 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
Updated: September 6, 2005 |
|||||||||||||||||||
<
back to Services & Technology list  Safety > Red Light Cameras
introduction: Red light camera systems Red light cameras, which capture images of cars that fail to stop at red lights to be used as evidence to fine drivers (usually via mailed notices), have become increasingly popular in recent years. While they have yet to reach widespread implementation in the U.S., more than 100 communities nationwide have installed red light cameras over the past decade, and that number is growing. Drivers in Minneapolis, MN, where a red light camera program was implemented in July 2005, receive a $142 ticket, along with photos taken by digital cameras placed at the intersection, when they enter an intersection after the light has turned red. In Baltimore, MD—the home of one of the country’s first red light camera programs, begun in February, 1999—drivers receive a $75 fine if they enter one of the city’s camera-monitored intersections on a red light. Red light violators in Australia and Europe have been captured on camera since the 1970s. Proponents of red light cameras point out that it is safer to monitor red light violations by camera than for police to issue tickets, since the latter usually involves a police officer following the violator through the red light. A 2005 Federal Highway Administration report (pdf), which drew data from 132 treatment sites, found that the cameras were associated with a decrease in right-angle crashes. A 2005 Cochrane Review of studies worldwide (http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/revabstr/AB003862.htm) found that red light cameras can reduce the number of injuries from car crashes at intersections by up to 30 percent, though the article's authors also noted that most studies did not account for the spillover effect, in which the presence of cameras at intersections might cause different crash rates at those nearby. Federal Highway Administration studies showed crashes reduced at a number of locations. In Fairfax, VA, violations were reduced by 41 percent after one year of camera enforcement; in Charlotte, NC, red light violations were reduced by more than 70 percent during the first year of operation. Los Angeles experienced a 92 percent reduction in violations. (Studies located at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/08came.htm.) FHWA fact sheet on the technology (2-page pdf). But despite their rising popularity and strong evidence indicating that they reduce some types of crashes—namely, the high-injury right-angle crashes—red light cameras are not without their critics. Privacy advocates see the cameras as further proof that the eye of “Big Brother” is growing more intrusive by the day. Some argue that the cameras violate due process, while others fear that private companies who install the cameras and, in some cases, send out the tickets (once police have examined the photos) are only too eager to generate revenues in the name of traffic safety (see the American Automobile Association's report at http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,1398,1008020000%257C3725,00.html). Yet, for the more than 100 U.S. communities that now have red light cameras—Minneapolis, MN, Auburn and Lewiston, ME, and Alpharetta, GA, are among the cities that began programs in 2005—the benefits of red light cameras are clear, and far outweigh the skeptics’ catalog of drawbacks. According to the Canadian Safety Council Web site (http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/redlite.html), a study of red light cameras in Oxnard, CA, found seven percent fewer crashes overall and 29 percent fewer injury crashes at intersections after the cameras were introduced. And, when the data were re-analyzed to take into account only those crashes related to red light running, the findings showed much greater benefits—20 percent fewer crashes and 46 percent fewer injury crashes. Red light programs in North Carolina, which ranks third in the nation for number of communities using red light cameras, have produced significant reductions in red light running crashes and violations, according to the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running Web site (http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/html/newsrelease_011905.htm). In Raleigh, right-angle crashes were reduced by 42 percent at red light camera intersections, with a 25 percent reduction in rear-end collisions, while the total number of red-light related crashes dropped by 22 percent. In Charlotte, crashes at red light camera intersections dropped by almost 40 percent. Furthermore, red light camera programs are cheaper than the comparably safe alternative, which is to have one police officer notify a second one to stop the violator without having to run the red light. This is another element that makes cameras a practical, if somewhat controversial, traffic safety measure. The
numbers: Red light running nationwide According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (FHWA) report (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/07redl.htm), about 6.4 million crashes occurred in the U.S. in 2000. Approximately 40 percent of these were intersection-related, while red light running was found to cause more than 180,000 crashes every year. For 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 206,000 red light running crashes, resulting in 934 fatalities and 176,000 injuries (see the January 2005 report, Operational Guidelines Red Light Camera Systems pdf). People are more likely to be injured in red light running crashes: occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of the red light running crashes, compared to 30 percent for other crash types. The
