One of the first municipalities in Tennessee to install cameras to cite drivers who run red lights will soon remove them. The city of Red Bank in Hamilton County plans to turn off its red-light cameras at midnight on Jan. 19.
Red Bank leaders say the cameras have recorded more than 72,000 red-light violations at three intersections since they were activated in 2006. Law enforcement officials there also say the cameras have greatly improved safety at those intersections.
They also say the traffic cameras can do something that no community can now afford to do through traditional policing — have 24/7 enforcement in place at trouble intersections.
Critics, however, argued the cameras left a negative impression on motorists driving through the area. Others said the traffic cameras were nothing more than a revenue-generating scheme on the part of the local government.
Similar complaints have been heard in Jonesborough and Johnson City, which have also installed red-light cameras. Last year, Johnson City officials released a report that found the cameras had played a part in reducing major collisions at six intersections since they were first installed in 2010.
The number of crashes at the six intersections declined by nine in 2011. City officials said one of the goals of the traffic cameras was to reduce the number of right- and left-angle crashes. The city recorded four fewer angle crashes during a period between 2010 and 2011.
Meanwhile, rear-end crashes increased by 16 during the same period. Police officials said the number of rear-end crashes was an anomaly and should eventually level out as drivers get more acquainted with the camera-enforced intersections.
At the same time, city revenues from fines and court costs from red-light citations have declined.
We want to hear from you. Do you think it’s time Johnson City and Jonesborough follow Red Bank’s lead and unplug their traffic light cameras?
Send comments to Mailbag, P.O. Box 1717, Johnson City, TN 37605-1717, or mailbag@johnsoncitypress.com. Include your name, phone number and address for verification. We will print responses in the coming weeks.
brave123 writes:
January 7, 2013
11:45 AM
yes they should be taken down. the flash from these cameras create a hazard for night driving and also are a violation of privacy. they should have never put these up and no matter what excuse they try to use it was the governments way to keep tabs on everyone
agvol writes:
January 7, 2013
4:57 PM
So the statistic you don't like is an "anomaly" but the statistic you like is due to the cameras. We can fix this by routing all the fines to state government. If this is about public safety, city and county governments should gladly make this "investment" in dangerous traffic areas. And for the "follow the law and you will be okay" folks, this invasion of our privacy is going to get easier to do and cheaper as time goes on. Do you really want Big Brother watching your every move, waiting to fine you when you cross that line?
Remove Money from Politics writes:
January 7, 2013
11:33 PM
We can make every intersection exponentially safer by adding a full second to the yellow light time. It doesn't cost anything, but it also isn't a cash cow like cameras.
Make no mistake - cities who install cameras instead of lengthening yellow light times are in it 100% for the money.
wintroub writes:
January 8, 2013
8:59 AM
SovereignAxe, rear-end collisions result from drivers tailgating and, perhaps, speeding. They do not result from drivers "slamming on their brakes" to avoid violating a traffic signal. Or from slamming on their brakes for any other reason, like a kid or animal running into the road. It's the guy behind who causes the wreck.
Remember, Boys and Girls: Yellow means "stop if safe to do so", NOT "Hurry! The light is about to change to red."
Remove Money from Politics, fines for violating traffic laws are like playing the lottery. They are voluntary contributions toward the cost of operating government. I much prefer such voluntary contributions rather than more or higher taxes. Don't you?
To all of you: I can almost guarantee you that people who run red lights are also violating a whole host of other traffic laws. And maybe even non-traffic laws. I LIKE the idea of raising their costs of driving. Too bad they are allowed to plea-bargain their charges and therefore keep their licenses. At least for a little longer.
wildbill905 writes:
January 11, 2013
9:46 AM
Wintroub writes: You could not be further from the truth in your last post and i can prove it! I drive a tractor trailer for a living that is weighing around 80,000lbs, you get in front of me and let that light start to change just as you come up on it, and slam your brakes on so you dont get the ticket and then we will see if i can stop behind you in time! even if i have a "safe following distance" which is impossible to do in a truck because idiot drivers will always jump into your safe distance between you and the vehicle in front of you, The chance of me running you over greatly increases and all because you was scared to get a ticket, which under a common sense thought process would tell you to go through that light because you was to close to stop!
