Beach intersection is where metal meets metal most often

Then upgrade the still cameras to video cameras that run on a continuous loop from different angles. When you are caught the city can send the violator video from many different angles of them running the red light. They could also use the cameras to investigate auto accidents to determine liability.

Well the legislature has opened Pandora's box. The next thing will be speed cameras. After all, they will use the same argument as they did with the red light cameras. Then it will be GPS tracking devices for vehicles. We're getting just like Great Britian. A land under surveillance. After all it will save liv..well you know. Big brother will get even bigger now. However, part of me would like to see these knuckleheads get photographed and ticketed for driving in the shoulder lanes on I-264 when they are closed.

On the point that red-light cameras increase rear-end fender-benders: people driving in such a way that they can't stop when the car in front stops for a red-light just proves the need for red-light cameras. Do you think the second car wasn't planning on following the first through the, um, RED light? The law makes the person who hits a car from behind automatically liable. So this may cost more for a while, but only until people adjust their driving behavior to obey the law (stopping at lights and not tail-gating). Until then, red-light cameras punish TWO dangerous driving practices. And the person who rear-ends another could end up with a far worse penalty (points, increased insurance) than the person who gets a fine based on the red-light camera.

For those complaining that the tests or underlying data doesn't measure up (using whatever standard), I'm sorry, common sense and using one's brain confirms that red-light runners are a menace. People should be personally responsible for their conduct behind the wheel of a vehicle, period. Very few people run red lights completely accidentally. Most gun for the light and don't care about the consequences.

People and cameras are fallible, Joanie. You have a right to question the person who charges you with a crime (including misdemeanor traffic violations) before an impartial arbiter. You also have the right of discovery.

You mistakenly assume that a still photograph can prove more than it actually does. It is merely an indication. There are many plausible circumstances in which a person may appear to have passed a red light who has actually not.

The police, and the city, however, expect the public, and judges, to have the reaction you did which is to accept the notion that the camera, and the person who interprets the evidence, is infallible.

If Florida has already studied accidents before and after the red light cameras, why would Virginia need our own study? Are the roads totally different here or something? Does each state need to study this separately??? Cheers, MGM

Trust the HRPDC to publish anything of value? Yea, right.

Thank you just_my_opinion for that last article. I was reading through the posts and was wondering when someone would mention that fact. 25% reduction in side/head on impact (which is usually the type to involve fatalities) at the expense of a 15% increase in the fender benders. Majority of the "fender benders" that occur aren't even worthy enough to be called such. Seems like a good trade off to me. Why some people can't seem to understand this is beyond me.

money on a study when I can sit and WATCH people run red lights. It's a no-brainer to realize their tires, type of vehicle, distance, time of day, position of the moon, hair of the dog, etc., are NOT the contributing factors. People consciously and BLATANTLY run red lights. Some do it over and over and over again. Why? Because they don't get caught!

And how about those who come to a red light at an intersection, are turning right and don't even both to stop?!

Bring on the cameras!

www.hrpdc.org - they have a ton of good study data you can download.

I read the study that U. of So. Fl. did. I find it interesting that FL is implementing Red Light Cameras when they know..."Traffic fatalities caused by red-light running are not increasing in Florida and account for less than 4 percent of the state’s yearly traffic deaths. In contrast, more than 22 percent of the state’s traffic fatalities occur at intersections for reasons other than red-light running." Hmmmm...I wonder what studies Va has done? I'm an Operational Test Engineer by trade and this type of study considering all the factors needed to be vetted would in my opinion take at least 5 - 8 years to effectively determine all the contributing issues from human influence to technology down to types of tires on vehicles just to name a few. I'm willing to bet a thorough study was not done here. If one was done, who did it? Where can one get a copy of the raw data? (No, not the processed subjectiv

"The use of red light cameras denies citizens the basic right of being able to confront and cross examine the accuser."

Umm, if there is a picture of you breaking the law why would you even have to or want to cross examine the "accuser"?

