Some good news today with the government announcing it has released a position paper on the use of red light cameras. This has been a fairly long time coming after a trial of them a few years ago in Auckland. Even the AA were getting upset with the lack of haste in getting the cameras approved for more widespread use. Anyway, here is the statement from Michael Woodhouse:
Associate Minister of Transport Michael Woodhouse has released a position paper on red light cameras that paves the way for their use at intersections where an evidence-based benefit can be established.
“Red light running is a significant safety issue and evidence suggests that red light cameras could prove an important tool to reduce injuries and save lives,” Mr Woodhouse says.
Between 2008 and 2012, there were 11 fatalities, 169 serious injuries and 1466 minor injuries where the running of a red light was a contributing factor. The average annual social cost of these crashes is estimated at $43 million.
“The Position Paper outlines how more red light cameras can be introduced to help reduce the number of casualties at signalised intersections. It provides guidance to relevant authorities to ensure cameras are implemented in a coordinated approach to produce the best safety outcomes.”
A red light camera trial that ran in Auckland between 2008 and 2010 showed an average 43 per cent reduction in red light running, and an average 69 per cent decrease in crashes attributable to red light running.
“We have seen the positive impact red light cameras have made in Auckland, and international evidence reinforces those findings.”
Current cameras require in-road sensors and manual collation of data. The Position Paper confirms that future cameras will have radar to detect red light running, and operate wirelessly to automatically send information to Police.
“Moving to this new technology is a significant change and will result in significant long-term benefits and cost savings.
“The next steps for red light cameras are all underway. These involve providing local authorities with guidance on site selection, upgrading the Police IT platform so it can cope with camera data, and tendering to determine the new camera provider.
“While this work continues, we are seeing red light camera sites expanded around Auckland using the existing technology, while we wait for the new digital framework to be developed and cameras to be sourced.
“I’m expecting to see these new generation red light cameras appearing at intersections from the end of next year.
“While other interventions are available to discourage people from making risky decisions at signalised intersections, I’m confident that red light cameras can be a powerful addition to the road safety toolkit.”
The Position Paper is available at: www.saferjourneys.govt.nz/about-safer-journeys/news/red-light-camera-position-paper/
From what I can tell it doesn’t mean that we will start seeing cameras popping up soon, and intersections will need to have a fairly strong case to have them installed over other forms of intervention which means they are only likely to be used at the very worst intersections from a safety point of view. It also suggests that they might not be able to be deployed to stop issues like drivers entering the intersection when there is no space on the other side and therefore blocking up other traffic on the connecting streets, a common occurrence in Auckland.
Processing...
“and an average 69 per cent decrease in crashes attributable to red light running”
That was carefully worded. I thought the overseas research showed a significant increase in crashes attributable to sudden braking, and an overall increase in crashes and injuries.
Are you inferring it is better to allow reckless driving (running red lights) to try and reduce the impact of dangerous driving (not paying attention, sudden braking and the person behind following too closely)? I’m sure people will learn to not charge at the orange lights, actually look at the lights, and not follow too closely.
These cameras, with speed cameras, can’t come soon enough if you ask me.
I think cameras can cause nervous drivers to brake when a following driver has reasonably assessed that the situation allows both cars to cross the intersection. Is the following driver acting recklessly by not allowing for the nervous drivers’ erratic braking? Legally, probably yes. But practically, we all drive in a way that relies on other traffic acting in a mostly-rational manner.
Is punishing offenders is so important that you’re willing to put up with extra injuries and damage to do so?
Which is an excellent reason to require a practical driving test when you renew a driver’s licence. That sort of shit might have passed muster back in the 70s, but today you’d quickly fail your test if you followed close enough that you can’t stop.
But as for your second part, are you going to link to any of this supposed research that shows that red-light cameras increase crashes?
Here is an enforcement idea… An unmarked police car could drive in heavy at-speed-limit traffic on an Auckland motorway. At some random moment they would brake really hard. Foot to the floor hard. I predict that about 50 percent of the time it would be carnage. Once the police removed the wrecks, they would visit the survivors in hospital and charge them with following too close. Bad drivers would be punished. Authority would be respected. And good drivers rear ended by bad drivers would just be collateral damage in the War on Bad Driving. Although you could be right, and all drivers born after 1965 would be able to stop and would escape unharmed.
