EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of a 2 part series.
This story reported in partnership with Fox News Chicago.
One second.
A miniscule, if not insignificant increment of time to some.
To others, a consequential unit of time where an infinite number of possibilities can unfold.
But it’s the importance of a single second that has increasingly become the center of the argument over red light camera enforcement nationwide and now here in Chicago.
While most red light camera opponents initially work to prevent or remove, or vote to ban them from their cities, this strategy proves to be a difficult road.
However, when this tact fails, anti-red light activists increasingly have been reverting to their Plan B–trying to extend the length of yellow light intervals at red light camera intersections.
“One of the reforms we’ve recommended is increasing yellow light times at intersections,” says anti-red light camera activist Scott Tucker, a GOP nominee for state representative in the 11th district. “These reforms have been shown to improve safety. The idea is to reform them out of business.”
Federal Highway Administration guidelines for yellow light timing comes under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD) which loosely recommends a range of between three and six seconds.
Government entities also utilize another standard from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) which promotes a mathematical formula which takes into consideration vehicle speed, acceleration rate, the grade of the road and other factors for determining yellow light duration.
Ultimately, it is up to the municipality to set the yellow light timing as long as it falls within the federal recommendations.
But many traffic safety advocates as well as red light camera opponents feel that in many cases the three second minimum is not enough time for drivers to make make it through an intersection safely.
Proponents of this point of view rely on a handful of studies that seem to show lengthening yellow light intervals, even by a second or second and a half, translates into substantial decreases in red light running and collisions within those particular intersections.
The National Motorists Association, a motorist advocacy group, has been working on promoting the relationship between longer yellow light intervals and improved safety for several years through their sister website, Stop Short Yellow Lights.com.
“It’s a hot topic for right now,” says NMA spokesperson Gary Biller. “I think it’s because there are more cities that are being challenged on their policy for this issue.”
Biller points to a wide sampling of studies and cases that seem to back up the group’s view on the issue including a study done by the Texas Transportation Institute.
“The conclusion was the most single, important thing you can do is increase yellow light signal time for intersection safety and reducing red light running,” explained Biller.
Other cities like Dalton, Georgia, where state law forced their town and others statewide to increase all yellow light times to be increased by one second, saw a dramatic drop in red light running.
According to the Dalton Police, red light running dropped from 624 RLC violations in February of 2008 to 125 in February 2009, after the new law went into effect.
Similar drops in red light violations occurred in Lomo Linda, California where there was an 80% drop in violations after a one second increase. Since this change, the city has been battling with their vendor, Redflex, to withdraw from their contract for the RLC technology.
City, Red Light Camera Company Don’t Buy Theory
“Studies show that lengthening yellow light timing is a temporary fix and that intersection safety cameras bring clearly a more sustained benefit in reducing red light running violations,” says Shoba Vaitheeswaran a spokesperson for Redflex Traffic Systems, the sole vendor of Chicago’s red light cameras.
Vaitheeswaran cites a 2007 study in Philadelphia of that city’s RLC program conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, that according to her, tracked signal violation rates at intersections before and after increasing yellow light duration, and again after red light cameras were installed for a year.
“The first step (extending yellow light time) reduced signal violations by 36 percent. The cameras reduced the remaining violations by 96 percent. At the same time, violations were virtually unchanged at two control group intersections.” explained Vaitheeswaran. “Many feel that lengthening yellow light timing is sufficient in reducing red light running violations, but based on data coming from the IIHS study, we feel that intersection safety cameras are a long-term deterrent.”
Brian Steele, spokesperson for the Chicago Department of Transportation, the city agency that oversees Chicago’s red light camera program generally agrees with Vaitheeswaran’s view on yellow light timing.
“A driver traveling the speed limit and paying attention to the signal will have no problem safely stopping at a red light,” says Steele. “City traffic engineers have long believed that if given a longer yellow time drivers will soon negatively adjust their behavior. Knowing that the yellow light is longer, more drivers will try to “push” the yellow and make it through the intersection before the light changes.”
Brian Costin, Director of Outreach for the non-partisan Illinois Policy Institute, does not buy Steele and Vaitheeswaran’s arguments.
“There absolutely is a connection between yellow light timing and intersection safety,” contends Costin. “Adding 1 to 1.5 seconds (of yellow light time) you can dramatically reduce accidents. Studies show a 40% – 80% reduction by increasing the the yellow light timing beyond the minimum.”
Local traffic engineer Matt Gauntt, who has consulted for numerous state, county and local agencies on traffic engineering issues, also feels extending yellow light times generally enhances intersection safety saying, “…Studies have shown that increasing the yellow interval most definitely WILL improve safety, if the yellow time is not adequately
used.”
Gauntt, citing the same Texas Transportation Institute study as Biller says, “They found that reducing the yellow interval by 1.0 second would increase red light running by over 100%, and increasing the yellow interval above the recommended timing would decrease red light running by 35-40%.” explains Gauntt.
But Gauntt doesn’t necessarily believe unilaterally adding one second or more to all signalized intersections is the best policy.
“I don’t think that is a good idea,” explains Gauntt. ” I think the yellow should be based on the ITE recommended practice rounded up to the nearest 0.5 seconds plus an all-red for intersections with two or more through lanes. Rounding up to the nearest 0.5 second will increase the yellow time slightly. Raising the yellow time too much will increase the congestion.”