You see them every day. You are probably one of them...

Those fools who speed up to pass you from the left just to take a right 5 seconds later.

Those fools who drive bumper to bumper in a chain as they all run the red light. I guess the car in front is a buffer of sorts?

Those fools who think only about themselves and care less about rules, laws, and responsibility...until something happens to them or their material belongings.

I hope all that fit this description receive a ticket from the red light cameras. It's just too bad that some adults haven't matured enough to drive responsibly. Fools.

Yesterday some idiot ran a red light, cut through a bunch of traffic cones, and hit my 65-year-old mother's new car because he thought he was too special to obey the traffic laws. After telling Mom he "didn't see her", he then lied to the police and claimed that Mom had caused the accident, and since all the witnesses selfishly drove off - no one could even bother to see if anyone was hurt - it was his word against hers. Every day on my way to and from work I see numerous near-misses because people think red lights don't apply to them. So, yeah, I'm for red-light cameras...at every single intersection in the area, no less. Anything that makes people act less like selfish morons when they drive is worth it. And if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about.

They call them gatsos in Europe (the big brother speed cameras). Check out this great gallery of them (note the link to page #2 at the bottom)
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

Also, does anyone know how to trigger the car sensing coil in the road remotely, even if there is no car over it?

Many other countries not only use red-light cameras but SPEED cameras. Being a personal example of the speed camera I asked to see proof and they had a picture of my smiling mug exceeding the speed limit with license plate very visible and clear to read. Needless to say, I learned my lesson. These countries have done numerous studies on the effectiveness on accident rates using these tools for law enforcement and you better believe that they work IF penalties are stiff enough to change behavior. Try making it a $500 fine for running a red light and see the behavior changes rapidly happen. This is an extremely effective method to catch the idiot who won't obey the law and put themselves and others at risk. Privacy issues, baloney. If you don't break the law you won't get caught on camera !! (Only takes a picture if you are wrong!)

Any time an insurance company has to pay out on a claim, they are losing money. They would rather have everyone NOT have accidents so they can collect your preniums without ever having to pay anything out. That's why they drop people after so many accidents or tickets. Most insurance agents I've talked with don't have any problem with red light cameras: they would rather see a cop at each troubling intersection but they know that's not possible.

The only people that really have a problem with red light cameras are those that regularly push the lights - or in other words; STUPID DRIVERS.

I,personlly, think that cameras are a bad idea. For one, you are solving a problem, but creating another. You will have drivers stop at a yellow
light and have multiple accidents. Hampton roads is very notorious for tailgating drivers and with that scenario, it may complicate the situation. Also, if you lend your car to a family member and they run the red light, then you get the ticket. Now you have to go to court and convince the judge that it wasn't you driving the car. Also, I do not
trust the stats, because any city official can manipulate the stats to look for a reason to create revenue for the city. Finally, who's to say that some crooked city official might manipulate the lights to make them shorter and create revenue? As it is, the point system is ridiculous and now this.
Bad idea.

A recent study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities. The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

jmo

"Norfolk police said they had 81 calls about crashes at Hampton and Terminal boulevards, but they did not supply numbers of actual accident reports at any intersection." Certainly doesn't make the NPD look well-informed or caring, does it? I think if I had been the police spokesperson, I might have done some quick fact checking, or at least said I'd get back to VP reporter. Since they did not provide the numbers, I'll just say that as a denizen of "sailor alley" (Wards Corner/West Little Creek) our traffic is rough, and many of the drivers act like they're playing a video game that does not involve the laws of physics. It all plays out like some epic titled "The Young and Reckless Meet the Old and Clueless". Peace and Love, Everybody.

