Hat tip to one of our loyal readers (who can identify himself if he wants) for alerting us to this column by Seattle Times staff columnist Danny Westneat also complaining about automatically ticketing traffic cameras.
For the record, I am not against automated traffic enforcement devices per se. Nor would I be interested in organizing civil disobedience against them (as the same reader suggested I do). Automated devices can be cheaper than real people, and more objective.
I am against short yellow lights, where the evidence indicates that fewer drivers run red lights if given adequate time to stop. I am in favor of public officials who objectively look at available evidence regarding traffic devices and safety, and aren't tainted by a desire to use traffic enforcement to raise revenue. I have been in local government, and this is a pervasive tendency.
Posted by Carter Mackley at November 18, 2009 10:53 AM | Email ThisLet's just pursue this a little. In what way would a camera not "entertain the circumstances"?
Posted by: Carter Mackley on November 18, 2009 12:56 PMActually, I'm just eager to hear his definition of 'objective', since I believe he's mixed it up with 'subjective'.
Anyway, I'm no fan of automated traffic devices like this, but I won't lie, it's simply because I don't want to have to worry about lurking machines out to give me a traffic ticket over something that while technically a violation of traffic law, really doesn't matter (I'm referring more to speeding than red lights - I don't think I've ever run a red light).
At least the machine is objective and won't lie in court.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on November 18, 2009 01:15 PMTear them down. Put them out of commission. Leave the cameras to Big Brother and Winston. Not here.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 18, 2009 02:12 PMThere is no exception in the RCWs for extenuating circumstances; If they exist, mark the box "I admit I committed the infraction but wish to explain the circumstances, and do so in court".
The word you're looking for is subjectivity, not objectivity. It's subjective whether you had to commit a traffic infraction due to extenuating circumstances, but you objectively did so.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on November 18, 2009 02:50 PM- If you are unable to monitor pedestrians, cars, and traffic signals at the same time, you shouldn't be driving. Or you should be driving more slowly.
- If a tall bus or truck in front of you is preventing you from seeing a light, you're following too closely.
- If you're pulling a loaded horse trailer, you should drive slowly enough that you can stop for a red light without injuring the horses.
- If there's no one in the vicinity ... sorry, the price we pay for safety is that you don't get to decide when it's safe to break the law. If an intersection has light traffic most of the time, it generally has yield signs, flashing yellow lights, or no controls at all, which are enforced subjectively by human beings, as you seem to like. Busier and more dangerous intersections have stop signs or red/green lights. Of course even the busiest intersections are quiet at some times of day, but overall it's arguably safer to have consistent, objectively enforced rules for those intersections.
Posted by: Bruce on November 18, 2009 03:12 PMWhat I don't understand is why they can't figure out how to coordinate traffic lights better. Seems like that is always something everyone wants, and government rarely delivers.
Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2009 03:13 PMI know what the word subjective means as well as what objective means. To be subject is to have your emotions and personal desires come into play rather than just, dealing with the facts. Something, a Liberal like yourself have great difficulty in doing.
I am not a particular fan or enemy of red-light cameras. I don't think they're particularly effective at calming traffic, which I think should be the top priority on city streets.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 18, 2009 04:04 PMI would like to correct Carter's statement that I advocated "civil disobedience".
I merely asked Carter's advice about defending oneself in traffic court against a camera based red-light ticket.
I thought that since he was a former prosecuting attorney and of the opinion that short yellow lights will lead to unfair citations that he would offer a suggestion.
I know that an attorney doesn't give legal advice for free so I didn't really expect a reply.
But I also didn't expect to be accused of advocating civil disobedience for suggesting the courts for recourse.
Let me get this in.
During our highway closures by activists a few years back, I asked Mayor Nickels why more participants weren't arrested.
He replied "I support Civil Disobedience".
I replied, "I thought your job was to protect the citizens from civil disobedience."
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 18, 2009 04:24 PMTraffic cameras are used a LOT in China; most highways use them for speed control. What you find is that drivers speed along, then jam on their brakes for the speed cameras, pass through at a reasonable rate, then accelerate to even faster speeds to make up for having to slow down...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 18, 2009 05:02 PMThat said, sorry, but the simple way to not get ticket from a red light camera is to not run a red light. I have yet to hear a legal reason why this is ever justified. As Bruce pointed out, every excuse given so far involved the driver already driving in an unsafe manner. If there are extenuating circumstances, you can fight it in court, where someone can subjectively throw it out. Otherwise, there is never a good reason to run a red light.
Now, if yellow lights are being shortened, then that provides a traffic hazard. But that, while related, is a separate issue then wether there should be these cameras in the first place.
Posted by: Mike H on November 18, 2009 06:57 PMBut even if the cameras were maintained by the cities, there would need to be an oversight mechanism to assure the public that the light timing was not set too short, and that the signals were regularly checked for calibration, etc. just like we have now for scales, elevators, gas pumps, etc. Trust but verify. Because many of the cities have come to depend on the lights for revenue. It's unreal that light timing and revenue are linked.
If the cities were actually concerned with safety, they would not make any money off of the cameras and would instead use them solely as a means to reduce police staffing costs and focus on safety.
It won't be long before someone gets killed and it can be proven that short yellows were the reason.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 18, 2009 09:58 PMIt really isn't my manner of screed, it is the substance of the screed you don't understand. As far as, your ticket scenario, its all BS as far as I'm concerned. Your credibility has hit the Zero level sometime ago. Also, I strongly suspect that mike, John Jensen, demo kid, mikeBoyScout and perhaps, another, are all the same person. Who would have thought?
Posted by: Daniel on November 18, 2009 10:18 PM2) Sure, it is very believable that you gotten reduced tickets twice especially, when nobody every heard of that before coming from a red light camera without going to court.
That is unintelligible. Yes, if one tries really hard, you can make sense out of it. But that is simply horrible grammar. That is simply horrible English, period. That, and your William Shatner-esque way of randomly capitalizing things makes you sound like a fool. Whether or not you actually are one is irrelevant. If you don't care enough to present your arguments in a way that is intelligible, and attack everyone who points out that you wrote something that is extremely poorly written as a liberal shows you have a very shallow mind.
Posted by: Mike H on November 19, 2009 09:20 AMAccording to the safety studies that were presented in the earlier thread, while red-light cameras didn't reduce accidents they did shift the type of accident to less-injurious rear-end collisions (from T-Bone collisions).
Daniel, I know you Don't Care about the Facts, but us Thinking People do because Facts are Important. I'd expect you to care about Facts but... Naah, you're a Republican.
I agree with Mike H, capitalizing random words makes you look like someone with little grasp of the language. I'm sure you expect illegal aliens to learn English, why don't you do it first?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 10:01 AMAu Contraire. If the intent is to raise revenue for the city by using the cameras to enforce traffic laws, manipulating the timing on those lights is directly relevent to this discussion. As for the visual evidence that John desires, no one from the city is going to admit to such a practice because people would go ape scat knowing they were getting DEFRAUDED by their own city government. The evidence, John, is apparent to anyone that has gone through the same light several hundred times and occasionally is in the position to make the decision to stop or speed up and have noticed that the timing has shortened between the yellow to red change.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 11:15 AMIf you feel that democracy is failing, another trick is to use A STOPWATCH because -- as you might know -- time is public information.
Because most people here live in suburbs nor work in the city, I haven't heard a single commenter relate an experience where they feel a yellow light timing change has occurred when a red-light camera was installed. And even if a commenter does occur, a feeling is not a fact. I drive every single day past the intersection on Denny with a red light camera. Many times a week I go by Broadway & Pike/Pine and see similar intersections. I have seen no change in yellow light timing.
It is lazy for people hereto rely on gut-feeling resentment against government to make a statement of fact. Yellow-light timing at intersections with red-light cameras has not changed according to all available evidence. If anyone -- a right-wing blog, to a guy with a spare minute -- wanted to check, all it would take is a stopwatch. Don't you think the media would love a story about the city deceiving the public? Of course they would.
The timing for many downtown streets was redone in March of this year; many months after red-light cameras were installed. Someone everyone seems unable to use Google themselves, I'll finally reveal: Many yellow lights were shortened from 4 seconds to 3.5 seconds, while a red light in all directions was lengthened from 4.5 seconds to 5.5 seconds. This gives more times for the intersections to clear. Have more questions? Email the city or the P-I and get your answers. Or go time the yellow light at an intersection and see if it's the 4 seconds or the 3.5 seconds, or if it's different.
But until then, there's still no evidence being presented that timing at those 10 intersections with red-light cameras has been modified. None. And if half a second is the thing of mass government conspiracies, you have to wonder why they did it for the hundreds of lights downtown that aren't monitored. Oh, right. Because of conspiracy theories.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 12:21 PMDV: That was my "objective". ;-)
Yellow-light timing at intersections with red-light cameras has not changed according to all available evidence.
Exactly what evidence have you presented here that this practice isn't happening? Oh, that's right, you haven't. Would you at least agree with me that the duration between the yellow to red light change be uniform throughout the city? Can I at least get that much? Or will you make some excuse for government malfeasance?
Abscence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of abscence, John.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 12:42 PMNo, I don't agree that signal timing should be uniform. Streets that have higher speed limits should have longer yellow lights. Traffic planners should do what they can to move as many people as possible in the safest manner possible.
I don't think that intersections with red light cameras should be retimed to catch more people. But I also don't think that has happened, because the local media would have busted them by now. There is no evidence that yellow-light timing has changed.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 12:56 PMJudge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal And Void from the revenue,-not-safety dept Yet again, we find out about a story of a city putting in place red light cameras, and using them not to increase public safety (per the official claim of the city) but to drive revenue -- even by shortening the length of yellow lights to under the legal limit, thereby increasing both ticket revenue and accidents. Luckily, this time, in Santa Ana, California, a judge has declared the whole program illegal and declared all of those who received the tickets under the program as "not guilty" (found via Jeff Nolan). There were a few reasons for this. First, the city broke the law in not clearly announcing which traffic lights would have the cameras with 30 days' notice. In fact, the city actually moved the cameras around with no notice in an attempt to maximize revenue. The city claimed that it gave notice... by stating at a city council meeting that they'd be moving the cameras around, but without indicating where. Also, the city had promised that the lights would have a minimum yellow light of 4.4 seconds, but 17 of 18 lights checked had yellow lights that were less than 4.0 seconds, which makes a huge difference. The judge also specifically ruled that the people who got tickets this way were "not guilty" rather than just dismissing their cases, to avoid having their cases somehow reinstated.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1701585847.shtml
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 01:22 PMFrom the blog post that "techdirt" links to: Records show that seventeen of the city’s eighteen camera intersections had yellow times of 4.0 seconds or less.
Records. Not made up assertions on right-wing blogs: government records.
If there was a story here, local media would use a stop watch and discover it. Or Mark Griswald from Sound Politics would. But there isn't a story.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 01:55 PMI realize it's easier to just say I'm right, and you're wrong (and obviously a liberal since you're wrong) but you guys might actually change some opinions once in awhile :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on November 19, 2009 01:55 PMYou're vastly overestimating the veracity of the press in this town, John. That same veracity is why Seattle Times had to finally bury its dead- tree financial albatross, the P-I, as it hemorraghed readership, subscribers and monies. I don't need any more proof than that which I've seen.
Besides, your assertion is no more valid than mine is. You declared "Yellow-light timing at intersections with red-light cameras has not changed according to all available evidence". What evidence has been made accessible to the public, John? Any? In other words, you're relying on blind trust that the government will instinctively 'do the right thing' by its citizens. The link to the Santa Ana case is merely an example that this type of thinking is naive.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 02:08 PMThe burden of proof is not on me. I am not making a claim that anything has changed. There are plenty of local blogs that would love to scoop a signal timing story, including Sound Politics. The red-light cameras were put into effect years ago, why has not a single person documented any change? There is no evidence for the oft-repeated claim that yellow light timing has changed. Carter seemed to imply that yellow light timing has changed in the blog post above, but there is simply no evidence lending credence to the idea. No evidence. None. No where.
So if you have a problem with what I've written above, okay, thank you. I'll be more precise in the future. Now will you admit that about three dozen other people have made assertions prior to my involvement in this thread without any evidence at all?
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 02:18 PMIf you think revenue isn't part of this "optimization" program, you're crazy. I currently have a query in with them asking if the duration between the yellow to red light change is uniform within those areas with the same or nearly similar speed limit. I'll let you know what they reply (if they reply).
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 03:13 PMAnyway, that's my right-wing conspiracy theory.
Posted by: RobertB on November 19, 2009 03:46 PMIt read as follows:
Communications received are logged into our correspondence system and assigned to the appropriate staff for investigation, and a response prepared and sent out via the correspondence system. You can expect a response in about two weeks time. Thank you for writing.Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 03:47 PM
I interact with Seattle's Department of Transportation with regularity, and this would be an astounding feat for the agency to pull off. Every email/memo they write is open to public disclosure too, so it's questionable that they're do it.
They recently did prioritization to favor N-S traffic. Or maybe it was W-E traffic.
Can you link me to a story about the parking meter rigging? I've never heard of that.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 05:22 PMSo if I don't make up things in my head, I'm crazy? Really?
It sort of seems like inventing things that aren't said is crazier.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 19, 2009 05:25 PMYou made up Obama's presidential qualifications out of whole cloth, so you're one to speak about making things up in your head. How's that working out for our country anyway? Not so good...
Anyway, John. You have your head so buried in the sand with respect to this issue that you clearly eschew the reality for your simple, blind trust in government, the bigger, the clumbsier, the least accountable and furthest from the wrath of the people they "serve" and lastly, the most incompetent, the better you appear to like it. I think you have something similar to stockholm syndrome or beaten wife syndrome or something to that affect as you march on your quixotic quest to defend the honor of the same government that keeps their foot on your neck.
I'll just link you to a number of independent studies done on the effectiveness of traffic cameras and how they're increasing accidents in the name of "public safety", while filling the coffers of the jurisdictions installing them.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 06:13 PMANSWER THE QUESTION:
Have you ever served?
Keep running away and I will keep asking.
Posted by: pbj on November 19, 2009 07:26 PMFor years the "rule" among younger drivers has been, "If the car in front of you goes, you go too!"
The camera is the only way to stop that since we have more stoplights than police staff. The majority of the money though comes from illegal right turns.
Posted by: Gary in Olympia on November 20, 2009 03:57 AMEvaluate the current safety level of the intersection. Take into account the number of accidents, fatalities, injuries and the amount of property damage.
Then, after the red-light have been in place for a while do the same evaluation. If safety has not improved, then take out the cameras.
Unfortunately, most municipalities just assume that the intersections are safer and don't really care as long as the revenue continues to come in. If they really were interested in safety, they'd be doing studies that showed the safety improvements and publicly touting the results.
Posted by: Ken on November 20, 2009 05:36 AMNicely articulated. My view exactly.
Posted by: Carter Mackley on November 20, 2009 07:04 AMI agree with you, but you imply that studies aren't being done. You mean like this study? Or this one?
Gary, When longer yellow began coincides with the beginning of people running the lights.
Do you have any evidence of that? The half-second retiming happened in March of this year. People ran reds before then. Do you have any evidence that this retiming applied to the intersection where red light cameras are installed? I've never seen any.
I would say that retiming downtown makes sense probably because traffic is so calm in downtown anyway. No one reaches 35 mph downtown outside of late nights.
It got even worse when they added the "all red" second.
How does more "all red" time affect safety or red-light running in any negative way? It gives folks more time to clear the intersection. In Downtown, that means more time for cars to make a left turn after pedestrians are out of the roadway. I would think nearly everyone would be up for more all-red time.
Rick D, cherry-picking studies and quotes isn't convincing to me. The VA DOT study said while there were more injuries, they were less severe. Why didn't the page quote that? Because it has an agenda.
There is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. If, in a few more years, we see no safety benefits from the cameras then we should start removing them. In Seattle, though, some neighborhoods want them.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 20, 2009 10:25 AMYou can't fight facts by declaring 'well , you're just cherry-picking the studies'. Feel free to link to some studies conducted that arrived at a different conclusion and post them here. I'd like to see them. Short of that, you've provided butkus to support your argument that traffic cameras enhance public safety.
...I'm Sorry Dick Butkus...
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2009 11:26 AMFor example, the site you link to describes a 2005 VA DOT study as completely agreeing with them, but leave out this section:
The data from four jurisdictions—Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church, and
Vienna—suggested that photo-red enforcement reduced the number of crashes directly
attributable to red light running, i.e., crashes where one or more drivers were charged with
failure to yield to a stop-go light. Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to
a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in
injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes. Therefore,
cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if, as might be expected, the severity of the
eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes. Such
a hypothesis is plausible based on general assumptions about the severity of rear-end crashes and
angle crashes, but a more detailed analysis of injury crashes is needed before this hypothesis can
be proved or disproved.
For you to pretend there is some consensus that has already decided red-light cameras cause mass injury is simply not true and unsupported by evidence. If you want to keep on repeating that when the very data you're relying on disagrees, I'm afraid we're going nowhere.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 20, 2009 02:33 PMYou still haven't admitted that there is zero evidence that the city change yellow light timing for red-light cameras.
However, I do think speed vans and speed enforcement is entirely different from red-light cameras. (See the previous thread on this topic.)
Posted by: John Jensen on November 20, 2009 03:15 PMActually, that same report you're using says the following:
"The change in the frequency of injury accidents varied widely among jurisdictions -- down 5 percent in one but up between 6 and 89 percent in all others. Even within a jurisdiction some intersections fared better than others. In Fairfax County, for example, the total number of crashes increased at every intersection with a camera, except for one -- Route 50 and Fair Ridge.
You've fixated on the one report you think you can use, but in the end, you're just chasing your tail. These reports are pretty definitively saying that the cameras are not enhancing public safety, which was the reason they were implemented. Sure, every now and again an intersection may show favorable results, but as a collective, which is what we have here, the cameras have been a net negative in terms of public safety. But by all means, keep pointing to the occasional anomole as proof that the evidence as an aggregate isn't valid.
Seems silly, but that's what you insist on doing here.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2009 03:44 PMANSWER THE QUESTION:
Have you ever served?
Keep running away and I will keep asking.
Posted by: pbj on November 20, 2009 05:09 PMLike the source you cite, you completely ignored the severity of the injuries. This follows a theme of ignoring data that doesn't support your perceived notion. Not only are you exercising confirmation bias, but after having it pointed out to you, you continue to selectively cite data to paint a misleading consensus of the issue.
You are unskeptical of a biased source and are not citing primary sources and this conversion is going nowhere. The data does not agree with what you're saying. Again, my same primary source citation applies in the exact same way:
The data from four jurisdictions—Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church, and
Vienna—suggested that photo-red enforcement reduced the number of crashes directly
attributable to red light running, i.e., crashes where one or more drivers were charged with
failure to yield to a stop-go light. Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to
a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in
injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes. Therefore,
cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if, as might be expected, the severity of the
eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes. Such
a hypothesis is plausible based on general assumptions about the severity of rear-end crashes and
angle crashes, but a more detailed analysis of injury crashes is needed before this hypothesis can
be proved or disproved.
To wit: the phrase "injury accident" does not state the magnitude of that injury. What do you think decreasing the average magnitude of injury is? A safety improvement.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 20, 2009 05:22 PMThanks John Jensen for the well-researched posts, and thanks Carter Mackley for the interesting blog-post, and thanks SP for the site.
There's value in strictly enforcing a law if it's a good law. The law against running a red is in that category.
As a conservative I'm for getting rid of bad laws, such as most victimless crime laws, but I'm for no-nonsense enforcement of the laws that are right and just.
If studies showed these cameras were a wash in terms of safety at any given intersection, that wouldn't preclude the possibility that they are still having a beneficial effect by simply letting drivers know that now and then some traffic laws are enforced.
And someone should get to work on a tailgater cam system.
Best
new left conservative
Posted by: new left conservative on November 20, 2009 08:29 PMBreaking down that study paragraph @ 73, it said:
Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to
a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes. Therefore, cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if...the severity of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes. Such a hypothesis is plausible based on general assumptions about the severity of rear-end crashes and angle crashes, but a more detailed analysis of injury crashes is needed before this hypothesis can be proved or disproved.
All of the evidence in those 8-9 national and international studies show the presence of the traffic camera is directly accountable for an increase in injury accidents. Nothing you've presented here on this thread has refuted these studies. The increase in injury accidents as a result of implementing these traffice cameras are actual statistics arrived at by comprehensive studies of them and not "general assumptions", John. Also, it doesn't matter if the site is biased or not (which given the little original content it has, can't be determined one way or the other) what it does is simply link you to the most comprehensive studies conducted.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 20, 2009 11:00 PMEven more damning from the study that John's hanging his hat on:
the severity of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes. Such a hypothesis is plausible based on general assumptions about the severity of rear-end crashes and angle crashes, but a more detailed analysis of injury crashes is needed before this hypothesis can be proved or disproved.
In other words, the study which John uses to bolster his opinion (that safety is increased with red light cameras) even says that you CANNOT draw that conclusion because the analysis has not been done.
But the study is 100% conclusive that red light cameras increase the total number of accidents, meaning at least more property is damaged, and more people are hurt. The severity of injuries - which appears to be John's point - is not analyzed and thus should not be assumed.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2009 10:53 AMWe're seeing the same thing play out in the climate change world, too...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2009 12:39 PMANSWER THE QUESTION:
Have you ever served in your nation's military?
Keep running away and I will keep asking.
Posted by: pbj on November 21, 2009 06:00 PMBut he doesn't have the guts or integrity to answer, so...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2009 09:31 PMTraffic cams are about enforcing a law. Since when is that not conservative?
Youall say it raises too much revenue for government, I say it will ultimately fail in that regard because as everyone gets used to more and more of them, the cams will succeed in their other objective: getting people to stop for red lights.
At least to the point that the marginal utility of adding new ones for government decreases.
They're not going to raise any money from me.
Best n l c
Posted by: new left conservative on November 21, 2009 09:36 PMYou're a dolt. Traffic cams should not be used because they cause more accidents. Period.
Given the proven increase in accidents from traffic cams, why would Government deploy them since they do not increase safety? Hmmm... Could be the revenue they generate? You know the revenue that Nick Licata wants to collect?
I respect Licata for being honest; he didn't try to pitch it as a safety or law issue, but what it really is - revenue generation. That blinded ideologists like you refuse to acknowledge the plain-spoken truth says volumes about the integrity of your posts.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 21, 2009 09:58 PMNLC: Real conservatives, unlike yourself, do have a position on these traffic cameras. We don't like them because A) they invade your privacy B) increase the amount of injurious accidents and C) increase revenue for over-bloated, incompetent Government that doesn't have the common sense to reign in spending. Government doesn't give a damn about public safety as long as it generates additional monies for them to spend unwisely.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 22, 2009 10:31 AMOf course it should not be assumed, you're right.
Rick D is assuming that the research is over. Take down the cameras, he argues. He's arguing based on his emotions and not based on the facts.
Rick D, All of the evidence in those 8-9 national and international studies show the presence of the traffic camera is directly accountable for an increase in injury accidents.
Very clearly, the 2007 VA DOT report says your position is unsupported. You have said repeatedly these cameras reduce safety. Your position is not supported by the 2007 VA DOT study you cited repeatedly.
You keep on saying these studies support you. The one I've looked at doesn't. I don't have time to read 8 reports cherry-picked by an obviously biased website.
I certainly agree that if red-light cameras lead to a reduction in safety, then obviously it would be inappropriate to keep them around for revenue reasons. However, your conclusions regarding a reduction in safety has never been specifically backed up by any research.
This conversation is going nowhere. You have changed your measure from "safety" to "injurious accidents," when you fully know that they are different measures. But sure, Rick, if you keep on changing your arguments and not citing anything specifically then eventually you'll get the last word.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 22, 2009 09:37 PMI'm not assuming anything. I gave you 8 or 9 independent studies that come to the conclusion that the presence of the cameras overwhelmingly increases the amount of accidents at those intersections. Those are facts, not assumptions, which is what you're attempting to use as your argument. You have emotions, I have comprehensive studies with facts.
You have said repeatedly these cameras reduce safety. Your position is not supported by the 2007 VA DOT study you cited repeatedly.
I say it because the studies arrived at this conclusion. I have not cited the VA DOT study repeatedly, that would be you doing that, get a clue.
This conversation is going nowhere.
Agreed. It helps when the person you're having a conversation with has at least a modicum of evidence to help support their argument. You have provided exactly nil on this thread other than airing your assumptions.
if you keep on changing your arguments and not citing anything specifically then eventually you'll get the last word.
I let the studies make my argument for me, John. Conversely, you've supplied nothing to help support your emotional argument that the cameras increase public safety rather than the factual argument that they overwhelmingly decrease public safety where used. I don't really care about getting the last word, I only care that the truth is out there for people to decide for themselves.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 23, 2009 06:06 AMSo your contention is that increasing the number of accidents is an increase in safety.
Good luck with that...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 23, 2009 07:36 AMYou still count that toward the count of studies that supports your position? And the 2007 VA DOT study that I have shown does not support your position? So, BOTH of the two studies I have looked at on that site do not support your position.
I'm not going to do your research for you. You're relying a biased site and arguing based on your emotional feelings rather than actual data.
Dan: Rear-end accidents are less injurious than t-bone accidents, yes. Kind of like how stealing $5 is different than stealing $50. Yep, the real world has degrees of severity and complexity.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 23, 2009 09:47 PMFurther analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes.
What about those words in bold is so hard to understand, John? A net increase in injury accidents is not improving public safety no matter how you slice it. Most of the T-bone crashes you speak of are from cars that were at a stand still waiting at a red light and not going 35-40 MPH on impact so any collissions at that intersection due to red light running is likely not as severe as you would like to have us believe. You say "I'm not going to do your research for you", yet you have supplied nothing in the way of providing any links to reports or studies that support your argument that the cameras increase public safety. You call it a biased website even though it only has a couple of sentences of original content. It merely provides the international and national studies conducted on the subject of red light cameras, so you're all wet on that claim of bias.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 24, 2009 05:48 AMIf cameras were put up in a high crime/violence area in the hopes of dettering crime/violence in that area- especially shootings. If shootings had a net decrease as a result, but stabbings, beatings and overall crime had a net increase in that area, then you'd conclude that there was a net increase in public safety because shootings were down. That is, in effect, what you are arguing here and it doesn't make sense to most.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 24, 2009 06:09 AMGood luck with that...
Oh, and Rick - excellent post in 90! I'll copy that too, maybe John will see that his contention is not supported AT ALL by the studies, but I'm sure he'll keep going with it anyway since once he's committed he can never change his mind:
Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes.
Hopefully that highlighting makes the point. Jensen wants more accidents as a way to increase safety!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 10:24 AMThat is not true.
"Injury accidents" does not say what the severity of the injury is.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 24, 2009 11:35 AMHere is the quote that you have repeated many times.
Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to
a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in
injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes.
The VERY NEXT SENTENCE READS:
Therefore,
cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if, as might be expected, the severity of the
eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes.
Look, you are misrepresenting the study because you are arguing based on your emotions rather than the facts.
Um, Dan and I are not the ones hanging our hat on "if's" and "general assumptions", John. That is entirely your argument. We have given you the data as spelled out by the studies which have arrived at the conclusion that red light cameras have not, as a net result, enhanced public safety. Meanwhile, your entire argument hinges on "possible decrease in angle crashes", which draws no conclusion whatsoever.
Your entire argument here is a like a house built on sand: a weak foundation, structurally unstable and ever shifting.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 24, 2009 01:37 PMYou've presented no evidence that red-light cameras reduce safety. The sentence you hinge on is part of a broader conclusion that reminds us more study is needed.
You think no more study is needed. You think the issue is closed. That's because you're arguing based on your emotions rather than what the actual study you're citing says.
I had not argued that red light cameras increase safety. My point is that you have no evidence to support your claim that red-light cameras decrease safety. You seem to feel that simply by pointing out your lack of evidence I am arguing that red-light cameras are great. Nope, the only thing I think is great is the truth. You are distorting the truth to say that red-light cameras decrease safety. The VA DOT study you rely on for that conclusion specifically says your conclusion is invalid.
The rest of the studies from that biased website have received no attention from either of us and are irrelevant. But if you choose to continue bringing them up, the Winnipeg study, for example, directly says safety is increased in their case.
There is no evidence that red-light cameras decrease safety. There is very little circumstantial evidence they increase safety, either. I would say that further research is merited before continuing to build red-light cameras. You would say, without any evidence, that red-light cameras are dangerous and no further research is needed. I'm on the side of investigation and truth, you're on the side of your emotions.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 24, 2009 01:45 PMDo you even read what you type, John? I'm taking the statistics from your own paragraph showing there was a net increase of injury crashes in the VA DOT study- how you can correlate that into an 'increased public safety' determinatin is baffling. You also have dismissed all of the other studies, why? Well , because they haven't been addressed on this thread and the site with 2-3 sentences of original content that presented the studies in their entirety is 'biased' according to you.
There is no evidence that red-light cameras decrease safety.
Sure. They just increased the number of injury crashes, so obviously, I wouldn't consider that a decrease in safety for motorists. Please.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 24, 2009 02:01 PMTherefore, cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if
That's a pretty big IF there, John! Again, you're preaching about possibilities and things that need study (according to the study) and discounting the hard, PROVEN facts of the study.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 03:03 PMRick D, the study you cite says that: Cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if, as might be expected, the severity of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes.
Do you have any evidence that this expectation is inaccurate? Do you have any evidence that your own study's conclusion is wrong? No, you don't. You have absolutely no evidence that safety is reduced. The study says quite clearly that the expectation is that cameras are leading to "net improvement in safety." Further research should be done to verify this expectation.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 24, 2009 03:18 PMYes. Because if's don't count as facts. Ifs are ifs, John. Nothing more. Meanwhile, the facts ARE that during the time the RLC's were installed, there WAS an a:
A) "definite increase in rear-end crashes,"
B) "a possible decrease in angle crashes,
C) "an increase in total injury crashes."
Do you have any evidence that your own study's conclusion is wrong?
And once again, you are merely regurgitating your own gibberish at this point. Ignoring what the study found and concentrating on "ifs" and "general assumptions". You've failed to make a case for RLC's. The conclusion of the study was that better engineering, and not RLC's would better increase public safety at these intersections. Your argument is that camera's increased public safety, while the facts point us to exactly the opposite. You're living in Jensenworld where facts as they are aren't important, only how you'd like them to be.
You have absolutely no evidence that safety is reduced.
Increased rear-end crashes + increased injury crashes = lessened public safety.
Not that hard of math to calculate, John.
The study says quite clearly that the expectation is that cameras are leading to "net improvement in safety."
False. In your attempt to skew what the study said, you left one word off the end of that incomplete and out of context sentence above, John. IF. And since we can't count if as an absolute, but can establish that rear-end and injury crashes increased, the net result of these studies is that the RLC's decreased public safety.
Instead of trying to feed us your emotional argument, maybe try googling other studies that would back up your theory. The fact that you can't provide any is telling. There aren't any.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 24, 2009 05:15 PMYes, it is the study's IF, and they say you cannot take it because it hasn't been studied! I don't know why you're trying to use that study to bolster your position when the study says you cannot do that.
Really John, give it up. Your position has zero support, and the position Rick is advancing is heavily supported by multiple studies (all of which admit your position MAY be possible, but has not been studied so it cannot be a firm conclusion).
You like grasping at straws? Because that's what you are doing...
So you keep pushing your mantra that more accidents and increased injury rates are better for safety, John...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 24, 2009 09:24 PM