Collisions at city intersections with red-light cameras have been reduced by 26 percent since the camera program began in 2010, says a report just released by the City of Rochester. Collisions involving disregard for traffic-control devices have dropped 78 percent, the report says. And red-light camera violations have dropped 30 percent since the time that the cameras were installed, it says.Â
The report (see below) was compiled by SRF Associates, a Rochester transportation engineering and planning consultant. It comes out as City Council considers legislation renewing the red-light camera program. The city currently has 48 cameras at 32 intersections. The locations were determined by traffic volumes, accident history, and a review of accident data by city staff, the report says.Â
The report uses crash data from November 10, 2008, to June 30, 2014, provided by the Rochester Police Department.Â
The program has been somewhat controversial. Some people describe it as a money grab that targets the area’s poorest citizens. It was also revealed that city employees are not required to pay the fine when they’re caught running red lights while on city business. And RedFlex, the camera firm that the city uses, has had troubles of its own. Â
Other cities have gotten in trouble for shortening the duration of yellow lights in order to catch more red-light runners — though that has not been an issue in Rochester. And collecting on the fines has proven difficult in some places. It’s not clear if that applies to Rochester; the report does not address fine collection.Â
This article appears in Nov 5-11, 2014.
The report is fraudulent science.
http://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Red-Light-Camera-Before-After-Studies-Deceit.pdf
The initial statement in the “study” deems the study pseudoscience:
“Red light running is complex and there is no single reason to explain why drivers run red lights. Red light running is generally a result of drivers wanting to save time . . .”
These are invalid premises. Injected into the study from its beginning is the hindsight bias that drivers are guilty. It makes a conclusion before investigation of causality. It is a well-known that fact that dilemma zones created by traffic engineers is the biggest contributor to red light running and crashes. That is because the math formula engineers use to set yellow light durations violates the laws of physics for general traffic movement. Traffic engineers will not admit the egregious error because they have committing it since 1965.
The “study” is typical of pro-camera studies. Those who do not know science will be deceived by it. Those deceived are the councilmen who read it and the engineers who wrote it.
The data hasn’t been rigorously interpreted. This is scandalous!
Good…police are not screwing around writing traffic tickets when there are much more serious things that need attention like murder, rape, assault, property theft etc. And. if city council and the mayor want police body cameras too then they can use the $1 million raised each year by traffic cameras to buy the cameras… I am not in favor of body cameras unless city council and the mayor wear them too. If we are going to keep the traffic cameras then use the money raised for more police to keep the streets safer so that people (home owners) come back to Rochester as well as businesses. We can use the money raised to give businesses tax breaks until they get established AND CREATE JOBS FOR THOSE ON THE STREETS. THE STREETS DON”T LOVE YA…DO THEY ? I would not want to see this traffic camera money to go into the general fund for employee raises etc.
CRAIG MOFFITT
Hey Brian…if the light is red ? STOOOOPPPPPPPP. Simple.
The mayor and city council have a choice whether or not to take several million dollars a year from a cash-strapped police department. What do you think they will do? Isn’t it likely that this study is biased. The red-light camera program has already been pre-approved by the state. But, the mayor and deputy mayor want us to believe that they are honestly reaccessing this program before the contract with Redflex is extended. Is this a snow job? It is. You just don’t get rid of money machines. You don’t.
Many of us want Rochester to scrap these damm things. Redflex has never won when red-light cameras were voted on. Never. Let’s focus on real traffic safety. These cameras don’t prevent accidents. It’s common sense.
This study is disgusting. Remember that Redflex is a company in Arizona that takes about 50% of the profits. The equipment is made in Australia. They always object to increasing the duration of the yellow light because violations and tickets would drop. This company stinks!
Mike…I drive for a living currently. I am 58 years old and a very safe driver with a spotless record. And, I have noticed over the last 10 years that drivers have become very, very aggressive. I don’t mind when they fly by me on the express way; cut me off or tail gate; but, I do mind when, at an intersection, the most probable place for an accident to occur, that people actually speed up or run red lights. Like I said before…use the camera revenue to hire more police to make the streets of Rochester safer so that businesses come back and home owners too. When police have to screw around with traffic control it takes away valuable,precious resources from patrols that should be proactively preventing or curtailing murder, rape, stabbings, grand larceny, fights, drug trafficking, prostitution, gang warfare, and the rest. Don’t you agree ? Or have I got it wrong ?
Accidents usually happen in roads and mostly, vehicles are involved. Cameras this time are big help in reducing these accidents. Those who do not know how to follow traffic rules are often the victim. everyone wants to be secured that is why they wanted o secure everything too like insurances at http://www.accidents-happen.com/ and anything related to trafficproblems like those cameras.
