This Sub-topic is for discussing the article listed above, which can be read here. Please add your thoughts and reactions to the article.

Douglas, an excellent report. I support the use of Red Light Cameras in Winnipeg. They will be phased in starting in the Fall, just before the icy time in Winterpeg.

We are always looking for ways to improve safety. We write laws that appear to make the roads safer. These are man-made laws. Mother Nature laughs at our attempts.

In Manitoba thoughtfully, they wrote that a driver may not leave a stop sign unless safe to do so. Obviously the car doing 100k on glare ice cannot stop. The car already stopped finds it easy to stay stopped. Relatively recently we changed our left turning laws to state that a driver going straight has absolute right of way. Again, a car going 100k on icy roads may not be able to stop, whereas, the left turning vehicle will find it easier to stay stopped or stop again. We also changed our pedestrian corridors to read that a pedestrian had less right of way crossing there than at an intersection. The onus was completely on the person crossing since a driver can not always stop on ice at high speeds.

We have a law that states that a green light does not mean go. A driver may not enter on a green if a vehicle is so close to cause a collision. Logical it is.

A driver approaching an intersection that has a light turning amber may not be able to stop on time. That is the physics of driving, the ultimate law of mother nature. When a crash occurs with no witnesses the onus appears to be always upon the red light runner, with no culpability upon a driver approaching, ready to leap into the intersection, or timing the green light to the split second. It is as though red pesonifies evil, and culpability, and green represents the Light, and saintliness.

Many attempts are made to ‘educate’ drivers approaching a traffic light that is green. Never have I seen any jurisdiction attempt to re-educate drivers that are approaching or waiting at a red light. (perhaps the amber light should come before the green, and the green go straight to red, he said, tongue in cheek.)

The horror I see as we phase in the Red light cameras, is the lengthy learning curve. The same learning curve that saw such an increase in rear end collisions when pedestrian corridors were brought in. It took drivers years to adapt to the corridors. Little bitty coffin cars able to stop on a dime at 120k, will stop. Heavy taxis, delivery, dump or cement trucks unable to stop will crash them into the midst of cross traffic in the intersection.

That’s all right though, since the heavy vehicles will be at fault. Culpability is all. Who cares if the small car driver does not survive.

Where are the green light cameras?

Impact60s70s@Hotmail.com

As an ex-Police Officer (UK) who is now in private practise as a Traffic Accident Investigator I welcomed the use of these devices. They have consistantly show truthful versions of traffic accidents at intersections and can show the red light runners speed as well as the length of time the signals were on red against them.
There are many drivers who appear to be mentally unable to accept blame when they are at fault and the provision of definative evidence at these junctions is good for all concerned. They remove the comments that a Police Officer was biased.
They will not record movement of any person who is complying with the relevant traffic law (unless they are in the frame as an offender shoots a red light)and there is, for my 2 cents worth, nothing wrong and everything right with them.
They have reduced accident figures and are usually signposted prior to the junction, thus giving the motorist opportunity to react accordingly. They are NOT a 'sneaky' device.
As for the question as to whom any revenue should go to, I do not feel qualified to comment on that other than to say it should not go directly to the persons responsible for deciding if there should be a prosecution. That can lead to the 'biased in favour of prosecution' allegations.

