Houston's Red Light Cameras - Performance Study

[editor]

Study of City

RLC_Report__Full_Report_122908.pdf

[kylejack]

"As the study points out, when we compared non-monitored to monitored approaches before and after the cameras, we see that non-monitored approaches have observed an increase in collisions that is not observed at the monitored approaches," said Tim Lomax, research engineer and mobility analyst with the Texas Transportation Institute.

???

Collisions have increased at non-monitored intersections following the camera install? Intriguing..

[Geoff8201]

???

Collisions have increased at non-monitored intersections following the camera install? Intriguing..

Well, all those car crashes had to go somewhere!

It's relative. Where people tried harder to obey the law where cameras were present, had an opposite effect where they were not present. No camera means go ahead, cheat a little and you wont get caught, resulting in higher probability of crashes, and therefore more crashes in proportion. I wonder if some people actually changed their routes, simply to avoid the cameras and possibility of getting caught if they did violate, either knowingly or unknowingly? This would also add a few cars at the un-monitored intersections too... something to think about nonetheless.

Only solution is to put them up everywhere, as is what I see is going to happen.

I have one beef with the use of these cameras. And it is that they bust you for something just by coincidence... a few months back my girlfriend did a rolling right on red. The camera caught her for running a red light, and that is what her ticket was for. She did NOT run a red light. So in court the judge still fined her saying she failed to do a two-second stop/yield (which was true), as was evidence on video. In my opinion she should not have had to pay anything because what the Judge fined her for and what she was actually charged for were two different things. If they wanted to get her on failure to yield, there should have been a formal charge for that. But we fought the law, and the law won.

[kylejack]

I have one beef with the use of these cameras. And it is that they bust you for something just by coincidence... a few months back my girlfriend did a rolling right on red. The camera caught her for running a red light, and that is what her ticket was for. She did NOT run a red light. So in court the judge still fined her saying she failed to do a two-second stop/yield (which was true), as was evidence on video. In my opinion she should not have had to pay anything because what the Judge fined her for and what she was actually charged for were two different things. If they wanted to get her on failure to yield, there should have been a formal charge for that. But we fought the law, and the law won.

Isn't that probably the same law, just different applications? She failed to come to a complete stop at a red light.

[TJones]

???

Collisions have increased at non-monitored intersections following the camera install? Intriguing..

Perhaps those who are prone to redlight running and wishing to "stick it to the man" have migrated to these different intersections to avoid detection and have caused an increase of traffic at these non-monitored sites ?

[Jeebus]

I've trained myself to avoid any of the red-light intersections not because of the potential for a ticket, but from panicky drivers that might slam on their brakes.

[musicman]

I have one beef with the use of these cameras. And it is that they bust you for something just by coincidence... a few months back my girlfriend did a rolling right on red. The camera caught her for running a red light, and that is what her ticket was for. She did NOT run a red light.

GUILTY

[HtownWxBoy]

I have one beef with the use of these cameras. And it is that they bust you for something just by coincidence... a few months back my girlfriend did a rolling right on red. The camera caught her for running a red light, and that is what her ticket was for. She did NOT run a red light.

With all do respect.... you girlfriend did in fact run a red light. If you don't stop, it's running a red light. I flunked my first drivers test when I was 16 by "rolling right on red"... the instructor told me I failed b/c I "ran a red light".

I am all for these cameras. You stop at red lights... that's what "red" means... "STOP".

[Geoff8201]

Isn't that probably the same law, just different applications? She failed to come to a complete stop at a red light.

GUILTY

With all do respect.... you girlfriend did in fact run a red light. If you don't stop, it's running a red light. I flunked my first drivers test when I was 16 by "rolling right on red"... the instructor told me I failed b/c I "ran a red light".

I am all for these cameras. You stop at red lights... that's what "red" means... "STOP".

Yes, but the way I took it was running a red light was actually running it, and continuing on a straight path, and the rolling right was failure to yield, which seems much less offensive (not to mention a LOT less dangerous), especially if, like my girlfriend, you slowed down considerably (but not stopped, yes) to see that the path is clear and the turn was safe (I think the left turn lights for the street she was turning onto were green). Guess in the eyes of the law, a fine is a fine, and the two fall under the same offense. Learn something new everyday.

I'm sure a lot of drivers out there do not consider there to be a difference either... especially if there is not a "No Right on Red" Sign... which doesn't stop a lot of people anyways if cameras aren't present.

[HtownWxBoy]

Yes, but the way I took it was running a red light was actually running it, and continuing on a straight path, and the rolling right was failure to yield, which seems much less offensive (not to mention a LOT less dangerous), especially if, like my girlfriend, you slowed down considerably (but not stopped, yes) to see that the path is clear and the turn was safe (I think the left turn lights for the street she was turning onto were green). Guess in the eyes of the law, a fine is a fine, and the two fall under the same offense. Learn something new everyday.

I'm sure a lot of drivers out there do not consider there to be a difference either... especially if there is not a "No Right on Red" Sign... which doesn't stop a lot of people anyways if cameras aren't present.

The way I look at it... a red light means "stop"... no matter what. If you can turn on red... you first stop (since the light is red)... make sure it's OK to turn... and then turn. Either way a red light means you have to stop.

[TJones]

I have one beef with the use of these cameras. And it is that they bust you for something just by coincidence... a few months back my girlfriend did a rolling right on red. The camera caught her for running a red light, and that is what her ticket was for. She did NOT run a red light. So in court the judge still fined her saying she failed to do a two-second stop/yield (which was true), as was evidence on video. In my opinion she should not have had to pay anything because what the Judge fined her for and what she was actually charged for were two different things. If they wanted to get her on failure to yield, there should have been a formal charge for that. But we fought the law, and the law won.

You fought when you had no cause to. You should have known your girlfriend was guilty before you entered the courtroom, if you had read your driver's handbook back when you were 15. Doing a "rolling right on red" IS running a red light, just like doing a "California Roll" through a stop sign, IS running a stop sign. Yielding is not how making a right on red is properly executed. You don't yield, you MUST make a COMPLETE stop for 2 to 3 seconds MINIMUM before proceeding. Your girl ran a redlight, she deserved the ticket. Sorry for the reality check.

Edited December 31, 2008 by TJones

[kylejack]

Just to clarify, there is no such charge as "running a red light." I'm quite sure the charge is called something like...Failure to Yield, or something. As such your girlfriend did whatever that charge is.

And Tjones, I would expect any person charged with a crime to fight whether they have cause to or not. It is their right.

Edited December 31, 2008 by kylejack

[ig2ba]

... You don't yield, you MUST make a COMPLETE stop for 2 to 3 seconds MINIMUM before proceeding. Your girl ran a redlight, she deserved the ticket. Sorry for the reality check.

2 to 3 seconds "MINIMUM"? Where do you get that from?

[TJones]

2 to 3 seconds "MINIMUM"? Where do you get that from?

It is taught in driving school. It is how the police judge your performance at stop signs also. What do you think the rule is, tap your brakes and go ? That's fine, I guess you can tell it to the judge also. Oh wait, the Judge in the girlfriend's case seems to also think that's the law. Hmmm, go figure ?

kylejack, I am more inclined to NOT waste the court's and taxpayer's time, when I know I am caught redhanded on tape... now, if I was ignorant of the law, then perhaps I can see your point. Otherwise, I'll go pay the ticket.

This is from trafficschoolonline.com

"Right On Red

Texas is a right on red state. For a lot of out of state drivers this can be very disconcerting. Right on red means that unless it is otherwise posted, it is legal to make a right turn at a red light after coming to a complete stop and verifying that lane of travel you are turning into is clear. However, be aware that the signs posting no right on red are usually rectangular and hung near the traffic light itself. Failure to obey can lead to a stiff fine and a traffic ticket."

Edited December 31, 2008 by TJones

[editor]

The only traffic ticket I've ever gotten was in Houston, and it was for a red light (nighttime downpour downtown, first day with a new car, thought I might slide through if I tried to stop).

2 to 3 seconds "MINIMUM"? Where do you get that from?

In driving school I was taught that cops look for your car to "settle" -- I don't remember the exact term for it. But it's when the back end of the car dips down a little when you stop. It's not something you can fake while rolling slowly, it only happens when you actually stop.

I think it takes way less than 2-3 seconds.

Texas is a right on red state. For a lot of out of state drivers this can be very disconcerting.

I'm not sure what that means. I think the only place in the nation where right turn on red is banned is in New York City.

[CoolBuddy06]

The only traffic ticket I've ever gotten was in Houston, and it was for a red light (nighttime downpour downtown, first day with a new car, thought I might slide through if I tried to stop).

In driving school I was taught that cops look for your car to "settle" -- I don't remember the exact term for it. But it's when the back end of the car dips down a little when you stop. It's not something you can fake while rolling slowly, it only happens when you actually stop.

