Printer-friendly version
By Jim Lissner
March 9, 2013 (El Cajon)--Anyone who watches the crash videos circulated by the red light camera Industry will notice that most of the crashes occur many seconds into the red. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), with sponsorship by the Texas DOT, studied 41 crash videos obtained from red light cameras and confirmed what the public has been noticing: "With one exception, all of the right-angle crashes occurred after 5 seconds or more of red." They also reported that the average was 8.9 seconds into the red. (Link to the study: http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf. See pages 5-15 and 5-16.)
These real late runners (5+ secs. late) aren't doing it on purpose. Recent evidence suggests that most of them are visitors who, because they don't live in town, simply don't know that there's a signal up ahead. They are lost or distracted, and by the time they notice that the signal is there, it is too late to stop. (On July 22, 2012 the mayor of Hallandale, Florida disclosed that 78% of the tickets there go to visitors. See last paragraph at: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-guest-cooper-cameras-mon0723-20120722,0,6873108.story. In Washington DC about 80% of tickets go to visitors. It is claimed that in Paradise Valley, Arizona 98% of tickets go to visitors.)
A minority of the violations are by "locals" who forgot there's a camera up ahead because they were distracted, or impaired.
Because they won't know or won't remember that there's a camera up ahead, the presence of a camera won't keep the visitors or the distracted/impaired locals from making the real late runs. To cut those real late runs, a city should install visual cues to make its most dangerous intersections more prominent and to warn motorists, "signal ahead." Most of these engineering countermeasures are cheap and quick to do. None of them carry the camera side effect of increased rearenders.
2005 research sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation concluded that improving street markings (painting "signal ahead" on the pavement) near intersections would reduce red light running by up to 74 percent. (http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf Section 3.4, p. 69 of the document, or p. 84 of the pdf.) A large red light camera study sponsored by the San Diego Police Department rated engineering countermeasures such as better markings as "most effective" in reducing unintentional running, while enforcement, including cameras, was considered "less effective." (http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsSanDiegoMain.html#SDdocs2 Table 6.3, p. 80 of the document, or p. 97 of the pdf.)
The 2004 TTI study (at page 5-9, link above) noted that countermeasures like increasing the diameter of signal lamps from 8" up to 12"or adding signal heads had the potential to decrease crashes by 47 percent. The 2005 Florida research recommended the installation of a signal pole on the "near" side of intersections. (The link is above. See p. 135 of the document, or p. 150 of the pdf.)
The 2004 TTI study (at page 5-9, link above) noted that adding backboards (back plates) to the signals had the potential to decrease crashes by 32 percent. [Or, enlarge the backboards you have.]
I suggest putting up larger and well-lighted name signs for the cross streets, and larger bulbs in the street lights, at known dangerous intersections.
The City has ten red light camera locations. I suggest randomly picking five and installing all of the countermeasures above - including the extra signal poles - right away, so that at the end of the study period you will be able to see that countermeasures are an alternative to turning the cameras back on. The City can easily afford to do the countermeasures, as with the cameras shut off the City will no longer be writing a monthly $33,000 check to Redflex.
The views in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
Recent comments