effectiveness of red light cameras According to a comprehensive synthesis of existing literature on the impact of red light cameras, conducted by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program in 2005 (see Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience pdf), evidence suggests that red light cameras improve the overall safety of intersections where they are installed. There is also evidence that these cameras have a “spillover” effect, improving the safety of nearby intersections without cameras. However, while data suggest that “automated enforcement of red light running can be an effective safety countermeasure,” the report cautioned that “there is not enough empirical evidence based on a statistically rigorous experimental design to state that conclusively.” Indeed, determining the impact of red light cameras in any one jurisdiction is a complicated affair. According to the report,
Another complicating factor is that while angle crashes, where a driver proceeding through a red light is hit by a driver who has entered the intersection legally, are usually reduced after cameras are installed, the number of rear-end crashes rise in some cases, though usually to a lesser extent. Rises in rear-end collisions are due to higher number of motorists stopping “all of a sudden” to avoid being captured on camera. However, these crashes tend not to be as serious as angle crashes and, one could argue, a modest rise in rear-end collisions is an acceptable price to pay for a reduction in the former kind. How
red light camera systems work Red light cameras are connected via computer to sensors in the pavement, which detect when vehicles pass the stop line after the light has turned red. Cameras record a picture of the vehicle as it crosses into the intersection on red as well as an image of the vehicle’s license plate. The cameras do not photograph every vehicle that passes through an intersection, only those that enter after the light has turned red. Motorists who have already entered the intersection when the light turns red, such as those who have proceeded into the intersection and are waiting to turn left, are not photographed. In many jurisdictions, license plate photos alone are used to identify violators; no photograph of the driver is taken. Using the license plate rather than a photograph of the driver to determine blame diminishes issues of privacy violation, but also introduces a new problem—the possibility that someone other than the owner of the vehicle was driving. In most states, the owner is held responsible regardless of who was driving, but some jurisdictions offer a range of options for an owner who claims not to have been driving the car. All photographs are screened by police, who weed out footage that does not warrant prosecution. In Minneapolis, MN, which implemented a red light camera program in the summer of 2005, 3,792 violations were recorded between June 7 and July 5, 2005. (Visit the "Stop on Red" Web site, at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/stoponred/.) About 85 percent of those were eligible for prosecution. In many jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, private companies receive the photos. Those companies send photos to police, who in turn send photos that show wrongdoing back to the company. The company then mails out citations along with photos documenting the violation to the owner of the vehicle. In many jurisdictions, violators can also view the violation online through the police department Web site. In many jurisdictions with red light camera programs, the violation is considered a civil and not a moving violation and is therefore not recorded on a driver’s recorded, unlike a ticket issued by a police officer at the scene. Read an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety fact sheet on automated enforcement, including red light cameras at http://www.hwysafety.org/laws/state_laws/auto_enforce.html. Implementing
red light cameras The first step in deciding whether to implement red light cameras is to determine if a specific intersection has a high crash rate, public complaints, and problems with red light violations. Suggested sources of intersection safety data include:
It is important to be cautious in relying too heavily on any one kind of data. For example, crash data from minor, non-injury crashes are typically not collected. Red light violation data may reflect “targeted enforcement at selected intersections only,” while the criteria applied for issuing citations may vary according to the officer, according to the FHWA report. A different FHWA report, "Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations”) recommends that officials take the following measures when implementing a red light camera system:
According to the 2005 FHWA report, “Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras," because red light cameras have been linked with an increase in rear-end collisions, cameras may be most beneficial at intersections where rear-end collisions are scarce, and right-angle collisions are frequent. Intersections with a higher proportion of average annual daily traffic, shorter cycle lengths and “intergreen” periods are also good candidates for red light cameras. According to the FHWA, cameras have been most successful when they have been integrated with other elements of an overall traffic safety management program.It recommends the following preliminary steps for implementing a red light camera system:
Although driver behavior is a significant contributing factor to intersections crashes, there are a number of other factors including weather, intersection design, and vehicle characteristics. Any effort to improve intersection safety should take these additional factors into account. Red light cameras, while they address the problem of unsafe driver behavior, should not be considered a cure-all for intersection crashes. Before implementing a red light camera system, local traffic officials should determine whether intersection design can be improved. They should also consider implementing a public education campaign to promote intersection safety. Problems with red light cameras Red light cameras have come under criticism from privacy advocates such as the National Motorists’ Association, who assert that cameras violate motorists’ privacy rights, invite abuse from private companies who, contracted by local governments to install and maintain the cameras, use traffic safety as a screen for profit-making, and are, in some cases, illegal (see Virginia example). The issue of privacy violation, while a serious subject that hits a tender nerve with many groups, is usually raised as one example in a broader movement to draw attention to the supposed lengthening arm (and ever more deftly roving eye) of the government. But those who object to the cameras on the grounds that they infringe on motorists’ rights to privacy generally do not have specific, concrete legal bases for their claims. On the other hand, objectors in certain jurisdictions, such as San Diego, CA, a city that came under fire for paying the company that installed and maintained its red light cameras, Lockheed Martin, $70 for every fine (and thus motivating the company, critics argued, to make the red light camera system tougher on motorists than necessary), and Fairfax, VA, where it has come to light that elements of the red light program conflict with existing state law, have enjoyed more solid legal footing for their claims. Cameras stopped taking pictures in Fairfax, VA, in 2005 in part because, as a 2004 study of red light camera systems in Virginia pointed out, the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia allows only an in-person summons and not notification by mail to compel a person to appear in court. The rule was little known and seldom invoked, with most people paying their fines via mail without complaint, but the study’s detail of this oversight contributed to Fairfax’s decision not to renew the program, which had been in operation for 10 years. Communities that are considering red light cameras should be well aware of existing traffic laws before implementing camera systems. The report on red light camera systems in Virginia, commissioned by Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation, observed problems with the cameras beyond failure to attend fully to Virginia law. Perhaps more damaging to the camera programs was a statewide study that found an overall increase in injury crashes since the program’s inception. The study found that while the number of crashes attributable to red light running decreased, the number of rear-end collisions increased. These findings are in line with those of several red light camera studies nationwide: rear-end collisions seem to be almost a “side effect” of red light camera systems. This side effect is widely thought to present little argument against the cameras, since rear-end collisions caused by a motorist who stops too quickly to avoid running the red are considered to be less dangerous than the right-angle collisions caused by red light running. However, the Virginia study complicates this presumption: the number of injury crashes increased, despite the drop in right-angle crashes. The report noted, however, that the nature of the right-angle injury crashes, an element not examined in the study, may have been more severe. In 2001, hundreds of California residents who received tickets in the mail filed suit against their local governments, setting off a legal challenge to red light camera systems across the state. They claimed that cameras transmitted faulty data, that tickets were being issued to people despite the fact that they weren't the ones behind the wheel at the time, and that the program was being driven by the private contractor's desire for profits, not traffic safety. The suit resulted in dismissal of nearly 300 citations an the decision by officials in at least one jurisdiction to turn off the cameras after technical flaws were found. In response to the lawsuit, city officials made improvements to the program, including adding cameras that took shots of the backs of cars and lengthening the timing of yellow lights. The State Legislature responded with a bill in 2003, AB 1022. According to a report by the American Automobile Association (http://www.csaa.com/global/articledetail/0,1398,1008020000%257C4098,00.html), which endorsed the legialtion, it would
Links to information on red light cameras on the official city of San Diego Web site: http://www.sandiego.gov/engineering-cip/services/public/rlphoto/index.shtml The issue of timing-lengths for yellow lights has sparked animated debate in San Diego and elsewhere. The city of San Diego was accused of opting to put cameras at intersections with short yellows. An attorney representing those who say they received tickets wrongly in San Diego cited a report, drafted by House staff members for Majority Leader Dick Armey, suggesting that traffic engineers in communities nationwide had deliberately shortened yellow light time periods to make red light programs more profitable. Less inflammatory, and perhaps more plausible, are the claims that the best way to reduce red light running is to lengthen yellow light times. When yellow lights are too short, people are more likely to run a red. Longer yellow lights give drivers more time to decide if they should stop or if it’s safe to proceed through the light. Cameras were installed at 11 of 125 signalized intersections in Oxnard in 1997. Penalties included a $271 fine and