In our society an innocent person does not have to fear the intrusion of government into their lives. They won’t be followed by dark men with dark intentions unless of course they commit a crime. Automated enforcement cameras will change our free society to one where everyone is constantly watched, a potential criminal.

We all feel a guilty pleasure when we see someone who proceeds through a signaled  intersection while we stop, getting pulled over for a ticket. There is even a term for it… Schadenfreude: Happiness at the misfortune of others. While it might feel good, these cameras come at a cost: your money, your civil rights, and your civil liberties.

The first cameras have not yet been installed, however, city officials hungry for easy revenue have announced that they already plan to expand their camera programs. They have already authorized red-light cameras, and are now considering installing mobile and fixed speed cameras, and stop sign cameras. These cameras don’t stop accidents; they simply allow the city to profit from technical violations  the vast majority of which, do not result in accidents. The sad thing is these cameras have a rather nasty side affect, they increase accidents, damage, injuries, and fatalities. Don’t take my word for it, go and read the studies for yourself!

Why stop there when enforcment cameras can be used for many other purposes?

Current speed cameras measure your speed at a fixed point. Newer speed cameras can track you between cameras and measure your speed over time. If they decide you momentarily exceeded the speed limit, they can ticket you. They can check the depth of your tire treads, and ticket you if your tires don’t meet their criteria.  I imagine that it will not be too long until they figure out how to check to see if your car’s window tint is a touch too dark.

Cameras can read your license plate as you drive by and charge you a fee for driving when big brother doesn’t want you to.

Cameras exist to detect gun shots, loud arguments, party noise, or that TV that momentarily goes a bit too loud when obnoxious advertisers crank the volume level up during a commercial break.

Cameras can be used to allow the police to track potential criminals, or a crooked politician can use them to track their political opponents every move, all without even leaving their desk. These traffic enforcement cameras can recognize your face and automatically track and record your every move and association, even if you are happen to be in another state, or clear across the country.

Cameras can monitor your behavior and if its algorithms thinks that you are acting in a suspicious manner it can then notify the police. I guess we all better start practicing how to be normal!

Cameras can be placed on residential streets to peer through your windows into your living room or bedroom.  Heck cameras can even peer through your walls,  or clothing.

Check out this video and you will see where this can end up, if we idly stand by and do nothing.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The sad thing is all this can be done without a judge issuing a single warrant.

We have all seen movies like Demolition Man where fleeting moments of profanity are instantly issued fines. Or Tom Cruise’s movie Minority Report where intrusive surveillance is constant and police robots are allowed to enter your home at any time without any repercussions.

This is the future we face people, however we stand at a pivotal point in time where we still can say no.

Take Action

Call your City Council members, the Mayor, your State Legislators, and your Congressmen and tell them all over and over again that we don’t want our hard earned liberty giving way to a constant surveillance society! It’s time to ban automated enforcement cameras before they get entrenched.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Gallatin is not alone. At least nine other communities in Tennessee, including Knoxville, Chattanooga, Germantown, Murfreesboro, and Jackson currently operate these devices.¹ Other Tennessee communities considering their use include Clarksville, Morristown, Cookeville, La Follette, and Oak Ridge. Additionally, Chattanooga, Jackson, Mount Carmel, Red Bank, and Selmer have begun using speed cameras, similar devices used to capture speeding motorists.²

Four companies provide most of the red light camera systems used in Tennessee. Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions installed the systems in Gallatin, Jackson, and Red Bank.³ Another company based in California, Redflex Traffic Systems, contracted with Kingsport, Knoxville, and Mount Carmel to provide similar services.⁴ Murfreesboro uses TraffiPax, a subsidiary of a German company.⁵ Germantown has the longest-running system, put in place in 2002 by Rhode Island-based Nestor Traffic Systems.⁶

What is a Red Light Camera System?

Red Light Cameras are sophisticated surveillance systems designed to catch drivers who run red lights. Though the majority of the systems in Tennessee focus on red light runners, some police speed limits, while others do both. They work through a complex system of triggers, cameras and computers.⁷

Drivers “caught” typically receive a citation by mail within a few weeks of the incident. These citations are a cash cow for municipalities. In 2007, the City of Gallatin issued almost 20,000 citations, a number equal to more than half the town’s population.⁸ The City collected nearly $1 million in fines attributable to the cameras, not including court costs associated with defendants who chose to appear in court and contest their fines. According to the citations, defendants must pay the fine. The only other option is to assign liability to another party by submitting an affidavit stating that the defendant was not driving the vehicle at the time.⁹

The Stated Justification

Red light camera systems attract the attention of communities looking to reduce their operating expenses. In theory, the systems reduce the number of paid officers on duty, thereby decreasing overhead expenses. Additionally, the devices work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with little or no maintenance. A single officer typically reviews the film footage before citations are sent.

Communities implementing these systems primarily cite safety as the reason to install the cameras. According to these cities, the cameras will punish those who create dangerous conditions by running red lights, encouraging them to act more cautiously in the future. Further, the known existence of the cameras is said to encourage drivers to begin braking when the light turns yellow, rather than increasing their speed to “beat the light.”

Follow the Money: The Real Reason

While cities claim that safety, deterrence, and cost-reduction are their ultimate priorities in camera system installations, revenue statements indicate otherwise. Cities that employ the devices see a dramatic spike in revenue for traffic violations. Revenues collected by the City of Kingsport during the 2006 calendar year, just before camera installation, totaled $342,150 for traffic fines, parking fines, and code enforcement fines.¹⁰ From 2001 to 2006, such fines ranged from $167,998 to $358,014 per year.¹¹ Traffic cameras were installed on Dec. 27, 2006.¹² Not surprisingly, fines skyrocketed. Kingsport collected $1,529,823 in the year after the cameras were installed, more than four times the revenue from the previous year (see “Figure 1: Kingsport Fine Collections,” right).¹³

The most alarming aspect of this revenue generation is where the money goes. The camera companies enter into agreements with the cities, install the cameras, and sit back and let the cities do the dirty work. After collecting the fines from unsuspecting drivers, each city remits from 45 to 85 percent of the money to the companies. Thus, the cities’ actual revenue generated typically amounts to less than half that collected in fines (see “Figure 2: Fines Remitted by Municipalities to Camera Companies,” below).

The Problems: Collusion, Safety Decline, Constitutional Violations

Collusion

It is common for government to contract with private companies to provide services or goods to the public that the government ordinarily would supply. In fact, numerous private companies provide public services such as corrections facilities, fire and rescue service, and trash collection. Most often, privatized services are far more efficient and cost-effective than government could provide. According to a study conducted by the Reason Foundation, the federal government has saved taxpayers $7.2 billion over the past five years by privatizing services.¹⁴

However, when a private company obtains its entire profit from fines collected through traffic violation enforcement, many serious problems arise. Even more troubling is that, in certain cases, companies themselves are responsible for conducting police business. The agreement between the City of Germantown and Nestor provides that the company, not the city, is responsible for mailing citations and attempting to collect the fines.¹⁵

Since the contracts between the Tennessee cities and the camera companies stipulate that a large portion of the fines collected are to be remitted to the companies, the companies certainly have a strong interest to encourage a large number of fines. In many cases, the companies are reimbursed on a fine-by-fine basis. The cities pad their coffers with the remaining revenue generated by the systems. Hence, the two entities claiming to reduce the number of intersection accidents by deterring red light running have a vested interest in an increase in the number of drivers running red lights.

Simply put, increased obedience to traffic signals would significantly reduce revenues for both parties. If safety is truly the primary objective, these systems should eventually work themselves out of business, since red light running would end. Of course, that is not the goal of either the companies or the cities.

Unfortunately, the problem extends well beyond the local level. A May 2001 report by Dick Armey, then Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, concludes that citations generated by such cameras are a “federal issue and not just a local one.”¹⁶ The federal government is partially funding their implementation based on the purported “safety” benefits.¹⁷ Thus, not only are cities fining motorists to boost corporate revenues for companies based in other states and countries, but Congress is spending tax dollars to implement the systems.

Safety Decline

Numerous concerns also arise out of the traffic accidents associated with installing these camera systems. Various studies, including the Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras, by the Federal Highway Administration, arrived at two conclusions: the devices reduce right-angle (Tbone) collisions, but increase rear-end collisions.¹⁸ Further, as one commentator suggests, the accuracy of statistical information disseminated by red light camera proponents is dubious. Engineer Dale Gedcke, PhD, noted in a report earlier this year that statistics related to red light cameras are problematic for two reasons. First, the “number of accidents reported before and after [red light camera] installation is so small that the statistical uncertainty in those numbers obscures any trend.” Second, “there are so many confounding variables [weather, day of the week, traffic flow, construction projects, etc.], that it is extremely difficult to extract the true effect of [red light cameras] without removing the effect of those confounding variables.”¹⁹

Keeping this statistical uncertainty in mind, data provided by Tennessee cities using red light cameras showed no significant overall decline in the number of accidents at camera-stationed intersections. Accidents reported by the City of Chattanooga declined at certain intersections, while increasing at others between January 2006 and May 2008.²⁰

The Armey Report identifies a “Dilemma Zone” in which drivers cannot properly go or stop. It concludes that the zone, in concert with improperly adjusted yellow light duration times, is responsible for an increase in the numbers of accidents at intersections having red light cameras.

