Advocacy & Safety - Red light cameras.

I love this and am glad they are finally installed. I hope the add more in the future. I have almost been plowed over while riding bike by jackass red light runners.

http://bicycleadvocacyandsafety.blogspot.com/

There's a pretty entertaining thread on this subject in the road forum right now, too.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=556998

There's a pretty entertaining thread on this subject in the road forum right now, too.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=556998

I'm amazed how that thread turned out, but should I even be surprised?

I like the idea of them. Along with GPS speed sensors on all cars that would automatically fine drivers for speeding.

the thing is, they don't increase safety because to do so screws up the revenue stream. They just need to increase the yellow cycle time in most cases. If they want to add a red light camera and have a long enough yellow cycle, I might be in favor of them.

Longer yellow does not lead to fewer collisions over time. Drivers adapt to the longer yellow and use it.

I like the idea of them. Along with GPS speed sensors on all cars that would automatically fine drivers for speeding.


GPS speed sensors? Good luck getting that to be implemented, and unrealistic by the sheer number of vehicles. By this idea, every time you go down a hill in a car you'd have to ride the brakes to make sure you don't go over the limit. I take it you don't live in a very hilly area. Where I live it's mostly up or down, with some silly speed limits like 35mph down a 1 mile 10% grade.

We had red light cams for a while, but they were shut down by a judge. The city tried again, this time putting it to voters, who voted them down for good. the city had to eat it's contract with Trafficpax, who got a cool 35$ of each $85 ticket. Well, suppose to that is. . . . people who got the tickets were refunded under by Judges order. The City was looking for some easy revenue, not safety.

Longer yellow does not lead to fewer collisions over time. Drivers adapt to the longer yellow and use it.

Actually extending the yellows may actually increase problems. It used to be I knew how long a yellow would last. Now some lights have very long yellows and others have a pretty short yellow.

I do thinnk that for intersections where there are a lot of unprotected left turns the red-red overlap should be longer. As it is now at some lights by the time a left turned can be sure the next car comming towards them will not be pushing the red/ or the last one to push the red has cleared the other light is green and idiots are already starting into the intersection.

Longer yellow does not lead to fewer collisions over time. Drivers adapt to the longer yellow and use it.

Any documentation to back that up? Everything I've seen shows a dramatic decrease in red light running.

Longer yellow lights have proved to increase safety, while red light cameras have not. In fact many communities are ripping out their red light cameras because they either did nothing to improve safety at intersections, or made the intersections worse.

I'm curious how many cyclists would be for red light cams if they had the technology to photograph and ticket cyclists as well as motorists? No more coasting through that red light at 6am in the morning when no one else is on the road. Nope, you get to stop and wait the cycle, hoping your bike triggered the sensor. Didn't trigger? Too bad, maybe you need to shuffle over to the sidewalk so you can hit the pedestrian button.

Red light cameras have made a significant reduction in intersection fatalities in metro-Phx, AZ, which leads (or maybe led before RLC) the nation by a significant factor in red light running fatalities.

The longer yellow only helps for cars that are already going over the limit. They need to make people pay big when the go through the red and speed at the same time.

Any documentation to back that up? Everything I've seen shows a dramatic decrease in red light running.

I have never read a scientific paper on longer yellow lights. But when I lived in LA, they experimented with longer yellows as well as a longer "dead" period -- i.e., where all lights are red -- and it was reported in the popular press that in the long run there was no effect due to drivers adjusting their behavior.

This was a while ago ... around 1998-2000. Maybe a bit earlier.

Red light cameras have made a significant reduction in intersection fatalities in metro-Phx, AZ, which leads (or maybe led before RLC) the nation by a significant factor in red light running fatalities.

you traded one kind of crash for another.

RESULTS

City of Phoenix

* Right angle crashes were reduced 14 percent.
* Left-turn crashes were reduced 1 percent.
* Rear-end crashes increased 20 percent.
* Spillover effects did not appear to be present.

http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/EE86C322456D5328852573DA004EA1C1?OpenDocument&Query=BApp

^^^ with 26% reduction in fatalities - that is the ultimate measurement of success.

(note I said nothing about crashes in my post)

The rear end crashes are a symptom of a different problem. Speeding and tailgating. Phx now has a tailgating patrol with measuring devices.

the thing is, they don't increase safety because to do so screws up the revenue stream. They just need to increase the yellow cycle time in most cases. If they want to add a red light camera and have a long enough yellow cycle, I might be in favor of them.

