Red Light Camera Revenue Cost the City (West: law, dangerous)

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by danieloneil01

There was an increase in rear ends because people don't know how to smurfing drive. How many accidents does it take for morons to realize you should keep a safe distance from the car in front of you?


LOL, blaming cameras for accidents is about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Nice to see your city bend over that easy because people cried that it's the cameras fault.

The whole situation was ridiculous. The city knew they installed the cameras for the wrong reason, and the citizens knew it too. The citizens called them out on it. Plain and simple.

[love roses]

Originally Posted by danieloneil01

There was an increase in rear ends because people don't know how to smurfing drive. How many accidents does it take for morons to realize you should keep a safe distance from the car in front of you?


LOL, blaming cameras for accidents is about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Nice to see your city bend over that easy because people cried that it's the cameras fault.

Very true!

[TexasHorseLady]

Yes, the solution is very simple. Don't run red lights.

If you're in one of those rare situations where running the red light is the safest thing to do, then by all means do it, and then fight the ticket on that basis. Don't cry or get mad or whine because there's enforcement of traffic laws intended to keep us safe; that just looks childish.

And, yes, the rear-end collisions were not caused by the cameras OR the traffic lights, they were caused by people having to learn to drive (don't follow too closely or at too high a rate of speed is a very very basic concept of driving) when they had happily ignored that necessity for some time, evidently.

[spursfan]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Yes, the solution is very simple. Don't run red lights.

If you're in one of those rare situations where running the red light is the safest thing to do, then by all means do it, and then fight the ticket on that basis. Don't cry or get mad or whine because there's enforcement of traffic laws intended to keep us safe; that just looks childish.

And, yes, the rear-end collisions were not caused by the cameras OR the traffic lights, they were caused by people having to learn to drive (don't follow too closely or at too high a rate of speed is a very very basic concept of driving) when they had happily ignored that necessity for some time, evidently.

All I know is that at intersections in College Station known for red light cameras, people will slam on their brakes with no regard to anyone's safety even if they could easily make it through the yellow light. So it may not be the camera's fault, but without them there the chances of rear end collisions would go way down and more cars would make it through the intersection.

[Canine*Castle]

Originally Posted by spursfan

All I know is that at intersections in College Station known for red light cameras, people will slam on their brakes with no regard to anyone's safety even if they could easily make it through the yellow light. So it may not be the camera's fault, but without them there the chances of rear end collisions would go way down and more cars would make it through the intersection.

I don't agree. If a person is paying attention and following far enough behind a car, there shouldn't be a rear-end collision. What if one slammed on his or her breaks to avoid hitting an animal or pedestrian? Same deal. Don't tailgate.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

I don't agree. If a person is paying attention and following far enough behind a car, there shouldn't be a rear-end collision. What if one slammed on his or her breaks to avoid hitting an animal or pedestrian? Same deal. Don't tailgate.

Absolutely. Also, if there's not a rear-end collision because someone is tailgating and/or speeding, the chances of a side collision because people feel they can run a read light if they won't get caught (lovely attitude, that one, that speaks volumes about the degradation of society today) go up considerably.

[spursfan]

Originally Posted by Canine*Castle

I don't agree. If a person is paying attention and following far enough behind a car, there shouldn't be a rear-end collision. What if one slammed on his or her breaks to avoid hitting an animal or pedestrian? Same deal. Don't tailgate.

You don't have to tailgate to rear-end someone. I guarantee that at some point in everyone's daily driving if the person in front of you slammed on their brakes, you would smash into them. A good example of this is on 281 north of 1604 in san antonio---the speed limit is 60 and 65 with traffic lights. So you would essentially need to be about 5 miles behind the car in front of you to stop in time if they happened to slam on their brakes. It's not feasible to stay so far behind another car in traffic.

[Westerner92]

I didn't mean for my comment to start a debate about driving. I'm not going to defend people's bad driving, but the fact is that there was a significantly higher rate of rear end accidents at lights with cameras. Whether the people were are drivers or not doesn't matter because the cameras didn't do their supposed job, which is to increase the safety of those intersections. Red light cameras are only put up for ticket revenue of the city.

[Canine*Castle]

Originally Posted by spursfan

You don't have to tailgate to rear-end someone. I guarantee that at some point in everyone's daily driving if the person in front of you slammed on their brakes, you would smash into them. A good example of this is on 281 north of 1604 in san antonio---the speed limit is 60 and 65 with traffic lights. So you would essentially need to be about 5 miles behind the car in front of you to stop in time if they happened to slam on their brakes. It's not feasible to stay so far behind another car in traffic.

5 miles, are you kidding? That makes no sense. I always learned that if you stay one car length behind another per every 10 miles of speed, you're doing pretty well. Like I said, if one is paying attention and traveling behind another per this "formula", I believe one can avoid a rear-end collision.

I'm lucky to have the fools in my area be further than 1/2 car length behind me. I did have to slam on my brakes once and the jerk closely behind me slammed on his as well. The little girl in the car looked terrified, he did swerve a bit, but had he been many car lengths behind me, that would never have happened. Even as close as he was, he didn't hit me.

[TexasHorseLady]

If they're going to slam into them if they slam on their brakes, by definition, they are following too closely for the conditions of the road where they are and at that time. That's a simple fact. And, no, you don't have to be five miles behind the car in front of you at that speed. There are figures that tell how far behind you have to be at various speeds in order to stop if the car in front of you slams on its brakes and you have to (a) notice and (b) slam on your brakes and (c) come to a complete stop.

For 60 mph, for all that to happen on dry pavement takes 240 feet. On wet pavement, it increases a lot, to 420 feet.

So, in good weather, you would need to be, not five miles, but 1/22 of a mile behind the vehicle in front of you. That's really not a lot to ask - it's, as said, Driving 101 to not follow too closely for the conditions.