Red light camera controversy

Questions arise whether photos cut signal running or increase accidents

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.

Photo by Matt Roberts / Rocky Mountain News

Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky

Sgt. Pat Cillo, of the Greenwood Village police department, reviews a red light violation Wednesday in his office. Cillo reviews rejected citations to make sure initial screenings are fair.

More Local News

Map my news

Denver says it aims to improve safety when it launches camera red light enforcement in the next two months, but the record in other cities suggests it is likely to increase accidents.

That's what happened in Aurora and Fort Collins and has been documented in studies.

Accidents at four Aurora intersections with cameras went up 36 percent in 2006, the first year. While the program is aimed at traffic safety, Aurora hasn't compiled accident stats for those corners for 2007.

Nor have the cameras cut the number of red light runners. Tickets were up more than 12 percent in the second year.

In Fort Collins, accidents went up 83 percent in 10 years at a corner after a camera went in, while tickets averaged 166 a month. After the yellow light was made one second longer in 2005, tickets went down to 21 a month and crashes dropped 29 percent.

But even so, the accident rate is still 53 percent higher than the last year before the camera.

Accident trade-off

"Cameras do not reduce accidents caused by engineering defects," said Chad Dornsife, of the nonprofit Best Highway Safety Practices Institute in Portland, Ore., which favors engineering solutions for red light running.

Denver plans to mail $75 tickets to hundreds of drivers a week caught by the cameras. The city has $1.1 million in new fines already plugged into its 2008 budget.

That's 14,667 expected tickets from mid-June through year's end, more than 2,250 a month.

Studies do show many examples where cameras have reduced more serious side-angle crashes caused by red light running.

In Greenwood Village and Boulder, for example, police credit the cameras for drops in accidents.

Lt. Dave Fisher, of Greenwood Village, said by posting warning signs far back from the intersection, he believes drivers are better prepared for a need to stop.

But comprehensive studies say the trade-off is a greater number of rear-enders. Cameras prompt drivers to jam on their brakes at the first sight of a yellow light to avoid tickets even when they may be too close to safely stop.

Last month in Kingsport, Tenn., there were two such accidents with cars and heavy trucks at camera sites operated by the company Denver hired.

Some studies suggest the trade-off is worth it if dollar savings are placed on having fewer severe injuries and damage from side-angle crashes.

Richard Retting, of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, has authored many studies finding that cameras are effective. He disputes those that blame cameras for more accidents. But even if true, he said, it's better to have a few more rear-end collisions if it can prevent some side-angle ones.

"We're trading off crashes that impact lives for crashes that impact bumpers, and that's reasonable," Retting said.

Longer signal timing

But in some cities, even side-angle crashes have increased after cameras were installed.

And the balance can tip in a city like Denver, where most yellow lights are timed for just three seconds, the legal minimum. Engineers consider that appropriate for 25-mph traffic.

Denver's four sites have speed limits of 30, 35 and 45, with actual traffic moving faster.

The suggested safe minimum for those are 3.2, 3.6 and 4.3 seconds, plus added time for other factors.

In fact, one Denver camera site may have illegally low timing. Videos taken by the Rocky Mountain News at East Sixth Avenue and Lincoln Street showed yellow lasting only 2.86 seconds, 5 percent less stopping time than required and 11 percent less than recommended for minimum safety.

CDOT won't allow red light cameras on state highways because of the tendency for more rear-end accidents.

"My philosophy is, if I have a corridor with traffic signals and I'm having a lot of accidents at one of them, that's probably my problem," said Rich Sarchet, of CDOT's research branch. "It's signal timing.

I am extremely reluctant to say the solution is a red light camera."

The law requires yellow times from three to six seconds. Federal guidelines recommend increasing yellow time and other engineering measures to stop red light running before using cameras, but Denver didn't do such a study before hiring Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian-owned company with U.S. offices in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Last week, city traffic officials said that because of questions raised by the Rocky, they would look into adding yellow time before the cameras go live.

"The object isn't to catch the motorist, it's to make the intersection safe," Dornsife said.

"If the city has constructive knowledge of inadequate signal timing that's causing red light running and accidents, and they don't do anything but put up a camera to issue tickets, they should be held legally liable for not doing their job."