Don't you run stop signs, on either your bike or in your car, on purpose? I thought you were one of the people who proudly admitted to doing so.

The fines that will be collected in Sioux City for those that get caught by a red light camera will go into the general fund, which is where most of if not all of the other fines paid go.

Any documentation to back that up? Everything I've seen shows a dramatic decrease in red light running.

Longer yellow lights have proved to increase safety, while red light cameras have not. In fact many communities are ripping out their red light cameras because they either did nothing to improve safety at intersections, or made the intersections worse.

I'm curious how many cyclists would be for red light cams if they had the technology to photograph and ticket cyclists as well as motorists? No more coasting through that red light at 6am in the morning when no one else is on the road. Nope, you get to stop and wait the cycle, hoping your bike triggered the sensor. Didn't trigger? Too bad, maybe you need to shuffle over to the sidewalk so you can hit the pedestrian button.

I invited the mayor and the chief of police to come address one of the service clubs when they were talking about bringing them here, and asked why they didn't synchronize the traffic signals to reduce red light running. "We can't do that" is all I heard, even though it's been done in other areas. Two cities in the suburbs have removed their red light cameras (doesn't that name make you think of something else?), but Chicago has put more of them in for the revenue.

Any documentation to back that up? Everything I've seen shows a dramatic decrease in red light running.

Longer yellow lights have proved to increase safety, while red light cameras have not. In fact many communities are ripping out their red light cameras because they either did nothing to improve safety at intersections, or made the intersections worse.

I'm curious how many cyclists would be for red light cams if they had the technology to photograph and ticket cyclists as well as motorists? No more coasting through that red light at 6am in the morning when no one else is on the road. Nope, you get to stop and wait the cycle, hoping your bike triggered the sensor. Didn't trigger? Too bad, maybe you need to shuffle over to the sidewalk so you can hit the pedestrian button.

I believe the State of Virginia is one such community.

I don't particularly care for them, but they should be addressed as what they are, and that's a cash cow and not a safety tool.

^^^not universally true. that is just spin from the anti's

For example (this is about combo redlight/speed cameras, not just red light):
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/92924

I believe the State of Virginia is one such community.

I don't particularly care for them, but they should be addressed as what they are, and that's a cash cow and not a safety tool.

I didn't monitor the debate daily, but the discussions in Virginia seemed more about politics than about their effectiveness.

This might be helpful ...

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

Under "What safety benefits do red light cameras provide?"

Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Oxnard, California, showed that camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3,7 In addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior. An Institute evaluation of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased yellow signal timing, the addition of red light cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.8

In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.10

Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities.11 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes.

By this idea, every time you go down a hill in a car you'd have to ride the brakes to make sure you don't go over the limit.

Are you really saying that going down a hill is a good reason to exceed the speed limit?

You don't necessarily have to ride the brakes. I just turn off the overdrive. People with manual transmissions only have to shift into a lower gear.

^^^not universally true. that is just spin from the anti's

For example (this is about combo redlight/speed cameras, not just red light):
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/92924

Your article says nothing about the effectiveness of redlight cameras, only that a county somewhere is installing a bunch of them.

Fact of the matter, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about them. However, most of the places that have removed them are doing so not because they don't work, but because they do(with regards to numbers of red light runners). After an extended period of time people stopped running the lights by ridiculous percentages and the money stops coming in. After the money flow stops, people vote to take them down because they don't pay for themselves.

Safety numbers aside, and I don't particularly trust the IIHS to be a neutral source of information regarding a system designed to give out traffic tickets, the fact that most communities put up and take down these things based on money and not safety kind of makes the whole safety argument a bunch of hot air.

Your article says nothing about the effectiveness of redlight cameras, only that a county somewhere is installing a bunch of them.

I didn't link the article with the intent of providing that information. The intent was to counter the 'cash cow' argument.

^^^ with 26% reduction in fatalities - that is the ultimate measurement of success.

(note I said nothing about crashes in my post)

The rear end crashes are a symptom of a different problem. Speeding and tailgating. Phx now has a tailgating patrol with measuring devices.

Could be. although at certain point yellow means go faster :) with the camera everyone is doing emergency brakes. I like the idea if it's for safety and not for profit. And I still didn't understand how it could be unprofitable vs paying a cop writing traffic tickets.

