Fact Check: Colo. Rep. Jovan Melton Wants to Ban Red Light Cameras, Justifies Position With False Info

A red light camera in Springfield, Ohio. Photo: Wikimedia commons.
A red light camera in Springfield, Ohio. Photo: Wikimedia commons.

Update 4:27 p.m.: Members of the Colorado House Transportation Committee killed HB1099 this afternoon, a bill that would have banned automated enforcement statewide.

State Rep. Jovan Melton (D-Aurora) wants to ban red light cameras in all of Colorado. But his reckless position would cause more wrecks that would hurt and kill people — and he doesn’t have his facts straight.

In a recent interview with Denver7 he falsely claimed that the cameras do not cut injuries and fatalities. “We’re not seeing that it’s actually increasing safety,” he told reporter Meghan Lopez in a story about the proposed ban, which will be discussed today in a hearing at the State Capitol.

Multiple studies from around the world confirm that the cameras reduce the overall number of crashes, especially those with injuries and fatalities. And those results hold locally, according to crash statistics from the Denver and Aurora police departments.

While the cameras boost safety, they tend to increase less-dangerous rear-end fender benders, a fact their opponents often point out.

“We’re seeing an increase in rear-end accidents,” Melton told Denver 7. “Because somebody might see that the light is turning yellow and not want to risk getting a ticket, so they stop early and the person behind them wasn’t expecting them to stop.”

But drivers cause these crashes, not the cameras.

Despite the rear-end collisions, researchers consistently conclude that red light cameras bring down traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The cameras reduce dangerous t-bone crashes 25 percent (study) or more, total fatalities (study) and serious injuries (study), both at the intersections where they are installed (study), and citywide (study). And when cities switch off the cameras, as Aurora did two months ago after voters banned the cameras, serious crashes go up (study).

The Denver metro is no exception. Data from the Denver and Aurora police departments confirm either a dramatic decline in crashes, or a lower rate of increased collisions.


Denver: Intersections with red light cameras

  • 60%: Decrease in overall crashes
  • 80%: Decrease in side-impact crashes

Source: Denver Police Department


Aurora (2011-2016):

  • Crashes increased 35% at intersections without cameras
  • Crashes increased 19% at intersections with cameras

Source: Aurora Police Department.


Around the world

  • Calgary: Collisions decreased 17% and injury collisions fell nearly 50%
  • Western Australia: Reduced casualty crashes by 25% to 30%
  • England: Overall accident reduction of 18%
  • Glasgow Scotland: 25% drop in accidents, a 67% drop in fatal accidents, a 40% drop in serious accidents
  • Belgium: Decrease of 14% to 18% of crashes with fatal and serious injuries

Source: American Traffic Solutions via WalkDenver


Rep. Melton did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. Rep. Stephen Humphrey (R-Greeley) is a co-sponsor of the bill. 

  • Camera_Shy

    “We’re seeing an increase in rear-end accidents,” Melton told Denver 7. “Because somebody might see that the light is turning yellow and not want to risk getting a ticket, so they stop early and the person behind them wasn’t expecting them to stop.”

    So, stopping for a Yellow is stopping early?
    Is he saying we shouldn’t stop for Yellows?
    Do the Police know this?

    • internetpoints

      So frustrating to see drivers EVERY day, at EVERY light, with the expectation that the goal is to just get over that white line before the red light. That is not how it’s supposed to work. There needs to be an expectation of consequence.

    • Camera_Shy

      “…somebody might see that the light is turning yellow…”

      WTF?! The light is either green, or it turned yellow.
      What is this “is turning” you speak of?

    • jcwconsult

      When drivers know the yellow intervals are 0.5 to 1.0 seconds too short for the ACTUAL conditions, some will panic brake to avoid having their wallet raided for revenue. Longer yellows fix most of this problem but they also gut the profits from the for-profit red light camera ticket rackets – so getting safer yellow intervals is very difficult as long as the loot from the short yellow rackets are flowing.
      James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

      • TM

        Despite the rear-end collisions, researchers consistently conclude that red light cameras bring down traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The cameras reduce dangerous t-bone crashes 25 percent (study) or more, total fatalities (study) and serious injuries (study), both at the intersections where they are installed (study), and citywide (study). And when cities switch off the cameras, as Aurora did two months ago after voters banned the cameras, serious crashes go up (study).

        Beat it, liar.

        • jcwconsult

          There are many studies from unbiased sources that show the opposite result. See the list in my post below.
          James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            All you do is claim any study that disagrees with what you want is biased.
            Facts are facts, and you are a liar.

          • jcwconsult

            The source of the study is important for veracity. That discounts the organizations that are in the revenue stream from ticket camera rackets including the IIHS, the GHSA, any camera company, unverified results produced by a city staff where the camera profits are high, etc.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Yes, every single study ever done, except by your pro-motorist organization is biased.

          • jcwconsult

            None of the studies I referred to were done by us.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            The problem with cherry picking studies is, the people that did them don’t do that and do literature reviews. The overall concensus is that cameras save lives.
            Stop lying.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fcba4572f15f647a27597f11156567b4afdd2702418a7aced2dcafa2a1c1f2c7.png

          • TM

            Uh oh, the study you cite says yellow times of greater than 4 seconds increase the probability of crashes.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/493fc2eaa4c5b0beaa44b4e6c0d726536d38e907c80196a19a72d6549f13361a.png

          • TM

            The actual conclusion of this study is that crashes were immediately reduced at locations with red light cameras. Crashes in the area were rising over the study period, and control locations had increasing crash rates while red light camera locations remained lower than the control locations.
            That’s what you claim is “no net safety benefit.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfa7f2d81af950a0d895d2dc90d2124fb9acbab30872dc27ba4f3a9cbc90eb89.png

          • jcwconsult

            Take out the “studies” done by groups that are in the revenue streams from the for-profit ticket camera rackets plus the ones done in countries where the cultures are dramatically different and the conclusions differ considerably.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            This is the lit review from the study you cited.
            Keeping track of your lies is hard, I know.

          • Sincerely

            JCW also likes to cite the fact that Europe has fewer stop signs and fewer traffic deaths as evidence that the US should have fewer stop signs. He’s not even consistent in drawing his deeply flawed conclusions. The man is a joke.

          • Sincerely

            Since JCW believes anyone who disagrees with him is in the pocket of the “rackets” that are working toward fewer traffic deaths, this translates as “Ignore data JCW doesn’t like and the conclusions differ considerably.”

          • mckillio

            Still no response that he was quoting what you cited, proving you wrong?

          • jcwconsult

            It is terribly simple. Adding one second to the yellow intervals at most camera intersections almost always reduces violation rates by 60% to 80% and the reductions are permanent – the violation rates do not rebound. And longer yellows are the single most effective change that can be done reduce violations. Any groups that object to longer yellows are likely directly or indirectly in the revenue stream from red light cameras.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            What conclusions should we draw about any group that opposes measures, like camera enforcement, that have been shown to save lives?

          • jcwconsult

            What conclusions should we draw about groups that want to deliberately mis-engineer the traffic safety parameters to produce more camera profits?
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            We’re talking about you, the NMA extremists that oppose life-saving measures that are backed even by the researchers you claim support your fringe views. What conclusion should we draw about you, someone who expands so much effort to ensure more people die?

          • mckillio

            Apparently not since you didn’t address being proven wrong by your own citation.

          • jcwconsult

            There is a lot of data from many sources showing that adding one second to the yellows will almost always reduce violation rates by 70% to 80%. If the goal is fewer red light violations to reduce the risk of accidents (NOT usually the true goal in camera cities), what is the safety reason to not lengthen the yellows for such a drastic reduction in violations? The true rea$on$ are obviou$.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            It’s funny that you condemn cities for actions that you claim are motivated by money, yet you yourself opposite lifesaving actions because you are motivated by money. Your lack of self-awareness is truly remarkable.

          • jcwconsult

            Since my annual salary and that of all of our volunteers is $0.00 and the NMA plows revenues back into supporting programs, any suggestions that we are motivated by money are ridiculous nonsense.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            No, you just don’t want people who speed or run red lights to pay for it, in any way. You think holding onto your money is more important than street safety. Maybe you don’t get compensated for spreading misinformation, but as someone who breaks laws intending to make our roads safer and as a consequences faces the risk of fines, you clearly have a financial interest.

            If anyone wants a laugh, do a Google search for JCW here. You’ll find an Australian TripAdvisor message board where he runs to defend someone who is fined for running a light. His whining is met with appropriate derision by the folks down under. They essentially tell him to stick to America, not realizing how unwelcome his fringe views are here as well.

          • jcwconsult

            Our family has many relatives in Australia and we have visited them. They all believe Australian camera enforcement is a for-profit racket based on deliberately improper traffic safety engineering.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            “My mom says I’m really smart and attractive!”

          • mckillio

            You’re deflecting as usual and you clearly won’t directly address, you never admit when you’re wrong even when you yourself prove it. Very immature.