Here are a couple of links…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311151159.htm
“Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10301416503/another-report-shows-redlight-cameras-increasing-accidents.shtml
“As we’ve noted in the past, if municipalities really wanted to decrease accidents, they’d do two things: (1) increase the length of yellow lights and (2) add a delay after lights in one direction turn red before the lights in the other direction turn green”
Where to even begin with that ridiculous idea? It sounds horrific. I think my idea of having a test to show that you’re a reasonably safe driver before you’re allowed on the road unsupervised is a much better one.
It also doesn’t have much to do with the topic at hand, since there aren’t many red lights on the motorway.
As for your studies, I don’t think data from the US is particularly useful. They have a bad history of shortening the length of the yellow phase to increase revenue from red light cameras, which would easily explain an increase in crashes: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/complaints-intensify-over-short-yellow-lights-red-light-cameras/-/1637132/20383656/-/mbonojz/-/index.html
But if you actually read the article you yourself linked to (via techdirt) you’d have read the money quotes –
“The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that red-light cameras saved 159 lives in 14 U.S. cities between 2004 and 2008.”
“The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation reviewed “reportable” accidents (those involving death, injury, or damage requiring a tow) at 10 intersections in Philadelphia and found those accidents dropped 21 percent, from 157 a year before cameras to 124 a year after cameras”
Sorry, lousy editing. For “it” in the second paragraph, read “Your idea about having a police car brake hard on the motorway”.
The example you have given is of an aggressive driver – and I am all for enforcement of the law to keep others safe from them. From my point of view, running a red light is much more dangerous than stopping for an amber.
Now I’m not sure about this whole hypothesis of red light cameras being so dangerous, but regardless there are any number of things can cause a car in front to stop unexpectedly and people need to be prepared for that. On the whole I think most people are prepared to stop, except for when they get distracted (phone call, change radio, play with the heater…) and bam. Rush hour on the motorway with people impatient and/or trying to fend off queue jumpers must lead to tail gating and crashes as well.
“I think cameras can cause nervous drivers to brake when a following driver has reasonably assessed … the situation … is the following driver acting recklessly by not allowing for the nervous drivers’ erratic braking? ”
The question then is what constitutes a good driver? We could probably make a list of various attributes we think a good driver ought to have, and I would suggest that ‘not crashing’ or something to that effect would be one of the entries on the list. Another might be ‘obeying traffic signals’.
Sure, in real life people have crashes. In real life people misjudge intersections, and so on. I’m sure the example you give can and has happened to various people and may well have ended with unfortunate results. The problem I have with your proposition is this – if we say that the two attributes I gave above are in fact ones we think should be demonstrated by good drivers, then it obviates the discussion completely. A good driver shouldn’t run a red light anyway, and they shouldn’t misjudge the timing on the intersection. By waiving these criteria, we are in effect saying that these no longer apply, and that good drivers do in fact, from time to time, disobey traffic signals, or get into crashes.
Of course in real life they do. People are fallible and make mistakes, some are impatient, but I fail to see why this is an argument against red light cameras. The fact is you simply shouldn’t do these sorts of things, and the responsibility is on you, the driver, to ensure that you don’t. I don’t really know how things are handled if you kill someone behind the wheel due to a freak accident outside of your control (i.e: brake failure, black ice on road), but I would imagine that when it came time to lay criminal charges the circumstance would be taken into account (IANAL though). The fact that a situation like that could arise isn’t itself a good reason to remove legislation around careless driving causing injury, and in the same vein the fact that people might have more accidents around red light cameras should, if anything, be a reflection on their bad driving skills, since in an ideal situation, some model ‘good’ driver ought not to do those things.
I don’t buy it- if someone brakes for a red light and has a nose-to-tail, unlikely to be much injury. The wrong measure is being used- should be measuring the injury and mortality, not the accident rate.
