Many years ago, on my way home from my commute from college, I was rear-ended. Back then, and even today, those who complain about neck injuries weren't necessarily believed, and were often thought to be malingerers. So I didn't seek medical attention. And the lingering "pain in the neck" is more than proverbial. Along with a congenital malocclusion of the jaw, that accident may well have been a contributor to my life time of TMJ and related neck pain.
Fast forward nearly thirty years. Our daughter had moved to a big city in the early nineties. And in her first two years there, she was rear-ended, not once but three times, as she was stopped for a traffic signal. One of those instances caused considerable damage to her car. My daughter and I were lucky. Rear end collisions are often much worse.
For those fearing red-light runners, the knee-jerk reaction is to support photo-red and forget about increased rear-end collisions. But, though it matters greatly to me that people do stop at red lights, I am even more fearful of the proposed photo-red approach to enforcement. It's an example of unintended consequences. And I must admit we progressives are sometimes guilty of building in unintended consequences with well-intended, but foolish, "reform."
There is compelling evidence to explain my concern. In a letter to the editor (Roanoke Times, "Proceed with caution on photo-red law") this morning, a letter writer, Roy L. Fauber, summarized the findings of the Virginia Secretary of Transportation's 2005 study of the pros and cons of Photo-red legislation.
"Further analysis indicated the cameras are contributing to a definite increase in rear-end crashed, a possible decrease in angle crashes, and net decrease in injuries crashes attributable to red-light running, and an increase in total injury crashes."
In other words there are actually more crashes causing injury with the cameras than without them, because they bring with them more rear-end collisions.
A better solution would be to allow four seconds of yellow before red. This would both reduce the number of those not making it through the light because of tightly-timed yellows, and the total number of injury crashes. Indeed, in the Dept. of Transportation study cited by Fauber, 85% of red-light running occurs in the first two seconds or less. When the timing of yellow was lengthened to 4 seconds, violations almost disappeared. That's a cheaper and safer way to achieve what we all want-- safer roads.
Our representatives should consider the safety of citizens before it further lines the pockets of companies such as Lockheed Martin, which thanks to the Bush administration's extravagance, is rich enough.
Lots of times I just can't stop on a dime when the light turns yellow. That's especially true in bad weather. In fact, once while I was living in Jacksonville, Florida, where the roads are notorious for becoming slick in bad thunderstorms, I attempted to come to a sudden stop at a yellow light and my car spun out in a 180 degree turn.
I was very lucky there were no other cars around or I'd have totaled my car and possibly hurt somebody else. After that, I vowed never to slam on breaks unnecessarily. So unless I see a real and compelling reason for it, I won't even try to stop if the light has just turned yellow when I'm too close to the intersection.
Better timing and the 4 minute delay make much more sense in terms of safety. And that should take precedence over "gotcha" traffic control
Eventually, people adapt to changes -- if there are more red-light cameras, drivers will learn to stop on red. Conversely, if yellow lights are longer, people will adapt and probably try harder to go through the yellow, if they think they can beat it.
Bottom line: I blame the scofflaws, not the system.
All the arguments about the local governments (and sometimes contractors) getting rich off of a corrupt system are garbage. Yes, there should be an oversight agency to make sure that the local govts are playing fair with the rlc systems - there are occasional incidents of corrupt government action that need to be kept in check. But the overwhelming majority of the funds generated by rlcs are due to people violating the law. Period. It's silly to complain that governments are making money when it's the drivers who are violating a well known traffic law which results in a fine, and therefore revenue, for the govt. If you don't want to pay, don't run a red light.
The "privacy" issues are even further off the deep end of the BS meter. The red light cameras are on public roads. There is nothing private about anyone driving down the street. If the government was specifically targeting individuals with the cameras it would be a different story. But these are relatively dumb cameras and will take anyone's picture who drives through the red light. These are public roads and a public action (which is both illegal and dangerous) - no privacy issue here.
But I digress...
Kathy, that was a good argument and I've seen similar studies that indicate rear impact collisions increase while side impact decrease. The last study I saw was not statistically conclusive, but did appear to back up your argument but also added that the severity of injuries was decreased in the rear impact collisions. The result being more collisions, high economic impact, but less violent injuries. That's not to say a rear impact can't be dangerous, just that the average rear impact has a lower severity of injury than a side impact collision.
But, as Kindler points out, the reality is that it comes down to driver training and expectation. For the record, I've got a rlc ticket or two when the cameras were around and after I paid my fine I was more careful about pushing through yellow lights. Maybe not everyone learns from such fines or maybe they weren't caught yet. But that isn't an argument to do away with the cameras. If people aren't "getting it", then increase the fines for running a red light and for rear end collisions. And put a camera at every light so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that if they run the light they'll get caught.
I like the longer yellow idea in theory, but I suspect Kindler nailed that one too. As people realize the yellow is lasting longer they'll be even less inclined to stop for it.
A similar idea, which I'd be much more inclined to support as an alternative to rlcs, would be to increase the time between when one light turns red and the other turns green. That would mean a few seconds where all lights are red - but it would give the last second red light runners plenty of time to clear the intersection. Of course, in heavily congested areas this would only make gridlock worse. As you said (roughly), solve one problem and create another.
So let's put the blame back where it belongs - on bad drivers who should know better than to run red lights and who should be paying better attention to what's happening in front of them.
Good work Virginia G.A.
RANT DONE
Not sure if these are a good idea or not...there are situations where it is not safe to pull up at a yellow light (bad weather etc)...
Frankly I'm more concerned with excess speed
Personally, I'm against them. I'd rather there be more focus on drunk drivers, stricter testing of young drivers and strict retesting of older drivers. (I'm 57, and I'm ready to be subjected to stringent retesting. It should begin at about 60, 65 at the latest.) (And hey you whippersnappers, get off my lawn.)
As to drunk drivers, driving on a Saturday night on, say, I395 out of DC can be scary. I've never seen a sobriety check point there, or at least off the exits.
I've also almost been smashed three times by idiots with cell phones not paying attention.
I think there are better ways to spend our safety money.
Not only should there be longer yellows, but the time should be uniform. I'm tired of seeing vastly different yellow times so you're never quite sure how long you have. I believe I've also read that they found it's good to have a short pause between when one light turns red and the other turns green, so that one last jerk trying to run through doesn't hit the moron that peels out as soon as the light changes.