          • Sincerely

            That’s not true. JCW doesn’t just claim studies with outcomes that contradict his biases are false; he also often claims they support his agenda (see his allusion to Bonneson’s pro-enforcement study in this thread). I can’t tell if he’s intentionally lying or if his prejudices are simply so ingrained that he can’t comprehend information that exposes his ignorance.

      • TM

        “ACTUAL conditions” meaning drivers are already speeding so they should be given extra time to avoid also running red lights.
        At least you admit that every person who gets a red light ticket is breaking multiple laws.

        • jcwconsult

          Engineers who set parameters for conditions that do not exist should have their PE licenses suspended or revoked. It would be just the same as engineering a bridge to safely hold 20 cars at a time when the engineer knows it will sometimes have 42 cars.

          James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Drivers who break posted speed limits should have their licenses revoked.

          • jcwconsult

            People who study these issues understand that the first rule for speed limits is that they have almost no effect on actual traffic speeds, and that artificially low ones tend to raise accident risks.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            People that study these issues understand that automated enforcement leads drivers to follow posted speed limits.

          • TM

            So does better street design, but you don’t advocate for that, only for increasing speed limits and reducing enforcement which will lead to more deaths, so live with that on your conscience I guess.

          • jcwconsult

            If that were true, which is not, the camera programs would lose money with very few violators and fines. Ticket cameras tend to reduce violation rates by something around half over the first 6 to 12 months – and then the violation rates stabilize. The for-profit ticket camera companies and their for-profit governmental business partners judge where to put most cameras on the basis they will still be profitable in the 2nd and subsequent years.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Hey look, you just admitted that speed cameras reduce the amount of speeding.

          • Your damn right that many traffic engineers should have their licenses revoked, but mostly it is the ones who agree with your beliefs which create danger on our roads who need to lose their licenses.

      • Longer yellows encourage running of yellows.

        Also, longer yellows introduce additional traffic congestions by increasing the light cycle times.

        I’d love to hear the evidence for the yellow times being too short to stop safely…when traveling in typical conditions at the speed limit.

        But seeing as how you on multiple occasions referred to equipment which is proven to increase safety essentially as a money grab, I’m guessing you aren’t actually interested in the facts.

        • jcwconsult

          You said: “Longer yellows encourage running of yellows.”

          That is absolutely false. Longer yellows based on the actual approach speeds permanently reduce violation rates AND reduce crash rates in most cases.

          James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Dude, you’re a joke.

          • jcwconsult

            There are many reliable studies showing that longer yellows permanently reduce violation rates and do not rebound. The myth that the violations rebound is false – an attempt by the for-profit ticket camera companies and their for-profit city business partners to try to keep the yellows slightly too short to keep the loot from the rackets as high as possible.

            If you actually think those facts are a joke, I suggest you study a bit more. There is a good section about the effects of longer yellow intervals under the Red Light Camera link on our website.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            All of your studies are from biased sources.

            Look, I can do that too!

            Keep coming back if you enjoy getting dunked on, everyone has enjoyed doing it.

          • jcwconsult

            If you consider groups like the Texas Transportation Institute to be biased, then I would respectfully suggest that you do some more research on similar traffic safety research groups that we often quote.

            The data from camera cities and their camera companies on how drastically the violation rates drop with longer yellow intervals DO come from biased sources. But those sources fervently hope the violation rates would rebound to raise the revenue levels back to the way they were – but they don’t rebound.

            I have no illusions of converting most of those who comment on my posts, my goal is to show the quiet observers that these issues have two sides.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            Nice, if you believe TTI is an unbiased source, I suggest you do some more research on their position on red light cameras. For instance, this is the headline of a TTI press release:

            “TTI study underscores safety benefits of red light cameras”

            Here’s a quote from that study:

            “The average safety benefits for all Texas intersections that use automated traffic enforcement systems should be to expect red-light related crash reductions from 19% to 34%.”

            You are doing a good job showing “quiet observers” that there is one side that is concerned about safety and has facts to support their views, and then there’s your side, where the only thing that matters is allowing law-breaking motorists to do as they please without regard for others.

          • Sincerely

            Here’s another quote, this time from a 2017 TTI study: “The results indicate statistically significant collision reductions on all red-light running (RLR) crash types (37 percent) as well as right-angle RLR crashes (47 percent) at the treated intersections after RLC [red light camera] activation.”

          • TM

            One “side” has the consensus of researchers and engineers, the other “side” is constantly claiming that any evidence that contradicts him is biased and fake.
            You’ll have your own show on Fox news pretty soon.

          • This is obviously false, it isn’t even worth discussing.

          • jcwconsult

            You haven’t read the data if you think longer yellows do not sharply reduce violations on a permanent basis. One second longer yellows almost always reduce violation rates by at least 50-60% and often by 80%.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Longer yellows encourage drivers to run the light during the yellow, which is (at least where I live) illegal.

            This is perhaps the most obvious thing you’ve ever contested. And that’s saying a lot.

          • jcwconsult

            Longer yellows based on 1.4 seconds for perception/reaction time to be right for about 85% of the drivers and the actual 85th percentile speed of approaching traffic typically and permanently reduce the violation rates by about 80%. Camera cities that do not engineer that way are deliberately ticketing mostly safe drivers who would not get tickets if the lights were not deliberately mis-engineered for less safety and more tickets.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • That isn’t what the word longer means.

            Nor is your statement about “camera cities” correct.

          • jcwconsult

            Most camera cities base yellows on 1.0 seconds for perception/reaction time which is long enough for only about half the drivers. The mis-engineering is deliberate and the rea$on$ are obviou$.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            As you’ve been told before, the lower reaction time assumed in urban areas is based on the significantly greater attentiveness expected of drivers and relatively slower speeds in busy urban environments. Think about it: if it takes someone a full second to notice and respond to something as obvious and expected as a traffic signal, are they really paying an appropriate level of attention to their surroundings?

            This is another case of the NMA looking at the behavior of the least-responsible drivers then advocating for policy to accommodate them.

          • I’ve never ever seen a yellow light last 1 second.

          • jcwconsult

            That is just “t” in the formula for the perception/reaction time and 1.0 is enough for only about half the drivers – a deliberate and predatory scam to use 1.0. The second item is “v” for approach speed and the developers of the formula many years ago intended it to be the actual 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions. That is rarely used today in camera cities because it kills too much revenue. “v” is almost always used as the posted limit which is almost always below reality at camera intersections. The Florida Department of Transportation actually forbids using the 85th speed for “v” since September 2013, but they required it before July 2011 if it was higher than the posted limit (which it usually is).
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • That isn’t what the word longer means. You’re suggesting in many cases a shorter yellow where I live.

            Nor is your statement about “camera cities” correct. That has happened in a few places but it is entirely dishonest to suggest that all or even most or even many have done that. The city I live in has cameras and the engineers do not touch the timing on the lights when a camera is installed.

          • jcwconsult

            Cities almost never shorten the yellows when cameras are installed, because that malicious racket was resoundingly exposed over a decade ago. A more sophisticated scam is used.

            The for-profit camera companies usually survey intersections with what Redflex called “violation calculators” to find intersections that are already mis-timed and have enough volume to be very profitable with the cameras – even when violation rates typically go down by about half after six to twelve months of operation.

            The sales pitch is then about the “free money” the cameras will provide for the city budget – a pitch I have personally witnessed.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            In other words, enforcement is targeted in places where there are the highest number of violations, because that’s where drivers are causing the greatest danger.
            Red light cameras have been proven over and over again to reduce serious injury and fatal crashes. If the drivers that create that danger have to pay a few bucks to learn the lesson about how to follow the rules because they failed kindergarten, I do not feel bad for them.

          • So the cameras are effective in reducing violations? Hmmm….sounds good to me. If they bring money into the public purse from lawbreakers along the way, so much the better.

          • jcwconsult

            Red light cameras tend to reduce violations by about half after six to twelve months of use. Then the violations stabilize. You will virtually never find a camera located anywhere that will not be profitable in the second and subsequent years. The for-profit camera companies survey the areas in advance and guess where they recommend placing the for-profit devices?

            Also remember that almost all tickets go to safe drivers who present zero crash risks.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • “Drivers who run red lights present zero crash risks”…You are a real character.

            I mean, it would be funny if you weren’t justifying killing people.

          • jcwconsult

            Drivers who violate the red by up to one second clear the intersections during the all-red phase plus the short start up delay before the cross traffic starts moving when they get the green light. The crash risks for split second violations is zero because the cross traffic is not in the intersections.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • jcwconsult

            Drivers who violate the red by 3+ seconds and particularly the violations of about 5 to 9 seconds into the red after the cross traffic is already in the intersection boxes are the ones who cause the dangerous t-bone crashes and dramatic near misses you see in the videos the for-profit camera companies and their for-profit city business partners release to justify the cameras.

