HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-07_Implementation and Installation of Red-light Traff_19
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Paul J. Luwe, Bozeman City Attorney
DATE: August 20, 2007
RE: Red-light Cameras
This memorandum is to provide you with information to assist you in your direction to
staff on going forward with implementing and installing red-light cameras also known as
photographic traffic signal enforcement systems. Director of Public Service, Debbie
Arkell has provided in your packets information from a vendor on the use of these
devices. The Police Department will be at the meeting to provide you additional
information and answer questions. The installation of these devices was initially raised
by Commissioner Rupp who expressed concern for the safety of both pedestrians and
motorists. This matter has been scheduled for a September Policy meeting.
Commissioner Rupp, however, has asked that this issue be placed on this agenda to
ensure staff has clear direction to proceed immediately.
Photographic traffic signal enforcement systems are digital cameras mounted above the
corners of an intersection pointing in all four directions of traffic. There are several
companies that operate these cameras under contract with the municipalities. The
cameras are connected by computer to both the traffic signal and to underground
electrical wires that activate the cameras when a driver runs a red light. The systems use
a passive sensor that switches on the cameras only when a vehicle enters the intersection
after the light has turned red. When a vehicle runs a red light, the computer triggers the
camera to take two overhead pictures to document the violation: a picture of the vehicle
entering the intersection after the light turns red and another picture of the vehicle
moving through the intersection while the light is red. A separate camera takes a
photograph of the vehicles license plate. After taking the pictures, the computer
superimposes data on the image to include the time and date of the infraction, location of
the intersection, speed of the car, and elapsed time between when the light turned red and
when the car entered the intersection. Different Venders may have variations of this
process.
There are no Montana communities currently using these devices. In the late 80’s, the
City of Billings looked into employing photo-radar. After its investigation, decided not
to proceed with further research due to several issues: the vendors at that time sent out
the citations and the vendors received a portion of the fine money. Both issues presented
problems under Montana criminal statutes. In 1993 - 94, the City of Billings again
330
considered the use of photo radars. In response to a request by the City Attorney of
Billings, the AG opined that “the City of Billings, under its self-government charter, is
not precluded by statute from enacting a photo-radar ordinance providing either
accountability on the part of the registered owner for illegal speeding by any person
operating the vehicle with the owner’s permission, or for a permissive inference that the
registered owner was the speeding violator.” Billings decided not to proceed. I have not
tracked down why they did not proceed. At this same time, Bozeman was also interested
in photo radar, but as a general power government city lacked the necessary authority.
Several cities in Montana are interested in the use of red-light cameras but have not
proceeded beyond discussion of the issue. The concerns cited by the other cities include
sharing ticket fines with the company, increase rear end accidents, making the owner
accountable when he or she may not be the driver, inability to report points to the state
especially with a habitual offender, and issuance of criminal citations by private
companies is prohibited under Montana law.
There are numerous communities around the nation that now use these devices. Various
studies have shown a significant decrease in red-light violations and side impacted
accidents. However, there are conflicting studies over the decrease or the increase of rear
ended impacted accidents. A 2006 survey of communities indicated that several states
have authorized the use of red-light cameras: California, Colorado, Delaware, D.C.,
Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Washington. The following cities have
established red-light cameras without specific state law authorization: Arizona - Phoenix,
Scottsdale; Iowa – Council Bluffs, Davenport; Missouri – Arnold, Florissant; New
Mexico – Florissant; Ohio – Columbus, Dayton, Toledo; South Dakota – Sioux Falls;
Tennessee – Germantown; Knoxville; and Minnesota – Minneapolis, but its program was
overturned by the Courts. There are several communities that have implemented red-light
cameras and have now stopped using them. The Virginia legislature did not renew its 10
year pilot program. Hawaii likewise terminated its program. Red-light cameras have
been banned in several states such as West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Nevada bands the
cameras unless operated by law enforcement. In Arkansas, cameras are banned unless
law enforcement officer is present to issue citation. In Florida, the AG ruled that camera
evidence could not be used to cite motorist. In Utah, cameras are restricted to low-speed
roads where a police officer has witnessed the violation. In New York, cameras are
authorized with at least 1 million citizens. In Oregon cameras are allowed by state law in
communities over 30,000. Pennsylvania has authorized a program in Philadelphia. Texas
has no state law specifically authorizing cameras. After their state legislature enacted
legislation giving cities authority to regulate traffic and issue civil citations (similar to
our municipal infraction provisions), red-light camera programs were implemented by
several cities.
The Montana AG opinion did not address red-light cameras; however, the rational
supporting the use of photo radar would also be applicable to self-government powers
wanting to implement a similar ordinance for photographic traffic signal enforcement.
The Attorney General did not address the issues of sharing fines, issuing the citations
under Montana criminal procedural statutes, or the constitutional issues. Many companies
have now gone away from sharing fine revenue. Making a violation of the ordinance or
331
state law a municipal infraction would eliminate the issues related to the criminal
procedure statutes and would be consistent with most of the models around the country.
If given direction to proceed, I recommend that we follow the Garland Texas model. The
essence of this model is that infraction is civil rather than criminal. The City, not the
vender, issues the citation after weeding out the infractions where there is inconclusive
evidence or legitimate reason for the violation, such as a funeral procession. The citation
is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. The owner can pay the fine, contest the
infraction, or provide evidence that someone else was driving. If someone other than the
owner was driving, a citation would then be issued to the driver. Signs are placed at
ingresses to the City rather than at each intersection.
Before an ordinance is brought before you, the City needs to obtain permission from the
State of Montana to erect the poles and cameras since the poles will be erected upon State
or federally funded intersections and right of way. Director of Public Service requested
permission from the State in May, but has not received permission. Once permission is
granted, then an RFP for the program can be advertised and proposals received. The
Public Safety Department and/or the Public Service Department would prepare the RFP.
The ordinance can be considered either before or after the RFP process. I will be at the
meeting to answer questions.
Cc:
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Mark Tymrak, Director of Public Safety-Police
Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service
332
Current Customers Pending AwardsEastNew York City, NYPhiladelphia, PAWashington, DCAnne Arundel County, MDBrentwood, MDColmar Manor, MDEdmonston, MDLaurel, MDMt. Ranier, MDNew Carrollton, MDUniversity Park, MDSouthGallatin, TNJackson, TNRed Bank, TNApopka, FLOrange County, FLFlorida Transportation of DepartmentMissouriSt. Louis, MOArnold, MOBeverly Hills, MOBellerive, MOBrentwood, MODellwood, MOHazelwood, MOSt. John, MOSugar Creek, MOFlorissant, MOWebster Groves, MOWashington, MOMidwestCahokia, ILHighland Park, MIInternationalCalgary, Alberta CanadaNew Zealand National PoliceWestHouston, TXArlington, TX **Irving, TX **Balcones Heights, TXSeattle, WAPhoenix, AZMesa, AZAvondale, AZGlendale, AZCathedral City, CACapitola, CACovina, CAMillbrae, CASouth San Francisco, CAGreenwood Village, COE-470 Public Highway, COHarris County Toll RoadLynnwood, WACedar Hill, TX** Recommended by Staff, pending Council Award333
April 3, 2007
Camera Company revs its engines
DONNA HOGAN, TRIBUNE
They’ve been dubbed an affront to motorists’ privacy, a moneymaker for cities and a
lifesaver. Like it or not, red-light runners and speeders increasingly are getting caught by
cameras instead of cops.
And an East Valley company is one of the front-runners in the race for national
dominance in the camera-centered road crime-catching business.
American Traffic Solutions grew its client base by a whopping 40 percent in just the last
three months.
The privately owned company, which located its headquarters and global operations
center in Scottsdale and its regional customer service and tech center in Mesa, has
added 17 clients so far in 2007, upping its portfolio to 60.
Mesa, Phoenix, Glendale and Avondale are among those who use American Traffic
Solutions services.
The company is pitching to Tempe, Scottsdale and 18 others that use other service
providers or haven’t yet installed a traffic camera system, said Sherri Teille, the
company’s marketing manager. And if the Arizona Department of Transportation decides
to dot Loop 101 with cameras, the local company is itching to bid for the business, she
said.
American Traffic Solutions has systems installed in four of the six biggest U.S. cities —
Phoenix, New York City, Philadelphia and Houston. It is the largest provider of photo
traffic safety services in Texas and has 90 percent of the market share in Missouri, she
said.
And it’s making a run at passing the biggest U.S. service provider in the business,
Redflex Traffic Systems, she said.
“We are a close second, and soon we should be the market leader,” Teille said.
It’s no wonder the 15-yearold company is projecting $40 million revenue for this year.
American Traffic Solutions is gaining speed by providing the “best technology, and the
smallest and least obtrusive, cameras available,” Teille said.
Mesa Councilman Rex Griswold is a fan.
The company replaced Mesa’s big, old, difficult-to-relocate cameras with small, portable,
digital versions, he said.
Griswold said the cameras have been a major factor in reducing serious accidents —
“Our stats prove it,” he said — but not a big moneymaker, as some believe. “For the
city, they are pretty much cost neutral,” Griswold said.
334
But he isn’t surprised by the speedy growth of American Traffic Solutions or the entire
traffic-camera industry.
“There are two ways to control speed,” Griswold said. “You can post an officer 24 hours
a day on a corner, or you can use red-light cameras. Or you could do nothing and just let
accidents happen.”
Teille said the Scottsdale-based company crafts contracts however the municipality
wants or, in some cases, to conform to state regulations. That means some customers
pay a flat fee for the services, others pay based on the number of paid citations, and
some contracts include a combination of the two, she said.
Teille said the camera systems are the “most effective and cost-efficient” method of
enforcing traffic laws, but she said most municipalities, like Mesa, do not see the system
as a windfall to fill up the coffers.
335
Axsis™ RLC-300 Red Light Camera System
Versatile and Easily Customized System
• Modular design allows for installation flexibility and ease of maintenance
• Flexible configuration - simultaneously monitor up to 4 traffic lanes with 2
separate signal phases - Straight through, left-turn, and right turn
• Data capture traffic only, violation only or both
• Programmable “delay into red”
• User-defined data bar configuration outside the image area
• Sensor options: loop, piezo, video and other common detection inputs
• Wireless upgrade path for remote image data transfer and lower cost installation
• Plug-and-play digital upgrade solution replaces outmoded red light systems
Accuracy, Precision and Security
• Automatic capture of violations and corresponding traffic data
• Remote accessibility, web interface and data transfer (hands free)
• Battery backup – uninterrupted operation
• Compact flash card – high volume, secure data storage
• On-site calibration, maintenance and setup via PDA
• Functional unattended 24x7 use
• Self-test diagnostics and error checking for easy maintenance
• Compact and rugged design with no moving parts
• Fast recycle strobe triggers as fast as camera triggers with only 150W output
• 3DES encryption of data for high security
Best Images Produce the Best Results
• Most advanced digital imaging available
• Unmatched megapixel resolution – 12.4 or 4.1 megapixel models available
• Quick response - 5 frames/second up to 40 consecutive images.
• Shutter Speed – 1/30 to 1/8,000 of a second
• Embedded, user-defined auto-insert data fields
• Razor-sharp focus – 11 image-focus sensors
• “Anti-Glare” engineering defeats reflected-light schemes to hide license plates.
Our detection and imaging technology will provide the best possible evidence.
One single high resolution camera captures a set of two violation images with integrated data
fields instead of an array of individual low resolution video cameras capturing multiple images,
which require separate computers to integrate the images and violation data.
336
Axsis™ RLC-300 Red Light Camera System - Changing the Face of An Industry
Since introducing the Axsis™ technology in January 2005, ATS has been selected by more municipalities
from California to Maryland than all other vendors in 2005, winning 70% of all competitive procurements—
resulting in 20 new cities and projects.
ATS offers “next generation,” all-digital vehicle detection and photo electronic imaging systems. All
systems and services offered are “purpose-built” by ATS specifically for photo traffic enforcement
applications. We do not simply integrate “off the shelf,” third party components to build a system. ATS
technology has been field-proven in some of the harshest and most demanding environments in the world,
ranging from the harsh extremes of the desert heat in Arizona and humid days in New York City, to the
cold winters in Colorado and Calgary, Canada.
Our solution is highly differentiated from other offerings. The following key differences set ATS apart from
other competitor systems—most of which were designed in the mid-1990s.
• Exact prima facie evidence –Three high resolution images provide all the critical information and
evidence needed to prosecute the violation plus the industry’s clearest facial images. Plate extraction
from a single digital image avoids the wrong vehicle being identified for violation—which can result in
embarrassment and issuing of refunds by cities.
• 12.4 megapixel digital still camera—Creating the clearest photos in the industry, and proprietary
software able to remotely control this very sensitive camera system.
• Smallest “footprint” - The ATS system is the smallest yet most powerful system available. A small
compact system able to be mounted on existing infrastructure. No large multiple camera boxes; no
large roadside cabinet full of equipment and air conditioning units to clutter up the intersection..
