accidents fall at Houston red light camera locations (prices, safety)

[baytownb]

New article, note not once in his previous camera studies did Stein ever mention that there was a decline in accidents because of lower traffic patterns over the last few years but now that the cameras are off it is common knowledge. Also note that fatalites in Houston have remained steady over the last 3 years. The same 3 years the cameras were up. But I thought it was about saving lives right? Why haven't the fatalities declined? Also interesting that the camera locations experience a LARGER decline in accidents vs city wide 16% vs 13%. So much for the weather being the only reason for the decline! Keep trying Houston, you will find an excuse or the first uptick in accident when it starts raining again and you can go back to telling us it has to be because the cameras are gone!

Data show Houston auto crashes drop 13% | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

[baytownb]

ATS is keeping the cameras running for 2 reasons. One, most likely the federal judge will overturn the election. He was in a rush to get everything in last year and now he is sitting on the case, why? He doesn't want the lege to write new laws to overturn his decision. Soon after the lege is over he will announce his decision, mark my words. Next, they want to gather stats that they can use to tweek to try to make more claims like violations are increasing.

Originally Posted by DiverTodd62

I think it's hilarious how officials are scrambling to come up with alternate explanations or why the data doesn't mean anything. You know if accidents at red light intersections had been up relative to other intersections, even if only 3% higher, they would be tripping over themselves to say how it definitively proves we need the cameras back.

One thing is for sure, turning off the cameras didn't cause accidents to sharply increase as the doomsayers predicted.

One more thing, what's this BS about ATS continuing to report violations to HPD? How can they do that if the cameras are turned off? Oh that must mean the cameras are not really turned off. Is this somehow part of settling the claims against the city by ATS? Maybe they are being paid to monitor and report data?

[AkronAlan]

Everything you need to know about Tampa Bay's red-light cameras - St. Petersburg Times

Tampa Bay red light cameras:

No ticket is given if you entered the intersection before the red light, even if it's red by the time you exit. This is obvious because if you're turning left you have to wait until the oncoming traffic stops.

The law does not require a dead stop before turning right on red. Common sense dictates you want to stop first to see if anything is coming.

If someone else is driving your car, you don't pay the fine as long as you identify who the driver was. If they deny it, then you need to reconsider lending your car to said liar.

Red light cameras don't cause rear-end collisions...tailgaters do. If someone is following too closely all you need to do is slow down.

[baytownb]

I like this part of the article;

Why are the rules more lenient when an owner pays right away?
According to the attorney general, the Legislature figured that cameras would lead to lots of tickets and could clog up courts, so the law builds in incentives for owners to pay right away and not fight. The constitutionality of that provision is being challenged.

Once again, all about the money, BTW Texas does require a complete stop before a right on red. And I don't buy the argument that it is OK to install cameras that everyone agrees is associated with an increase in rear end accidents because it's OK as long as you were just hit by a tailgater. And it isn't just rear end accidents that go up at camera intersections, injury accidents, total accidents and even TBONE accidents have been reported increasing at camera locations.

Originally Posted by AkronAlan

Everything you need to know about Tampa Bay's red-light cameras - St. Petersburg Times

Tampa Bay red light cameras:

No ticket is given if you entered the intersection before the red light, even if it's red by the time you exit. This is obvious because if you're turning left you have to wait until the oncoming traffic stops.

The law does not require a dead stop before turning right on red. Common sense dictates you want to stop first to see if anything is coming.

If someone else is driving your car, you don't pay the fine as long as you identify who the driver was. If they deny it, then you need to reconsider lending your car to said liar.

Red light cameras don't cause rear-end collisions...tailgaters do. If someone is following too closely all you need to do is slow down.

[texas7]

Exclusive: Accidents way up around Houston with red light cameras off | abc13.com

[baytownb]

Let's see, why can either believe the camera company's stats that had to go back to 2009 to find data they wanted or we can believe the chronicle who actually is pro camera but reported how accidents actually went down after the election. Accidents fall at Houston red-light camera intersections | Newswatch | a Chron.com blog

"In the five months after Houston voters forced city officials to turn off a camera surveillance system that fined motorists for running red lights, traffic accidents at those 50 intersections with 70 cameras have decreased 16 percent, according to recently released data.
The drop in accidents surprised Houston police administrators who say a possible explanation is the unusually dry weather during recent months has made driving conditions safer. They also wonder if years of electronic monitoring have made Houstonians better, if not more cautious, drivers. "

I love how they came up with all kinds of excuses why the chronicle data wasn't accurate but the data from ATS is now gospel, it would be laughable if it wasn't so obvious.

Originally Posted by texas7

Exclusive: Accidents way up around Houston with red light cameras off | abc13.com

[LilyLady]

Originally Posted by AkronAlan

....Red light cameras don't cause rear-end collisions...tailgaters do. If someone is following too closely all you need to do is slow down.

I wish people would figure this out. The tailgaters up here are MUCH, MUCH worse than what I dealt with while I lived in Houston. I hate being tailgated!!!

BTW, we have cameras up here too. It doesn't matter. The tailgaters are everywhere - interstates, secondary highways, and plain old 2-lane city streets.

[RVD26]

LOL, both sides can make up/manipulate stats to support their argument.

[baytownb]

that's true, but when one side publishes data that goes against their position like the chronicle did you have to give that a bit more credibility, you can't argue that they are pushing their own agenda like you can with the camera company. Note that the camera company doesn't deny that there were fewer accidents immediately after the election than before, they just say, "don't look at those stats, look at these".

Originally Posted by RVD26

LOL, both sides can make up/manipulate stats to support their argument.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by LilyLady

I wish people would figure this out. The tailgaters up here are MUCH, MUCH worse than what I dealt with while I lived in Houston. I hate being tailgated!!!

BTW, we have cameras up here too. It doesn't matter. The tailgaters are everywhere - interstates, secondary highways, and plain old 2-lane city streets.

Maybe we need tailgate cameras?