            Drivers who violate the red by up to 1.0 seconds present zero crash risks because there is no cross traffic in the intersection boxes. Virtually every light, with or without a camera has at least a 1.0 second all-red, Florida mandates 2.0 minimums, then the cross traffic has a mean perception/reaction time of 1.0 seconds – so the drivers who violate the red by up to 1.0 seconds are through the intersection boxes before the cross traffic is present.

            Auburn University did a small study of societal crash costs of red light violations using arbitrary numbers for accidents with just property damage, minor injuries, serious injuries, and fatalities. They said the costs to society for violations of up to 3.5 seconds into the red was $0.00 because no crashes ever happened. I think that study was WAY too small to apply to other places and times. But violations of up to 1.0 seconds, and likely those up to 2.0 seconds into the red in most places, present zero crash risks because there are no cross traffic vehicles in intersection boxes available for the violators to hit.

            Most red light camera tickets go to drivers for short time violations into the red that had no crash risks. The long time into the red violations that cause crashes are rare and the videos prove the cameras did NOT prevent them. The two groups of drivers are not related.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Andrew

            The for-profit camera companies usually survey intersections with what Redflex called “violation calculators” to find intersections that are already mis-timed and have enough volume to be very profitable with the cameras – even when violation rates typically go down by about half after six to twelve months of operation.

            Translation: Cities implement automated traffic enforcement in locations that have the greatest violation rates. Within a year of implementation, violation rates decline by 50%.

            The sales pitch is then about the “free money” the cameras will provide for the city budget – a pitch I have personally witnessed.

            The sales pitch is that red light violations at problematic locations are reduced by 50% within a year. That’s good news for anyone who cares about safety.

          • jcwconsult

            Only if you accept the fact the cameras are designed to NOT prevent about half the potential violations. Note that simply adding one second to the yellow intervals will almost always reduce violations by at least 60% and more usually by about 80% – FAR more than red light cameras achieve.

            What do you want more – the fewest violations or indefinite profits? The for-profit camera companies and their for-profit city business partners vote for the $$$$ and your views help them.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

      • Dave

        How about if drivers OBEYED POSTED SPEED LIMITS???????? HUH???!!! Might make it easier to stop in a lawful and timely manner.

        • jcwconsult

          One of the very first things engineers and police officers learn is that posted speed limits have virtually no effect on the actual travel speeds (plus or minus 0 to 3 mph). That fact is what makes speed and red light cameras so profitable – they are placed where the actual travel speeds are above the posted limits to produce the maximum profits.
          James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            People ignore posted speed limits because enforcement is rare. Cameras are constant enforcement and will cause people to follow posted limits, you know, the law.

          • jcwconsult

            No cities use enough cameras to actually reduce the speeds of most drivers – because then the cameras would produce almost no ticket revenue versus their typical costs of about $3,000 per month per camera.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            So you’re in favor of more cameras? Good. Me too.

            I wonder why cities have trouble using more cameras. It’s not like there are any organizations that do nothing but promote lies about their effectiveness and fight the use of more cameras at every level or anything. Hmm.

          • jcwconsult

            It is a financial issue. If cities use enough cameras to prevent most people from speeding, then cameras costing about $3,000 per month each might produce $500 a month each in ticket revenue – for a net loss of $2,500 per month per camera. Multiply that by 100 cameras and the city then spends $250,000 per month or $3 million per year plus administrative expenses. Cities simply will not do that.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            I’m glad you agree that cameras are effective in changing driver behavior.
            Now if you’d stop fighting every camera installation we’d be able to have enough to do some real good.

          • jcwconsult

            Cameras COULD be used in enough quantities that they would affect driver behavior – but it never happens. Cities are NOT willing to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars with almost no offsetting ticket revenue.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            I like this logic. Cameras are not effective, they are only for making money.
            Cameras are effective but we can’t have enough because they cost too much money.

            You don’t have to have consistent logic though, all you’re here to do is spread misinformation and cause people to doubt what we know is true. You’re a liar, a propagandist, and a scumbag.

          • jcwconsult

            Cities are 100% free to use enough speed cameras to reduce the actual speeds of most drivers to below any target speed they want to achieve – with very few tickets issued because most drivers then comply with the posted limits.

            But that changes the cameras from a large profit center to a large cost center. In almost every case, when ticket cameras become a significant cost center requiring the use of general fund revenues to keep them place – they get removed.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            You fight every single camera, you’d lose you senile little mind if cities put up that many cameras, you can’t pretend that you’d be all for it. Again, you’re a liar.
            Any reasonable person knows a city has limited funds, cameras are used in places that are consistent problems. We all know they are effective, you even admit that.
            But you’re not a reasonable person, you’re a gaslighter. You’re only here to try to confuse people with lies. Sorry, there’s consensus on the effectiveness of cameras, they work.

          • jcwconsult

            Most ticket cameras are likely to be placed where the for-profit camera companies can project the most profits – and profits that remain high in the second and subsequent years – after locals learn where not to get burned.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Get burned. Right. You mean get ticketed for breaking the law.

          • jcwconsult

            In most cases, ticketed for “the dastardly crime of driving safely for the actual conditions” in speed traps set up for profits.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            You are correct that it is a crime.
            Which is why you get a ticket when you do it.

          • jcwconsult

            Agreed, governments have the power to make safe driving a violation or crime subject to for-profit enforcement. It is a despicable racket when they do.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Yes, motorists are know to be very safe and unjustly blamed for the 40,000 deaths they cause every year. It’s definitely a conspiracy against them, they clearly are doing nothing wrong.

          • jcwconsult

            Driving is incredibly safe today with our annual total of about 3.2 billion miles traveled compared to decades past. The current fatality rate is 1.16 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. So if you are in a vehicle for about 15,000 miles a year, you will be involved in an accident with a fatality of a pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle occupant about once in every 5,700 years.

            Could we and should be do better? Sure, and a giant first step toward better results would be to end all enforcement for profits. When profits are involved, safety takes a far-back importance.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            The number of deaths per year is increasing, not decreasing.
            The number of miles traveled per year is irrelevant, we are still killing just as many people, they just spend more of their time sitting in cars before they die.
            Nothing you do is in the interest of safety.
            Now get lost, scumbag.

          • jcwconsult

            The number of miles traveled is a critical item to account for in safety stats. More miles traveled = more exposures = more accidents. Reduce the miles traveled to 0 and there will be no auto accidents. Commerce will collapse, but accidents will end.

            Similarly, if there were no pedestrians anywhere near any vehicles, the pedestrian fatalities in auto accidents would be zero. The same would be true for cyclists – if they rode only on rails to trails facilities, there would be no fatalities with vehicles.

            I got my first license in 1960 when the fatality rate was 5.08 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles. Today it is 1.16 per 100 M VMT – over 75% safer per mile traveled.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            The number of miles traveled is meaningless. We are still killing the same number of people.
            You’d have to actually give a damn about people dying for that to matter to you though.

          • TM

            You are correct that more miles traveled = more exposure = more deaths.
            The most effective way to make driving safer is to do less of it. Tear down urban highways, take street space away from cars and give it to modes that are orders of magnitude safer, transit, biking, walking.

          • jcwconsult

            Most people can understand that 36,000 fatalities in 718 billion vehicle miles traveled by 181 million people in 1960 is a LOT less safe than 40,000 fatalities in 3.2 trillion vehicle miles traveled by 323 million people in 2016.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Most people can understand that 40,000 deaths is unacceptable.

            It does not matter how much time those people spent sitting in cars before they were killed, they were still killed.

            It’s telling that the only comparison you can make to make American roads look “safe” is to American roads in the 1960s. If you compare them to every other developed country, they are terrible.

          • jcwconsult

            Most can also understand that the risks of becoming a statistic are over four times lower today than in 1960. We could get much closer to some of the other developed countries if we could get profits out of ticketing people for driving safely.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            That would be true if we drove the same amount, be we drive much much more than we did then. We’ve offset any safety gains we might have had from improved vehicle design by massively increasing our miles driven.
            We’re still killing 40,000 people every single year.
            You think that’s fine and fight against any effort to improve that ghastly number.

          • TM

            Speed and red light cameras are one of many tools that you’ll find used in other countries that are much safer than here.
            We can easily make our roads safer, but people like you fight every single thing anyone does to try.

            You are responsible for thousands of deaths.

          • jcwconsult

            If someone is in a vehicle for about 15,000 miles a year, they will be involved in an accident with a fatality of a pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle occupant about once in every 5,700 years – or about once between now and when the Great Pyramid of Giza was built. Those risks are far too tiny to make anyone believe that going to work or the store today might be “the day”. Driving is incredibly safe today, and most people understand that.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            There’s the NMA again, responding to 40,000 deaths a year with a big shrug. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for children, but the NMA wants you to believe that their safety is less important then the “freedom” to speed and run stop signs and red lights.

          • TM

            Most people mistakenly believe that. 40,000 people die in this country every single year. It’s the leading cause of death for people under 35.
            Every single one of those is unnecessary and preventable.
            You keep telling everyone it’s not big deal because YOU DO NOT CARE.

          • TM

            “becoming a statistic”
            To you, just a number. Meaningless. Put it next to another number of miles driven and it will look small.

