Home>Traffic Safety and Driving Courses -- Red Light Running

Compiled by Dr. Leon James

Red light running has a societal cost. The crashes, deaths, and injuries cost our nation close to $14 billion annually.   National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running

The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running is a national advocacy group guided by an independent advisory board that includes leaders from the fields of traffic safety, law enforcement, transportation engineering, health care and emergency medicine, as well as crash victims. More information on the Campaign can be found at www.stopredlightrunning.com

From:  http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/gunandgo.html

Gun And Go: Analyzing Red-Light Running By James Schultz

(...)

If you’re like many Americans, you’ll gun it and go. According to the results of a national survey conducted by Bryan Porter, Old Dominion assistant professor of psychology, nearly 56 percent of respondents reported running red lights. Younger drivers, non-parents, those in low-technology or blue-collar jobs and the unemployed tend to report more red-light running. And those parents with children younger than 20 were more likely to run red lights than were parents of older children. Safety-belt use was the one constant variable across all groups. Unbuckled drivers were far more likely not to stop for red lights.

“Red-light running presents a significant safety issue,” Porter contends. “Linked to that is aggressive driving. Not road rage per se, but recklessness that endangers others. Some evidence suggests that thousands of deaths have been caused by not stopping at red lights.”

Porter’s study was underwritten by Daimler Chrysler Corp. and was conducted via telephone with drivers in all 50 states, but concentrated in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Texas. Overall, 5,024 respondents completed the survey. Of these, 4,007 were concentrated in the 10 target states, leaving 1,017 from the remaining 40 states as a comparison group. A “national” sample of 880 respondents was culled from the overall sample and reweighted to include a proportional number of respondents from each of the 50 states.

The survey indicated that, no matter the state, red-light running behaviors were virtually identical. Drivers were most likely to run red lights on weekday mornings while going to work or school. The typical light runner tends to be younger, is driving alone, with no children, and is rushing to work or school in the morning hours on weekdays. Violators are usually more than  two miles from home and more likely to be repeat offenders.

Routine Violations

(...)

Beginning in 1997, during local studies funded by the DMV that eventually involved seven cities and counties in southeastern Virginia, Porter, traffic engineering and law enforcement officials found that red-light running was routine: as many as 10 scofflaws per hour per intersection. At some intersections, as many as five cars would run a red light during the same light cycle. Fully one-third of the observed light cycles had at least one red-light runner.

Throughout the project, an intermittent public-information campaign was deployed, explaining the project’s goals. Signage was put in place warning of consequences for lawbreaking, and was followed by aggressive enforcement. The approach seemed to work, at least for several localities. Overall, there was a 13 percent reduction in the incidence of red light running when the program, known as Intersection Connection, concluded in 1999. At least during that time period, and for the targeted intersections, Porter estimates that hundreds of drivers decided not to press their luck and so elected not to zoom through intersections once traffic lights changed.

Only Two Minutes

Absent consistent enforcement and re-engineering of intersections to “calm” traffic flow — both expensive and therefore unlikely options — long-term reductions in red-light running appear problematic. Although some states and localities have installed “photo red” cameras that capture violators’ license plates on film, privacy concerns may prevent widespread adoption of a technique that Porter believes is the most effective means of prevention. He is, however, openly skeptical that a privacy defense can or should be advanced where public behavior is concerned.

“You’re on a public road,” he says. “You’re in a public space. It’s not your property. To claim that running a red light is your right: I have serious problems with that argument.”

Traffic congestion shows no signs of abating. Even as larger vehicles are introduced by manufacturers and eagerly snapped up by buyers, overall capacity remains the same or will actually decline because of ongoing construction or maintenance. What all drivers have to realize, Porter says, is that it’s in everyone’s best interest to abide by the law even if it doesn’t fit with individual timetables.

“We never will have enough roads,” Porter affirms. “Congestion isn’t the primary frustration for drivers. It’s discourtesy. Red-light running is a discourtesy. You’re selfish. You’re taking my time because I have to wait for you to run the light.”