Half-second difference

There is a raging debate in the traffic engineering and safety communities over red light cameras vs. signal timing. Camera critics say federal rules that had required better signal timing were relaxed in order to make way for camera companies and cities that see the automated devices as revenue generators.

But Retting says aggressive drivers will run red lights no matter what the yellow time is, and cameras help deter that.

"We have to design intersections for reasonable drivers," Retting said. "We provide too many excuses for drivers who choose to be aggressive."

Virginia reauthorized cameras last year after a two-year absence for study. But like some other states, it is imposing strict new rules on cities that want them, including requirements for lengthening yellow times.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied six localities that used cameras and found even after they were in place, a bump in the yellow time made a significant reduction in violations, said co-principal researcher John Miller.

At one Virginia camera site, a half-second boost in yellow eliminated 72 percent of red light runners - and their fines. At another, a second and a half extra erased 94 percent.

Denver chose its first four intersections from a list of the top 100 in the city for side-angle crashes over a five-year period. But while two of them are in the top three, the third placed 29th and the fourth - Quebec Street at East 36th Avenue - was way down at 75th on the list.

Dave Weaver, Denver traffic engineer, said many choices were eliminated because they are CDOT roads. But there are 32 non-CDOT intersections that ranked higher in accidents than the Quebec intersection.

Weaver said it was chosen so at least one would be outside central Denver, and Quebec has seen increasing accidents since redevelopment at Stapleton. "We wanted to maximize the exposure of these systems," he said.

The other three cameras will be clustered on a single commuting route from the west metro area into Denver. That means some drivers will go through three camera intersections each workday while others face none.

Two are on Sixth Avenue, at Kalamath and at Lincoln streets. They are traversed by morning rush-hour commuters coming off the Sixth Avenue Freeway.

The afternoon outbound rush uses Eighth Avenue, where a camera will be installed at southbound Speer Boulevard. The Federal Highway Administration issued guidelines in 2005 recommending that before resorting to cameras, cities first try things like increasing the yellow time in accordance with a formula set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

A Texas Transportation Institute study says that a yellow light time of one second less than the ITE formula doubles the number of red light runners and more than triples the accident rate of an appropriate timing. That alone could account for Denver's current violations and crashes.

But the study also found that adding one second over the ITE formula reduces violations another 60 percent and crashes by up to 40 percent.

Critics see a profit motive in keeping yellows lower.

"For photo enforcement to be viable, they must identify an unsafe condition and then maintain it rather than fix it," Dornsife said.

"What they're doing is turning the engineering problem into a profit center, and blaming the driver when it's the city's fault."

flynnk@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5247

The red, yellow and green of it

Red light cameras have mixed records in cities across the country. Here's a sampling:

* COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA: A study showed crashes of all types declined 44 percent at camera sites while those at comparison intersections declined 12 percent. Side-angle crashes dropped 90 percent at camera sites while there was no change at comparison sites.

* DALLAS: The city shut off one-fourth of its 62 red light cameras last month because some were bringing in less revenue after yellow light times were lengthened. A third of the cameras were at signals with shorter than recommended yellow times.

* LUBBOCK, TEXAS: The city removed 11 cameras in February after just six months. Crashes caused by red light running had increased at camera sites while they went down at comparison intersections. The city also fell far short of its revenue goal.

* ONTARIO: A study in the province showed collisions went up twice as much at camera intersections as at comparison intersections. Fatal and injury crashes were up at camera sites but fell at the comparison ones.

* ROME, GA.: Accidents went up and violations increased 25 percent between 2005 and last year at the intersection with a red light camera.

* SEATTLE: A 2007 study of a camera pilot project found little effect on reducing collisions, but found less injury and damage. Contrary to the trend in many places, there were no rear-end collisions at the test sites.

Video by Laressa Bachelor, graphics by Matt Roberts, animation by Michael Hall.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

April 5, 2008

6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

casualobserver writes:

It seems to always be about revenue.
April 5, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

the correct analysis would seem to include the cost of the accident and not just revenue created. Retting seems to have a more correct goal of reducing the severity of accidents and detering aggressive drivers. A focus entirely on revenue could be called entrapment in my opinion. On the other hand the photo red light ought to pay for itself to operate and installation too perhaps.
April 5, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Raemid writes:

Yes, red-light cameras pay for themselves. So does hiring police to ticket for speeding and other minor traffic violations. That's why these things exist - they make money. They don't enhance safety. Safety is just an excuse that the moneymakers use to justify installing their revenue sources (traffic cameras, extra cops, etc).

