Red-Light Cameras

[AndyIvey]

I have heard a few shorts on this on 1080 AM. However, I didn't see anything on Google or the council agendas. Are they in our future?

[gc]

I believe it is being considered.

[RadicalBender]

Ugh. Are they serious?

I know no one seriously thinks that red light cameras improve safety and that everyone knows this is just a new, promising city revenue stream. But the problem is that red light cameras INCREASE accidents. Multiple studies have confirmed this. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp)

This is because people are aware of the red light cameras and unsafely slam on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow light to avoid a ticket and are usually rear-ended by the person behind them.

[rantanamo]

I'm not sure of the actual stats, but apparently the cameras greatly reduce redlight traffic fatalities. Trust me, it makes one approach a traffic light differently in Garland. I used to be the type of driver that accelerated to beat lights. Now, there's no way I try that. Don't want some big ticket showing up in the mail that I don't even remember. I make sure I signal and everything. I don't know if they are the right thing to do or not, but they certainly make one think.

[monogodo]

This is because people are aware of the red light cameras and unsafely slam on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow light to avoid a ticket and are usually rear-ended by the person behind them.The problem isn't the red light camera, the problem is the person who is following too closely to stop in time.

[UrbanHope]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011206dnmetredlight.173d5a33.html

Dallas giving red-light cameras a go
Devices' use on rise across country; foes cite drivers' rights



09:24 PM CST on Wednesday, January 11, 2006
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News


Speeding to get through that intersection? Not so fast.

Five years and four legislative sessions after first considering cameras to catch red-light runners, the Dallas City Council is giving the program the green light.

Council members will meet next week to authorize bidding for the cameras, which – although the subject of numerous lawsuits – have been installed at crossroads across the country. They could start recording Dallas' traffic infractions as early as August.

"If you travel all over America, everyone is utilizing this technology," council member Leo Chaney said. "We're in the 21st century. It's an inevitability."

Locally, Frisco, Plano and Richardson are debuting red-light cameras. Denton and Rowlett have plans for them.

Garland – which in 2001 became the first city in Texas to use them – has reported a 21 percent decrease in red-light violations since installing the cameras. Houston's trial run began in November.

Dallas' red-light cameras will work like this: A private company will install them at intersections selected by the city, at no cost to the city. The cameras will collect images of vehicles that run red lights. Civil citations will be sent by mail to the registered owner of the vehicle. The camera company will get a portion of each $75 fine.

Also Online

How red-light cameras work

Cities hope cameras OK'd for highways
The cameras have incited outrage and legal challenges from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which contend that they violate due process (by targeting the car's owner, not necessarily the driver) and privacy statutes.

Not OK everywhere
In some cases, lawmakers have agreed. In Florida, the state attorney general ruled against them. In Virginia, the state General Assembly ended the program after several years.

But generally speaking, the cameras have become a national staple. Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., all use cameras at their intersections. So do Minneapolis, Toledo, Ohio, and dozens of other cities and counties.

In Texas, the Legislature's message is less clear-cut. When Dallas City Council members first discussed installing red-light cameras in 1999, the city attorney's office cautioned against it, saying it was unclear whether state law permitted them.

By 2001, red-light cameras were the city's top legislative priority. Dallas representatives made countless trips to Austin, lobbying, along with state Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, for a bill to allow the cameras. The bill died.

A second attempt failed two years later, around the time former Dallas City Council member Sandy Greyson – the city's lead advocate for the cameras – was struck by a driver running a red light.

The Legislature "came up with all kinds of reasons: that 'big brother' was watching, that it would discriminate against minorities, that cities would just use it to make revenue," said Ms. Greyson, who broke her wrist in the auto accident and needed 19 stitches in her head. "They ridiculed the bill."

At the end of the 2003 legislative session, a provision appeared on a state transportation bill that seemed to open the door for the red-light cameras. Garland and a few other Texas cities interpreted the provision as a loophole and moved forward with plans to install them. And some Dallas council members were ready to do so.

But the Dallas city attorney's office still wasn't on board. It warned the council that of all the cities considering the cameras, Dallas had the deepest pockets – and therefore was most likely to be sued in a class-action suit.

"For Dallas to do it was too risky," Ms. Greyson said. "We were ready to do it. But we hate to override the city attorney's office."

In the 2005 legislative session, a state representative introduced a repeal bill intended to close the loophole and ban red-light cameras. His effort failed. Dallas' attorneys had the precedent they were seeking.

"Dallas feels more comfortable now because there is a legislative history that is supportive of municipal authority to use" red-light cameras, said City Attorney Tom Perkins.

Mayor Laura Miller said she is thrilled that the city is proceeding with plans to install the cameras. She said she doesn't blame the city attorney's office for acting with caution.

"Some of the most horrific accidents we see are when people run red lights," she said. "But we didn't know if we had a legal right to prosecute from a picture. I still think it was prudent not to implement it before now."

Police back plan
Once the council authorizes the city staff to seek bids for the cameras, City Manager Mary Suhm will start determining which intersections to target. The Police Department is on board too, Chief David Kunkle said.

Without cameras, "It's difficult for us to enforce [red-light running] because of the logistics of a big intersection, and because we generally have to see it occur," he said. "We think red-light cameras would enhance public safety."

The city's court services office, which keeps tabs on annual red-light citations, did not return phone calls Wednesday. But police Capt. Jack Bragg said one red-light grant that the Police Department received last year from the Texas Department of Transportation resulted in 10,387 tickets at hazardous intersections.

The state agency is seeking a legal opinion on whether red-light cameras may be installed along state highways. Although many municipalities hope the devices are approved, the ACLU hopes otherwise.

"There's an equal-protection problem," said Scott Henson, director of the organization's Texas Police Accountability Project. "You might run a red light [with a camera] and get a $75 civil fine. I can run one [with a police officer] and get a $200 criminal violation."

E-mail eramshaw@dallasnews.com

[msutton]

I think this is a really good move from the city.

[AndyIvey]

I see three major drawbacks to this:
1- Statistics
2- Motivation
3- Privacy

<HR>

As for the cameras causing collisions, there is some truth to this. At least one state has gone as far as mandating the length of yellow lights to help prevent it. Camera foes argue that cities can short cycle yellows to boost revenue. People may also be more prone to slam on their brakes when faced with a yellow light of unknown length.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation provides these examples:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/?f=surveillancemonitor.html

Davis Signs Bill Establishing Yellow-Light Times
Gov. Gray Davis signed legislation Friday to fight "speed traps" by requiring minimum yellow-light intervals at intersections equipped with red-light cameras, Sacramento Bee, October 6, 2001

Rigging Traffic Lights Hurts Safety
When Mesa, Arizona, added about a second of yellow time to traffic lights at several intersections, there was a 73 percent reduction in red light entries—and a major drop in accidents, so the city subsequently ditched the automated cameras it used to monitor intersections and send out automated tickets, Detroit News, August 12, 2001

<HR>

You cannot argue that these cameras will not be a source of profit for the city. However, I would be willing to debate if this was a major factor in the decision making process. Does the mouth say “save lives” while the brain thinks “make money?” Maybe not, but it is a fair assumption.

Examples from Privacy.org:

July 11, 2001
Profit Purpose Behind Red-Light Cameras
A former employee of Lockheed Martin IMS testified in a San Diego court that red-light cameras developed by the company were designed to increase profit revenue rather than safety. The employee testified on behalf of 290 drivers who challenged citations issued by red-light cameras in San Diego. The company receives $70 each time a $271 citation is paid by a citizen. http://www.privacy.org/archives/000825.html#000825

April 02, 2004
The Newest Municipal Fund Raising Tool May be Running Out of Gas
Municipalities in the State of Maryland have formed a warm relationship with red-light cameras that help to catch traffic violators and at the same time raise much needed revenue. However, the down side of the traffic surveillance program is a steady drop in revenue as drivers amend or mend their ways. Some jurisdictions in the near future may have to rethink their investment in the program as revenue fall short of their expense to deploy. http://www.privacy.org/archives/001262.html#001262

<HR>

Privacy
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15718pub20010821.html
ACLU Urges Halt to Use of Red-Light Cameras Until Privacy and Fairness Issues Are Addressed (8/21/2001)
Statement of Barry Steinhardt
Associate Director, American Civil Liberties Union
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--Many American cities are installing controversial "red-light camera" systems that photograph vehicles allegedly running red lights or stop signs and then use the license plate to look up the owner's address and mail him or her a ticket.
The ACLU believes that the use of red light camera systems should be halted or delayed until the due process and privacy issues they raise have been properly settled.
There are two issues of fundamental fairness with the cameras that affect the right to due process under the law. First, the tickets are sent to the owner of a car, who was not necessarily the person committing the alleged violation. The burden of proof usually then falls on the owner to prove he or she was not driving at the time. This is a violation of the bedrock American principle that the accused be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Second, many red-light camera systems have been installed under contracts that deliver a cut of ticket revenue to the contractor. That creates an obvious incentive to contractors to "game" the system in order to increase revenue and in turn generates public cynicism and suspicion. Such bounty contracts make a mockery of the ideal of disinterested justice and undermine the pursuit of traffic safety.
Legitimate questions have been raised about the choice of intersections where these cameras have been installed and about the timing of the yellow lights at those intersections -- and whether such decisions were made to increase traffic safety or maximize ticket revenue.
These questions of fundamental fairness were underscored by the recent decision of the San Diego court holding that the evidence from the cameras was unreliable.
There are also important privacy issues raised by the cameras. The ACLU is most concerned about what we call "mission creep" -- that the data collected by these cameras will be used for purposes other than tracking reckless drivers. Government and private-industry surveillance techniques created for one purpose are rarely restricted to that purpose, and every expansion of a data bank and every new use for the data opens the door to more and more privacy abuses.
Similar systems have already been used to invade privacy. For example, cameras installed at the Texas-Oklahoma border have been used to capture the license plate numbers of thousands of law abiding persons, who were subjected to inquiries about why they were crossing the border.
Traffic safety and information privacy are not mutually incompatible concepts. However, if red light programs are to succeed, the American public must be confident that such systems operate with unimpeachable fairness and that the information collected is used only for the authorized purpose indicated and is not sold, shared or otherwise abused

[RadicalBender]

The problem isn't the red light camera, the problem is the person who is following too closely to stop in time.

Hardly. If someone slams on their brakes, even at a relatively safe distance, or, even worse, in a crowded intersection, your reaction time will be extremely limited.

And, besides, the red light cameras are somehow supposed to alter one form of human behavior (to get them to stop running red lights) and instead it exacerbates a different form of human behavior (dangerously slamming on the brakes to avoid a ticket), I'd call that a dismal failure in the technology. And those studies back me up.

Even the Texas Transportation Institute said that if you really wanted to improve safety in intersections, you could increase the duration of the yellow light by one second and that would reduce accidents by 40%.

Red light cameras aren't the answer. The answer is actually fixing the problematic intersections in the city.

More info:
http://www.motorists.com/info/red_light_cameras.html

[msutton]

I disagree. Proper driving, or so I recall being taught in driver's ed, would give you enough time to stop if you were paying any attention at all to the road. Not to mention, with common sense when you are nearing a stoplight, you take your foot off of the accelerator and place it over the break. If you're not aware enough of the car and circumstances in front of you, it is entirely your fault if they slam on their breaks and you run into them.

There is no invasion of privacy here. You're driving on a public road. If I wanted to set up a video camera and record all the cars and liscence plates that passed me by, it would be fully within my rights. Just as it's full within the city's rights. It's not like this camera follows you home, enters your house, and watches you get naked and shag.

[Flaming Moderate]

There really is not issue here. Nothing has changed but the means of enforcement. The negatives cited would apply to a cop at the intersection; so if those are valid then there should be no red-light enforcement.

[AndyIvey]

I disagree. Proper driving, or so I recall being taught in driver's ed, would give you enough time to stop if you were paying any attention at all to the road.
I agree that these are basic skills taught in defensive driving. However, so is not running a red light.

As for privacy, where does it stop? At what point do we say enough is enough? How much of our privacy are we willing to give up? Right now, we are willing to have our driving recorded in exchange for lower red-light infractions. Of course, to think you are safer overall you have to assume that the studies that show other traffic incidents increase is false. One should also assume that those profiting from the cameras have our best interests at heart. Consider this:
http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/12/30/opinion/editorial/59edit29cameras.txt




Examiner Editorial - Replace robo-cops with real ones
29Dec'05

Published: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:38 PM EST
E-mail this story | Print this page


Now, while everybody's still fuming about warrantless domestic spying, might be a good time to bring up the serious constitutional problems inherent in using unmanned electronic devices to enforce traffic laws.

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause specifically grants an accused the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." But if you're ticketed by a photo-red or automated radar camera in the District of Columbia, you can't confront or cross-examine the one-eyed witness that's still out there snapping photos of license plates. And since the tickets they generate are mailed, you might not even be aware that you've been accused of breaking the law until it's too late to round up possible witnesses for your defense.

The constitutional problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of the revenue generated by the cameras (more than $33 million from D.C.'s 49 red light cameras since 1999) goes directly to the company that calibrates and maintains them - and also sends out the citations. A clearer conflict of interest would be hard to find. Knowing the odds against them are worse than a Vegas roulette wheel, most people just pay the fine and get on with their lives. But an Arlington lawyer willing to challenge the status quo has exposed camera enforcement's wobbly legal foundations.
Javascript disabled. Cannot display HTML ad.

In 2000, the D.C. government finally admitted that its highest-performing red light camera located at H and North Capitol streets, which was hauling in up to $10,000 per day in fines, was defective. This was not surprising, given the fact that this hyperactive little robo-cop was citing more drivers than all of the city's other traffic cameras combined. The malfunctioning camera was eventually taken down and any outstanding tickets were forgiven, but only after it had already generated $1.5 million in fines.

At that point, the District had a legal and moral obligation to refund the money. The city chose to keep all of it instead. Two years ago, claiming that as many as 20,000 motorists might have been unfairly ticketed, Daniel Wemhoff filed a class-action lawsuit. When a lower court refused to hear the case because he couldn't list the faulty camera's victims by name, Wemhoff filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get their addresses so he could inform them of their right to sue.


But on Dec. 15, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the city didn't have to release the information because doing so would supposedly violate the victims' privacy rights even though the city had improperly collected $1.5 million from them with a malfunctioning camera. The judges apparently aren't concerned about the hypocrisy of allowing a private entity access to vehicle records to issue tickets, but not to help defend against them.

The Virginia legislature refused to extend its authorization to use red light cameras in seven jurisdictions after an exhaustive study by the Virginia Department of Transportation discovered an increase in personal injury accidents wherever the cameras were installed. The commonwealth also cleverly avoided any constitutional conundrums by installing fake cameras on the Dulles Toll Road. The loud bells and lights that flashed whenever cheaters sped past without paying the toll turned out to be nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The ruse fooled tens of thousands of Virginians into thinking that motorists were being electronically monitored by the state, but there were shockingly few complaints. Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry would have been aghast to learn, two centuries after pledging their lives and sacred honor to free themselves from a much less oppressive British monarchy, that their descendants would meekly submit to such a frontal assault on their basic constitutional rights.

[RadicalBender]

I disagree. Proper driving, or so I recall being taught in driver's ed, would give you enough time to stop if you were paying any attention at all to the road. Not to mention, with common sense when you are nearing a stoplight, you take your foot off of the accelerator and place it over the break. If you're not aware enough of the car and circumstances in front of you, it is entirely your fault if they slam on their breaks and you run into them.

This is of absolutely no consolation to the person who is rear-ended. The point is this is supposed to be REDUCING accidents. You can pretend that RLCs will somehow magically improve driver behavior all you want, but they won't. Changing user behavior is an almost hopeless endeavour. Working around it and using it to your advantage is not only easier, it's far more practical.

There are many ways we can make intersections safer. Frankly, I'd like to switch to a more European style traffic light where the green light starts blinking as a warning to an impending yellow. And I'd like to see yellow lights extended by a full second, enough to get people to make a decision, but not enough where people think they can take advantage of more time to sail through an intersection. The longer people have to make a decision about whether or not to go through an intersection, the safer that intersection will be.

EDIT: Here's another great article about this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/079bkyhi.asp?pg=1


Historically, amber times have been set between three and six seconds, depending on a host of variables from the posted speed at an intersection to the grade of its approach.

The formula for these standards comes from a hodgepodge of recommendations by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Federal Highway Administration's "Manual on Traffic Control Devices." To give just an inkling of how things have changed over the years, in the mid '70s, the Institute of Transportation Engineers recommended a yellow time long enough to factor in reaction time plus stopping time plus "clearance time," or the time it takes to get through an intersection.

But by the late '90s, that standard had been steadily eroded by altogether shaving off clearance time, lowering yellow light intervals by as much as a third, which often leaves the motorist stranded in the dilemma zone. To make matters worse, the ITE, which in 1985 was still recommending yellow lights be lengthened to help clear intersections, now, with the advent of red light cameras, offers that "enforcement can be used instead."

[monogodo]

Hardly. If someone slams on their brakes, even at a relatively safe distance, or, even worse, in a crowded intersection, your reaction time will be extremely limited.

And, besides, the red light cameras are somehow supposed to alter one form of human behavior (to get them to stop running red lights) and instead it exacerbates a different form of human behavior (dangerously slamming on the brakes to avoid a ticket), I'd call that a dismal failure in the technology. And those studies back me up.

Even the Texas Transportation Institute said that if you really wanted to improve safety in intersections, you could increase the duration of the yellow light by one second and that would reduce accidents by 40%.

Red light cameras aren't the answer. The answer is actually fixing the problematic intersections in the city.

More info:
http://www.motorists.com/info/red_light_cameras.html
So it's the intersections' fault that people are running red lights? I always thought it was the a-hole behind the wheel that was the cause. Silly me.

Slamming on one's brakes in traffic is an incredibly stupid thing to do, as are running a red light and not allowing proper distance between the front of one's car and the back of the car ahead.

I've got a solution that will satisfy everyone: Install red light cameras, make a big show about the new red light camera program, but never turn them on and don't tell anyone they're not operational. The privacy nerds are satisfied because no data is being collected. The revenue complainers are satisified because they're generating no revenue. The safety people are happy because people will be less likely to run a red light if they think they might get a ticket.

Rather than bitching about red light cameras, how about coming up with a better solution, other than saying "red light cameras aren't the answer, fix the intersections."

[RadicalBender]

Slamming on one's brakes in traffic is an incredibly stupid thing to do, as are running a red light and not allowing proper distance between the front of one's car and the back of the car ahead.

So...what would you have people do? You're 200 feet from an intersection going 45 mph. The light turns yellow. What do you do? You obviously don't want people slamming on the brakes, so that's out (you'd barely make it anyway - 171 feet to a full emergency stop at that speed on a good day), you don't want people running the red light, so what's your suggestion?


Rather than bitching about red light cameras, how about coming up with a better solution, other than saying "red light cameras aren't the answer, fix the intersections."

Done. Read my last post.

[AndyIvey]

Rather than bitching about red light cameras, how about coming up with a better solution, other than saying "red light cameras aren't the answer, fix the intersections."
Ok, I am with you. Complaining without providing an alternative does not help solve the problem.

1) Yellow Lights – Extend the yellow light time and establish a standard to be applied citywide. All signals controlled by Dallas should have yellow lights displayed for the same period. The time should be long enough to reduce inadvertent light running. There is also the ability to flash a green light moments before is switches to yellow.

2) Rumble Strips – Install bumps in the pavement before intersections to gain the attention of distracted drivers. This will reduce the number of lights run by cell phone abusers, preoccupied parents, and that person reading the newspaper behind the wheel.

3) Lane Width – Narrowing lanes near intersections can slow drivers and reduce accidents.

4) Intersection Visibility – Improve lighting and improve signage to increase driver response time. This is especially helpful when visibility (sight line) is limited or intersections are poorly marked.

5) Grading – A change in grade at or near intersections will slow traffic. The inability to pass through an intersection at a high rate of speed should reduce the number of intentional red-light infractions.

6) All-Red Interval – Introduce a period of time that all traffic at the intersection is stopped.

7) Countdown Timers – A visible indicator to drivers of the amount of time left before the light changes.

8) Physical Barriers – These are used to direct turning traffic to the appropriate lanes. This is especially helpful in reducing 90 degree accidents that occur during a turn on red.


I found all of these alternatives in a quick search on Google. They can help reduce intentional and unintentional red light running. Many of them cost less to install than cameras. However, they do not generate revenue. Luckily, this has nothing to do with money. Right?

[Flaming Moderate]

Come on guys ... don't be naive. Some red-light accidents would be solved by the above, but most are simply people gunning and running. You guys have hit on one controversy ... that is yellow-light timing. Some cities dramatically [/I]reduced[I] yellow lights so as to increase red-light tickets. That's wrong.

A combination of all needs to be added: yellow lights need to be longer; lights should blink green to give you a 15-second warning; the intersecting light should not turn green until the light has been red for two seconds. All of that plus cameras, which with the above would only get aggregious violaters, would safen streets.

Again, there is no privacy argument ... you're on a public street. By your rationale all tickets are invasions of privacy.

[Columbus Civil]

No one at the City was amused at my suggestion to add portcullises at all major intersections.

[tamtagon]

I dont think a longer yellow light, or even having red lights all the way around for a second allowing the intersection to clear, will stop those people predisposed to speeding up to get through the caution signal.

I like the traffic cameras, and I also think the amount of the fine (well, most moving violations for that matter) should be based on income.

[JaeTex]

1. So what if they raise revenue? It's not like we're taxing Mother Theresa for washing people's feet here, it's a fine for breaking the law.

2. And a related thought, so what if some private company makes a profit? Are we to do away with all private security firms because they are making money, I don't think so.

3. Arguing that someone slamming on their brakes to avoid going through the light is dangerous is, I think, a specious argument. I'm pretty sure I'd rather rear-end someone who slammed on their brakes or get rear-ended than get t-boned pulling out from a green by some idiot who floors it to get through a red at 45mph. Oh, and a rear-ender is going to only tie up traffic going one way, someone getting rammed in the intersection is going to shut the whole thing down. So they may cause more accidents (which I personally doubt) but it's a matter of degree.

4. I think the vast majority of drivers are relatively safe and we don't need to worry about most people running red lights or randomly slamming their brakes. That said, anyone who has lived here for long can tell that the number of red light runners has increased DRASTICALLY over the past several years. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

5. While the other ideas proposed might work, why should we re-order our entire traffic system for those who regularly brake the law? Cameras are an easy, and because they might be profitable, inexpensive solution for the city. Rumble strips,changes in lane width, changes in grading, adding barriers, and even buying european blinking lights are all strictly cost items for the city, and don't forget someone will be making a profit putting all those things in. I don't like the idea of the city taking the most expensive, most obtrusive solution to deal to accomodate the law breakers, when it can be addressed more cheaply and without having to makeover every intersection in the city.

6. As to privacy, I feel that argument a little more, but remember these are public streets.

(Oh, and I realize there's ample opportunity for rear-end jokes in my post.)

[Lakewooder]

I have been forced to drive in the northern regions of our area recently. The people drive like maniacs -- something must be done!

CC, you should add some drawbridges and boiling oil as well!

[RadicalBender]

7) Countdown Timers – A visible indicator to drivers of the amount of time left before the light changes.

You know, I love those pedestrian walk signs that have the counters for that very reason. This way I can figure out if I need to speed up a bit or slow down a bit for a light.

And, for the record, if the intersections had some of these other steps taken to make them safer in general, I probably wouldn't have a problem with the cameras. Probably. Maybe. If they're done right and safety and accident data is released to the general public.

Also, I'm starting to wonder if those of you who aren't as concerned about a rear-end collision have actually ever been in one before. It's easy to get caught up in statistics, but rear-end collisions can still hurt like hell and can really take you out for a length of time. Saying it's not as bad as an angle collision is like saying jabbing a pointy stick in your ear isn't as bad as jabbing a pointy stick in your eye. Still hurts.

[JaeTex]

Saying it's not as bad as an angle collision is like saying jabbing a pointy stick in your ear isn't as bad as jabbing a pointy stick in your eye. Still hurts.

Yeah, but if I had to pick, it ain't going to be the eye.

And the main reason I'm in favor of the red light cameras is that my fear of the runners has been slowing down my jack-rabbit starts (and calling them "runners" just made me recall Logan's Run, which makes this thread one of my favorites of this still young year) .

[monogodo]

You're 200 feet from an intersection going 45 mph. The light turns yellow. What do you do?I need more information before I can give you an answer to that. What is the speed limit? What is the duration of the yellow light? How many lanes are there that I'm crossing? How wide are the lanes?
You obviously don't want people slamming on the brakes, so that's out (you'd barely make it anyway - 171 feet to a full emergency stop at that speed on a good day), you don't want people running the red light, so what's your suggestion?With out the info I've asked for above, I'll have to make some assumptions, so here goes: It will take 3 seconds travelling at 45mph to reach the intersection. Assuming the speed limit is 45, and assuming the yellow is timed at .5 seconds for every 5mph of the speed limit, the duration of the yellow light is 4.5 seconds. Let us again assume that the lanes are 12' wide, and that I'm crossing a 4-lane road (2 lanes each way), yielding a street width of 48'. At 45mph, it will take 3/4 of a second to cross the street. Add that to the 3 seconds it took to arrive at the intersection, and I will be through it in 3.75 seconds, leaving 3/4 of a second of yellow light remaining.

On the other hand, if I choose to stop, there will not be a problem. According to Car & Driver Magazine (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=17&article_id=3452), my car can come to a complete stop from 70mph in 189 ft when new, and 175 ft after clocking 40000 miles. I don't know how much shorter the distance would be from a speed that is 40% less than the tested speed, but I'm sure it would be more than adequate, even if we include one second of reaction time (134').

So, to answer your question, given the information you provided, I don't know what I'd do, and it doesn't matter, because I wouldn't receive a ticket if I didn't stop, and I wouldn't have to do a panic stop were I to choose to do so.

[AndyIvey]

I perfectly understand the arguments for red-light cameras and they are strong ones.

While I have detailed my reservations about possible privacy infringement, I can concede that this is an easy one to give up. It is a public street and so on. However, where does it stop? Each new law by itself is fine. Add them up and you see a disturbing trend. It will be camera mounted on median speed detectors next. They can follow that up with random license plate searches at intersections. Maybe they can equip every new car with GPS, monitor your driving speed, and issue a ticket when you exceed the posted limit.

The problems I detailed with due process, enforcement, faulty cameras, and yellow light tinkering can be overcome. All of these come down to the authority behind the cameras. I can believe Dallas and the private firm will refund tickets issued by faulty cameras, not alter yellow light timings to increase profit, and help safeguard the rights of those driving on our streets. However, we have examples of municipalities and private companies that have not.

As for statistics, there are studies on both sides. I have read at least one that shows that increasing yellow lights reduced red-light running. Another showed that total accidents did increase at a monitored intersection despite a reduction in red light offenses. Several more show how great cameras are at reducing accidents. I have come to the conclusion that intersection design and light timing can have the same affect as red-light cameras.

My final point in my previous posts was a questioning of what motivated council to choose cameras. What is wrong with saving lives and making money? That is a good combination. However, I think there are less controversial solutions. I will call this program a failure if the following scenario plays out:
In multiple communities, cameras have been removed or turned off because they were no longer profitable. They reduced red light running to such a point that the cost of operating the camera surpassed the income it generated. We need to prepare ourselves for a time when the system does not fund itself. That is when we will know the true value of red-light cameras.

[Boredkid]

Heres an idea. If you are driving down the road the light a mile ahead is green, chances are it will be changing by the time you get to it, so go ahead and take your foot off the gas. Leave enough room from the car in front of you. Also it is illegal to run a read light even if you think the person behind you is going to rear end you. The idea of making yellow lights longer only helps for a short time. It takes on average 3 weeks for people to get used to the longer lights and will change their driving habits back. If the majority of the population is able to keep from getting tickets it can not be that hard.

[Flaming Moderate]

While I have detailed my reservations about possible privacy infringement, I can concede that this is an easy one to give up. It is a public street and so on. However, where does it stop? Each new law by itself is fine. Add them up and you see a disturbing trend. It will be camera mounted on median speed detectors next. They can follow that up with random license plate searches at intersections. Maybe they can equip every new car with GPS, monitor your driving speed, and issue a ticket when you exceed the posted limit. [/B]

Now you're on to something. There is a difference between catching someone violating the law and randomly scanning streets and public places for licence plates and faces. That is Big Brother. I completely oppose random scans in public or not.

[AndyIvey]

This study details how the vast majority of red light running could be avoided with one second of all red and a longer yellow light. It is easy to state that red light runners are a malicious group of deviants with no regard for the health or safety of others. I think all but a handful are regular people making a mistake.


The Red Light Running Crisis
Is it Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport.asp

Includes data from:
DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING AND TREATING LOCATIONS WITH A RED-LIGHT-RUNNING PROBLEM
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf


“Conclusion:
The subject of signal timing can be difficult and obscure. And for that reason, the proponents of red light cameras have been able to escape close scrutiny.

Transportation officials and engineers know that the yellow signal timing is essential to safety. The data showing this to be the case are found in their studies. Nonetheless, some have systematically and intentionally ignored the inescapable engineering fact that longer yellows would solve the so-called crisis caused by shortened yellows.

Red light cameras present a perverse disincentive for local jurisdictions to fix intersections with excessive red light entries. It's hard to fix a “problem” that brings in millions in revenue.

In other words, red light cameras aren't fixing a safety problem, they're creating one.

And, with the federal government's assistance, state and local governments are undermining the vital constitutional protections our Founders put in place. The right to face one's accuser in court and the presumption of innocence form the bedrock of our judicial system.

Camera-based law enforcement can only work when these principles are ignored.

We should never have allowed the personal privacy of our citizens to be undermined by these Big Brother devices. In the name of safety, we sacrificed our privacy. But now it is clear that we have been asked to relinquish our cherished freedoms for an entirely empty promise.”

[warlock55]

Why not increase the yellow light and all-red times, AND add red-light cameras? It seems like that would filter out the people who do it by accident, while still penalizing the people who just don't care. I think cities are likely to be fairly responsible with the technology, as long as people are willing to sue the city if it looks like the cameras are being misused (and you know they will sue). The privacy issues can be settled with some court cases (which would preferably limit the cameras' use to photographing red light-runners). As for the due process argument, I think people have to be responsible for who they lend their vehicles to. It seems like even if the owner ends up having to pay the fine, he/she would have to ability to turn to the civil court system and try to collect from the driver there. Basically, I think it's good technology that needs to be used responsibly (just like a lot of technology).

I really do think that this is a big enough problem that some kind of action has to be taken. In my two years of living in Fort Worth, I have had one car totalled by a red light-runner, witnessed another red light-running accident, and invariably see someone run the light at Henderson and 10th each time I cross it walking to and from work. I'm always careful at that interesection because 90% of the time I'm there someone runs the light.

[monogodo]

As for the due process argument, there's already a precedent to support ticketing the vehicle owner in that situation: Parking Tickets.

If I borrow a car, and get a parking ticket, and don't pay it, the owner of the car is the one who gets in trouble, not me.

[AndyIvey]

Why not increase the yellow light and all-red times, AND add red-light cameras?
Regardless of the presence of cameras, I would like all intersections to be setup as follows:

1- Set a citywide yellow light standard. Ex: All yellows would light for 5 seconds.
2- Set an all-red standard. Ex: The entire intersection would be red for 1 second.
3- Create a blinking green light before the switch to yellow. The amount of time the green light blinks would be based on a formula. Ex: 10% of the speed limit

On a 30 mph road, the green light would begin blinking 3 seconds before it switched to yellow. The yellow light would shine for 5 seconds before switching to red. The intersection would display red on all lights for 1 second.

These options have been used worldwide. The blinking green is common in Europe. The standardized yellow and all-red were studied as documented in this forum. As for due process, I agree with the above two posts, but I fear that not treating this as a moving violation could reduce the options available to me. However, I do not support making this a moving violation.

[warlock55]

The blinking green light could be a good idea. I didn't mention it because I don't know whether most current signals could be programmed to do that or not. Also, I think it'd confuse the heck out of people intially. A pretty thorough and expensive public education campaign would be needed before that change.

[AndyIvey]

A pretty thorough and expensive public education campaign would be needed before that change.
That is my fear as well.

[tamtagon]

A pretty thorough and expensive public education campaign would be needed before that change.


That is my fear as well.

The people who would pick up the meaning of the flashing green light most quickly are the same people speeding up for the yellow light. It's the behavior of the driver which needs modification, not the functioning of the traffic control device.

It's a simple solution to this one, the red light runners need a ticket and fine to be reminded what is meant by a green light, a yellow light and a red light.

[ecoy75232]

I just wanted to say something about the red light cameras and speeding cams that are going up everywhere. Those who favor them now having listened to the "saves lives and babies spiel" propagated by the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running (which is incidentally set up and funded by THE biggest RLC vendor in the world and operated by a public relations firm out of Washington, D.C.) get your wallets ready and smile for the camera.

I as well as many other organizations have done a lot of research on the so-called effectiveness of these devices and have come to the conclusion it's really not about safety; it's about the money. Now this may be old news to a lot of you but I can see you haven't been doing enough to stop the proliferation of these automated extortion machines. You should see how much money the red light / speed camera vendors are sticking in the politicians' pockets to get them to install these cams everywhere. You would be appalled (millions of dollars a year; I have detailed reports of who donated the money and where it went if anyone is interested). These devices are also causing MORE accidents because people are having to hit their brakes harder to avoid running the red light and getting rear-ended because a lot of the municipalities have lowered the yellow light duration time to intentionally cause people to run red lights so they can ticket them.

Incidentally, I have heard rumors that several RLC vendors are looking into technology that involves the installing of RFID tags into your license plates (similar to the ones at Wal-Mart which cause the alarms to sound when you walk through the scanners installed near the entrances when an item is not paid for or the checker forgot to nullify the tag) so that their devices can ticket you automatically when you are speeding or running a red light using sensors. C'mon people, this is WRONG any way that you look at it. Think about the true motive behind this technology and use your common sense and stop the powers that be from using YOUR tax dollars to purchase this type of technology so they can tax YOU even further. If you don't want a true "police" state it is time to step forward now.

Almost all of the the police officers I have spoken to don't approve of these devices either, sharing my feelings that these devices are more for revenue generation than safety. Voice your opinions and write to your legislators and attend city council meetings and let them know how you truly feel before the devices are already installed and you don't have a choice.

If anyone is interested in my research (which I have shared with many legislators) contact me. Thanks.

ecoy75232@hotmail.com

[carousel]

What are your thoughts on these so called "red light violations" being punished w/ civil fines and not criminal fines? It seems that this goes along w/ your argument that these installations are about money and not about traffic safety.

[ecoy75232]

The reason that they changed it to a civil penalty instead of a criminal penalty is clear. Without a certifiable witness to the alleged violation it cannot be considered a criminal act.

[Boredkid]

Almost all of the the police officers I have spoken to don't approve of these devices either, sharing my feelings that these devices are more for revenue generation than safety. Voice your opinions and write to your legislators and attend city council meetings and let them know how you truly feel before the devices are already installed and you don't have a choice.



I was wondering where the police officers that disapprove of these devices are coming from? What agencies and their logic.

[carousel]

The reason that they changed it to a civil penalty instead of a criminal penalty is clear. Without a certifiable witness to the alleged violation it cannot be considered a criminal act.

So a camera cannot be a certifiable witness? What about the recent homeless beating that was caught on tape? The only certifiable witness was a video taping of the event. If memory serves me correctly, the homeless man was killed.

I respectfully disagree w/ your above assertion.

[Flaming Moderate]

There is no doubt it is about revenue generation ... hello, it is government ... the government is about nothing other than revenue generation.

[Boredkid]

There is no doubt it is about revenue generation ... hello, it is government ... the government is about nothing other than revenue generation.

And keeping its population safe

[carousel]

... hello, it is government ... the government is about nothing other than revenue generation.

nothing like speaking in superlatives and living in a black and white world where the color grey does not exist.

[Boredkid]

These devices are also causing MORE accidents because people are having to hit their brakes harder to avoid running the red light and getting rear-ended because a lot of the municipalities have lowered the yellow light duration time to intentionally cause people to run red lights so they can ticket them.



Just asked a dallas cop about this, He laughed and said, " if you are driving safely you have nothing to worry about."

[monogodo]

We've been discussing this topic for over a month already (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=5021&highlight=light+camera).

[AndyIvey]

I still believe that the majority of us do not run lights intentionally. I also feel like other cities have had problems mixing cameras with random yellow light timings. Let us not stack the deck against ourselves. Establish a citywide standard yellow light interval. I do not care if it is one second or five. If you add a flashing green relative to the speed limit, you can eliminate everything except intentional infractions. Finally, introducing a second of all-red will get those that do consciously choose to run the light our of the intersection before reintroducing traffic.

Random yellow light intervals and cameras don’t mix.

[ecoy75232]

The investigation of the beating was corroborated with other backup evidence such as witness statements (most likely provided by the other conspirators). That is the difference.



So a camera cannot be a certifiable witness? What about the recent homeless beating that was caught on tape? The only certifiable witness was a video taping of the event. If memory serves me correctly, the homeless man was killed.

I respectfully disagree w/ your above assertion.

[ecoy75232]

I was wondering where the police officers that disapprove of these devices are coming from? What agencies and their logic.

Actually one of the officers I spoke to just the other day was with a township in NJ. Their logic is that the don't approve of another traffic device doing their job and the marriage of technology and police functions to be used primarily as a revenue generation device. They are people who don't want to be oppressed any more than the other person...;)

[ecoy75232]

It will be safe until they lower the yellow light time so low you don't have to enter and clear the intersection safely. Think they aren't doing this already? I've got lots of reports from very reputable sources and experts who have done the fieldwork to compare yellow light times at intersections where red light cameras are installed and those that dont' and the time is lower at the RLC intersections by as many as 2 seconds. Stop kidding yourself, these devices are not about safety. They're BIG cash cows for every community that installs them. Do some research yourself and see if you dont' come up with the same conclusions.




Just asked a dallas cop about this, He laughed and said, " if you are driving safely you have nothing to worry about."

[monogodo]

The timing of the lights in downtown Dallas (at least the ones I see every day) is as follows:

yellow for 3.5 seconds
all red for 1 second
the speed limit is 30mph.

One source I found while researching this weeks ago recommends .5 seconds of red per 5mph of speed limit. Based on that , the yellow lights in Downtown are on .5 seconds longer than the formula recommends. Add the 1 second of all red, and it makes sense why I've only seen/heard 2 accidents at the intesection of Ervay and Elm in the almost 18 months I've had a view of it. One of those accidents had nothing to do with red lights, a car rear-ended a Suburban that was parking.

[Boredkid]

It will be safe until they lower the yellow light time so low you don't have to enter and clear the intersection safely. Think they aren't doing this already? I've got lots of reports from very reputable sources and experts who have done the fieldwork to compare yellow light times at intersections where red light cameras are installed and those that dont' and the time is lower at the RLC intersections by as many as 2 seconds. Stop kidding yourself, these devices are not about safety. They're BIG cash cows for every community that installs them. Do some research yourself and see if you dont' come up with the same conclusions.

Oddly enough, Been asking about this all day at my office. My company works with pretty much ever local and state police force in the nation. Sometime I dont like to count ok, they are not quite up to par. the over all view has been there are good. One comment I keep hearing is it gives them more time to do thier job. Another thing I hear over and over about cameras causing accidents are #1 cameras do not cause accidents people do. #2 If the drivers were driving correctly they #1 would not have to worry about getting a ticket and #2 would not have to worry about "slamming on the brakes" to stop in time. I dont run red lights so I am not worried about this. So if we all stop running red lights and this issue is dead.