This makes sense. The yellow light exists to provide drivers time to make a decision. If they have enough time, drivers should come to a safe stop at the intersection. If not, drivers should have just enough time to continue through the intersection before the light turns red. Shortening the yellow light time forces drivers into even quicker decisions. Accordingly, the likelihood that drivers will make the wrong decision increases.

Interestingly, most controversy surrounding yellow light times coincides with the locations of intersections with red light cameras. Shortening yellow light duration to less than three seconds is a violation of Tennessee state law.²¹ Nonetheless, some Tennessee communities have tampered with the duration of yellow lights at intersections with cameras, creating inconsistency. In early 2008, Chattanooga was forced to refund $8,800 to defendants when the discrepancy was discovered.²²

Nashville also is suspected of shortening yellow light duration. In 2006, Nashville resident Joe Savage clocked inconsistent durations of yellow lights in the Capital City.²³ The Nashville Scene later confirmed his findings.²⁴ Not surprisingly, Tennessee has plenty of company. Other communities around the country – including Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock and Dallas, Texas; and Union City, California – face similar charges.

Predictably, an increase in yellow light duration time by only one second has been shown to reduce accidents by up to 40 percent.²⁵ In the city of Mesa, Arizona, a one-second increase in the duration of yellow lights yielded a 73 percent decrease in the number of citations issued by red light cameras.²⁶ Other areas experienced similar declines in revenue through increasing yellow light duration times, including Fort Collins, Colorado, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, which experienced a 94 percent decrease of citations by increasing yellow light durations by 1.5 seconds.²⁷ Virginia has since halted the use of red light cameras.

The mere presence of the watchful cameras encourages drivers to attempt to stop at yellow lights even if passing through the light would be safer. Coupled with a decrease in yellow light timing, this can readily explain the increase in the number of rear-end collisions that occur at intersections with red light cameras.

Unfortunately, most cities that use the cameras have failed to acknowledge the simple solution of yellow light timing, and as Dr. Gedcke suggests, those cities place enforcement over more practical engineering solutions. In fact, “when [cameras] show up as a proposal, engineering studies and solutions are almost never referenced,” notes Dr. Gedcke.²⁸ His theory is that the cameras, primarily enforcement tools, are marketed directly to law enforcement officials, such as the city police chief. “Consequently,” states Gedcke, “the police department becomes the passionate advocate to the exclusion of the traffic engineering department.”²⁹ As a result, city leaders place potential revenue over safety.

Constitutional Infringement

Constitutional rights are infringed upon by the enforcement of the camera programs. The programs have faced numerous constitutional challenges. These challenges often fail on non-substantive grounds or are scoffed at by judges as titular and inconsequential, especially given the relatively small penalties involved.

A strong case can be made for constitutional violations on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedural challenges range from evidentiary matters to sufficiency of notice. Substantive issues include the Confrontation Clause, self-incrimination, search and seizure, equal protection, and most significantly, due process, by shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant to prove non-guilt.

Gallatin’s program is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by Wayne Detring, an attorney from Hendersonville who received two such citations in the mail. As of this publication, however, it appears likely that the case will be dismissed as moot because the city voluntarily dismissed the citations, presumably in an attempt to avoid an unfavorable ruling on the A.C.E.S. program. Such actions make it all the more difficult to challenge the legality of the programs.

The number of successful challenges to the tickets proves this point. Of the 15,133 fines issues by Kingsport in 2007 and 2008, only nine defendants were found not guilty. That makes for a 99.9 percent guilty rate. The sheer unlikelihood of successfully challenging the fines contributes to the continuity of the programs.

Despite this hurdle, in March 2008, Judge Thomas Philips of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee sent a clear message regarding the constitutionality of these devices in Williams v. Redflex. In his order granting dismissal of the case on procedural grounds, Judge Philips stated, “Although this plaintiff lacks standing, the court is constrained to observe that the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program raises numerous constitutional questions.”³⁰

Most communities have drafted civil, as opposed to criminal, statutes to prosecute these cases. Civil infractions are not reportable on driving records; hence, these communities count on Tennesseans not to challenge the system. Further, this linguistic maneuvering permits cities to skirt various constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants (including motorists cited for speeding violations) that are not invoked in civil cases. However, Tennessee case law negates this criminal versus civil distinction. Rather, the question turns not on the language used, but on whether the fine serves to remedy a violation (civil-like, and thus fewer constitutional implications) or whether it is punitive in nature (criminal-like, and thus invoking additional constitutional rights).³¹

Red light camera citations certainly fit within this criminal paradigm, because fining an individual who has already run a red light punishes that person for doing so, even if the end goal is to deter future running of red lights. Further, once the light has been run, the specific violation itself cannot be remedied. Contrast this from building and zoning violations, where civil fines properly entice violators to correct existing violations. This corroborates the notion that, although cities deem these fines to be civil, they are actually punitive, and additional constitutional protections should apply. Judge Philips made note of this Williams, stating that “[t]he key issue which must be resolved in these cases is whether the penalty imposed is civil or criminal. If the penalty is indeed criminal, then a panoply of federal constitutional rights, including rights to confrontation and rights against self-incrimination [will attach].”³²

For tickets issued prior to July 1, 2008, a crucial issue is the lack of service of process. The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure require all complaints (including citations) be served upon defendants either personally or through certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. All cities in Tennessee that mail red light camera citations use regular mail to do so. This less protective process can lead to motorists being held liable for something they had no knowledge of whatsoever. It contravenes the entire notion of justice and fair play that serve as the basis for providing adequate notice to defendants in lawsuits.

The Tennessee General Assembly recently made it easier for municipalities to serve defendants with citations. As of July 1, 2008, cities operating camera programs no longer must comply with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure regarding notice of service of process. Rather, they may send the citations via regular mail, without the protections the Rules are designed to afford.³³ This codification of bad policy makes it all the more difficult for private citizens to challenge the actions of municipalities.

Another key issue is the lack of compliance with the Federal and Tennessee Rules of Evidence, which require a party offering photographic evidence into trial to authenticate the photograph. Those who have chosen to fight their red light camera citations in court have almost always found a very relaxed standard to meet these evidentiary requirements. In most instances, judges do not require the municipality to lay any evidentiary foundation before the photographs are admitted as conclusive evidence that the defendant is guilty of the violation. Such a lax attitude violates individuals’ rights, erodes the integrity of the judicial system, and could lead to egregious practices by city officials. In an extreme case, with photo-shopping techniques, it is not unforeseeable that city officials in custody of the photographs could use technology to their advantage to create the opportunity for more revenues. The rules of evidence are designed to protect against this possibility, and their abandonment or even relaxed enforcement increases the likelihood of abuse.

The most insidious issue arising from the application of these cameras is the unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. A prevalent notion in the American criminal justice system is that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Here, when defendants are presumed guilty until they prove otherwise, they have little chance of succeeding in court. This affront to both the United States and Tennessee constitutions makes challenging the legality of red light cameras all the more necessary, yet very difficult at the same time.

Conclusion

As the Armey Report notes, fixing the problems associated with these systems is more difficult because they generate millions of dollars in revenue. This conflict of interest creates no incentives for communities to solve the problem of red light running using other proven means, such as longer yellow light times.

To achieve actual reductions in red light running and related accidents, Tennessee cities should look to states such as Texas and Virginia, where red light cameras are being disassembled, and yellow light durations extended. A simple one-second increase in yellow light duration has proven to be a far safer alternative to red light cameras. If cities really wish to increase the safety of their citizens, they should utilize this simpler and more cost-effective option.

Lawmakers must realize the importance of constitutional safeguards and critically reevaluate the supposed benefits of red light camera systems. If the General Assembly and municipal governments are serious about the safety of Tennesseans, they should work to guarantee safety, not reduce it. If our state’s legislative bodies continue to tread on citizens’ rights, then it becomes imperative that state and federal courts breathe life into the Constitution. A properly engaged judiciary is one that takes people’s rights seriously and bucks the trend of legislative deference. Government policy should never serve to the detriment of the citizenry just to make a quick buck.

About the Authors

George Shifflett is a research associate at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. He can be reached at george at tennesseepolicy dot org.

Justin Owen, J.D., is the Director of Legal Policy at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. He can be reached at justin at tennesseepolicy dot org.

About the Tennessee Center for Policy Research

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert empirical research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee.

The Center generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the innovation of private enterprises, the ingenuity of individuals and the abilities of active communities to achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.

Guarantee of Quality Scholarship

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research on Tennessee policy issues. The Center guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct and that information attributed to other sources is accurately represented. The Center encourages rigorous critique of its research. If an error ever exists in the accuracy of any material fact or reference to an independent source, please bring the mistake to the Center’s attention with supporting evidence. The Center will respond in writing and correct the mistake in an errata sheet accompanying all subsequent distribution of the publication, which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this guarantee.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is properly cited.