• Live video—Includes a 12-second violation confirmation clip; live intersection viewing; all 24/7 traffic
data stored for recall for up to 90 days.
• VIMS intersection analysis—Confirms that a red light problem exists prior to installation of the
system.
The ATS Difference
Producing Safer Intersections
New York City Red Light Camera Program
Historical Violations Per Camera Per Day
1994 to 2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Violations/Camera/Day73%
reduction
in violations 41% reduction
in collisions 35%
reduction
in fatalities
In addition to strong public support, our systems
have demonstrated consistent decreases in red
light violations. As illustrated, during the past 12
years, our New York City program—the longest
running red light camera program in the US, has
experienced:
• 73% drop in red light violations
• 41% decline in collisions; and
• 35% decrease in fatalities.
These reductions are consistent with numbers
reported by other US cities utilizing red light photo
enforcement systems.
For more information contact: Bill Kroske, Vice President Business Development—(480) 895-1211
337
Reducing Red Light Running Through
Longer Yellow Signal Timing and Red
Light Camera Enforcement: Results
of a Field Investigation
Richard A. Retting
Susan A. Ferguson
Charles M. Farmer
January 2007
338
1
ABSTRACT
Many drivers routinely run red lights, placing themselves and other road users at risk for crashes
and serious injuries. Two principal methods used to reduce red light running involve lengthening the
duration of yellow change intervals and automated red light enforcement. The present study evaluated the
incremental effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing, followed by the
introduction of red light cameras. At six approaches to two intersections in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
yellow change intervals were increased by about 1 second, followed several months later by red light
camera enforcement. The number of red light violations was monitored before changes were
implemented, several weeks after yellow timing changes were made, and about 1 year after
commencement of red light camera enforcement. Similar observations were conducted at three
comparison intersections in a neighboring state where red light cameras were not used and yellow timing
remained constant. Results showed that yellow timing changes reduced red light violations by 36 percent.
The addition of red light camera enforcement further reduced red light violations by 96 percent beyond
levels achieved by the longer yellow timing. This study shows that the provision of adequate yellow
signal timing reduces red light running, but longer yellow timing alone does not eliminate the need for
better enforcement, which can be provided effectively by red light cameras.
INTRODUCTION
Traffic signals are intended to promote safe and efficient traffic flow at busy intersections.
However, the level of safety achieved is largely dependent on drivers’ compliance with the signals.
Research shows that many drivers routinely violate red signals, placing themselves and other road users at
risk for serious collisions. Analyses of red light violation data from 19 intersections in four states found
that violation rates averaged 3.2 per intersection per hour (Hill and Lindly, 2003). Similarly, a study
conducted during several months at five busy intersection approaches in Fairfax City, Virginia, found that
violation rates averaged 3 per intersection per hour (Retting et al., 1999a). During peak travel times, red
light running was more frequent.
Crashes resulting from red light running are a frequent occurrence. A nationwide study of 9,951
vehicles involved in fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1999 and 2000 estimated that 20 percent of the
vehicles failed to obey the signals (Brittany et al., 2004). In 2005, more than 800 people were killed and
an estimated 165,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running (Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, 2006). About half of the deaths in these crashes were pedestrians and occupants in other
vehicles who were hit by the red light runners.
Two principal countermeasures to red light running involve lengthening the duration of the
yellow signal phase, which warns drivers of an imminent change in right-of-way, and the use of
automated red light enforcement. The Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (US Department of
Transportation, 2006) indicates that yellow intervals should range from approximately 3 to 6 seconds and
339
2
that longer intervals should be reserved for approaches with higher traffic speeds. Because drivers
generally cannot predict the onset or duration of a yellow signal, the likelihood that a driver will stop on a
red signal is related to vehicle speed and distance from the intersection when the signal changes to yellow.
Although there is no universal practice for selecting the duration of the yellow signal phase, many state
and local transportation agencies follow guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE, 1985) that consider site-specific criteria including traffic speeds and intersection geometry.
Numerous studies have found that longer yellow signal timing can reduce the frequency of red
light running. A cross-sectional study of 20 intersections in three cities found that the frequency of red
light running was higher at locations where yellow signal timing was shorter than the values associated
with engineering guidelines (Bonneson and Son, 2003). Van Der Horst (1988) evaluated changes in red
light violations 1 year after yellow signal timing was increased by 1 second (from 3 to 4 seconds at four
urban intersections and from 5 to 6 seconds at two rural intersections) and found that red light violations
were reduced by about half. Bonneson and Zimmerman (2004) evaluated changes in red light violations
at six intersections 6 months after yellow signal timing was increased in accordance with the ITE (1985)
guidelines. The authors concluded that an increase of 1 second in yellow duration (such that it did not
exceed 5.5 seconds) decreased red light violations by at least 50 percent. Retting and Greene (1997)
evaluated changes in red light violations 3 months and 9 months after yellow signal timing was increased
to values associated with the ITE guidelines. The authors found that red light violations had decreased
significantly 3 months after signal timings were changed and that, after 9 months, red light running had
increased at one of four study sites but not at the other three intersections.
Red light cameras automatically photograph vehicles whose drivers run red lights and increase
drivers’ perceptions of the risk of being caught for violations. A red light camera system is connected to
the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow. The system continuously monitors the traffic
signal, and the camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection, generally above a preset
minimum speed, and following a specified time after the traffic signal has turned red. One or more
photographs typically show the red light violator in the intersection. In some cases video cameras are
used. Cameras record the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and
vehicle speed. Tickets are mailed to owners of violating vehicles, based on review of photographic
evidence. Red light cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations in US cities,
from about 40 percent (Retting et al., 1999a, 1999b) to 78 percent (Martinez and Porter, 2006). An
evaluation in British Columbia, Canada, found a 69 percent reduction in red light violations 1 month after
the introduction of red light cameras, and a 38 percent decline after 6 months (Chen et al., 2001). A
review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras generally reduce red light
violations by about 40 to 50 percent (Retting et al., 2003).
Although appropriately timed yellow signals and red light camera enforcement both can reduce
red light running, their relative contributions are unknown. No studies to date have evaluated both of
340
3
these approaches implemented incrementally at signalized intersections. The present study was designed
to address this issue. Red light violation rates were measured at intersections before and after yellow
signal timing was lengthened and again after red light cameras were in place.
METHODS
The study was conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the use of red light cameras at
several specific intersections was authorized by the state legislature in 2004. The legislation permitted
photographing the rear license plates of vehicles entering intersections on a red signal. Drivers are not
photographed. The registered vehicle owner is subject to a $100 fine, but unlike violations resulting from
traditional police enforcement, there are no driver’s license penalty points for camera citations. The
legislation required a 120-day warning period when warning notices, rather than tickets, were mailed to
registered owners of vehicles running red lights. In addition, conspicuous traffic signs were installed at
all camera-equipped locations to warn drivers they were approaching intersections monitored by red light
cameras (Figure 1). The warning signs include an image of a traffic signal and the words “Red Light
Photo Enforced” — features shown to be well understood by motorists (Carlson and Retting, 2001).
Table 1 summarizes the study’s timeline.
Figure 1
Sign Warning Drivers of Red Light Cameras
Table 1
Study Timeline
Date Event
November 2004 Baseline data collection at experimental and comparison sites (phase 1)
December 2004 Implementation of yellow signal timing changes at experimental sites
January 2005 Data collection at experimental and comparison sites after yellow signal
timing changes (phase 2)
February 2005 Implementation of 120-day warning period for red light running violations
June 2005 Implementation of red light camera enforcement at experimental sites
June-July 2006 Data collection at experimental and comparison sites after camera
enforcement (phase 3)
341
4
Study Sites
Red light violations were monitored at the first two intersections designated for red light camera
enforcement. Both intersections are located along Roosevelt Boulevard — a wide, high-volume urban
arterial that includes two sets of northbound traffic lanes (main road and service road) separated by raised
islands, and two sets of southbound lanes also separated by raised islands. The main road and each of the
service roads each have traffic signals controlling traffic flow. Both intersections were ranked among the
highest crash locations in a systematic review of automobile insurance claims resulting from crashes at
hundreds of thousands of US intersections (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2001).
A total of six approaches at the two intersections formed the experimental sites. Four approaches
were on Roosevelt Boulevard, and two were on side streets. Red light violations also were monitored at
three comparison intersections located in Atlantic County, New Jersey, where red light cameras were not
used and yellow signal timing remained constant. Selection of the comparison sites was based on two
factors. One was proximity to experimental sites in Philadelphia. The distance between comparison and
experimental sites was approximately 50 miles — close enough to expect similar patterns of changes
associated with external factors such as weather, fuel prices, and economic conditions. The second factor
was the ability to collect violation data using the same proprietary methods employed at the experimental
intersections (the recording equipment, described later, required connection to the traffic signal system).
Although it would have been preferable for comparison sites to have been located closer to Philadelphia
and more closely matched with experimental sites in terms of traffic volume and geometric
characteristics, time was limited given the imminent installation of red light cameras and related publicity.
In addition, police officials in Atlantic County already had offered their assistance in documenting the
prevalence of red light violations and had identified three specific intersections they would have
prioritized for red light camera installation if given the legislative authority, which they were not. These
were the three locations selected as comparison sites.
Yellow signal timing was increased in December 2004 at the intersections where red light
cameras were to be installed. Procedures for determining the duration of revised yellow signal timing
incorporated traffic speeds and intersection geometry, as described in the ITE (1985) guidelines. Yellow
intervals were increased by about 1 second — from 3.0 to 4.1 seconds on the two side street approach
legs where speed limits were 30 mi/h, and from 4.0 to 4.9 seconds on the four Roosevelt Boulevard
approaches where speed limits were 45 mi/h. The modified yellow intervals met or exceeded the values
associated with the ITE guidelines. Yellow intervals at the comparison sites remained constant —
5 seconds at one site with a 45 mi/h speed limit, 4.4 seconds at one site with a 40 mi/h limit, and
4.0 seconds at another site with a 40 mi/h limit.
342
5
Data Collection and Coding
Violation data were recorded at the experimental and comparison sites using unattended video
cameras mounted on existing poles located near the intersections (Figure 2). These locations provided a
view of vehicles approaching the monitored intersections and the traffic signals. Road tubes connected to
traffic counters were used to estimate traffic volumes on the monitored intersection approaches.
Figure 2
Typical Video Camera Deployment
Wireless communication between the traffic signal systems and the video cameras used in the
evaluation enabled the cameras to record the first 5 seconds of each red light phase, thereby eliminating
excess videotaping between signal cycles. When the video camera switched from a pause mode to a
recording mode at the start of each red light phase, there was a delay of approximately 0.5 second during
which vehicles entering the intersection on red were not recorded. Therefore, for the purpose of this
study, red light violations at the experimental and comparison sites were limited to those vehicles that
entered the intersection 0.5 second or more after onset of the red signal. To be counted as a red light
violation, a vehicle’s rear tires must have been positioned behind the crosswalk or stop line prior to
entering on red. Vehicles already in the intersection when the camera began recording, as well as those
turning right on red (whether or not they came to a stop) were not counted as red light violations.
One person coded all the data from videotapes. Coder reliability was checked by having a second
coder independently code data from three 24-hour periods at three separate intersections. Each observer
was given the same video playback equipment and the same instructions. The level of interobserver
agreement was greater than 96 percent.
Data were collected at each of the six experimental and three comparison approaches during three
phases, for a total of 27 data collection sessions. Data collection occurred during a baseline period in
November 2004 (phase 1), after extended yellow timings were in place in January 2005 (approximately
6 weeks after the signal timing changes were made) (phase 2), and in June and July 2006 (approximately
343
6
1 year after commencement of red light camera enforcement) (phase 3). Each data collection session at
each intersection approach was designed to last approximately 48 hours. However, due to equipment
problems, three of the 27 data collection sessions yielded only 24 hours of data (two sessions at
experimental sites, and one session at a comparison site).
Violation rates per 10,000 vehicles were computed for each intersection approach and each time
period. Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the odds of a vehicle running a red light based
on jurisdiction (Philadelphia vs. Atlantic County), site within each jurisdiction, time period, and whether
or not experimental changes (signal timing or camera enforcement) had occurred. One regression model
estimated the odds of red light running at the experimental sites relative to the comparison sites following
implementation of yellow timing changes. A second regression model estimated the odds of red light
running at the experimental sites relative to comparison sites following installation of red light cameras.
RESULTS
Table 2 provides a summary of the red light violation and exposure data collected at the
experimental and comparison sites during the three study periods. Baseline violation rates ranged from
8 to 251 violations per 10,000 vehicles at the six experimental sites and from 9 to 21 violations per 10,000
vehicles at the three comparison sites. After yellow signal timing changes, violation rates at the
experimental sites declined at each location, with reductions ranging from 21 to 63 percent. At the
comparison sites, however, changes were inconsistent. Violation rates increased 60 percent at one
comparison site but declined 23 and 27 percent at the other two comparison sites. After camera
enforcement began, violation rates at the experimental sites declined an additional 87 to 100 percent
beyond those observed during phase 2, whereas changes at the comparison sites again were inconsistent.
