Redbaron616

February 01, 2013, 05:06:16 AM
Thank you for the locations. Red light cameras are all about revenue, not safety. Many accidents are caused by people realizing it is a red light intersection and slamming on their brakes which causes them to often be rear-ended.

It is also a fact that longer yellow lights are as much of a safety factor or more so than cameras. Typically, when cameras are installed, yellow lights are often shortened to boost revenue. MetroJacksonville might want to time the yellow lights and check them again every six months.

What happens if you loan your car to a relative or friend while theirs is in the shop? Why should the ticket come to the vehicle when every other ticket goes to the actual driver? Lastly, I think the cameras should have to have a picture of the car AND the actual stoplight in it to ensure honestly.

Adam W

February 01, 2013, 05:52:20 AM

Thank you for the locations. Red light cameras are all about revenue, not safety. Many accidents are caused by people realizing it is a red light intersection and slamming on their brakes which causes them to often be rear-ended.

It is also a fact that longer yellow lights are as much of a safety factor or more so than cameras. Typically, when cameras are installed, yellow lights are often shortened to boost revenue. MetroJacksonville might want to time the yellow lights and check them again every six months.

What happens if you loan your car to a relative or friend while theirs is in the shop? Why should the ticket come to the vehicle when every other ticket goes to the actual driver? Lastly, I think the cameras should have to have a picture of the car AND the actual stoplight in it to ensure honestly.

What you have stated isn't necessarily true. There seems to be a lot of cherry-picking of data to support particular views on both sides of this topic. For example, I have posted links below that claim to show that red light cameras actually increase safety (one is a news story quoting IIHS data and the other is a link to IIHS info).

I don't think there is a clear consensus of whether or not traffic light cameras increase or decrease safety. I also think that while it's fair to say some cities may use them as a revenue-generation scheme, not all do or should and that the motivation for the installation of these cameras is not solely the generation of revenue (at least not in all cases). I personally think the motivation should be safety, but that's not to say everyone agrees with me.

People repeat that old chestnut about the increasing number of collisions that result from drivers slamming on their brakes. That might be true - though it would seem that if it were true, it would be likely the increase in such accidents would be short-lived as people became used to the presence of the cameras at the particular intersections. Once established, the occurrence of such accidents should taper off over time. You'll see in the link below that, while there appears to be a 15% increase in rear-end collisions, another study showed no statistically significant increase. And there is a decrease in other types of accidents. And there is a net decrease in accidents.

At the end of the day, you can have a traffic light camera or you can have a cop hiding near an intersection - does it really make a difference? I you run a red light, you get a ticket. If you see the cop at the last minute, you are just as likely to slam on your brakes.

I understand there are issues about who is driving the car and how the red light camera cannot necessarily show that (although I remember an episode of The King of Queens that clearly showed Doug and Deacon running a red light in a rented Ferrari... but I digress).

It would be wrong (and I believe it is actually illegal) for the length of the yellow light to be decreased. That's not to say some unscrupulous types wouldn't try it.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/01/03/hated-red-light-cameras-reduce-accidents/

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.aspx

acme54321

February 01, 2013, 06:51:30 AM
I think it's relatively easy to get these tickets thrown out in court if the driver is not identifiable.  The question is it worth the hassle vs sucking it up and giving them $158.

BridgeTroll

February 01, 2013, 07:05:38 AM

Thank you for the locations. Red light cameras are all about revenue, not safety. Many accidents are caused by people realizing it is a red light intersection and slamming on their brakes which causes them to often be rear-ended.

It is also a fact that longer yellow lights are as much of a safety factor or more so than cameras. Typically, when cameras are installed, yellow lights are often shortened to boost revenue. MetroJacksonville might want to time the yellow lights and check them again every six months.

What happens if you loan your car to a relative or friend while theirs is in the shop? Why should the ticket come to the vehicle when every other ticket goes to the actual driver? Lastly, I think the cameras should have to have a picture of the car AND the actual stoplight in it to ensure honestly.

Yellow lights are long enough... IF... you are driving at the speed limit.  Even 10 MPH over adds quite a bit to your stopping distance.

blfair

February 01, 2013, 07:51:28 AM

I think it's relatively easy to get these tickets thrown out in court if the driver is not identifiable.  The question is it worth the hassle vs sucking it up and giving them $158.

The way I understand it, you can't contest the $158 "notice of violation", which is just a request for payment from the private firm that runs the cameras. The only way to contest it, is to not respond to that notice. At that point, they'll send you an actual traffic citation. If you pay it, it's more (>$250), and comes with points -- BUT you are given the chance to contest it in court like any other ticket.