Copyright © 2008 by The Tennessee Center for Policy Research,

Nashville, Tennessee
P.O. Box 121331
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
(615) 383-6431 · Fax: (615) 383-6432

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org ·

References

• 1 “Communities using red light and/or speed cameras.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 05 Aug. 2008.
• 2 Ibid.
• 3 “Red Light Camera Program.” City of Red Bank, Tennessee. 26 June 2008. ., “Open house held at GPD related the red light camera enforcement system.” Gallatin Police Department. 06 Sept. 2006. 26 June 2008.
• 4 “North American Presence.” Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North America. 26 June 2008.
• 5 Willard, Michelle. “Red-light cameras go online Sunday.” The Murfreesboro Post 27 May 2008.
• 6 Garlington, Lela. “Germantown will add third traffic-light camera.” Commercial Appeal 25 Oct. 2007.
• 7 Harris, Tom. “How Red-light Cameras Work.” HowStuffWorks.com. 15 April 2008.
• 8 Storment, Corporal W. “Gallatin Police Department Interview.” Telephone interview. 25 Apr. 2008. Interview conducted by George Shifflett.
• 9 “City of Jackson Notice of Violation.” City of Jackson Police Department. 17 May 2008.
• 10 “Records Division.” Kingsport Police Department. 7 Mar. 2008. 20 Apr. 2008.
• 11 Ibid.
• 12 Agreement between Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. and Kingsport, Tennessee, ¶ 1.
• 13 Ibid.
• 14 Gilroy, Leonard C., ed. Annual Privatization Report. Rep. Reason Foundation. 2008. p 5.
• 15 Agreement between Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. and Germantown, Tennessee, Exhibit A, Section 3.
• 16 Armey, Rep. Dick. “The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?” Highway Robbery. May 2001. 10 June 2008.
• 17 Ibid.
• 18 Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. April 2005.
• 19 Gedcke, Dale. The Placebo Effect and Red-Light Cameras. 8 June 2008.
• 20 Data submitted by City of Chattanooga pursuant to open records request. Compiled by Ben Taylor, Traffic Engineering Department.
• 21 TENN. CODE ANN. § 55-8-110 (2008).
• 22 “Six Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit.” National Motorists Association. 26 Mar. 2008. 10 June 2008. light-times-for-profit/>.
• 23 Ibid.
• 24 Tobia, P.J. “Yellow Light Blues.” Nashville Scene 11 May 2006.
• 25 “Protest Red Light Cameras!” American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. 1 Nov. 2006. 15 June 2008.
• 26 Ibid.
• 27 Ibid.
• 28 Gedcke, Dale. Red Light Cameras (RLCs): Why Does Enforcement Trump Engineering? 22 June 2008.
• 29 Ibid.
• 30 Satterfield, Jamie. “Judge rejects red light lawsuit.” Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008.
• 31 City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001).
• 32 Satterfield, Jamie. “Judge rejects red light lawsuit.” Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008.
• 33 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts 962.

The company our city is currently favoring is Redflex, an Australian company. They have been the vendor in charge of the City of Knoxville’s red-light camera system that is until August 1st. Redflex missed a filing deadline to renew their contract. Reflex lays the blame for the missed deadline on the Federal Express package courier company.

The City of Knoxville has had mixed results with their experience with Redflex and could have opted to allow Redflex to file their bid late but chose specifically not to do so. This is a clear indication of their dissatisfaction with the company.

Clarksville frequently holds the city of Knoxville as an example the city of Clarksville should aspire to. So perhaps we should delay awarding a red-light camera enforcement contract to a company that they are in the process of dumping.

Tennessee: Redflex Misses Camera Contract Deadline

An Australian red light camera operator lost the ability to issue tickets in Knoxville, Tennessee because it failed to send the required documents to the city on time. The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that officials have flatly refused to consider renewing a multi-million dollar contract with Redflex because the company did not properly file paperwork by July 31.  “They busted the deadline,” city purchasing agent Boyce Evans told the Knoxville News. “I was very surprised. … Redflex knew that was going to be due before anybody.”

In May 2006 the Melbourne-based company first installed the red light camera network that now covers fifteen Knoxville intersections. The devices last year generated $2,599,732 in revenue, with Redflex pocketing over sixty percent of the annual take. Because the original contract will expire on November 8, the city gave Redflex until July 31 to submit a proposal for a three-year extension that included a few revisions that the city wanted to make.

Redflex blamed FedEx for delivering the package on August 1, while FedEx apologized for an unexpected problem in getting the package delivered. “Unfortunately, the FedEx vehicle transporting the shipment from our facility to our Los Angeles sort facility arrived later than scheduled and missed the outbound flight,” a FedEx customer relations employee wrote to Redflex. “Regrettably, efforts to expedite the shipment have been unsuccessful.” FedEx will refund the shipping cost of just over $30, which is scant consolation to the Australian company that lost the opportunity to take $5 million from Tennessee drivers.

Some of these drivers themselves have claimed to be unfairly treated by the Redflex cameras. In 2006, a judge tossed out a red light camera ticket issued to an innocent man because the Redflex camera misread his license plate. Although victorious, the motorist was not compensated after losing $160 in wages to defend himself against the $50 citation. An even more blatant error was uncovered when a man was ticketed for stopping at a red light by the camera in February 2007. Another ticket in May 2007 accused the owner of a BMW convertible of running a red light in a pickup truck that she had never seen in her life. Georgia-based Lasercraft and Germany’s Traffipax both succeeded in ensuring their bids arrived on time and the city will choose which of the two it prefers to take over the program.

Source: Late delivery stops Redflex (Knoxville News Sentinel (TN), 9/4/2008)

About The Newspaper

The Newspaper is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.

Skrum continued:

I find it very revealing that Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest manufacturers of red light cameras in the U.S., has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents, apparently to maintain the flow of ticket camera revenue. Lockheed Martin specifically prohibits cities, such as San Diego, California, from changing the timing of yellow lights in intersections that host their cameras, even though increasing the yellow light time has proven to dramatically decrease red light violations.

In Fairfax County, Virginia there has been a 96% decrease in red light violations at the intersection of US50 and Fair Ridge Drive, but only after the yellow light time was increased by 1.5 seconds. And, Lockheed Martin has asked Mesa, Arizona for approval to remove cameras from intersections that no longer generate meaningful revenue. The cause is an increase in the duration of the yellow light time at the intersections. In the typical Lockheed Martin contract, the company doesn’t get paid unless a ticket is issued. At the very least, there is a definite conflict of interest due to the fact that if the intersection has no violators, Lockheed Martin has no profit.

And, ticket cameras have definitely shown a profit. California recently raised their red light violation fines to $271 per ticket (Lockheed Martin receives $70 of that). Washington DC has started using photo enforcement and has stated it expects to receive $160 million in traffic fines by 2004.

Not only has the sheer number of tickets issued and money reaped increased, but the type of photo enforcement and surveillance the government uses has also vastly increased. There are red light cameras, speeding cameras, railroad crossing cameras, and most recently face identification cameras. Tampa Bay, Florida is now scanning the faces of pedestrians on the street to compare them to their database of criminals. The Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles is investing in a camera system that will map the face of anyone with a driver’s license thus creating a photo database of the vast majority of their population. How long until the system used in Colorado is married to the system used in Florida? Raise the fines for littering, jaywalking, or any other ticketable offense and you now have another cash cow ready to be milked.

Photo enforcement of any kind is not about safety. Cities are being caught in the trap of easy money without giving much thought to the pockets they are stealing from, concluded Skrum.

About the National Motorists Association

The National Motorists Association was established in 1982 to represent the interests and rights of North American motorists. It operates at the national level and through a system of state chapters. For more information about the NMA, call 608-849-6000, Email us at , or visit the NMA web site at http://www.motorists.org.

Lets take a look at other risks these cameras subject you to. Remember, under these “civil violations” the city’s standard of evidence is much lower that in a criminal case, and you are basically presumed guilty, unless you can prove yourself innocent.

In other words, the city had to prove that Brown owned the Chevy, and that the Chevy was photographed on September 18, 2006. It did not have to prove Brown did anything wrong — mere ownership of the vehicle constituted the civil crime. Moreover, the court found this arrangement did not violate the constitutional protections against self-incrimination because Brown did not need to admit guilt — he was automatically guilty. “Again, this misses the point,” Judge Swiney wrote. “City Code Section 17-210 does not make the driver of the vehicle liable. Rather, it is the owner of the vehicle who is responsible for a red light violation, regardless of who actually was driving.” – Tennessee Appeals Court Embraces Red Light Cameras

Recent incidents in Georgia and Louisiana call into question the common assertion of photo enforcement advocates that the camera never lies. Officials in charge of red light camera and speed camera programs claim it is “rare” for erroneous tickets to be issued because a human police officers diligently verifies each and every citation for accuracy before it is issued.

It appears that Lafayette, Louisiana, made no such check when, as KSLA television reported, it mailed a black man’s red light camera ticket to a white man. The city accused Alan Dukes, the owner of a 2005 Honda motorcycle, of speeding on June 4. Yet the photograph of the alleged violation clearly shows a black man riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle. Dukes maintains that he is innocent. “You can see there’s no close resemblance, whatsoever,” Alicia Dukes told KSLA in comparing a photo of her husband to the ticket photo. Lafayette’s director of photo ticketing, Tony Tramel, insisted it would cost too much money to have police officers witness violations and ticket drivers in person. “Do we make errors or mistakes? Occasionally it does happen,” Tramel admitted. “Can we be absolutely perfect? I wish we could.” Lafayette’s error is the inverse of a 2006 situation in Scottsdale, Arizona where a black man was sent a white man’s speeding ticket.

In Atlanta, Georgia it was the owner of a white car that was sent a ticket for an offense committed by a black car. WPLG television reported on this case where great grandmother and Hollywood, Florida resident Evelyn Singer received a ticket for running a red light in Atlanta at 6:30am on June 24 at the intersection of Courtland and Baker streets. The document insisted that Singer pay $70. Singer responded with a certified letter explaining that her white Acura looked nothing like the black Pontiac committing the offense alleged in the ticket photograph. Moreover, she has not been to Atlanta in thirty-five years. When Singer later called to confirm whether the ticket had been canceled or not, the courthouse either put her on hold or hung up while the Miami television station’s cameras were rolling. After several frustrating attempts, Singer reached a a human and asked how often the cameras make mistakes. “It doesn’t really matter as far as what we’re trying to accomplish,” the unidentified Georgia courthouse official responded. The court told WPLG that it was likely Singer’s ticket would be canceled.