If the money generated by these devices went to departments unrelated to the people installing the devices or enforcing the law, then you'd see the focus shift back to safety instead of greed. If only they had to pay for the accidents their devices (indirectly) cause, you'd see things change as well.

As is, the traffic enforcement and "safety" organizations are just parasites on the populace they're supposed to serve.
April 5, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

denver50 writes:

I, for one, will be happy if these cameras catch folks speeding through red lights. Such dangerous, self-important, obnoxious behavior requires enforcement, and the blase, self-righteous motorists who are fined will deserve their rather simple punishment.
April 5, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

the correct analysis is that people will adapt to the environment despite the intellectual elite's studies...many of which are proved false when put into action. The same thinking will enter one's mind going into an intersection on a yellow light...will I make it or not? Think about it, how many times have the "superior intellects" been wrong? Statistics get manipulated, data withheld or brought forth to support a claim...ending in nothing solid...just look at the bogus AGW claims. The real ISSUE is that the STATE can now CHARGE YOU without you being served or without due process...a video camera as the state's witness..that should have you outraged.
April 5, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Colorado_Bill writes:

Name ANY task performed by the police...
If it does not increase public safety,
the police should be barred from doing it.
April 5, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

I remember reading that the severe side-angle accidents happen well after the light goes red, like an average of eight seconds afterward. T-bone accidents don't happen on the first couple of seconds after the light is red because there isn't any cross traffic yet. But the hundreds of people who are going to be fined are those who are trapped by the short yellow time and violating by less than a second. The laws of physics and momentum will always trump the laws of traffic when the city sets the yellow too short for conditions. Denver should set the correct yellow time but that woudl eliminate most of their revenue. This is no different than the old southern speed trap towns.
April 5, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

MarcoPolo writes:

Quote:
"'We're trading off crashes that impact lives for crashes that impact bumpers, and that's reasonable,' Retting said."

That's the same reasoning they use to explain the traffic circles here New England as opposed to standard intersections. Despite the higher if not greater number of accidents, the ones that occur are "not as bad".

Look out, Denver. The lawmakers are driving.
April 5, 2008

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

Why did Denver get PHOTO VANS in the first place?

What happened with them?

If the traffic ENGINEERING is properly done and the YELLOW LIGHTS are re-timed, what would be the need for the cameras in the first place?

The use of cameras involves ENTRAPMENT if the lights are not properly timed. The Rocky already proved that this is the case.

Denver tried a SPEED TRAP SYSTEM ALREADY. The outrage stopped that abuse of the Photo Vans.

Where is Captain Gatso when you need him?

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/welcome.htm
April 5, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

jr12 writes:

When driving around the metro area, I can always tell when I'm at an intersection within the city limits of Denver, because I am shocked at the ridiculously short yellow light. It was one of the first things I noticed about this city. In the city of Denver, I treat all yellow lights as EQUIVALENT to red, because I have no way of predicting whether or not it will give me adequate time to stop.

I just am thankful that I have a decent reaction time (yay, reflexes) and good brakes, so that I can slam on them as soon as I see a yellow.. I just hope the people behind me do as well....
April 5, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ramm writes:

anyone ever read the book or see the movie, by I. Asimov called "I Robot"

Here we go- and keep the timing of the yellow lights way down. No need to provide any real non-expensive solution.
April 5, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

ds42 writes:

Finally! After all these years, a dialog is finally starting about Denver's dangerously short yellow lights. Are people just going to blow off some steam on the comments and let Denver's traffic engineering go back to business as usual, or are we going to let the city know how we feel about this?

Here's a link to Denver's Traffic Engineering Services contact page, where you can email them with how you feel about the yellow light timings:

http://www.denvergov.org/Transportati...
April 5, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

It is obvious that the best solution for decreasing red light runners and accidents is by increasing the yellow light time but that is not the city of Denver's objective if it was they wouldn't have any fast yellow lights to begin with; one more reason to try and stay out of Denver and NEVER buy anything within its city limit.
April 5, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

grace writes:

If you saw the idiots who work for these companies and maintain the equipment, you'd wonder when they got fired from their fast food jobs!
April 5, 2008

5:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

horsinaround writes:

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with short yellow lights. The people who find themselves unable to stop and have to gun it through the yellow light are not the problem. I can't tell you how many lights I have been at when folks turning left keep going and going and going even after their light has turned red. I've seen as many as eight or more cars run these RED lights. They are not just trying to make it through a short yellow light. This is in Highlands Ranch, Parker, Denver, Aurora. Then you have the idiots who gun it straight through a RED light because their time is more important than the lives of those they endanger. Hopefully these are the folks who will be targeted and, if so, their ticket is more than deserved. I say "hooray" to the cameras if they can help put a stop to the self-important jerks who endanger others.
April 5, 2008

7:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

diamondstay writes:

Sometimes it's very hard not to enter an intersection before the light turns red. If the red light for the cross traffic stayed red one second longer, the late driver could always get across the street before the light turned green for the cross traffic. This is the solution in conjunction with increasing the yellow light time.

The City however has an agenda other than safety. It's money! They will couch lame arguments like the rear end accidents vs. side accidents to support their agenda. Once they can justify rear end collisions, they've got their red light cameras.

I doubt if anything will stop their nefarious agenda until the public is so outraged by senseless rear end collisions that they have to stop the practice of short yellow lighs and cameras.

Unfortunately, some folks are going to have to pay for their irresponsibility to the public.
April 5, 2008

11:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

benn writes:

I say - keep the cameras AND extend the yellow light according the speed on the roadway.

I see enough folks burn red lights here in Broomfield that there needs to be some sort of enforcement. However, there also has to be a reasonable delay on the yellow light so that folks don't have to slam the breaks.
April 5, 2008

11:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

clyde writes:

If one has the right to face one's accuser in a court of law, I would like to see the traffic camera take the stand. It seems this inanimate object is to be believed more than a real, live person. Kind of tells you what our "leaders" think of you, doesn't it? A sheeple to be fleeced.
April 5, 2008

11:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jr12 writes:

I don't think anyone here is opposed to ticketing people who blatantly run through red lights, endangering themselves and others. Or even people who obnoxiously "follow through" on a red (especially left turn arrows!).. Yes, bad, bad, ticket the morons..

However, the vast majority of tickets issued by this system are going to be going to unintentional offenders.. people who cross the "red" light by fractions of a second, due to the engineering problems of the intersection.

The fact that fixing the yellow light length is is even a question to the city, when it is such an obvious defect.. the yellow lights are clearly below national standards.. Instead they are immediately resorting to contracting with RedFlex (net profit 2006: $5.5 million, 2007: $11.1 million).. it sure seems like there is a very serious problem with our city government!

How much money will RedFlex be making per ticket issued?
April 6, 2008

5:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

rumplstilskin writes:

Albuquerque, NM have these big brother devices in use. Maybe the government should check their accident statistics to see what has prevailed in that city before installing them. Those things are a huge money maker for Albuqueque and the people get to vote to see if they still want them after a certain amount of time, a novel idea!! Let the voice of the public be heard!!
April 6, 2008

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

FrustratedVet writes:

I agree with most comments here concerning the fact that the city's main agenda is to create revenue, as it is obvious that increasing the yellow time is the logical choice, and they are unwilling to do that. However I have one observation that does not seem to be mentioned anywhere here. In all rear end accidents the car that runs into the vehicle in front is considered the cause and recieves a ticket. In all safe driving training it is taught that you need a car length of distance between your vehicle and the vehicle in front for "every 10 miles per hour of speed". However a majority of drivers follow too close and are unable to stop in an emergency because they did not allow enough room between themselves and the vehicle in front. There is an adage that a driver who causes a crash from the rear is always at fault for the crash based on this information. So who is really to blame for a higher rate of rear endings if the cameras are installed, a high percentage are tailgaters.
April 6, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

happymike44 writes:

I live in a community with the red light cameras.A sheriff's deputy ran the light no radio call and 2:45 in the morning.Just his normal nighttime shift,no ticket no reprimand.Just he was working and he can drive that way because he is a cop.You and me we get a ticket,no way around it.This officer at that hour of the morning and his driving ability,should have to pay for the ticket.Maybe this will change his attitude while driving.I know now I have to worry that I will now get rearended and pay even more insurance.I guess the only person who wins is the city and the insurance companys.I bet they are now dancing around city hall singing were in the money.
April 6, 2008

5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

heyward writes:

The revenue generators are spreading the word, install traffic cameras and make money. Every community that I have anything to do with is looking to install traffic cameras. The idea of traffic cameras is spreading like a virus. I say make money because if they were interested in improving traffic safety there would be other changes they could make but won’t. Give the tools to the vast majority of drivers, who obey the traffic laws, to become better drivers.

