I've come across a blog called Makarios that makes a half assed attempt to argue against the many studies which show that red-light cameras cause accidents.
I found it through a Google search and it kind of pissed me off because this idiot fails to even link to the post he is trying to argue (let alone even my blog itself!) so I'm not even sure what he's directly responding to, but he makes use of the all popular "I don't have a counter argument, I just don't like what you have to say, so I'll insult you" tactic. As it so happens, this is the same guy who couldn't seem to wrap his head around the fact that these cameras cause accidents when we had a short back and forth at another post in the comment section. Even there I cited studies, but he just ignored them! Having been proven wrong here, I guess he decided to whine at his own blog and hope I never saw it. He thought wrong.
The name of his post is titled "Funny? Shameful? OR Stupid?" where he apparently is bitching about a variety of things like how atheists argue that social Darwinism isn't evolution, about another atheist who is complaining about speed traps, etc. The short section where he mentions me is his first complaint and he says:
1) Arizona Atheist: ‘Red light cameras are a bad idea for two reasons -
One, the police are using them for surveillance.
Two, when people slam on their brakes so as not to be caught running a red light, others from behind are crashing into them.’
I'm not kidding. That's what he wrote.
A.A. doesn’t blame the accidents on the second driver tailgating with the intention of running the red light along with the guy in front of him (hence the need for the cameras in the first place).
A.A. lays the blame for accidents on the cameras themselves.
He makes it appear that this is nothing more than my opinion (and because he failed to link to my blog in any way no one can check why I said this), of course, if he had actually looked at some of the studies I cited, such as this one, maybe he wouldn't be looking like such a fool right about now...
The article says in part:
"The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.
“Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”
Now, someone may argue that these rear-end collisions are more preferable than the side-impact crashes these cameras are supposed to stop, but a 2005 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA-HRT-05-048) study shows the right-angle crashes were only decreased by 40%, while an increase in overall crashes (due to rear-end collisions) occurred. These more dangerous right-angle crashes were decreased by less than half! Another study showed that only a 24.6% drop in right angle crashes occurred! A 2005 Washington Post article also stated,
"Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or collisions. 'The data are very clear,' said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. 'They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras.'"
This, while crashes overall increased! If this guy had done his research he would have (possibly) seen that these cameras do not make the roads safer and are purely for revenue! How do I know this? Because, many states, after the installation of the red-light cameras, shortened the length of the yellow light times, thus ensuring people would run the red lights! The more people who run red lights, the more tickets they can issue, and the more money they get. And people actually think these cameras are there to increase safety? Bullshit!
If this idiot had done some actual research instead of flapping his mouth off he would have seen that increasing yellow light times dramatically cuts right-light running:
Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association said, "Records from Fairfax County show that increasing the time of yellow lights significantly decreases the number of red light violations. The Virginia Department of Transportation increased the yellow time on the traffic lights at US50 and Fair Ridge Drive by 1.50 seconds on March 26, 2001. This increase in yellow time from 4.00 seconds to 5.50 seconds resulted in a 94 percent drop in citations, less than one per day, at this red light camera enforced location."
Red-light running has a pretty easy fix: simply give more time for people to get through the yellow light!
Even though I've demolished this guy's pathetic whining he mistakes for an argument, this guy has another complaint, however. He complains because I complain about the privacy issues with these cameras that record people 24/7. Well, excuse me! But I do not appreciate being recorded wherever I go! With all of these cameras going up, our right to privacy is being entirely eroded! The only place there aren't any cameras is inside our homes, and who knows how much longer until that becomes a reality?! Think it won't happen?! What if the government makes use of that useful weapon called fear (just as they did with their bullshit war in Iraq!) to get us behind a campaign to stop people from making drugs so the government forces all home builders to install cameras throughout the houses they build, hidden so as to prevent tampering. Or they do the same thing, but argue they want to more easily find "illegal alians" or terrorists hiding out! It's happened before with the Patriot Act, and many of our other rights (see James Bovard's Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty). The government is like the old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."
He also neglects to mention an example I gave of cameras being put in place for safety at a boarder crossing being used by unethical people to spy on innocent people! The same can, and likely is, happening with red-light cameras! I even cited a statement by the ACLU about cameras!
"There are also important privacy issues raised by the cameras. The ACLU is most concerned about what we call 'mission creep' -- that the data collected by these cameras will be used for purposes other than tracking reckless drivers. Government and private-industry surveillance techniques created for one purpose are rarely restricted to that purpose, and every expansion of a data bank and every new use for the data opens the door to more and more privacy abuses.
