studied crashes and injuries at 24 intersections before and after construction of roundabouts. The study found a 39 percent overall decrease in crashes and a 76 percent decrease in injury-producing crashes. Collisions causing fatal or incapacitating injuries fell as much as 90 percent at some intersections. | |
Wired Magazine quotes Monderman regarding a roundabout that he designed:
| | "I love it! Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it into the design of the road." | |
Propaganda
The concept of the roundabout is more than a century old, yet in the United States, their use remains extremely limited. Why? According to the Insurance Journal:
| | Roundabouts have not been popular in U.S. engineering because slowing down is a seeming inconvenience to drivers, according to IIHS. And American universities and institutions that influence road planning and engineering have reinforced the historical practice of building high-speed intersections. | |
However:
| | The safety benefits [of roundabouts] do not hamper traffic flow. In fact, the study found that where roundabouts replace intersections with stop signs or traffic signals, delays in traffic can be reduced by as much as 75 percent. | |
Obviously, such statistics were ignored in 2003 when the Texas legislature passed a bill allowing the use of red-light cameras. Instead of considering roundabouts and other genuine solutions, they instead predictably went for the much more attractive money-grubbing exploitation of allowing red-light camera installation despite the majority ruling against them. How did this happen?
According to this source:
| | The Legislature has for the past several sessions turned down requests to allow cities to use cameras to catch violators. In 2003, the House voted 103-34 not to allow cities to use cameras to issue criminal citations to red-light violators.
To get around state restrictions, state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, inserted an amendment in the 2003 transportation bill giving cities the right to regulate transportation matters civilly or criminally. | |
It appears that a very large majority of elected legislators were against the use of cameras. Do legislators ever actually read the list of whims they pass? | |