They've setup a system that will almost guarantee no one contests the ticket -- it's a double or nothing bet.

bubbalooey

February 01, 2013, 08:00:17 AM
Putting a uniformed officer to police the intersections helps stop the light runners while he is watching, once he is gone, it will continue. Hopefully these camera's will cut down on accidents.  The people who rear-end people are also the red light runners, most negative comments on here are from these very same people who shouldn't have a drivers license.  I hope eventually they put speed sensors in the road to catch all the speeders. The person responsible for the ticket is the owner of the car, he/she should know who was operating it the day the ticket was issued.  They need the camera's at every intersection and stop sign.

mbwright

February 01, 2013, 08:13:10 AM
Normally, if you were not the driver of your vehicle, there is an affidavit that you would sign, and you indicate who was driving,(friend, brother, neighbor, etc.) and then they would get the ticket.  This also works if you rent a vehicle, the rental company has the registration, but if you ran the light, they will identify who had the rental at the time.

David

February 01, 2013, 09:39:15 AM
Good info. I just did a California stop at the Claire/San Jose intersection this morning.  Hopefully they're not too strict when it comes to right on reds.

mbwright

February 01, 2013, 09:43:06 AM
Right on Red is often enforced.  For all intersections, stop at the stop bar.  This is the line that goes across the lane.  This before the crosswalk lines, if there are any.  The stop bar can be a good distance before where you think you should stop.

David

February 01, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
It's usually far enough back to where you can't see any oncoming traffic.

When you have the main road making left turns that it really tempts you to not stop. But, I don't feel like getting a ticket. So that's easy remedied.

We are still in the "trial" phase I assume correct? When will actual citations start being issued?

If_I_Loved_you

February 01, 2013, 09:52:00 AM
If this Red Light system is So Perfect why have so many cities around the Country getten rid of these Red Light camera's?

FSBA

February 01, 2013, 10:11:02 AM

Putting a uniformed officer to police the intersections helps stop the light runners while he is watching, once he is gone, it will continue. Hopefully these camera's will cut down on accidents.  The people who rear-end people are also the red light runners, most negative comments on here are from these very same people who shouldn't have a drivers license.  I hope eventually they put speed sensors in the road to catch all the speeders. The person responsible for the ticket is the owner of the car, he/she should know who was operating it the day the ticket was issued.  They need the camera's at every intersection and stop sign.

FSBA

February 01, 2013, 10:12:19 AM

Good info. I just did a California stop at the Claire/San Jose intersection this morning.  Hopefully they're not too strict when it comes to right on reds.

I know one study AAA did found that almost 3/4ths of the tickets issued in by RLCs were for right on red violations so your odds aren't great

David

February 01, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
To answer what David asked earlier:

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-01-30/story/grace-period-begins-3-red-light-cameras-jacksonville

There's basically a grace period until the beginning of March. After that, it's on.

BridgeTroll

February 01, 2013, 10:26:33 AM

Quote from: David on February 01, 2013, 09:39:15 AM

Good info. I just did a California stop at the Claire/San Jose intersection this morning.  Hopefully they're not too strict when it comes to right on reds.

I know one study AAA did found that almost 3/4ths of the tickets issued in by RLCs were for right on red violations so your odds aren't great

The "california stop" is a good way to hit pedestrians or bikers.  Come to a complete stop.

David

February 01, 2013, 10:31:41 AM
Calm down everyone.  I have eyesight and check for any particular dangers. Slowing to 5 mph while turning right on red isn't the same as mowing over a buncha fixies while downing a fifth of vodka.

BridgeTroll

February 01, 2013, 10:33:53 AM
Please watch... hilarious...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1VVlTTqIgdY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/1VVlTTqIgdY</a>

BridgeTroll

February 01, 2013, 10:34:50 AM

Calm down everyone.  I have eyesight and check for any particular dangers. Slowing to 5 mph while turning right on red isn't the same as mowing over a buncha fixies while downing a fifth of vodka.

Thank you David... you made my point...

If_I_Loved_you

February 01, 2013, 10:41:03 AM
Who pays camera tickets for gov't vehicles? Does an off-duty Police Officer have to pay for a red light ticket while he/she is driving there own vehicle? Does the Mayor or his wife have to pay a red light camera ticket?

David

February 01, 2013, 10:42:56 AM
But, but...I had a protected right turn.  (And you can spot the u-turners by their goofy swerve preturn )

And I've tried riding my bike down San Jose, it's a death sentence, don't do it unless you're in a group.

Back to the point, the camera will be effective at that intersection because I'll make sure I stop. 

BridgeTroll

February 01, 2013, 10:43:37 AM
http://laist.com/2008/05/19/_photo_by_zach.php

Here is the situation, often daily: you, as a pedestrian, approach an intersection at a stop sign or red light where you're about to cross. A driver approaches from your left wanting to make a right turn. They focus on not getting hit by cars coming from their left as they roll past the limit line, never making eye contact or noticing a pedestrian that has the right to cross to their right. They've now run the red light or stop sign, totally unaware that a pedestrian was there. Enough of a reason to enforce? Yes.

David

February 01, 2013, 10:57:45 AM
If you look to your right as you're rolling up to the intersection and see no pedestrians (btw this is Mandarin we're talking about here, how many people are on foot in Mandarin?)

But If you're slowly rolling up and can see there's no pedestrations to your right , and you know there's none to the left because of the cars turning left off of the main road onto your road, you can use your good judgement and clearly determine there's no danger to proceed with the right turn.

I'm aware it's a violation but most people do it.  The pedestrians would've had a "do not walk sign" because of the traffic turning onto the road as well.

But, this argument wouldn't hold up in court. So yes, stop. Make sure your hands are at 10 & 2 as well!

JaxNole

February 01, 2013, 10:58:15 AM
I'm all for them. It's made driving in the Orlando area less harrowing, both for motorists and pedestrians.

JaxNole

February 01, 2013, 11:00:38 AM

But, this argument wouldn't hold up in court. So yes, stop. Make sure your hands are at 10 & 2 as well!

Wasn't there a switch to position the hands at 9 & 3/3& 9 a few years ago? Something about being able to steady the steering wheel  better should the vehicle decide to go off course (by impact, poor driving conditions).

If_I_Loved_you

February 01, 2013, 11:01:33 AM

But, but...I had a protected right turn.  (And you can spot the u-turners by their goofy swerve preturn )

And I've tried riding my bike down San Jose, it's a death sentence, don't do it unless you're in a group.

Back to the point, the camera will be effective at that intersection because I'll make sure I stop.

(And I've tried riding my bike down San Jose, it's a death sentence, don't do it unless you're in a group.) This maybe better then riding alone but how many times have I seen groups of bike riders side by side too many? Bike riders should also know the rules of the road. Even two bike riders on the road should be behind each other not side by side.

BridgeTroll

February 01, 2013, 11:07:06 AM
Thank you again David... and we wonder why it is a problem?

While I am sure you are a careful driver... now your practice is habit.  Now you do it all the time... and expect the cars in front of you to do it too.

If "most people" followed the rules of the road... we would never be having a red light camera discussion...

I'm aware it's a violation but most people do it.

David

February 01, 2013, 11:07:31 AM

Wasn't there a switch to position the hands at 9 & 3/3& 9 a few years ago? Something about being able to steady the steering wheel  better should the vehicle decide to go off course (by impact, poor driving conditions).

Yes my coworker just told me that, it's because of the airbags supposedly.

Charles Hunter

February 01, 2013, 11:11:32 AM
About the revenue generation, it may not be THE reason Jacksonville is doing it, but the budget anticipates getting $1.5 million from the red light cameras. 
From First Coast News:

The city projects the cameras will generate $1.5 million that will go back into its general fund.

How does that work, if the goal is to reduce red-light violations, over time, there will be fewer violations and thus less revenue.

I think part of the argument about accidents is that while rear-end collisions might increase, T-bone crashes, which are more deadly, caused by running the red light are reduced.

David

February 01, 2013, 11:13:33 AM

Thank you again David... and we wonder why it is a problem?

While I am sure you are a careful driver... now your practice is habit.  Now you do it all the time... and expect the cars in front of you to do it too.

If "most people" followed the rules of the road... we would never be having a red light camera discussion...

I just don't think slow right on red turns are the main issue. It's people running the red lights blasting through an intersection at 60 mph causing fatal wrecks.

When you're rolling along at 5 mph, you have plenty of time to stop in case you see a hazard.  But if the law said "slow down to a speed you're comfortable with before completing the turn" You'd have people hanging a right on red at 30 mph. So I see the need to be black and white on that.

David

February 01, 2013, 11:43:02 AM
I like this article, it brings up a good point:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Red-Light-Cameras-Go-Dark-189370741.html

you make a right hand turn half a second or barrel through a light at 12 seconds almost killing somebody, it's the same price. That doesn't make sense," he said.

What Filner needs to do is retool the system and put justice and equity in the system," Mehdy said.

Overstreet

February 01, 2013, 11:48:48 AM
The Mandarin camera  location has bus stops on both corners. There are pedestrians going both ways. I know hard to believe. I often cross there on the bike as well. Got to keep your "head on a swivel" if you are moving in traffic.

A comment earlier was that if you loaned your car out and they got a ticket it shouldn't come back to you....and that no other tickets do. Well not quite. Parking tickets come back to the registered owner.  Have your car get in a hit and run and see what comes back. Sure you may not get the ticket but you never really excape responsibility.

spuwho

February 01, 2013, 12:05:33 PM
Red-light cameras in Schaumburg screech to a halt

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-red-light-camerasjul15,0,7535797.story

Schaumburg, Illinois gave up on the cameras.

They are sold as safety enhancements, but when the complaints outweigh the revenues, they tend to remove them.

If_I_Loved_you

February 01, 2013, 12:18:11 PM

Red-light cameras in Schaumburg screech to a halt

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-red-light-camerasjul15,0,7535797.story

Schaumburg, Illinois gave up on the cameras.

They are sold as safety enhancements, but when the complaints outweigh the revenues, they tend to remove them.

So the people of Jacksonville Fl have become the latest Guinea pigs?

urbaknight

February 01, 2013, 02:25:38 PM
I think the ticket revenue should go directly towards mass transit and pedestrian improvements. (Such as sidewalk widening, bus stop shelters, ADA accessability to bus stops, better bike lanes, etc) That would be a real slap in the face to inconsiderate drivers that hate bicyclists and pedestrians!

And furthermore, repeat traffic offenders shout be charged out the ass to get privilege to be able to drive. And If they can't afford to pay for their mistakes, they can just take the bus like some of us have to.

 Driving is not a God given right! I don't care what people think around here! It's a privilege that can and should be taken away if it's not done correctly and with consideration.

ben says

February 02, 2013, 04:53:43 PM
Why is it every time I see a post from If_I_Loved_you my blood pressure shoots through the roof?

Kiva

February 02, 2013, 06:22:50 PM
I think the ticket revenue should go directly towards mass transit and pedestrian improvements. (Such as sidewalk widening, bus stop shelters, ADA accessibility to bus stops, better bike lanes, etc) That would be a real slap in the face to inconsiderate drivers that hate bicyclists and pedestrians!

Great idea, urbaknight

If_I_Loved_you

February 02, 2013, 07:05:19 PM

Why is it every time I see a post from If_I_Loved_you my blood pressure shoots through the roof?

Because you hate the Truth?

Trainman

February 03, 2013, 09:28:30 PM
Let me preface this commentary with the fact that I am a State Trooper. I got a red light camera ticket driving my personal auto through Green Cove Springs. I had a few seconds distraction looking at the car in the lane next to me and that's all it took to miss the green light change to yellow. Got over 3/4 of the way through when the flash told me I got busted. No crying. No whining. I ran a red light and I paid the ticket. My wife laughed. You see, cops are human and make mistakes too. My incident was unintentional but the camera is a great equalizer for intentional and accidental infractions. It was also a great reminder to me to stay focused while driving. I've been to my share of traffic crashes in the Jax area and red light/stop sign runners are usually the worst. Based on my experience I welcome red light cameras. Rear enders wouldn't increase to any measurable level if people wouldn't tailgate (which the majority of drivers do). There are far more rear enders with cars making left or right turns from a travel lane into side streets and parking lots. As far as the "California stop" goes: illegal. Stop means STOP. Just because the other lemmings run off the cliff doesn't mean you have to. Other driver: Be careful who you loan your car to and get a written affidavit if you do loan it out. It's your car and you're responsible for it. Remember this: Florida Statute 316 is very clear that you don't have the "right" to drive in our fair state. It is a priveledge and can be easily lost if you don't protect it.

David

February 04, 2013, 01:29:02 PM
I view following arbitrary traffic laws as being a lemming.

I trust my judgement and determine on a case by case basis if a turn warrants a full stop (pending pedestrians, oncoming traffic) or if perhaps, in order to not be stuck on the corner of San Jose & Claire for the next 5 minutes I need to go ahead and make that right hand turn, at a very low speed, even though the light is "red"

Sidewalk is closed currently, so there is little to no pedestrian traffic in that particular area as well

But I get it. It's "illegal" and I "shouldn't do that". I'll secede my property from the United States and start my own nation, where we can all perform California Stops free of tyranny and judgement.

Or just stop. Those tickets aren't cheap.

ChrisG

February 04, 2013, 03:07:35 PM
I am ok with red light cameras. Why does a private business (Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona) get to share in the profit of a citation, just because they are willing to put the cameras up at no cost. Cities across the nation getting caught shorting the timed yellow light length below the norm when they find out how much revenue these devices generate.
Quote from the National Journal:
The NMA wants the FHWA to mandate minimum national standards for yellow-light duration. Currently, the federal agency offers only “guidance” suggesting that yellow lights should last between 3 and 6 seconds. “There’s an ongoing debate in the traffic-engineering community about what the standard should be,” said NMA spokesman John Bowman.
When New Jersey passed a law allowing red-light cameras in 2008, the Legislature established a formula for yellow-light duration. The minimum yellow time is 3 seconds at intersections where traffic is moving at 25 miles per hour, and the time goes up by a half-second for every 5 mph increase in traffic speed. So for intersections where traffic is approaching at 55 mph, the yellow light must be on for a minimum of 6 seconds.

Be sure you have uninsured motorist coverage. Buckle up and brace for for a rear end impact when you abruptly brake to stop at those intersections.

KenFSU

February 04, 2013, 03:58:01 PM
The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal had a pretty balanced look at red-light cameras:

I'm personally against them for a variety of reasons (particularly in that cities seem to be installing them for purposes of revenue rather than safety), but the article does a pretty good job presenting both sides of the argument fairly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276382784487080.html

Hard to Put Red-Light Violations Under a Lens

As red-light cameras have proliferated around the U.S. over the past two decades to hundreds of cities and towns, there is one troubling detail: They don't always make traffic intersections safer.

Police departments in more than 500 cities and towns use the cameras—and, usually, signs warning of their presence—to record motorists who run red lights and to ticket them. The goals are to deter drivers from going through an intersection after the light has turned red and to prevent dangerous crashes.

But local results can vary. In recent years, municipalities including Los Angeles, Philadelphia and St. Petersburg, Fla., have found that crashes increased at intersections where cameras are installed. Everything from the choice of intersection, to how long a light stays yellow before turning red, to the methods used to evaluate the cameras can influence whether they are deemed successful.

Counting rear-end crashes, for example, can sometimes mean the cameras increase the total number of accidents—as drivers slam on the brakes when they see a warning—though even an overall increase in collisions can be worthwhile, some researchers say, if the most severe crashes decline.

"We don't have a laboratory where we can look at these things," said Kimberly Eccles, a principal at Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., an engineering consulting firm.

Red-light cameras have been controversial for several reasons. Privacy advocates regard them as intrusive, and many motorists complain they have been unfairly ticketed for relatively minor infractions, such as rolling right turns on red.

The conflicting research results on cameras' effectiveness have made them a contentious issue for local authorities, too. Municipalities must strike a balance between using peer-reviewed studies from other towns or cities—which include advanced statistical analysis and control for traffic volume and other factors—and using their own raw numbers, which may not account for all factors but do reflect local conditions.

"It's sort of a mistake in some ways for every city to try to conduct a comprehensive analysis of a countermeasure"—such as red-light cameras—"applied on a limited basis, where they don't have the data or, in some cases, the expertise to do the analysis," said Richard Retting, a consultant with Sam Schwartz Engineering in Fairfax, Va.

Close.Mr. Retting worked for 20 years for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or IIHS, an insurance-industry-funded group, where he published several studies finding safety benefits from red-light cameras. He compares conducting studies of every camera-equipped intersection in a region to doctors conducting individual research papers on each patient rather than relying on published medical studies.

But Declan O'Scanlon, a New Jersey state assemblyman, said the state department of transportation's initial study of crashes at camera-equipped intersections—which didn't control for traffic volume or other factors—was critical in forming his opinion that cameras "do not reduce accidents, which makes them not worthwhile." The state, in a report published in November, found that crashes in most categories of severity increased at camera-equipped intersections in the year after they were installed.

Researchers caution that raw data could mislead in several ways. For one thing, simple counts of crashes lump together rear-end hits that damage cars but not people with more dangerous right-angle crashes. Some studies, such as the New Jersey report, translate types of crash into their typical cost equivalent—for instance, $216,000 for disabling injury compared with $7,400 for crashes that damage only property. Just a few fatal crashes can skew the results because they are assigned a cost value in the millions of dollars.

Simple before-and-after comparisons also won't do, researchers say. For one thing, intersections typically are chosen for camera installation because they have had a spate of accidents. That makes them due for a fall just by statistical chance. Also, other traffic trends or enforcement measures, such as speed cameras, could account for changes in crash rates. And choosing another site for comparison isn't easy: Choose one too close to intersections with cameras and it could experience a so-called spillover effect, when camera-less intersections along the same route are affected by motorists conditioned by cameras.

Some traffic engineers say other types of interventions can be at least as beneficial as cameras, without their privacy issues. Lengthening yellow-light intervals, for example, gives motorists more time to hit the brakes.

Simon Washington, a civil-engineering professor at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, co-wrote a study for the Arizona Department of Transportation in 2005 that cited other work showing that extending yellow-light intervals can reduce red-light running by 50% to 70%.

But Prof. Washington isn't sure that is the way to go. "If you increase yellow times all around, you reduce the capacity of intersections," he said.

Extending yellow times could also backfire by causing longer queues at lights and more rear-end crashes as motorists are surprised by the stopped traffic, said Ms. Eccles, the transportation-engineering consultant.

She added that red-light cameras generally are effective when deployed correctly. However, "because of the controversial nature of red-light cameras, I do believe an agency should consider everything else" before installing them, she said.

Adam W

February 05, 2013, 02:47:34 AM

The weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal had a pretty balanced look at red-light cameras:

I'm personally against them for a variety of reasons (particularly in that cities seem to be installing them for purposes of revenue rather than safety), but the article does a pretty good job presenting both sides of the argument fairly.

Quote

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276382784487080.html

Hard to Put Red-Light Violations Under a Lens

As red-light cameras have proliferated around the U.S. over the past two decades to hundreds of cities and towns, there is one troubling detail: They don't always make traffic intersections safer.

Police departments in more than 500 cities and towns use the cameras—and, usually, signs warning of their presence—to record motorists who run red lights and to ticket them. The goals are to deter drivers from going through an intersection after the light has turned red and to prevent dangerous crashes.

But local results can vary. In recent years, municipalities including Los Angeles, Philadelphia and St. Petersburg, Fla., have found that crashes increased at intersections where cameras are installed. Everything from the choice of intersection, to how long a light stays yellow before turning red, to the methods used to evaluate the cameras can influence whether they are deemed successful.

Counting rear-end crashes, for example, can sometimes mean the cameras increase the total number of accidents—as drivers slam on the brakes when they see a warning—though even an overall increase in collisions can be worthwhile, some researchers say, if the most severe crashes decline.

"We don't have a laboratory where we can look at these things," said Kimberly Eccles, a principal at Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., an engineering consulting firm.

Red-light cameras have been controversial for several reasons. Privacy advocates regard them as intrusive, and many motorists complain they have been unfairly ticketed for relatively minor infractions, such as rolling right turns on red.

The conflicting research results on cameras' effectiveness have made them a contentious issue for local authorities, too. Municipalities must strike a balance between using peer-reviewed studies from other towns or cities—which include advanced statistical analysis and control for traffic volume and other factors—and using their own raw numbers, which may not account for all factors but do reflect local conditions.

"It's sort of a mistake in some ways for every city to try to conduct a comprehensive analysis of a countermeasure"—such as red-light cameras—"applied on a limited basis, where they don't have the data or, in some cases, the expertise to do the analysis," said Richard Retting, a consultant with Sam Schwartz Engineering in Fairfax, Va.

Close.Mr. Retting worked for 20 years for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or IIHS, an insurance-industry-funded group, where he published several studies finding safety benefits from red-light cameras. He compares conducting studies of every camera-equipped intersection in a region to doctors conducting individual research papers on each patient rather than relying on published medical studies.

But Declan O'Scanlon, a New Jersey state assemblyman, said the state department of transportation's initial study of crashes at camera-equipped intersections—which didn't control for traffic volume or other factors—was critical in forming his opinion that cameras "do not reduce accidents, which makes them not worthwhile." The state, in a report published in November, found that crashes in most categories of severity increased at camera-equipped intersections in the year after they were installed.

Researchers caution that raw data could mislead in several ways. For one thing, simple counts of crashes lump together rear-end hits that damage cars but not people with more dangerous right-angle crashes. Some studies, such as the New Jersey report, translate types of crash into their typical cost equivalent—for instance, $216,000 for disabling injury compared with $7,400 for crashes that damage only property. Just a few fatal crashes can skew the results because they are assigned a cost value in the millions of dollars.

Simple before-and-after comparisons also won't do, researchers say. For one thing, intersections typically are chosen for camera installation because they have had a spate of accidents. That makes them due for a fall just by statistical chance. Also, other traffic trends or enforcement measures, such as speed cameras, could account for changes in crash rates. And choosing another site for comparison isn't easy: Choose one too close to intersections with cameras and it could experience a so-called spillover effect, when camera-less intersections along the same route are affected by motorists conditioned by cameras.

Some traffic engineers say other types of interventions can be at least as beneficial as cameras, without their privacy issues. Lengthening yellow-light intervals, for example, gives motorists more time to hit the brakes.

Simon Washington, a civil-engineering professor at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, co-wrote a study for the Arizona Department of Transportation in 2005 that cited other work showing that extending yellow-light intervals can reduce red-light running by 50% to 70%.

But Prof. Washington isn't sure that is the way to go. "If you increase yellow times all around, you reduce the capacity of intersections," he said.

Extending yellow times could also backfire by causing longer queues at lights and more rear-end crashes as motorists are surprised by the stopped traffic, said Ms. Eccles, the transportation-engineering consultant.

She added that red-light cameras generally are effective when deployed correctly. However, "because of the controversial nature of red-light cameras, I do believe an agency should consider everything else" before installing them, she said.

Good article. It's funny, though, that the author made pretty much all the points that the IIHS Q&A made:

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.aspx

bubbalooey

February 05, 2013, 08:21:06 AM
I was brought up in another era where driving was a privilege, not a "right" like so many believe today.  I learned from getting a few tickets to obey traffic laws, rather spend the fine money on myself rather than give the government.  Most comments tend to send a  message that running red lights/stop signs is ok, if you just avoid an accident, or an officer didn't see it.  Twenty years ago I saw the results of an accident on an interstate, a van was on the side of the road with the drivers door gone, inside lie a female with multiple injuries and obviously dead.  Drivers these day are in safer vehicles but most are raised playing video games and tend to treat driving like it's a game, one in which they won't get injured.  The most dangerous ones are the ones who swerve in and out of traffic and run lights/stop signs and speed.  They should lose their privilege to drive, some should never get it back.  It will only worsen until police start enforcing laws again.  Either enforce the laws or take them off the books.

WJDII

February 05, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
I am curious of how one would not be ticketed for turning right (or left if one is turning from a one-way to a one-way) on red. Would one be cited if one does not make a complete stop prior to the turn?

What about driving record? Would the infraction be attached to the driver's record or the vehicle record? Would insurance companies be able to factor these citations in when renewing policies?

Many questions. Few Answers. Thanks COJ.

BridgeTroll

February 05, 2013, 10:50:16 AM

I am curious of how one would not be ticketed for turning right (or left if one is turning from a one-way to a one-way) on red. Would one be cited if one does not make a complete stop prior to the turn?

What about driving record? Would the infraction be attached to the driver's record or the vehicle record? Would insurance companies be able to factor these citations in when renewing policies?

Many questions. Few Answers. Thanks COJ.

You must come to a complete stop before turning.  If you simply pay the fine there are no points.  If you fail to pay the fine (or contest and lose?) you will be awarded points.

coredumped

February 13, 2013, 09:59:02 AM
I was at Atlantic and University last night (there's a HUGE flash that goes off when the picture is taken btw).

Anyway, because of the mathews bridge construction, they've made 2 turn lanes for the southbound university traffic. One is a turn only, the other is a straight or turn. There's also a right turn green arrow.

While I sitting waiting to turn north on University, I saw the camera go off for people that were turning right on Atlantic from University, even though they had a green arrow. Is it possible that lane is marked as not a turn lane? We're still in the "trial" period I hope.

TheCat

February 16, 2013, 03:58:07 PM
If you can handle it. Here it is. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/aMtVBDWItOE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/aMtVBDWItOE</a>

Charles Hunter

February 16, 2013, 08:41:21 PM
If the Legislature outlaws them, will the vendor remove them at no cost to the City - or is there a vendor-friendly clause in their contract that puts that cost on us?

ChriswUfGator

February 17, 2013, 09:08:53 AM
The latter no doubt.

I love how, typical for Jacksonville, we're just now getting around to installing them only after every other city has already figured out they don't work, not to mention the vendor's constant string of misconduct and bribery scandals.

diverdan363

February 17, 2013, 09:58:10 AM
looks like Red flex is making more than city look at aggreement http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsLynwoodContractExcerpt.pdf


Corona has already notified its vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia, that it is no longer interested in having red light cameras. In a region hit hard by the economic downturn, it is hard for municipal leaders to justify slapping vehicle owners with a $500 citation, especially as the city's net share of that amount is a little over $100. The city council's vote Tuesday will make the termination official.
see http://fireredflex.com/cameras.html

Apr 5, 2012 – Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona will install and operate the cameras ... Intersections with high crash rates in Jacksonville include Blanding Boulevard at ... submitted last year, each camera will cost the city $3,999 per month. 25 camera the city will being paying redflex about $100,000 per month that doesn't include what percent is payed on each ticket to redflex

diverdan363

February 17, 2013, 10:19:16 AM

I was at Atlantic and University last night (there's a HUGE flash that goes off when the picture is taken btw).