Violation rates increased 17 percent at one comparison site but declined 4 and 17 percent at the other two
comparison sites.
Based on the logistic regression model, the odds of a red light violation at the comparison sites
increased an average of 9 percent between the first and second observation periods (95 percent confidence
interval (CI) = 25 percent decline to 59 percent increase). After accounting for these changes in driver
behavior at the comparison sites, the changes to yellow signal timing at the experimental sites were
associated with a 36 percent decline in the odds of a red light violation (95 percent CI = 6 to 57 percent
decline). Between the second and third observation periods, the odds of a red light violation at the
comparison sites declined an average of 9 percent (95 percent CI = 36 percent decline to 30 percent
increase). After accounting for these changes at the comparison sites, the logistic regression model
estimated that camera enforcement at the experimental sites was associated with an additional 96 percent
reduction in the odds of a red light violation (95 percent CI = 93 to 97 percent decline).
344
7 Table 2 Red Light Violation Rates for Experimental and Comparison Sites Baseline (phase1) After yellow signal timing changes at experimental sites (phase 2) After yellow signal timing changes and camera enforcement at experimental sites (phase 3) Site No. of violations No. of vehicles Violations per 10,000 vehicles No. of violations No. of vehicles Violations per 10,000 vehicles Percent change in violation rate from phase 1 No. of violations No. of vehicles Violations per 10,000 vehicles Percent change in violation rate from phase 2 Experimental 1 615 24,467 251.4 465 23,490 198.0 -21 5 27,225 1.8 -99 2 279 29,812 93.6 107 14,264 75.0 -20 18 29,935 6.0 -92 3 29 37,345 7.8 16 36,067 4.4 -43 1 39,861 0.3 -94 4 45 30,310 14.8 8 14,667 5.5 -63 0 33,532 0 -100 5 213 35,043 60.8 113 35,145 32.2 -47 2 34,405 0.6 -98 6 183 34,166 53.6 100 33,500 29.9 -44 16 41,054 3.9 -87 Comparison 1 8 9,010 8.9 6 9,296 6.5 -27 8 10,563 7.6 17 2 30 14,468 20.7 25 7,536 33.2 60 44 16,069 27.4 -17 3 24 16,782 14.3 18 16,410 11.0 -23 31 29,405 10.5 -4 345
8
DISCUSSION
The present study found large and highly significant incremental reductions in red light running
associated with increased yellow signal timing followed by the introduction of red light cameras. Neither
effect individually is surprising given the substantial prior research. However, the strong effects of red
light cameras after having increased the duration of yellow signal timing provides evidence that provision
for adequate yellow timing may not eliminate the need for or the potential benefits of red light camera
enforcement.
Because measurements during phase 2 were made just 6 weeks after yellow signal timing was
increased (due to imminent construction of red light cameras and the planned start of the warning period),
longer term effects of yellow timing changes alone could not be assessed in this study. Prior research
examining longer term effects of increased yellow timing found that reductions in red light violations
were sustained at least 6 months to 1 year (Bonneson and Zimmerman, 2004; Retting and Greene, 1997;
Van Der Horst, 1988) but that some drivers might adapt to increases in yellow duration and continue to
run red lights (Bonneson and Zimmerman, 2004; Retting and Greene, 1997). These prior studies suggest
that effects of increased yellow timing in the present study would have been evident, although possibly
smaller, long after implementation of yellow timing changes had the effects been measured without the
confounding influence of red light cameras.
The present study found larger reductions in red light violations from camera enforcement than
have been reported in prior evaluations (Aeron-Thomas and Hess, 2005; Chen et al., 2001; Retting et al.,
1999a, 1999b). The effectiveness of camera enforcement may relate to the way in which programs are
structured, although no research to date has teased out the importance of specific factors such as publicity
about camera enforcement. The unusually large reductions observed in this study could result in part
from particular characteristics of Philadelphia’s red light camera program. The Pennsylvania legislation
authorizing red light cameras restricted enforcement to nine specific intersections in one city,
Philadelphia, thus helping to narrowly focus media interest and highlight pubic awareness. The
legislation mandated a 120-day warning period prior to enforcement and the installation of warning signs
at all camera-equipped locations to warn drivers they were approaching intersections monitored by red
light cameras. By comparison, some jurisdictions install warning signs at jurisdictional boundaries rather
than specific photo-enforced intersections. The $100 fine in Philadelphia is somewhat higher than those
imposed by red light camera programs in nearby states, including Delaware ($75), Maryland ($75), New
York ($50), and Virginia ($50 when red light cameras were in use). Because this was the first red light
camera program in Pennsylvania, there was extensive news coverage in the local newspapers and other
news media. These factors may have contributed to larger reductions in red light violations than have
been reported in prior evaluations.
346
9
In addition to reducing red light violations, longer traffic signal change intervals and red light
cameras can reduce potential intersection conflicts and injury crashes, based on results of prior research.
Stimpson et al. (1980) reported that increases in yellow signal timing duration of 1.3 seconds significantly
reduced potential intersection conflicts. A study of modified traffic signal change interval timing at urban
intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to
control sites (Retting et al., 2002). Numerous studies report significant crash reductions associated with
red light camera enforcement. In Oxnard, California, injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals
were reduced by 29 percent following the introduction of red light cameras (Retting and Kyrychenko,
2002). Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — also
were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68
percent. Analyses of police reported crashes in seven US cities found that, overall, right-angle crashes
decreased by 25 percent following the introduction of red light cameras (Council et al., 2005). Reviews of
international red light camera studies concluded that red light cameras reduce right-angle crashes by 24
percent (Aeron-Thomas and Hess, 2005) and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent (Retting et al., 2003).
Some studies have reported that although red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and
overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes — at least in the short run. Because the types of
crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research shows a
positive aggregate benefit. Council et al. (2005) reported a 15 percent increase in rear-end collisions
concurrent with a 25 percent decrease in right-angle crashes, but estimated a positive aggregate economic
benefit of more than $18.5 million during 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of
approximately $39,000 per site year. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The
international review by Aeron-Thomas and Hess (2005) did not find a statistically significant change in
rear-end crashes.
Overall, results from the present study confirm that providing motorists with adequate yellow
signal timing is important for reducing red light running. However, even with proper yellow timing in
place, red light running remains a problem that can be further reduced through the use of camera
enforcement.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by the Philadelphia Department of
Streets and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and review comments provided by Anne
McCartt of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. This research was supported by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.
347
10
REFERENCES
Aeron-Thomas, A.S. and Hess, S. 2005. Red-light cameras for the prevention of road traffic crashes
(review). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2, Art. no. CD003862.pub2. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bonneson, J.A. and Son, H.J. 2003. Prediction of expected red-light running frequency at urban
intersections. Transportation Research Record 1830:38-47. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
Bonneson, J.A. and Zimmerman, K.H. 2004. Effect of yellow-interval timing on the frequency of red-
light violations at urban intersections. Transportation Research Record 1865:20-27. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
Brittany, N.; Campbell, B.N.; Smith, J.D.; and Najm, W.G. 2004. Analysis of fatal crashes due to signal
and stop sign violations. Report no. DOT HS-809-779. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
Carlson, P.J. and Retting, R.A. 2001. Evaluation of traffic signs used to inform drivers of red light camera
enforcement. 2001 ITE Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium of Technical Papers (CD-ROM).
Washington, DC: Institute for Transportation Engineers.
Chen, G.; Wilson, J.; Meckle, W.; and Casey, R. 2001. General deterrence effects of red light camera and
warning signs in traffic signal compliance in British Columbia. Journal of Traffic Medicine 29:46-53.
Council, F.; Persaud, B.; Eccles, K.; Lyon, C.; and Griffith, M. 2005. Safety evaluation of red-light
cameras: executive summary. Report no. FHWA HRT-05-049. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Hill, S.E. and Lindly, J.K. 2003. Red light running prediction and analysis. UTCA Report no. 02112.
Tuscaloosa, AL: University Transportation Center for Alabama.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1985. Determining vehicle change intervals: a recommended
practice. Washington DC.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2006. Q&A: red light cameras (as of December 2005). Arlington,
VA. Available: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html.
Martinez, K.L. and Porter, B.E. 2006. Characterizing red light runners following implementation of a
photo enforcement program. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38:862-70.
Retting, R.A.; Chapline, J.F.; and Williams, A.F. 2002. Changes in crash risk following re-timing of
traffic signal change intervals. Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:215-20.
Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Hakkert, A.S. 2003. Effects of red light cameras on violations and
crashes: a review of the international literature. Traffic Injury Prevention 4:17-23.
Retting, R.A. and Greene, M.A. 1997. Influence of traffic signal timing on red light running and potential
vehicle conflicts at urban intersections. Transportation Research Record 1595:1-7. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
348
11
Retting, R.A. and Kyrychenko, S.Y. 2002. Crash reductions associated with red light camera enforcement
in Oxnard, California. American Journal of Public Health 92:1822-25.
Retting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Farmer, C.M.; and Feldman, A.F. 1999a. Evaluation of red light camera
enforcement in Fairfax, Va., USA. ITE Journal 69:30-34.
Retting, R.A.; Williams, A.F.; Farmer, C.M.; and Feldman, A.F. 1999b. Evaluation of red light camera
enforcement in Oxnard, California. Accident Analysis and Prevention 31:169-74.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. 2001. Dangerous intersection program. Press
Release, June 27. Bloomington, IL.
Stimpson, W.A.; Zador, P.L.; and Tarnoff, P.J. 1980. The influence of the time duration of yellow traffic
signals on driver response. ITE Journal 50:22-29.
US Department of Transportation. 2006. Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways, 2003 edition. Washington, DC. Available: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.
Van Der Horst, R. 1988. Driver decision making at traffic signals. Transportation Research Record 1172:
93-97. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
349
SAFETY & DESIGNProblem: Intersection crashes account for
more than 40 percent of all crashes
Intersection safety is a serious problem in the
United States, and it is one of the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) top priorities. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) reports that in 2004 alone, more than
9,100 people died and another 1.5 million people
were injured in intersection-related crashes.
According to 2004 data from NHTSA’s Fatality
Analysis Reporting and General Estimates
Systems, crashes caused by red light running
(RLR) resulted in as many as 854 fatalities
and more than 168,000 injuries. In addition,
approximately 40 percent of all crashes are
intersection-related.
When does RLR occur?
RLR occurs when a driver enters an intersection
after the traffic signal has turned red. The
traditional way of enforcing this violation is to
station a patrol vehicle(s) near an intersection.
This method is dangerous for the officer,
expensive to localities, and drains valuable police
resources. Red light cameras can supplement
police efforts by being where officers cannot be all
of the time.
Solution: Red light camera technology can
make intersections safer
What are red light cameras?
Red light cameras (RLC) detect a motor vehicle
that passes over sensors in the pavement after
a traffic signal has turned red. The sensors are
connected to computers in high-speed cameras,
which take two photographs of the violation.
Typically, the first photo is taken of the front
of the vehicle when it enters the intersection,
and the second photo is taken of the rear of the
vehicle when the vehicle is in the intersection.
Law enforcement officials review the photograph,
and a citation is mailed to the registered owner of
the vehicle. The owner can challenge the citation
if he or she was not the driver at the time of the
violation.
Successful Applications: Research
demonstrates crash severity reductions
According to one of the most comprehensive
studies to date on RLCs, FHWA’s Safety Evaluation
of Red-Light Cameras (FHWA-HRT-05-048), which
included data from seven jurisdictions (Baltimore,
MD; Charlotte, NC; El Cajon, CA; Howard County
and Montgomery County, MD; and San Diego; and
San Francisco, CA) and 132 intersections, the use
of RLCs led to the following:
Red Light Cameras
Putting It in Perspective
According to a survey conducted by U.S.
Department of Transportation and the
American Trauma Society, 63 percent of
Americans witness a RLR incident more than
once a week. One in three Americans knows
someone who has been injured or killed
because of a red light runner.
Benefits
Automated enforcement systems can be
effective and reliable tools to help reduce
the number of RLR violations and associated
crashes.
350
• 25 percent decrease in total right-angle crashes.
• 16 percent reduction in injury right-angle
crashes.
• 15 percent increase in total rear-end crashes.
• 24 percent increase in injury rear-end crashes.
Economic analysis from the same study showed
that RLCs save society $39,000 to $50,000 annually
at each intersection where they are installed. The
costs considered include hospital bills, property
damage to vehicles, insurance expenses, value of
lost quality of life, and other costs. The greatest
economic benefits are seen at locations with a
high ratio of right-angle to rear-end crashes, a
higher proportion of entering annual average daily
traffic on the major road, and the presence of left-
turn protected phases.