Davey writes:
January 11, 2013
1:56 PM
wildbill905, Congrats! You just proved Wintroub's point. There is more than "safe following distance" to consider when driving in a urban environment. If you are driving your 80,000lb rig behind a vehicle that suddenly, and with no warning, slams on their brakes, you are absolutely correct. It IS impossible for you to "stop on a dime" and the driver will most likely end up with a Peterbilt design on the back of their skull. But wintroub is talking about approaching an intersection with a light that has been green for a while or has turned yellow. You, as a conscientious driver, should already be braking in order not to run through a red light. You know for a fact that it will take you additional blacktop to stop so you should have already taken that into consideration instead of trying to guess if the idiot in front of you is going to hit their brakes or gun it so the both of you can run the red light. The number of rearend accidents should never have been called an anomoly. It is a direct reflection on drivers suddenly remembering that there is a camera and that they are about to get photgraphed breaking the law. The Tennessee Driver's License Handbook says that drivers should be prepared to stop before they enter an intersection, regardless of whether it is on a green light or not. Entering on a yellow is considered running a red light. We all seem to have forgotten how to drive over the years.
justmyopinion2012 writes:
January 14, 2013
9:24 AM
The only thing these cameras should be used for is accident reconstructions such as the recent case where a driver turned left into the path of an oncoming motorcyclist causing his death. If people would do their research, they would see that these cameras are a money making (for the overseas company) scam. There is an outrageous cost to the taxpayers for this equipment and very little return on the money to the community in the form of revenue and very little safety improvement.
commonsensical writes:
January 15, 2013
4:26 PM
I can vouch for what wildbill905 describes. No amount of conscientiousness can 100% prevent rear-end collisions. You can't read the driver's mind who is in the car in front of you. Even though the article states that the number of rear-end crashes is an anomaly, it makes sense that drivers distracted by the thought of getting a ticket would be more likely to make driving errors. I have witnessed firsthand how people in Johnson City slam on their breaks earlier than they ordinarily would where there are traffic light cameras and NO I am not saying that they should run a red light or rush a yellow light. These cameras make drivers anxious and take their minds away from the task at hand which is most important--safe driving. Like wildbill905 said, it IS harder for large vehicles to stop in a timely manner at intersections and they do already compensate by breaking earlier. Of course a motorist should be prepared to stop at any time due to the unpredictability of driving--but breaking at green lights because you're anticipating it turning yellow? Please! If that were the case traffic lights everywhere would have traffic backed up (which already happens during rush hour because drivers ARE paranoid of getting tickets). Please explain to me how it is possible not to tailgate at a traffic light? If you are not close to the car in front of you then you do not get through the light. Traffic lights are timed to allot a certain number of cars through the intersection. Wintroub must be one of those drivers who sits there through the green light instead of accelerating with the rest of traffic--which could also cause rear-end collisions!
I like the idea of extending the yellow light rather than trying to generate revenue. Isn't the main goal safety?
Submariner writes:
January 17, 2013
10:03 AM
The MUTCD (Traffic Control Design manual), the nation's standard for traffic signals, only required a 3 second yellow for the nation's intersections when I looked at it some months ago. If the posted speed limit is higher, say 40 mph, then a 3 second yellow is too short for any conscientious driver to stop safely. This potentially places a driver in a "dilemma zone", which is essentially about a couple hundred feet from an intersection. No matter how diligent, the driver hasn't enough time to stop safely before entering the intersection, nor enough time to enter it without getting a ticket. Thankfully, Johnson City and Jonesborough have greater yellow intervals to avoid this problem. And they have selected only the worst intersections with the worst problems, which incidentally also have the greatest cash potential. Some communities have exploited the 3 second yellow minimum to their advantage, raking-in huge amounts of cash. So, as with any system, there is potential for abuse. The problem lies in the MUTCD national standard, which needs to be more like the Tennessee standard (which requires more yellow time for greater speeds). The 'anamoly' comment above made by a reader is absolutely correct, that the incidence of rear-end accidents increases with traffic cameras.