etee's Photo Blog

Earlier this month, the fine folks at the Houston Chronicle posted an article concerning red light cameras in Sugar Land. Apparently, the city fathers here have decided to jump on the bandwagon take advantage of technology to create new revenue streams improve traffic safety. And, the article asked us the following questions:

So, do you think the cameras will change the way people drive and reduce the number of accidents caused by red-light violators? Is the cost worth it?

My main concern with red light cameras has always been the motivation behind their use, and who gets the revenue. In many cases, the revenue is split between the city and the company who installed the cameras. This creates an implied conflict of interest, as while it may be in the city's (and our) best interests to increase compliance (that's "reduce red-light running", for those of you in College Station), it is most certainly not in the best interests of the company what installed those systems! Remember, they are in business to make $$$$MONEY$$$$$, and in this case increased compliance = increased safety (for us) = LESS $$$$MONEY$$$$$ (for them). This makes me wonder of other solutions (such as extending the length of time the light is yellow, or having a time where lights in all directions are red) are being ignored, even though they might also improve compliance. In fact, there have been reports of some cases where the "yellow time" was cut down by just a bit, and it proved a boon to revenue as red-light running at those intersections went up dramatically. This, of course, is not the sort of behavior we as citizens expect of our government.

I also have other questions about their efficacy. I have no doubt that increased compliance will reduce the number of T-bone accidents at intersections (and, given that about 50% of all accidents occur at intersections, that is a significant number, potentially) -- but, as critics point out, it may well increase the number of tail-end collisions, as one driver slams on their brakes to avoid the ticket and WHAM! the driver behind them slams into them. (This, of course, is why I make it a practice not to follow too closely behind other cars...)

But, I digress.

In my comment on that article, I noted that

I would guess that excessive speed is just as much of a problem as red-light runners is. Out on West Airport, there are two speed signs which include a measuring device which displays your speed (and if you are going too fast, flashes "SLOW DOWN" in bright red lights.)

In my (not so) humble opinion, this is an absolutely wonderful idea. I drive this section of road almost every day, and I have seen cars slow down when the sign tells them they are going too fast. And, since this isn't connected to some revenue-generating system, it isn't simply out of fear that people are doing so. If it were up to me, I would put these signs at all school zones, as well as at other locations where people tend to drive too fast for their own good. It appears that the city fathers may have come to a similar conclusion, as I recently found another set of these on Commonwealth Blvd, again on a stretch of road that transitions from pretty much empty space into a suburban neighborhood.

So, what does this "wonder sign" look like? Glad you asked, as yesterday I snapped this photo of one as I drove by:

How fast ARE you going?, March 2007
(ISO-50, 1/60, f/8, 23.1mm)

Now, for a word of caution: please don't think I endorse the idea of taking pictures while driving. This is most certainly fraught with danger, and is a very bad idea.

Photograph copyright © 2007 E D Truitt. All rights reserved.

(cross-posted on etee too)