“In any case, red light running cameras are most likely not the answer,” continued Gauntt. “All the red light running cameras do is make the alert driver worry about getting a ticket, but without other improvements, there is no fix to the underlying problem with the intersection.”
Check out Fox News Chicago’s report.
Thursday Part 2: Follow The Money–Is The Lure Of Easy Revenue Making Cities Embrace Unsafe Practices?
Posted in 
Hi i have been working by email with IL.Senator Dan Duffy,he’s trying to pass a bill to remove red light cameras,please email me at dsalverson@comcast.net i have a letter he sent me and wants everyone to copy,sign it and pass it on to IL.Senators while there still in sesson so the bill can be passed,if we don’t act no…w the red light cameras could be here for good.
Please anyone that wants these accident causing money making red light cameras take out email me so i can give you the letter to send. dsalverson@comcast.net
Some Great Facts about Red Light Cameras i found online
At Mannheim and St. Charles roads in Bellwood, collisions rose from 17 the year before cameras appeared to 24 the year after. Melrose Park put a camera at 1st and North avenues, near the now-closed Kiddieland Amusement Park, and crashes increased from 56 the year before installation to 73 the year after.
The most striking results come from Oak Lawn, which in September 2007 switched on cameras at the very busy junction of Cicero Avenue and 95th Street.
In 2006, before cameras, that intersection was the scene of one broadside crash — the dangerous type of collision that cameras are said to be most aimed at reducing. By 2008, with cameras, the total of broadsides had risen to five. Overall, the number of crashes of all types rose from 34 in 2006 to 44 in 2008, according to state data.
Roger Pawlowski, a division chief at the Oak Lawn Police Department, said the benefits of red-light cameras can’t always be extrapolated from crash statistics.
At the 25th and Harrison intersection in Bellwood, only four collisions were recorded the year before the camera’s installation, state records show. The year after, the number jumped to seven.
In Los Angeles the LAPD claims accidents are down after they installed cameras, but are they telling the whole truth or just trying to make money off motorists?
At Manchester Avenue and Figueroa Street, accidents more than tripled from five before the cameras were installed to 16 afterwards. Westwood Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard tripled from three to nine. At Rodeo Road and La Brea Avenue, collisions nearly tripled from seven in the six months before the cameras were installed to 20 in the same period afterwards.
Montclaire, Upland, El Monte and Fullerton all discontinued red-light cameras in part because of accidents. Huntington Beach broke its contract before it even officially began.
“There are quite a few studies out there that will show an increase in rear end accidents in these intersections,” a spokesperson from the Huntington Beach Police said.
“University of South Florida researchers did find that red light cameras are little more than revenue generators, and actually make intersections less safe than doing nothing at all.”
“Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.”
A three-year review shows accidents and injuries increased at red light camera intersections in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Rep. Solomon Ortiz, Jr.A review of preliminary collision data supplied by the city of Corpus Christi, Texas shows that the installation of red light cameras has done nothing to improve safety. Overall, the accident situation worsened at photo enforced intersections at a time when decreased traffic levels have brought accident rates nationwide to an all-time low.
The total number of accidents in Corpus Christi increased 14 percent, from 310 incidents to 353, at nine locations where automated ticketing machines were stationed. Contrary to the claim that red light cameras reduce the severity of collisions, the number of accidents involving injuries increased 28 percent from 140 to 179. Rear end collisions also increased by nearly a third from 160 to 208.
Anne Arundel County in Maryland has been running five red light cameras for five years, during which period they raised a fat $2.85 million in ticket revenue. Unfortunately, a comparison of accident statistics shows that the cameras have increased the rate of accidents.
Immediately after installation, the cameras sparked a 40-percent increase in rear-end collisions, and never looked back, with five-year increases in accident rates far exceeding a 10-percent increase in traffic.
1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995
This study examined the long term effect on accident-types of red-light cameras at 41 signalized intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.
Quotes from the study:
“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”
“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”
2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007
The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. Despite showing an increase in crashes, this study was instrumental in the return of red-light cameras to the state of Virginia. With a proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras was money.
Quotes from the study:
“After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”
“After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.”
“The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call.”
“Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.”
3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2001
This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s staff. It looks at the problems of red-light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.
Quoted from the study:
“And one should ask the question, if there’s a problem with an intersection, why don’t safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?
In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that’s exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to “use enforcement” instead.
Indeed, according to the Federal Highway Administration, these problem intersections serve as a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation of additional red light cameras and tout their safety benefits.
But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.
Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.
A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license.
In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue.”
4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004
A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University’s Urban Transit Institute for the United States Department of Transportation.
Quoted from the study:
“Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”
5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003
This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).
In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.
Quoted from the study:
“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.
The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.”
David
If anyone would like to see how actual ticketing changes when a yellow is lengthened by a second (tickets go down by 2/3, by the next month) and how long the effect lasts (indefinitely), go here: http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsMesaMain.html
HH
[...] part one of the two part series, “Red Light Camera Foes Fight For A Single Second.” Posted in Red Light Cameras « The Parking Ticket Geek Is A ‘Smart [...]