Tell our City council and Mayor that we want them to stop! planning on bringing this dangerous revenue generating scheme to our town! Just say no! to traffic enforcement cameras on our streets!

Sources: The Newspaper: A Journal of the politics of driving: Innocent Florida, Louisiana Motorists Receive Bogus Photo Tickets, Tennessee Appeals Court Embraces Red Light Cameras & KSLA-TV (LA), 7/18/2008: Traffic cameras: Are they cause for controversy or celebration?

I hereby challenge our city to fix our broken intersections, and not to profit off a problem the city has created intentionally or otherwise!

The city insists their goal is road safety and not revenue, so I am sure they would not mind putitng their money where their mouth is. I propose that if they approve red-light cameras in Clarksville any money generated by fines should by ordinance be placed in a lock box account and the use of those funds be restricted to enacting safety enhancing engineering and other improvements to the very same intersections where the cameras would be located. The city should also not approve any contract which gives a per violation fee to the ‘for profit’ camera vendors.

The city should also commit to take steps to re-time the red-lights throughout Clarkville to enhance the flow of traffic. I drove from one end of Clarksville to the other the other day, and during that drive I was stopped by red-lights at every single signaled intersection I passed through. I was driving exactly on the posted speed limit. The way the lights are timed encourages aggressive drivers to drive more aggressively and to increase their speed to beat the lights.

Our lights are likely timed this way intentionally as a “traffic calming measure,” or as an electronic speed bump, but it’s not working. One would expect red lights to be timed to stop people who are driving at any other speed than designated speed of the road, this would provide encouragement to speed up excessively slow drivers, while slowing down fast ones.

Our city’s public safety committee expressed interesting views on this matter with the chairwoman saying “We don’t care if the public supports or opposes this,” during a public meeting that I attended. At the same meeting they were actively discussing ways of limiting the ability for the public to give our elected officials input on this matter. I think this kind of arrogance sums up our city’s view on a lot of things that they do.

This is something we must work to change in the next couple of elections by giving pink slips to those who seek to force their will on the city of Clarksville regardless of the will of the electorate.

City council members I hope you are listening, because we the people are wide awake, watching what you are doing. We are not happy, and we WILL NOT forget!

The devices were successful between 2006 and 2007 in issuing 19,087 tickets worth $1,431,525. “We think there’s a value to taking the program to the next step,” Police Chief Daniel Oates told the Rocky Mountain News newspaper.

However, at three of the four ticketing locations, rear end collisions increased dramatically from 2005 to 2006. At Mississippi Avenue and Potomac, rear end collisions jumped 175 percent. At Alameda Avenue and Abilene Street, the increase was 100 percent.

Only one intersection saw a 60 percent drop in one specific type of accident, likely as a result of the statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean. This happens when a camera is installed at a location with an unusually high number of accidents in one year. As the number of accidents returns to the “normal” level, city officials will then credit the change to their camera program.

Source: Aurora may add cameras to catch red light runners (Rocky Mountain News (CO), 3/26/2008)

Here’s some information for you compiled from various websites:

• The average commute time for Clarksville workers is 24 minutes, compared with 26 minutes nationwide. A total of 26 fatal motor vehicle accidents occurred in Clarksville between 2001 and 2003, according to reports gathered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is a rate of 2.5 fatal crashes per 10,000 population, which was lower than the national norm.
• In Tennessee about half of all property damage accidents result in injuries or fatalities. Since 1966 the rate of fatalities by population has fallen around 40%, by numbers of drivers over 50%, and by numbers of miles driven by almost 70%. We are driving allot more miles and yet our accidents are declining, a trend you will reverse in Clarksville if you put in red-light cameras.
• Among all tennessee motor vehicle accident deaths, about 65% were due to roadway departures, 16% were intersection related, 10% fatalities in crashes involving large trucks, and 104 nonmotorist (pedestrians and bicyclists) fatalities.

Tell our City council and Mayor that we want them to stop planning on bringing this dangerous revenue generating scheme to our town! Just say no! to traffic enforcement cameras on on our streets!

* Story courtesy of The Newspaper: A Journal of the politics of driving

Red-light Cameras cause an increase in rear-end & t-bone crashes. They also don’t stop people from running red-lights. “The most serious violations, those occurring more than 5 seconds into the red phase, did not drop in the three year period after the program began issuing tickets.”

Arkansas, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have enacted laws banning speed cameras. Two other states dropped their use of speed cameras after they generated intense public outcry. If traffic enforcement cameras were such a good thing, would they do that?

Lets take a look at some scientific studies for a possible explanation:

2006 Winnipeg, Canada found a 58% increase in the number of accidents. The accidents caused were also more costly to repair.

2005 the Virginia DOT found that cameras increased collisions there by 8-17%! Also a Washington Post story reported crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, and that injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent! Yes, you read that right. The presence of these cameras make it more likely not less that you will be killed! T-bone collisions, rose 30 during that time frame.

2004 North Carolina A&T University study found no change in angle accidents and a large increases in the number of rear-end crashes when compared to other intersections.

2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent after cameras were installed.

1995 the Australian Road Research Board did not find any reduction in accidents. Instead they had 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. Monash University found: no significant relationship between the frequency of crashes at RLC and non-RLC sites.

Yet our elected officials want to make the same mistakes here? Why? Because money, not safety is behind the drive for traffic enforcement cameras. Contact your city council member and tell them you strongly oppose their dangerous fundraising scheme.

Australian Study of Red Light Cameras (Andreassen)

An exhaustive ten-year study of the effect of red light cameras on accident rates in Australia.

The most complete study of the correlation of accidents and the use of red light cameras. It closely examined every accident report filed over a ten year period (including several years before and after cameras were installed). It found the cameras provided no benefit.

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.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/95aussie.pdf 2.4mb PDF file.

Burkey-Obeng Red Light Camera Study

The most extensive U.S. study of the relation of accidents and red light camera usage.

Their own summary says it best: “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.”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/burkeyobeng.pdf 366k PDF file.

Buckingham Speed Camera Study

UK/Australia study shows speed cameras reversed a decades-long trend toward fewer accidents.

Dr. Alan Buckingham of Bath Spa University College in England examined the safety data for speed cameras in both the UK and Australia. His results, published in the Australian journal Policy, show that speed camera usage actually reversed a decades-long trend toward fewer accidents.

http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spr03/polspr03-1.htm

Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience

This study reviews all prior studies conducted on the safety effects of red light camera systems.

Despite the claims of camera proponents, the safety benefit of cameras has never been proven in a statistically reliable study. This extensive review of existing material on cameras presents some very interesting information and exposes a number of flaws in methodology. Take into consideration the list of individuals who “contributed” to this review — the insurance industry’s Richard Retting and several other officials personally involved in running camera programs — and realize even implicit criticism is quite significant.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/syn310.pdf 1.4MB PDF file.

Virginia Transportation Research Council

The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents.

Virginia DOT Study Shows Cameras Increase Injury Accidents
The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%.

The cameras are correlated with an increase in rear-end crashes related to the presence of a red light; the increase ranges between 50% and 71%.

The cameras are correlated with a decrease in crashes attributable to red light running, and the decrease is between 24% and 33%.

The cameras are correlated with a decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, with the decrease being between 20% and 33%.

The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%.

…but it obscures the that only a small percentage of crashes are attributable to red light running. Data from Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles, for example, suggested that in 1998 (a year when no red light cameras were in operation), only 3.3% of all crashes involved a driver who “ran traffic control” (DMV, 1999). Page 124

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf 1.7mb PDF file.

US Intersection Fatalities and Camera Enforcement

Many types of intersection fatalities would not be prevented by red light cameras.

Red light cameras are promoted as devices that “save lives,” but a review of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data shows that many of the fatal accidents at intersections would not have been stopped by red light camera enforcement. For instance, a driver being pursued by police officers isn’t likely to stop because there is an intersection camera. Nor is a drunk driver or someone who is ill or blacked out likely to be concerned with getting a ticket in the mail.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2004-fars.pdf 3.9mb PDF file.

Study: Cameras Increase Fatal Rear End Accidents (Ontario)

A December 2003 study sponsored by the Ontario, Canada government finds increase in accidents and fatal rear-end collisions from red light camera use.

The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. 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. The report’s overall accident conclusions would have appeared significantly worse had the camera-free intersections been excluded from the final results.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2003-ontario.pdf 1.5mb PDF file.

Wales: 70% Increase in Camera Tickets, 20% More Deaths

North Wales sees dramatic spike in speed camera tickets and a higher death toll.

From March 2004 to March 2005 the number of speed camera tickets issued in North Wales jumped seventy percent — producing £360,000 (US $690,000) in monthly revenue. Despite the sharp increase, the overall death toll on northern Welsh roads last year rose 20 percent — 59 fatal accidents in 2004 compared to 49 in 2003. For the entire year, the speed camera program generated £3.4 million (US $6.5 million) in revenue in 2004. Even examining only those roads with speed cameras show that there was no decrease in the death toll where the devices were used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/4482215.stm

UK Gov’t: Cameras Haven’t Reduced Speeding, Accidents

Full text of UK Department for Transport report showing no change in the speeds drivers travel since speed cameras were introduced.

Government statistics released this week from the UK Department for Transport undermine the claim that the devices have been effective in reducing vehicle speeds nationwide. According to the report, “The average recorded vehicle speeds hardly changed from those observed in previous years.”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-transportstats.pdf 420k PDF file.

UK Stats Show More Speed Cameras Produce More Fatalities

UK Department for Transport statistics show road fatalities rise as more and more speed cameras are installed.

UK Department for Transport statistics show that road deaths have increased where speed cameras are most prevalent. In Cumbria, for example, when the number of speed camera sites grew by 48 percent the number of fatal accidents increased by 17 percent.

Before Cumbria’s speed camera partnership was formed in 2003, the area experienced 49 fatal road accidents in two consecutive years. But as soon as 33 speed camera sites became active, fatalities jumped to 54. Last year, with 49 speed camera sites there were 57 fatalities

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-ukdeaths.pdf 277k PDF file.

Secret UK Study: Speed Cameras Increase Injury Accidents

Full text of suppressed UK government study shows speed cameras increase accidents 31 percent on freeways, 55 percent in work zones.

The UK Department for Transport funded, then suppressed, a study that shows a 55 percent increase in injury accidents when speed cameras are used on highway work zones and a 31 percent increase when used on freeways without construction projects. According to the Transport Research Laboratory, the “non-works [personal injury accident] rate is significantly higher for the sites with speed cameras than the rate for sites without.”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-trl595.pdf 620K PDF file.

Washington Post: Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents

Analysis of accident data shows accidents doubled at intersections with red light cameras in the District of Columbia.

Since the District of Columbia installed its first red light camera in 1999, The Washington Post has championed use of photo enforcement technology on both its editorial and news pages. Now, five years into the program, the District’s largest newspaper has discovered that accidents are up significantly as a result of their use.

The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

Georgia: Accidents Skyrocket at Marietta Camera Intersection

The red light camera in Marietta, Georgia has caused a 51 increase in accidents.

While the number of traffic accidents throughout Marietta, Georgia has increased fractionally over the past two years, the number of reported incidents jumped over 51 percent at the intersection of Cobb Parkway and Windy Hill Road. This intersection, the only one in the city with a red light camera, has seen a massive increase in primarily rear-end collisions. In 2004, there were 108 accidents of all types at the location. Last year, there were 163.

Statistics show the number of angle collisions, head-on collisions, sideswipes and rear-end collisions increased after cameras were installed.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75220

Winnipeg, Canada Report Shows Accidents Increased with Cameras

Independent city audit shows Winnipeg, Canada police use misleading statistics to hide the increase in accidents caused by photo enforcement.

An official audit of the Winnipeg, Canada photo radar and red light camera system shows that the city used misleading statistics in an attempt to cover-up the program’s failure to reduce accidents. Independent evidence cited in the report released to the public Wednesday indicates that the number of insurance claims for accidents, injuries and property damage expenses went up significantly at sites using camera enforcement in the year following the introduction of the devices.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/winnipegaudit.pdf 541k PDF file.

UK Road Fatalities and Injuries Rise Despite Cameras

The UK speed camera enforcement policy has failed to reduce either road injuries or road fatalities.

UK Department for Transport statistics released today show that the number of fatalities on British roads has not dropped significantly, despite a record number of ticketing cameras used to enforce speed limits. The latest available figures show 3201 road deaths occurred in the UK in 2005 compared to 3221 in 2004 — a difference of just 0.7%.

Non-fatal road injuries, despite the claims of police, have also risen according to a British Medical Journal (BMJ) study published last week. The BMJ researchers examined the police claim that the road injury rate had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 59.4 in 2004 and found that it did not ring true. By examining hospital records, the study found the road injury rate increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The study attributes the discrepancy to “under-reporting” on the part of the police.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/uk-casualties05.pdf 365k PDF file.

Bakersfield, California: Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents

Red light cameras in Bakersfield, California have increased the numbers of accidents and injuries.

After three years of use, red light cameras in Bakersfield, California have increased the number of injuries and accidents at the eight intersections where they are used. Overall, the annual collision rate increased 17 percent. This increase is caused by a shifting of accident types from T-bone, down 28 percent, to rear end, up 47 percent. The shift in accident type, nonetheless did not reduce the number of injuries.

http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/62523.html

Regina, Canada: Accidents Increase at Camera Intersections

City report shows overall number of accidents, property damage and injuries increased after red light cameras installed in Regina, Canada.

A Regina, Canada city report shows that accidents increased overall by 12 percent with injuries jumping 8 percent and property damage by 14 percent at the three intersections where red light cameras were installed in October 2000. The report considered eight years of data from Saskatchewan Government Insurance at the monitored intersections — four years before the devices were installed and four years after.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/regina.pdf 475k PDF file.

Swampscott, Massachusetts Report Rejects Red Light Cameras

A report by a town committee in Swampscott, Massachusetts recommends against red light cameras on the grounds of safety.

A committee established to determine whether Swampscott, Massachusetts should install red light cameras concluded Monday that the devices were not suitable for the town. In April 2006 town meeting, Swampscott residents rejected an initial attempt to install the devices. The selectmen created the committee to keep the camera idea alive. A former police officer and a former police chief along with an attorney voted 5-0 to approve the report.

“Analysis of this data revealed that, over the four year period, there has been a combined total of 10-13 angle crashes caused by red light running,” the report stated. “The limited number of angle crashes, combined with the likelihood that RLCs increase rear-end crashes, led the committee to conclude that the installation of RLCs is contra-indicated at all signalized intersections in Swampscott. Strictly on the basis of public safety, the committee recommends against the use of RLCs in Swampscott.”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/swampscott.pdf 1.2MB PDF file.

Modesto, California Red Light Cameras Increase Injuries

Injuries from accidents at red light camera intersections up 19 percent in Modesto, California.

As red light cameras in Modesto, California are sending more people to the hospital, city officials have decided to double the number of intersections with the devices to increase revenue. Last year, each of the four intersections currently photo enforced experienced an increase in the number of collisions.

Although the total number of accidents is down slightly comparing 2006 figures to those in 2004 when the devices were first installed, accident severity has increased. Overall, the number of injuries at camera intersections jumped by 19 percent. A statewide Virginia Department of Transportation funded study of red light cameras arrived at nearly identical results in 2005.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/modestoreport.pdf 128k PDF file.

Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional

The report by the former House Majority Leader Dick Armey investigating the causes of the so-called red light running crisis.

The groundbreaking report by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey that found changes in the national formula used to determine yellow light timing has decreased steadily since red light cameras were introduced. After the report was issued, internal memos were uncovered in San Diego, California proved the report correct in its assertion that cities were intentionally placing cameras at intersections with short yellows.

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.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pdf 237k PDF file.

Is this really as serious of a problem as they make it out to be, serious enough to warrant the public accepting the intrusion of traffic enforcement cameras into their daily lives? During the last year in the entire city of Clarksville there were 1,470 accidents at intersections throughout the city, there were an additional 1,274 citations issued for either running a red light or stop sign. There are over 85 intersections in Clarksville which have traffic signals.  The entire city averages averages approximately 4 accidents at intersections per day. At Riverside Drive alone, during the last year over 39 million vehicles passed through that intersection. 

Studies have shown that these red-light cameras actually increase, not decrease accidents, and that the accidents caused by people panic breaking to avoid a citations are more serious injury accidents. While most intersection accidents are property damage rather than injury.

Why is Clarksville interested in making the same mistakes? It’s about finding new ways to take your money. They will make protestations that they are doing this for safety, but studies have proven that these cameras increase accidents rather than decrease them.  Indeed when spoken to by telephone City Councilman Geno Grubbs was dismissive of the safety concerns regarding these cameras. So they must have other motivations.

Ward 8 City Councilman Jim Doyle, chairman of the Public Safety Committee and sponsor of the failed cell-phone ban, said most vendors also offer equipment to ticket drivers who speed through intersections.

“I would like the whole package,” Doyle said. “Something has to slow the folks down.”

Ward 7 Councilman Geno Grubbs, a Public Safety Committee member who did not support the cell-phone ban, also would like to see cameras ticketing light-runners and speeders.

“It’s like having an officer there 24-7,” said Grubbs, himself a retired officer. – The Leaf Chronicle

A North Carolina A&T State University’s Transportation Institute, concluded after extensive analysis, that the 18 red light cameras in use on Greensboro thoroughfares may very well cause more accidents rather than fewer. According to the study, while wrecks overall were found to be decreasing, their incidence at intersections with surveillance cameras was increasing…

The other recent study analyzed the impact of speed cameras in London, England, and found that over hundreds of locations at which the surveillance devices were employed, the number of accidents had increased rather than decreased. At many other sites studied, accident rates remained the same.

As with their U.S. counterparts, London officials reap huge financial rewards from utilizing the cameras — a 20 percent annual profit after deducting installation and processing costs.

The London study found the prevalence of the traffic surveillance cameras was actually deadly, with nearly 400 of the camera sites registering an increase in people killed or seriously injured after the cameras were installed. – Bobb Barr on Rethinking red-light cameras

Fraud and manipulation of yellow light durations for profit have been common where these types of cameras are in use.  The National Motorists Association recommends that payments to subcontractor should be based on a reductions in violations and accidents and should not be based on the number of citations issued. On this I strongly agree.

Read on for a very detailed report: The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it intentional?