            That 40,000 lives, families, people whose lives are cut short, potential lost. People suffering, families broken, parents burying their children.

            Not that you care.

          • TM

            You’re so concerned about society and commerce, what’s the impact of 40,000 people killed every year? How does that impact our society? How does that hurt our commerce? Do you think losing that many lives is good for the economy, since money is the only thing you love?

          • jcwconsult

            I and other NMA members do care and would like to see the risks be lower for all road users. A key way to work for that goal would be to get profits out of traffic laws & enforcement. When profits are involved as much as they are today, the entire system gets corrupted to maximize profits. “Follow the money trail” is keenly on point for traffic enforcement.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            You’re such a liar.
            You’ve never once advocated for anything to improve safety, only to absolve drivers from responsibility.
            You’re doing it right now. Pretending to care about people getting killed, but your only solution is to stop fining drivers who break the law.
            You know automated enforcement is commonly used in countries that are much safer than the US. It’s one of many tools we need, and you want to take it away. You do not care how many people die.

          • jcwconsult

            There are LOTS of things we could do to improve safety for all road users. A key item to make progress would be to get profits out of enforcement.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            Could you explain how making enforcement more dependent on general funds, while eliminating programs that have been shown to reduce fatalities and injuries, would make roads safer for all users?

          • TM

            Yes, there are lots of things we can do. Cameras are one very effective tool we have and anyone trying to take them out of our toolbox is making our streets more dangerous.

          • Andrew

            I and other NMA members do care and would like to see the risks be lower for all road users.

            I wouldn’t trust a doctor who prescribed two Tylenol for every ailment – headache, broken hip, heart attack, etc.

          • Sincerely

            It’s about half, for fatalities, not one fourth. Likely largely due to improvements in medical care, regulations on automobile safety, more effective law enforcement (which the NMA opposes), drunk driving laws (which the NMA opposes), and seat belt laws.

            If you look at Wikipedia’s list of yearly traffic deaths per 100,000 people, the big drops are almost all accompanied by changes in those categories. The exceptions are years where significantly fewer miles were traveled by automobile, underscoring how important providing transportation mode options to everyone is.

            We can and should do better, and only a fool would think the problem is enforcement.

          • jcwconsult

            1960, 5.05 fatalities per 100 million VMT.
            2016, 1.16 fatalities per 100 million VMT, over 75% safer.

            Comparisons must be per VMT for validity, not per population.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            You said “risk of becoming a statistic,” not “risk relative to the difference in VMT.”

            You should take a stats class sometime. I doubt it would stop you from trying to spin the data, but it might help you look less silly when you do.

          • Sincerely

            USA: Too many people are killed on our streets!
            NMA: No big deal, your commute is twice as long!
            USA: ???

          • TM

            BS. Traffic violence is a public health issue, it affects all of us regardless of if we ever drive. You can not just say we drove more miles and killed the same number of people and claim that is a success.
            You can if you’re a lying piece of garbage I guess. So you will continue doing that. Honest people that give a damn about human life will not.

          • Andrew

            Wrong denominator. If I’m simply trying to walk around my city without being injured or killed, I don’t care about VMT.

          • jcwconsult

            It is necessary for everyone to care about realities.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            How does it feel to be on the side of defending 40,000 deaths every year as being totally ok?
            Does your family know what you do? I’d be ashamed to be associated with you little death cult, NMA.

          • jcwconsult

            My family knows and supports what I do, as do most of my non NMA member friends. Our US society and its commerce depend upon the freedom of mobility that takes place mostly by private vehicles. In a few places in deep downtown parts of NY, Chicago, Boston, etc. transit plays a major role in moving people – plus the distances for downtown dwellers make walking a cycling viable alternatives in decent weather. For a very large proportion of today’s commuters, shoppers, tourists, visitors and commercial traffic, travel by private vehicles is and will remain the top choice for a large variety of personal reasons.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            There is zero reason for us to be so dependent on cars. We only are because we’ve built places designed around cars instead of around people for the better part of a century. The economy wouldn’t collapse without cars, we wouldn’t lose access to any of the things we have, we would just get it in different ways. Every single one of those ways is safer, more energy efficient, more space efficient, cheaper, and cleaner than cars.
            We need to start transitioning away from cars and to walking, biking, and transit as fast as possible. You may be too old to care, but the rest of us need a habitable planet to live on. Your kids and grandkids are going to suffer from the catastrophic effects of climate change that you are helping to accelerate. But you get than money now, so screw them.

          • jcwconsult

            My annual earnings from my advocacy are $0.00. I just believe that the freedom to travel when and where and how we want is an important freedom to defend.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            *Offer only good to those with the financial and physical ability to drive.
            Freedom does not extend to pedestrians whose ability to travel is severely restricted by car traffic, transit riders whose buses are stuck behind private car traffic and whose services are underfunded due to the amount of money lavished on drivers, cyclists who are bullied off of streets by car traffic and have their lives threatened on a daily basis by drivers who think all public streets belong to them alone.

          • Andrew

            I just believe that the freedom to travel when and where and how we want is an important freedom to defend.

            I want to travel by private helicopter. Do you defend my freedom to travel when and where I want by helicopter?

          • jcwconsult

            If you are duly licensed or employ a licensed pilot – yes.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            40,000 deaths every year is perfectly acceptable to you.

          • jcwconsult

            Those numbers COULD be lowered if most enforcement was based on safety, not on profits. Our society and the enormous land area requires a lot of mobility – most of which is done in private vehicles, and will continue to be for 3.2 trillion miles worth
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            You’ve been debunked so many times. Even the studies you tried to cite don’t agree with what you say.
            Red light cameras do save lives. That’s it. It’s a fact.

          • Sincerely

            You’re arguing now for measures to reduce the number of VMT for safety reasons, though you probably don’t realize it. The more people drive, the more likely they are to die (and the more likely they are to cause someone else’s death).

            The only way you can spin the stats to make the US look like it’s making progress is by using VMT, ignoring the factors that force many to drive far longer distances and far more often than they wish. I’m not surprised that the NMA, always more interested in making automobiles look good than they are in the safety of their fellow citizens, focuses on VMT.

          • TM

            Car crashes are the number one cause of death for people under 35.
            Driving is not safe by any reasonable measure.

          • mckillio

            The more cameras we have the cheaper they are on a per camera basis. With AI they should be even cheaper. Between these two things they should be able to be a 1/10th of the cost they are now.

            So since you admit that speed cameras are effective at reducing speeding, would you support more cameras if they were cost effective?

          • jcwconsult

            The for-profit camera companies will likely give some volume discounts for high numbers of cameras, but it won’t be anything like a 90% discount. The for-profit camera companies are also likely to almost refuse to put up enough cameras to actually prevent most drivers from speeding because they know the whole program will be a very large cost item in the city’s budget and the officials will likely want to end the program as soon as possible to stem the large losses to general fund monies.

            Ticket cameras are a business and losing businesses are in financial trouble with likely results to close them.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • mckillio

            I asked you a Yes or No question.

          • jcwconsult

            I cannot answer your question as a yes or no, because your premise of how it would work will not happen.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • mckillio

            Then why didn’t you say so instead of going on for multiple paragraphs? It’s a hypothetical, so assuming that it could/would what would your answer be?

          • jcwconsult

            My answer would be no, I would not support speed cameras. They would be used only on streets where the safe speeds (85th percentile) of travel are significantly higher than the artificially low posted limits the cameras are meant to enforce.

            Cities are free to re-engineer the 4/5+ lane collectors and arterials to achieve lower travel speeds – so long as they are willing to accept the potential negatives. In most cases, we believe this is a wrong approach to obstruct the free flow of commuters, shoppers, tourists, visitors & commercial traffic to speeds well below how the streets were engineered, but it is within the ability of cities to do that. Once re-engineered (example to reduce 85th speeds from about 40 to about 25), there will be no need for value to enforcement and profiteering will be impossible.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Go fuck yourself

          • fdtutf

            Why doesn’t Disqus have “love” reactions? I really need one here.

  • TM

    I JUST WANT TO LIVE

  • TourDeBoulder

    Looks like people driving in Aurora are bad drivers.

  • E. Smith

    The rear-end accident trope is such a red herring. If you are following someone too closely and they stop unexpectedly and you hit them, it is your fault. THAT IS THE LAW.

    No matter what speed you are going, you should always have 3 seconds between yourself and the car in front as this is the minimum stopping distance. The distance will be shorter or longer depending on the speed. If someone is “expecting” someone else to dash through a yellow and they are following them closely just so they can get through as well, it makes no difference if there was an intersection or light, the person following too closely made a stupid decision and it is their fault if the person in front decides to stop for the yellow because they don’t want to get a red-light ticket.

    This argument about red light cameras causing more rear-end accidents is sad at best and pathetic at worst.

