Red Light Cameras cause an increase in Traffic Deaths

I recently received a red light camera ticket from Menlo Park for supposedly going through the red light one tenth of a second too late.

I did research and fought the ticket in court, and won. One of the issues was the length of the yellow light was too short compared to the legal requirements.

Obviously the length of the yellow light is a knob the city can turn to increase revenue from these tickets. The vehicle code states there is a legal minimum (which is a function of the speed limit). Menlo Park claims it need only calibrate to the posted speed limit, but even then the yellow light in my case was less than the required 3.6 seconds for the posted 25 mph.

In fact you can and should argue that the length of the yellow light is based on the traffic survey flow of traffic speed limit (80% percentile of measured traffic speeds). In this case the yellow light minimum was supposed to be 3.9 seconds but it didn't matter in my case since it was less than 3.6 seconds.

You can determine the length of the yellow light timing by getting the computer video of your infraction, pausing it, and using the arrow keys on your computer to go through it frame by frame. Each frame is 1/30 of a second, so the number of seconds is the number of frames divided by 30.

Bottom line is, you are correct Hank. Menlo Park is stretching the law and safety to try to get revenues to help address a bloated budget. There are two other distinct areas of why their red light program is illegal (terms in their contract with the service provider, and your inability to cross-examine the service provider during your trial), but the yellow light one is the most serious as it creates safety issues.

By the way, the traffic judge would dismiss the tickets for anyone who knew the correct arguments, but will not dismiss it for you if you can't articulate them.

If you think that government is run for the benefit of the citizens (for example, designing traffic lights to promote safety over revenue), you are sadly mistaken.

The notion that I should not err on the side of caution when a light turns yellow is not only outrageous but touches on the question of sanity on the road.

It is and always has been up to the person following a vehicle to avoid a collision. I stop for yellow lights if they have been on for more that a couple of seconds. I don't know what the elapsed time is and I sure as hell don't care. The point is to come to a stop before the light turns red and to NOT run a red light or even come close to it because THAT is dangerous and against the law.

I don't know if this characterization fits anyone on this topic, but to be on the road in a rolling instrument of destruction with the ambition of making every traffic light you encounter is to put one's obligations and privileges aside in the interest of one's own juvenile instincts.

There is explicit value to receiving a moving violation. It reminds you that everyone can make mistakes, that your mission is to get safely from point A to point B, that safety is always more important than elapsed time. Life is too precious.

"...that your mission is to get safely from point A to point B, that safety is always more important than elapsed time. Life is too precious."

Amen, brother. Sometimes folks get too caught up in their conspiracies, playing with numbers to make a study fit *their* opinions, and see neither the good outcomes, nor the precious.

When I was growing up, people stopped when the light turned yellow; they didn't speed up. Something changed in the last 20 or so years. Now-a-days red lights are yesterday's yellow, hence the need for cameras. We're too in a hurry for...........and don't even get me started in holding the cellphone and trying to turn the corner!

There are a lot of bogus studies on this subject, and there have not been enough cameras around for long enough to gather credible data until recently. There is a recent study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an respectable organization, that says that red light cameras do save lives.

Web Link

Quotes from the news release:

"The cities that have the courage to use red light cameras despite the political backlash are saving lives," says Institute president Adrian Lund.

"...researchers 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."

By the way, most cities have traffic engineers who would NEVER for a moment imagine setting yellow times that in violation of Caltrans specs. I am not sure why Menlo Park has someone with such a lack of professional ethics.

I would be interested to know just how many accidents were actually occurring at El Camino intersections in Menlo Park. Over many years I have spent a great deal of time driving aroung Menlo Park and can't recall seeing accidents at these intersections. Not statistical evidence, but just the same. I am suspicious that these cameras are just revenue generators. Especially, given a little research regarding red light photo tickets. The contract is not legal. The law says law enforcement can use these cameras in conjunction with another government agency, yet the company that most of these cities are in contract with is definately NOT a government agency, nor is it even an American corporation. In addition, if you contest it, you cannot be "confronted by your accuser" as they aren't even in this country. These systems are nothing more than revenue generators. Especially, when you consider the fact that, in general, when revenues start to decline (fewer tickets are written), the cameras are usually relocated to areas where they can generate greater income (issue more tickets).

Menlo Voter:
"I would be interested to know just how many accidents were actually occurring at El Camino intersections in Menlo Park."

That has come up before and the answer is, "far and few in-between."

This is pure raw revenue generation in the name of safety.

And by the way, if you really want safety, you can just change the light changes by fractions of second to achieve it - any honest traffic engineer will tell you that. But when the real issue isn't safety...

