Well, I blew through the light at Hampton and Wilson this morning, right as it was about to turn red. Hopefully, I made it through in time so that I won't get a ticket!
I have to think that these cameras will improve safety and could result in some nice additional cash flow for the city.
I read about this on mayor slay.com earlier today. I thought they were considering doing ten signals in the City, this must be phase 1. Now if only they could get the lights so they don't turn red every time you come up to one that'd be great.
The City of St. Louis’ first set of red light enforcement cameras installed at the intersections of Hampton and Wilson and Hampton and Chippewa will began operating today, Friday, February 16, 2007. For the next 30 days, motorists who violate the red lights at the two locations will receive a warning citation in
the mail. Enforcement will actually begin on March 19, 2007.
buckethead wrote:Ahh... so it's OK if you don't get caught.
Breaking the law is never alright. We have laws in order to protect society from socially deviant and destructive behavior. Yet, when government has laws on the books, and does not enforce them, they mean nothing. These cameras are an example of how they actually mean something.
Doug wrote:Breaking the law is never alright. We have laws in order to protect society from socially deviant and destructive behavior.
Seriously? Are you planning to run for public office? Every single one of us would be a convicted felon, were we somehow able to enforce every behavior our representatives have decided to protect society from over the years.
Maybe I do need to lighten up but I still don't get it.
I have friends that are EMTs and Police officers and have unfortunately heard the stories of people dying in a traffic accident because someone thinks its "OK" to break the traffic laws. I guess since they're not enforced 100% of the time...
How exactly are all of the laws supposed to be enforced all of the time?
I didn't know St. Louis was installing red-light cameras. I thought there would be a big media frenzy to publicize it when it happened. I haven't heard anything.
Well, I for one am glad to see it. I HATE red light runners. We all need to just slow down and take it easy. And I'll start with myself, now that I know they're out there watching me!
On one hand, it's a great opportunity to improve safety, especially at some of the city's most dangerous intersections. Broadside collisions are some of the most dangerous, and this should help to reduce the likelihood. It will likely encourage motorists to drive through these intersections with more care. Plus, it's an opportunity to generate more revenue for the city, which it sorely needs.
OTOH, while broadside collisions decrease with red light cameras, I've seen studies that show rear-end collisions often increase at these intersections. Also, it's not all that uncommon for traffic lights throughout the city to malfunction, either. For example, one afternoon a few months ago, I almost ran a read at Tucker Boulevard and Park Avenue. The yellow light didn't work, and the light went instantly from green to red. I worry that I'd be stuck with a ticket if the exact same thing occurred at one of the intersections with these cameras.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of traffic laws by any means. However, I can think of several instances in which I have proceeded through a red light, because there are several intersections in the city (especially downtown) where the length of traffic lights relative to the amount of traffic is ridiculous. There are some where I'll sit for two or three minutes and never see a car or a pedestrian.
The city needs desperately to synchronize signals in the city to cut down on travel time, reduce pollution, and decrease the likelihood of red light running. Ideally, they should've done this before they began to install red light cameras, which makes me think revenue generation is the priority instead of safety. Or, maybe I'm just jaded.
That said, I think increased safety at some of the city's busiest intersections offsets any potential drawbacks.
They are a pain. As someone who has lived with them for a year now, I hate them. Yes they do cause lots more rear-end collisions because if people even think that light is going to change, they slam on the breaks. Also if they are doing construction, and you get waived through, you get a ticket. It gets thrown out in traffic court but you still have to waste the time to take it there. Also in the case of crummy weather and you slide through the light, you guessed it, ticket. I wish the city of Arnold never put those stupid things in, it has made them a ton of money though.
I just avoid the red light cameras in Arnold by using Church and Old Lemay Ferry. That will get you around most of them assuming you are coming off I-55. Richardson Camera and 141 Jeffco at least. I'd rather take Church to get around anyway, much quicker, but I digress.
In the city I think they will be a good thing. Those intersections are really bad. And the one at Wilson should generate an incredible amount of revenue. There are always people going through that one. And I'll never get one because I refuse to run a red light. There are accidents on a weekly if not daily basis at Chippewa and Macklind right behind my house because people are always running that red light. I've seen too many very serious accidents, including many rollovers and even fatalities, to want to risk that.
