Read that quote carefully. It is not making any assertion one way or the other about the safety factor of red-light cameras. It is simply pointing out that, if you are either supporting or attacking the safety value of the cameras, you have data available to cite in support (or data you must overcome) of your assertions.
English is such a tricky language, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
I’ll bite.
I’ve read the quote carefully.
You say that there are studies that show that the cameras decrease accidents. In fact, in your own city accidents at intersections due to red light running are decreased ‘significantly’.
The law is being reviewed on the basis that the issuance of a ticket may be unlawful.
Where does your post suggest that there is data available to refute the ability of the cameras to increase safety?
I’m speaking from personal experience, so I don’t have a cite, but I’m still looking.
The great majority of crashes that occur on city streets are ACDA (assured clear distance ahead - basically running into the guy ahead of you), followed by going off road, failure to yield at driveways, improper lane changes, going through stop signs. At the bottom of the list are crashes from people going through red lights. Granted, being involved in a crash from someone blowing a red light has the potential to be the most violent, but they are relatively rare. I’m trying to think of the last crash I responded to where the cause was going through a red light, and its been so long I’m having trouble. Most crashes at intersections occur from making an improper left turn in front of oncoming traffic.
My point was that a camera at a an intersection isn’t going to reduce crashes because the cause of the crash, like I said, is from somebody not paying any attention to the light and proceeds into the intersection as if they had a green light. If they aren’t paying attention to the color of the traffic light, they certainly aren’t too worried if a camera has been installed. “Pushing a yellow” is not the same as running a solid red light. “Pushing a yellow” won’t cause nearly as many crashes as running a red light, because that car will be out of the intersection before cross traffic has a chance to even go. Cameras at intersection catch those attempting to “push the yellow”, thus increasing revenue but doing little if anything to reduce the number of crashes.
this site (warning - very large PDF file) shows crash statistics in Ohio, where I live.
In 2005 there were 358,127 crashes in the state of Ohio. On page 24 it shows that of those, 13,985 were caused by someone running a red light OR stop sign. That is only 3.9% of all crashes. But that includes stop signs, so red light violations will be even a smaller percentage.
Read what I said carefully. I said,
Nothing in that quote implies that I am asserting that the studies show a direct resulting decrease, nor do I assert that they show a lack of direct resulting decrease. I am simply pointing out to all who were talking without offering facts in support of their assertions that there are studies dealing with the issue and they need to address those when making assertions.
Had I said, “There are plenty of studies that show that red-light cameras result in decreased accidents,” and gone on to assert that this meant red-light cameras should be introduced in more places, THEN I would have the burden of offering such studies. As it was, I was doing something I often do around here, telling those who are talking out of their ass to put up or shut it. :smack:
gazpacho, Qwest, I admire your courage, but there’s no point in the battle. Judging from his screen name, DSYoungEsq is a law student. We’re just not going to win when it comes to interpreting written documents.
I see you’ve made 2 assertions, may we please have a cite for the Toledo stats, and one for the Redflex revenue model?
DSYoungEsq is technically correct, but the statement is worded poorly (ambiguously) and could reasonably be interpreted either the way it was actually interpreted, or the way it was intended to be interpreted.
That’s what I’m saying. But I’m going further to point out that, because DSYoungEsq has Esq, or “esquire,” in his name, odds are that he is a law student and therefore very adapt at arguing. Since he is very adept at arguing, we are very unlikely to convince him that his post implies one thing when it he has decided it doesn’t.
But that’s really not the point of the thread, so I’m going to stop the hyjack now.
[/hyjack] ← see? Official end tag