Similar systems have already been used to invade privacy. For example, cameras installed at the Texas-Oklahoma border have been used to capture the license plate numbers of thousands of law abiding persons, who were subjected to inquiries about why they were crossing the border."
I think this idiot (and anyone else who thinks like him!) should heed these words because they might be written on his tombstone some day:
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
- Benjamin Franklin (or not?)
Dear AA- If you don't think we need red lights, why not come out and say so? If you think laws against running them are wrong, why not come out for making them optional?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if the law is OK, but should not be enforced, then I'd have to part company. Or is it that you should be allowed to run red lights, but not other people? It always cracks me up when people get upset about more effective enforcement of rules they themselves agree to.
Ditto for speeding- I am all for 100% enforcement of speeding rules by technical or other means. Then we can have a discussion about what speed limits really should be.
The point of red light cameras is to increase traffic rule compliance across the board and also to make quite legitimate money for municipalities. It is not to reduce accidents directly at the affected intersection, since the runner doesn't hear about it till long afterwards. The effect is going to be very long-term, on the behavior of the people who are now being called to account. As they should be, incidentally.
The only issue on which I agree with you is the use of these videos by private parties- there should be much stronger government (!) rules on who can see them, how long they can be retained, etc. (If their use by private contractors is as you portray it).
Hi Mr. Braun,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you don't seem to understand what I'm arguing. I've never once said I think it should be OK for people to run red lights. That is obviously a dangerous thing to do and can seriously injure if not kill someone, so that is clearly a wrong thing to do.
Do I think I should be able to run a red light? Of course not! And once again, you're reading things into what I say that is the complete opposite of what I've ever said. The only thing I am against are the government's Draconian methods of enforcing this practice. A method that has been proven to cause more injuries than they were put there to stop in the first place! A method that spies on and records every private citizens' movements!
If these cameras are not meant to reduce accidents, then why are they marketed as such? Clearly, that's what they are there for, but our rulers clearly don't care what the data tells us, they want their money, even if it means more hurt people in order to do it! That is clearly their motivation if they fudge numbers in claiming the cameras are more effective than they are at reducing red-light running and accidents.
As for the private companies' retaining all the rights to the footage the cameras record, as far as I know, that is accurate. Lockheed Martin is one company that makes these cameras and, according to my source Lockheed is able to keep the footage and do with it whatever they wish.
Please, Mr. Braun, if you would like to comment I suggest you actually read what I've said instead of assuming something that I've never said, nor implied. Your confusion also makes me wonder why you continue to misconstrue my positions. Can you not understand them, or are you so against the freedom that I speak of that you simply dislike my message and in turn are unable to view it objectively? If so, this would be yet another example of the indoctrination that the state does to its citizens, just as religion does to its flock. It disallows them the freedom to think outside the box, free of the chains that the government wants on each and every person: They want power and they want you to be subservient to them and control your life.
Dear AA-
ReplyDeleteCould you try flying off the handle a little less? Jeez-a person might conclude that atheists are all cranks!
Anyhow, I was simply drawing consequences of your arguments. If you are against effective and lawful enforcement of a law, then one has to conclude that you have a problem with the law, not with its enforcement. For laws against murder, say, I would very much appreciate more effective enforcement, if it were technically possible.
In the case of streets, they are public areas where anyone may take all the videos they please. Cell phone cameras have been used many times to catch police in the midst of bad behavior. Should private parties be prevented from taking or storing such videos as well? Thus your position is inconsistent, though I sympathize with restrictions on corporate video use. (What about google street view?)
In the end, as a frequent pedestrian at an intersection patrolled by a camera, I appreciate the extra safety it is providing, as well as the money it is providing to my city.
I strongly doubt the conclusions of the study you cite about the increased level of accidents at such lights. Not only do I not observe such an increase myself, it makes no sense from a common sense viewpoint. The issue of shortening yellow light times is a separate one and would have to be controlled for. Cities ethically should not be doing such manipulation. But the basic proposition of making red light runners pay for running red lights is one I am for 110%- in the long run it is going to make these and many other intersections safer, and the roadways safer in general.
Flying off the handle? You completely misconstrue what I said, putting words in my mouth in effect, and I'm trying to correct you and you call that flying off the handle? Sensitive much?