Secondly if motorists are having trouble stopping, we can reduce speed limits until that problem goes away.
bingo
Red for you, Green for someone else… Im with Feijoe, NZ drivers are terrible for running lights and the cameras can not come quick enough.
You have to decide whether your city is a “run red lights” city or a “jump green lights” city. Cause you can’t be both…
A good way to help fund the CRL too. Say $250 in fines each time a vehicle goes through a red!
Should be paid off in a couple of months. 😉
And how about tackling the drunk driving & running away from police?- these are 2 far bigger issues that need the courts support to change these deadly habits. Maybe they’ll come with a “drunk camera” to solve one………
Associate Minister of Transport Michael Woodhouse has released a position paper on red light cameras that paves the way for their use at intersections where an evidence-based benefit can be established.
You could drive a B-train through that caveat. This is just a way of him talking down action. Bring on either Genter or Twyford, and make these mandatory on ever camera in the country.
Meanwhile, people will be injured and die because of Woodhouse’s fixation with the rights of law-breakers.
Im not convinced drunk driving is a bigger risk than running red lights. Please do not paint me with support of drunk drivers (I am def not) but running a red light is an extremely selfish and dangerous activity because while it is red for you, it is green for someone else. Often bikers get killed in these sorts of accidents because of their acceleration away from the green light coincides with the red light runner.
Or pedestrians, it is frankly a miracle that a pedestrian isn’t killed daily at the Grafton/Symonds Street intersection. Drivers running late out of Grafton Road over a blind hill at 40+ kph.
I have nearly been run down crossing on the green man signal many, many times over the years ( several times while crossing with young children. Once I had to leap out of the way of a courier van while six months pregnant!) This despite always looking before starting to cross. As a driver, I have seen similar, accident causing behaviour with cars flying through intersections on what is clearly a red (seeing as my light was green). Red light cameras can’t come soon enough. If it has the effect of making people more aware of safe following distances all the better.
I believe the law states that you should stop on the yellow if possible. If not, it should, There seems to be a habit that is more or less epidemic in NZ that amber means speed up… Now I’m no saint when it comes to driving, especially in Europe. I have driven from Zurich to Calias in 5hrs 15 mins and it rained for most of the trip. But whilst it may be safe to exceed the speed limits, subject to your own abilities, the performance of the car your driving, and the road conditions, it is hard to justify ever crashing a red light or even speeding up as you approach one.
One of the paradoxes in life is NZ has some of the nicest roads in the world and yet some of the worst drivers 🙁
You’re right. It is illegal not to stop if you can do so safely: “a driver facing the signal must not enter the controlled area while the signal is displayed unless the driver’s vehicle is, when the signal first appears, so close to the controlled area that it cannot safely be stopped before entering the area” – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303062.html – $150 fine.
It is also illegal to accelerate into an intersection: “A driver must not increase speed when approaching an intersection if any other vehicle is approaching or crossing.” – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303079.html – $150 fine.
Yellow means stop.
My overseas travels haven’t involved much driving, so I can’t really speak for driving cultures elsewhere, but further to this point, I would say that in my observations NZ drivers exhibit what I would call ‘unnecessary impatience’. I sometimes walk home late at night from town, and even at 1am I’ll see drivers who race to get through yellow lights, despite there being literally not a car in sight, people who accelerate out of driveways without looking, aggressive overtaking before lights to get one car ahead, and so on. Yellow seem to be thought of as more of a countdown timer to red (ie: you’ve got 10 seconds to get through this light starting now) than an indication to slow down.
I fully support rolling out red light cameras at more intersections. I think much of the betters would come from randomly cycling, say 5 cameras, around all intersections in the central city, which I believe is what AT (and it’s predecessor orgs) were doing.
But they should build the camera pole/housing at all intersections as a deterrent effect. Drivers will never know whether a camera is present but are likely to adjust their driving habits accordingly.
And that’s what this is about: Forming better driving habits. I’d like to think that if we hit it hard early on and got the message out then the need for these measures would decline over time as driving norms became safer. You’d always want a few cameras of course at the most problematic intersections.