The Houston Police recently reported a drastic increase in both traffic collisions and crashes at intersections where red-light safety cameras had been removed. The recent report adds to a long list of statistics indicating intersections become more hazardous when red-light safety cameras are taken away.
The Numbers
According to the Houston Police Department data, fatal traffic collisions increased 30 percent at 51 dangerous intersections where red-light safety cameras once stood, and total traffic crashes jumped 117 percent. The police data revealed:
Total traffic collisions when red-light safety cameras were in use was 4,147 between 2006-2010
Total traffic collisions more than doubled to 8,984 from 2010-2014 after cameras were removed
Fatal traffic crashes increased from 10 to 13 in 2010 when the traffic cameras were eliminated
Major crashes jumped nearly 85 percent from 1,391 to 2,568 during the same time period
But Houston is not the only city reporting more incidents once safety cameras were removed from dangerous intersections. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, total intersection crashes increased 64 percent in 2010 in Garland, Texas, and red-light running crashes were three times more frequent after red-light cameras were removed. In addition:
Virginia Beach, Virginia, reported an 11.3 percent increase in red-light running events one month after red-light cameras were taken down
Kansas City, Missouri, experienced a 33 percent jump in red-light running incidents between December 2012 to December 2013 with no cameras in operation
Pima County, Arizona, reported a 1,000 percent increase in the number of drivers speeding more than 11mph over the posted speed limit when the safety camera program ended in 2013
Not only did the cameras encourage safer driving habits, but the Houston Police Department reported the technology generated an estimated $10 million annually in revenue.
More
11 comments:
They don't bother to report the reduction in rear-end crashes.....
They really want the revenue!
Not sure which I hate more: red light cameras, idiot impatient drivers that run red lights, or the jerks who take off so slow when the light turns green that a full line of traffic can't make it through the light.
Which camera manufacturer/vendor or broker wrote this?
One of their supporters was overheard saying "If cameras encourage safer driving habits, think of all the other things we could cure if we had more cameras in more places!!".
The TV crew asked him to please remove his Nazi armband while on camera.
He, of course, had the TV crew arrested for "terrorism".
The people cheered wildly.
9:23 - the drivers that take off sooo slow are the ones with engine monitors that are telling they are accelerating un-economically...so they ease up on the pedal and accelerate at a moderate speed.
A lot of places have timed their lights to accommodate this efficiency - so if you get to the next light and it's still red from the last cycle...chill out next time you speed away from a light.....
9:23 - and the people like myself, who take a second to look both ways before entering the intersection. After the T-bone crash that I survived a few years ago (I was the first car in the intersection at the green light), hit by a non-attentive driver (think cellphone-talking twenty-something woman), I always look first, and that may take a moment.
When the local dummy cameras were mounted on the red light brackets accident #s were reduced.It took months for people to realize they weren't activated,but they worked.
10:19 I not talking about taking off from a light and going straight. I'm talking about turning on a light. Normally a left turn lane is designed so that all the traffic in the lane should make it through the left turn light before it turns yellow. Some people are so stupid, slow or unobservant that only 3-4 cars may make it through when 5-6 should.
To address your comment lights are generally timed to get stopped traffic fully through the light before it turns red(as are the length of turns lanes and the timing of the turn light). That is where the traffic and fuel efficiency takes place. It is not efficient to be stopped at a light and then have to stop at the same light again(this is why a some newer cars shut off when sitting still to save fuel, of course the cost off a new starter motor outweighs any money saved on fuel). There is a difference between moderate acceleration and taking off at a snails pace. If you are on a heavily traveled street you owe it to your fellow travelers to drive in a smooth manner. Not take off like a jack rabbit or an old fart. From your comment I guess you are in the Sunday driver category.
Ideally in a town or city you accelerate at a rate that will get you to the next light as it turn green without having to slow down but also at a rate that all the cars that were stopped behind you at the previous light make it through.
10:26 You shouldn't have to take a "second" look because you should always be looking when on the road. If a line of traffic doesn't make it through a light then someone in the line was driving poorly.
Money machines can't produce when not in use.
Libtards you people cry about everything. It must really suck being related to you lol
Post a Comment