46.2-833. Traffic lights;
A. Signals by traffic lights shall be as follows:
Steady red indicates that moving traffic shall stop and remain stopped as long as the red signal is shown, except in the direction indicated by a lighted green arrow.
Green indicates the traffic shall move in the direction of the signal and remain in motion as long as the green signal is given, except that such traffic shall yield to other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection.
Steady amber indicates that a change is about to be made in the direction of the moving of traffic. When the amber signal is shown, traffic which has not already entered the intersection, including the crosswalks, shall stop if it is not reasonably safe to continue, but traffic which has already entered the intersection shall continue to move until the intersection has been cleared. The amber signal is a warning that the steady red signal is imminent.

If you see the AMBER light, you are supposed to stop, PERIOD...

I don't know about now but back in the day when I studied the DMV driver's manual and got my license it was stated that entering an intersection should be with caution and one should slow their speed in anticipation of having to stop for the ................RED light! Why do I see so many hauling butt through intersections, never slowing and even increasing their speed to beat a light? That's just plain lunacy. So, rear end collisions do increase at intersections because of moronic behavior of many drivers. It's not the camera or the light -- it's the driver. I won't even mention tailgaters.

Yes, studies can sometimes provide some useful information. But most of us know for a fact in the back of our minds that the majority of our societal problems are a direct result of failure to "bring-down-the-hammer" on people who do not follow the laws. If the laws are bothersome, then vote to change them. But look through every other societal problem, and you will see its blossoming due to inaction in the area of strict enforcement. Complaining and sending mysteriously disappearing funds to a government entity is about useless, when you'll consider that at least 2/3 of it goes away in the form of managment expenses for any project.

www.infowars.com

Completely credible....

NOTE: My comment above was completely sarcastic, although I bet you could find information about red-light cameras that are as credible as Chris's there.

The study that Chris provides a link to, is extremely biased and one sided, and does not provide any real facts at all(or at least none that can be viewed). It makes wild accusations and claims, and is based on a some study out of the University of Florida. Did they actually do any sort of real study? Where are the facts? There is no actual proof. The only real facts: Again, if you're not paying attention to the driver in front of you that actually did stop for the red, then yeah, you're going to cause an accident. So in effect, yes, when the lights were first installed on a trial basis, they did indeed cause more wrecks simply due to driver in-attention and the fact that drivers were not used to the cameras being there. There are your facts, chris. There's your "study". Plain and simple: Pay attention! Red means STOP! If you run the red, due to impaitence or lack of attention, then you get a ticket. Deal wi

The only reason to install cameras is to make money? So, Jason, Chris and any other person who feels this way... if you run a red light, get caught, pay your fine, etc.... the next time, will you do it again? If not, then you have learned a lesson and the cameras have done their job. So glad to see the cameras returning and maybe the city will do their job with the increase in revenue and finally get their engineers to fix the light cycles so traffic can flow a little better.

Thanks for the link, but it was actually a link to a biased article that did provide a link to a biased study. So here's what I took from it:

-Cities install cameras and reduce yellow times to generate revenue.
-Insurance companies like red light cameras because they increase accidents and increase revenue.
-Red-light camera vendors want accidents to increase so they can sell more cameras.

None of the above supported by fact, by the way. Evil govt, evil big business. yadda yadda. Also no mention if accidents spiked then settled or how long the study was conducted.

Like anything else, studies are available to support either side of the argument. I'm looking for stats, facts, etc, without the biased commentary.

jmo

I take it the crybabies posting are the ones running the red lights. Last I checked, red means stop. You do the crime you do the time. Pay your $50 and don't run the light again, it's very simple.

I fully agree with JMO in his response to "Jason asks". JMO has hit the nail on the head and makes another valid point. I've not seen the studies either, and once again, if you're not paying attention and/or decide to run through the yellow/red light, then you get ticketed plain and simple. Apparently people will still try to argue that the installation of the lights will cause more accidents, that it's a money making scheme, some sort of conspiracy, and/or that it will invade their privacy. Again, I fully agree with JMO. I support the installation of the lights! You're right jmo, driver behavoir modification does take time.

Here's a link to a study that shows that red light cameras cause accidents....

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080313/231629539.shtml

The whole thing is just another revenue stream for the city of Va. Beach.