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, what I have a problem with (again with your lack of comprehension it seems of my positions) is not law itself, but certain laws that infringe upon peoples' freedoms, like drug laws, and speed limits, etc. The issue of people in charge is also a huge issue for me. Those in power abuse it constantly. A completely free place where everyone is equal would be much better state of affairs.
Red-light cameras have been around at least six or seven years and I've seen study after study that shows these cameras cause more accidents than they stop. One would think people would get used to them after that many years assuming your hypothesis were correct. And just because you personally haven't witnessed this effect of the cameras causing accidents doesn't mean it isn't happening. I would think that you would see the fallacy in that argument. That's like arguing that just because you can't see evolution happening, it's not. Well, these studies done by even the government itself come to the same conclusions. And, as noted below, if your theory were correct one would think a ten year experiment would allow people to get used to the cameras, but as the story says below, the cameras failed and increased accidents. Looks like your theory doesn't stand up to the facts...
My point about the yellow light timing is that with proper road safety practices and calibration there should be no need for these obtrusive cameras. A much less expensive and less intrusive and effective method of avoiding collisions is to increase the timing on the yellow light. The time and money saved, and numbers of people who won't get into an accident by that simple action alone is staggering. That's the whole point. Prevention is much better than going after someone caught on camera after the fact don't you think? You might be optimistic, but is that why many cities are paying attention to the experts who do these studies and are taking the cameras down, as they did in Virginia in 2005:
ReplyDeleteRed Light Cameras Now Illegal in Virginia
Virginia's seven red light camera programs are officially shut down.
Celebrate VirginiaAs of today, Virginia cities may no longer legally issue red light camera tickets. Earlier this year the state legislature had declined to reauthorize photo enforcement, bringing the ten-year experiment with the devices to an end. Camera programs in Alexandria, Fairfax City and County, Vienna and Virginia Beach have officially ceased operation. Arlington had been the first to turn off its cameras on June 15. Only Falls Church will keep cameras operating to monitor traffic and count "violations," but they are not allowed to photograph motorists or issue tickets.
City officials in the Northern Virginian communities will be lobbying for a reinstatement of the state's red light camera law, but members of the state House of Delegates have been consistently unimpressed with the performance of cameras having turned back several attempts to extend and preserve the program. Legislators pointed to the recent study by sponsored by the Virginia Department of Transportation as a primary reason for rejecting the devices. The study concluded, "The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%." [emphasis mine]
Fairfax became the first Virginia city to issue a photo ticket eight years ago. Together, the seven camera jurisdictions have issued an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 citations. This generated millions in profit for camera vendor ACS, which held four contracts, as well as Nestor with two and Redflex with one. Most of the cities had reached the point of profitability in their programs, though they claim not to have made much money after startup costs were considered. The cities advocated an increase in the red light running fine amount of $50, which would have made the program extremely profitable. The top camera fines in the country are California's $361 red light camera citation and the $1000 fine for a second speed camera offense in Illinois.
I had forgotten to address something else you said:
ReplyDelete"Anyhow, I was simply drawing consequences of your arguments. If you are against effective and lawful enforcement of a law, then one has to conclude that you have a problem with the law, not with its enforcement. For laws against murder, say, I would very much appreciate more effective enforcement, if it were technically possible.
In the case of streets, they are public areas where anyone may take all the videos they please. Cell phone cameras have been used many times to catch police in the midst of bad behavior. Should private parties be prevented from taking or storing such videos as well? Thus your position is inconsistent, though I sympathize with restrictions on corporate video use. (What about google street view?)
In the end, as a frequent pedestrian at an intersection patrolled by a camera, I appreciate the extra safety it is providing, as well as the money it is providing to my city."
My position is not inconsistent. I do not care if private companies use surveillance since they are trying to protect their private property. However, cameras everywhere out on the streets are an invasion of privacy since they can easily track movements of innocent people and are not private areas, like a business or home. As I said, these cameras could also be used for unscrupulous intelligence gathering of innocent people (and as I noted in the post above, has happened). That's what I do not like.
And yes, thankfully sometimes cell phone cameras have been used to stop police brutality, but these are not recording all the time, 24/4. These cameras were also not recording random, innocent people going about their lives. They are not tracking you and monitoring you. Most likely it's just some teenager who is messing around with their camera, or you happen to get in the way, or in the background. These cameras usually only have a limited number of minutes of avaliable footage. That is the difference between people with cell phones and the wide-scale, long-term surveillance the government is engaging in. By the way, the cameras that you think are keeping you safe aren't as effective as you'd like to think.