In a bold move to take a stand alongside pedestrians (read: everyone who has ever walked anywhere in Pittsburgh), Councilman Peduto is proposing that the City install cameras at traffic lights to reduce the amount of cars running red lights in the city – jeopardizing the lives of pedestrians. This would mean added revenue for that the City could then use to implement additional traffic calming, and pedestrian facilities.
NEWSLETTER
8 Comments
If you haven’t already done so, say “Thank You!” to Councilman Peduto for helping save lives of cyclists and pedestrians! Email him at bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us.
These sorts of cameras have already been placed in England and they have discovered that it has actually lead to a rise in accidents in some locations. “Researchers found seeing a speed camera can distract drivers and cause them to slam on the brakes.” “The effect of the camera on driver behaviour can create new problems such as erratic braking and acceleration and distract drivers from the traffic flow.”
As much as I want safety to improve, I want my government officials to take a hard look as to whether or not they’re going to get all the benefits they’re hoping for.
Kordite, Red Light Cameras, not Speed Cameras are the ones up for debate in council (although I’m a proponent of speed cameras too).
Studies on Red Light Cameras vary in relation to rear-end accidents – some show a modest increase, some show a modest decrease. However, every single one of these studies show a real reduction in front angle collisions which are the ones that cause more injuries, fatalities and more expensive damage, not to mention pose the bigger threat to cyclists and pedestrians. Here is the conclusion of the safety study of red light cameras by the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center:
“In closing, this economic analysis represents the first attempt in the known literature to combine the positive effects of right-angle crash reductions with the negative effects of rear end crash increases and identify factors that might further enhance the effects of RLC systems. Larger crash sample sizes would have added even more information. The following primary conclusions are based on these current analyses:
1. Even though the positive effects on angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year, depending on consideration of only injury crashes or including PDO crashes, and whether the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real.
2. Even if modest, this economic benefit is important. In many instances today, the RLC systems pay for themselves through red-light-running fines generated. However, in many jurisdictions, this differs from most safety treatments where there are installation, maintenance, and other costs that must be weighed against the treatment benefits.
3. The modest benefit per site is an average over all sites. As the analysis of factors showed, this benefit can be increased through careful selection of the sites to be treated (e.g., sites with a high ratio of right-angle to rear end crashes as compared to other potential treatment sites) and program design (e.g., high publicity, signing at both intersections and jurisdiction limits).”
If the City is worried by this increase in less damaging rear-end crashes, a study in Texas showed that rear-end collisions decreased at intersections with red light cameras by increasing the yellow phase by one second (study in pdf format), so that could be an option in Pittsburgh
It seems to me after reading a number of these studies that the benefits (fewer injurious, damaging, front angle collisions, millions in revenue generated to be used towards more bike/ped enhancements) outweigh the costs (a possibility of an increase in less damaging, less injury-causing rear end collisions).
The devil is in the details. Where are the details?
Next, I’d love to see pointers to those studies.
Peduto plays this techie-research weenie role — but does this in a private way and doesn’t reveal the goods and his intentions in public. If I was Peduto, I’d put out a reference sheet with all the studies and pointers to them on the web. And, I’d put out a ‘pink paper’ as well as FAQs&A on each topic.
Let’s hear from him about what he’s thinking about and how it could unfold in Pittsburgh. Otherwise, he’ll be a lone wolf and the idea won’t survive the political battle.
He needs to sell the idea. He is selling himself as the guy with the idea and the end result (the idea being put to use) dies a slow death in the real world.
Scott, I see you’ve done your homework. I hope council does the same. I’ve had my bike broadsided by someone anticipating the light so you’ll forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical. It’s difficult to feel good about a statistical decrease in accidents when you still end up at the wrong end of the curve.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm
It occurs to me that these cameras could just as easily be used to enforce the law against bicyclists who run red lights. Right? Or is the technology used to trigger the cameras unable to sense bikes?
Anyway, speaking as someone who runs red lights on a bike partly because I’m impatient, but also partly because I think it’s safer for me — what assurance do we have that someone else won’t use the “same road, same rules” principle against us? Either drivers who are merely jealous, or pedestrians who feel endangered by bikes careening irresponsibly through red lights.
Maybe this has already been addressed in England or elsewhere. Just wondering.
Um, oh yeah, bikes don’t have license plates. I am dumb.
Answered my own question, though!