Our city did a test run with a company taking pictures/radar from mobile unit (suv) on school zone after several accidents and they basically shot themselves down by being too effective.
Several lawyers who got ticketed sued and won (something about only LEO can write tickets under city laws or union contracts) and there were too many complaints from other drivers (voters) who got caught speeding in school zones.

Longer yellow does not lead to fewer collisions over time. Drivers adapt to the longer yellow and use it.

Absolutely true -- a similar thing is in place here; there's a few-second delay between the red and the green for cross traffic. Drivers have learned this, and use it as an excuse to continue running reds, because they know they have that extra couple seconds.

GPS speed sensors? Good luck getting that to be implemented, and unrealistic by the sheer number of vehicles. By this idea, every time you go down a hill in a car you'd have to ride the brakes to make sure you don't go over the limit. I take it you don't live in a very hilly area. Where I live it's mostly up or down, with some silly speed limits like 35mph down a 1 mile 10% grade.

.

I have 2 residences. One is a very hilly area. My car is equipped with brakes. GOing down a hill is no excuse to speed. Who cares if you ride your brakes?

Unrealistic? They said the same thing in 1970 about catalytic converters, and the same thing in 1980 about fuel injection, and they say that same thing now about higher CAFE standards.
Just legislate it, and let the car buyers pay for it.

Absolutely true -- a similar thing is in place here; there's a few-second delay between the red and the green for cross traffic. Drivers have learned this, and use it as an excuse to continue running reds, because they know they have that extra couple seconds.

So yellow light time should be completely random.

If the goal was to make the roads safer, they would have a cop on each corner. Visual enforcement does a lot more to increasing safety than a camera.
Red light cameras do nothing to address other issues, someone could be drunk off their ass and incapable of driving straight, but still not fly through a red light.
A car could be stolen, thief runs a red, and the only thing they can do is say well he went through the intersection near your house a minute later.
Someone could hit a cyclist, then run a red light, but since the cyclist was hit from behind he never got the plate number, so the driver has time to go home and clean up his car.
A group of hoods assault someone and steal ?????, and get away with it. Some old lady walking home has a heart attack at the corner. Some kid throws a bottle out a car window and hits a cyclist.
In all those scenarios, a police officer doing his job could have cought them. Instead, you only have evidence that someone ran a red light nearby, with nothing else to connect them to the crime.

If the goal was safety, or to reduce crime, the police would be highly visible. Instead they hide behind cameras to collect fines.

Ken.

If the goal was to make the roads safer, they would have a cop on each corner.

The red light cameras free up the police to catch criminals instead of spending time writing up red light violations.

The red light cameras free up the police to catch criminals instead of spending time writing up red light violations.


What I am saying is that a visible cop on the street will do more to prevent crime than all the threats of possible punishment combined.

As good as it sounds to hear that they are trying to catch criminals, Wouldn't it be better if the crime didn't happen in the first place? In most cases, if the cop was there and visible, the crime would not have occured. Have you ever noticed how much better people drive when a cop is nearby?

Most camera tickets aren't even classed as moving violations, they are treated as no more serious than a parking ticket with no points on your license. But for most people, a point on their license would do more to change their behavior than any fine. The safest driver I ever knew only became safe after reaching 10 points on his license, after that he was the best driver you would ever see.

Ken.

^^^ with 26% reduction in fatalities - that is the ultimate measurement of success.

(note I said nothing about crashes in my post)

The rear end crashes are a symptom of a different problem. Speeding and tailgating. Phx now has a tailgating patrol with measuring devices.

Great. Regulation and enforcement begetting more enforcement.

See my earlier post for the least expensive, yet least revenue-generating solution.

speeding and tailgating don't increase because of the red light cameras - the enforcement need for those is independent

see article about tailgating enforcement:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1204tailgate1204.html

speeding and tailgating don't increase because of the red light cameras - the enforcement need for those is independent

see article about tailgating enforcement:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1204tailgate1204.html

People will tailgate in dense traffic, and slamming on the brakes at 30mph in a 30mph zone at a yellow light that is intentionally kept short to generate a ticket is asking for trouble.

Here there are no intersections with cameras that have intentionally short yellows. They are either 4.0 or 4.3 sec (they are published) depending on PSL. (40 or 45mph). If one drives at or below the PSL it is exceeding easy to not run a red.

I figure if they didn't have the lights on the main drag sequenced so you are stopping at nearly every one, they wouldn't have as many red light runners. Then again, our government has decided against the cameras and we don't seem to have a horrible problem with it anyway.

