The intersection of Holland and South Rosemont roads in Virginia Beach tops the list of crash-prone crossings in South Hampton Roads.
Forty-eight crashes occurred at the intersection in 2007, according to traffic statistics compiled by Beach police.
That's more than at any other crossing in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth or Suffolk.
In all, more than 27,500 crashes occurred in the five South Hampton Roads cities last year, according to police. Many of the collisions reported to police were at or near intersections, with hundreds being blamed on a variety of bad driving behaviors such as red-light running.
In Chesapeake, two intersections tied for the top spot with 26 each last year: Cedar Road at Dominion Boulevard, and Greenbrier Parkway and Jarman Road.
Portsmouth also had a tie for most crashes: 23 each at Frederick Boulevard at Deep Creek Boulevard, and Victory Boulevard at George Washington Highway.
In Suffolk, the intersection of Constance Road and Main Street was the worst with 18, police in that city said.
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.
It was no surprise to Virginia Beach traffic engineer Robert Gey that Holland and South Rosemont was the worst intersection in the Beach, the largest of the five cities.
"It appears that because of the congestion, drivers are taking more and more chances as they're going through this intersection," Gey said. "They're just taking more risk into their hands and they're making more mistakes."
The troubled crossing has a history as one of the city's worst. It was the first of four in the city to have red-light cameras installed in 2004 after crash data showed the need, police said.
The cameras were installed for nine months as part of a pilot program. During that time, the city issued more than 17,300 tickets based on the pictures taken at those four intersections, the city said. While the cameras were in operation at Holland and South Rosemont, the number of red-light violations dropped 70 percent, the city reported.
Since the General Assembly approved use of the devices statewide last year, the city has been planning to reinstall cameras at the intersection and at several others, Gey said.
Until then, he said, the Beach will look for other ways to make crossing Holland and South Rosemont safer. The city could restrict U-turns and left turns on green lights, he said.
"When you have a high level of congestion, you want to get through the intersection quickly, but sometimes the best thing to do is just wait until the next light."
Cindy Clayton, (757) 446-2377, cindy.clayton@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Then upgrade the still
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.
Red light cameras
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
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.
Hello . . .
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.
TO JOANIE
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.
I'm curious . . .
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
Now thats interesting
Trust the HRPDC to publish anything of value? Yea, right.
Worse accidents??
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.
I don't need to spend.....
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!
Try the HRPDC website for traffic studies
www.hrpdc.org - they have a ton of good study data you can download.
Previous Studies
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
voice of NO reason
"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"?
Children please...
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.
I'm for the cameras
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.
Speed cameras
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?
Look to other countries for examples....
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!)
Insurance companies HATE accidents
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.
RE: Cameras on Traffic lights....
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.
ferderal highway administration
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
Eeeeek! Why No Numbers?
"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.