This Week in Traffic: 25 May 2007

Happy 0th birthday to Nathan Schierer!

Holy Crap, they built this fast…

MacArthur Maze, the freeway interchange ramp in California that had the unfortunate experience of a burning tanker truck full of gasoline, has reopened to traffic less than a month after the incident. Wow.

Don’t Drink and Scoot

Vegas pedestrians are renting handicapped scooters.

Texas Legislative Ban on Red Light Cameras?

Unfortunately, this is the first I’ve heard about this issue. I need to go look at this, because the full wording of the bill would be very important.

COPS for British Traffic Wardens

Traffic Bobbys are getting head cameras to deter outraged motorists. I know that this will be on Cops in a few months time.

Tacky House Numbers

Please. Don’t put these up on your house.

This entry was posted in Transportation, Week in Traffic. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to This Week in Traffic: 25 May 2007

  1. Starre says:

    Do red light cameras result in “increasing risk and danger at the intersections these things are supposed to protect”?

  2. Bill says:

    Red Light cameras tend to have an increase in the total number of collisions at an intersection. These collisions are mostly rear-end impacts from people slamming brakes to avoid being tagged by the cameras. However, the detractors fail to mention that while the number of collisions may increase, the severity goes way down. Right-angle and turning collisions are the most dangerous impact type, and red light cameras reduce these considerably.

    So, “increasing risk and danger” doesn’t mean anything without throwing some quantification in. If they’d said, “it’s increasing the risk and danger of rear-end collisions,” I would agree, but by that statement they are inferring that the entire intersection is more dangerous, which is not true.

    That said, there’s a lot to the argument for making a red light camera the last correction measure, after re-timing and geometric improvements. The fight ove these things boils down to the perception (and fact in some cases) that jurisdictions are installing them solely to act as a revenue stream, when safety improvements could be effected by spending time and money fine-tuning the signal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>