Cobra set to unveil red-light camera / radar detector

If you've driven overseas or any mildly large city in America, there's a good chance you slipped by (or not) a red-light camera at a busy intersection. If you happened to be in the unlucky bunch that had to endure a stiff fine for trying to squeeze the lemon tomato, you'll certainly be interested in what Cobra's uncoiling next week. The company so widely known for its speed / radar detectors and GPS units is breaking into the stoplight camera detection game, giving haphazard and flustered drivers a second chance that ticketers would rather them not have. The device will reportedly sync with GPS satellites to determine when a red-light camera, "black spot" (highly watched area), or school zone is being approached, and will give an early warning to the person behind the wheel in order to save them a few bucks, and potentially their life. A spokesperson for Cobra insinuated that the unit would cause drivers to take extra precaution when approaching a target zone, which would also cut back on the daring attempts to blaze through intersections when the light is red; folks who profit mightily from the fees, however, aren't as enthused about the forthcoming device. Nevertheless, Cobra should have its red-light warning device on display at next week's CES, and while we're not sure how much it'll cost just yet, we're certain there are those who'd pay anything to avoid yet another ticket.

[Thanks, Chris L]

[kaztm @ Jan 6th 2007 9:49AM]

I found nothing new in the post so I read the linked article, but I still don't see what's new.
Do I need to dig deeper?

[Nate @ Jan 6th 2007 10:37AM]

So, what are Duke and Lady Jane going to do about these folks actively trying to disobey the law?

[Mike @ Jan 6th 2007 10:48AM]

Nate I'd have to agree with you if it wasn't for what is starting to look like a fact that Red Light cameras are ineffective at improving public safety and are actually detrimental to it.

A study was done in Winnipeg (my home town) Manitoba which illustrates not only a marginal reduction of speeders and camera violations but a rather drastic increase in accidents at intersections which are equipped with cameras. I believe the increase was around 30% compared to an over all increase of about 2-3% for the city as a whole.

You can find similar studies via Google. The interesting thing is that the ones which tend to show red light cameras being the best thing since sliced bread are the ones done by the city police forces themselves. The ones counter to that fact are all third party or a different department within the municipal government.

I'd say a little civil disobedience is in order.

[hp540 @ Jan 6th 2007 10:40AM]

This looks like part of the attachment from the Korean automatic sentry gun.

[benrodian @ Jan 6th 2007 10:45AM]

If you have a Tom Tom, this service is already available in some European countries. You can download the traffic camera info in an update.

[Paul S. @ Jan 6th 2007 11:11AM]

The reason traffic-light cameras are used is USUALLY because enough accidents have occurred at an intersection to warrant additional scrutiny. The manpower to provide that scrutiny (and write tickets) is limited by labor budgets. So the ticket camera was born. But all of these solutions (man or machine) only REACT to a problem, they don't address the cause. If a blue light was flashing in the center of an intersection, drivers would probably slow down as a whole. If a driver KNOWS ahead of time that big brother is watching they will drive to not get a ticket (if they have brains at all). Thus, the Cobra solution actually gets to the root of the problem in an indirect way that only affects those who own such a device - a small percentage of those using the intersection. At the West Palm Beach airport, the entry road always has a marked Sheriff's car sitting in a conspicuous location and a portable radar sign that measures and displays your speed. Unless you use the airport everyday, you don't know if actual radar is being used or if the car is manned. Either way, the VERY VISIBLE deterents work. Most go the correct speed at that location.

The really sad part is that those who bust through late yellow and red lights make those decisions based solely on their need to get where they are going (late or time to spare or joy-riding). Never do people think that they might cause an accident that could take a life.

Any solution that helps even a few drivers act appropriately at a bad intersection is good - too bad these types of solutions can't help all the drivers. VERY VISIBLE deterents work best, especially if they are coupled with maybe there / maybe not law enforcement manpower!

[Chris Laures @ Jan 6th 2007 11:32AM]

You all may want to note the following acquisition Cobra made earlier:

http://www.netstumbler.com/newswire/2006/10/23/cobra_electronics_announces_completion_of_performance_products_l/

I think this is just the beginning of some new technologies from them with the new competencies they have acquired through Performance Products Limited.

In addition; this technology is not just for "law breakers." There is substantial evidence that making people aware of speed and red light sensors reduces their urge to break the law. Take Arizona for example; they openly publish the locations of mobile speed cameras in hopes that people will take note and slow down around those areas. The goal of the sensors is to catch those who blatantly chose to break the law and put others in danger. It is not to catch every Dick and Jane who made a mistake.

[Geoff @ Jan 6th 2007 11:33AM]

Mike, those surveys you cite wouldn't happen to break down by TYPE of accident, would they? Because as it's been explained to me, rear-end collisions go up at intersections with red light cameras as people slam on their brakes to stop. And the consensus is that a lot of rear-enders is better than broadsiding someone (much more likely to be fatal.)

[Mike @ Jan 6th 2007 12:44PM]

Geoff, some of them certainly do. Here is a link to a page with a large number of studies posted in pdf format.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

A few summaries:
A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
"Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."

A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found:
"Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."

In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."

[paul34 @ Jan 6th 2007 12:21PM]

If the "ticketers" were really in it for public safety, as they always state they are, then they would NOT have a problem with this at all.

Luckily, we don't have red light cameras/speeding cameras here (at least that I know of), but I'm sure it'll be here soon enough.

If you don't mind my asking, is this just a "de facto" part of the article or is there source material for it?