I think it takes way less than 2-3 seconds.

Right. I'd never heard this but you'll know when your car comes to a full stop when driving. The phenomenon called inertia in physics is what the cops are looking for. It takes 1 sec, no more than that, with a car.

[TJones]

Right. I'd never heard this but you'll know when your car comes to a full stop when driving. The phenomenon called inertia in physics is what the cops are looking for. It takes 1 sec, no more than that, with a car.

At what speed CB06 ? I will even be conservative and say traveling 10mph up to the light. Ok, go ahead and count one-one thousand.

Does that really seem like enough time for your ton and a half , eco-friendly, deathmachine to settle ? Now try counting the same way, but to three this time. Which makes more sense, and which one do you think the cop at the corner is looking for ?

[CoolBuddy06]

At what speed CB06 ? I will even be conservative and say traveling 10mph up to the light. Ok, go ahead and count one-one thousand.

Does that really seem like enough time for your ton and a half , eco-friendly, deathmachine to settle ? Now try counting the same way, but to three this time. Which makes more sense, and which one do you think the cop at the corner is looking for ?

oh you want to factor in the time it takes you to get to zero mph? I'm only talking about when your forward inertia stops and your car's rear end "rests". The time it takes you to stop is very, very variable. That's more than 3 secs, even at 10 mph.

[HtownWxBoy]

Texas is a right on red state. For a lot of out of state drivers this can be very disconcerting. Right on red means that unless it is otherwise posted, it is legal to make a right turn at a red light after coming to a complete stop and verifying that lane of travel you are turning into is clear. However, be aware that the signs posting no right on red are usually rectangular and hung near the traffic light itself. Failure to obey can lead to a stiff fine and a traffic ticket."

I thought you can turn right on red in all states... I guess that could be wrong. I grew up in Pennsylvania and you can turn right on red there, also.

NOTE... you can also turn left on red if you are turning from one "one way" street to another "one way" street.

[TJones]

oh you want to factor in the time it takes you to get to zero mph? I'm only talking about when your forward inertia stops and your car's rear end "rests". The time it takes you to stop is very, very variable. That's more than 3 secs, even at 10 mph.

Seeing as how you are to come to a complete stop ? Umm, yeah, that is kinda important here.

Htown, you still have to come to a complete stop and check before making that left, correct ?

[HtownWxBoy]

Htown, you still have to come to a complete stop and check before making that left, correct ?

Yes... same rules apply as when turning right on red... the only difference is you can only do it when you are on a one-way street turning left onto another one-way street. You can do this a lot Downtown.

[editor]

Here's the Chronicle's follow-up to the red light camera study:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/6189708.html

One specialist from a renowned traffic research organization who reviewed the study for the Houston Chronicle said the methodology was "flawed" and has serious "limitations."

[ig2ba]

It is taught in driving school. It is how the police judge your performance at stop signs also. What do you think the rule is, tap your brakes and go? ...

So those are my only two choices? 2-3 seconds MINIMUM (bold mine, caps original) or "tap your brakes and go"?

In later posts, you're describing the stopping process, not the amount of time you are stopped. If that takes you 2 seconds (from the time of applying the brakes to being stopped) or 15 seconds, that's up to you.

Also, if you found something in a driver's education guide, that doesn't hold any weight. While these classes are useful, sometimes there's all kinds of propaganda in here - depending on the course. They give you rules of thumb and guidelines for many things and pretend as if they're required by law. For instance (a little off topic), the "rule" for following distance used to be 1 car length for every 10 mph. I saw this in old driver's ed films. Then it became 2 second following distance. Now, some courses are teaching a 4 second following distance. Where does it end? Will it be 8 or 10 seconds in a generation? Should I believe it just because they say it's so?

They don't provide any reason for these changes.

They don't provide any research which supports this change.

There has been no change in any law that requires this following distance.

I myself leave as much room as possible - I love my space on the highway - and let people pass if they're within 10 car lengths of my car. But there's no law as these courses pretend there is. Have you ever heard of someone pulled over for less than 2 seconds following distance?

Edited January 1, 2009 by ig2ba

[TJones]

ig2ba, I am talking about being completely stopped at the intersection for 2 to 3 seconds MINIMUM, not the amount of time you have applied your brakes for. Try to keep up.

Yes... same rules apply as when turning right on red... the only difference is you can only do it when you are on a one-way street turning left onto another one-way street. You can do this a lot Downtown.

Thanks for verifying that for everyone.