Citizens Transportation Coalition is reviewing all impacts of red light camera programs. We will hold a meeting on Monday, October 5th at 9:00 am at the clubhouse in Villages of Emerald Bay.  Emerald Bay is located on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive, north of Wiggins Pass and south of Bonita Beach Road.

On October 5th, CTC will review presentations from the County Department of Transportation, County Sheriff's Office, Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization, and an opposing position from a county resident.  Your attendance and participation is welcome. 

Citizens Transportation Coalition will formulate a public position concerning red light cameras after both sides of the issue have been fully vetted.  Much of the background material that has been provided to our members for their review is included on this web page.

Futher down on this page are several articles/reports in their entirety, representing both the pros and cons of red light cameras.

 

_____________________________

For those who like to read more detailed reports/analysis, the following sites or google searches are suggested:

For an overview coupled with limited information about effectiveness of red light cameras, go to www.drivers.com/article/562  The report is dated July 4, 2002 but fairly comprehensive.

For a pdf file entitled "Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras" published in 2005, visit the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center at www.tfhrc.gov Do a search by hitting the light blue search tab in the upper right and then enter 05048 in the search box.  Another comprehensive report with statistics available as of that date (2005).

To view a report put out in 2001 by the office of the House Majority Leader (R) Trent Lott, MS, google The Red Light Running Crisis Is It Intentional? 

41 states have addressed legislation for red light cameras.  You can call up your home state, look at just Florida, or view all 81 pages for the entire United States.  This information is available on the National Conference of State Legislators website.  The report will be called Traffic Safety Legislation Database Overview.  Go to www.ncsl.org and click on the tab for Issues and Research.  Next, click on Transportation.  In that tab, on the left side of the page, select Traffic Safety tab. The report should be the first in the list.  If not, look for and click on Traffic Safety Legislation Database Overview
  

Q&As: Red light cameras

January 2009 From Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (iihs.org)

1 What is red light running?

A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection some time after the signal light has turned red. Motorists inadvertently in an intersection when the signal changes to red (waiting to turn left, for example) are not red light runners.

2 Is red light running a big problem?

A nationwide study of fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1999 and 2000 estimated that 20 percent of the drivers involved failed to obey the signals.1 In 2007, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.

Motorists are more likely to be injured in urban crashes involving red light running than in other types of urban crashes. Institute researchers studied police reports of crashes on public roads in four urban areas during 1990-91. Occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of red light running crashes, compared with 30 percent of other crash types.2

3 How often do drivers run red lights?

A study conducted during several months at five busy intersections in Fairfax, Virginia, prior to the use of red light cameras found that, on average, a motorist ran a red light every 20 minutes at each intersection.3 During peak travel times, red light running was more frequent. Analysis of red light violation data from 19 intersections (without red light cameras) in four states found that 1,775 violations occurred over 554 hours, for a violation rate of 3.2 per hour per intersection.4

4 Who runs red lights?

The Institute created a profile of red light runners by studying driver behavior at an Arlington, Virginia, intersection equipped with a red light camera. The 1996 study compared red light runners with motorists who had an opportunity to run a red light but did not. As a group, red light runners were younger, less likely to use safety belts, had poorer driving records, and drove smaller and older vehicles than drivers who stopped for red lights. Red light runners were more than three times as likely to have multiple speeding convictions on their driver records. No gender differences were found between violators and drivers who did not run red lights.5 A 2007 study in Sacramento, California, found about 30 percent of red light runners were under 30 years of age.6

5 What are red light cameras?

Red light cameras can help communities enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights. A red light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow at the crosswalk or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal, and the camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset minimum speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red. Violations occurring within 2/10ths of a second after the signal changes to red generally aren't recorded because of technical limitations of the recording equipment. In addition, many red light camera programs provide motorists with grace periods of up to 1/2 second. Depending on the particular technology, a series of photographs and/or video images shows the red light violator prior to entering the intersection on a red signal, as well as the vehicle's progression through the intersection. Cameras record the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, vehicle speed, and license plate. Tickets typically are mailed to owners of violating vehicles, based on review of photographic evidence.

6 Isn't conventional police enforcement sufficient?

Enforcing traffic laws in dense urban areas by traditional means poses special difficulties for police, who in most cases must follow a violating vehicle through a red light to stop it. This can endanger motorists and pedestrians as well as officers, and police cannot be everywhere at once. Traffic stops in urban areas can exacerbate traffic congestion. Communities do not have the resources to allow police to patrol intersections as often as would be needed to ticket all motorists who run red lights. Red light cameras allow police to focus on other enforcement needs.

7 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.

8 Isn't longer yellow signal timing more effective than using red light cameras to reduce red light running?

While the provision of adequate yellow signal timing is important and can reduce red light running, longer yellow timing alone does not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras. Studies have shown that increasing yellow timing to values associated with guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers13 can significantly decrease the frequency of red light violations.14,15,16 In addition, a 2002 Institute study of modified yellow and all-red traffic signal timing at urban intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to comparison sites.17

An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated incremental effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing, followed by introduction of red light camera enforcement.8 Yellow signal timing was increased by about one second at two intersections where red light cameras were installed. Results show that while increased yellow signal timing reduced red light violations by 36 percent, the addition of red light camera enforcement further reduced red light violations at these sites by 96 percent beyond levels achieved by the longer yellow signal timing.

9 Do the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection?

No. Cameras are set so that only those vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red are photographed. Vehicles that enter on yellow and are still in an intersection when the light changes to red are not photographed. This technology is intended to identify vehicles driven by motorists who enter an intersection after the signal has turned red.

10 Does someone review the photographs before motorists are ticketed?

Yes. Trained police officers or other officials review every picture to verify vehicle information and ensure the vehicle is in violation. Tickets are mailed to vehicle owners only in cases where it is clear the vehicle ran a red light.

11 Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy?

No. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules, such as to obey traffic signals. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers should not be observed on the road or have their violations documented. Red light camera systems can be designed to photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate, not vehicle occupants, depending on local law. Only vehicles driven by motorists who violate the law are photographed.

More information on legal issues

12 Are special laws needed to allow localities to use red light cameras to cite violators?

Before cameras may be used for law enforcement, laws must authorize enforcement agencies to cite red light violators by mail. The legislation must make the vehicle owner responsible for the ticket, establishing a presumption that the registered owner is the vehicle driver at the time of the offense. This can be accomplished either by state statutes or in some states by local legislation. Red light cameras currently are authorized in about half of US states. Depending on state law, violations photographed by red light cameras are commonly treated in one of two ways — as traffic violations or as the equivalent of parking tickets. If, as in New York, red light camera violations are treated like parking citations, the law can make registered vehicle owners responsible without regard to who was driving at the time of the offense.

13 Are red light camera programs expensive?

Camera equipment costs vary based on the type of camera, complexity of the intersection, and technical requirements. A red light camera system with installation costs approximately $100,000. A single red light camera can be used at several locations once the sites are equipped to work with the camera, allowing communities to move cameras among sites without drivers knowing which ones are active at any given time. Start-up costs can be offset by fines, savings from crashes prevented, and by freeing police to focus on other enforcement efforts.

14 Isn't the main purpose of red light cameras to make money?

No. The objective of photo enforcement is to deter violators, not to catch them. Signs and publicity campaigns typically warn drivers that photo enforcement is in use. Revenue is generated from fines paid by drivers who continue to run red lights, but this is a fundamental component of all traffic enforcement programs. Independent audits of red light camera enforcement have found that these programs generally do not generate excess revenue. For example, the California state auditor reported in 2002 that red light cameras were not generating large amounts of revenue.18 The financial status of only two of the state's seven camera programs was break-even or better. The US General Accounting Office reported in 2003 on the contribution of federal funds to local use of photo enforcement technology and the amount of revenue generated by these programs.19 The report found that photo enforcement program revenues were lower than program costs in three jurisdictions, while the revenues in two other jurisdictions exceeded program costs.

