Traffic Cameras Cause Serious Accidents

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Supporters of the use of photo enforcement around the country insist red light cameras and speed cameras are primarily designed to “save lives.” When faced with independent studies showing the overall number of accidents can actually increase where intersection cameras are installed ( view studies), supporters like Illinois state Senator John J. Millner (R-St. Charles) counter that the type of accidents caused by red light cameras is not worth worrying about. “This does save lives,” Millner said during a 2006 debate on expanding the use of red light cameras. “Will there be more rear-end accidents? Perhaps there may, but those typically aren’t life threatening. The T-bone accidents are. This saves lives.”

On Wednesday, a woman locked in the back of an Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) police car burned to death as a result of a rear end collision on Interstate 10 near Tucson. The Ford Crown Victoria models used by DPS are known to explode when struck from behind. Even though the cruiser was equipped with a special fire suppression system, it failed to prevent the fire. A similar sort of high-speed, rear end collision can happen on a freeway where speed cameras are used.

A preliminary examination of Scottsdale’s freeway camera program found a 54 percent increase in rear end collisions accompanied the 110,962 automated tickets issued in 2006. These accidents happened as motorists nearing the cameras panicked and braked suddenly to avoid receiving a citation. They were then struck from behind by motorists who failed to react in time to the unexpected maneuver.

A similar panic reaction caused a serious injury accident in Victorville, California, also on Wednesday. According to the Victorville Daily Press, a driver afraid of earning a $426 ticket slammed on the brakes during a yellow light at Bear Valley Road and Seventh Avenue. This driver stopped in time. The driver immediately behind also stopped in time after applying the brakes at full force. The third vehicle behind was driven by a woman who did not stop in time. Her minivan slammed the second vehicle into the first. The woman’s injuries were so serious that she had to be taken by helicopter to the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.

In Singapore, The New Paper reports that a speed camera on Loyang Avenue near Pasir Ris Drive is causing accidents.

“When they realize the camera is there, they jam their brakes,” one resident explained to The New Paper.

That is precisely what caused a large truck carrying soil to lose control on May 2. The skidding vehicle slammed into the center divider and overturned. The driver was taken to the hospital with serious injuries.

In the UK, a pair of sudden braking accidents caused by speed cameras were caught on a BBC news video ( watch video on YouTube, accident at the 1:56 mark).

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 17 comments
  • Carlisimo Carlisimo on Jun 07, 2009

    Not really; China executes government officials when it'll end a controversy and make the government look like it was on the right side. Where are the studies on fatalities at intersections with and without these cameras? We know minor accidents go up, but we've never offered an effective rebuttal to the assertion that red-light cameras reduce serious accidents. This thread isn't one either.

  • Jerome10 Jerome10 on Jun 08, 2009

    Good. That means North and Wells and North and Halsted in my hood will now be totally safe intersections since these cameras were installed last week. Now I can sleep soundly. Thank you Mayor Daley. I'm glad I'm safe from getting T Boned while I'm trying to avoid pothole after pothole in our shittyass roads. What do you even do with the $75 city sticker and outrageous parking tickets you rape your citizens with? Grrrr.....Great city. The politics ruin it.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh I own my house 100% paid for at age 52. the answer is still NO.-28k (realistically) would take 8 years to offset my gas truck even with its constant repair bills (thanks chevy)-Still takes too long to charge UNTIL solidsate batteries are a thing and 80% in 15 minutes becomes a reality (for ME anyways, i get others are willing to wait)For the rest of the market, especially people in dense cityscape, apartments dens rentals it just isnt feasible yet IMO.
  • ToolGuy I do like the fuel economy of a 6-cylinder engine. 😉
  • Carson D I'd go with the RAV4. It will last forever, and someone will pay you for it if you ever lose your survival instincts.
  • THX1136 A less expensive EV would make it more attractive. For the record, I've never purchased a brand new vehicle as I have never been able to afford anything but used. I think the same would apply to an EV. I also tend to keep a vehicle way longer than most folks do - 10+ years. If there was a more affordable one right now then other things come to bear. There are currently no chargers in my immediate area (town of 16K). I don't know if I can afford to install the necessary electrical service to put one in my car port right now either. Other than all that, I would want to buy what I like from a cosmetic standpoint. That would be a Charger EV which, right now, doesn't exist and I couldn't afford anyway. I would not buy an EV just to be buying an EV. Nothing against them either. Most of my constraints are purely financial being 71 with a disabled wife and on a fixed income.
  • ToolGuy Two more thoughts, ok three:a) Will this affordable EV have expressive C/D pillars, detailing on the rocker panels and many many things happening around the headlamps? Asking for a friend.b) Will this affordable EV have interior soft touch plastics and materials lifted directly from a European luxury sedan? Because if it does not, the automotive journalists are going to mention it and that will definitely spoil my purchase decision.c) Whatever the nominal range is, I need it to be 2 miles more, otherwise no deal. (+2 rule is iterative)
Next