Every intersection is a guessing game how long is the yellow. That needs to change. I think they should be a standard amount of time.

The next thing drivers need to know is how long is the light going to be red, yellow, or green. There is an easy way to do this. They are countdown traffic lights where the lights are replaced with a red, yellow, or green number. This is off the shelf equipment already in use in some of the areas I have visited. As with any thing there are people who will find a way to abuse the system, that’s what the cameras are for and even then the punishment doesn’t have to cut and dry. If a driver shows an inclination to just pay the fine then the penalties need to increase until that person changes their driving style.

Count down traffic lights would give drivers tools to better plan their stops. There is no need to speed towards an intersection that you know will change before you get there. A driver whose attention was distracted just when a green changes to yellow shouldn’t happen because he should know that the change is coming. If he turns back to see yellow, he knows and the driver behind him knows, when the light is going to change. Those drivers that go asleep during the long stop light cycles know when to prepare for the coming green turn light by looking for cars that don’t appear to be slowing down, then properly use the precious little time that some turn lanes have.

What does a yellow light mean? Well I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean speed up. It means prepare to stop.

The two issues need to be linked traffic cameras and count down traffic lights. Both or none.
April 6, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

jr12 writes:

As soon as those red light cameras go up, everyone needs to be sure be extra careful if they're directed to drive through an intersection by an emergency vehicle.

Sure, you could technically get out of the ticket with the defense that you were clearing the left turn lane for the ambulance who had it's siren blaring behind you..

But in many cities that have had red light cameras in operation for awhile, the judges have heard that defense so often that it really doesn't fly unless you have proof.. Sometimes you can see the reflection of the emergency vehicle's lights on your car in the video of the citation. But more often than not, you can't. You are then SOL.

I'm not suggesting people start delaying emergency vehicles (sure to result in a ticket as well).. Just another something to think about.
April 6, 2008

6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

I like the countdown traffic lights idea; I already look at the walk signs/light countdown on them to know if the light is getting ready to change.
April 6, 2008

7:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

If you are already STOPPED ( at an intersection or on the curb ) you are no longer driving. It become the EMERGENCY VEHICLE'S problem.

People can't make you break a law, you have to do it. The emergency vehicle has the right to break laws ( with BOTH red lights and siren operating ), YOU don't.

This is where the law gets tricky..
April 9, 2008

12:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

happymike44 writes:

Big brother here we come.I live in a community where we have the cameras.Let me tell you people now drive slower and you can't make it through them almost now.People driving so slow and talking on the phone you also have to worry about the idiot in front of you slamming on the brakes unexpectedly.Also those nice people giving the finger when you do stop.God how I love how they have improved our lives with these cameras.So Denverites get ready to pay up the whazoo for tickets.Also we had a local sheriff deputy who at 2:45 am ran a red light also not on a call.But he does not have to pay for the ticket.So if it good enough for me it is good enough for you.The deputies also should obey the law as the rest of us.
April 10, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

oatis writes:

Lotsa talk, little candor. The folks who cronically run red lights and hate the new cameras ought to admit it. For everybody else, this is a no-brainer. The world is full of people who drive the speed limit, maintain safe following distances and even plan their lives sensibly so they never speed, or operate a car in a dangerous manner. They are responsible adults, so why would they? They have never run a red light---regardless of "short yellows" or any other childish excuses. For them, the entire issue is irrelevant. They understand that driving is a serious privilege: they are too busy WATCHING OUT for reckless drivers.
For the speeders who hate getting caught: admit it! Our hearts bleed for you!
April 10, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Oatis, reread the story. Denver's yellow lights are undertimed for people already driving the speed limit. You will get caught by it too, even driving the limit. That's why it's a trap. The city's refusal to time the yellows properly is what is contributing to 80 percent of all red light running. And now they want to profit by their own misfeasance by putting up a ticket camera to charge people caught in their trap.

Home › News › Local News

Red light camera controversy

Questions arise whether photos cut signal running or increase accidents

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Local News

Map my news

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs