Saturday, August 30, 2008
Are Red Light Cameras Safe?
Guest post from Jason Lancaster of AccurateAutoAdvice.com.
As a resident of a major city I couldn’t help but notice the installation of red-light cameras in some of the intersections in my neighborhood. If you’re not aware, a red light camera (abbreviated RLC) is designed to take a picture of every vehicle that runs a red light at a particular intersection. Using the photo, the offender’s license plate is identified and a hefty ticket is sent to the vehicle owner.
At first glance, the theory behind RLC’s seems solid. They serve as a deterrent to running a red light, and in so doing they reduce the likelihood of right-angle (aka T-Bone) crashes. Pedestrians benefit too – they’re less likely to be hit by someone charging a red light. RLCs seem like a no-brainer.
So why is it that a Federal Highway Administration study published in 2005 found that RLC’s did not effectively lower the number of crashes at their test intersections?
In the period before RLCs were installed, there were a total of 4,063 crashes reported in the test intersections. In the period after the RLCs were installed, there were 4,059 crashes. That’s a reduction of less than one-tenth of one percent. What gives?
While the number of right-angle crashes decreased by nearly 25% with the introduction of RLCs, the number of rear-end crashes increased 15%. Considering that rear-end crashes are much more common than right-angle crashes, the net effect was a “push.” The number of crashes was essentially the same with or without RLCs.
So what about injuries? Common sense would tell us that right-angle crashes are more dangerous than rear-end crashes. Again, the data says otherwise. 482 injuries pre-RLC, 459 injuries post. That’s a reduction of about 5%. Not bad, but that’s certainly not enough to prove that RLCs make anyone safer. Furthermore, it’s important to note that the most common rear-end crash injuries (whip-lash and back pain) often don’t manifest themselves for two or three days. It’s entirely possible that the number of reported rear-end crash injuries is low.
Bottom Line: The Federal Highway Administration found it difficult to recommend RLCs for every intersection, and for good reason. The studies have shown that RLCs have little impact on the total number of crashes at a particular intersection. Still, that hasn’t stopped cities from installing them. Perhaps the RLC ticket revenue is biggest reason for installing these cameras.
Visit AccurateAutoAdvice.com for more news, information, and auto advice.
As a resident of a major city I couldn’t help but notice the installation of red-light cameras in some of the intersections in my neighborhood. If you’re not aware, a red light camera (abbreviated RLC) is designed to take a picture of every vehicle that runs a red light at a particular intersection. Using the photo, the offender’s license plate is identified and a hefty ticket is sent to the vehicle owner.
At first glance, the theory behind RLC’s seems solid. They serve as a deterrent to running a red light, and in so doing they reduce the likelihood of right-angle (aka T-Bone) crashes. Pedestrians benefit too – they’re less likely to be hit by someone charging a red light. RLCs seem like a no-brainer.
So why is it that a Federal Highway Administration study published in 2005 found that RLC’s did not effectively lower the number of crashes at their test intersections?
In the period before RLCs were installed, there were a total of 4,063 crashes reported in the test intersections. In the period after the RLCs were installed, there were 4,059 crashes. That’s a reduction of less than one-tenth of one percent. What gives?
While the number of right-angle crashes decreased by nearly 25% with the introduction of RLCs, the number of rear-end crashes increased 15%. Considering that rear-end crashes are much more common than right-angle crashes, the net effect was a “push.” The number of crashes was essentially the same with or without RLCs.
So what about injuries? Common sense would tell us that right-angle crashes are more dangerous than rear-end crashes. Again, the data says otherwise. 482 injuries pre-RLC, 459 injuries post. That’s a reduction of about 5%. Not bad, but that’s certainly not enough to prove that RLCs make anyone safer. Furthermore, it’s important to note that the most common rear-end crash injuries (whip-lash and back pain) often don’t manifest themselves for two or three days. It’s entirely possible that the number of reported rear-end crash injuries is low.
Bottom Line: The Federal Highway Administration found it difficult to recommend RLCs for every intersection, and for good reason. The studies have shown that RLCs have little impact on the total number of crashes at a particular intersection. Still, that hasn’t stopped cities from installing them. Perhaps the RLC ticket revenue is biggest reason for installing these cameras.
Visit AccurateAutoAdvice.com for more news, information, and auto advice.
// posted by Jason of AccurateAutoAdvice.com @ 16:58 0 Comments Links to this post 
Monday, August 25, 2008
My little pony
My current rental car (yes, another business trip) is a 2007 Ford Mustang with 18,500 miles on the clock. Well you all know my opinion of American cars - crap. The paint on the Mustang is wafer thin - it drops off if you so much as walk too close to it. The inside is a vast sea of hateful, hard, rattly, scratchy grey plastic. The suspension is prehistoric - driving over a bump in the road feels like falling down stairs in leg irons. God - it's just - bloody wonderful actually. Ok so the rear wheel drive is suicidal in the wet, but this latest generation Pony Car has the 'it' factor for me. It's surprisingly roomy inside and the view through the windscreen is nowhere near as cramped as it was on the previous model. The power steering is the usual over-done affair but because the front wheels aren't driven, I can feel a lot more of what the road is doing, and it does take a lot less effort to steer it in a straight line than most American land yachts. The engine noise from inside is wonderful though. Even the sound of the electric radiator fans winding down after I've turned the ignition off - it sounds like a spaceship cooling down its hyperdrive. I found it a bit overpowering to start with - narrow windows all round, hugely overdone engine, deep seats. It was like piloting a submarine for the first day. But today I had my bonding experience with it on I-280 going down to Cupertino. The Mustang is one of those cars that is such a fun car that it's actually easy to overlook all its niggles. If you don't own one, rent one for a few days. Ford have a winner on their hands here - unusual for that company - but the Pony Car lives on nicely in this current revision.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]