    • Camera_Shy

      That’s right! Because maybe they are stopping because they see (and you don’t) an ambulance coming on the cross-street. Maybe they are stopping because the lanes are dead stopped beyond the intersection and it would be unsafe to enter the intersection. Maybe they are stopping because a dog ran into the street in front of them and they don’t want to hit the dog. Or maybe they are stopping because the light turned yellow. All of those are valid reasons for a person to stop.

      .

      Don’t be a jerk and expect the people in front of you to drive the way you think they should!

  • TakeFive

    Have I ever mentioned that I have a distaste for Government Nannyism in general? In this case that means the State should not be dictating to the City what it can and can not do. Where I am, the crap comes from the political ‘right.’ Drives me nuts.

  • BizzyB

    You’re wrong though.

    They were designed as a money maker, pure and simple, and have been proven time and again to not decrease accidents.

    From the Scientific American…

    In a study I co-authored with economist Paul J. Fisher, we examined all police-recorded traffic accidents for three large Texas cities over a 12-year period – hundreds of thousands of accidents. We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/

    • mckillio

      You’re wrong though as evidenced by this article and other studies.

  • jcwconsult

    Adding one second to the yellow intervals almost always reduces red light violations by at least 60% and often by about 80%. The rea$on$ citie$ refu$e to u$e thi$ $imple $y$tem to rai$e $afety are obviou$, and tho$e rea$on$ do NOT include safety.

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2019/fl-fiustudy.pdf
    Miami RLC study, no net safety benefits

    https://www.dentonrc.com/news/study-shows-no-evidence-red-light-cameras-lead-to-improvements/article_a6be687f-9e7d-57b5-b768-2bf62132c608.html
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078079
    Study shows no evidence red-light cameras lead to improvements in safety

    https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/investigations/10-investigates/new-florida-red-light-camera-report-has-controversial-findings/67-1940020e-3235-4610-b9ca-d3b07de0e432
    For at least the third time, FL annual report shows increased crashes at RLC intersections

    https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/cwru-study-red-light-cameras-dont-reduce-accidents-or-make-intersections-safer
    CWRU study: Red-light cameras don’t reduce accidents or make intersections safer

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

    • mckillio

      Almost all of those are linked to the same study which does not have a strong conclusion, angle crashes decrease, non-angle crashes increase.

      • jcwconsult

        They match what I think is the largest study ever done, the one by James A. Bonneson, P.E. for the Texas Transportation Institute.
        James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

        • mckillio

          Again, there isn’t a “they”, they all lead back to the same study. And the weak conclusion matches another weak conclusion that shows that more dangerous crashes are reduced and less dangerous ones increase?

        • Sincerely

          Here’s a quote from the Bonneson study:

          “A review of this literature indicates that camera enforcement has been found to reduce the frequency of red-light violations between 40 and 59 percent. Camera enforcement has also been found to reduce red-light-running-related crashes between 20 and 36 percent (between 9 and 10 percent on a citywide basis)….A comprehensive study of the impact of camera enforcement on total crashes (including right-angle and rear-end crashes) found that camera enforcement reduced total crashes by 7 percent on a citywide basis.”

          Do you ever read the studies you cite?

          • jcwconsult

            Increased yellows were the most effective answer.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            I think I’ve figuring out how you’re managing to be so wrong. Bonneson participated in several reports, each looking at different aspects of the problem of motorists failing to stop when required by law. In one report, looking exclusively at “engineering countermeasures,” he lumped everything into three approaches: “signal operation,” including changing the duration of the amber interval; “motorist information,” such as offering more notice of upcoming traffic lights; and “physical improvement,” such as flattening sharp curves. Within that limited scope, extending the amber interval was second only to removing the light entirely in effectiveness at reducing red-light violations.

            Bonneson was then involved in another report the following year that looked at enforcement and safety specifically, in which he noted the remarkable effectiveness of automated enforcement, independent of engineering countermeasures.

            So it’s not surprising that you, as someone interested only in helping law-breaking car users avoid accountability, ignored that second report. Thankfully, real engineers rarely share your narrow-minded fixation. That is why organizations of safety and engineering professionals recognize the value of enforcement while you do not, and why your misinformation is regularly shot down by transportation researchers and working engineers.

          • jcwconsult

            If you don’t start with engineering corrections that permanently change driving behaviors for almost all drivers with no financial rewards to the cities for deliberately leaving the engineering errors unfixed to maximize profits – the results won’t be the best.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            And if you pretend like enforcement is always a money-making scheme instead of a necessary component of creating safer streets, more people will die. We should be doing all we can to save lives.

          • jcwconsult

            Obvious example: Arterial or collector 4/5 lanes, current 85th speed = 41 mph and authorities want the 85th to be about 25 (regardless of whether that is a good idea for commerce or potential diversion or not). Re-engineer the street so the slowest 85% of the drivers now feel safe and comfortable only at speeds up to about 25 mph for a permanent change in driver behavior with no enforcement needed to achieve or maintain the lower actual travel speeds. There will be only an occasional driver above 30 mph and virtually none at 40 or higher. Engineering works, it is permanent, and if speeds were the true cause of higher risks (which may or may not be true) – the higher speeds will be permanently gone on the arterial or collector.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            Could you find me one article on the internet suggesting that a specific street be engineered for safer speeds that has a comment from you supporting the proposed changes? Because I see you using engineering options as an excuse not to enforce laws regularly, but whenever other approaches are considered you seem to only weigh in with vague threats about “commerce.”

            And nothing you said changes the fact that we know that camera enforcement saves lives. If you don’t believe me, read the words written by the transportation researchers you cite.

          • Devin Quince

            Yellows mean prepare to stop, not gun it

          • jcwconsult

            Agreed, and the yellows should be long enough for the actual conditions so that drivers too close to stop at a reasonable deceleration rate will make it into the intersections on yellow. Most camera cities (except in VA and CA where this method is illegal) tend to leave or set the yellows just slightly too short for the actual conditions by 0.5 to 1.0 seconds – knowing that 50%-60% of the violations happen in the first 0.5 seconds of red and about 80% happen in the first 1.0 seconds of red. This deliberately predatory engineering for profits is a racket that no one should tolerate.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Devin Quince

            Sure, maybe 1 car, but not 3+ cars.

          • jcwconsult

            At 30 mph, it can be 2 modest sized cars with a car length between them. But the real goal of the for-profit camera companies and their for-profit city business partners is to get a consistent flow of “gotcha” fines.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Traffic signals suddenly turn yellow, then red, what a surprise! Gotcha!

            (Gotcha only if you have never seen a traffic signal before in your life)

          • jcwconsult

            And if the lights are timed for safety rather than ticket revenue, the gotcha effect doesn’t happen.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            There is no gotcha. Signals turn from green, to yellow, to red. No one is surprised by this happening. Be prepared to stop anytime you are approaching an intersection. Follow traffic laws, or get a ticket.

          • jcwconsult

            Do you actually believe the yellow intervals should be the same length when 85% of the cars approach at speeds up to 30 mph as when 85% approach at speeds up to 45 mph? If safety is the goal, these two times will be significantly different.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            The approach speeds will be different if camera enforcement is present.
            We’ve already gone over how cameras make intersections safer.

          • jcwconsult

            They won’t be enough different to matter, that is one of the key facts that makes camera enforcement so profitable.

            I am only interested in realities, not in wishful thinking.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Sweet, you should read the studies on red light cameras. They have studied reality and cameras make intersections safer.

          • TM

            Speeding is a choice, not stopping at red lights is a choice.
            Dangerous driving is a choice, stop making excuses for adults making poor decisions that put other people in danger. Time for some personal responsibility.

          • jcwconsult

            The business plans of the for-profit camera companies and their for-profit city business partners depend on your attitude because it is not based on reality or safety.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            I forgot drivers don’t have free will.

          • TM

            The question being, “how do we get out of paying these tickets without changing our behavior and without making the street any safer?”

          • jcwconsult

            Increased yellows typically reduce violation rates by about 80%. THAT is changed behavior, the violations no longer happen.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            The behavior isn’t different, nothing is any safer than it was before.

            In fact, you’ve given a green light, so to speak, to speeders and make each following intersection on that street more dangerous.

            This is life and death to me, you can’t sit in your office and threaten my life with your lies.

          • jcwconsult

            Are you actually saying that people who do NOT violate the red lights are as unsafe as those that do?
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            If they are speeding, and that is the reason they are “unable” to stop when they are supposed to, absolutely yes they are.

          • jcwconsult

            That wasn’t my question. My question was do you actually think that people who do not commit red light violations are as unsafe as the people that do?
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            And I answered you prick.

          • fdtutf

            No. If I understand correctly, TM is saying that making dangerous behavior legal (e.g., by lengthening yellow lights) does not make it less dangerous.

          • jcwconsult

            That conclusion by TM requires believing that drivers who stop in time for red lights with yellow intervals correctly engineered for about 85% of the drivers without raising the rear end crash rates are just as dangerous as those who don’t stop in time. I find that conclusion to be untrue.
            On level ground the formula for yellows must use t = 1.4 seconds for the perception/reaction time, not the usual 1.0 that is long enough for only about half the drivers. The v for approach speed must be the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions OR the posted limit + 7 mph to compensate for posted limits that do not reflect reality.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            Your rambling about yet more ways to concede control of the roads to motorists, disregarding the safety of other road users, remains boring and unfounded.