Red light cameras are a great idea ..!
Combined Red light and speed cameras are NOT
If the persons who controll red light cameras want to cut the fatality rate from red light runners then change the time frame of the opposite lights going to green ?
If the light changes to red in your path
and the lights from the other direction change to green 5 seconds later it will stop a lot of red light running accidents
Isnt that what its all about ????
Maybe they should start to use the brains for the protection of us instead of there own pockets ?
Who decides if it is safer to stop with a car close behind you or to go through a light on amber
If you can see no one is turning or there is no danger in going through the light should you use your own judgment ? stop or go ? who decides
Maybe we should all just slam on our brakes and not even think about the bloke in the heavy bus, car with a trailer, truck, behind us ?
The blatant red light runners i have no problem with them getting busted for stupidity its there own fault
If people run red lights and get busted doing it i have one thing to say to them SUFFER!
But as for the speed cameras in the red light box as well i dont agree with its nothing but revenue grabing
Sometimes it is safer to put your foot down a bit and get through the intersection
Im the driver i make that decision not some idiot at a desk looking at a photo!
Wet weather is a great one for red light running
Slow down you say ? whats safer to go with the traffic flow and not frustrate other drivers making them do stupid things or to or to crawl along at the speed limit and get stung becase when the calibrate the lights they do it for a faster avarage speed and you still dont have enoughf time to go through but you going just a little fast to stop safely
We have some amazing technoligy now
Why not use it for the good of all and not just for raising money for fat polititions to line there over paid pockets
Why not make magnetic chips in roads with the speed linit imbeded in it and a detctor in cars and buses trucks motorbikes that govens the vehicle so it cant go over the limit
Why make a car or bike to do 200+ kilometers per hour
The speed camera thing here in victoria has gone way out of controll
I ride motorbikes and the last thing i want is to be going slower than the flowing traffic becase im not wanting a speeding fine
People are bloody stupid in cars and do all sorts of stupid things to get infront af a slower driver so in flowing with the speed of the traffic you get busted THAT IS NOTHING BUT HUNGRY GOVERMENT REVENUE GRABING
Where dose the money from all this revenue grabing go to ????????
Not the bloody roads thats for sure
Not to make roads safer thats for sure
Not into safety on the roads ?
Not into fixing accident black spots ?
Is it all just for revenue you bet your balls it is
Red light cameras ? yes
Speed & Redlight combined? no
Speed cameras? yes If there put in the right spot not just for the most revenue
IE: accident black spots ,school zones, high pedestrian zones, Not on the highways where it is safe to do 110 to 120
Who decides if it is safe to go a little faster
I do im the one behind the wheel
Ive been driving for 18 years ive never had an accident
Its not the car or bike
Its the idiot behind the wheel
Accidents happen when ppl drive beond there limits
Know your linit and stick to it
Do a defencive driving course
Know your car,bike,truck,bus

We now have several combined Red Light and Speed Cameras installed at marked locations in the City of Winnipeg, in Canada. They are in widely dispersed locations. Most drivers will seldom drive in all areas in their normal driving. It will take a while for the Cameras to stop generating needed tax revenues for our cash starved city. Yet over time, drivers will become aware of the cameras and adjust their driving at these locations. Never fear, they will only adjust their driving at these intersections.

As humans we are interesting in that we are the most intelligent of animals, yet still get caught on these hated cameras. As the city folk become adjusted, revenues will be generated and sustained by different groups of drivers. Rural drivers unfamiliar with the city will either generate most of the revenue, or they will stay away from the city. Innocent and unsuspecting tourists who generate millions of dollars for the City, the Province and the Nation will be another ongoing source of Red Light revenue as city drivers become smarter. Commercial out-of-town truckers, business people, and anyone with a need to enter the city will pay the Red Light Bonus. Suburbanites, who seldom venture out of their areas, senior and junior drivers, stay-at-home moms and others are another ripe target for the cameras in Winnipeg.

Whether those who put the cameras up are deliberately targetting outsiders is moot, since at each camera location there is only one set of cameras covering only one of four intersection entry points. By accident or deliberately, these cameras are by and large located on the incoming roadways. The cameras will catch anyone entering the city. This may end up costing the city businesses needed revenue as people stay away.

Whether these cameras are necessary to driver safety or are purchased by the City because of super sales techniques on the part of the seller is an interesting question. Unfortunately, emotionalism is always present in any decision, and logic tends to go out the window. The following accident statistics for 1999, the last year of complete analysis shows that the cities of Manitoba had 6 traffic fatalities where drivers disobeyed a traffic signal. The total fatalities for Manitoba that year were 151. That’s right, 6 out of 151. (These numbers were spread relatively evenly across all age groups.) There can be no question that Yellow Journalism plays an important part in our view of the safety of intersections. There can be no question that media reporting has an affect on our politicians.

For all of Manitoba, vehicle crashes that had injuries or reportable property damage totalled 44,711. You may find it interesting that of these roughly 45,000 crashes, 37,312 involved drivers who were apparently doing nothing wrong or illegal. Specifically they are said to be ‘driving properly’. Getting back to those drivers who were injured, caused injuries, or that had a crash resulting in property damage the statistics are similar to the numbers for fatalities. Throughout the Province as drivers chalked up almost 45,000 injury and property damage crashes, only 579 of these crashes were attributed to drivers who disobeyed a traffic signal. (These crashes, at lighted intersections, again were relatively even across all age groups, with more attributed to drivers in the age groups between 25 and 45.) Note: I am just reporting these figures, and do not have an opinion, but it may be the reason why opponents feel that Red Light/Speed Cameras are just a tax grab.

My opinion is that smaller cities such as Regina, Saskatchewan, (see the article from the Regina Leader-Post elsewhere on Drivers.com) and Winnipeg, Manitoba represent the microcosm. Larger cities such as Toronto, Ontario being the macrocosm may not be able to sift through the masses of statistical information available on crashes simply because they are too large. A formal study of the effectiveness or the need for Red Light/Speed Cameras carried out in these microcosmic cities, Regina and Winnipeg might find answers that would elude those in the larger macrocosmic enitities such as Toronto or Montreal. This may never happen since only the resource rich larger cities could undertake such a definitive study.

Winnipeg Update:

There was a dramatic increase in Red Light/Speed automatic convictions in the 2nd month of use. Coincidentally February was the slipperiest month of the winter. This brings up the debate; Who should be the judge of traffic safety, the driver, or idealogues far from the road who cannot understand the need for instantaneous separate situational judgements? Statistically the small number of crashes and fatalities at traffic lights does not seem to justify the use of these cameras.

Be that as it may, the Minister of Traffic promised us that these cameras would never be a ‘cash cow.’ That was then, this is now. The Minister, perhaps seeing the increase in February violations has had a change of mind. The promise of vast amounts of cash going to the City has prompted the Minister to place a $15.00 surcharge on each violation. A windfall projected to raise 2 million dollars was too hard to ignore.

My apologies to the Red Light People. They are not targeting tourists. It came to light in a report of a pseudo Texan, an Albertan, who, caught on camera apparently went home and got a shotgun, came back and blew the camera off the pole. What he did not know was that only those with Manitoban plates would get tickets. Of course, anyone from the hinterland of Manitoba is still unwelcome and will get a ticket, including those tourists and business people who fly in and rent a car.

Note: The eighty-six percentile, that is you and I, were found to drive to conditions not to arbitrary rules. We were found to drive faster than the limit under ideal conditions, and slower when conditions worsened. This was from a study of school / playground zones and highways carried out in Toronto in the 60s. Speed limits all over North America were raised as the result of the study’s conclusions. Since it is costly to go after the fourteen percent of ‘bad drivers’ the Red Light/Speed cameras will be effective in catching these drivers. We of course will be caught in this wide net.

In the speed debate, since we will drive slightly over the limit, depending on conditions and regardless of the stated speed limit increasing the speed limits would automatically seem to be a signal that we can drive faster than this increased limit. Since we are going to drive to conditions rather than the posted limit it appears that there is no need to increase the limits.

This message is to answer the question posted above by "ShmeareD" :
"Slow down you say ? whats safer to go with the traffic flow and not frustrate other drivers making them do stupid things or to or to crawl along at the speed limit and get stung becase when the calibrate the lights they do it for a faster avarage speed and you still dont have enoughf time to go through but you going just a little fast to stop safely"

You left out one option. The safest thing to do is to drive at a speed that allows you to stop safely given the timing of the yellow lights. You seem to know how these are calibrated, so you should be able to figure this out. If you know, which you seem to since you say it yourself, that the speed limit is not a speed that allows you to stop safely when the amber light appears, then drive slower. It seems in fact that you have the answers to your own questions.

SAFETY?, is that the BIG reason government officials use to "impose" red-light cameras?, for me they are only a new way the government uses to take away more money out of our pockets. "It's all about safety" they say, but in fact safety has nothing to do with it, it is REVENUE the main "driving force" the government has. I do not feel safe at a red light only because it has a camera. If real safety is their concern why don't they adopt measures taken by "third world countries" such as Mexico city, where they don't use cameras to catch violators and cash in with some "picture". Instead they use creativity to stop red-light runners, taking away all excuses they may have. Here is how they do it without taking money from their citizens.
Green lights start flashing 3-5 seconds before the light turns yellow, this gives the driver those 3-5 additional seconds to stop on time before the light turns red, without adding a single second to the green or yellow light. At night lights change to "stop signal status", where lights turn red and flashes from 10:00pm to 4:59am, this way drivers don't get desperate at 2:00am waiting for the green light for 5 minutes when there are no more cars on the road, taking away the desire of running the red light. How difficult is that to do here in the states?, it's cheaper to set up and maintenance free. Now, that's what I call beign concerned about safety, not money. But I'm sure our government knows about this measures, why they don't use them?, it's easy to guess, THERE WILL BE NO REVENUE, NO MONEY!!

we make red light camerea detectors http://www.navalert.com