“Evidence clearly shows that camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights. In one study in Virginia, red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent.” Seems pretty effective to me.
"When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. " So, a net increase in accidents. I can’t make their numbers match up with their conclusion.
“Evidence clearly shows that camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights. In one study in Virginia, red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent.” Seems pretty effective to me.
At reducing that one behavior? Sure, but we also have to look at what other impacts it has.
We could reduce the number of people running red lights by 100% if we removed traffic lights, doesn’t mean it’s a good solution.
"When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. " So, a net increase in accidents. I can’t make their numbers match up with their conclusion.
The next sentence is “Approximately one-third of all Houston intersection accidents are angle accidents. This suggests that the program’s drawbacks canceled out its benefits.”
Say there are 100 accidents, 33 of which are from people running red lights.
A 26% decrease in red light running accidents results in 9 fewer accidents from running red lights. (.26*33=8.58)
An 18% increase in other accidents results in 12 more accidents from people slamming on their brakes. (.18*66=11.88)
Different sorts of accidents. Red light cameras result in more fender benders, fewer T-bonings. In your example, 9 fewer T-bonings at the expense of 12 extra fender benders.
From the article: “We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital.”
If you have any research that contradicts it I’m open to reading it but the evidence indicates there are just as many serious accidents.
Reduction in Fatalities: Many studies indicate a reduction in fatal accidents at intersections equipped with red light cameras. A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that states with red light camera enforcement saw a decrease of 24% in fatal red-light running crashes.
Decrease in Injuries: In addition to reducing fatalities, the same IIHS report noted that injuries at intersections also declined, with a 14% decrease in injuries related to red-light violations.
Overall Accident Rates: While some studies show a decrease in severe accidents, others note that total accident rates may increase. This is partly attributed to the phenomenon known as “rear-end collisions,” where vehicles that stop suddenly to avoid running a red light may lead to accidents."
“Evidence clearly shows that camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights. In one study in Virginia, red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent.” Seems pretty effective to me.
"When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. " So, a net increase in accidents. I can’t make their numbers match up with their conclusion.
At reducing that one behavior? Sure, but we also have to look at what other impacts it has.
We could reduce the number of people running red lights by 100% if we removed traffic lights, doesn’t mean it’s a good solution.
The next sentence is “Approximately one-third of all Houston intersection accidents are angle accidents. This suggests that the program’s drawbacks canceled out its benefits.”
Say there are 100 accidents, 33 of which are from people running red lights.
A 26% decrease in red light running accidents results in 9 fewer accidents from running red lights. (.26*33=8.58)
An 18% increase in other accidents results in 12 more accidents from people slamming on their brakes. (.18*66=11.88)
So a net increase of 3 accidents.
Different sorts of accidents. Red light cameras result in more fender benders, fewer T-bonings. In your example, 9 fewer T-bonings at the expense of 12 extra fender benders.
From the article: “We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital.”
If you have any research that contradicts it I’m open to reading it but the evidence indicates there are just as many serious accidents.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356316/ “Red light cameras (RLCs) reduce injuries but may have no effect on total crashes”
https://blinksandbuttons.net/are-red-light-cameras-effective/ "Studies have produced mixed results over the years, but several key findings can be highlighted:
Reduction in Fatalities: Many studies indicate a reduction in fatal accidents at intersections equipped with red light cameras. A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that states with red light camera enforcement saw a decrease of 24% in fatal red-light running crashes.
Decrease in Injuries: In addition to reducing fatalities, the same IIHS report noted that injuries at intersections also declined, with a 14% decrease in injuries related to red-light violations.
Overall Accident Rates: While some studies show a decrease in severe accidents, others note that total accident rates may increase. This is partly attributed to the phenomenon known as “rear-end collisions,” where vehicles that stop suddenly to avoid running a red light may lead to accidents."
Do you want me to go on?