15 Does the American public support the use of red light cameras?

The large majority of the US public supports red light cameras. A 2000 Institute survey in ten cities — five with cameras and five without — reported that more than 75 percent of drivers supported camera enforcement.20 A 2002 nationwide survey sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 75 percent of drivers favored the use of red light cameras.21 A 1996 survey by the Insurance Research Council found that the highest support for red light cameras was in large cities, where 83 percent of respondents supported their use, compared with 52 percent of respondents in suburbs.22

16 Do major US cities use red light cameras?

Cameras are used for law enforcement in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC, plus many smaller communities.

US cities with red light cameras

17 What other countries use red light cameras?

Countries that use red light cameras include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

References

1Brittany, N.; Campbell, B.N.; Smith, J.D.; and Najm, W.G. 2004. Analysis of fatal crashes due to signal and stop sign violations. Report no. DOT HS-809-779. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

2Retting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Preusser, D.F.; and Weinstein, H.B. 1995. Classifying urban crashes for countermeasure development. Accident Analysis and Prevention 27:283-94.

3Retting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Farmer, C.M.; and Feldman, A.F. 1999. Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Fairfax, Va., USA. ITE Journal 69:30-34.

4Hill, S.E. and Lindly, J.K. 2003. Red light running prediction and analysis. UTCA Report no. 02112. Tuscaloosa, AL: University Transportation Center for Alabama.

5Retting, R.A. and Williams, A.F. 1996. Characteristics of red light violators: results of a field investigation. Journal of Safety Research 27:9-15.

6Yang, C.Y. and Najm, W.G. 2007. Examining driver behavior using data gathered from red light photo enforcement cameras. Journal of Safety Research 38:311-21.

7Retting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Farmer, C.M.; and Feldman, A. 1999. Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31:169-74.

8Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Farmer, C.M. 2008. Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40:327-33.

9Retting, R.A. and Kyrychenko, S.Y. 2002. Reductions in injury crashes associated with red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. American Journal of Public Health 92:1822-25.

10Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Hakkert, A.S. 2003. Effects of red light cameras on violations and crashes: a review of the international literature. Traffic Injury Prevention 4:17-23.

11Council, F.; Persaud, B.; Eccles, K.; Lyon, C.; and Griffith, M. 2005. Safety evaluation of red-light cameras: executive summary. Report no. FHWA HRT-05-049. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

12Aeron-Thomas, A.S. and Hess, S. 2005. Red-light cameras for the prevention of road traffic crashes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2, Art. no. CD003862. Oxfordshire, England: The Chochrane Collaboration.

13Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1985. Determining vehicle change intervals: a recommended practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

14Bonneson, J.A. and Zimmerman, K.H. 2004. Effect of yellow-interval timing on the frequency of red-light violations at urban intersections. Transportation Research Record 1865:20-27.

15Retting, R.A. and Greene, M.A. 1997. Influence of traffic signal timing on red light running and potential vehicle conflicts at urban intersections. Transportation Research Record 1595:1-7.

16Van Der Horst, R. 1988. Driver decision making at traffic signals. Transportation Research Record 1172:93-97.

17Retting, R.A.; Chapline, J.F.; and Williams, A.F. 2002. Changes in crash risk following re-timing of traffic signal change intervals. Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:215-20.

18California State Auditor. 2002. Red light camera programs. Sacramento, CA: Bureau of State Audits.

19US General Accounting Office. 2003. Traffic enforcement: funding of automatic red-light and speed enforcement technologies. Report no. GAO-03-408R. Washington, DC.

20Retting, R.A. and Williams, A.F. 2000. Red light cameras and the perceived risk of being ticketed. Traffic Engineering and Control 41:224-25, 227.

21National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2004. National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behavior: 2002; Volume II: findings. Report no. DOT HS-809-730. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

22Insurance Research Council. 1996. Public attitude monitor, 1996. Wheaton, IL.

_______________

Are red light cameras too effective?

By Jonathan Serrie  Fox News.com On the Scene April 23, 2009

Big Brother or Robocop? American motorists have a love-hate relationship with red light cameras.