          • jcwconsult

            If stopping at a reasonable deceleration rate, not violating the red lights, not causing more rear end accidents and maximizing safety are bad goals for timing lights, then I plead guilty.

            Many cities prefer a LOT more violations, and the rea$on$ to $eek more violation$ and ticket$ are obviou$.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            I like that you make a point to specify “rear end accidents” rather than the more deadly angle collisions, or total fatalities, or the number of crashes overall. That you make that distinction shows that you know that red light cameras, based on the work of researchers you’ve cited, reduce those more serious consequences.

            Tell me, how do you justify to yourself all the effort you expend fighting measures you know save lives?

          • fdtutf

            Yellow lights should be timed for deceleration from the posted speed limit. If you’re driving too fast, that’s your problem.

          • jcwconsult

            THAT is what makes the rackets so profitable. Florida mandates this part of the formula and the state gets an $83 sales commission from each $158 ticket for $50 to $60 million/year.

            Engineers who time lights for conditions that do not exist should have their PE licenses suspended or revoked. It is no different than engineering a bridge to hold 20 cars when the engineer knows it will sometimes hold 40 cars. Engineers must not engineer for the wishful thinking conditions, they must engineer for the actual conditions.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Enforcement of laws is how we control the actual conditions, idiot.

          • jcwconsult

            If red light cameras actually worked to prevent most violations (which they were never designed to do), the for-profit camera companies would be bankrupt and the state budget would be reduced by $50 to $60 million a year. Allowing for-profit camera companies to be any part of traffic enforcement guarantees that the most important goal will be profits.

            The vast majority of tickets are for violations of less than one second into the red and those drivers present zero accident risks because they clear the intersections during the all red phase plus the short start up delay before the cross traffic starts moving. Virtually all the dangerous t-bone and angle accidents happen when drivers enter intersections after the lights have been red for several seconds, because they were so distracted or impaired by something they failed to recognize the lights were red.

            The two groups are not related.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            Why do you think red light cameras significantly reduce the dangerous angle crashes you mention?

          • TM

            Those drivers that ran those lights made a conscious choice to run the light when they were perfectly capable of stopping. They deserve the tickets they get.
            And the rest of your lies are easily debunked by the numerous studies that show intersections do get safer when cameras are installed. Crashes are reduced, lives are saved. That is a fact.
            Take your lies and shove them.

          • jcwconsult

            The vast majority of tickets are for inadvertent violations of less than one second into the red by drivers who clear the intersections during the all red phase plus the short start up delay for the cross traffic to start moving – so their crash risks are zero. The dangerous crashes the cameras falsely claim to prevent are by drivers who enter the intersections several seconds into the red after the cross traffic is already present. The two groups are not related. The sales pitch is pure bait and switch.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            Inadvertent my ass.

            You have 100% control of your car. You choose to drive too fast, you choose not to stop.
            You choose to keep telling lies.

            Cameras do prevent crashes and save lives. It’s been proven by dozens of studies, including ones you cite trying to claim the opposite.

            Shut up liar.

          • jcwconsult

            The for-profit ticket camera racket companies appreciate your support – so they can make profits indefinitely with deliberately mis-engineered traffic lights.

            A high % of studies show red light cameras increase crashes.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            More lies. Good job. You tried to post some of those studies and even the ones you cherry-picked don’t back you up.
            You also have no evidence that light timing has been deliberately mis-engineered. It certainly never has been here in Denver, where I am, and where you are not and do not have any knowledge of the situation you keep commenting on.
            All you’re doing is repeating the same lies over and over. They’ve already been shot down.

          • jcwconsult

            When red light cameras make profits, the lights are deliberately mis-engineered. It is how the racket works. It is unfortunate that you and others do not understand the finances of the ticket camera industry – how they are sold and how they operate.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            You probably shouldn’t question others’ understanding when almost every post you make shows a remarkable inability to learn basic facts.

          • TM

            Go fuck yourself

          • jcwconsult

            It is humorous when some resort to epithets and unfounded accusations, rather than rational responses, especially when they have not understood some basic principle of something.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            It’s not humeeous when people lie constantly in order to promote policies that put lives in danger.

            You’ve been proven wrong over and over.

          • jcwconsult

            I just quote facts & reports many find to be unpleasant to read.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • TM

            The only things you quoted were studies that actually disproved your claims.

          • TM

            Not at all. You play into the biases of motorists who believe they are not doing anything dangerous when they break traffic laws, when in fact data shows the opposite.
            Your audience is more than happy to believe you with no criticism or further investigation. They are quite happy to have their feelings confirmed and won’t bother to objectively look at the evidence that says you’re full of shit.

          • jcwconsult

            I only deal with realities, not wishful thinking for behaviors that will not happen. For example: Having seen well over 200 before/after speed studies showing virtually no change in the actual travel speeds when posted limits are changed, I understand the principle involved.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Andrew

            Realities, such as this one: people will tend to ignore the law and act as they please unless there’s an enforcement mechanism in place to persuade them to obey the law.

          • TM

            Then you ignore all the studies that prove red light cameras save lives.
            Drivers that run red lights are happy to believe you.
            People that actually read the studies know you’re full of shit.

          • TM

            It’s unfortunate that you are a lying sack of trash.

          • Sincerely

            This is misleading, according to the TTI researcher that JCW even cited. Angle crashes (the most serious ones) go way down, rear-end crashes go up (note this only occurs when people using cars are following too close), overall crashes go down, and fatalities and serious injuries go down.

            I’d say JCW doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but by this point it’s pretty clear he has to know he’s a liar. All his fringe group cares about is pretending law-breaking motorists from being held accountable.

          • jcwconsult

            At least 3 of the annual reports from the Florida DOT show increased total crashes at camera intersections. A long term multi-year study by Case Western Reserve University on camera sites in Texas show no safety benefit for cameras. Some studies show increased injury crashes with cameras.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            If you cherry-picks studies, you can often find any outcome you’re looking for. That’s why researchers do literature reviews. Some studies have found little effect, some have found dramatic effects, but overall it’s pretty clear that cameras can save lives when used properly.

            You should read that report I mentioned to you after you brought up how unbiased the author was — the review from TTI that stressed the safety benefits of red light cameras. Not even the researchers you cite agree with your conclusions.

          • fdtutf

            As many of us have said repeatedly, if you don’t want to be caught by a speed camera or a red light camera, you have a simple strategy available to you: Obey the speed limits! If you don’t, you have only yourself to blame.

            Motorists who are unable to do this should have their driver’s licenses suspended or revoked.

          • jcwconsult

            If your suggestion bore any relationship to the actual driving behavior of the vast majority of motorists, which it doesn’t, it would have value. The for-profit ticket camera rackets which you purposefully or inadvertently support to keep their profits as high as possible depend on this suggestion which they are 100% certain is of no practical value. When drivers are on a collector, arterial, highway, or freeway which is designed to be safe for travel at up to about XX speed, very few will drive it 10, 15 or 20 mph below that safe XX speed because some officials painted those lower numbers on the signs that are unnecessary for safety and in some cases harm safety.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            Actually, experience shows that speed cameras lower speeds where they are installed, so you’re just wrong. The upshot of that finding is that enforcement makes speed limits work. We need more enforcement.

            What we don’t need more of is entitled motorists who think they can do whatever the hell they want, which is what you advocate.

          • jcwconsult

            If they really work to significantly reduce speeds of most drivers, then how do you explain the huge ongoing profits that go to the for-profit camera companies and their for-profit city business partners after the first 6 to 12 months of operation when the locals learn which 100 yard sections of the streets require unusually slow speeds?

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            First of all, I think you’re exaggerating about “huge ongoing profits.”

            Second of all, streets aren’t closed to non-locals.

          • jcwconsult

            Modest size Aurora with 14 cameras generated $2 million a year, but the cameras were voted out – 37th loss in 41 public votes for ticket cameras.

            Agreed, streets are not closed to non-locals and they sometimes form the majority of ticket victims – particularly in high content tourist areas like Florida. Providence, RI set up a particularly vicious system of speed cameras and generated 12,000 tickets in only 33 days of operation with five cameras. Over the last few years, a great many articles by investigative reporters show the most difficult problem in getting cameras removed is to convince the officials they have to find some other way to generate the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for their budgets.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            I’ll reiterate that these “victims” of whom you’re so solicitous, while completely ignoring the safety of other road users, have a simple solution available to them to avoid speeding tickets — they can obey the speed limit.

            I realize this solution, like any solution that curbs motorists’ behavior, is unacceptable to you, as your continuing moral bankruptcy is not news.