What City Hall’s belated “independent study” does not reveal is that there was no actual traffic problem to begin with and that many cities around the country are now pulling the plug on these programs – based on public outcry over the legal and technical flaws.
Rochester is pulling in over $3.5 million dollars a year that the City can spend any way it wants – that is the real reason for these City “gotcha” cameras.
See the discussion on my Facebook page for more :
https://www.facebook.com/RochesterNYAttorney/posts/335267243320374
I don’t have a real big problem wit the red light camera’s. It’s clearly a money grab, but just don’t run the light and they can’t grab the money. As someone who drives in the city everyday, I am definately more conservative on deciding whether to “run the yellow”.
However, I do have problems with how this is being operated.
1) City employees are allowed to run red lights if on city business. Why has no one commented on this? This is much more offensive than fining someone who has actually run a redlight.
2) If you get caught by the camera, you are assumed guitly until proven innocent, The only recourse is to go to court during the workday to fight the ticket. I have a big issue with this. I have recieved 1 red light ticket. The video evidence provided by the camera shows my car coming to a complete stop, sitting at the light during the entire red light, and then making a left turn after the light turns green.. I have to take time off work to fight this? These should go through a cursury review prior to issuing the ticket. I know this will cost some admin money, but it also avoid the economic loss of ne taking off work, taking more court time, and making everyone else wait longer in court.
If this is can be run better, just let it be. The city will get money from the guilty and the streets might be safer.
Moroninthehouse… well said and it makes sense. Send an email letter to Mayor Lovely Warren and City Council President. Make them bring it to the agenda as soon as possible as you have a great idea.
Craig R. Moffitt
These red light cameras are causing some people to stop abruptly when the light turns yellow. This dangerous action can cause an accident if the person behind is expecting to follow through the intersection. The cameras have undeniably CAUSED accidents!
Slow, “safe”, selfish drivers may avoid red light tickets for themselves, but they are certainly not contributing to efficient traffic movement. They make the roads more dangerous for themselves and especially everyone else.
The message of the Red Light Cameras in NYS and Rochester is that it’s OK to sometimes go through a red light, but you just have to PAY.
” These red light cameras are causing some people to stop abruptly when the light turns yellow “.
If you are approaching any intersection then the “rule of thumb” is to slow down, cover the brake and proceed with caution if you have the right of way… So, if someone is following a car too closely through an intersection, with a light changing from Red to Yellow, and the person hits you from behind, then the rule of traffic code automatically finds the person that hit the car ahead of him/her at fault for following a vehicle too closely or not being in control of his/ her vehicle. Stop at the Red if necessary… if yellow take you chances but proceed very slowly. If the light is already red then stop…simple.
Craig R. Moffitt
If you go over the crosswalk line a little or make a legal right on Red then no more ticket for running a red light…sounds fair to me. As well, use the revenue generated to hire more police to make the streets safer so that business and home owners come back to Rochester. Current population is 210,000 down from 310,000 and there are just over 2000 vacant properties up from 1000 in 1993. Do we have a problem Houston ? Yes we do… so keep the Red Light Cameras.
Poor people DO own cars. Should THEY be punished because they can’t remember who borrowed the car?
The money from the red light camera program isn’t used for anything in particular. It should be going towards improvements at the most dangerous intersections: traffic studies, more signs, fresh painting of stop lines, etc. This isn’t happening!
Redflex chooses the intersections and sets up the cameras in a way that makes the most money. The most dangerous intersections stay that way. Redflex doesn’t care. Their focus is on making the most money.
In my opinion, this program is highly flawed. I hope there’s still time to end it. Anyone who’s willing to spend 4 or 5 hours going online and studying the matter would reach the same conclusion.
Here’s proof that red light cameras cause accidents: At Alexander and Broadway, there were 1,172 violations during the 1st 3 months after installation. From April 1, 2014 thru June 30, 2014, there were only 360 violations. However, rear end collisions went from 1 pre-camera to 11 post-camera.
Once again…if a driver follows a vehicle too closely while driving too fast then at any intersection she / he will hit the car ahead and cause harm. That intersection is very bad in any case scenario because drivers are coming off from 490 west and driving too fast in any case. So just after Goodman, start to slow down a little to the Speed Limit which is 40 miles per hour…however when approaching Broadway and Alexander a safe driver would slow down even more and covering the brake while allowing even more room between his car and the car ahead. Everyone knows the intersection has a camera. What is the hurry anyways ? Slow the hell down and save a life !!!
According to my calculations, the red light cameras are having a 5% positive safety impact. I didn’t like that this report came out a few days before city council voted. The State Legislature similarly stifled any debate.