You have been warned.

Your own opinion, likely, depends on whether you’ve ever been inconvenienced by red light runners, or whether you’ve ever received a traffic citation in the mail, along with a photo of your car.

While manufacturers report a surge in red light camera orders nationwide, some states impose restrictions on their use.

Complaints from motorists have prompted the Mississippi legislature to ban red light cameras altogether starting Oct. 1, 2009.

In Georgia, state law requires municipalities to pay a flat fee to the private companies that monitor the cameras, instead of sharing revenue from traffic fines. The intent is to reduce the financial incentive for companies to boost the number of violations the devices spot.

But shifting the total cost to local governments has its own pitfalls. Revenue from red light cameras decreases over time as motorists become more cautious around monitored intersections — a mixed blessing for municipalities trying to balance public safety with tight budgets.

“Because of the economic situation, we really can’t afford to do something that doesn’t pay for itself,” says Phil McLemore, city administrator of Duluth, GA.

The Atlanta suburb is phasing out its red light camera program, which has been in place at several busy intersections for the past three years.

The cameras brought the city more than $1 million in revenue during the program’s first year. But McLemore says improved driving habits and a new state law increasing the duration of yellow lights have drastically reduced the number of violations.

Somebody's watching.

According to McLemore, the city will be lucky if it breaks even on the $130-thousand annual fee it pays LaserCraft, the private firm that maintains and monitors the cameras.

The city administrator says the cameras work well. But he prefers to invest Duluth’s limited tax revenue elsewhere.

“I’d rather keep the police that we have rather than lay additional police officers off,” McLemore says. “We’re already down three. And I don’t want to lose any more.”

But LaserCraft CEO P.J. Lynch, says red light cameras are “a force multiplier for police” because officers don’t have to be stationed at intersections writing tickets. “Instead of that officer there, they’re in the communities. They’re in the neighborhoods. They’re out doing the great things that they can do.”

What do you think? Is there no cost too high for saving lives? Or are red light cameras too effective to be cost-effective?
________________

 

 

 

Objections to camera enforcement

 From the National Motorists Association (www.motorists.org)

1. Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understands it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.

2. The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.

3. Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. There may have been a reason that someone would be speeding or in an intersection after the light turned red. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.

4. There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.

5. Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.

6. Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.

7. Taking dangerous drivers' pictures doesn't stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!

Objections Specific to Photo Radar

1. Photo radar is still radar, and it can generate false readings.
Radar is not perfect. Unlike other normal tickets, citations resulting from cameras do not have a tracking history or a visual estimation by a qualified officer to back them up. Thousands of tickets can be generated between routine maintenance and calibration inspections, potentially resulting in just as many faulty readings.

2. This type of enforcement emphasizes ticket volume.
Despite claims to the contrary, photo radar is used in locations characterized by high traffic volume and under-posted speed limits. It is not profitable to use photo radar on residential streets, low volume roads or where speed limits are posted at the 85th percentile (the speed at which they should be posted).

3. Ticket cameras are very inaccurate on certain roads.
Tests done by the University of Virginia found that fewer than three percent of the photos taken of vehicles on Interstate-type roads provided a clear image of a single vehicle, the license plate number and the driver. Photo radar should not be used on high-speed, multi-lane highways. Yet, some greedy cities still use it on these types of roads.

4. Photo radar encourages artificially low speed limits.
In areas where proper speed limits have been set according to the 85th percentile (the speed at or below which 85 percent of traffic is flowing), cameras could only make money if their tolerance threshold was very low, such as one or two miles per hour over the speed limit. Politically, this is not acceptable, nor will the courts support this kind of enforcement. The only option is to put the photo radar on roads with unreasonably low speed limits, and then make sure the limits stay low.

Objections Specific to Red-Light Cameras

1. Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.

2. These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
When red-light cameras are used to make money for local governments, these governments are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. This includes traffic-light synchronization, which is the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.

3. There are better alternatives to cameras.
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red-light violations. From the motorists' perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.