you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 11 months ago (27 children)
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (20 children)

    They would remove the camera not the traffic light. I don't think that would cause an accident

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    The camera only snaps a picture when people blow the traffic light. If everybody obeyed the traffic lights then nobody would ever get their car's picture taken with the camera.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    They have speed and traffic light cameras made by the same companies and they are pushing them out indiscriminately.

    Also why should that company get money if someone speeds or goes through a red light? Why do they get that privilege but no one else does? The government getting fines is one thing but a private company is another

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    They have speed and traffic light cameras made by the same companies and they are pushing them out indiscriminately.

    Who's "they"?

    Also why should that company get money if someone speeds or goes through a red light?

    Around here, the company doesn't get money. The fine is sent by the government and the government gets paid. I don't know why it's different for you, sounds like you need to change your government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I live in Atlanta so they is the city of Atlanta I guess. I got a random fine in the mail and it was from a private company I don't remember their name but the same cameras are all over my town now.

    The cameras are in places where people have to drive everyday and the flow of traffic is usually slightly higher than the limit. You can't avoid going by them so you are tracked no matter what. And if you forget and follow the flow of normal traffic you are getting a letter from the company in the mail asking for $200.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    The reason the camera is there is because of the crashes that happened when it wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago* (6 children)

    That's not true. We have a ton of these popping up in my neighborhood in places where there haven't been issues.

    Also they are owned by private companies that pocket most of the money you pay the fine with.

    Why do I need 5 of these on my way to work in the morning? That's 5 times where if I accidentally went too fast I have to pay a private company $200. That's up to 10 times a day I am at risk of a random fee to some company. Insane that you want that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    This comment is provided to you by the "the light was really yellow" crowd

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    My only real issue with it is that there are a ton of them now and they are privately owned. If the fine went to the city that would be a different story.

    Imagine if next they put a sensor right in your car so if you ever go over a limit you always get a fine. Would you still be into that? Would you buy that car?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    privately owned

    Sounds like a shithole country issue. Normal countries have a police and judiciary.

    Would you still be into that?

    Ow yes please. If that's what it takes for people like you to drive according to the rules, absofuckinglutely yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    Cool, sucks that we went with the vibes feels like it should help solution then.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    "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)

    So a net increase of 3 accidents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    "Sir! The unfed masses are tearing down cameras to sell them for food!"

    "BUT WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES? HAVE THEY NO SENSE OF COMMUNITY?!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    Look, I will tell you this: I hear you, and I will. I know, I read some of my general comments today and, well, I should chill out a little. Sometimes it's a lot of stress about the state of the world you know, sometimes about my life situation, about existential musings, about this and that, sometimes I vex revolutionary, what are you gonna do about it, fight me? Just kidding, I just wanna let you know that I read what you said, and yes, I should calm down. Sometimes it just gets to you, you know? It just like a hollow echo inside your soul, bouncing from one point to the other trying to find its place, like, and it just won't stop buzzing around in there, but I guess that's the case for most people anyways, so, anyway, likewise, and may god have mercy on our souls.

  • source
  • parent