Good news for people driving to Houston

[boba]

My old Daddy, rest his soul, always told me that you never loan a car, a gun or a wife. The post above would seem to bear that philosphy out.

I'll remember that if you ever need a ride somewhere in an emergency.

[Oldgringo]

My old Daddy, rest his soul, always told me that you never loan a car, a gun or a wife. The post above would seem to bear that philosphy out.

I'll remember that if you ever need a ride somewhere in an emergency.

Thanks, but I'd rather walk.

[Purplehood]

In my opinion the voters didn't vote them down because they didn't work, they voted them down because they worked too well.

It's too bad for you that citizens in America are still allowed to vote.

Why is that?

[dicion]

As someone who installs, repairs, and maintains intersections and practically any other traffic related systems daily, I agree that the Red Light Cameras are just a money grabbing scheme.

Personally, and this is just me, I think we should install Bollards that pop up everywhere instead
Then again, I am _all about_ making idiot drivers pay for their mistakes. I have been hit by mirrors many times throughout the years, and almost run over many times as well. Had a drunk make one of our bucket trucks 8' shorter a few months ago, after he drove past the arrow board, past the crash truck, and then decided he needed to enter the freeway anyways, even though it was closed. Of course, he walked away unharmed (they somehow always do).

Anyways, Bollards. These are the solutions to all our problems!
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro[/youtube]

[RHenriksen]

But...But... how will the city be able to more easily balance its budget?

Wait... I know... charge anyone who hits a bollard with a $20k repair bill!

As someone who installs, repairs, and maintains intersections and practically any other traffic related systems daily, I agree that the Red Light Cameras are just a money grabbing scheme.

Personally, and this is just me, I think we should install Bollards that pop up everywhere instead
Then again, I am _all about_ making idiot drivers pay for their mistakes. I have been hit by mirrors many times throughout the years, and almost run over many times as well. Had a drunk make one of our bucket trucks 8' shorter a few months ago, after he drove past the arrow board, past the crash truck, and then decided he needed to enter the freeway anyways, even though it was closed. Of course, he walked away unharmed (they somehow always do).

Anyways, Bollards. These are the solutions to all our problems!
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ZdLjKl0lHc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro[/youtube]

[OCD]

The voters have spoken and the Houston city council listened. That's how democracy works.

Maybe we can get that in Washington for the next term with a (R) majority in congress!

[ELB]

I don't have links at my finger tips for all of these.

Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras in Chicago: An Exploratory Analysis, by Rajiv C. Shah University of Illinois at Chicago, June 17, 2010

Mr. Shah found some interesting things. The City of Chicago claimed that accidents across the city went down 21% after RLCs were installed. Mr. Rajiv found this was true. What was also true, that the city did not mention, is that total miles driven in Chicago went down by about the same amount; the accident RATE did not vary much at all. IOW, very unlikely that RLCs had anything to do with the decrease, rather less driving = less accidents. (This finding that accident rates go up at RLC intersections has been replicated in other cities).

Mr. Shah also looked at accidents at RLC interesections. Drawing on Illinois Dept of Transportation data for 50 intersections, he found that when comparing the number of accidents at those intersections one year prior to installation vs one year after installation, the total number went UP, not down. Not by a huge amount, but still, not an indicator that RLCs reduce accidents.
Mr. Shah also looked at a study the city itself did comparing a control group of 20 non-RLC intersections to 20 intersections with RLCs. Interestingly, he and the ACLU had to press FOIA suits to get the study. When he got it, he eliminated half of each group because those intersections did not have a full year's date. Of the remaining 10 controls and 10 RLCs, both showed decreases in accidents. The rate for RLCs was only 1.5% greater than the group without RLCs.

Unfortunately, Mr. Shah did not provide any information on the revenue part of the question.



The Tennessee Policy Center, in Policy Brief No. 04-08, noted that there were no discernible reductions in accidents at intersections in Tennessee where RLCs had been installed, but revenues had skyrocketed. They noted that some cities had been apparently caught tinkering with yellow light times, or at least not ensuring that they met the minimum time required. Interestingly, they note that increasing yellow light time by one second has been shown to reduce accidents up to 40%, and several cities that did so saw RLC violations plummet. However, increasing the yellow light time is inexpensive, easy, and brings no revenue to the city....

Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras, by the Federal Highway Administration, concluded that RLCs reduce right-angle (Tbone) collisions, but increase rear-end collisions

AN EVALUATION OF RED LIGHT CAMERA (PHOTO-RED) ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA: A REPORT IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY VIRGINIA’S SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION made a case, after studying seven systems in Virginia, that RLCs had potential to increase safety -- but not only did the number of accidents at RLC intersections increase, the number of injury-producing crashes had increased also.

There are more studies like this out there, but I have to go to my VFD meeting.

RLCs are about revenue, not safety.

[TDDude]

Its all about money.

If the city or state was serious about making traffic lights safer, the penalty for busting a light would be revocation of the violators drivers license with subsequent violations getting more severe. This business of a 75 dollar fine is a joke. I can't even take my family out to eat for 75 bucks.

I remember when a DUI was a hundred dollar fine and a slap on the wrist. Now it has very stiff penalties and ultimately becomes a felony. It can be argued that the DUI laws are about safety.

[Oldgringo]

Its all about money.

If the city or state was serious about making traffic lights safer, the penalty for busting a light would be revocation of the violators drivers license with subsequent violations getting more severe. This business of a 75 dollar fine is a joke. I can't even take my family out to eat for 75 bucks.

I remember when a DUI was a hundred dollar fine and a slap on the wrist. Now it has very stiff penalties and ultimately becomes a felony. It can be argued that the DUI laws are about safety.

. That said, please name one thing that is not about money - sooner or later.

[Bart]

If the politicians and cops in Houston cared about safety, they would start with the illegals driving around with no insurance.

[TDDude]

That said, please name one thing that is not about money - sooner or later.

You are correct. With anything court related, sooner or later money is always involved and I have the time spent in traffic court to prove it. But the goal of the cameras is to RAISE money behind the lie of making drivers safe.

It's similar to the old argument of the lottery proceeds going towards education.

I wish the city hacks would just be honest and say, "We're broke!! Mayor Brown and the subsequent lib mayors past and present have financially run this city into the ground. We have no other way to raise money except to suck it from the public in new and interesting ways. Stay tuned for more and exciting schemes!!"

At least I could respect that. I can respect an honest crook. I still want them out of my life (and preferably in jail) and certainly not in any type of governing body, but I can respect them.