Our city did a test run with a company taking pictures/radar from mobile unit (suv) on school zone after several accidents and they basically shot themselves down by being too effective.

So then it really becomes state indorsed speeding through a school zone. I'm sure lawyers will waste little time and have both fun and serious profit finding the city/county/state to be the one with the deepest pockets to go after even higher settlements if and when there's an accident involving someone in one of those school zones.

Red light cameras can be an effective tool to enhance safety. Or they can enhance revenue while doing little for safety. It all depends on how they are used.

Typically red light cameras are not installed and manned by municipalities. Instead, a private company approaches the municipality and offers to install the red light cameras for free, man them (or reimburse LE for manning them, and pay the municipality some amount of money per year (say $200,000). In exchange, the company gets to keep the money generated by the cameras.

Initially, things went about as you might imagine under these circumstances: the companies installed cameras not in the most dangerous intersections, but in intersections where people were more likely to run red lights. In some cases, the companies even shortened the yellow lights.

This situation was unsatisfactory to everyone but the company involved, obviously.

Since those early days, municipalities (or the state government) has imposed stricter requirements on red light cameras - by requiring that the lights only be installed at the most collision prone intersections, for example, and prohibiting reducing the yellow (or, in some cases, requiring that the yellow be 5 seconds, either on all lights or on lights with red light cameras).

Under these circumstances, red light cameras have resulted in measurably fewer injuries (as noted above, rear-end collisions are much less serious than T collisions that are generally the type of collision resulting from running a red light).

But, yeah, eventually people are going to stop running red lights. Which is not ideal if you are a company whose revenue comes from people running red lights. Although it is otherwise an almost unmitigated good...

Are you really saying that going down a hill is a good reason to exceed the speed limit?

You don't necessarily have to ride the brakes. I just turn off the overdrive. People with manual transmissions only have to shift into a lower gear.

You don't drive in the mountains much? Engine braking often isn't very effective. My efficient little 4-banger is very limited in its engine braking ability on modest slopes. "Speed limits" are nonsense anyhow. Safety is the ultimate guideline, not little numbers painted on signs.

What I am saying is that a visible cop on the street will do more to prevent crime than all the threats of possible punishment combined.

As good as it sounds to hear that they are trying to catch criminals, Wouldn't it be better if the crime didn't happen in the first place? In most cases, if the cop was there and visible, the crime would not have occurred. Have you ever noticed how much better people drive when a cop is nearby?

Which is evidenced by how motorists will slow down when there is a decoy car in an area with a high rate of speeding or what have you. They'll see the car and not know if it's a dummy behind the wheel with the radar gun or a real cop and slow down.


Most camera tickets aren't even classed as moving violations, they are treated as no more serious than a parking ticket with no points on your license. But for most people, a point on their license would do more to change their behavior than any fine. The safest driver I ever knew only became safe after reaching 10 points on his license, after that he was the best driver you would ever see.

Ken.

Would a red light camera pick up a cyclist running a red light? If it did how would the police notify the offender?

I figure if they didn't have the lights on the main drag sequenced so you are stopping at nearly every one, they wouldn't have as many red light runners. Then again, our government has decided against the cameras and we don't seem to have a horrible problem with it anyway.

If one is hitting "every" light while it is red, that suggests that they are timed with traffic at a specific speed and the person(s) hitting them all while red is NOT driving the posted speed limit.

These should be standard equipment at any intersection with push-button signals for cyclists and pedestrians. I see a lot more drivers running reds when I am biking, than I do when I am driving. I think that drivers are more likely to run a red if they don't think that 'real' traffic will be coming at them through the intersection.

Also, this might be a bit hard to do in jurisdictions where license plates are only required on the rear of vehicles, but the cameras should photograph the cabin / driver of the vehicle, and fines should be doubled for drivers who run reds while on cellphones, texting, coddling pets, etc.

Currently my jurisdiction (British Columbia Canada) has red light cameras at major "high incident" intersections, but for some reason, the cameras are only turned on occasionally.

Twice I have been waiting in court for the civil calendar to be called and they were going through the camera tickets. Both times 2 or 3 people were in on their third photo red light run. The fines were close to $1,000.00 and the DMV would be suspending their licenses for a year. One time the judge said; "looks like it'll take a bus pass to slow you down". He's right.

Bottom line; the cameras are weeding out the chronically bad drivers and getting them into suspended license situations. bk

What I am saying is that a visible cop on the street will do more to prevent crime than all the threats of possible punishment combined.



Ken.

This is true. But cops are very expensive.

If one is hitting "every" light while it is red, that suggests that they are timed with traffic at a specific speed and the person(s) hitting them all while red is NOT driving the posted speed limit.If you think about what you've written, there is an assumption of rationality at the basis of your statement. Rationality is not a given, and not in evidence. I'm bike commuting now, so I can't tell you if the light timing is still the same as it was when I was driving more. But I would vary my speeds to try to figure out how to hit the lights when they are green. So far, the only people I've seen hit many lights in a row were going faster than I'm willing to drive on a busy street in city limits. There were a series of lights that you could hit on green if you went exactly the speed limit. That lasted a couple of months, then they changed it for some unfathomable reason. Too many people doing the speed limit I suppose.

On my end of town, the road is too big for the traffic it sees, and they really aren't causing any significant problems by using the traffic lights for "traffic calming." Except I believe that it drives people onto side streets where they can run stop signs without penalty. On the other end of town, I see a lot of people that have been driven nuts by the traffic light timing. Traffic is constantly jammed up from early in the afternoon until late. There are a number of side streets that trip the lights immediately even though the side street sees 1/1000th of the main drag traffic volume. I expect they are going to be driven to make some kind of road improvements even though they are causing the problems with the light timing.

One idea of mine fpr major routes was to have the next red light automatically triggered by any speeding vehicle(s) with warnings to that going too fast is just going to slow you down. Unfortunately I think the psychology involved is too subtle, even though everyone stopped at the next light would know who was responible...

Safety numbers aside, and I don't particularly trust the IIHS to be a neutral source of information regarding a system designed to give out traffic tickets, the fact that most communities put up and take down these things based on money and not safety kind of makes the whole safety argument a bunch of hot air.

Skepticism is generally a good thing. And I think it is well placed here since I know little about the IIHS.

I thought that generally people do not get points for tickets issued by red light cameras. If that is true, what would the bias source be for the IIHS?

So yellow light time should be completely random.

I don't know if you are serious, but it is an interesting thought.

I saw a red runner on my ride in today. I rode up to the light, and activated the button to cross a four-lane (major arterial) road. A driver (the only driver) approaching the intersection was about 250 metres away from the light when he saw it turn yellow, and actually sped up to try to beat the red.

He lost the race; the light turned red for him (and green for me) about 2 seconds before he arrived at the intersection, but he went right through the intersection - despite the light being red - and travelling at more than twice the speed limit (about 120km/h in a 50km/h zone), giving me "the finger" in response to my protest as he went on his way.

I see a lot of this type of behaviour at this particular intersection and I think that a red light camera would do a lot of good to identify these kinds of reckless drivers, and either get them off the streets, or make them pay for the risks they cause for other road users. Photos, fines and points.

Longer yellow does not lead to fewer collisions over time. Drivers adapt to the longer yellow and use it.
As a motorist, I agree.

I just pay some bloody attention, it's not that hard to not blow red lights.

Yellows just need to be a standard duration per 5mph of speed limit on the road or something, for safe stopping and all.


I saw a red runner on my ride in today. I rode up to the light, and activated the button to cross a four-lane (major arterial) road. A driver (the only driver) approaching the intersection was about 250 metres away from the light when he saw it turn yellow, and actually sped up to try to beat the red.

He lost the race; the light turned red for him (and green for me) about 2 seconds before he arrived at the intersection, but he went right through the intersection - despite the light being red - and travelling at more than twice the speed limit (about 120km/h in a 50km/h zone), giving me "the finger" in response to my protest as he went on his way.

I see a lot of this type of behaviour at this particular intersection and I think that a red light camera would do a lot of good to identify these kinds of reckless drivers, and either get them off the streets, or make them pay for the risks they cause for other road users. Photos, fines and points.
If I had total disregard for my safety, I'd actually jump out into the intersection with my car as soon as it snaps green, just to watch him lock them up and slide through the intersection. I really really hate red light runners.

You don't drive in the mountains much? Engine braking often isn't very effective. My efficient little 4-banger is very limited in its engine braking ability on modest slopes. "Speed limits" are nonsense anyhow. Safety is the ultimate guideline, not little numbers painted on signs.

Agreed here, a real driving course and test required for a license would work MUCH better than just making everyone obey the speed limit but still be completely incompetent in any situation other than nice dry straight asphalt.