There has been an ongoing debate about speed cameras and red light cameras for several years now. The debate centers on whether these cameras, which judge speed via radar or determine that a driver is running a red light and then sends a ticket in the mail, are worth the cost. At first, municipalities installed them with the hope of generating revenue through increased ticket fines but, after the word got out that the cameras were in place, drivers started obeying the law and ticket revenue dropped dramatically forcing many of those municipalities to reconsider the cost of their continued operation. Now, a new study out of Spain may give those municipalities more to think about when it comes to the cost benefit of these automated traffic regulating systems.

The study looked at speed cameras installed on all of the major routes leading into and out of Barcelona Spain. The study’s authors did a cost analysis of these cameras for 2003-2005; comparing the cost of their installation and maintenance with the cost of time spent by police when writing out tickets for speeders.

Those costs were then compared to the costs of medical treatment, property damage, and lost productivity in the Barcelona area during the same period. Based on the data it was estimated that there were 364 fewer traffic collisions and 507 fewer injuries to vehicle occupants during the first two years of speed camera operation.

Comparing the costs, the study authors determined that the speed cameras saved more than 6.8 million Euros or more than 9.6 million dollars. The bulk of the savings came in reduced property damage and medical treatment costs. The authors stated that their figures are extremely conservative and cost savings could equal almost 32 million dollars.

Cost savings occurring from fewer collisions include:

• Freeing up police and emergency medical personnel


• Fewer emergency room visits


• Decrease in loss of productivity due to traffic tie-ups and injuries to workers


• Decrease in lifetime disability costs from permanently disabling injuries


• Decrease in legal costs


• Decreased volume of court cases

When looking at the installation of these automated traffic control devices, more thought should be given to lives saved and decreased cost to government over the long term rather than short term revenue gains.

Labels: automated traffic regulating systems, red light, red light camera, run red light, traffic school, traffic ticket

In spite of all the rhetoric from politicians and political pundits calling for less government regulations, it seems that there is one area where Americans agree more laws and regulations are needed. According to the results of a recently released survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Americans seem to agree on the need for more laws and regulations to make America’s roads safer.

Released in conjunction with the “Decade of Action on Road Safety”, an initiative designed to reduce highway deaths and injuries worldwide by the year 2020, the survey shows some surprising results. According to the AAA Foundation press release:

Specific survey results include:

• 62 percent of Americans agree the U.S. needs more laws to prevent people from doing dangerous things while driving (17 percent disagree)
• 57 percent of Americans agree their respective state government needs to do more to make their roads safer (11 percent disagree)
• 86 percent of Americans agree all new drivers should be required to complete a driver education course before they can get a driver’s license (3% disagree)
• A majority of Americans agree that both auto manufacturers (60 percent) and the federal government (41 percent) need to do more to make cars safer (9 and 21 percent, respectively, disagree)
• 70 percent of Americans agree that driving safety laws should be enforced more strictly (6 percent disagree)
  

For global context, separate information provided by the "Make Roads Safe" global campaign shows:

• 1.3 million people are killed on the world’s roads each year
• 3. 5 million people globally are injured, many disabled as a result
• Annual road deaths globally are forecast to rise to 1.9 million by 2020
• Road deaths are the #1 cause of death for young people worldwide (including in the U.S.)
• By 2015, road deaths will be the leading health burden for children

This survey comes on the heels of a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released in February that shows that red light cameras save lives. The study compared cities (with and without red light cameras) with populations of more than 200,000 and determined that:

• 159 lives were saved in the 14 biggest cities with red light cameras
• An additional 815 lives could have been saved during the same period had red light cameras been installed.
• 676 people were killed and approximately 113,000 were injured by red light runners in 2009. Two-thirds of the victims were people other than the red light runners.

If you agree that more needs to be done to make the roads safer, contact your local and state representatives and let them know how you feel.

Labels: driver education, driving safety, red light, red light camera, red light runners, road safety, vehicle safety

The installation of red light cameras has stirred up quite a debate throughout the United States between those who feel red light cameras promote safety and those who feel they are an invasion of civil liberties. The debate received more fuel with a study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that showed that red light cameras save lives.

The IIHS study, released on February 1st, indicated that "red light cameras reduce not only fatal red light running crashes, but other types of fatal intersection crashes as well." The study went on to say that "red light cameras have saved 159 lives in 2004-08 in 14 of the biggest US cities and that, had cameras been operating during that period in all large cities, a total of 815 deaths would have been prevented." The study looked at 99 cities with populations over 200.000 and compared the rate of crashes between those cities that had red light cameras and those that didn't. The study concluded that “the rate of fatal red light running crashes in cities with cameras in 2004-08 was 24 percent lower than it would have been without cameras.”