          • jcwconsult

            Obeying the speed limit is not unacceptable, it is just a fact that if the limit is set well below the actual 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions for the speed range that most drivers find to be safe and comfortable and which IS safe and comfortable almost all the time – VERY few drivers will comply. If the limit is set about 10 mph under the 85th, the limit will be around the 30th percentile speed with about 70% above. If the limit is 15 mph under the 85th, the limit will usually be at or below the 10th percentile speed with 90+% above.

            These are simply the facts, and making plans hoping the facts will change is the classic definition of insanity – Doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Andrew

            Obeying the speed limit is not unacceptable, it is just a fact that if the limit is set well below the actual 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions for the speed range that most drivers find to be safe and comfortable and which IS safe and comfortable almost all the time – VERY few drivers will comply.

            …unless there is ample enforcement. Without enforcement, people will tend to ignore most laws and act however they please – it’s nothing unique about speed limits.

            And, by the way, perhaps in some cases drivers feel inclined to drive at a speed that’s safe for them. That speed may still be very unsafe for anybody they share the road with who isn’t inside a steel box.

          • jcwconsult

            No city will pay for enough officers or cameras to reduce the speeds of most drivers to a posted limit set well below the 85th speed, because then enforcement becomes a massive cost item in the city budget with almost no offsetting ticket revenue.

            When cities or states set posted limits at the 85th percentile speed, at least 85% comply voluntarily and most of those above the limit are in the next 5 mph interval. Traffic flow then tends to be the safest and smoothest and enforcement becomes both unnecessary and unprofitable.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            In other words: Motorists simply cannot be expected to comply with the law, and that’s okay with you. Why do you think it’s okay for motorists to be above the law?

          • jcwconsult

            Any experienced police officer, traffic engineer, or traffic researcher whose bosses allow them to tell the truth will confirm that posted speed limits have almost no effect on the actual travel speeds. Absent something close to 24/7/365 enforcement done often enough on every collector and arterial street so that going much over the posted limit gets a guaranteed ticket, a level of enforcement that no government can afford to do with virtually no offsetting ticket revenue, artificially low (or high) posted limits change the actual 85th percentile speeds by a maximum of 3 mph, by an average of 1.5 mph, and occasionally a higher limit slightly lowers the 85th speeds and a lower limit slightly raises the 85th speeds.

            These are just facts, whether someone thinks they are OK or thinks they are terrible. But they are facts and plans set up that do not accept that axiom are doomed to failure – or are doomed to be focused almost entirely on revenue.

            Only engineering changes the actual travel speeds, something cities are usually able to do. An arterial or collector street that now has an 85th speed of 41 mph can be re-engineered so that the slowest 85% of the drivers now feel safe and comfortable only at speeds up to about 30 mph or up to about 25 mph with stronger changes. Thus changed, the speeds will be permanently lowered and essentially no enforcement will be needed because almost all the drivers above the new 85th speeds will be in the next 5 mph interval. Such changes on the re-engineered streets may produce other negatives that create other problems, but the speeds on the collector or arterial streets will be permanently lower.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            Absent something close to 24/7/365 enforcement done often enough on every collector and arterial street so that going much over the posted limit gets a guaranteed ticket, a level of enforcement that no government can afford to do with virtually no offsetting ticket revenue, artificially low (or high) posted limits change the actual 85th percentile speeds by a maximum of 3 mph, by an average of 1.5 mph, and occasionally a higher limit slightly lowers the 85th speeds and a lower limit slightly raises the 85th speeds.

            Hmm. 24/7/365 enforcement like, say, the kind you can get with speed cameras?

            There is nothing “artificial” about speed limits that are set to protect road users other than motorists. There is a strong scientific basis for them that you simply won’t acknowledge.

            I wish you would simply admit that you won’t stand for anything less than motorists being allowed to drive as fast as they want, and that you think there should be no curbs on automobile speed. But I don’t think you’re that honest. Surprise me!

          • jcwconsult

            Individual cameras do operate 24/7/365 but they are NOT placed closely enough together to affect the speeds of most motorists so that very few tickets would be issued because very few drivers would be speeding. The high profits being collected prove my point. If they actually worked, speed cameras would lose money.

            fdtutf knows better. I support 85th percentile speed limits on our main roads – I do NOT support derestricted speeds, even on our rural Interstates.

            Cities are usually free to re-engineer their collectors & arterials so that the slowest 85% of the drivers that formerly felt safe and comfortable at speeds up to XX mph, now feel safe and comfortable only at speeds up to XX minus 10 or 15 mph. The cities must be willing to accept any negative consequences.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            I know better than what?

            Believe it or not, cities are also free to set speed limits appropriately within their boundaries, and to set those limits based on the needs and safety of all road users while ignoring the idiotic junk science you’re pushing. Isn’t that AMAZING?

          • jcwconsult

            ftdutf said:
            I wish you would simply admit that you won’t stand for anything less than motorists being allowed to drive as fast as they want, and that you think there should be no curbs on automobile speed.

            That is false and ftdutf knows better.
            I support 85th percentile speed limits on our main roads – I do NOT support derestricted speeds, even on our rural Interstates.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            I don’t know better.

            85th-percentile speed limits effectively allow motorists to dictate the speed limits, regardless of the needs of other road users.

          • jcwconsult

            ……as fast as they want, and that you think there should be no curbs on automobile speed.

            That is not my belief. Drivers notably above the actual 85th speeds are out of the Pace (10 mph band with the most vehicles) and disturb the smooth & safe flow of traffic. The same problem exists for drivers well below the Pace, typically ~15 below the 85th who disturb the smooth & safe flow.

            And the key principle here which many streetsblog readers do not understand is that posted limits alter actual travel speeds by a maximum of 3 mph, and usually by less. No city will spend the money to achieve compliance by a high majority of drivers for limits set well below the speeds most drivers find to be safe and comfortable. Engineering can, if cities accept the negatives.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            Probably worth noting that the evidence for deviations below average speed resulting in a higher number of deaths is weak and based largely on poorly executed or poorly interpreted studies from decades ago. JCW isn’t quite as egregiously offbase here, though, as it’s only been in the last few years that we’ve had robust research challenging that long-held assumption.

          • fdtutf

            That is not my belief.

            Then you will need to explain why you consistently oppose all effective enforcement of speed limits. And try something we haven’t seen before; nobody sane is convinced by the drivel you’ve posted so far.

          • jcwconsult

            Define effective enforcement of speed limits as you want to see it. Lets use an example of a posted 25 limit where the actual 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic is 36 mph when no enforcement is present.

            And our exchange would be much better without the insults.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            If you expect civility, you should stop insulting our intelligence with specious arguments that only appeal to selfish motorists looking to excuse dangerous behavior.

          • jcwconsult

            I find many of the responses to me by several people to be totally over the top and not based in reality – but I try hard to reply civilly.

            I need a pretty specific definition of what you would deem to be effective enforcement on the 25/36 mph example above. It is a 3 lane urban trunkline (city part of a numbered highway) in a mostly residential neighborhood, not far from the campus of a major university.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            They probably seem “over the top” to you because you are also someone who has called 40,000 deaths a year “not a crisis.” I think your threshold for outrage is very, very high.

            If the speed limit is 25 mph on a street with an 85th percentile speed of 36 mph, then it is likely that the speed limit was lowered because the context calls for a much safer speed — because of high pedestrian activity, a history of speed-related crashes, or some other factor. I would call “effective enforcement” any enforcement that resulted in mitigating the negatives that prompted the need for a lower speed limit, obviously with varying degrees of effectiveness.

          • jcwconsult

            If you want to see the actual data, this is on the last “Article” under the speed limit link on our website. It was one of the Michigan State Police examples in their Powerpoint presentation to the MI House and Senate Transportation Committees in support of proper 85th percentile limits. The 85th percentile speed never changed from 36 mph when the limit went back and forth between 25 and 35 mph in a several-year dispute between the State Police & MDOT who wanted the safer limit of 35 to produce smoother traffic flow – versus the city of East Lansing who wanted to keep their very lucrative 25 mph speed trap that they enforced quite frequently for profits. The issue went to court and got appealed all the way up to the MI Supreme Court which ruled that the State Police and MDOT had total control of speed limits on numbered state highways inside cities. East Lansing even appealed the Supreme Court ruling, but lost again. Under Public Law 85 of 2006, the 25 limit was illegal. For a time, it was part of an under-the-table deal between the governor and a powerful East Lansing legislator to let East Lansing keep their illegal limit in place there, in exchange for a proper limit on another nearby segment. I finally had enough of this corrupt deal and got a local Lansing TV station to do a story on site with me and the data on a Thursday. MDOT put up the legal 35 signs on the next Monday and the speed trap disappeared. The enforcement was never very effective, except to raise cash, because when officers were not present the 85th speed for many, many years stayed right at 36 mph.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            I suppose that’s a positive story if you think “speed traps” are worse than motorists endangering everyone.

