For opponents of traffic cameras, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety must surely be their worst enemy. The IIHS has already released a number of rather dubious reports as to the effectiveness of red light cameras, including community support for the technology. Perhaps the most blatant bit of devilry, however, occurred when the IIHS tweaked the definition of what constitutes an accident at an intersection. Under the new definition, only incidents that occur between the crosswalks are considered. We’re not entirely sure why the IIHS made this move. Our most logical guess is that it was done in an effort to provide empirical data backing up traffic camera technology. By counting only the accidents that occur between crosswalks, the IIHS found an effective way to omit rear-end collisions at red lights, thus showing a perceived reduction in accidents. Alterntively, more complete reports have often shown that a reduction in accidents between the crosswalks was counterbalanced by an increase in rear-end accidents as a result of panic braking.
The IIHS’ latest study follows the usual rhetoric that claims red light cameras are working great. Truthfully, this was not even an especially far-reaching study. In fact, it only followed four busy intersections, all of them in Arlington, Virginia, according to a report in The Car Connection. It still might seem odd that the IIHS reached the conclusion that it did, since the Virginia Transportation Research Council had previously released a study which found that red light cameras actually led to an increase in accidents. But the IIHS’ explanation here was simply a further skewing of statistics. The IIHS report actually said that red light cameras reduce the number of red light violations, and carefully avoided actually saying they reduced accidents.
The motivation for the IIHS report is seemingly simple. It represents the insurance industry, a group that profits from red light camera tickets as a pretext to increase rates. But this is really just one in a long series of reports regarding traffic cameras which makes the assumption that nobody is going to be looking at the results too closely. So we ask you, do you think traffic cameras compel you to drive more carefully and serve a real safety function, or is it just a ploy for insurance companies to exploit motorists?
The IIHS member insurance companies can issue expensive insurance surcharges to recipients of camera tickets in some states. Their “research” is anything but unbiased.
Look to the unbiased research done by academic groups and investigative reporters who have no financial stake in the quantity of camera tickets. Most of the unbiased research shows little or no safety gain from red light cameras AND shows they often raise the accident rates when installed.
Money is the only real motivation for red light cameras and they need to be banned in every state, as they are in several states already.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
Is the author too stupid to have any capacity for embarrassment…?
[The motivation for the IIHS report is seemingly simple. It represents the insurance industry, a group that profits from red light camera tickets as a pretext to increase rates.]
The author fails to note how the insurance industry profits from red light camera tickets while they remain a civil infraction and no points are assessed against violators.
[By counting only the accidents that occur between crosswalks, the IIHS found an effective way to omit rear-end collisions at red lights]
The cameras don’t cause crashes, genius.
The vast majority of motorists do not run red lights or crash in the vicinity of red light cameras.
For a condition to be found responsible for a crash it must at minimum cause all other like-type vehicles subject to that condition to crash.
When you endeavor to transfer responsibility for crashes from motorists to an inanimate object you can only be on the errand of a very obvious fool.
“The first thing we must recognize is that crashes are not accidents.”
-Ricardo Martinez, M.D., NHTSA Administrator, 1997
Not sure how you missed the way in which the insurance industry profits from red light cameras, seeing as you pasted my text about using them as a pretext to raise rates. Also, whether there are points attached to the ticket is completely irrelevant, since I’m not talking about license suspensions, I’m talking about higher insurance rates.
I am also not the one who hypothesized that red light cameras cause accidents, something you would have known if you had actually read any of the several studies which the article links to. You can call me all the names you want, but all that this article did was report on a new study from one organization and then point to several contradicting studies form other organizations. These are hardly new or unheard of ideas.
You apparently also can’t comprehend what you yourself write:
“By counting only the accidents that occur between crosswalks, the IIHS found an effective way to omit rear-end collisions at red lights…”
It doesn’t matter if the motorist to the front slams on the brakes for no reason, if you rear-end it you are guilty of failure to maintain adequate following distance.
The premise that RLCs cause crashes is childishly fallacious, and that of a child of very tender years.
“Correlation does not imply causation”, and “associated with” does not mean “attributable to”.
OK, I’m finished with this conversation unless you can:
a) accept that these are not my conclusions, but rather those of several organizations which have conducted studies on the subject of red light cameras
b) stop with the personal insults
Your “writing” insults the intelligence of slow 3rd graders.
The article does not read as if “The IIHS has already released a number of rather dubious reports as to the effectiveness of red light cameras..” is -your- conclusion… and you’re saying it’s not…?
Several “organizations”… such as motorists.org… to which your story contains a link… disguised as a link to “Virginia Transportation Research Council”… and which itself cites the totally anonymous and notoriously unreliable -blog- thenewspaper.com…?!
I hope that position at Fox News you must be gunning for comes through.
That’s kind of preposterous that they would define intersection accidents as being strictly in the square area between the crosswalks. I’m guessing they still include the crosswalks, though. But, without skewing the results by eliminating rear-endings, they probably could have made the case that bodily injuries and their severity went down – getting T-boned in an intersection by someone who accelerated to a higher speed to beat the light is far more likely to hospitalize or kill than a rear ending. Oh, and vehicle/pedestrian accidents in crosswalks are very bad news.
People just avoid them and get in a wreck down the street from them..