In another survey, which was conducted as
part of a project for the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, researchers found
that a majority of jurisdictions—including those
in Boulder, CO; Polk County, FL; Mesa, AZ;
Sacramento, CA; and Laurel, MD—reported
downward trends in RLR crashes and violations
because of RLCs.
According to FHWA and NHTSA’s Red Light
Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, the
following critical elements should be considered
while installing RLC systems:
• Conduct an engineering study before considering
camera installation.
• Evaluate effective engineering and education
alternatives before considering photo
enforcement.
• Make sure the RLC program is engineered and
installed properly.
• Measure, document, and make safety results
available.
• Ensure complete oversight and supervision by
public agencies.
• Avoid compensating vendors based on the
number of citations.
• Include an ongoing photo-enforcement public
education program.
Deployment Statement
RLCs have the potential to reduce intersection
fatalities and injuries.
Deployment Goal
State and local agencies will use RLCs where
appropriate to reduce injuries and fatalities due to
red light running.
Deployment Status
RLCs are permitted by law in 12 States and 37
cities.
Additional Resources
For additional information on how to prevent
red light running, visit http://safety.fhwa.
dot.gov/intersections/col_redlight.htm. For
more information on RLCs, see the following
documents:
• Red Light Camera Systems Operational
Guidelines, FHWA-SA-05-002, January 2005.
Available online at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
intersections/rlc_guide/index.htm.
• Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras, FHWA-
HRT-05-048, April 2005. Available online at http://
www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm.
• Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of
Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce
Red-Light Running, a report by FHWA and the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), ITE
Report 115, 2003. Available online at http://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/rlr_report/
index.htm.
For more information, contact:
Louisa Ward, FHWA Office of Safety
Phone: 202–366–2218
E-mail: louisa.ward@fhwa.dot.gov
Craig Allred, FHWA Resource Center
Phone: 720–963–3236
E-mail: craig.allred@fhwa.dot.gov
To request additional copies of this
publication, contact:
Carin Michel, FHWA Resource Center
Phone: 410–962–2530
Email: carin.michel@fhwa.dot.gov
TaMara McCrae, FHWA Corporate
Research and Technology
Phone: 202–493–3382
Email: tamara.mccrae@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA-HRT-06-045
HRTC-01/01-06(1M)ESAFETY & DESIGN351
352
353
354
355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
U.S. Can Save Millions With Red
Light Cameras
New Studies Find Benefit Of Reducing
Right-Angle
Crashes Outweigh Rear-End Crashes
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 13, 2005) — Two new
transportation safety studies have found that U.S. cities
can potentially save millions of dollars in injury and
societal costs by using red light camera photo
enforcement technology.
The cost-benefit analysis, one of the most comprehensive
ever conducted on the economic benefits of photo
enforcement technology in the U.S., analyzed traffic data
from seven U.S. communities that use cameras to enforce
compliance with traffic signals.
Researchers estimate total societal cost reductions for all
the red light camera jurisdictions studied to be over $14
million per year. This amount is completely separate from
any revenue brought in by camera violation fines. In
discussion of these findings at the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, the
researchers called these estimates, “conservative.”
Campaign Executive Director Leslie Blakey said, “These
new studies have shown that the average red light camera
location in the U.S. results in $38,000 a year in reduced
societal costs, not to mention the number of lives and
grief saved from fewer right-angle crashes.”
The two studies compared the incidence of right-angle
crashes, most frequently associated with red light
running, to rear-end crashes that may increase, once
photo enforcement devices are installed. The analysis
found that although rear-end crashes increased as right-
angle crashes declined, the reduction of the more severe
red light running crashes resulted in the significant net
benefit from photo enforcement deployment. When
property-damage-only crashes were excluded, the benefit
356
was almost five percentage points higher, due to the
much greater costs from right-angle injury and fatal
crashes.
“Any thorough study of intersection crashes has to reach
the conclusion that a 30 mph crash into the driver’s side
or passenger side of another vehicle will cause more
deaths and injuries than a low speed rear-end crash,” said
Lt. Richard Carlson, Commander of the Sacramento, CA
Metropolitan Red Light Photo Enforcement Program.
“These new studies confirm the benefit of red light
cameras to a community. They save lives by reducing
dangerous right angle crashes.”
The study also was able to identify a “spillover effect” of
safety benefits from intersections located near red light
camera-enforced intersections. Those intersections
recorded decreases in right-angle crashes and no
negligible increase in rear-end crashes.
Researchers, led by Bhagwant Persaud and Forrest
Council, reviewed traffic data from; Baltimore, MD,
Charlotte, NC, El Cajon, CA, Howard County, MD,
Montgomery County, MD, San Diego, CA and San
Francisco, CA
The studies, which were funded by the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration, were conducted by researchers
at BMI-SG, Ryerson University in Canada and the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluations, and released
Tuesday as part of the Transportation Research Board’s
Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.
Also of interest was a new study by researchers at the
Texas Transportation Institute that found little or no
traffic safety value for using an all-red interval at the end
of every traffic sequence as a red light running
countermeasure.
The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running is a
national advocacy group guided by an independent advisory
board that includes leaders from the fields of traffic safety, law
enforcement, transportation engineering, health care and
emergency medicine, as well as crash victims. More
information on the Campaign can be found at
www.stopredlightrunning.com.
357
34 ITE JOURNAL / MARCH 2003
This article contains excerpts from Stop
on Red = Safe on Green: A Guide to
Red Light Camera Programs, published
by the National Campaign to Stop Red
Light Running. For more information or
to obtain a copy, please visit www.
stopredlightrunning.com or call 202-
828-9100.
THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
According to the Federal Highway
Administration, red-light running was to
blame for as many as 218,000 crashes,
181,000 injuries and 880 fatalities in
2001.1 The problem plagues cities—
where running traffic controls is the
leading cause of urban automobile
crashes—as well as rural communities.
From 1992 to 2000, the number of
fatal crashes at signalized intersections
in the United States increased by 19
percent. Red-light running was the sin-
gle most frequent cause of these
crashes—equivalent to more than three
times the rate of increase for all other
fatal crashes during the same period.2
More than half of those who died were
pedestrians or vehicle occupants hit by
red-light runners. The financial cost to
the public was estimated to exceed
$14 billion per year.3 The California
Highway Patrol estimates that each red-
light running fatality costs the United
States $2,600,000 and other red-light
running crashes cost between $2,000
and $183,000, depending on severity.4
Despite such catastrophic consequen-
ces, only a tiny fraction of red-light
runners face any
punishment for their
actions.
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO RED-LIGHT
CAMERAS
Red-light cameras (RLC) are used in
more than 70 U.S. communities.
Although they are not without detractors
(many public safety initiatives meet resis-
tance early on), RLC programs generally
have widespread public support. A 2002
Harris Poll found that 83 percent of the
U.S. public supported RLC enforce-
ment—an increase of almost 10 percent
from a poll conducted one year earlier.5
In addition, as shown in Table 1, polls
conducted by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) found that a large
majority of the public supported RLC—
an average of 80 percent in five cities
with cameras and 76 percent in five cities
without cameras.
BENEFITS OF RLC: AN EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURE TO A DEADLY
PROBLEM
RLC has significantly reduced intersec-
tion violations and crashes in communities
throughout the United States and around
the world. Photo enforcement is a proven
deterrent that can bring about behavioral
changes, resulting in motorists’ obeying
traffic signals, respecting fellow drivers and
avoiding crashes, injuries and loss of life
caused by red-light running. (See Table 2
for violation/crash reduction statistics for
several U.S. jurisdictions.) Studies have
shown that photo enforcement leads to a
25–30 percent reduction in intersection
injury crashes. Most encouraging, there
seems to be a spillover effect to intersec-
tions not equipped with cameras, indicat-
ing that photo enforcement leads to more
widespread behavioral change.6
With the direct and indirect costs
associated with crashes, deaths and
injuries (such as law enforcement, med-
ical and other emergency personnel and
traffic tie-ups), reducing these events pro-
vides substantial savings to a community.
A study in Fairfax County, VA, USA,
found that crashes were reduced by 40
percent after the activation of RLC.
Researchers projected that, accounting
for the costs of the system, the reduction
saved $12.8 million over the eight-year
cycle of the program.7
Red-Light Cameras: Effective Enforcement
Measures for Intersection Safety
THE USE OF CAMERAS
TO COUNTER RED-
LIGHT RUNNING
HAS SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCED INTERSECTION
VIOLATIONS IN
COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES.
RED-LIGHT CAMERA
PROGRAMS WITH A
WELL DEFINED PROCESS
AND GOOD LEGISLATION
CAN FACILITATE
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
AND PROMOTE
INTERSECTION SAFETY.
BY LESLIE T. BLAKEY
359
ITE JOURNAL / MARCH 2003 35
IMPLEMENTING A SUCCESSFUL RLC
PROGRAM
A well-executed program—including
a clear, well-defined process coupled
with good legislation—can increase
effectiveness, facilitate public acceptance
and improve the long-term success of
RLC programs. While there is no
cookie-cutter formula that addresses the
specific needs and characteristics of every
jurisdiction, common steps in successful
programs include
•identifying the safety problem and
determining if RLC is an appropri-
ate solution;
•identifying and enlisting the support
of key players;
•establishing program goals;
•evaluating and selecting sites;
•initiating a multifaceted public
awareness campaign prior to pro-
gram start and continuing it through
the life of program;
•resolving legislative needs;
•choosing a camera system and ven-
dor(s) based on the jurisdiction’s
objectives, priorities and resources;
•implementing the program using
best management practices;
•predicting, acknowledging and
addressing public concerns; and
•evaluating and monitoring the pro-
gram’s success.
Four of these steps merit particular
attention: identifying the problem, estab-
lishing program goals, selecting intersec-
tions as photo enforcement sites and
addressing public concerns. Each of these
components is best undertaken with the
input, support and understanding of the
engineering community and each may
require special expertise at the local level.
RLC programs are a valuable supplement
to good engineering, which is a prerequi-
site for intersection safety.
Problem Identification
It is vital that jurisdictions evaluate the
safety problem and determine if RLC is an
appropriate solution. What is the particu-
lar issue? Pedestrian safety? Intersection
crashes? A comprehensive engineering
review of the intersection in question
should be conducted to determine the
extent of the problem and the causes of
red-light running. This study helps ensure
that red-light running is not due to engi-
neering or other setting shortcomings.
Can the problem be addressed with other
countermeasures such as road improve-
ments, improved signal visibility, or better
traffic signal timing? One useful resource
for those conducting engineering reviews
is the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)/Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)Toolbox of Engineering
Countermeasures for Red Light Running,
expected to be published in spring 2003.8
Establishing Program Goals
Effective coordination between law
enforcement and engineers at local levels is
important to setting goals and gathering
data and can reduce reliance on state traffic
data systems. Jurisdictions with very little or
no prior data on intersection crashes and
red-light violations need to collect these data
before they implement a camera program.
They also should plan for measurements of
control locations or intersections that will
not get cameras right away. Without data,
jurisdictions cannot empirically demon-
strate a need for cameras—or any other
intervention. Research and program evalua-
tion experts should be consulted in this
In cities with cameras:
Fairfax, VA, USA 84 percent
Charlotte, NC, USA 82 percent
Oxnard, CA, USA 79 percent
Mesa, AZ, USA 78 percent
San Francisco, CA, USA 77 percent
In cities without cameras:
Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA 82 percent
Raleigh/Durham, NC, USA 76 percent
Arlington, TX, USA 74 percent
Charlottesville, VA, USA 74 percent
Fresno, CA, USA* 72 percent
*Note: This poll was originally published
on April 28, 2001. Since then, the city of
Fresno has begun using red-light cameras.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, 2001.
Table 1. Percentage of U.S. drivers
who favor red-light cameras. Jurisdiction Violation/crash reduction
Oxnard, CA, USA Injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals dropped 29
percent after camera enforcement began in 1997; the reduc-
tions occurred at intersections with and without cameras.
Fairfax, VA, USA Red-light violations declined 44 percent after one year of
camera enforcement.
Washington, DC, USA Red-light running fatalities decreased from 16 percent to
2 percent in the first two years with red-light cameras.
Charlotte, NC, USA Red-light running violations dropped by more than 70
percent in the first year.
New York City, NY, USA Red-light violations at camera intersections declined by
62 percent.
Howard County, MD, USA In the four years since camera operation, the number of
crashes at every camera location dropped, with reductions
ranging from 21 percent to 37.5 percent.
San Francisco, CA, USA Red-light cameras led to a 68-percent reduction in violation rate.
Los Angeles County, CA, USA There was a 92-percent drop in violations.
Nationwide Automated Enforcement of Traffic Signals: A Literature Review
reported violation reductions ranging from 20 percent to 87
percent, with half of the jurisdictions reporting 40- to 62-
percent reductions in red-light violations.*
*Note: Data from Maccubbin, R., B. Staples and A. Salwin. Automated Enforcement of Traffic
Signals: A Literature Review.Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, 2001.
