Comments on: Red-Light and Speed Cameras As Expenditure Reducers

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:11:41 +0000

I’ve thought before that speed limit signs should be able to automatically communicate the speed limit to cars, which could act on the information by, for example, making the dashboard glow red when the car exceeded the limit. Or perhaps sounding a piercing in-car alarm?

It’s sad that a third-party is providing this service. If the govt is going to have ever-changing speed limits on its roads they should be responsible for making it easy to comply with them.

By: matt

matt — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:46:38 +0000

I did miss the reference to red-light cameras, I apologize. The majority of the article is about point to point speed cameras though, and my point still stands: a few anecdotes doesn’t make it hogwash. I’m also curious as to how red light cameras move collisions to the intersections adjacent to the cameras, does anyone have links to reports that find that?

And I’ll admit I’m no economist, but I suspect forcing a lot of people to wait for taxis will have a significant detrimental affect on growth. I do agree your suggestions would make people safer though.

By: aaron

aaron — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:50:40 +0000

It is about red light and point to point cameras.

Yes, I’m a little serious. Going the speedlimit is generally a good thing, but not always. Depends on type of road and conditions. Electronic signs and variable speed postings would be a good fix.

You won’t get the reduction in accidents you expect, and there are better ways of achieving that. Making licenses more difficult to get is one way. People should be expected to have a certain amount of skill and alertness to drive. Subsidizing taxi and delivery services and reserving the road for more competent drivers is a better solution.

Focusing on people obstructing flow would be much more valuable. People not signalling, driving a certain threshold slower or faster than traffic flow, people accelerating too slowly, cruising in the left lane (when the road is below capacity). And getting offenders off the road. These are the things that will improve safety… and efficiency and economy.

By: matt

matt — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:05:49 +0000

@Vincent Clement: Did you even read the article? This is about point to point cameras, not red light cameras or cameras which measure instantaneous speed. Then you go on with some anecdotes about how “in location x, it is hogwash, therefore it is hogwash everywhere”. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. Also, this was a journalist, not the government who put forward the idea.

@aaron: Lost growth due to keeping to the speed limit? Are you serious?

Anyway, it still seems a bit dubious to be able to quantify the results of these cameras. I’m not entirely convinced that the road toll would be cut by one third if speeding was eliminated. Eliminating speeding will reduce the number of crashes, and less crashes will be fatal, but it wont eliminate all the fatal crashes where speeding was a factor.

By: John

John — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:22:31 +0000

It’s Phantom money. Just the way that “reducing obesity” will save x bazillions per year and save tens of thousands of lives.

If you multiply ANYTHING by that large a number, you get scary numbers. By following the DOT’s recommendations, no-one would drive at all, who wasn’t in either a tank or a semi (which is what the DOT is there for: Semis, not cars.)

By: aaron

aaron — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:59:51 +0000

I’m amuzed how they compare the results to a fictional value. Sure, if they reduced traffic accidents, they’d reduce expenses. This is highly dubious. If they were effective enough to get full compliance, they’d save $1 billion a year. Even if we lived in their utopian world of full compliance, they still ignore the economic cost of lost growth.

Boo.

By: Brad Templeton

Brad Templeton — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:31:33 +0000

Duh, sorry, I now re-read and see that number was for Australia, which makes sense, and may actually be higher per capita than the USA. I haven’t seen a worldwide figure but it’s hard to argue it’s not well north of a trillion. Per year. Makes the bailout small.

By: Brad Templeton

Brad Templeton — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:29:53 +0000

Actually, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration did an evaluation of the cost of accidents. Their number was 230 billion dollars, not 20, but they were factoring in the cost of human suffering.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/EconomicImpact2000.pdf

“The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Accidents” is a must-read for Traffic fans, and was part of the impetus for my research into Robocars. After all, if “a bit” of computer engineering can save almost 3% of the GDP, it’s a pretty big deal.

And that’s not counting the cost of congestion, and the plain old cost of time spent driving.

By: Vincent Clement

Vincent Clement — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:17:07 +0000

Hogwash. I’ve read reports that crashes moved from the intersection to before the intersection when red light cameras have been installed.

I’ve also read reports that in several jurisdictions, a large chunk of the fine doesn’t go to government - it goes to the company that is in charge of the red light cameras, processing the pictures, issuing tickets and collecting fines. In some cases, said company is even in charge of the appeal process - wonderful.

Some reports have mentioned that red light cameras were installed not intersections with high accident rates, but at intersections with high volumes and that the length of the yellow light was reduced. Hmmm, reduce the yellow means more violations. More volume means more tickets. More tickets means more revenue.

But now that people are seeing through that charade, the government has to change it’s marketing campaign: No, it’s not about raising revenue, it’s about expenditure reduction. Thing is, it’s still about the money.