The IIHS study backed up an earlier study by Old Dominion University that compared the rate of traffic crashes before red light cameras were installed at intersections in Virginia Beach, during their operation, and after the removal of the cameras. The study showed traffic crashes were reduced during the period that the cameras were installed.

Those groups opposed to red light cameras argue that the cameras are just a way for local governments to raise additional revenue and that the cameras are an invasion of privacy. IIHS president Adrian Lund was quoted saying; "Somehow, the people who get tickets because they have broken the law have been cast as the victims," Lund says. "We rarely hear about the real victims — the people who are killed or injured by these lawbreakers."

"Red light running killed 676 people and injured an estimated 113,000 in 2009. Nearly two-thirds of the deaths were people other than the red light running drivers — occupants of other vehicles, passengers in the red light runners' vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians."

A quick Google search of news articles in just the past month shows that red light runners have been responsible for the deaths of:

• An 11 year old girl who was a passenger in a vehicle struck by red light runner.


• A family of five who were all killed when their vehicle was struck by a red light runner.


• A nun whose vehicle was struck by a red light runner.


• A female passenger riding in the vehicle of a 16 year old driver who ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle.


• A passenger in a vehicle struck by a red light runner.


• Two drivers of vehicles who were struck by red light runners.


• A pedestrian who was hit by a vehicle that had been struck by a red light runner and pushed across the intersection.

These figures do not include the larger number of people who were injured in collisions caused by red light runners.

There is no way to know whether or not these twelve victims might still be alive today had red light cameras been installed but the data seems to point to the fact that red light cameras do save lives and it is possible that some of these innocent victims might have been saved if red light cameras been installed.

In the State of Florida, there is a law that took effect October 1, 2009, which makes a 4-hour traffic school or basic driver improvement course a requirement for all drivers that receive a traffic ticket for running a red light.

Labels: pedestrian safety, red light, red light camera, red light runners, vehicle crashs

Few issues have riled up motorists over the past few years as much as the issue of red light cameras. On one side are those in favor of red light cameras and on the other are those who claim the cameras are just a way for municipalities to increase their revenue and that the cameras are a violation of a motorist’s rights. There is also conflicting data on whether or not the cameras actually reduce the rate of collisions at red lights.

The Problem

One issue that is not really in dispute is the fact that red light running has grown to epidemic proportions in the U.S. According to studies cited by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS);

• 55.8 percent of Americans admit to running red lights; yet;
  
• 96 percent of drivers were afraid of being hit by a red light runner.
  
• In 2007, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running.
  
• About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.
  
• Motorists are more likely to be injured in urban crashes involving red light running than in other types of urban crashes.
  
• Occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of red light running crashes, compared with 30 percent of other crash types.
  
• Analysis of red light violation data from 19 intersections (without red light cameras) in four states found that, per intersection, motorists ran red lights at an average rate of 3.2 per hour.
  

Red Light Cameras Increase Rather Than Reduce Collisions at Red Lights

Some have claimed that use of red light cameras actually increase the number of rear end collisions because drivers don't expect someone ahead to stop for a yellow light; however the facts don't bear that out. According to the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, the opposite is true. Their web site lists the following figures for some cities that operate red light cameras:

• New Orleans, LA - red light cameras led to an 85% drop in red light running and speed cameras led to an 84% drop in speeding.
  
• Montgomery County, MD - relative to comparison sites drivers traveling more than 10 mph above posted speed limits declined by about 70% at locations with both warning signs and speed camera enforcement.
  
• Council Bluffs, IA - a 90% reduction in red light running crashes.
  
• Washington, DC - red light running fatalities were reduced from 16 to 2 in the first two years of red light cameras.
  
• Fairfax, VA - a 44% reduction in red light running crashes.
  
• Oxnard, CA - a 22% reduction in red light crashes citywide.
  
• New York City - a 34% reduction in red light violations.
  

Red Light Cameras Are Just A Way for Cities to Make More Money

Some municipalities did experience an increase in revenue after installing cameras and found them to be a profitable enterprise; at first. However, after drivers realized cameras were installed and started stopping for red lights, revenues fell sharply; in some cases, costing more money than they earned. Cities that install cameras as a revenue generator are installing them for the wrong reasons and will certainly be disappointed. Cities who install the cameras to cut down on the death and injury rate at intersections find that they pay off in other ways:

• The cost of posting police officers at each intersection 24 hours a day would be prohibitive.
  
• Fewer collisions lead to lower costs for law enforcement and fire/rescue services.
  
• Fewer collisions mean fewer traffic jams and greater productivity.
  
• Fewer injuries mean lower hospital and emergency room costs for taxpayers.
  
• New Federal Highway Administration research estimates total societal cost reductions from red light cameras to be over $14 million per year, or $38,000 for each U.S. red light camera location.
  

California, recognizing that the purpose of red light cameras is to save lives, passed a law that keeps cities from installing cameras in order to generate revenue and their law could serve as a model for other states. California’s red light camera law requires that municipalities issue warning tickets only for the first 30 days that a camera is in operation. This gives motorists time to realize the camera is there and stop on their own. The law also requires that the contract between a city and a camera operator cannot provide any financial incentive to the operator to issue more tickets.

Red Lights Are an Invasion of Privacy

The Supreme Court has held that there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy when an individual is in public; someone who is breaking the law on a city street should not be able to hide behind the Fourth Amendment. Red light cameras do not run constantly and do not take pictures of every vehicle. They only take photos of cars that are running the red light. Motorists who stop for the red light don’t have to fear that the camera will take their picture.

They're Illegal

State Supreme Courts are divided on this issue with some courts deciding that use of cameras violate state law as currently written and other state courts finding that municipalities can use the cameras even if state law says nothing about the issue.

States could solve the legal issues surrounding red light camera by creating legislation and providing policy guidance to cities. The Governor's Highway Administration web site provides a lot of information on the issue along with policy and guidance for states. It's hard to calculate the cost of lives, injuries, and property damage that never happen. If this technology can save one life, it is worth the cost.

Labels: red light camera, traffic crashes, traffic laws, traffic safety, traffic violations

More and more municipalities are installing red light cameras (RLCs) and as their use grows so does the controversy surrounding their use. Recent articles report that some drivers complain that RLCs violate their right to privacy and there have been reports of angry drivers striking back by disabling RLCs, or buying special sprays or license plate covers to blur their license plate.

Lawmakers are complaining too. Some cities are voting to remove the cameras because, with the lower incidence of red light running, they cost too much without the ticket revenue to pay for them.

To fully understand some of these issues it is helpful to first, understand what red light running is and why the cameras were seen to be necessary in the first place.
Red light running is a form of aggressive driving that has grown to epidemic proportions over the last 20 years. An act that was rarely, if ever, seen by older drivers is now seen on a daily basis.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) cites a study conducted at 19 intersections (without red light cameras) over four states showing that people were running red lights at a rate of 3.2 per hour. The IIHS states that more people are likely to be injured by red light runners than by any other type of urban crash. The National Highway Traffic Administration reported that almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running in 2007. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners. A study by Old Dominion University in Virginia (ODU) showed that 55.8 percent of Americans admit to running red lights; yet 96 percent of drivers were afraid of being hit by a red light runner.

The IIHS states that studies show that RLCs cut down on the incidence of red light running dramatically however one study that has gained the most attention claims that RLCs increase the number of collisions at the intersections where they have been installed.

A frank discussion of all of these issues is in order:

Red Light Cameras increase the number of collisions at intersections – The study cited by those who want to do away with RLCs did show that, once drivers became aware of the presence of an RLC, there was a slight increase in low velocity rear-end collisions by drivers who assumed the car ahead wouldn’t stop. The data clearly shows that the incidents of high velocity side collisions (commonly called "T-bone collisions") by red light runners are dramatically reduced at intersections where RLCs are installed. A low impact rear-end collision is far more survivable than a high velocity T-bone collision.
ODU also conducted a unique study of intersections in Virginia Beach VA where they had the opportunity to study red light runners before an RLC was installed, during the time the RLC was in operation, and after the law providing for the RLC expired and the cameras were removed. The study showed that the number of crashes decreased during the time the RLCs were operational but, once the lights were removed, the number of red light runners increased by 3.59 percent within one year. It seemed that once aggressive divers were no longer worried about being photographed, they ran the lights more than ever.