Source: National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running. Stop on Red = Safe on Green: A Guide
to Red Light Camera Programs. Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
Table 2. Violation/crash reduction statistics for selected U.S. jurisdictions.
360
36 ITE JOURNAL / MARCH 2003
process before data are collected. Collecting
the appropriate data takes time. Jurisdic-
tions should be prepared to study potential
intersections for six months to one year (or
more, if crash data/trends are required).
Site Selection
Intersections generally are chosen for
photo enforcement based on collision,
citation and complaint data as well as vio-
lation studies and citizen input. Traffic
engineers must determine whether an
existing intersection’s features are engi-
neered appropriately or need to be modi-
fied as well as if they are conducive to the
construction and installation of a camera
system. For example, is there a manhole or
a driveway that would interfere with the
placement of system components? Typi-
cally, intersections are chosen based on one
or more of the following factors:
•High violation and crash rate
•High traffic volume
•Community request
•Concern for pedestrian safety
•Difficulty or danger of enforcement
For cameras to be effective, the inter-
section must be engineered to encourage
good driver behavior. As discussed earlier,
an engineering review is an important
part of this process. Researchers suggest
that, at a minimum, an intersection
review should include a determination
that the sight distance of the signal is ade-
quate and that the yellow phase is suffi-
cient for drivers to stop or pass the
stop-bar before the red phase begins.
Other practices that should be considered
include the use of all-red clearance inter-
vals, conspicuous traffic signal housings,
adequate signal brightness, coordinated
signal timing and the use of advance
warning signs on high-speed roads or at
locations with limited sight distances.
Addressing Public Concerns
In addition to a thorough engineering
review of the intersection where cameras
are to be placed, program managers
should predict, acknowledge and address
public concerns about camera programs.
Opposition to RLC programs has
focused on a number of issues; some of
these issues are explored briefly below.
Signal timing.The sole purpose of the
yellow phase is to warn drivers that the
light is about to change from green to
red. It is not intended to accommodate
driver behavior including speeding and
other forms of risk-taking. Once the yel-
low warning appears, drivers are oblig-
ated to stop or to clear the intersection.
Guidelines for yellow light timing are
set by ITE in conformance with the laws
put forth in the Uniform Vehicle Code
and standards set forth in FHWA’s
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.9,10 The duration of the yellow
interval normally is 3 to 6 seconds (sec.).
A longer duration is reserved for use on
approaches with higher speeds.
Studies by IIHS indicate that increas-
ing the length of the yellow change inter-
val decreased the frequency of red-light
running in the short period following the
timing change. However, IIHS researchers
acknowledge that these initial reductions
in red-light running are not a long-term
solution.11 At intersections where the yel-
low phase is inappropriately short, length-
ening the yellow can bring some drivers
who are inadvertent offenders into com-
pliance. However, extending the yellow
phase will not reduce incidences of delib-
erate red-light running.
Some jurisdictions employ a red clear-
ance interval in which the red signal indi-
cation is displayed to all traffic. This is not
intended to reduce incidences of red-light
running; it is a safety measure that sepa-
rates the last red-light runner from the
first green-light runner for 1 to 3 sec.,
which can prevent a collision.12,13 Before
RLC is used, jurisdictions should ensure
that intersections are properly engineered
to give the driver every chance to comply.
Signal timing should be checked—not
just the yellow and all-red phases—to
assure it is in tune with current traffic
demand. Hardware also should be
checked to ensure traffic signal controllers
and their detectors are working properly.
Poorly timed and/or poorly maintained
equipment contributes to congestion and
delays that encourage red-light running.
These engineering options are not
sufficient for intersections that have been
studied and adjusted as best as possible
by local engineers. Red-light running is a
complex driving behavior that needs to
be addressed through a combination of
engineering, enforcement and education,
not just engineering alone.
Privacy.Legal opinions have found
that RLC does not violate a citizen’s legal
right to privacy.14 The right to drive a
vehicle is coupled with the responsibility
to abide by certain rules, including the
responsibility to obey traffic signals. Dri-
ving is a regulated activity on public
roads. RLC is triggered only by motorists
who break traffic laws.
Presumption of innocence.Some oppo-
nents claim that with photo enforcement,
owners are presumed guilty until proven
innocent. As IIHS notes, photo enforcement
does not violate the presumption of inno-
cence because this presumption attaches at
trial, not before.15 Police and prosecutors are
not bound by a presumption of innocence.
Rather, ethics prevent them from charging a
person unless there is sufficient evidence.
Photo enforcement laws provide that
photographic evidence of a violation is
sufficient to issue a citation to a registered
owner. The citation is merely a sum-
mons; the alleged offender has the oppor-
tunity to present a defense at a hearing.
However, offenders often find that pho-
tographic evidence is difficult to rebut.
This underscores for jurisdictions the
importance of keeping careful oversight
of equipment maintenance and accuracy.
Notification.Some opponents argue
that if traffic offenders are to defend them-
selves adequately against a charge, they
should be entitled to immediate notice of
the offense rather than a citation that is
delivered later by mail. In response to that
argument, IIHS notes that the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution pro-
vides that a person be given due process of
law and that fundamental fairness requires
that a person charged with an offense be
given notice of exactly what offense is
being charged and when and where it was
allegedly committed. Absent a violation of
any statute of limitations, there is no guar-
antee that a person will be charged con-
temporaneously with an offense:
“Traditional enforcement methods
almost always provide relatively immedi-
ate notice of an offense during the stop
and citation process, but there is nothing
in the law providing traffic law offenders
with special rights to notice. Furthermore,
in some circumstances traditional enforce-
361
ITE JOURNAL / MARCH 2003 43
ment methods do not provide immediate
notice. An officer who observes a violation
can cite the violator at a later time. In
crash situations, citations often are issued
after the investigation is completed, days
or weeks after the crash.”16
Revenue. Some opponents of photo
enforcement view RLC as a revenue
source rather than a safety tool. Many
jurisdictions are combating that concern
by moving to flexible fixed-fee payments
to contractors.That way, there are no mis-
conceptions that vendors have an incen-
tive to increase citations, thereby
increasing revenues. When revenues
exceed costs, many jurisdictions reinvest
that money into the RLC program or into
other traffic safety initiatives. Jurisdictions
should be attentive to revenue generation
and distribution. They should:
•Determine the amount of fines for a
citation and the distribution among
all parties.
•Determine the involvement of ven-
dors and operators. Is a vendor
reimbursed on a per-ticket or a flat-
fee basis? Overcome any perception
that the program is simply a revenue
generator for the jurisdiction. One
way to do that is to dedicate income
to traffic safety (rather than the gen-
eral fund), as recommended by the
National Committee on Uniform
Traffic Laws and Ordinances.
•Prevent appearances of conflict of
interest for government authority
and contractor.
Ticketing procedures.Some opponents
complain that receiving tickets in the mail
takes away the constitutional right to con-
front an accuser. However, as with parking
tickets, each ticketed individual is given
the opportunity to testify in court and pro-
vide a defense against the ticket. According
to Charles Ramsey, chief of the Washing-
ton, DC, USA, Metropolitan Police
Department, “All individuals receiving
tickets from red light cameras have the
same rights to contest their citation as
those who receive tickets from police offi-
cers, including the option of an in-person
hearing to present their defense.”17
Some localities have addressed the issue
of how to contest a violation by allowing a
mail-in format. To contest a ticket by mail
in Washington, DC, the owner must
return a sworn affidavit, including evidence
and testimony, to the Automated Traffic
Enforcement Office. This waives the right
to an in-person hearing.
Increase in rear-end crashes. A few stud-
ies report an increase in rear-end crashes
following the implementation of RLC
enforcement. This is not surprising.
When more drivers stop on red, more
rear-end collisions will occur if motorists
behind them are following too closely or
not paying attention. This appears to be a
temporary effect that decreases or disap-
pears once drivers become accustomed to
cameras and change their driving behav-
ior. When considering all crash types—
particularly those involving injury—RLC
leads to significant reductions in crashes,
especially costly injury-related crashes.
THE ROLE OF THE TRAFFIC
ENGINEER IN RLC PROGRAMS
Traffic engineers play a pivotal role in
each stage of an RLC program. Before a
program even begins, engineers assist in
selecting camera sites and conducting inter-
section engineering reviews. Traffic engi-
neers must ensure that the cameras
coordinate with existing traffic systems and
may assist in installing cameras and moni-
toring the results of camera enforcement.
With cooperation among the many key
players in photo enforcement programs,
RLC programs throughout the United
States can continue to reap enormous
safety benefits for the public. ■
References
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
istration. Fatal Accident Reporting System and
General Estimates System data. Washington,
DC, USA, 2000.
2. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS). “Automated Enforcement Myths.” March
2001. Accessed via www.hwysafety.org/news%5F
releases/2000/pr071300.htm on January 29, 2003.
3. Federal Highway Administration. “Stop Red
Light Running: Facts.” Accessed via www.fhwa.
dot.gov/safety/fourthlevel/pro_res_srlr_facts.htm
on January 29, 2003.
4. California State Auditor Bureau of State
Audits. Red Light Camera Programs: Although
They Have Contributed to a Reduction in Acci-
dents, Operational Weaknesses Exist at the Local
Level. Sacramento, CA, USA, 2002. Accessed via
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/pdfs/2001125.pdf
on January 29, 2003.
5. National Campaign to Stop Red Light Run-
ning. Stop on Red = Safe on Green: A Guide to Red
Light Camera Programs. Washington, DC, 2002.
6. Retting, R.A., A.F. Williams, C.M. Farmer
and A.F. Feldman. “Evaluation of Red Light
Camera Enforcement in Fairfax, Virginia.” ITE
Journal, Vol. 69, No. 8 (August 1999): 30–34.
7. Ruby, D. and A. Hobeika. Assessment of
Red Light Running Cameras in Fairfax County,
Virginia.Transportation Research Board 2003
Annual Meeting CD-ROM.
8.Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures for
Red Light Running. FHWA/ITE, forthcoming.
9.Uniform Vehicle Code. National Committee
on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 2000.
10. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices: Millennium Edition, Part 4: Highway
Traffic Signals. Washington, DC: FHWA, 2001.
11. IIHS. “Comments on ‘The Red Light
Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?’ from the
Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives.” May 23, 2001. Accessed via
www.hwysafety.org/safety%5Ffacts/comments.
htm on January 29, 2003
12. Eccles, K. and H. McGee. A History of
the Yellow and All-Red Intervals for Traffic Sig-
nals. Prepared for ITE, 2001.
13. PB Farradyne Inc. City of San Diego
Photo Enforcement System Review Final Report.
Commissioned by the City of San Diego Police
Department. San Diego, CA, 2002.
14. California v. Allen; Denver v. Pirosko.
15. IIHS, “Automated Enforcement Myths.”
16. Ibid.
17. National Campaign to Stop Red Light
Running.
LESLIE T. BLAKEY
is executive director of the
National Campaign to
Stop Red Light Running,
located in Washington,
DC, USA. The cam-
paign is an independent
advocacy initiative
guided by a voluntary national advisory board com-
prised of leaders from the fields of traffic safety, law
enforcement, transportation, engineering, healthcare
and emergency medicine. It provides the public and
elected officials with a better understanding of the seri-
ousness of red-light running as well as law enforce-
ment practices and tools that can make roadways safer.
362
Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007
Go for a Philly cheesesteak? While you’re out be sure to
Whether you live in Philadelphia or visit, indulge in the sandwich that has been identified with the city since the 1930s.
But on your way to get your cheesesteak, don’t run a red light because Philadelphia is one of a growing number of US
cities with camera enforcement. Evaluating the effectiveness of red light cameras at two intersections along Philadelphia’s
MIND THOSE TRAFFIC LIGHTS
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 1
363
author of the Institute’s new red light cam-
era study.
Researchers tallied signal violation rates at
intersections before and after extension of yel-
low lights and again after red light camera
enforcement had been in effect for about a
year. The first step reduced signal violations
lations that remained after yellow lights
were lengthened at the Roosevelt Bou-
levard intersections.
“Violations virtually disappeared at the
six approaches to the two intersections we
studied. This decrease in violations is all
the more remarkable because the intersec-
busy Roosevelt Boulevard, Institute re-
searchers separated camera effects from
the effects of extending yellow lights to give
approaching motorists more warning that
signals were about to turn red.
Sometimes these two measures have
been introduced simultaneously, which has
2 Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007
Placement of
red light cameras
along Philadelphia’s
Roosevelt Boulevard
is prominent.
Signs announce
their presence,
so motorists know
they’re not being
ambushed. The
intersections were
chosen for photo
enforcement after
being identified as
some of the
highest crash
locations in the
United States. The
idea of the cameras
is to reduce signal
violations and, in
turn, the number of
serious crashes.
caused confusion about their relative bene-
fits. The new study reveals that both meas-
ures reduce signal violations, but it’s the
cameras that make by far the biggest differ-
ence. They all but eliminated the signal vio-
tions were such high crash locations. In
fact, they had been identified as having
some of the highest crash rates in the
nation,” says Richard Retting, the Institute’s
senior transportation engineer and lead
by 36 percent. The cameras reduced the re-
maining violations by 96 percent. At the same
time, violations didn’t change much at inter-
sections without cameras in Atlantic County,
New Jersey, about 50 miles away.
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 2
364
Objective is deterrence, not “gotcha:”
In Philadelphia and elsewhere with camera
enforcement (see p.4 for a list of US communi-
ties), conspicuous signs warn motorists as
they approach camera-equipped intersec-
tions. The signs posted along Roosevelt
Boulevard include images of traffic signals and
the words, “PHOTO ENFORCED.”
“This policy flies in the face of
red light camera critics who claim
the cameras are all about catching
people, writing lots of tickets, and
raising money,” Retting points out.
“The true purpose of cameras is to
reduce crashes by getting mo-
torists to stop at red lights, so the
most successful programs don’t
produce any revenue at all.”
Results of the Philadelphia study
also rebut camera opponents who
insist that lengthening yellow sig-
nal intervals is all that’s needed to
reduce intersection crashes. It
isn’t. Appropriate yellow intervals
are important, but cameras make
a much bigger difference.
Violations at the 6 approaches
to the 2 Philadelphia intersections
ranged from 8 to 251 per 10,000
vehicles before any changes were
introduced. After yellow signal
timing was lengthened, violation
rates declined by 20 to 63 percent,
depending on the location. After
cameras had been operating for
about a year, the rates declined an
additional 87 to 100 percent.
At the intersection approach
with the highest violation rate (251
per 10,000 vehicles), the first step
of extending yellow lights pro-
duced a decline to 198 violations
per 10,000 vehicles. Then with red
light cameras, the rate dropped to
1.8 per 10,000. Signal violation rates
at 4 of the 6 intersection approach-
Cameras help by deterring violators and,
thus, preventing collisions. The cameras, con-
nected to signal lights and sensors that moni-
tor traffic, automatically photograph vehicles
driven into an intersection after the light has
turned red — not just as the light changes but
a specified amount of time after.
How they work and why they’re needed:
High red light violation rates have been
recorded at busy urban intersections, and the
rates increase during peak travel. The result is
crashes, including serious ones. Red light run-
ning causes about 800 crash deaths per year,
and about half of the people who are killed
Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007 3
100
200
20
40
60
80
2
4
6
8
5
10
15
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
before
changes
longer
yellow
lights
SITE 1
SITE 4
red light
cameras
operating
before
changes
red light
cameras
operating
before
changes
red light
cameras
operating
before
changes
longer
yellow
lights
longer
yellow
lights
SITE 2
SITE 5
longer
yellow
lights
longer
yellow
lights
SITE 3
SITE 6
longer
yellow
lights
red light
cameras
operating
zero
before
changes
red light
cameras
operating
before
changes
red light
cameras
operating
RED LIGHT VIOLATIONS PER 10,000 VEHICLES
AT PHILADELPHIA SITES WITH CAMERAS
aren’t the signal violators. They’re pedestrians
and people in vehicles that are struck by
motorists committing the violations. Another
165,000 people are estimated to be injured in
red light running crashes each year.
The 2004 legislation authorizing camera
use in Philadelphia requires photos of the rear
license plates of vehicles in violation but not
images of the motorists. Owners of the identi-
fied vehicles are subject to $100 fines.
es plummeted to fewer than 2 per 10,000.
Before this research, the most widely cited
evaluation of cameras in a US community was
in Oxnard, California, where red light viola-
tions went down after the cameras were
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 3
365
4 Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007
introduced. Injury crashes also were reduced
(see Status Report, April 28, 2001; on the web at
iihs.org). A review of international studies con-
cluded that cameras generally reduce red light
violations by about 40 to 50 percent (see Status
Report, May 4, 2002; on the web at iihs.org).
What’s different about the Philadelphia
study is that researchers looked at camera
effects after they already had quantified the
effects of lengthening the yellow signal lights.
So effective was this two-step approach at the
experimental intersections on Roosevelt Bou-
levard that city officials are expanding the
camera program, beginning with more sites
on the same road.
For a copy of “Reducing red light running
through longer yellow signal timing and red
light camera enforcement: results of a field
investigation” by R.A. Retting et al., write:
Publications, Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA
22201, or email publications@iihs.org.
WHERE
THEY’RE
OPERATING
Ten years ago, red
light cameras were
operating in only two
US cities, New York and
San Francisco. Now 200+
US communities have
camera enforcement:
ARIZONA
Avondale
Chandler
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Phoenix
Prescott Valley
Scottsdale
Tempe
CALIFORNIA
Bakersfield
Baldwin Park
Berkeley
Beverly Hills
Capitola
Cerritos
Compton
Costa Mesa
Covina
Culver City
Cupertino
Davis
Del Mar
El Cajon
El Monte
Emeryville
Encinitas
Escondido
Fairfield
Fremont
Fresno
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Gardena
Hawthorne
Indian Wells
Inglewood
Laguna Woods
Lancaster
Loma Linda
Los Alamitos
Los Angeles City
Los Angeles County
Lynwood
Marysville
Maywood
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Modesto
Montclair
Montebello
Murrieta
Newark
Oceanside
Oxnard
Pasadena
Poway
Rancho Cucamonga
Redwood City
Ridgecrest
Riverside
Rocklin
Roseville
Sacramento City
Sacramento County
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Juan Capistrano
San Leandro
San Mateo
Santa Ana
Santa Clarita
Santa Fe Springs
Santa Maria
Solana Beach
South Gate
Stockton
Ventura
Union City
Upland
Vista
Walnut
West Hollywood
Whittier
Yuba City
Yucaipa
COLORADO
Aurora
Boulder
Denver
Fort Collins
Greenwood Village
Northglenn
DELAWARE
Dover
Elsmere
Newark
Seaford
Wilmington
DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
Gulf Breeze
GEORGIA
Alpharetta
Athens-Clarke County
Atlanta
Brunswick
Decatur
Duluth
Fulton County
Georgetown
Griffin
Gwinnett County
Hapeville
Lilburn
Marietta
Morrow
Moultrie
Rome
Roseville
Savannah
Snellville
Suwanee
Thomasville
Tifton
ILLINOIS
Bellwood
Calumet City
Chicago
Oak Lawn
IOWA
Clive
Council Bluffs
Davenport
Sioux City
MARYLAND
Annapolis
Baltimore City
Baltimore County
Bel Air
Bladensburg
Bowie
Charles County
Cheverly
College Park
Cottage City
Forest Heights
Frederick
Greenbelt
Howard County
Hyattsville
Laurel
Landover Hills
Montgomery County
Morningside
Prince Georges County
Riverdale Park
Rockville
MASSACHUSETTS
Town of Saugus
MISSOURI
Arnold
Florissant
Gladstone
Springfield
St. Peters
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque
NEW YORK
New York City
NORTH
CAROLINA
Cary
Knightdale
Raleigh
Rocky Mount
Wilmington
OHIO
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Middletown
Northwood
Springfield
Sylvania Township
Toledo
Trotwood
OREGON
Beaverton
Medford
Newberg
Portland
PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia
RHODE ISLAND
Providence
SOUTH DAKOTA
Sioux Falls
TENNESSEE
Gallatin
Germantown
Jackson
Kingsport
Knoxville
Red Bank
TEXAS
Balcones Heights
Coppell
Dallas
Dalworthington Gardens
Denton
Duncanville
El Paso
Farmers Branch
Frisco
Garland
Grand Prairie
Harlingen
Houston
Longview
Lufkin
North Richland Hills
Plano
Richardson
Richland Hills
Rowlett
University Park
WASHINGTON
Auburn
Bonney Lake
Lakewood
Moses Lake
SeaTac
Seattle
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 4
366
Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007 5
FIRST SHE SNEEZED
AND THE NEXT THING SHE
KNEW, A MAILBOX WAS
LOOMING STRAIGHT AHEAD
New Institute study looks at how and
why beginning drivers get into crashes
prised me. I went down to look at it, and
when I looked up I was off the road and
went to swerve and hit a mailbox.”
This crash description is part of a study
conducted in Connecticut. Researchers in-
terviewed 16 year-olds who had been in non-
fatal crashes and examined police reports of
the crashes, finding that most of them in-
volved multiple vehicles. The beginners were
at fault in 68 percent of the crashes — 95
percent of those involving a single vehicle.
Thirty-nine percent of the beginning driv-
ers’ crashes involved running off the road.
Another 31 percent involved hitting the
backs of other vehicles. Major reasons for
the at-fault collisions included speeding,
skidding and/or losing control, having prob-
lems on slippery roads, and especially failing
to see another vehicle or a traffic signal.
Why didn’t the beginners see the other
vehicles or signals? Mostly because they
didn’t look thoroughly. Some were day-
dreaming. Others became distracted by
things inside and outside their vehicles
including radios and CD players, friends by
the side of the road, etc. Some teens report-
ed opening a window to throw out trash or
swiping at a bug while driving.
Male drivers were much more likely than
females to have been speeding or to have
lost control of their vehicles. The males also
were more likely to run off the road, while
the females got into more rear-end collisions.
“Teenagers will be teenagers, and this
study points to some of their behavior that
leads to crashes,” says Anne McCartt, Insti-
tute senior vice president for research and
an author of the study. “Now that we know
the mistakes, we can better address how to
reduce them. Driver education hasn’t been
shown to help, but maybe some of the new
electronic technologies in vehicles can
monitor behavior like speeding and help
beginners learn some important driving les-
sons sooner than they otherwise would.”
For a copy of “Crashes of novice teenage
drivers: characteristics and contributing fac-
tors” by K.A. Braitman et al., write: Publica-
tions, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201,
or email publications@iihs.org.
Teenagers with brand new licenses get into far more crashes than older people — more even
than older teens. This has been known for years, and new Institute research addresses why
crash rates are so high during the first months of licensure. Based on a study of crashes
involving 16 year-olds, the researchers found that simply not paying enough attention or tak-
ing enough notice of the surroundings is a big reason.
Here’s what one teen reported: “I guess I wasn’t really thinking what I was doing and, um,
as I was driving I sneezed. And um, like, my eyes closed and everything, and then at the same
moment my cellphone went off, and I forgot to put it on vibrate like I usually do, which sur-
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 5
367
6 Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007
CONSEQUENCES
OF BOOSTING
FUEL ECONOMY
Vehicles can be more fuel efficient without
compromising safety. This is the main con-
clusion of a new study by injury epidemiol-
ogist Leon S. Robertson.
Automakers typically comply with US
fuel economy standards two ways, both of
which have safety downsides. Making vehi-
cles smaller means they use less fuel but
generally aren’t as crashworthy (the small-
est vehicles on the road have the highest
death rates). Adding small, light, and fuel-
efficient vehicles to offset gas guzzlers
raises overall fleet fuel efficiency but con-
tributes to incompatibilities in crashes be-
tween smaller, lighter vehicles and bigger,
heavier SUVs and pickups (see Status Report,
Jan. 28, 2006; on the web at iihs.org).
A way to improve fuel economy and
maintain vehicle crashworthiness is to use
lighter materials that reduce vehicle weight
but not size. Automakers traditionally
haven’t gone this route unless there were
federal incentives to do so.
Robertson studied death rates in 67 car,
van, and SUV models (1999-2002s) during
2000-04. First he looked at the effects of both
vehicle weight and size on fuel use, finding
that weight had a big impact. Heavy vehicles
are the least fuel efficient (see Status Report,
Feb. 25, 2006; on the web at iihs.org). Then
Robertson studied the relationship between
weight and death rates, controlling for other
safety factors. Larger vehicles, good frontal
Robertson notes that weights varied
within the same vehicle size groups as meas-
ured by turn distance. He concludes that
reducing the weights of all vehicles in the
study group to those of vehicles with the
lowest weight per size would reduce fatality
rates 28 percent and fuel use 16 percent.
“[F]uel economy is not incompatible
with societal risk if reductions in vehicle
single fleetwide standard. Downsizing will
be discouraged because standards will be
more stringent for smaller vehicles. This
should have the effect of raising these vehi-
cles’ fuel economy without compromising
their safety.
“Robertson’s study confirms that the
new federal rule for light truck fuel econ-
omy is a good approach,” says Institute
president Adrian Lund.
“Indexing these require-
ments to vehicle size
makes it less likely that
auto manufacturers will
reduce the weights of
their vehicles in ways
that degrade occupant
protection, and some
weight reduction, es-
pecially among very
heavy vehicles, could
improve total safety by
lowering the risk to oth-
er people on the road.”
Something else that
Robertson’s study con-
firms is “the impor-
tance of choosing a
vehicle that has good
crash test performance,
whatever its size and
weight, and a vehicle
with good stability and
resistance to rollover,”
Lund says.
Pointing out a prob-
lem with Robertson’s
research, Lund says it
NEW DATA ABOUT FUEL
ECONOMY AND SAFETY
weight are accomplished without reducing
vehicle size,” Robertson says. “More sensi-
ble fuel economy regulation that would not
be adverse to safety could be achieved by
setting a standard for minimum fuel econo-
my dependent on vehicle size.”
The federal government is moving in this
direction. Standards issued in March 2006
require automakers to improve the fuel effi-
ciency of SUVs, vans, and pickups by the
2011 model year. Fuel economy standards
will vary by vehicle size, measured as wheel-
base times track width, instead of applying a
“never addresses why the lower weight vehi-
cles in each size group weigh less than others
in the same group. In some cases, lower
weights are due no doubt to smaller engines,
so safety is partly affected by the perform-
ance of the vehicles. Weight reductions
achieved solely by using materials that weigh
less could have smaller benefits, or no net
benefits, on societal risk of injuries.”
“Blood and oil: vehicle characteristics in
relation to fatality risk and fuel economy” by
L.S. Robertson is in American Journal of
Public Health (Nov. 2006).
offset crash test scores, and greater static
rollover resistance were related to lower
death rates. Weight increases also were as-
sociated with lower risk of death.
But considering all fatalities (pedestri-
ans, motorcyclists, and people in other vehi-
cles involved in crashes), Robertson found
that weight increases beyond those associ-
ated with increased vehicle size raised the
total risk. The protective effects of the
increased weight for people in a given vehi-
cle were offset by the higher risk to other
people in crashes with those vehicles.
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 6
368
Status Report, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan. 27, 2007 7
HOW AIRBAGS WENT
FROM CONTROVERSIAL
TO COMMONPLACE
By the late 1990s frontal airbags were standard in new
cars in the US market, and automakers quickly began
offering optional side airbags. Now head-protecting
side airbags are in nearly 70 percent of new cars, and
some manufacturers offer knee airbags.
It was a hard slog to get these, and the story isn’t
over yet. Former Institute president Brian O’Neill re-
cently reflected on the history of airbags and offered
insights into what’s next. He presented his remarks,
highlighted here, at the 8th International Symposium
on Sophisticated Car Occupant Protection Systems.
Frontal airbags used to be viewed in the US market
as alternatives to lap/shoulder belts, which seldom were
used (US states were late among motorized jurisdictions
to adopt belt laws). The idea was that if people refused
to buckle up, the airbags would be there in frontal crash-
es. We’ve come a long waysince then. Now airbags and
safety belts are designed to work as a system,
and the US belt use rate tops 80 percent.
During the 1970-80s, automakers resisted
airbags. Only when the US Supreme Court inter-
vened did regulators finally complete a frontal
airbag rule specifying 100 percent compliance
by the 1990 model year. In a unanimous decision
the Court said, “For nearly a decade, the automo-
bile industry waged the regulatory equivalent of
war against the airbag and lost.”
In conducting their war, the automakers sug-
gested ignition interlocks as alternatives to airbags.
The devices forced drivers to buckle up or their
cars wouldn’t start. This was the first US approach
that significantly increased belt use rates, but inter-
locks were so unpopular that eventually Congress
banned them from being required again.
What will future airbags look like? Probably their
biggest weakness has been the inability of crash sen-
sors to reliably and quickly detect the wide range of
real-world crashes in which airbags are needed. More
sophisticated sensors will allow automakers to refine
how airbags and safety belts work together. Better sen-
sors may open the door to external airbags that create
more crush space, especially for smaller vehicles.
For a copy of “Airbags: yesterday, today, and tomor-
row” by B. O’Neill, write Publications, Insurance In-
stitute for Highway Safety, 1005 North Glebe Road,
Arlington, VA 22201, or email publications@iihs.org.
HLDI’S HUGE DATABASE YIELDS A
WEALTH OF INSURANCE LOSS FACTS
The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), affiliate of the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, is the largest US repository of auto insurance coverage and
claims data. Using the insurance records of more than 130 million passenger vehi-
cles, HLDI publishes vehicle-by-vehicle comparisons of losses under 6 coverages:
collision, property damage liability, comprehensive, personal injury protection,
medical payment, and bodily injury. New fact sheets highlight this information,
revealing wide variations in insurance losses among vehicles, even those that are
similar in both size and type
(small 2-door cars, for exam-
ple, or midsize SUVs). To ac-
cess HLDI loss facts, go to
iihs.org/research.
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 7
369
NON-PROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 252
ARLINGTON, VA
1005 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201
Phone 703/247-1500 Fax 247-1588
Internet: www.iihs.org
Vol. 42, No. 1, January 27, 2007
21st Century Insurance
AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance Group
Affirmative Insurance
AIG Agency Auto
AIG Direct
Alfa Insurance
Alfa-Virginia Mutual Insurance Company
Allstate Insurance Group
American Family Mutual Insurance
American National Property and Casualty
Ameriprise Auto & Home
Amerisure Insurance
Amica Mutual Insurance Company
Auto Club Group
Auto Club South Insurance Company
Bituminous Insurance Companies
Bristol West Insurance
California State Automobile Association
Capital Insurance Group
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Concord Group Insurance Companies
Cotton States Insurance
COUNTRY Insurance & Financial Services
Contents may be republished with attribution.
This publication is printed on recycled paper.
1 0018-988X
Countrywide Insurance Group
Erie Insurance Group
Esurance
Farm Bureau Financial Services
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho
Farmers Insurance Group of Companies
Farmers Mutual of Nebraska
Frankenmuth Insurance
The GEICO Group
General Casualty Insurance Companies
GMAC Insurance
Grange Insurance
Hanover Insurance Group
The Hartford
High Point Insurance Group
Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance
Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance
Liberty Mutual
The Main Street America Group
Markel Corporation
Mercury Insurance Group
MetLife Auto & Home
Michigan Insurance Company
MiddleOak
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company
Nationwide Insurance
N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Nodak Mutual Insurance
Norfolk & Dedham Group
Occidental Fire & Casualty of North Carolina
Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Oregon Mutual Insurance
Palisades Insurance
Pekin Insurance
PEMCO Insurance
The Progressive Corporation
Response Insurance
Rockingham Group
Safeco Insurance
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company
S.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
SECURA Insurance
Shelter Insurance
Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America
State Auto Insurance Companies
State Farm Insurance
St. Paul Travelers
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Tokio Marine Nichido
USAA
Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Zurich North America
FUNDING ASSOCIATIONS
American Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a
nonprofit scientific and educational organization
dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property
damage — from crashes on the nation’s highways.
The Institute is wholly supported by auto insurers:
ON THE INSIDE
RED LIGHT CAMERAS in Philadel-
phia all but eliminate violations .....p.1
CAMERAS in US communities ......p.4
WHY BEGINNERS CRASH and the
kinds of crashes they get into ........p.5
VEHICLE SIZE in relation to safety
and fuel economy .............................p.6
AIRBAGS: What you might not know
(or don’t remember) .......................p.7
NEW HLDI PUBLICATIONS .........p.7
SR42_1 TO PDF:SR 42.1 1/26/07 11:35 AM Page 8
370
Red Light Camera Red Light Camera Traffic Safety ProgramTraffic Safety Program371
Program AgendaProgram AgendaThe Problem – Red Light RunningRed Light Photo Enforcement WorksThe Public Supports Red Light Camera Enforcement372
373
Red Light Running Is A Dangerous ProblemRed Light Running Is A Dangerous Problem2003 – Nationwide approximately 206,000 red light running crashes, resulting in 934 fatalities, and 176,000 injuries1Each year intersection crashes account for more than 50% of all reported crashes, and 22% of all injury crashes22006 – 71% of Seattle residents felt that red light running is a problem31http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/redl_facts.htm2U.S. DOT/ITE, “Using Red-Light Cameras to Reduce Red-Light Running,” April 20043 Seattle Public Opinion Survey, conducted April 2006.374
Red Light Running Is A Dangerous ProblemRed Light Running Is A Dangerous ProblemAccording to a survey conducted by U.S. Department of Transportation and the American Trauma Society, 63 percent of Americans witness a red light running incident more than once a weekOne in three Americans knows someone who has been injured or killed because of a red light runnerAlmost all drivers (96%) fear being struck by a red light runnerRed light running is often a result of aggressive driving, and is completely preventable375
Photo Enforcement Photo Enforcement --A SolutionA SolutionReduction in red light running through a comprehensive red light camera program will promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of our communityNearly 200 communities in the U.S. have red light camera systems operational376
US Cities Using Red Light CamerasUS Cities Using Red Light CamerasArizonaAvondaleChandlerMesaParadise ValleyPhoenixPrescott ValleyScottsdaleTempeCaliforniaBakersfieldBaldwin ParkBerkeley Beverly HillsBurlingameCapitolaCathedral CityCerritosCommerceComptonCosta MesaCovinaCulver CityCupertino DavisDel MarEl CajonEl MonteEmeryvilleEncinitasEscondidoFairfieldFremontFresnoFullertonGarden GroveGardenaHawthorneIndian WellsInglewoodLaguna WoodsLancasterLoma LindaLos AlamitosLos Angeles CityLos Angeles CountyLynwoodMarysvilleMaywoodMenlo ParkMillbraeModestoMontclairMontebelloMurrietaNewarkOceansideOxnardPasadenaPowayRancho CucamongaReddingRedwood CityRidgecrest Rio VistaRiversideRocklinRoseville Sacramento CitySacramento CountySan BernardinoSan DiegoSan FranciscoSan Juan CapistranoSan LeandroSan MateoSanta AnaSanta ClaritaSanta Fe SpringsSanta MariaSolana BeachSouth GateSouth San FranciscoStocktonVenturaUnion CityUplandVistaWalnutWest HollywoodWhittierYuba CityDelawareDoverElsmereNewarkSeaford WilmingtonDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaApopkaGulf BreezeGeorgiaAlpharettaAthens-Clarke CountyAtlantaBrunswickDecaturDuluthFulton CountyGeorgetownGriffinGwinnett CountyHapevilleLilburnMarietta Morrow MoultrieRomeRosevilleSavannahSnellvilleSuwaneeThomasvilleTiftonIllinoisBellwoodBurbankCahokiaCalumet City ChicagoEvergreen Park LyonsOlympia Fields NorthfieldOak LawnIowaCliveCouncil BluffsDavenportNorthfieldSioux CityLouisianaBaton RougeJefferson ParishMarylandAnnapolisAnne ArundelBaltimore CityBaltimore CountyBel AirBladensburgBowieBrentwoodCharles CountyCheverlyCollege ParkColmar ManorCottage CityForest HeightsFrederickGreenbeltHoward CountyHyattsvilleLaurelLandover HillsMontgomery CountyMorningsideNew CarrolltonPrince Georges CountyRiverdale ParkRockvilleMassachusettsTown of SaugusMissouriArnoldBelleriveBeverly HillsBrentwoodCreve CoeurDellwoodFlorissantGladstoneHazelwoodMoline AcresOak GrovesSpringfieldSt. CharlesSt. JohnSt. LouisSt. PetersWentzvilleNew MexicoAlbuquerque New YorkNew York CityNorth CarolinaCaryFayettevilleKnightdaleRaleighRocky MountWilmingtonOhioClevelandColumbusDaytonMiddletownNorthwoodSpringfieldSylvania Twp. ToledoTrotwoodOregonAlbanyBeavertonMedfordNewbergPortlandSalem PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia Rhode IslandProvidenceSouth DakotaSioux FallsTennesseeGallatinGermantownJacksonKingsportKnoxvilleRed BankTexasArlingtonBalcones HeightsCedar HillCoppellCorpus ChristiDallasDalworthington GardensDentonDuncanvilleEl PasoFarmers BranchFriscoGarlandGrand PrairieHarlingenHoustonHumbleHuntingtonHuttoIrvingLake JacksonLancasterLongviewLubbockLufkinMarshallMcKinneyMissionMontgomery CountyNorth Richland HillsPlanoRichardsonRichland HillsRowlettTerrellUniversity Park WashingtonAuburnLakewoodLynnwoodMoses LakeSeaTacSeattleMississippiSouthavenTupelo377
Red Light Cameras Positively Affect Driver Red Light Cameras Positively Affect Driver BehaviorBehaviorPhiladelphia, PA – Red light violations decreased 70 and 88% at two of intersections where cameras are operating during the first year of operation.(State House Speak John M. Perzel-R172)Columbus, OH – 72% decline in red light violations between March and August 2006 and nearly 100% decrease in crashes at monitored intersections.Oxnard, CA – 7% overall crash reduction; 29% reduction in injury-related crashes; 32% decrease in front-into-side crashes; 68% decline in front-into-side crashes involving injury Charlotte, NC – 17 intersections – 37% decrease in angle crashes at monitored intersections, 60% decrease in angle crashes at approaches with cameras; all crash types reduced 19%, crash severity reduced 16%.Source: Red Light Cameras: A Proven Method to Save Lives,” National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, www.stopredlightrunning.com/redlight.htm)378
National Success of Red Light Camera National Success of Red Light Camera ProgramsPrograms25 percent decrease in total right-angle crashes16 percent decrease in injury right-angle crashesSource: Red Light Cameras: A Proven Method to Save Lives,” National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, www.stopredlightrunning.com/redlight.htm)379
New York City Red Light Camera ProgramHistorical Violations Per Camera Per Day1994 to 200501020304050607080901994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Producing Safer IntersectionsViolations/Camera/Day73% reductionin violations41% reductionin collisions35% reductionin fatalities380
The Public Supports Red Light CamerasThe Public Supports Red Light Cameras2002 – Nationwide survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted by the Gallup Organization found 75% of drivers favored use of red light cameras.2006 – 82% Seattle residents favor installing red light cameras.381
The Public Supports Red Light CamerasThe Public Supports Red Light Cameras68%72%72%74%74%76%77%79%81%82%82%82%84%84%85%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%State of Massachusetts - 2007Fresno, CA - IIHS, April 2001State of Texas - Hill Research, 2002Charlottesville, VA - IIHS, April 2001Arlington, TX - IIHS, April 2001Raleigh/Durham, NC - IIHS, April 2001San Francisco, CA- IIHS, April 2001Oxnard, CA- IIHS, April 2001State of Missouri - Zogby Poll, 2005Seattle, WA - April 2006Ft. Lauderdale, FL - IIHS, April 2001Charlotte, NC - IIHS, April 2001Fairfax, VA- IIHS, April 2001St. Louis, MO - January, 2007Mesa, AZ - April 2006Percent in Support of Red Light Cameras382
Photo Enforcement AdvantagesPhoto Enforcement AdvantagesAutomated Traffic Law Enforcement video produced by Insurance Institute for Highway SafetyIn addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions occur community-wide (“Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Fairfax, VA.”, USA ITE Journal,1999, 69:30-34 and “Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, CA.” 1999, Accident Analysis and Prevention 31: 169-174)Allows limited police resources to focus on other enforcement needs383
Problem: Intersection crashes account for more
than 40 percent of all crashes
Intersection safety is a serious problem in the
United States, and it is one of the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) top priorities.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
reports that about 6.4 million crashes occurred on
the Nation’s roadways in 2000. Approximately 40
percent of all crashes are intersection-related. Red-
light-running (RLR) causes more than 180,000
crashes every year, resulting in approximately 1,000
deaths and 90,000 injuries a year. The number of
fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals is rising
faster than any other type of fatal crash nationwide.
