Red Light and Speed Cameras

Remove all ads!

To an extent, I say that its the drivers who cause the problem with irresponsible driving. If they were driving safely and legally in the first place, there wouldnt be a problem.

 

I would think that installing the cameras can change the way some drivers will tackle these intersections. Is that the fault of the camera installations? I doubt it. It is still the drivers who make the decision to run the light. They are still the responsible party. But since we can't change the fact that there are so many knucklehead drivers out there and we know that the cameras are affecting their bad decision making, maybe we should pull them, as I see that choice as the lesser evil, since it saves more lives. Which, IMO, should be the deciding factor.

 

Adding an extra second to the yellow -- or even delaying between red and green the other direction -- has a more profound affect on accidents. However, a FHWA report in 2005 gives indication that, when adjusted for increased traffic (which many reports are not), the red light cameras are actually saving money and lives. Even though the number of accidents and injuries in rear-end collisions increase greatly, the relative numbers of t-bone accidents is reduced (in accidents per driver going through the intersection). The side collisions are most expensive to motorists, insurance companies, and municipalities. The reduction in side collisions easily compensates for the increase in rear collisions.

Of course, any report can be interpreted in several ways, but the NWHA report is here.

 

Makes me wonder if Insurance Companies are involved in/influence the decison making over where to use them. I would think fatalities are money savings for them, while rear-end accidents are a drain, as you will have more injured people, compared to dead ones in the T-Bone accidents. Just a thought.

 

Blades has done a better job of articulating my point than I did. Sure, it's ultimately up to the driver, but you cannot take the role the camera plays completely out of the discussion. The role the camera plays is (in a seemingly paradoxical fahsion) simultaneously indirect, yet instrumental to causing the accident.

To use an anology, it's like people who say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. While I also think that is true, in that it is ultimately the person who is responsible for the action, the gun plays an indirect, yet instrumental role in the killing.

Maybe they are a cost savings for car insurance companies - but certainly not for life insurance companies...

 

Yeah, but what is the difference in the percentage of people with car insurance compared to the people with life insurance. Car insurance is a must by law in order to drive, which in the US is a must in itself. But l know alot of professional people who don't have life insurance or have recently dropped it in order to pay their monthly bills.

 

maybe more severe punishment for running red lights would change attitudes?

for example, instant ban

 

That's true - there's a lot more people (pretty much everyone who drives) who carries car insurance than carries life insurance. I have no idea what percentage of people carry life insurance. I wonder if there is some balancing effect in that while the number has to be a lot less, life insurance companies pay out a lot more when someone dies compared to someone who gets into a car accident. Most life insurance policies are a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars.

 

Actually, the Wife and I just got our life insurance policies in order. You can get them starting anywhere from $10,000 and up. We did both get a quarter mil policies, to make life easier for the other just in case something happens, but we thought about smaller. The Car insurance companies pay out alot when an accident occurs. The damage to the vehicle plus the hospital bills for all involved sure do add up.

 

That's also true - most auto insurance policies will pay up to $100K in medical bills, and up to $300K if property outside of cars was damaged (like say if a car crashes into a building). So an accident with injuries can be pricey for auto insurance companies.

I figured you also had life insurance, as there seems to be a strong correlation between answering "yes" for life insurance and being able to answer "yes" to the question: Do you have kids? I have a quarter mil on Mrs. Idiot, and half a mil on myself. I'm surprised they offer life insurance policies as low as $10,000. Most people get more than that from work...

 

Mostly, the lowend ones are for your kids, to pay for the funeral in case something happens to them that is tragic. The highend ones are for families with homes/big bills to help alleviate the debt piling up after losing one spouse.

 

We've got those around town...They only put them up if that corner is getting a new signal pole.

I don't think it's the camera's fault at all...the person who is at fault is the idiot who's following too closely to the car that stops short to obey the law.

 

I just found this article on Red light and speed cameras.

Apparently, if you get enough citizens to sign a petition you can have the use of red light and speed cameras placed on the ballot for a vote. According to the article, this has been done in 11 states, and as the article states, "Revolting Peasants 11, Machines 0".