I'd much prefer that reckless driving behavior across the board be actually punished with a revocation of driving privileges. I'd be all for the cameras if I thought they would be used to have a human review cases (considering the context of the entire area) and that tickets would result in the police charging you and making a case to a judge that you were reckless, not just caught breaking one specific rule that happens to be easier to enforce than others.
That said, running red lights is pretty stupid, unless they stop functioning properly. Like most of them within two miles of the Arch.
(Don't know why I care, though, since I rarely drive. Ya'll should be more worried about the suburban tourists, lost in their SUVs and talking on the phone, than you about some cameras.)
for example, they replaced the light at Gravois & McNair about a month ago. the old light was synced with the surrounding lights & you could ride a green wave from russel to grand. this new set, with cameras attached, is not synced, blows my mind. same thing for the lights by the new stadium & the one at choteau & 8th. and these are long waits, all timed 24/7 for rush hour traffic. lets not even mention downtown. there isn't an intersection not on tucker/wash/market/broadway that shouldn't be a 4way stop.
i for one would prefer the city spend its traffic budget on improving light timings & traffic throughput. it seems like a kick in the face to have all these ***** up lights, and they do this rather than fix the real problem (because its harder). and it blows my mind when i read this praise for them, there's no way you're driving the same streets i am
and i foresee it has no impact on the most heinous stoplight running situations, when someones fleeing in a stolen car, or high on meth, they dont give a sh*t about getting a ticket weeks later in the mail .. the cameras only stop people like me, who would "run" a light, after stopping, at some abandoned intersection, that shouldn't even have a light in the first place.
amyh1028 wrote: Yes they do cause lots more rear-end collisions
This was in USA Today on Thursday:
More than 850 people die and and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running red lights, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration says.
Researchers studied the effectiveness of red light cameras in Philadelphia and Virginia Beach.
The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%.
"There's a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used," says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. "The jury is in on that question."
The Virginia Beach study, conducted by Old Dominion University, examined signal violations at four intersections before red light cameras were installed, while they were operating and after they were removed in 2005. Violations more than tripled by August 2006.
"That's a huge jump," says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. "The rate of red light running was actually higher" than before the cameras were installed.
I know the red light cameras in Arnold have a large sign stating that they are "Photo Enforced" to give you some warning and the cameras are much larger than the ones used for signals. Does the one on Hampton have anything similar?
I hate these cameras as much as the next guy, but I think I can learn to live with them. I can think of plenty of intersections that need them. River des Peres at Gravois and Morganford are two spots where I constantly see wrecks at going to work.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the article you posted about the rate of rear-end collisions before or after traffic signal cameras were installed.
Also, were the yellow lights extended at the intersections where cameras are now in place along Hampton Avenue? And when will the city FINALLY address the many signals that malfunction and/or are not properly synchronized? These issues are also a threat to motorists' safety, but I don't see any urgency among anyone in city government to address the problem.
Grover wrote:Cameras at intersections generate revenue - they pay for themselves and could pay for other things, such as synchronizing lights.
cameras dont necessarily generate revenue. and doesn't it just seem like urban st louis just isn't going to pull in the same kind of bank as the easy pickings in Arnold -> we dont have the volume, we dont have as many ready pocketbooks to pay, we have more illegally plated vehicles, a busier PD to scour & enforce the photos...
anyways, even if the ends did justify the means, you have no idea where that money goes. if the city had announced intentions for such plans, i wouldn't be posting.
I don't care if it doesn't make the city a dime if it is able to cut down on the cars flying through an intersection after the light has changed. There are a few spots in the city where it is really, really bad. I hope this helps change that.
maybe in the future we'll see speed regulators on cars. The car will "know" what the speed limit is on the street that it's traveling, and will be barred from going faster than the posted limit. how many lives would that save? Somehow the cameras seem like a slippery slope to me. Yes, not a huge concern, but I just can't wait to see what's next.
shinpickle wrote:for example, they replaced the light at Gravois & McNair about a month ago. the old light was synced with the surrounding lights & you could ride a green wave from russel to grand. this new set, with cameras attached, is not synced, blows my mind. same thing for the lights by the new stadium & the one at choteau & 8th. and these are long waits, all timed 24/7 for rush hour traffic. lets not even mention downtown. there isn't an intersection not on tucker/wash/market/broadway that shouldn't be a 4way stop.
You can thank MoDOT for that one, however, that doesn't bug me as much as the new signals they put up on Gustine. During the afternoon rush I've yet to see it timed with the Chippewa and Shop N Save Signal.