Donald, perhaps you are just trying to be polite when you state "I am not sure why Menlo Park has someone with such a lack of professional ethics", but the answer is very simple: MONEY.

What is diffcult about stopping at a yellow light the increase in accidents are caused by people who think its ok to be a a tenth of second after a red light stop a the yellow. The camera's don't lie.

Same story as communities that run speed traps or my favorite - posting "No Turn On Red" signs where they won't be noticed and hiding a police officer to issue tickets. The police know that if many drivers are making the turn it is probably because people aren't noticing the sign. But instead of making the sign more obvious they use it as a revenue source. Same with yellow lights. Some people just run lights. But if many people do it's probably because the yellow light is too short. if you think about it most yellow lights should be set for a standard time so drivers know how long it is.

Not a fan of red light cameras but I'd take this article with a grain of salt. Capital Commentary is an anti-government website. And you'll note the referenced article about red light cameras in Britain (not in the US let alone California or Menlo Park) doesn't site an actual study. It only mentions that accidents are decreasing in Britain at a time when many cameras are being left off to save on cost. Let's see. Do drivers know cameras are being turned off? Do they know which are turned off. Are the accident stats specific to intersections with cameras or even intersections? What are the accident stats not related to cameras?

The State has recommended yellow light times. There are two problems with this. The first problem is that certain cities lower the yellow light times below the State recommended minimum. This results in higher revenues to the city; but it alos increases the likelihood of an accident. The second is that the State posted yellow light times are linear with speed. So if a 25 miles per hour speed limit road has a traffic light with a 3 second yellow light, then a 50 miles per hour speed limit road would get a traffic light with a 6 second yellow light. However the Newtonian energy momentum equation dictates that if you are going twice as fast you need 4 times the distance to stop. So a six second yellow at 50 should really be longer for a vehicle to come to a safe stop.

Read the book "Traffic". It has some interesting research about this very thing.

And the length of the yellow has nothing to do with this issue really. The standard isn't whether you are in the intersection when the light is red (as the time length of the yellow would determine), but whether you were crossing into the intersection after the light turned red. If you're in when the light is still yellow - you're in. Doesn't matter whether it turns red before you finish. And I'm in agreement about the anti-government nature of the article source. That's my public education put to good use - examining the source of info and making judgments accordingly.

I cross El Camino at Menlo/Ravenswood every day. Before the cameras, a common scenario was that Ravenswood drivers turning left onto El Camino would continue to pile into the intersection even after the light had turned. As a result, those cars would block the intersection and no one else would be able to move. Those of us traveling east across El Camino would often have to forfeit our next turn because of the congestion.

Since the cameras were installed, that problem has vanished. Whatever else you can say about the cameras, at least they accomplished something positive.

Dawn -

No one (except you, apparently) disputes that the length of a yellow light impacts the number of red light violations. C'mon, it makes sense, you may not impact drivers at the beginning of the yellow light's cycle, but you certainly will at the end of the yellow light's cycle. So, the shorter the yellow light cycle, the more likely a red light violation.

It's also the reason there are standards for the length of yellow light.

Speaking of traps, I noticed MP's finest are hiding out behind the bushes at the intersection of Santa Cruz and Orange (the 4-way stop by the cemetery where you have to take a left to stay on Santa Cruz), pouncing on people who don't come to a complete stop before proceeding.

Cha-ching!

The claim that red light cameras cause more deaths is total conjecture.
There is no scientific evidence for such a claim.

Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the University of South Florida College of Public Health
said “The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work... Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”

Please refer to this web link

Web Link

The article further states:

"Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs."

We should get rid of the red light cameras now.

Before deciding whether red light cameras "work" you need to decide on your metric. Hank claims they don't work because some studies show crashes increase. Others say they do work because fatalities have decreased. Both can be true if the fatal crashes decline while minor injury accidents increase. Which is a better measure of safety?

Beyond the technicalities of enforcing the traffic laws, I would like to see the distribution of funds from fines leveled by these cameras.
I believe the companies that own or lease the cameras get a hefty slice of the fine, and the Courts and police get a new source of ever tighter funding. - Traffic safety or revenue generation???

What's the big deal? I don't have a problem stopping at a light and never have. I see yellow--I slow down. And I'm not exactly an old prissy church lady either.

You don't like the cameras then don't run a red light. You don't want to slam your brakes on then don't speed, and pay fn attention.

Red light cameras are causing an increase in rear end collisions. As red light runners are concerned people who are sitting a light that has just turned green should always look both ways before proceeding into an intersection. The last thing anyone wants to be is "dead right".

Also the city could, for heavy traffic intersections, have the traffic light in an all red mode for two seconds. This would protect people who ar anxious to have a jack rabbit start as soon as the light turns green.