Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Government Transportation

Red Light Cameras Raise Crash Risk, Cost 499

concealment writes with news of dissatisfaction with a pilot program for stoplight-monitoring cameras. The program ran for several years in New Jersey, and according to a new report, the number of car crashes actually increased while the cameras were present. "[The program] appears to be changing drivers’ behavior, state officials said Monday, noting an overall decline in traffic citations and right-angle crashes. The Department of Transportation also said, however, that rear-end crashes have risen by 20 percent and total crashes are up by 0.9 percent at intersections where cameras have operated for at least a year. The agency recommended the program stay in place, calling for 'continued data collection and monitoring' of camera-monitored intersections. The department’s report drew immediate criticism from Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, R-Monmouth, who wants the cameras removed. He called the program 'a dismal failure,' saying DOT statistics show the net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million at intersections with cameras." Other cities are considering dumping the monitoring tech as well, citing similar cost and efficacy issues.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Light Cameras Raise Crash Risk, Cost

Comments Filter:
  • Why not (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 )

    Just have homeless/unemployed people at the intersections with digital cameras?

    • by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @08:45PM (#42111621) Journal

      ...regarding ...

      * 1. exploitation of homeless/unemployed people and putting them in harm's way ?

      * 2. drivers getting into accident due to the distraction by the appearance of homeless/unemployed/unkempt people at busy traffic intersections?

      * 3. little girls in cars got spooked by homeless/unemployed/unkempt people taking pictures of them?

      If your answer is "YES" to all of the above questions, then, sure, go ahead, start distributing digital cameras to homeless/unemployed people and putting them in the middle of busy traffic intersections.

      • by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:36PM (#42112127) Homepage Journal

        1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).

        They wouldn't be in harm's way if they're positioned somewhere sensible where cars don't travel, such as a sidewalk.

        2. Drivers get into accidents for all kinds of stupid reasons. Cops sometimes appear at busy intersections, as well as hookers, protesters, news cameramen, fruit vendors, etc. I don't see any outrage to ban these.

        3. Little girls in cars, oh my... won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!

        • by gnoshi ( 314933 )

          1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).

          To dig into the ideas of 'voluntary' and 'exploitation':
          Would it be exploitation for me to find unemployed women who are falling behind on their rent and have no savings, and then offer $5k for sex? Or to offer domestic abuse victims enough money for a refuge if they stand almost naked on street corners with the words 'Loser' painted across their body? Or to give a junkie enough cash for heroin if they will paint their body with their own shit?

          If the answer is no because the actions are voluntary, then I th

      • by homey of my owney ( 975234 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:48PM (#42112271)
        The City of Albuquerque recently cancelled its Red Light camera program after a vote resoundingly said to get rid of them.
    • Re:Why not (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @08:46PM (#42111633)

      This actually did happen [] in Korea several years ago:

      Float back several years in time with me for a moment. There was once a time in Korea when the government got really serious about curbing traffic violations. This was probably due to ranking highly on all sorts of international statistic lists for traffic fatalities.

      Anyhow, the Korean government’s solution was to implement a reward system whereby normal citizens would receive a monetary reward for submitting photos of other drivers violating the law. Brilliant idea right? Yeah, and it failed brilliantly too. Wanna guess why? The Korean government failed to take the following into account:

      1. The number of false reports and staged photos was absolutely through the roof.

      2. People began CAUSING traffic violations in order to profit. For example, they’d block a street momentarily so that an intersection would get filled up with cars during a red light, and then they’d have a friend photograph all the cars stuck in the intersection.

      3. People began blackmailing each other. Instead sending the photos into the police, they started trying to sell the photos to the drivers of the cars being photographed while breaking the law, and it turned out to be even MORE profitable.

      4. Korean people began quitting their jobs, buying expensive camera gear, and setting up elaborate photograph traps in areas where they knew they could make money. That’s right, people actually quit their day jobs because blackmailing or turning in their fellow citizens all of the sudden became more profitable than working in an office.

      5. The government didn’t consider that they would receive hundreds of thousands of photographs, and without some type of standard or rules set in place, would be obligated to pay out insane amounts of money to the thousands of amateur photographers who suddenly materialized across the peninsula. The profits generated by traffic fines went to pay off the photographers, which means no profit for the government.

      6. Traffic violators would see another person photographing them, and then they’d get out of the car and beat the shit out of the cameraman.

      7. Men would take pictures of women violating traffic laws, and then demand sexual favors in exchange for not submitting the photos to the police.

      Thus the “turn in your poorly driving neighbor” policy was scrapped almost as quickly as it started. And no, this isn’t fiction. Ask a Korean about it.

    • Re:Why not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MickLinux ( 579158 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @11:33PM (#42113075) Journal

      Actually, I prefer web cams placed all along the roads, each reachable from a city website. line the roads with stripes, so speed can be digitally measured, and keep the last day of footage for public review.

      Then, when someone gets cut off, or sees reckless driving, they can post a pointer to the police. Police either confirm or deny claim -- as well as any OTHER infractions they see in the incident. Appropriate citations get mailed out [fine to license only, no points]. Citizen who pointed out the incident first gets 10%. Citizens whose claim is denied cannot register another claim for a week, by automatic lockout.

      Now, the unemployed can freelance in traffic patrols, and the wealthy who flaunt the law can fund them. The poor who flaunt the law can stop driving. The reckless can learn a cheaper way to drive.

      I think it'd be a win-win situation .

  • Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdZ ( 755139 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @08:37PM (#42111491)
    Hard to tell without access to the raw figures, but if the number of T-bone crashes has reduced, replaced by more rear-end incidents, is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased? Even if the net cost in car damage increases, that would still be a win in my books.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?

      • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

        by icebike ( 68054 ) * on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:56PM (#42112349)

        Is it still a win in your books when the cities shorten the yellow to generate more tickets?

        You've probably hit on the principal reason for the mixed results. The systems were designed to serve one purpose, but the money was just too good to pass up. The system was perverted to serve a different purpose.

        People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping when the safest thing to do is just to roll across the intersection. Most intersections have an all-ways-red interval to handle the guy who enters on what he thought would be a late yellow, but actually was red due to a shortened yellow.

        If cameras were not allowed to trigger until the crossing lane's lights were GREEN, and there were statutory yellow durations and statutory all-ways-red durations, it would eliminate all this yellow shortening nonsense, and maybe the cameras would catch the scoff-laws they were intended to catch.

        • by NIK282000 ( 737852 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @11:15PM (#42112945) Homepage Journal

          That sounds like logic! I wont have any logic when it comes to traffic control and regulation, its obscene!

        • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Concerned Onlooker ( 473481 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @11:24PM (#42113011) Homepage Journal

          "People are so worried about entering an intersection on red that they are causing rear-end accidents by sudden stopping..."

          That's a basic misunderstanding of safety. The people tailgating are the ones causing the accidents.

          • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:4, Informative)

            by Xest ( 935314 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @06:09AM (#42115005)

            Yes, it's sounds like the real problem here is that these areas of the US are suffering from a major tailgating problem above all else.

            All a red light camera does is catches people who run a red light. I was always taught that when approaching traffic lights, approach them as if they're going to change and that's exactly what they do. I've never had a problem stopping for a red light, not once and neither have I had anyone go into the back of me at traffic lights.

            From the comments on this thread it sounds like people in the US race up to lights and then slam their brakes on and everyone behind them tailgates as that's the only reason red light cameras would increase crash risk and cost. If that's the case then it sounds like there's a more fundamental issue here - that driving test standards in the US simply aren't high enough, and policing of bad driving isn't done well enough.

            Maybe the US does need more raised roundabouts, you have little choice but to slow down coming up to them, otherwise you crash right into them and have to explain to the cops how the fuck you managed to land your car in the middle of a roundabout. That way people who drive like idiots automatically get caught because with a bit of shrubbery on the roundabout too it makes it hard for them to get away from the scene, assuming their car is even in good enough state to do so still. They soon learn.

    • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @08:49PM (#42111669)

      is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased?

      I'm as anti-traffic-camera as they come, but I have to agree that this is prime territory for "lies, damned lies and statistics." How do we know that the increase in accidents wasn't due to some other factor and the cameras actually mitigated it? What happened in the bordering towns that didn't deploy cameras? Where there any other changes, like increased number of drivers on the road, etc?

      • I am also anti-traffic camera.
        I am against any kind of public camera as well.
        Even if a camera is cheaper/easier/whatever than an actual officer I am still for the person.

        P.S. I wonder what Maori or any people who think cameras steal their souls do in a city like London?

      • by Genda ( 560240 )

        Actually the result is simple physics. A person is close to the intersection, it goes yellow. Normally he'd just gun through the intersection and be fairly certain to make it through before it changed. But with the camera, he needs to be sure, so he slams on his breaks and the poor bugger behind him eats a bumper. Almost happened to me a couple times.

        These collisions can be expensive, but do result in reducing the t-bone accidents cause by one guy running the yellow and another jumping the green (which by t

        • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:09PM (#42112459)

          There are a lot of folks out there who think stopping at lights is optional.

          my friend had this strange habit; when we approached an intersection he would speed up and plow thru the red lights. I would ask him why and he would say 'relax, my brother does this all the time'. every time, the same thing: running past a red light and telling me not to worry. it all worked up until we came to a green light and, yes, he slams on his brakes. when I ask why he does *that*, his reply was 'look, my brother could be on that road!'

        • by Dahamma ( 304068 )

          The problem isn't "running the yellow", it's running the red. If it's still yellow it's not against the law. But yeah, I would bet the increase in "same direction collisions" they noticed (which basically was the same as the decrease in right angle collisions) was due precisely to the person behind not paying attention to someone slamming on the brakes...

          And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of accidents are just due to running a red, not "jumping the green". In my current commute I probabl

      • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:15PM (#42112515)

        Actually, it's damn lies in the slashdot summary, too. From TFA:

        "The DOT’s report noted that two intersections in Newark have been part of the camera program for two years, and that 24 others in six communities have been recording violations for at least one year. At the Newark sites, the report said, crashes in the latest year were down by 57 percent from the “pre-camera year,” with decreases of 86 percent for right-angle collisions and 42 percent for same-direction crashes.

        It said the number of citations issued at the Newark intersections fell by 85 percent over the two-year period. “

        So, crashes are up a total of 0.9% in a year, but the intersections that have had cameras for 2 years are *way* down, as are citations. So, it's also very possible (though still a hypothesis) that it takes a year or so for locals to get used to the concept of cameras, at which point they really start proving their worth.

        And even in the "new" cameras, an increase of only 0.9% means while there was a slight increase overall, it's practically a given that a collision from behind because someone couldn't stop fast enough in reaction to hard braking is going to be less dangerous that T-boning someone trying to beat the light...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Same issue with cities shortening yellow lights: you get increased T-bone collisions. But naturally cities are loath to lengthen the lights, because that reduces their income. At least in this case, safety aligns with what cities are going to do anyway.
    • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:21PM (#42111983)

      T-bone crashes aren't the type of crashes prevented by red-light cameras to any significant degree.

      A T-bone crash can only occur a few seconds into the light when the other lane of traffic has already begun to pass through the intersection. No driver WANTs to run a true red-light. Those times you see someone blow through a red-light that wasn't just someone squeaking through or missing a yellow? Those mid-red light runners completely missed that there was a redlight there at all! They didn't run the red-light because they wanted to, they ran the red-light because they weren't paying attention.

      So what effect does a red-light camera have on people who aren't paying enough attention to see that there is a red-light there in the first place? Well, as we can see by these numbers, not much of an effect at all.

      I'd be willing to be that there are fewer T-bone style crashes, because of an increased number of people stopped at the intersection, providing something else for the inattentive driver to see (or as the numbers suggest, rear-end)

    • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

      by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:27PM (#42112031)

      According to this article [], which references the same study, the cameras actually seem to make things much better.

      On the two intersections where the cameras have been in place the longest, t-bone accidents are down 86%!! And this isn't a revenue stream either, as the number of tickets issued, while spiking initially, drops off substantially as drivers get used to the cameras.

      Of course, the article submitter wanted a good ole fashioned anti-government hate-fest, and was happy to massage the numbers accordingly. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Here's how speed cameras used to work in the UK when I lived there:

        Road would have a big crash when there hadn't previously been one for years.
        Government would install a speed camera.
        Police collect fines from people driving past the camera who don't know it's there.
        Locals either take a different route away from the camera, or hit the brakes just before the camera, then accelerate back to their normal driving speed just after it.
        No more crashes. Wow, it worked! Except in most previous years there hadn't been

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by rolfwind ( 528248 )

      Hard to tell without access to the raw figures, but if the number of T-bone crashes has reduced, replaced by more rear-end incidents, is it possible that the injury rate, or at least number of serous injuries or fatalities, has decreased? Even if the net cost in car damage increases, that would still be a win in my books.

      Then why don't you look at the raw data instead of pure conjecture? And no, you are wrong. []

      Pay attention to tables

      • Re:Cost vs injury (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:48PM (#42112277) Homepage Journal

        For those folks who don't want to take the time to read the article, briefly put, the number of T-bone crashes decreased, but the average severity of those crashes increased, presumably because of people racing to try to get through the light so that they wouldn't get ticketed, failing to do so, and thus being at an unsafe speed at the time of collision.

        Thus, even the costs associated with T-bone crashes increased, and although this study did not break down the cost into medical and non-medical costs, one can reasonably assume that although the injury rate decreased because the total number of accidents decreased, the severity of injuries was probably greater, resulting in increased medical costs. That's just not a very good trade.

        Red light cameras do not merely encourage positive behavior. They equally encourage both positive behavior and far more reckless behavior, and on average, make things worse according to nearly every metric. Increasing yellow light times (by starting the yellow cycle a second earlier) make things better by nearly every metric. Why don't we do this? Greed. Write your legislators and demand a ban on red light cameras and a return to more reasonable yellow light times.

    • This is a common argument, but the numbers don't play this argument out. The number of fatalities and/or major injuries either stays the same or goes down without the cameras in the intersections.

      The ONLY argument from this T-bone point of view is that it cuts down on T-bone accidents which saves several thousand in total costs (medical, etc.) per accident, which is true and sounds great... Until you realize that the savings are reaped by the insurance companies. (It's just another reason that insurance com

  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <> on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @08:39PM (#42111529)

    There have been a number of scandals [], including in New Jersey, where installation of cameras was found to coincide with, or be followed shortly thereafter by, shortening the yellow-light duration, presumably to make more money from the resulting tickets.

    This article implies that the cameras themselves are at fault, but I wonder if the shortened yellow-light duration is actually the primary culprit.

    • by qeveren ( 318805 )

      Florida was doing this, too, IIRC. They've gotta knock that dishonest bullshit off.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Maybe people should actually obey the Orange light (which at least in my country is 'Stop if able to') rather than treating it like the best time to put the foot on the gas.. Maybe once people do that they won't be screeching to a halt causing rear ends because they didn't intend to stop until the noticed the camera watching. Poor driving behavior is probably the primary cause of the increase, the cameras just force the issue to surface.

  • But how has this affected the severity of collisions at red lights? If the rate of accidents goes up, but the rate of injuries goes down, I'd call that a win.

  • It is just a matter of time before someone is going to sue the traffic camera company. Especially when reports like this come out. So what kind of liability waivers these companies are getting from the cities? We already know the city officials are a bunch of chimps who get just peanuts while bulk of the collection goes to the traffic camera company. They are not known for their skill in negotiating with these companies. It is very much possible these companies have full immunity and all the liability will
  • by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @08:48PM (#42111661) Journal


    They also improve traffic flow and eliminate the need for 4-lanes in each direction to store stopped idling cars.

    • by ionix5891 ( 1228718 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:07PM (#42111865)

      Oh god no! In ireland all we have are fucking roundabouts, and are now being replaced by traffic junctions and traffic flows much better at rush hour

      • What was it about the roundabouts that caused traffic to not flow as well compared to the new traffic junctions? I've only heard success stories (aside from people learning how to use them.)
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:43PM (#42112211)

          Roundabouts are a bit like transistors. When a heavy flow starts in one direction, the side directions are blocked indefinitely until the flow lightens, but both directions of flow stop or slow down before entering because they are unsure as to the behavior of the car in the circle (is it going to exit? continue around?). Thus they act as bottlenecks.

        • Very busy street cross not busy street. If you arrive on the not busy street, there's never a gap in traffic for you to safely enter the round.

    • by alcourt ( 198386 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:26PM (#42112029)

      They are also correlated (according to the state transportation official I talked to who was pushing one in my area) with higher car on pedestrian injuries, and are more likely for new drivers to have loss of control accidents compared to more traditional intersections. These loss of control accidents often end up with the vehicle striking the very areas pedestrians are expected to stand, waiting for minutes for a break in traffic to safely cross.

    • ever see what happens when you have say a north-south and east-west intersection with a roundabout and traffic is slightly higher on the north-south axis? east-west grinds to a complete, unbroken halt, and traffic doesn't even have to be particularly heavy due to the fact that accelerating from 0 takes much longer than coasting through at a leisurely pace.

      a lot of roundabouts in my area have traffic lights installed on them to try to even out the flow in both axes. go figure.

    • Look kids! Big Ben! []

  • Don't drive like a dick. Problem solved.

    • Tell that to the guy behind me.

      Sure, I'm not at fault, but I'm still delayed, my car is broken, I'm potentially injured, I hope he has insurance too.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Either way, people are driving unsafely and violating the law. Stop for the red light, and morons who are tailgating rear-end them. Don't stop, and morons who run the red light sideswipe someone. The bottom line is that people want to drive however they feel like driving, and they are mad when they can't. People need to grow up and behave like civilized human beings.

  • by stabiesoft ( 733417 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:01PM (#42111799) Homepage

    I've often wondered why a timer is not displayed in the green/yellow. They are almost all LED now, so it would not be that hard to have the number of seconds left (full on is >=10) in inverse video. (number is dark on a green/yellow foreground). I know I will look to see if the walk sign has a counter going when the light is green to give me an indication if a yellow is likely or not. Knowing how many seconds are left on the yellow/green would give me nearly infinitely more info than just the 3 lights.

    • Re:Light Counter? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:37PM (#42112135)

      This. I've been wondering the same thing since they introduced LEDs.

      One change I'd suggest is to make it some sort of a progress indicator, rather than an actual countdown using numbers, that way it's more understandable to everyone and more discernible from a distance. For instance, light the LEDs in a filled circle at the center of the yellow light, that way people can always tell it's a yellow, but then have the unlit outer ring of LEDs get filled up in a sweeping motion that goes around clockwise, that way we can tell both how quickly it is going and how much time we have left, without having to making out the number or parse it. Doing that would make it easier to see at a distance, and it'd also mean that even if you missed the first half of the yellow, you could still tell how fast it's going, giving you an idea of whether it's a fast or a long yellow light for future reference.

      I'm not sure that I'd do it with greens, however, since I know plenty of intersections that stay green for several minutes at a time (making both of our ideas a poor choice), and I'm pretty sure I've even seen some at night that default to staying green until they detect a car at the cross street, meaning that a countdown or progress indicator would be irrelevant.

    • A brilliant idea for sure, but couldn't you get nearly the same results by implementing crosswalk timers and for less cost?

  • by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @09:03PM (#42111827) Journal

    There's a movement growing rapidly in Europe to reduce traffic signs and lights, and they are finding that removing signs and lights can cause a rather dramtic reduction in accidents. A number of cities have done away with traffic lights and signs entirely [] with surprisingly good results. (EG: average trip times drop dramatically, accident rate plummets, people report greater satisfaction, etc)

    I'm not saying that we should do away with all signs everywhere, but there is sufficient evidence available that the "common sense" utility of the traffic sign or a traffic light is clearly unproven.

    • by linatux ( 63153 )

      I've travelled through areas where the number of signs causes real information-overload.
      Many are highly reflective, reducing visibility at night. Most street-lights I've see could use much better covers/reflectors too, to reduce the amount of light going directly into the drivers eyes.

      More than all that though, if you pull most of the signs people will have to think about what they are doing. Scary when you're not used to it, but it makes sense that drivers who are thinking about what they are doing will do

    • While they're at it, they may as well have any car manufacturers who make cars for the US remove the turn signals in the cars as well. American drivers don't fucking use them anyway, apparently they're considered optional now. Except by maybe me and two or three other people in a 50 mile radius.
  • noting an overall decline in traffic citations and right-angle crashes

    So while the collision rate is up, the rate of the most dangerous collisions are down. I suspect there's a similar decline in deaths and injuries.

    the net costs of accidents had climbed by more than $1 million

    That's insurers' problem, and has no real effect on the state treasury. And having the cameras makes it easier to pin down blame and liability.

    • That's insurers' problem, and has no real effect on the state treasury. And having the cameras makes it easier to pin down blame and liability.

      No, that's the problem of everyone who pays insurance premiums. And liability in a rear-end collision at an intersection is pretty easy to determine even without cameras.

  • If this technology cost money, it would never, ever be installed. Unfortunately, it works "best" in places the signal intervals are incorrectly set. In NYC, it is very good at giving you "gridlock" tickets, if the car in front of you stops and you get caught in the "box". They are called scameras for a reason. And no, I don't run red lights, even at 3 am, thank you.
    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      If this technology cost money, it would never, ever be installed. Unfortunately, it works "best" in places the signal intervals are incorrectly set. In NYC, it is very good at giving you "gridlock" tickets, if the car in front of you stops and you get caught in the "box". They are called scameras for a reason. And no, I don't run red lights, even at 3 am, thank you.

      In Australia, red light cameras require you to set off two sets of induction loops, the first before the stop line, the second after the stop line.

      The only people who call them "scameras" are the people who cant drive properly.

      In NYC, it is very good at giving you "gridlock" tickets, if the car in front of you stops and you get caught in the "box".

      If you have to stop in the middle of an intersection, you're doing it wrong (not looking more than one car ahead of you).

      • In the US, they snap over one loop. We don't have this level of sophistication. By the way, AU is a camera hell only exceeded by England-you have speed cams, average speed cams, etc. I don't look to AU for anything automotive, save a few V8 Holden models.... It is also quite clear you've never driven in NYC traffic-you can get caught out while looking a few blocks ahead..only takes ONE Livery car drive or truck delivery who blocks the whole road without warning and does not care....
  • (It's about the money.)
  • So, right angle (aka t-bone crashes) are down, but rear- end collisions are up? That doesn't sound so bad.

    Right angle crashes can kill people. Rear-end collisions are fender benders.

  • Well-established (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Tuesday November 27, 2012 @10:10PM (#42112467) Homepage Journal

    This seems like pretty old news at this point. Red-light cameras are put in place by private companies promising revenue. It was never about safety, and study after study has shown increased hazards at intersections where they are installed.

    As usual in these cases, people need to remember to follow the money []. One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona. He has been all over the country teaching activists how to fight these things and make local legislators afraid of the people, instead of kow-towing to the rich lobbyists. He's been beating up on politicians (figuratively) for years, and winning.

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.