The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?

Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives

May 2001

There’s a hidden tax being levied on motorists today. In theory, this tax is only levied on those who violate the law and putothers in danger. But the reality is that the game has been rigged. And we’re all at risk. We are told to accept the idea that our laws should be administered by machines—not human beings—because it is a matter of safety. We must accept this expansion of government and this Orwellian threat to our privacy because cameras are the solution to the so-called red light running crisis.

This is a federal issue, not just a local one.

The federal government is promoting and offering funding for this “solution”, because the safety benefits are supposed to be indisputable. After all, who’s going to object? Nobody likes a red light runner. They endanger themselves and others. They must be penalized.

But why have so many people become wanton red light runners all of a sudden? The answer seems to be that changes made to accommodate camera enforcement have produced yellow light times that, in many cases, are shortened to the point that they are inadequate. And when people come upon an intersection with inadequate yellow time, they are faced with the choice either of stopping abruptly on yellow (risking a 

 accident) or accelerating. The options for those confronting such circumstances are limited and unsafe. But each time a driver faces this dilemma, government increases its odds for hitting the jackpot.

This report suggests there is something that can be done to address this hazard. It cites examples of problem intersections where yellow times have been raised by about 30 percent and the number of people entering on red fell dramatically. It cites, in addition, controlled scientific studies that confirm the hypothesis that longer yellows are better. The following reductions in red light entries are documented:

•  
  • Mesa, Arizona 73%
  • Georgia 75%
  • Virginia site 1 79%
  • Virginia site 2 77%
  • Virginia site 3 Problem “virtually eliminated”
  • Maryland Problem “virtually eliminated”

It is no coincidence that each of the “problem” intersections mentioned above happened to have yellow times that fell short by about 30 percent. Today’s formula for calculating yellow times yields yellow times that can in some cases be about 30 percent shorter than the older formula.

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.

We traded away our privacy for this. We gave up our constitutional protections for this. In return, we are less safe. That is the red light camera scam, and it has gone on for far too long.

I. Something Funny is Going On

A local television station in Beaverton, Oregon (KOIN-TV) discovered the effects of inadequate yellow light times when investigating the red light camera controversy in its area. The following is excerpted from a newscast broadcast February 14, 2001:

ELAINE MURPHY (reporting): So it got us to wondering just how this program is working. About how many people are getting tickets and, most importantly, is there something funny about how this is set up?
…

MURPHY: So we took out the stopwatch. The yellow here [where there is a red light camera] is three seconds and a fraction. It’s a big intersection—we measured 111 feet across. Yet a few blocks away at 107th and Beaverton-Hillsdale at an intersection measuring a mere 75 feet, the yellow lasts almost a second longer. Why?

LINDA ADLARD (Beaverton City Official): I really don’t know why that would have a different timing.

MURPHY: We kept checking. The intersection with a camera, a little over three seconds for yellow. The next intersection to the east, four seconds. The one after that, four seconds. And the one after that, and the one after that.

ADLARD: I think probably this is timed this way because of the volume of traffic.

MURPHY: By the way another red light running camera goes into service next Tuesday at Lombard and Allen. The length of yellow? Three seconds. Just thought you’d like to know.

It is clear from this example that there is something funny going on. This jurisdiction has been caught red-handed playing with signal timing on lights that have red light cameras. But that’s just the beginning of the story.

To understand why a jurisdiction would do something like this, one needs to know a little more about the incentives behind red light cameras.

II. Red Light Cameras and Revenue

Red light cameras raise a tremendous amount of money for the jurisdictions that use them. It is easier to set up a camera than it is to employ a human being to enforce the law. Consequently, about 50 cities across the country in ten states issue tickets to motorists with red light cameras. And the number of cameras continues to grow.

It’s not surprising that local and state governments are jumping at the opportunity to collect revenue from motorists with these devices. Consider the examples below:

• Washington, D.C. A single camera collected $1 million in revenue. A line item in the city’s FY2001 budget assumed there would be $16 million in fines collected from the 37 cameras deployed throughout the city. The Washington Post, May 19, 2000.
• San Diego, CA. A single camera collected $6.8 million in revenue in 18 months. The 19 camera program as a whole has brought in nearly $30 million in the same period. San Diego Union Tribune, May 5, 2001.
• Sacramento, CA. The program collects an estimated $800,000 a year. Sacramento Bee, April 16, 2001.
• Ventura, CA. The program will collect an estimated $3.2 million during its first 12 months. Ventura County Star, March 29, 2001.
• West Hollywood, CA. The program collects an estimated $4.9 million a year. Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2001
• Baltimore County, MD. The program has collected $6 million as of January 2001. Baltimore Sun, January 28, 2001.
• Howard County, MD. The program has collected $4 million from more than 70,000 tickets issued between 1998 to 2000. Baltimore Sun, January 28, 2001.
• Charlotte, NC. The program will collect over $1 million. Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 4, 2001.
• New York, NY. In its first full year of operation, the 15 red-light cameras racked up 168,471 tickets, collecting $5,435,815 in fines. Car & Driver, May 1999. “The city last year sent out more than 400,000 tickets to drivers caught on camera running red lights and collected $9 million in revenue, said city Department of Transportation spokesman Thomas Cocola.” New York Post, May 9, 2001. The fines are trending upward

Consider how fee structures are changing:

• California. The highest in the nation fine of $271 is collected from motorists and one point is assessed against the driver’s license.
• Montgomery County, MD. “Local officials have asked the state Legislature to approve a fine increase to $250. Current fines in the county are $75 if caught on camera.” USA Today, February 6, 2001.
• Arizona. The legislature is considering a bill to raise the fine statewide to $250. Phoenix raised a $125 fine to $175, plus two points against the driver’s license. Arizona Republic, January 16, 2001.
• Delaware. The fine was raised from $25 to $75 in July 2000. USA Today, February 6, 2001.

III. The Theory: If There’s a Problem, Lengthen the Yellow

There is no doubt that red light cameras present an attractive option for those interested in collecting additional revenue. But there may be another way to solve the red light running “crisis”—lengthening yellow times.

A little yellow makes a lot of difference

A case study of two intersections entitled “The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response” (1980), reported that a 30 percent increase in yellow time yielded substantial safety benefits. “The Results in Table 3 show that the extension of yellow duration reduced the frequency of potential conflicts in all cases studied,” (page 27).

The first site studied found an extra second and a fraction of yellow had an immediate and definitive safety pay-off:

“An increase of 1.4 seconds or about 30 percent in yellow duration virtually eliminated all potential conflicts at the Maryland site,” (page 27, emphasis added).

Similarly, the second site in Georgia realized a 75 percent reduction in potential conflicts following a 32 percent increase in yellow time. These figures agree with those found in Section 4 of this report, below.

The yellow light’s purpose

To understand why an increase in yellow has such a significant safety impact, one must consider the traditional purpose of the yellow traffic light. The yellow indication is designed to warn a motorist approaching an intersection that the signal is about to turn red. The yellow light should be long enough for the approaching motorist to either, (a) come to a safe stop before the intersection, or (b) continue clear through the intersection before the red light appears. An inadequate yellow time will either prevent motorists from coming to a safe stop or force them to enter the intersection on a red light. Neither option should be considered acceptable.

The diagram above illustrates what happens when an automobile approaching an intersection sees the yellow light. Drivers who are in the “Can’t Go” zone as the light turns yellow know they are too far back and won’t be able to reach the intersection before the light turns red—they must stop. Drivers who are in the “Can’t Stop” zone know they’re too close to the intersection to stop safely—they must proceed. But when the yellow time is inadequate, there is place in between both zones where the driver can neither proceed safely, nor stop safely. Engineers call this the “Dilemma Zone.”

A properly timed signal will have enough yellow time that driver’s will never be faced with the impossible choice presented by the dilemma zone. By determining the stopping and clearing distances for a given approach speed, one can always calculate a safe yellow time that offers drivers a safe option, by design, every time.

What if there’s a problem?

Still, an engineering formula may not perfectly account for all the variables that might exist at an intersection. In such cases, the engineer has a tool, known as a countermeasure, that he must employ to remedy the situation. Namely, the engineer must lengthen the amount of yellow time. Even the 1985 ITE proposed recommended practice provides for this yellow time “measure of effectiveness”:

When the percent of vehicles that are last through the intersection which enter on red exceeds that which is locally acceptable (many agencies use a value of one to three percent), the yellow interval should be lengthened until the percentage conforms to local standards. (Page 6.)

It is the duty of an engineer to double-check his work and make sure that there is not a problem with red- light entries at each intersection.

Red Light Camera proponents agree

This truth is not disputed. Even in literature intended to promote the use of red light one finds the inescapable truth that lengthening the yellow can be the appropriate thing to do if there’s a problem. In the study “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures”, author Richard Retting agrees that longer yellow times can often substantially reduce accidents and redlight running:

Signals that provide insufficient yellow intervals cause some drivers to run red lights inadvertently. However, many drivers who run red lights are provided adequate opportunity to stop safely but choose instead to proceed through a red light signal…. (Page 1.)

Increases in the length of the yellow signal toward values associated with the ITE proposed recommended practice significantly decreased the chance of red-light running. (Page 2.)

What is surprising is that the author, despite acknowledging that insufficient yellow causes red light running, considers red light cameras as the only solution. In the first citation given above, he makes an effort to blame motorists for running lights, even when the yellow time is inadequate. Furthermore, in the report’s “summary and conclusion” (page 4), “signal modification” rates only a passing mention in half of a sentence—he devotes the rest of the discussion to the virtues of red light cameras. Note that the signal modification he refers to is the already shortened ITE practice, not the longer yellow times a properly timed intersection would use (see Section 5, below).