Porter says the potential consequences of red-light running are severe. With ever increasing frequency, drivers around the country continue to race through intersections when the light turns red, leading to a significant number of intersection crashes, particularly in urban areas. Nor is red-light running an isolated behavior independent of other bad habits. According to Porter, red-light runners take other risks. They are less likely to wear safety belts, tailgate more often, weave in and out of traffic, speed, gesture angrily at other drivers and tend to have more driving violations on their records.

“Stopping at a red light loses you a minute, maybe two. And that’s the worst-case scenario,” Porter asserts. “You run a red light, you cause a crash. You hurt someone or yourself. The police come. You go to court. You have to fix your car. All to save two minutes. That’s it: two minutes.”

Porter has received national and international media attention for his ongoing research. He has recently obtained additional funding from the Virginia DMV for a study on close following, or tailgating. The Division believes that tailgating is also a leading cause of crashes in Virginia, and a primary signal of overly aggressive driving. Observations began in 2000 in three Hampton Roads cities; in January 2001 two more municipalities were added. Currently, 12 sites from these cities are being monitored, an effort that will continue through September of this year.

Quest June 2001 • Volume 4 Issue 2

From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-14-redlightcameras_x.htm By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY ATLANTA — Surveillance cameras at major intersections dramatically reduce the number of drivers who barrel through red lights, two new research reports say. The findings come as debate about the controversial devices continues a decade after they were introduced. The battles include a proposal to ban the cameras here in Georgia, litigation in at least three states and legislative efforts to permit them in six other states.   A car running a red light (traveling away from camera) is involved in a collision with one passing through the intersection legally on green. Research: Red-light cameras work The cameras automatically photograph vehicles that drive into intersections after the light turns red. Vehicle owners are then mailed citations instructing them to pay a fine or sign an affidavit that they weren't driving at the time. More than 850 people die and and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running red lights, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says. Researchers studied the effectiveness of red light cameras in Philadelphia and Virginia Beach. The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%. "There's a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used," says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. "The jury is in on that question." The Virginia Beach study, conducted by Old Dominion University, examined signal violations at four intersections before red light cameras were installed, while they were operating and after they were removed in 2005. Violations more than tripled by August 2006. "That's a huge jump," says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. "The rate of red light running was actually higher" than before the cameras were installed. The popularity of the cameras is growing rapidly despite oppostion that centers on constitutional grounds. About 250 communities around the USA use the devices, according to the Insurance Institute. Just 10 years ago, only New York and San Francisco had them. Opponents say the cameras deny drivers their right to confront their accusers in court and are a ploy by local governments to raise revenue. "There is a lot of money to be made with them," says Howard Bass, a Minnesota attorney who successfully challenged Minneapolis' red-light camera system in a case that will be argued before the state Supreme Court next month. "Ultimately, this is an issue that may have to be decided in the court of public opinion rather than courts of law. It's a public policy issue of how much surveillance creep we will tolerate in the 21st century."  CAUGHT ON CAMERA Places using red-light cameras and how many communities use them: • Arizona: 8 communities • California: 82 • Colorado: 6 • Delaware: 5 • District of Columbia: 1 • Florida: 1 • Georgia: 22 • Illinois: 5 • Iowa: 5 • Maryland: 24 • Massachusetts: 1 • Missouri: 6 • New Mexico: 1 • New York: 1 • North Carolina: 5 • Ohio: 9 • Oregon: 4 • Pennsylvania: 1 • Rhode Island: 1 • South Dakota: 1 • Tennessee: 6 • Texas: 24 • Washington: 6 Sources: Federal Highway Administration and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety   BACKLASH: Lawmakers express concerns over cameras Posted 2/14/2007 10:33 PM ET

From:  http://www.sfgov.org/site/livablestreets_index.asp?id=14440

Based on the success of the pilot and supportive state legislation, San Francisco is moving forward to expand the red light photo enforcement program. This collaborative effort involving several agencies will soon be one of the largest programs in the United States with twenty-six cameras rotated through thirty-five intersections.

(...)