one point on the driver’s record. Oxnard operates what is said to be one of the most sophisticated red light camera systems available. Cameras capture four still images of the violation, along with 12 seconds of video, giving six seconds before and six second after the violation to allow screeners to consider possible mitigating circumstances. A 2001 study found that red light camera enforcement reduced the number of crashes at signalized intersections throughout Oxnard by 7 percent. Right-angle crashes were reduced by 32 percent, while injury crashes were reduced by 29 percent and right-angle injury crashes by 68 percent. Go to the Oxnard red light program Web pages, http://www.oxnardpd.org/redlight/default.htm Go to the Joint Program Office of the US DOT analysis of the costs and benefits of the Oxnard program, http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/DF76E7D2EFB4D9E985256CB4005A650F. North Carolina ranks third in the nation for the number of communities using red light camera technology, according to one national study. But there is no consensus on how these systems have performed. A review of more than a dozen intersections with red light cameras in Raleigh, NC, conducted by the Institute for Transportation and Education, in cooperation with North Carolina State University, found that right-angle collisions had been reduced by 42 percent since the cameras went up. Rear-end collisions were reduced by 25 percent, and the total number of crashes at these intersections dropped by 22 percent. According to the report, red light cameras
Another study, released in 2005, analyzed data from several U.S. communities with red light cameras, including Charlotte, NC. It was found that crashes at Charlotte’s red light camera intersections dropped by almost 40 percent after the cameras were installed. Right-angle crashes dropped by almost 30 percent, according to the study, and rear-end crashes—the crash type often determined to increase after cameras are installed--decreased by almost 50 percent. However, another study of red light cameras in North Carolina, conducted by the Urban Transit Institute at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and released in 2004, discovered a very different picture. Researchers analyzed reported crashes occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, a data set that included 26 months before the introduction of the cameras. According to the report, cameras “are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.” The study found that while intersection crashes across the state dropped, the same could not be said of crashes at red light camera intersections. According to the report, there was an overall increase in crashes at red light camera intersections. The number of rear-end collisions, sideswipes, and collisions involving cars turning left (traveling on the same roadway) all went up. However, collisions involving a left turning car and a car traveling on a different roadway went down. The study also found that there was a 40-50 percent increase of property-damage only crashes and “possible injury crashes,” and a “statistically insignificant” increase of severe injury crashes. Baltimore began its red light program in February 1999, installing cameras at six intersections that had numerous red light violations or high crash rates. Due to the success of these cameras, the program was expanded to include 47 intersections, creating, according to Baltimore’s Department of Transportation Web site, “one of the largest red light programs in the country.” Violators receive a $75 fine, and violations are not recorded on the driver’s record. According to the Web site, since the red light program began, “the city has seen a dramatic drop in red light violations. At city intersections equipped with cameras, the number of violations has decreased up to 60 percent.” Go to City of Baltimore Web site on red light cameras, http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/transportation/redlightcameras.html Aeron-Thomas, A.S. & Hess, S. for the Cochrane Review. 2005. “Red light cameras for the prevention of road traffic crashes.” The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Burkey, M. & Obeng, K. 2004. “A Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas.” North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University: Urban Transit Institute. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration. Cunningham, C.M., & Hummer, J.S. 2004. “Evaluating the Use of Red Light Running Photographic Enforcement Using Collisions and Red Light Running Violations.” Presented to the North Carolina Governors Highway Safety Program. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina: Institute for Transportation Research and Education. Federal Highway Administration (with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2005. “Red Light Camera Systems: Operational Guidelines.” Federal Highway Administration. 2005. “Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras." Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-048. Federal Highway Administration. 2004. “Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations: Red Light Cameras." Publication No. FHWA-HRT-04-063. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2003. “Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience: A Synthesis of Highway Practice.” Synthesis 310. Virginia Transportation Research Council. “An Evaluation of Red Light Camera (Photo-red) Enforcement Program in Virginia: A Report in Response to a Request by Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation.” Author: Carli Cutchin, August 2005 |
Hosted by the California Center
for Innovative Transportation at
the University of California at Berkeley and Caltrans
Copyright 2005 UC Regents