For any twitiot that thinks it's about safety

[Z-train]

MSNBC

updated 11:12 p.m. MT, Thurs., March. 20, 2008

Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red lights were too effective. So they shut them down.

 

They are not alone. Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections

[hang_510]

now theyll just use them to catch cheating spouses...

[dat521gatherer]

it seems to me those camera's would pay themselves off very quickly and cost almost nothing to run after that. then again when the fed and city charge $100 for a pen or sheet of paper.....

[djlotus]

Hahahahaha (the pic)

[djmoreron]

now theyll just use them to catch cheating spouses...

 

haha owned. ive heard about that story. i think the lady tried to sue the city :blink:

[pope_face]

Bahahahaha... that pic is hilarious.

 

I never heard about it, but I wouldn't be too suprised if she tried to sue the city... some people will sue for everything.

 

I think cities should put signs and camera posts/boxes at every major intersection, only use actual cameras in a few. Or, have all the wiring in every box and only enough cameras to fill maybe 10% of them, and move them around once a month. People will have to be careful at every intersection because they'll never know where the cameras are.

 

In Poland, when you drive along the highways, sometimes you'll come across a cop car stopped just off the shoulder and a cop with a speed gun... when you pass by it, you realize it's only a plywood cutout painted to look like a cop. I think they move them around and replace them with real cops every so often just to keep people guessing.

[73super]

Funny that the one thing I CAN'T SEE in that pic is the license plate... Hmmm.

[Bleach]

Funny that the one thing I CAN'T SEE in that pic is the license plate... Hmmm.

because it has been cropped out

 

Pope, the article basically says that there are more collisions in intersections with cameras. So if you had fake cameras all over people would be slamming on their brakes and causing accidents. (you know, nobody can allow a safe following distance. Must tailgate always) :blink:

[]2eDeYe]

You get there faster if your right on the guys ass ahead of you...don't they teach that in driving school? :blink:

[Bleach]

2eDeYe;48899'']You get there faster if your right on the guys ass ahead of you...don't they teach that in driving school? :blink:

 

I just drive around them in the oncoming lane of traffic. (if in the Z) :eek:

[datsunaholic]

Reality is that T-bone collisions get reduced, rear-end collisions increase. However, over time the rear-end collisions go down as folks get used to actually anticipating the light.

 

Are they moneymakers? Yes, initially very big moneymakers. They are all over Lakewood, near where I live. Bit I couldn't tell you where they are by intersection because I don't drive any different whether they're there or not.

 

I've been T-boned by a red light runner- HARD. It's no fun. Fortunately it was a small car, but it still totalled both vehicles, and lots of bruises.

[Z-train]

[quote name=datsunaholic; However' date=' over time the rear-end collisions go down as folks get used to actually anticipating the light.

QUOTE]

 

This is catagorically false.There is absolutely no evidence to back this claim.If people anticipated ANYTHING on the road,the accident numbers would be halved.

[datsunaholic]

The fact that the number of citation issued went down over time (as quoted in the article above) shows that driver behavior changes. They quit running lights.

 

There have been so many "studies", either by bona-fide research groups or by media or police, it's easy to prove that rear-end collisions do increase initially. Most studies show this (some studies show "negligible increase", some are as high as 15% increase) but all show a decrease in side-impact collisions. I haven't seen one study that didn't show a decrease in side-impact collisions, and even the ones that show relatively high increses in rear-end show an overall decline in collisions. One problem I've seen in studies (and this applies to any study) is the results are always skewed towards the initial assumption of the one doing the study. Media studies hype up the revenue and increased rear-end collision angle, Law enforcement studies hype the reduced overall violation rates, and insurance and health care studies hype the reduced accident severity. None of these are unbiased- because they wouldn't publish their findings if it didn't support their position.

 

The problem is most studies aren't covered over a long enough period of time- under 6 months or so. The Cochrane Collaboration report ran the study for a year- the longest one I've seen. It's also the one that showed no overall change in the number of rear-end collisions.

 

HOWEVER... I haven't seen a study done against intersections that didn't have high collision rates to begin with. Mainly because cameras are mostly used on high-collision intersections.

[phatdave]

Allright I admit it. Its a picture of me. The girl happens to be my sister, thats the embarassing part.

 

Whem our Mom saw this see almost to shit a brick.

 

Dad of course wasn't mad just jealous, because she won't give him a hand job.I think she and I need to be more careful in the future. :D

 

 

 

 

dd:fu: