NEWS - Red Light Cameras Now Operating 24/7

24/7 cameraThe Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has announced that effective at the end of July, 2018 all 140 intersection safety cameras in our province will be operational at all times. The Intersection Camera Safety Program has also increased its staff to review incidents and process additional tickets in a timely manner.

In a press release dated August 7, 2018, Minister Farnworth had this to say:

“For too long, cameras with a proven record of curbing red-light runners and the serious crashes they cause were not operating at full capacity,” said Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. “Last year, we saw a record 350,000 crashes in B.C., with about 60% of them happening at intersections. The full activation of these cameras is overdue and an important step for safety on some of our busiest roadways.”

The effectiveness of intersection cameras is still in debate. The US Federal Highway Administration suggests that there is a moderate benefit and Monash University Accident Research Center examination found no difference in red light running at intersections with and without cameras. A literature review published in 2014 which looks at a collection of reports from the US suggests:

Despite limited peer-reviewed publications available in the literature, it appears that RLCs decrease violations, crashes, and injuries at intersections. Some studies, however, contained methodological shortcomings. Therefore, the apparent effectiveness should be confirmed with stronger methodological approaches.

Link:

Comments

Driver?

Does the ticket go against the registered owner if someone else is driving the vehicle?   I ask, because if my recollection is accurate, I received a red light runner photo of my vehicle (years ago) but I was not driving, my ex was and I was not in the vehicle.  Course he never owned up to it until I got the photo, but I made HIM pay and own it and I don’t recall receiving demerits on my license.  So, I guess what I’m asking, is it possible the owner is able to get the one driving to own up to the infraction and pay the fine, thereby absolving the owner?  Or is this a great “lawyer” dilemma? 

Nominating the Driver

The driver can be saddled with the responsiblity for the ticket (and the penalty points that go with it), but only if they agree. ICBC has a form to complete and forward by mail to nominate the driver.

From the Motor Vehicle Act:

Liability of owner for speeding and traffic light violations

83.1 (3) An owner is not liable under subsection (2) or (2.1) if the owner establishes that

(b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence in entrusting the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.

Given that ICBC's form warns that unless the driver agrees they will not process it, I suspect that the only other way to shift the responsibility would be to dispute the ticket and convince the court that someone else was driving.

Thank You

Ah, now I recall, you’re right, he had to sign a declaration.

I fully support the cameras, by the way.  I would like to see CCTV also, as they do in Europe. Just the number of crimes solved by these camera’s is detriment to their implementation.

It's about time they did this.

I can't believe it's taken them this long to keep all of those red light cameras activated at the same time, and operational 24/7.

And although I can be perhaps a bit cynical about some policing priorities, as far as I'm concerned there's absolutely no excuse for anyone to run a red light; it's so risky, so dangerous to the health of others.

I've seen two red light runners in the last two days, it's an all-too-common behaviour. I would like to see the driver nomination procedure made mandatory, so that the driver gets the ticket and the points and any other resultant penalties. Don't anybody try and tell me that wouldn't have an effect on driver behaviour.

Bona fide error

The most horrific crashes happen when humans make an omission error of not noticing/registering the red light (happens more often with drunk driving). The red light cameras can do nothing to address these issues.

We'd be better off outfitting the high crash locations with strobes and flashing forewarning than simply snapping a picture as they go by.
Red light cameras make 90% of its revenue from cases that would not have hurt anybody, since its pretty rare for people to blast through "full-on" reds, so the majority of tickets are for drivers making left and right turns on red, or entering the intersection on red that has just changed from yellow (cross traffic still has the red light for another 3 seconds).

And once the location of the red light camera becomes known to the local population the overall accident rate goes up as the locals start slamming their brakes ahead of time to avoid the ticket and end up getting rear-ended by motorists who expect the usual "smooth sailing" through yellow/red.

And even worse, red light cameras that were being run by ATS in some US jurisdictions saw the private contractor push for dramatic decrease in yellow/red timing intervals - with the usual minimal 3.3 sec yellows being cut down to as little as just 1 second over many "tweaks" over several years with the aim of increasing the profitability. This has contributed to a major increase in accidents at those intersections.
 

Cars can be outfitted with auto-brakes and a dead-man switch mechanism like trains, so that it would be nearly impossible for any vehicle to enter a red-lighted intersection. Such solution would cost only a fraction compared to the avalanche of free money landing at the feet of the municipal governments world-wide on an annual basis as a result of "Policing for profits" under the false guise of increasing safety.

The entire topic is completely saturated with bovine excrement at this point - there is no safety in it - just money. We could do mandatory engineering measures to change the whole situation completely and move forward, but from the municipal position we're better off letting people run red lights and collecting the money from the owners with-out any meaningful way of taking the unsafe drivers off the road.

Red lights don't generate points, they don't generate a visit from Police, you could run 10,000 red lights today and if you pay every single ticket on-time, you'll get a little discount.

Its easy to say - "don't run a red light and you won't get targeted", to those people I give a wholehearted "Thank You!" - the fact that your municipal Government has a tap of endless cash that they can spend on whatever they want without much accountability means nothing to you. These Policing for profit programs have only ensured complete fiscal irresponsibility across hundreds of jurisdictions - but who cares if your town or city aren't doing their jobs properly - the budget balances itself with all the ticket money and the "bad drivers" are being punished - so its a win-win for everybody...

No, its a massive loss in credibility, accountability, efficiency and due process of planning and acquisition. What town council is going to fret over their books being in the red when they can just twist up the red-light camera knobs to generate as much cash as they need to cover their fiscal year? What Councillor is going to seek political contributions from their base when they can simply promise a private contractor to OK a few dozen more revenue generating cameras here and there and get their entire reelection budget covered in one donation?

ICBC is screaming its out of money and bad drivers are to blame, so how about they instead start charging insurance per driver and out-price the drivers who get in to accidents regularly? How about every single "driver license holder" is charged insurance on a monthly basis, regardless of whether they drive or not? That will certainly change the entire situation here - only those who need their licenses will have them, and only their sole performance record would affect their premiums and no-one else's. Companies, and private vehicle holders would be held harmless if their property is damaged by a 3rd party driver, and their premiums would be unaffected.

Submitted by E-Mail

Finally, the BC Government will initiate some measures to reduce the causes of vehicle accidents in BC-cameras will run 24 hours a day at high accident intersections,instead of 6.

Soon, Hopefully, speed cameras,whatever the technology.Most excessive speeders are likely impaired or distracted ,causing most accident and injuries on BC Roads

Don’t expect too much change.Lawyers, auto body shops, Physiotherapist's, car dealers are funded by car crashes.It is a huge Industry.Victims are good for this Industry.

Another legacy of the BC Liberals and high speed Former Minister Todd Stone-the outcomes were predicted very accurately by safety professionals , police and ER doctors.Sad.

Google Ads