Red-light dilemma

I am one of the nearly 200,000 drivers who have received a red-light camera ticket. Mine was for the intersection at 55th Street and U.S. 71.

When the light turned yellow, I had to make a split-second decision.

The car behind me was following very close and at a significant speed. Should I hit my brakes and probably be rear-ended? Or should I scoot on through the intersection?

My ticket provided the city with revenue. But had I been in the probable rear-end collision, I wonder: How much would the traffic investigation have cost the city? And how many insurance dollars and medical bills?

I considered contesting my red-light camera ticket. But I would probably have been told that I should have stopped for the light, and that the car behind me would have been at fault in any accident.

Let’s see, if I had made the choice to hit my brakes, no ticket for me, a ticket for the driver behind me but considerable damage to my car, and I would have suffered whiplash at the very least.

Golly, folks. If I’m again faced with that decision at a red light, what should I do?

Patricia Hill
Kansas City

Comments

[Ae]

As a traffic engineer, yes they are purely about monetary gains. Accidents are increased with the usage of them. However, the city has been good about repeals and not making you pay.

[gringoloco]

casady: This is an end run around the constitution. The CAR commits a civil offense and you as the owner are responsible. I would think the constitutionalists would be screaming. How big a jump is it to "You have free speech but your computer doesn't. We don't like what your computer transmitted. Therefor we are fining you for what the computer transmitted."

Protect "that antique piece of paper".

[J MONTE]

I'm of the opinion that if we ALL drove so carefully that we NEVER got a ticket and if we All simply quit drinking so as to Never get a DUI.....city government would INVENT some new ordinance to get us with....Oh yeah , it's all about revenue folks...not to mention how many law enforcement personnel would be laid off

[Smarter Than You]

“The number of auto accidents has increased at many Philadelphia intersections since the installation of 90 red-light cameras over the last six years, according to police data. The total number of accidents was up 12 percent for the 15 intersections that have had cameras for at least a year, the police data show.” Philly.com 10/11

“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals. There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.” Austrailian Road Research Board, 2/95

“In 2007, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) performed one of the most comprehensive statewide surveys of the impact of red light cameras on safety (view report). It caused quite a stir upon its release. The study took advantage of seven years' worth of data both before and after cameras were installed, examining a far more extensive dataset than most competing studies. Despite the agency's best effort to present automated enforcement in a positive light, the unavoidable results were that, on a statewide level, accidents and injuries increased where cameras were used. This outcome has proved to be an embarrassment for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) which has been the primary organization generating research claiming that red light cameras improve safety." thenewspaper.com 1/10

[Casady]

I spend a great deal of time in Denver where they have red light cameras as well. However, and investigative article in the local paper revealed that there is a statute on the books that states that unless you are personally served the citation (i.e an officer handing it to you and making you sign it), you are not obligated to pay. It might be worth one's time to see if a similar statue existed in KC or Missouri.

[Harrietinthecity]

First - if the light is yellow as she approaches, she's NOT going to T-bone someone. Second, we've all been victims of people who tailgate which is a legitimate complaint. If we stop, the driver behind would hit us and would be ticketed to driving too close (maybe - if police are called). But as with all things, we've been the victims of people who are driving without insurance which means we were stuck with the deductible for the repairs.

We once received a ticket at I-71 and 55th. It was for a right turn on red. We had stopped, traffic was safe, and turned. The camera shots clearly showed that. No other traffic seen in the shot (at that time of day the commuter traffic is going in the other direction). But we paid the $100 ticket because sitting in a courtroom all morning to dispute it was going to cost us more in time, lost pay and hassle.

Had I known that the red light camera evaluators get half of the revenue - We would have gone to court and made a public stink about it.

Catch the people who are going through the light after it turns red (we've all seen that) - but there's more than that being caught in the mousetrap.

[Morgan]

I see people run red lights so often that I now look both ways when going through a signalized intersection. How fast were you traveling Patricia? The speed limit there is 45mph and everyone does 55 or more when I drive through there. It's as if society accepts the fact that it's routine to run traffic lights, stop signs, tailgate, rarely obey the speed limit, etc. I agree with WTKC. Patricia, do the speed limit with the idea that the light could change at any time rather than going faster and trying to beat the red light.

[k7189]

Wrong, Matt. They have found out that far more serious "t-bone" accidents have been reduced significantly, while far less serious rear-end accidents are up. And when you account for tailgating (as Patricia Hill describes) and road conditions (wet or snowy -- last winter was particularly bad) then you find out that ALL accidents are actually down significantly at red-light camera intersections.

[whispering_to_kc]

"... If I’m again faced with that decision at a red light, what should I do? ..."

If you run the light, you'll t-bone someone. You left that out of your story and only substituted the happy but unlikely "scooting on through the intersection" ending instead. T-bone accidents are deadly.

The best solution is to slow down so you can stop for the light in time, you're going too fast. The guy behind you is also going too fast and following too close.

The overpass at 291-south and 50/350 highway in Lees Summit was once controlled only by stopsigns and t-bones with serious injuries were common. The MoDot argument against stoplights was that the accident rate wouldn't be effected by exchanging signs for lights, only that t-bone collisions would be swapped for rear-enders.

Then one afternoon an old lady pulled out into traffic and got t-boned. She was the first fatality. A few days later, another death in a t-bone. Temporary stoplights went up in a few days and more permanent lights later on.

http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa

There haven't been any fatality accidents at that overpass in the last 10 years anyway and I'd guess none since the lights went up.

Golly, folks. Redlight cameras? What should we do?

You got a ticket becase you ran the light, not because it had a redlight camera. You're lucky you didn't kill someone or yourself.

[matt melena]

they already found out by their own investigation (now being looked into further) that the red light cameras do not reduce accidents at any light using them. they simply change the wrecks happening from t-bones (admittedly very dangerous!) and turn the wrecks into rear end collisions. this same information has been found in numerous other studies in numerous other cities.

if the city feels it MUST keep the red light cameras they should at least be honest enough to admit that it is not for any ones safety, but rather it's about generating income. pure and simple.

i'm sure some talking head will come forward, after the police have had "some time" to look into the matter...and this spin doctor will say something pretending to imply that the red light cameras DO prevent accidents...

...but we all know what the red light cameras are about. they are about making money, and they are about nothing else at all.