When does RLR occur?
RLR occurs when a driver enters an intersection
after the traffic signal has turned red. The traditional
way of enforcing this violation is to station a patrol
vehicle near an intersection. This method is
dangerous for the officer, expensive to localities,
and drains valuable police resources. Red light
cameras can supplement police efforts by being
where officers cannot be all the time.
Solution: Red light camera technology can make
intersections safer
What are red light cameras?
Red light cameras detect a motor vehicle that
passes over sensors in the pavement after a traffic
signal has turned red. The sensors are connected to
computers in high-speed cameras, which take two
photographs of the violation. The first photo is taken
of the front of the vehicle when it enters the
intersection, and the second is taken when the
vehicle is in the intersection.
Law enforcement officials review the photograph,
and in many localities, a citation is mailed to the
registered owner of the vehicle. The owner can
challenge the citation if he or she was not the driver
at the time of the violation.
Successful Applications: Research demonstrates
crash reductions
Based on a survey conducted as a part of a National
Cooperative Highway Research Program synthesis
project, a majority of jurisdictions reported
downward trends in RLR-related violations and
crashes because of red light cameras.
• In Fairfax, VA, violations were reduced by 41
percent after 1 year of camera enforcement.
• San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles, CA realized a
68- and 92-percent reduction in violations,
respectively.
• In Charlotte, NC, RLR violations were reduced by
more than 70 percent during the first year of
operation.
Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations
Red Light Cameras
Putting It in Perspective
• Motorists are more likely to be injured in
crashes involving RLR than in other types
of crashes. Occupant injuries occurred in
45 percent of the RLR crashes, compared
to 30 percent for other crash types.
• According to a survey conducted by U. S.
Department of Transportation and the
American Trauma Society, 63 percent of
Americans witness a RLR incident more
than once a week. One in three Americans
knows someone who has been injured or
killed because of a red light runner.
384
According to FHWA’s Guidance for Using Red Light
Cameras, the following critical elements should be
considered while installing red light camera
systems:
• Conduct an engineering study before considering
camera installation.
• Evaluate effective engineering and education
alternatives before considering photo-
enforcement.
• Make sure the red light camera program is
engineered and installed properly.
• Measure, document, and make safety results
available.
• Ensure complete oversight and supervision by
public agencies.
• Avoid compensating vendors based on the
number of citations.
• Include an ongoing photo-enforcement public
education program.
Additional Resources
FHWA has published a comprehensive publication,
Guidance for Using Red Light Cameras. This
document provides information to State and local
agencies on how to initiate and operate an appropriate
red light camera program. Call 202–366–5915 to order
Publications No. FHWA-SA-03-018, or download this
guide from the Web at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
drlcguide/index.htm.
Visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/srlr.htm for more
information on how to prevent RLR.
For more information, contact:
Hari Kalla, FHWA Office of Safety
Phone: 202–366–5915
E-mail: hari.kalla@fhwa.dot.gov
Benefits
Automated enforcement systems can be
effective and reliable tools to help reduce
the number of RLR violations and
associated crashes.
FHWA-HRT-04-063
HRTS-03/01-04(1M)E
385
Red Light Running Statistics according to the
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
In the Year 2000:
More than 2.8 million intersection-related crashes occurred in 2000,
representing 44 percent of all reported crashes.
Approximately 8,500 fatalities (23 percent of the total fatalities).
Almost 1 million injury crashes (more than 48 percent of all injury
crashes) occurred at or within an intersection environment.
Red light running is a key cause of intersection crashes:
260,000 accidents and 800 fatalities per year in the US.
18% increase in fatalities since 1992.
Red light fatalities are increasing 3 times the rate of other traffic
fatalities.
150% more likely to be injured in a red light collision.
DOT estimates US spending $7B per year because of red light
violations.
The number of violations is staggering:
10,000 cars per day per direction at busy intersections (This is ADT
for a moderate intersection).
Up to 1% of the cars will run a red light (0.3% is typical).
During rush hours, expect to see violations on every cycle.
A busy intersection can expect over 50,000 violations per year.
Automated red light enforcement systems work:
It's typical to see a 40% reduction in violations within a year of
system installation.
Accidents have been reduced by up to 20%, and injury accidents up
to 46%.
Enforcement systems have a broader effect than at individual
locations. Neighboring intersections without red light cameras also
experience a reduction in violations.
Collection rates for red light enforcement are much higher (80%)
than for parking citations (20%).
Approval ratings for automated traffic signal enforcement systems
are as high as 82% in areas where they are actively in use.
Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineering, January 2003, FHWA, IIHS 2002
H:\10034 Sales Materials\Sales and Marketing\Digital traffic camera Bus Devt\Comm Ed info Lobby Groups etc\2000 Institute of
Transportation EngineersRed Light Running Statistics.doc
386
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
RESOLUTION
Adopted at the 112th Annual Conference
Miami, Florida
September 27, 2005
Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines
Submitted by the Highway Safety Committee
AHS013.a05
WHEREAS, in 1998 the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) supported the use of red
light cameras at intersections for more effective and efficient traffic law enforcement, in conjunction
with normal enforcement efforts; and
WHEREAS, the use of red light camera systems can deter and reduce red light running violations by
motorists, and more importantly, can reduce the number of crashes, injuries and deaths attributable to
red-light running; and
WHEREAS, crashes caused by motorists running red lights are, on the average, more deadly and
damaging than other types of crashes at signalized intersections; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive approach to using red light camera systems involving partnerships
inclusive of all stakeholders is more effective in the mitigation of red-light running violations; and
WHEREAS, the proper implementation of red light camera systems will improve transportation safety
and operations; and
WHEREAS, the Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (January 2005) developed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is for use by state and local agencies for the development and operation of such systems;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the IACP supports the use of red light camera systems to detect and reduce the
incidence of red light running violations; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the IACP endorses and supports the Red Light Camera Systems
Operational Guidelines for use by state and local law enforcement agencies during the implementation
and operation of red-light camera systems.
10
387
Red Light Camera System Facts
Photo Traffic Safety & Enforcement Solutions
14861 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 109 y Scottsdale, AZ 85254 y Phone: 480-368-0900 y Fax: 480-607-0901
The objectives of red light camera systems are to stop dangerous driving behaviors, reduce
crashes, save lives, prevent injuries, lower health care costs and respond to community con-
cerns.
Photographic detection devices, such as red light cameras, are already being used extensively
around the globe.
• Nearly 150 communities in the US have red light camera systems operational.
• Other countries currently using photographic detection devices include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
The public supports Red Light Cameras
• Three Lou Harris public opinion polls in 1998, 1999 and 2001 found consistently that two-thirds of the public
supported state adoption of red light running photo-enforcement.
.
• An April 2001 survey of 10 cities by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that opinions about red
light camera use are favorable in communities both with and without programs.
Public Support for Red Light Cameras
84%
82%
82%
79%
78%
77%
76%
74%
74%
72%
66% 68% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 82% 84% 86%
Fairfax, VA*
Charlotte, NC*
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Oxnard, CA*
Mesa, AZ*
San Francisco, CA*
Raleigh/Durham, NC
Arlington, TX
Charlottesville, VA
Fresno, CA
% In FavorCity* Indicates Cities with Active Camera Systems at time of survey
388
Red Light Camera System Facts
Photo Traffic Safety & Enforcement Solutions
14861 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 109 y Scottsdale, AZ 85254 y Phone: 480-368-0900 y Fax: 480-607-0901
Red light cameras do effect driver behavior in the long run.
• 72% of Texas residents polled in 2002 by Hill Research
Consultants, felt red light cameras would reduce the num-
ber of collisions and injuries.
• Significant citywide crash reductions have followed the
introduction of red light cameras in Oxnard, California.
7% overall crash reduction; 29% reduction in injury re-
lated crashes; 32% reduction in front into side crashes;
68% reduction in front into side crashes involving injury
• In Fairfax, Virginia after one year of camera enforcement,
violations were reduced by about 40%. Additionally, 84%
of its residents supported the use of red light cameras.
• Garden Grove, California found a 56.2% reduction in
right-of-way violation accidents
• Charlotte, North Carolina reported the following findings based on a before and after study done at 17 intersections:
37% decrease in angle crashes at intersections with cameras; 60% decrease in angle crashes at approaches with
cameras; All crash types reduced by 19%; Crash severity reduced 16%
• Red light running accidents decreased 30% in the year after red light cameras were installed in Baltimore County,
Maryland compared to the prior year.
• Red light running in Savannah, Georgia has decreased by 45% since installing a red light camera program
• Over a 10 year period from 1994-2004, red light running violations decreased 72% in New York City.
New York City Red Light Camera Program
Historical Violations Per Camera Per Day
1994 to 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Violations/Camera/Day72%
reduction
in violations 41%
reduction
in collisions 35%
reduction
in fatalities
389
Red Light Running Facts
Photo Traffic Safety & Enforcement Solutions
14861 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 109 y Scottsdale, AZ 85254 y Phone: 480-368-0900 y Fax: 480-607-0901
Red light running is a dangerous and costly national problem
• Red light running is the leading cause of urban crashes according to the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety.
• More than 1.8 million crashes occur at intersections each year, resulting in 934 deaths and ap-
proximately 176,000 injuries in 2003.
• The financial cost to the public is estimated to be more than $14 billion each year.
A crash caused by a driver who runs a red light can have the same result as a crash
caused by a drunk driver
- serious injury or death.
• Deaths caused by red light
running are increasing at more
than three times the rate of
increase for all other fatal
crashes.
• From 1992 to 2000 the number
of fatal crashes at intersections
jumped 19 percent nationally
and red light running was the
single most frequent cause.
• In 2002, intersection crashes accounted for 16% of Tennessee’s fatalities .
• Vehicle occupant injury is more likely to occur in crashes involving red light running than in any
other crash type.
Most people who run red lights do so because they are in a hurry. The time saved by
avoiding a red light - an average of 47 seconds - is not worth the potential cost in hu-
man lives.
• Almost all drivers (96%) fear being in a crash by a Red Light runner.
• Majority of Americans (56%) admit to running red lights.
• Red light runners have no particular demographic profile – it can be anyone who drives.
• One in three Americans knows someone who has been injured or killed in a red light running
crash Red light running is often a result of aggressive driving, and is completely preventable.
State of Tennessee Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 2004
390