There are more accidents because people are now stopping at the red lights? We've got to do something about this horrible adherence to our traffic laws before there aren't any bumpers left to go around! I know, let's get together as a city and agree that things like intersection lights are just suggestions to be considered along with many other factors like how late we are and how big our car or truck is. I drive a big truck, so that means I'll probably be more inclined to run a few more red lights that my compact-driving peers because I'm not as likely to die in the resulting collision. Are you implying that we need to go back to running red lights so that we don't have so many of these rear-end collisions? That's a great idea, Dan, until someone in your family dies in a collision where cars are going different directions. You should have paid more attention in your high school physics class.
I would have to say they are not efficient enough for the city of Lubbock. I am from Dallas, and they have the same cameras at many intersections. I am particularly from Plano, and they have them even at residential light intersections, and I would assume they have the capital and money flow to be able to host these cameras, and have the traffic they need to support them, but here in Lubbock, I just dont believe we have the traffic flows or capital to support these advanced systems.
I THINK THE CITY FATHERS NEED ADMIT THAT MONEY WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE CAMERAS TO START WITH. ITS JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO GOUGE THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK. WE DON'T NEED BIG BROTHER IN CITY HALL ADDING MORE HEADACHES, WE HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY. FRUGAL USE OF TAX MONEY SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO FUND CITY SERVICES.
Yes, the cameras are worth it. The number of accidents at those intersections has increased, but the number and severity of injuries (according to reports that I have seen) have decreased. The lack of serious injuries can be attributed to vehicles being safer in front/rear collisions than they are in side impacts. The problem is not the cameras, it is the drivers. The cameras are encouraging drivers to not run red lights, but they are doing nothing to discourage unsafe driving in the form of following too close. I support the red light cameras as a form of accountability (which seems to be something that nobody wants), and I would also support Lubbock putting in speed cameras, especially in construction zones.
I say "Get rid of them!"
Remember the study that showed the yellow lights were too short-- 1 second per 10 mph as I remember. The information was only countered by yet another study that showed the current system was acceptable. Now that strict enforcement, cameras, are here, we might rethink the yellow light timing issue once again. As for all intersections are up in colisions, as I heard this reported this morning, I'll bet the average citizen cannot verbatem tell you exactly where the cameras are located, thus stopping abruptly at all red lights to avoid ticketing. We have here the inevitable "can of worms" , how many tickets, dollars, (tax dollars) will be spent to fix the system, or does our wonderful city council even believe that a problem exist. Just one persons opinion.
Dear Mr. Jackson,
It is obvious that the statistics paint a very negative picture for the city and their red light cameras; however it might be worthy of checking on the statistics of deaths and/or severe injury that occur when someone is broadsided because of a red light runner. It is unfortunate that money seems to be the basis for anything good implemented in Lubbock, but in this case maybe the cameras are the lesser of two evils.
The facts speak for themselves. Just another money grab from our illustrious city council on projects strongly opposed by the voters who elected them. Why not attach a yellow blinking light when the signal is about to change and that can only be seen by the approaching traffic. They do that at highway traffic lights and that seems to work well. I think pride and power clouded their judgment.
It's greed, greed, greed and no concern for the citizens of the city for which they were elected. So very sad!!!
I've heard the pros and cons, the statistics for and against, and I've heard opinions from the average Joe to members of the city council, and after all this information it comes down to one thing: most Lubbock drivers are not driving safely.
The biggest problem with many Lubbock drivers is that we drive too fast, we follow too close, and we still run red lights at those intersections without cameras. Many drivers are in too big of a hurry to get to where they are going that they forget about safety. Lubbock drivers are also tired of waiting at stop lights every few blocks. So what do we do?
Consider this: why doesn't the city look into some research about how other larger cities deal with the timing of traffic lights? Is it possible that we could have some stretches of high traffic Lubbock streets that have lights timed so that if you start from a red light which turns green, and then you progress at the given speed limit, you will then have green lights for the next two or three miles? Is it also possible that we could have left turn lights that remain green until all the cars have turned left? I know areas in California do have those types of lights.
I believe that we have not explored all our options with our traffic lights. I also feel that Lubbock drivers are going to start driving more safely due to these rear-end accidents; they will start to see that following to close and driving too fast isn't worth getting somewhere sooner.
It should come as no surprise that collisions are up at intersections with cameras. When a driver comes up on a "stale" green light and it changes to amber, then red, most drivers slam on the brakes trying to prevent going through the intersections and getting a ticket.
Naturally, the driver behind them is not prepared to stop as fast, and the inevitable occurs. As a means of revenue for the city, it's a bad idea. Having to share the revenue with the State sounds socialist. Sharing the revenue with the camera company is only business: they've got to be paid for their equipment and tech support. Collections? When it comes to collecting "late" dues from tickets, the city doesn't have enough staff to do the "bill collecting." It only makes sense to contract with a collection agency to do the bill collecting, even if they do have to lose 50% (or more) revenue.
Overall, the cameras are just a bad idea for a problem that's common in most college towns. Politicians have never been the brightest bulb in the "value pack" and their suggestion of cameras on intersections are proof of this.
Perhaps "educating" drivers through tickets, and stiff fines, would curtail running red lights. It works in other college towns.
Remove the stupid cameras and just raise taxes til folks move from Lubbock thats all this pretentious council cares about ....be a big city out of touch with real people
It looks to me like people are staring to abide by the law and stopping on a red light, people should check there driving book and see what the distance is to follow a vehicle. Maybe this will start to open peoples eyes if they don't want there vehicles wrecked. thank you
First let me say I totally believe in the red light cameras to keep people from running lights. However, the other day I came very close to running a light because the guy behind me would have hit me had I slammed on my breaks to stop at the light. I will be very upset if I get a ticket in the mail. So with that being said, I have no idea what to think, but I was very upset with the whole situation. I found your commentary on this to be very close to heart.
Take down the red light cameras rear ends cause whiplashes. rearneners get ticket. Insurance goes up. Revenue overides safety.
|Consider This... Collisions at Red Light Camera Intersections|
After three months on the job, Lubbock's red light cameras are producing results. NewsChannel 11 General Manager Dan Jackson looks at the good and bad news.