[abigsmurf @ Jan 6th 2007 1:10PM]

That 2005 washington post conclusion is a bunch of rubbish. You cannot compare current statistics to one that's 6 years old and blame a single factor. It wouldn't suprise me if the number of cars using a road doubled in a 6 year period, the speed limit was changed and the road layout was different.

755 collisions makes me think they only looked at less than 50 or so locoations. How were these locations picked? If it was stratisfied random sampled they would be flawed but potentially representative. However I suspect they hand picked the worst areas to prove their point.

An independant report in the UK found "after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_cameras#Issues_of_effectiveness

[Hawk @ Jan 6th 2007 2:48PM]

I don't understand radar detectors. The people who say they ensure someone's right to drive whtaever speed they want are unreasonable.

Speeding is one thing. Running a red light is another. Speeding is, well, okay maybe ther are corrupt quota cops trying to nail everyone they can. Running a red light could possibly mean getting t-boned and killed for someone else at the intersection.

[i3c @ Jan 6th 2007 2:50PM]

"and will give an early warning to the person behind the wheel in order to save them a few bucks, and potentially their life."

The amber/yellow light is supposed to be the warning, no? So the device saves lives by warning drivers about cameras? What utter BS! The device helps people identify intersections where they can ignore red-lights. It's dangerous and immoral.

"...and while we're not sure how much it'll cost just yet, we're certain there are those who'd pay anything to avoid yet another ticket"

Anything but stop for a red-light, you mean?

[craig @ Feb 26th 2007 8:42AM]

"The device helps people identify intersections where they can ignore red-lights. It's dangerous and immoral."

Talk about utter BS. There is no intersection where red lights can be ignored. You are opposed to devices that may, in fact, reduce the number of red light ignored? Who's the "immoral" one here?

"Anything but stop for a red-light, you mean?"

If you think there are drivers who avoid stopping at red lights as a matter or routine then you are a fool. Red light cameras are a revenue generator, nothing more.

[bimjob @ Jan 6th 2007 3:56PM]

So they are making a warning system for red traffic lights? Aren't the red lights warning enough? Jesus if you need an audio warning that there is a potential red light coming up ahead, you shouldn't be on the road in the first place!!!

[Mike D @ Jan 6th 2007 4:09PM]

I agree with bimjob this is kinda scary. With people knowing that there aren't any cops (cops are normally running radar) or red light camera's around it suddenly becomes legally safe to just run red lights. This is not a good thing for traffic or safety.

[gt2378b @ Jan 6th 2007 6:21PM]

The idea that ppl will suddenly start running lights once they know there's no camera in naive - & silly.

The idea that red light cams are really anything more than very lucrative fundraising tools is also naive.

I have a 70 mile commmute & I can tell you why ppl squeeze thru yellows - we have UNSYNCHRONIZED stop lights in a 40 mile long 65mph zone - you can literally see the pavement turn black 200ft before the lights from panic stops.

Of course, the powers that be bought red light cams rather than syncing the lights.

[Rusty @ Jan 6th 2007 6:47PM]

The comic Gallagher had a good idea about running red lights...
"If you are in that much of a hurry, leave the house 5 minutes
sooner"

[fd @ Jan 6th 2007 8:58PM]

Reality is that red light cameras are lifesavers and speed radars are cash cows. It is easy revenue for the government. But there is no excuse for running red, which I see at once every day around town here.

Many of the cameras at the intersections are not just red light cameras but are combined red light & speed cameras. Note that in Europe it is against the law to run yellow / orange. Combined with incorrect timing for the speed limit & general conditions, you can easily find you ticketed without having had any intent to break the law. If you speed up get through yellow because the guy behind you is tailgating and preventing you from slowing down without getting rear ended - you can very well get a speeding ticket. I have seen this first hand!

I think if the GPS box warns you that there are cameras in the area, those drivers will slow down and hold back other traffic and make thin safer at those 'black points'. Having the GPS box puts you on par with being a local and knowing where the cameras are.

Add more cameras and they'll have to slow down everywhere. Maybe?

Reality is that there is only a fraction of people that seriously disobey speed limits. But, to get some idiot vigilantes ... everybody becomes subject to being monitored all the time. And, that's what I don't like. Too often speed limits are too low for the road size, volume of traffic, etc yet you are metered to not go 1 mph above the limit when they're running campaigns. That's just insane. So for that I welcome the GPS. If they want to monitor, I want to know where; and it doesn't mean I'll drive twice the speed limit everywhere else. Absolutely not. At those locations I would like a little reminder so that I can pay extra attention.

[Jason @ Jan 7th 2007 7:29AM]

how about a countdown timer on traffic lights so cars know when to start slowing down?

[Spartacus @ Jan 7th 2007 5:01PM]

^^ Jason hit it exactly right. I read all the comments here just looking for that one.

This is by far the easiest and best solution to traffic lights. I've thought so for years. I suppose though then driver's licensing would require that a person know how to count and that's just not fair. Every idiot is entitled to a license to hurl 3000 lbs of metal around, right?

But then, there wouldn't be anyone like me... pulled over and ticketed for running a yellow in the rain when it was definitely safer to proceed than stop. But then that poor ass town of 1300 people (why does a town that big even have a stop light?) wouldn't have had my $90. Heck, I bet a couple police officers got a nice christmas turkey out of that.

(Anyone know any small town cops? They all get turkeys as christmas bonuses.)

[Paul S. @ Jan 9th 2007 6:03PM]

Countdown timers are being added to pedestrian WALK/DONT WALK signs here in Florida (some parts anyway)... so maybe the same idea could somehow migrate to the traffic lights themselves!