          • jcwconsult

            The real point, which I have stated hundreds of times, is that limits set well below the optimum 85th speeds do NOT reduce the actual speeds of travel when enforcement is not visibly present. The 36 mph 85th speed was true for at least an entire decade when the state police and MDOT were fighting the city of East Lansing which repeatedly and illegally posted 25 on that segment for profits. Note that with the limit at 35 instead of 25, the 85th was exactly the same at 36.
            I have extensive data on two segments in Ann Arbor that were for profit speed traps for the city for at least 20 years. The 85th speeds were 40 and 47 on two adjacent 4 lane segments of the I-94 business route – posted at 30 and 35 with compliance of less than 10%. Posted at 40 and 45 since April 2008 by the state police and MDOT, the 85th speeds are still 40 and 47 – NO change. The only change is the Ann Arbor police can’t make money there any more. I live near the segments and have not seen even one enforcement action in almost 11 years now – it is no longer profitable.
            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            And the point you ignore, time after time, is that enforcement of lower speed limits save lives. It doesn’t matter what your personal experience or beliefs are — we know enforcing safer, lower speed limits results in fewer fatalities from an overwhelming consensus of actual research.

            I still honestly don’t know how you can sleep at night when you spend your days advocating policies that kill people. You really need to find a more ethical hobby.

          • jcwconsult

            I don’t know how you can fail to understand that very regular enforcement of under posted speed limits leaves the actual travel speeds the same. No one has ever given me a coherent answer about why they think an area with (like the well documented examples I used) an 85th percentile speed of 36 is safer with 25s painted on the signs instead of 35s.

            Engineering changes affect the actual speeds, virtually all enforcement does not – even in locally notorious speed traps where residents know exactly the locations where they need to watch for the officers or cameras to protect their wallets. And when the under posted limits are corrected, the actual travel speeds either don’t change at all or change by 0 to 2 mph which is too small a difference to have any real safety affect.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • fdtutf

            Effective enforcement means enforcement, by whatever means, that is sufficiently strong and frequent to keep the rates of speed limit violation down to around, I’m spitballing here, 5-10% at most.

            This exchange would be much better if you didn’t earn my insults.

          • jcwconsult

            I agree that keeping speed violations down to 5%-10% (or perhaps even 15% – meaning the posted posted limit is perfectly complied with according to a technical measure that is almost always calculated in engineering studies) would truly be effective.

            The problem is that high intensive level of enforcement is far too costly for authorities to use on any consistent basis and/or on any meaningful percentage of their collector & arterial streets. It is easy for cities to have a blitz of enforcement with officers, especially if advertised in advance, “We are cracking down on speeding on Maple Street next week.” and diverting a high percentage of their city-wide patrol officers to that area for a visible enforcement blitz. It very well will work for that short area and short time frame to get quite high and documentable compliance numbers on Maple Street. A month later, the historical 85th percentile speeds on Maple Street will be essentially the same. And the other X number of their collector & arterial streets will operate with their normal 85th percentile speeds and virtually no enforcement during the Maple Street blitz.

            If done with cameras, typically at $3,000+ per month per camera, it takes too many well-identified cameras placed frequently enough to essentially guarantee speeders will get tickets. Behavior changes can happen when the certainty of multiple tickets with serious fine totals is very high, not when the chances to get a few tickets every few years that do not affect the person’s drivers license, their insurance rates, or their overall personal budget. As speed cameras are normally used, the occasional fines become an affordable “nuisance road tax” for most drivers, not a behavior-changing program. But from the point of the city budget, using enough cameras to effectively control speeding becomes a huge total cost item with almost no offsetting ticket revenue to pay the cameras’ costs. Cities just won’t do that, they don’t have the money.

            You are dealing with a real expert here, someone who has studied these issues intensively for more than 50 years and talked to large numbers of experienced command police officers, traffic researchers, traffic engineers, city officials, and state DOT officials. I completely understand the push toward Vision Zero (which is unachievable with actually having zero fatalities), cyclist & pedestrian lobby goals, and the “buy in” from groups like the GHSA, NTSB, NHTSA, etc. to these politically-popular goals because they get great public support from some parts of our society. That said, I also know what works, what generally doesn’t, and what works partially in some ways to give authorities a chance to claim victories when the actual results are only marginally successful.

            Insults are juvenile and add nothing to a discussion.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            This argument doesn’t get any less absurd with repetition. We don’t have to get 24/7, 100% compliance to see the safety benefits of enforcing lower speeds. It is absolutely clear that enforcing low speed limits saves lives.

          • Sincerely

            If they actually worked, we’d see fewer traffic deaths where and when speed cameras are used.

            Oh look, we do. I guess they work.

            (“Negative consequences” may include more economic activity, less congestion, better traffic flow, fewer injuries and fatalities, more pleasant streets, and less air pollution.)

          • jcwconsult

            If they actually worked, we’d see fewer traffic deaths where and when speed cameras are used.

            Used intensively enough to control the speeds of almost all the cars, instead of only enough of the cars to keep the cameras producing high profits for the for-profit camera companies and their for-profit city business partners, the physics of accidents at slower actual speeds would make them less dangerous. Don’t hold your breath waiting so see such programs, the costs for the cities would be too high for them to accept.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            I really don’t understand why you think this particular conspiracy theory is at all convincing. That you apparently buy it yourself should make anyone not familiar with your consistently poor understanding of the issues immediately recognize your shortcomings.

            We don’t need to get “almost all the cars” to comply with the law to see safety benefits. We see them even with sporadic enforcement. That a perfect solution would be too expensive is no reason not to take simple measures that move us in the right direction. This really isn’t hard to figure out.

          • Sincerely

            It’s funny, because the one second reaction time is used in urban areas because it reflects the greater attention that motorists must pay to busier surroundings. What JCW is arguing for here is essentially configuring our roadways and controls for people who pay little attention to their environment and ignore laws.

            Incidentally, most major cities use a “grace period” in which motorists who fail to stop are not cited (another example of how leniently our society treats scofflaw motorists). If JCW truly believes people using cars in cities should be expected to be as nonchalant about their surroundings as someone cruising on a country road, they still have 1.3 seconds to react before they’ll be cited.

            Honestly, we should really consider how rational it is to use signal timing to accommodate people who are, due to impairment or inattention, slow enough reacting to stimuli that they pose a danger to others.

          • jcwconsult

            Only Virginia has a grace period by law, it is 0.5 seconds. There are red light camera tickets on record issued for 0.1 to 0.3 seconds into the red. When Florida mandated 1.4 for t, the violation rates at many intersections dropped by 30% to 50%.

            To my knowledge and the knowledge of the many people I correspond with, NO city has a 1.3 second grace.

            James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

          • Sincerely

            You seem confused. With a one second assumed reaction time and a 0.3-second grace period, you get a total of 1 + 0.3 = 1.3 seconds before you have to worry about a ticket. That’s a really long time to notice something obvious that you should be watching out for.

  • The thing that bugs me most about the opposition to these cameras is the question of why. Even if they did not increase safety (which they do)…why do drivers believe they shouldn’t be ticketed for running red lights.

    Unless they can show that municipalities are somehow tricking drivers into running red lights when they wouldn’t have without the cameras, this opposition to cameras is nothing more than entitlement to break the law with impunity.

  • Camera_Shy

    If we really want to decrease crashes due to red-light runners and we are going to add time to the traffic lights, we should probably increase the duration between when one light turns Red and the other turns Green. i.e. instead of increasing the Yellow light duration, increase the time between when one direction stops and the other direction goes.

  • Dave

    I support ALL surveillance and ticketing of drivers. American drivers have become a dangerous subhuman species that’s hyperagressive, hyper territorial and has insufficient eyesight, hearing, and attention span. Drivers need to be made to fear law enforcement by any means necessary. No irony or humor intended in this comment.

  • seansd

    In san diego there have been problems, because the contracts involve financial incentives to generate as many tickets as possible. One of the easiest ways is to shorten signal light times below legal threshholds.

  • Jeff Gonzales

    Drivers should never have to stop for anything and should be allowed to run over any pedestrians that get in the way. Drivers should get free cars and never have to pay any fees or fines.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

  • jcwconsult

    Motorists should not have to follow rules that they don’t like, so I am opposed to cameras.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

  • jcwconsult

    Drivers should not be held responsible for breaking traffic laws.
    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association

    • mckillio

      Really? Creating a fake account? Grow up.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Monday’s Headlines

|
Thornton police officer injured after driver crashed into his stopped vehicle at the I-25 off-ramp to 104th Ave. (Denver Post) 293 drivers arrested for DUI after statewide patrols on St. Patrick’s Day weekend. (Patch.com) Lawyers surprised Longmont police did not issue a ticket after mayor hit cyclist. (Daily Camera) Have ideas for the future of […]
Screen Shot 2019-03-21 at 12.51.32 PM

Friday’s Headlines

|
The number of people driving alone to work in Downtown Denver has fallen slightly. Infographic: Downtown Denver Partnership. From Streetsblog Downtown Denver workers walk, bike and ride transit more. Though the changes are small, fewer people drive alone to work according to a new survey from the Downtown Denver Partnership. (Streetsblog Denver) Other news A […]