INTRODUCTION Nationally red light violators cause a significant number of collisions and injuries. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, red light runners cause about 750 deaths and more than 260,000 injuries every year(1). In San Francisco, red light violators cause approximately 25 percent of all injury collisions at signalized intersections. Over the past five years San Francisco motorists running red lights have averaged 786 injury crashes with 1,324 annual injuries according to the Department of California Highway Patrol, State Wide Integrated Records System. Based on this average, red light violators cost the local San Francisco economy approximately $40 million each year not including property damage costs(2).

Although cities throughout Europe, Australia and Canada have used photo enforcement of red light violations since the 1970s(3), American cities have been slow to take advantage of the available technology. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority began automated enforcement at grade crossings of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Blue Line in 1992. Gate violations decreased more than 90 percent at some locations(4). Following on the heels of this experience, California's Legislature passed a bill allowing automated enforcement at railroad grade crossings in 1994(5). In 1993, New York City became the first major U.S. city to implement a red light photo enforcement program. Within a year, New York issued 168,479 tickets with just 15 cameras in place. After three years of photo enforcement and an average conviction rate of 85 percent, red light violations at photo enforced locations in New York City reduced by nearly 60 percent(6).

(...)

TECHNOLOGY

Since California law requires a "clear photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the vehicle"(8), cameras must photograph vehicles from the front. Cameras rotate among specially made housings at each monitored intersection approach. Motorists cannot easily distinguish which housings contain cameras and which do not. Camera poles stand several feet back from the traffic signal equipment and typically view no more than four lanes of approach traffic. Inductive loops placed just outside the intersection trigger cameras. Each enforced approach lane contains two successive loops, allowing the enforcement system to calculate the speed of passing vehicles. In San Francisco the vehicle speed must be greater than 24 kilometers per hour (15 miles per hour) to trigger a photograph. Cameras only receive power when the signal is red. Therefore, they can only take photographs when the vehicle is illegally entering the intersection on the red signal. Violators receive a grace period: cameras will not photograph vehicles entering the intersection until after the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds. The camera first photographs the vehicle as it illegally enters the intersection. The camera takes a second photograph when the vehicle is in the center of the intersection, allowing for a clear photo of the driver. The timing of the second photograph depends on the speed of the vehicle and the width of the intersection: the faster the vehicle, the shorter the time between the first and second photographs.

(...)

Legislation Until 1998, the revenue received by local California agencies from red light violations was not adequate to make photo enforcement self-financing. Many local government officials may support the program in principle, but are not willing to sacrifice funding for other programs to implement photo enforcement. In 1997, the California legislature addressed this shortfall by raising the fine from $104 to $271 for running red lights(3). With this change, the Legislature also changed the formula for distributing the fine revenues so local agencies now receive almost $148 from each fully paid citation.

This year controversy sprung up over a bill to eliminate the sunset clause on the law authorizing red light photo enforcement(11). Both the State Senate and Assembly Transportation Committee approved this bill quickly. It hit a snag on its first pass through the full Assembly when it fell four votes short of the 41 needed for passage. One month later the bill passed the Assembly with 49 votes. The bill then received not only the Governor's signature, but also his endorsement at a press conference on June 1, 1998. The media provided much coverage on the controversy and arguments associated with the first unsuccessful vote, but not much about the bill being signed into law. Opponents of the bill argued loudly about unfair intrusions into the rights of motorists. Former San Francisco Supervisor Susan Leal's response to this charge is, "Being hit by a 3,000-pound car is a real invasion of one's rights."(12)

(...)

RESULTS Since October 1996 the pilot red light photo enforcement program has issued nearly 10,000 citations. San Francisco Municipal Court records indicate that violators pay these citations at rates comparable to citations issued by Police officers in the field (approximately two-thirds paid). According to California law, violators who fail to respond to the mailed Notice to Appear have a hold placed on their driver's license and on their vehicle registration.

The first six months of the pilot project showed that San Francisco's approach is effective. The number of red light runners at photo enforced intersections dropped more than 42 percent. In a separate study in Oxnard, California, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also recorded a 42 percent reduction in red light violations. The Oxnard study included locations not equipped with cameras and found that there was a "spill over" effect at these locations as well(3).

