I have heard that too. In CA they were introducing cameras at intersections as a way to reduce the amount of accidents at major intersections. The running of red lights decreased, but the number of accidents (which is why they said they wanted to install them) either stayed the same or increased.Taler said:The Auto Club (AAA) has some stats regarding red light cameras. Where the cameras are installed, accidents INCREASE, usually rear-end accidents, as drivers slam on the brakes to avoic having their picture taken.
Saw this tidbit while I lived in CA, and know it was AAA, but don't know where it is published.
Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in rear-end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall.
This problem can be aggravated by jurisdictions that shorten the duration of yellow lights, apparently to generate more ticket revenue. Last year, CBS News reported on an especially egregious case in Maryland: A traffic-camera intersection had a 2.7-second yellow light, while nearby intersections had 4-second times. Shorter yellow lights are more dangerous--but shorter yellow lights plus traffic cameras generate revenue.
Camera intersections went up 2% and the nearby uncamerad intersections went down 12.7%.overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group.
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.
Hard to do from inside :jail:foshizzle said:I have my appeal date for my red-light violation on Jan 24. Coincidentally, that is the same day GCO is speaking at Emory... I'm in a bind here! I want to do both!
Probably is. So far only the cities of larger size have intalled cameras and I would guess that all of the cities that have them also have a prohibition on discharging inside city limits (other than self defense).GeorgiaGlocker said:Is it against the law to shoot them? Assuming that it isn't a publing gathering place, etc, etc, etc....... :?
And that's the problem with all this stuff, it takes out the human discretion.foshizzle said:My girlfriend just got one. Rainy as heck, brake lights on and hit the red light .17 seconds after it turned red. You can see how terrible the weather is in the camera pics, I wouldn't have stopped either. She's a cop and she told me she wouldn't have wrote that ticket either if she saw someone do it.. not at 1am when nobody is out there and mashing your brakes probably would have caused you to hydroplane anyways.