On one hand, it's a bit of a money grab, but on the other hand I drive like an asshole and have never been tagged by one despite car commuting past them almost every day. The red light cameras with our ridiculously short yellows drive me nuts, but with the speed cameras I can't feel too bad for anyone caught by them. They're well marked and you have signs indicating "WARNING: SPEED CAMERA AHEAD" before you pass them.
I don’t see the bolded as an mutually exclusive options, I think we can and should narrow car lanes and add physical protection to bike lanes and use automated enforcement for speeding violations. My biggest issue with punitive measures is that they’re regressive and directly and indirectly target vulnerable populations in the city. I’d love to see fines tiered based on income levels, so that the fines are as much of a deterrent to the well off as they are to the rest of the city. Probably reason #400 or so why I’ll never win an election.
They’re absolutely not mutually exclusive but if we are interested in safety and not revenue, there are options. If we’re interested in safety at all cameras don’t actually help. “Under Swiss law, the level of fine is determined by the wealth of the driver and the speed recorded.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10960230
Well, speed cameras have been shown to reduce accidents overall, so I think they objectively help as far as safety is concerned. Kudos to the Swiss- would honestly prefer that model by a great deal.
My understanding is that the number of accidents do not decrease although the severity of them MAY. More up to date research may be available but I didn’t see it. I know. Logically it seems like they should help but they jury may still be out on them.
The CDC says they reduce total and serious injury crashes, although the data is about a decade old. I know that with red light cameras, total accidents did not fall immediately, but there were fewer side impact t-bone crashes (which are more likely to be fatal) and an increase in rear end collisions, with minor or no injuries, which seems like a good trade off. Either way, the 6 mph limit is a blatant money grab disguised as a safety measure, so I’ll personally be checking in on the data just to see if they can at least demonstrate some safety benefits, which is all I’m really hoping for.
Usain Bolt would struggle to sprint across Western Ave. at Lawrence before the signal changes from "Walk" to "Don't Walk". When you combine that with the "speed up to beat the red light and camera" behavior and general fkuctardery driving during rush hour in them there parts, I'm astounded there aren't more casualties at that intersection.
While we're on the topic, fresh from Streetsblog Chicago: New data shows Chicago’s speed cameras are effective in preventing traffic deaths The path they took to get to the headline seems a little indirect, but it makes sense in the context of the article, to me at least. Fatal or serious injury crashes increased by 1 percent near speed cameras between 2012-13 and 2017-18, compared to a 19 percent increase citywide. Between 2012-13 and 2017-18, overall crash totals increased 4 percent in the cam locations, compared to a 26 percent increase in all crashes citywide. Speed-related crashes increased 25 percent near speed cameras, compared to a 75 percent increase citywide. I would definitely recommend giving the whole article a read.
i may need to concede the point then though the counterfactual still stands unanswered: what if they used traffic calming measures instead of fines?
Traffic probably reroutes itself to some extent. I avoid one specific intersection near me when I can because of the camera, in other places I do just drive slower temporarily. So some of the drop is real and some probably just moved accidents and deaths to other areas of the city. So basically every intersection needs cameras or we need to implement other citywide safety measures. I’m personally in favor of taking down the cameras and implementing other safety measures.
I'm surprised we haven't heard about an increase in incidents along Milwaukee west of Western since they redid it. The calming is fine, but people are determined to drive like idiots on that stretch. I see cars crossing the median all the time now.
Traffic deaths in Chicago in 2020 were the highest they've been in over a decade - that's coming off of a significant decrease in 2019. That's pretty exceptional, especially considering there were fewer cars on the road - but speeding is more likely to occur when there are fewer cars on the road and when the likelihood of getting caught is decreased (Chicago Police issued way fewer speeding tickets last year than in 2019). I've hated paying my red light camera tickets, and it's a very regressive form of revenue generation, but the evidence now strongly suggests they save lives, at least in an accounting sense, maybe not in an economic sense.
People drive like crazy everywhere and have no clue how to drive properly. But I'm 100% opposed to any extra surveillance in the name of "safety". Just a money grab
Wait you're saying that putting cameras and finding people $100 to $200 for going through a red light led to more collisions? Shocker
Again, we would have to account for traffic flow issues to assess if the deaths decreased or simply migrated to other areas.
That’s not what that is saying at all. The increase in collisions is being, anecdotally at least, attributed to more miles being driving due to the uptick in rideshare over the past 5 years or so. Also, while rear end collisions are up, but more dangerous “t-bone” collisions are down, so yeah, it looks like the cameras can be both a cash grab and a safety improvement all in one.
The current research has found ways to normalize this - here's a study that compares fatal crash rates in cities with red light cameras to those without them, so this limits the substitution effect you're talking about. . https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2121 Others demonstrate citywide decreases in fatal crashes, not just on specific corners. https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/1510 There have been some studies that have shown less significance - most of them older - but at this point the body of evidence seems to suggest that, whatever one's qualms with them, they save lives and reduce injuries.
If we’re going to have cameras, this is better than a money grab. But I don’t favor the surveillance.
Would that even work? Or could the offender just drive slower during the ban period avoiding a second offense? But no.
“Both organizations are wholly supported by these auto insurers and insurance associations.” Gotta be careful about the results of a study funded by organizations that potentially benefit from the results of the study. There are plenty of methods to safely slow down traffic without regressive taxes or major privacy concerns, if the goal is safety and not regressive taxation and the invasion of privacy.
Great catch. They have "Insurance" in their names. That should be quite the giveaway. Also, they "benefit" for the results of the study in a multitude of ways. Of course, fewer serious collisions result in much lower payouts for the insurance companies. That is great for the people (fewer people injured/killed and fewer cars damaged), but is amazingly great for the insurance companies. On the whole, I would say everybody benefits. However, that is not the insidiousness. Red light and speed cameras mean more tickets. More tickets mean more fines for the drivers (of course). However, more tickets also means more "knocks" (or "points" in the states that count points) against ones driving record. This is especially true if one does not pay the tickets. Until January, drivers could have their licenses suspended for accumulating too many red light/speed camera tickets. More knocks against one's driving record, the higher the insurance rates, even though those drivers are really not more "risky" than those drivers who did not receive red light/speed camera tickets. Higher insurance rates, MORE profits for the insurance companies. Not to mention that in Chicago, the red light/speed cameras are disproportionately in lower income neighborhoods. There is not a single camera on Michigan Avenue or Wabash or State St or Dearborn, for instance. There is one on Columbus and a couple of "speed cameras" by the NBC Tower. I worked and drove downtown for 15 years. Almost everybody down there (especially "Uber" drivers and taxi drivers) drives like an asshole and rarely follows the rules. Throw a few dozen cameras there and, boom, the City deficit is gone. Oh, and lots and lots of people could avoid being struck. There are NONE, between Chicago Ave. and North Ave., from the Lake to Halsted, with a single "speed camera" from Chicago to Fullerton, the Lake to Halsted and two red light cameras going north all the way to Belmont, despite being able to drive very fast on Stockton, Cannon, Clark and Lincoln. Yet, there are about 6-8 on North Ave. west of Humbolt Park and dozen or more on Western Ave on the South side. http://webapps1.chicago.gov/traffic/ https://www.propublica.org/article/... voted to end,reform package passed this week.