‘Longer yellow signals reduce red light running, there is no question about it,’ said Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. ‘I can’t say with any certainty if that has any effect on crashes, but there is some evidence that longer yellows can cut down on crashes.’ (Las Vegas Review Journal, October 20, 2000.)

Eighty percent of entries occur during the first second of red

The relation between yellow time and red light running is most clearly found in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s study of red light running entitled “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures” (1998). Although the report’s intention is to prove the need for red light camera enforcement, the data in the report provides additional insight into the red light running question. A chart found on page 2 of the report (summarized below) indicates quite clearly that almost 80 percent of red light entries occur within the first second of the red light indication.

This strongly suggests that inadequate yellow time is the major cause of red-light entries. If the vast majority of red light entries occur in the first second after the yellow light expires, it is reasonable to assume an additional second of yellow time on that light will yield a nearly 80 percent decrease in red light entries.

IV. The Fact: Longer Yellow Reduces Red Entry

Mesa, Arizona

When yellow times are lengthened at intersections, red light entries plunge. Mesa, Arizona found a 73 percent drop in citations after the yellow light was extended.

Mesa increased the left-turn yellow arrow duration to four seconds, from three seconds, on Nov. 14, after complaints from drivers who felt the time was too short to safely complete their turns. The change was made at 30 intersections with dual left-turn lanes and left-turn arrows. In November, the city issued 1,639 left-turn arrow citations at the six intersections patrolled by cameras. In December, the month after the change, the number fell to 716. In October, the month prior to the change, Mesa issued 2,645 citations. (Arizona Republic, February 6, 2001.)

To most, this decrease in red-light running violations would be most welcome news. But it was not welcome news to the city of Mesa. That’s because once yellow signal timing changes were made, the camera went from a money-maker to a $10,000 money- loser. The response of the local bureaucracy was typical:

Meanwhile, the department will propose eliminating the three-tenths of a second grace period that [the camera] allows from the time a light turns red to the time the camera flashes. ‘We want to establish a zero tolerance policy for red light running in Mesa,’” [Mesa police Commander Richard] Clore said. (Arizona Republic, February 6, 2001.)

Some of Mesa’s red-light cameras are working so well that police are talking about disconnecting them… In some cases, it’s only catching one person a day. [Mesa police Commander Richard] Clore said that may be because the city recently lengthened its yellow lights by a second. (Arizona Republic, May 22, 2001.)

Fairfax County, Virginia.

Like Arizona, Virginia, has also seen outstanding results from increased yellow times. In testimony before the Kentucky State Senate, IIHS study author Richard Retting reported that, on average, someone runs the red light at US50 in Arlington, Virginia every 12 minutes.

Yet just a few miles down the road at the intersection of westbound US50 and Fair Ridge, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) raised the yellow to 5.5 seconds from 4.0 seconds last summer. Since the change, red light running has almost disappeared at the location.

This is very significant and substantial evidence to show that increased yellow times reduce entries on red at problem intersections.

V. Changes in the Safety Codes

Where do the problem intersections come from? We’ve seen that experience tells us that if there’s a red light running problem, yellow light times should be increased. And the theory tells us the same. So why have yellow signal times decreased? The answer is that the organizations responsible for maintaining our intersection safety codes have altered the regulations specifically to accommodate camera enforcement and decrease yellow times.

The chart below provides the theoretical minimum yellow clearance signal times based on speed and intersection width from the 1976 edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbook. Note that the 100-foot intersection in Beaverton, Oregon had a 3.1 second yellow signal time in a 30MPH zone, as mentioned in Chapter 1 above. As one can see from the chart, that time would be inadequate for any condition. But it’s quite profitable for the red light camera installed at that location.

To understand more fully the extent of changes to the signal timing codes, one must first examine the prior formula used for calculating yellow times.

The 1976 ITE Handbook

In 1976, yellow time was known as the “yellow clearance interval.” This was the theoretical minimum amount of time needed for an automobile to clear the far side of the intersection from a given distance away, or come to a safe stop. This was calculated by adding three variables:

1. Reaction time: How long it takes, on average, to recognize the situation and decide whether to stop or continue through the intersection. Usually this is 1.0 seconds.
2. Stopping time: This figure is calculated based upon the length of the intersection and the average deceleration rate for automobiles.
3. Time needed to clear the intersection: Based on the approach speed, how long it would take an automobile to traverse the length of the intersection.

The 1985 ITE Proposed Recommended Practice

By 1985, ITE had begun to change the way signal times were calculated in the past. The first modifications were published in their “Proposed Recommended Practice” a mere three years after New York City began researching how it would implement the first red light cameras in the United States.

These changes were further explained in the 1989 ITE Journal article, “Determining Vehicle Signal Change Intervals.” This report begins by clearly stating that the ITE’s intent is to change laws across the country because, “adopting a uniform method cannot precede adoption of uniform laws” (page 27). In other words, for red light cameras to be adopted nationwide, the laws must change nationwide. And they provide at least three methods that have as their result a reduction, in most cases, of yellow signal time as well as easy adoption of camera enforcement.

1. Their goals are not entirely safety related

The goals and objectives of the 1985 and 1989 documents are clearly related to red light camera enforcement. Consider:

Goal: Recommend legal definitions for the various aspects of the change interval and a defensible methodology for calculating and evaluating change intervals. (1985, page 5; 1989 page 27.)

And the second signal timing objective listed:

Allow easy identification of violators by law enforcement agents. (1985, page 5; 1989, page 28.)

This is a strange goal for someone who wants to design safer intersections. Yet it is a perfect goal for one whose true intent is not safety but rather the convenient installation of a red light camera.

2. Reduced Yellow I: Ignore the Actual Speed of Traffic

The first method for reducing yellow time is found on page 29 (1989) where the document states, “It may be possible to use the posted speed as the approach speed.”

What that means is that signal times would be determined by the speed limit rather than the actual speed 85 percent of traffic is traveling, known as the “85th percentile speed.” The result of this change in practice would be an underestimate of the actual speed of vehicles at the intersection. And this factor alone can result in yellow time shortfalls of 20 percent or more.

The laws of physics dictate that the distance required to stop your car is based entirely on the speed at which you are traveling, not what is printed on a sign on the side of the road. No rational safety consideration would lead one to choose posted speed over actual speed. But it does allow for a reduction in yellow light time.

3. Reduced Yellow II: Replace yellow time with “all-red clearance”

Take the traditional definition and formula for calculating the duration of the yellow light signal. You might need three seconds of yellow to warn approaching motorists that they need to stop, and two more seconds of yellow on top of that to allow vehicles enough time to clear before opposing traffic is given the green light. The total yellow time for such an intersection would be five seconds.

On page 30 of the 1989 report, the ITE proposes to take that five seconds of yellow in the hypothetical intersection above and reduce it to three seconds of yellow, and two seconds in which all sides of the intersection are given the red light (this is known as the “all-red period”). Eliminating that much yellow time, again, is of questionable safety value. But there is no question that in practice this method would yield an increase in the number of vehicles that enter the intersection on red, given the two second reduction in the amount of time one would have to clear the intersection legally. Again, it is unlikely that a rational safety consideration would lead you to choose this method. But it does allow for a reduction in yellow light time. And it will increase red light running. Why? Because the light turns red faster.

Changes were made to the code specifically for camera enforcement

These changes are significant. But if it was not clear enough in the above documents that ITE had cameras in mind in 1985, they make it explicit a few years later. The 1994 ITE “Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Interval” states:

When the percentage of vehicles that entered on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead. (Page 5, emphasis added).

In other words, if too many people are running red lights, jurisdictions need not address deficiencies in intersection design or signal timing. Instead, they can simply “use enforcement” by putting up a red light camera. They are suggesting creation of an intersection that will have a perpetually high level of red light runners by design. Since enforcement by police officers wouldn’t be 24-hours a day, it is hard to conceive that they had anything other than 24-hour red light cameras in mind.

Changes in the yellow light formula linked to red light running

The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times. And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries, as discussed above.

If we look closely at one of the intersections Retting studied, the signal at Columbia Pike at Greenbrier in Arlington, Virginia, we find that it has a measured yellow time of 4.0 seconds. This location was the second site studied in his “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures.” Using the 1999 formula results in a one second (20 percent) decrease in the yellow time compared to the 1976 formula. And, as mentioned above, according to Retting’s study, 77 percent of red light entries happened in that first second the light was red instead of yellow.

Thus, if the old formula had been employed, the red light entry problem Retting studied would have been substantially reduced.

Elimination of the vehicle change interval, a chronology

It may be useful to consider the following excerpts from signal timing regulations that, when presented in chronological order, show a clear progression toward lowering yellow times to accommodate red light cameras:

• 1985—ITE, “Determining Vehicle Change Intervals: A Proposed Recommended Practice,” states, “When the percent of vehicles that are last through the intersection which enter on red exceeds that which is locally acceptable (many agencies use a value of one to three percent), the yellow interval should be lengthened until the percentage conforms to local standards.”
• 1988—Federal Highway Administration, “Manual on Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) states, “Signal Operation Must Relate To Traffic Flow” (Section 4B-20). Note that red light camera promoters use the opposite principle: they wish to use signals to modify traffic flow.
• 1994—ITE, “Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals” states, “When the percentage of vehicles that enter on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead.”
• 1999—ITE, “Traffic Engineering Handbook: Fifth Edition” states, “The red clearance interval is an optional interval that follows a Yellow Change Interval and precedes the next conflicting green interval. The red clearance interval is used to provide additional time following the Yellow Change Interval before conflicting traffic is released” (page 482).
• 2000/2001—Federal Highway Administration, “Manual on Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) states, “47. Red Clearance Interval: an optional interval that follows a yellow change interval and precedes the next conflicting green interval” (page 4A-5, Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals). Yellow time is calculated from “E. The posted speed or statutory speed limit or the 85th percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the intersection” (page 4C-3).