The most notable impact of the pilot program may be a citywide reduction in collisions and injuries caused by red light violators. Although statistically it is too early to conclude that efforts to reduce red light running in San Francisco are responsible for this reduction, the future looks promising. Table 1 shows statistics from the State Wide Integrated Traffic Records System. Comparing data from the previous five years, there was a 9 percent reduction in injury collisions caused by red light violators in 1997.

(...)

Site Selection In the pilot program, project staff selected intersections based on five criteria:

1. Number of collisions caused by red light running 2. Suggestions from community groups 3. Suggestions from the Police Department 4. Geographical dispersion 5. Political and historical factors

It is also important to consider several other factors. Construction difficulties such as inadequate conduit space, sub-sidewalk basements (typical in San Francisco), and other obstacles to installing detector loops or conduit can greatly increase the cost of a program. Field observations of red light violators at prospective intersections is useful before selecting locations, especially to determine which intersection approach is best for photo enforcement. Time and effort can be saved when working with community associations by giving them a list of priority intersections and asking for their comments, rather than asking for their list of candidate intersections for photo enforcement.

Of the various considerations and criteria, the best indicator of red light running is the number of collisions caused by red light violators. However, experience shows that engineering solutions should be considered first. The intersection near San Francisco State University where the 1994 collision took place that inspired the program was one of the first locations equipped for photo enforcement. After traffic engineers modified the signal progression, red light running virtually stopped at this location. Preliminary data from other pilot intersections suggests that engineering solutions can often reduce red light violations significantly. Several pilot locations are undergoing engineering improvements, such as increasing the amber interval and the introduction of mast arms. The presence of photo enforcement equipment at these intersections will allow San Francisco's traffic engineers to learn more about the effectiveness of various engineering improvements on making red light runners stop. Future locations with the potential for such engineering solutions are not being considered for the program expansion.

(...)

From:  http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/redlite.html

Red Light Cameras

Running red lights is one of the most dangerous aggressive driving behaviours. A recently released survey found 70 percent of drivers under 40 years of age and 80 percent of those 60 and over view running red lights as a serious or extremely serious problem.

The survey suggests that in rating the seriousness of the problem, drivers assess the risk of a crash. They do not see drivers running red lights as often as they observe other aggressive behaviours such as speeding or unsafe passing. However, they feel the potential consequences are more serious. Over 60 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the use of red light cameras to catch drivers who run red lights.

Proven to Reduce Crashes

Studies show red light camera programs reduce crashes at intersections. However, estimates of their impact vary widely, from seven percent to 46 percent. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the US attributes the variation to methodological problems. For example, a study of red light cameras in Oxnard, California found seven percent fewer crashes overall and 29 percent fewer injury crashes at intersections after the cameras were introduced. However, not all collisions at intersections involve red light running. When the data were re-analyzed to take into account only those crashes related to red light running, the findings showed much greater benefits — 20 percent fewer crashes and 46 percent fewer injury crashes.

After examining the methodology of previous studies, the Institute determined that red light cameras reduce injury crashes by about 25 to 30 percent.

Psychology the Key to Success

To stop motorists from running red lights, signs must be posted at all intersections where cameras may be operating. Without signs, accusations that red light cameras are simply cash machines are arguably justified.

Perception of apprehension is known to be a very effective deterrent. If people believe they will be caught, they are far less likely to offend. The objective is to prevent violations - ideally, to give no tickets. If the number of violations is high, the program is not working properly.

Australia has been using red light cameras for over 20 years. In Melbourne, for example, 35 red light cameras are rotated among 132 sites, all of which have warning signs. Motorists won't want to risk a ticket at any of those 132 sites.

Six Ontario municipalities have been piloting the cameras since 2000, and the pilot projects are being extended to 2004. The Canada Safety Council continues to express concerns that the success of these red light camera projects is compromised because the cameras are not accompanied by warning signs.

Home>Traffic Safety and Driving Courses -- Part 1