Red Light Cameras are a drain on city revenues. – Cities that initially experienced an increase in revenues from RLCs become dismayed when, as the incidents of red light running decrease, they stop generating revenue and become an unexpected revenue loser. Cities that install RLCs as a way of generating money seem to be seeking the wrong goal. The deaths and permanently disabling injuries prevented should be the goal of RLCs. We pay large sums of money each year to hire and equip police officers in the hope that, by their mere presence, they will prevent crime from happening in the first place and very few complain about that cost. RLCs act as a permanent police presence working tirelessly 24/7. If we were to compare the cost of an RLC with the cost of posting police officers at an intersection 24 hours a day it would quickly become apparent that RLCs are a bargain. The IIHS says that the cost of red light running in America is approximately 7 billion dollars per year. It is difficult to determine how much money is saved by an event that never happens and prevention should be the goal.

Red Light Cameras are a violation of privacy. - The Supreme Court has held that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for acts conducted in public. If you are out on a city street, you can’t hide behind the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially when you are breaking the law. Those irate drivers who have tried to damage or disable RLCs aren’t valiant defenders of the fourth amendment but rather, vandals who are destroying tax payer property.

Security cameras of all types have become so common that we usually forget that they are there and no one seems to complain because we know they are there to protect us. RLCs only take pictures of those drivers who are running the red light; not those who are obeying the law. The nightly news never shows the guy who went into a convenience store to buy a big gulp; only the armed thug who came in to rob the store. Those who are worried about their privacy should obey the law.

The studies show that RLCs save lives. Attitudes toward them might be different if it was your spouse or child who was injured or killed by a red light runner.

Labels: red light camera, RLC, traffic laws, traffic safety

Automated Cameras Expected By Year's End

Get ready to smile for the camera, and pay a fine, if you're going to run a red light in Orlando.

Orlando is Florida's largest city to employ automated cameras to photograph and ticket drivers who don't obey red lights.

After being briefed on the concept recently, City Council members gave their unanimous support. Mayor Buddy Dyer, with the council's backing, said he would ready a plan for formal approval in the next few months, and hopes on having the cameras in effect by the end of the year.

With these developments, Orlando is sidestepping Florida lawmakers who have failed for years to embrace statewide red-light legislation.

Commissioner Patty Sheehan said. "That the Legislature will not act is unfathomable to me. The Legislature won't cooperate, so let's do it ourselves."

The details of the plan have yet to be worked out. The cameras cost $40,000 to $60,000 each or can be leased for approximately $5,000 a month, but city officials have not yet fully calculated the cost. They are holding off on decisions such as how many intersections would be covered by cameras and the amount of the fine.

The cameras appraise a vehicle's speed as it nears an intersection and takes a photo of the car and its license plate if it crosses the intersection after the light has turned red. The Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority employs a similar system to photograph tollbooth violators.

A police officer will review the photographs, and then determine whether a ticket should be mailed.

According to city officials, the problem can no longer be ignored. Police Chief Michael McCoy said that in Florida, red-light violators cause at least 100 fatalities and more than 6,300 injuries a year. At least 458 crashes resulted from red light running last year in Orlando alone.

In 2005, the city tested the cameras' effectiveness in a pilot project at a major intersection. Over 7,500 violations were photographed in nine months, with warning letters being issued to 2,946 violators. To spot that many red-light violations, it would take 20 motorcycle cops a full year.

"Traffic enforcement is a very labor-intensive part of our Police Department," Dyer said. "Red-light cameras would certainly be a way to make it more efficient."

McCoy added that crashes at the test intersection shrunk by half, and violations dropped by 43 percent.

"We sent out thousands of warning letters and had absolutely no complaints from the public," he said. "I think the public is strongly behind this. It's overdue."

State laws do not address red-light cameras, but it is the state attorney general's opinion that the photos cannot be the basis of a traffic citation.

Municipal leaders have urged lawmakers to specifically permit the use of red-light cameras for a decade, to no avail. Lawmakers most often cite privacy issues in blocking the cameras' use.

According to city lawyers, Orlando could issue a ticket that's akin to a parking or code-enforcement infraction. This would result in a monetary fine, but no points on the violator's license, no jail time and no seizure of property.

The city of Gulf Breeze has been employing a similar process for a year, and just this month Apopka began issuing $125 fines.

There's a small chance that the city's action could be found unconstitutional, said City Attorney Mayanne Downs.

"We just need to send a message," Commissioner Phil Diamond said, "and hopefully people will start driving more carefully."

Did you know that courses are available to educate drivers on the rules of the road and the latest defensive driving techniques? Try one now!

Labels: defensive driving course, red light, red light camera, traffic fines, traffic ticket