In all the above citations, emphasis is added to the key changes. The words in italics mark the differences between the old and new codes. Namely:

1. The “should” in 1985 was changed to “may” in 1994.
2. “Or shortened” was added to the formulation in 1994.
3. “Or enforcement can be used instead” was added in 1994.
4. “Optional” was added to the definition of red clearance interval in 1999.
5. Finally, the Federal Highway Administration endorses all these changes in the December 2000 edition of the MUTCD.

VI. Why Have Reports Shown Cameras to be Effective?

Overview of U.S. Red Light Camera Studies

Jurisdictions that wish to claim safety as their motive for installing red light cameras will invariably cite studies that show the devices reduce red light running and the intersection collisions it causes. To date, the only case studies of red light running and camera use in the United States have taken place in Arlington, Virginia, City of Fairfax, Virginia and Oxnard, California.

The studies performed at these locations share a lot in common, mostly because they were all performed by the same researcher. Consequently, they also share many of the same flaws in methodology.

How to do a proper study: Australia

One can see the flaws more clearly when they are contrasted with the 1995 Australian Road Research Board report, one of the most comprehensive looks at the effect of red light cameras to date.

The report’s conclusion is the most striking, particularly considering the American coverage of this issue: “There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure” (page 1). And when one considers the study’s methodology, one must also wonder why the same thoroughness is not found in Retting’s American studies:

• Comprehensive, ten-year study. The report examined accidents five years before and five years after the installation of red light cameras.
• Objective. On pages 2-3, the report points out how prior Australian studies conveniently omitted crucial data that might have undermined any pro-red light camera conclusions.
• Uses actual accident reports. Prior Australian studies merely used accident databases to generate results and statistics. All accidents in the database marked with certain codes were deemed to relate to red light running. Unfortunately, that method assumed the accidents were always properly coded. Of the 6,200 accident report forms examined, 960 (15 percent) were found to be unrelated to the intersections studied, despite their coding. For example, accidents at an adjacent McDonalds parking lot were coded as if they took place in the nearby intersection. This shows that conclusions based merely on accident codes can be significantly misleading.
• Signal Timing Considered. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the study at least attempted to document any changes in signal timing that may have occurred during the study period:Inquiries were made of VicRoads traffic signals group about the changes at signals and it seems that the historical records have been archived. From the data that was obtained for three intersections… it was apparent that a number of changes had taken place. These changes included… changes in phases as well as phase and cycle times and provisions for green arrows. The changes to the intersections were apparent, but the dates these changes took effect was not. For this reason the changes could not be related back to subsequent changes in accident frequency. Further investigation into signal changes would be worthwhile to explain some of the abrupt changes at individual RLC sites. (Page 9)

Red Light Cameras and Rear-end Accidents

The Australian study goes on to conclude that red light cameras tend to cause rear-end accidents. “This study suggests that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there have been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis…” (Page 20).

This should come as no surprise. The goal of a red light camera is to make people fear being ticketed if they enter a camera-controlled intersection on red. Common sense dictates that if the desired effect of red light cameras is achieved, there will be an increase in rear-end accidents. This is because motorists fearing a ticket will panic and slam on their brakes to avoid entering an intersection. This sudden maneuver can surprise cars and trucks behind, causing a collision.

The 2001 IIHS Oxnard accident study admits a connection between red light cameras and rear end accidents:

Some additional rear-end crashes might result from non-uniform changes in driver behavior. For example, if drivers stop more often for red lights, they may be struck from behind by drivers not intending to stop. (2001 Oxnard study, page 2.)

One wonders if Retting considers perhaps that those same individuals are unable to stop, because of inadequate yellow time. The increase in rear-end accidents in this report are passed off as insignificant.

But are they?

These photos, found on the Oxnard, California police department website, were taken by red light cameras. They illustrate rear end collisions apparently caused by motorists panic-stopping.

Yellow Light Timing

As we have seen, yellow signal timing is fundamentally linked to red light entries. The 1999 Oxnard study concludes that since red light cameras were installed that there was a 40 percent reduction in red light violations at intersections with cameras, and a 50 percent reduction at intersections without cameras. But the study did nothing to document whether signal times, including yellow light times, were held constant throughout the duration of the research. There is reason to believe, based on the Australian findings, that the signal timings did in fact change during the study. Despite this, the author merely says that the times were “checked” and “deemed adequate”:

The duration of yellow traffic signal timing has been found to influence red light running at urban intersections (Retting and Greene, 1997). Therefore, yellow signal times at the camera sites were checked against an Institute of Transportation Engineers (1985) proposed recommended practice and were found to be adequate. (1999 Oxnard study.)

The same language is used in the 1999 Fairfax and 2001 Oxnard studies. But, as discussed in Chapter 5 above, the 1985 proposed ITE yellow times can often be inadequate. It is reasonable to suspect they played a significant role in the red light entries that are documented in the report.

But the 1985 proposed recommended practice was not followed. The proscribed countermeasure for excessive red light entries is an increase in the yellow signal time (page 6 of the 1985 ITE guidelines). This was not performed. And if it had been implemented, it is likely that the pro-camera conclusion of the reports would have been undermined.

Moreover, if indeed the yellow time in the three studies was set to the numeric amounts resulting from the 1985 ITE practice, the excessive red light running that resulted tends to confirm the inadequacy of the yellow time from the practice itself.

Actual red light accidents not studied in 2001 Oxnard report

Incredibly, the 2001 IIHS Oxnard study did not actually study any accidents caused by red light running. “…the crash data did not contain sufficient detail to identify crashes that were specifically red light running events…” (2001 Oxnard report, page 1). Nor did it even study accidents at intersections that have red light cameras.

Instead, the study’s author, Retting, merely looked at accident codes from a database over a 2 and a half- year period to claim that accidents throughout the Oxnard area dropped by about 30 percent as a result of the red light cameras. The connection between area accidents and red light cameras is only an implied connection. There is no scientific evidence in the report showing any demonstrable connection between the two.

That is why the 2001 report is entitled “Crash Reductions Associated With Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California.” Notice that it does not say, ‘caused by.’ But, nonetheless, the report is still used as a marketing tool to sell red light cameras.

Drops in “violations” are no measure of success

At times, jurisdictions that IIHS did not study will find other ways to “prove” the success of their red light camera program, particularly when they wish to order additional camera units. They simply cite the number of “citations” or “violations” at intersections. And they claim red light cameras are a success if there are any reductions. Of course, they fail to note that the number of both citations and violations given is entirely within the control of the camera operators.

It’s easy, for example, to turn off the camera for a period of time to achieve the desired number. The camera can be loaded with half a roll of film. Shifting the cameras around will alter the data. Cameras malfunction and are taken out of service for repairs. Signal timings, including lengthening the yellow, can happen without being reported. These are just a few of the many “tricks” or potential oversights available.

It is clear, then, that the justifications given for red light camera installations are questionable.

VII. 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.

VIII. References

Signal Timing Documents

Institute of Traffic Engineers, “Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1965.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Prentice-Hall, 1976.

William A. Stimpson, Paul L. Zador, and Philip J. Tarnoff, “The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response,” ITE Journal, November 1980.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Prentice-Hall, 1982.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Determining Vehicle Change Intervals: A Proposed Recommended Practice,” Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1985.

ITE Technical Committee 4A-16, “Proposed Recommended Practice: Determining Vehicle Signal Change Intervals,” ITE Journal, July 1989.

ITE Technical Council Task Force 4TF-1, “Determining Vehicle Signal Change Intervals,” Institute of Transportation Engineers, August 1994.

Richard A. Retting, Allan F. Williams, Michael A. Greene, “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures,” Transportation Research Record, 1998.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.

“Manual on Traffic Control Devices”, Federal Highway Administration, 2000.

Accident Studies

David Andreassen, “A Long Term Study of Red Light Cameras and Accidents,” Australian Road Research Board, February, 1995.

Richard A. Retting, Allan F. Williams, Charles M. Farmer, Amy F. Feldman, “Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California,” Accident Analysis and Prevention 31, 1999.

Richard A. Retting, Allan F. Williams, Charles M. Farmer, Amy F. Feldman, “Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Fairfax, Va., USA,” ITE Journal, August 1999.

Richard A. Retting, Sergey Y. Kyrychenko, “Crash Reductions Associated with Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California,” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, April 2001.

General Articles

International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Selective Traffic Enforcement Manual,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 1972.

Rudolph E. Popolizio, “New York City’s Red Light Camera Demonstration Program,” Compendium of Technical Papers, 1995.

Brian S. Bochner, “Automated Enforcement Reduces Crashes,” ITE Journal, August, 1998

Richard Retting, “Statement Before the Kentucky Senate Transportation Committee on Red Light Violations and Red Light Cameras,” March 9, 2000.

The report The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional? was by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives in May 2001