Anyway, because of the mathews bridge construction, they've made 2 turn lanes for the southbound university traffic. One is a turn only, the other is a straight or turn. There's also a right turn green arrow.

While I sitting waiting to turn north on University, I saw the camera go off for people that were turning right on Atlantic from University, even though they had a green arrow. Is it possible that lane is marked as not a turn lane? We're still in the "trial" period I hope.



n, Chief Edwards stated that experience in other cities has shown that less than 1% of
persons receiving citations challenge them in court, in large part because the citation has information
about a web site where the violator can see the recording of their violation, which includes 6 seconds of
video before and after the vehicle runs the red light.  Seeing the evidence the citing officer used, and that
would be shown to a judge in court, most violators agree to pay the fine. could very well distract driving when something flashes before your eyes

JaxJag

February 17, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
Random question. Lol I got a speeding ticket at 3am, how likely is it that the cop will show up in court? Haha Does he have to? I was 100 yards away from the higher speed zone.

Gamer Dad

February 19, 2013, 01:14:21 PM
Whatever happened to being innocent until proved guilty? Part of due process is that the burden of proof lies with the city/state. Unless they can prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was, indeed, me driving through the red light/intersection,  then I wasn't driving. I certainly won't sign an affidavit saying I wasn't driving or my wife was driving etc, because that would circumvent their obligation of the city/state proving guilt.
I also wonder about the off duty JSO schmucks abusing the company car. Will the thin blue line tighten its ranks to take care of it's own here as well?

I-10east

February 21, 2013, 11:00:37 AM
I heard this info on actionnews yesterday. That company Redflex which operates those red light cameras is under investigation for political corruption in Chicago. To make a long story short, these violations could ultimately lead to future tickets being thrown outta court here in Jax, being that Redflex is currently under so much hot water.

www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2013/02/11/redflex-out-as-chicago-red-light-camera.html

coredumped

February 21, 2013, 01:35:31 PM

Unless they can prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was, indeed, me driving through the red light/intersection,  then I wasn't driving.

Nope. Speeding/traffic tickets are a civil issue, not criminal, so it's actually "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." So it only has to be "more reasonable than not."

But, I'm not a lawyer, this is what I've been told.

RiversideLoki

May 14, 2013, 04:45:52 PM
Because nobody saw *this* coming. /sarcasm

TAMPA BAY, Florida -- A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida's rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

Bridges

May 15, 2013, 08:03:03 AM

Because nobody saw *this* coming. /sarcasm

Quote

TAMPA BAY, Florida -- A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida's rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

Wow, just saw this article today.

Charles Hunter

May 15, 2013, 08:14:53 AM
Then, there is this:

BROOKSVILLE — Calling the enforcement process unconstitutional, a Hernando County judge is automatically dismissing the cases of motorists caught on camera making rolling right turns on red lights.

In an order signed last week, County Judge Donald E. Scaglione cites three reasons why the state law is "vague (and) arbitrary and capricious." Because of that, Scaglione wrote, enforcing a right-on-red violation is unconstitutional and a violation of due process rights.

From here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/hernando-judge-says-red-light-camera-law-is-unconstitutional-dismisses/2120919

stephendare

May 15, 2013, 09:06:24 AM

Then, there is this:

Quote

BROOKSVILLE — Calling the enforcement process unconstitutional, a Hernando County judge is automatically dismissing the cases of motorists caught on camera making rolling right turns on red lights.

In an order signed last week, County Judge Donald E. Scaglione cites three reasons why the state law is "vague (and) arbitrary and capricious." Because of that, Scaglione wrote, enforcing a right-on-red violation is unconstitutional and a violation of due process rights.

From here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/hernando-judge-says-red-light-camera-law-is-unconstitutional-dismisses/2120919

If this is truly the case and this state finds them unconstitutional, then the person who decided to implement this policy needs to lose their job because they had fair warning that this would be the outcome.

And Riverside Loki, every person who collaborated on a scheme to make money from this unconstitutional fiasco by shortening the yellow lights should be fined outrageously.

FSBA

May 15, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
Not sure if I posted this on here. Last week I got a ticket from a RLC in Boca Raton for running a red light. However, I haven't been south of Daytona Beach in 2 years and the car pictured was a different car. I got the ticket because 2 numbers on the license plate matched.

How many frivolous tickets are the Jacksonville RLCs sending out?

samstone

May 20, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418

Are we doing this here?