Red Light Camera Q & As
Question: How serious is the red light running problem?
Answer: Red light running (RLR) is a serious traffic safety problem. According to the Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras (FHWA-HRT-05-048, April 2005), RLR is estimated to produce more than 100,000 crashes and approximately 1,000 deaths per year in the United States.
Question: Why do people run red lights?
Answer: RLR is a dangerous form of aggressive driving. Based on self-reported behavioral surveys, RLR is a result of people wanting to save time. However, several factors can lead to RLR such as impatient and inattentive drivers, improperly timed traffic signals, lack of enforcement efforts and the attitude that no harm will come from running a red light.
Question: What is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) position on the use of photo enforcement cameras?
Answer: FHWA and NHTSA support a comprehensive approach to intersection safety that incorporates engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures to prevent RLR and improve intersection safety. Red light camera (RLC) systems can be a very effective countermeasure to prevent red light running (Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, FHWA-SA-05-002, January 2005).
Question: Do studies show that there are safety benefits from installation of these cameras systems? Do rear-end collisions increase when RLCs are installed - in which case, aren't we just trading one type of crash for another?
Answer: Analysis of data in the most comprehensive study to date (Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras (FHWA-HRT-05-048, April 2005)) from seven jurisdictions (Baltimore; Charlotte; El Cajon, CA; Howard County, MD; Montgomery County, MD; San Diego; San Francisco) at 132 intersections using RLCs found:
- 25% decrease of total right-angle crashes
- 16% decrease of injury right-angle crashes
- 15% increase of total rear-end crashes
- 24% increase of injury rear-end crashes
The conflicting direction effects for rear end and right-angle crashes justified the conduct of the economic effects analysis to assess the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for right-angle crashes. This analysis, which was based on an aggregation of rear end and right-angle crash costs for various severity levels, showed that RLC systems do indeed provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit. Economic analysis showed that RLCs saved 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.)
Primary factors for the greatest economic benefits for RLC installation include: locations where there are relatively few rear end crashes and many right-angle ones, higher proportion of entering average annual daily traffic (AADT) on the major road, shorter cycle lengths and intergreen periods (yellow clearance + all-red), and one or more left turn protected phases.
A survey conducted as part of Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 310, 2003) found that a majority of jurisdictions (including Boulder, CO; Polk County, FL; Mesa, AZ; Sacramento, CA; Laurel, MD, & others) reported downward trends in RLR crashes and violations because of RLCs.
Question: Why don't you just increase the time of yellow lights in dangerous intersections?
Answer: The purpose of the yellow interval is to warn approaching traffic of the imminent change in the assignment of right-of-way. The length of the yellow interval is determined in such a way that it provides enough time for a vehicle to travel at its prevailing speed through the intersection before the traffic signal turns red or to allow a driver to stop at a comfortable average deceleration before entering the intersection. Therefore, the likelihood of a motorist running a red light increases as the yellow interval is shortened. Lengthening the yellow interval, within appropriate guidelines, has been shown to significantly reduce the number of inadvertent red light violations. On the other hand too long of a yellow clearance interval decreases capacity of the intersection and increases delay to motorists. This in turn can cause driver frustration and may result in motorists entering the intersection later intentionally violating the red light. (Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red Light Running).
The length of the yellow intervals should be set in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways: 2003 Edition, Section 4D.10, Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals) guidelines and applicable State and local agency policies and procedures. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' report, Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, contains more detailed discussion of methods for the calculation of clearance intervals for specific circumstances.
Question: Do public agencies use photo enforcement to generate revenue?
Answer: RLCs should only be used to enhance traffic safety. The goal of RLC programs should strictly be to reduce crashes and the resulting injuries and deaths. Where a private contractor is responsible for the processing of citations, compensation based on the number of citations issued should be avoided. For additional information on this issue, see Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FHWA-SA-05-002, January 2005).
Question: If cities are financially dependent on the revenue these devices bring in; doesn't that actually discourage implementing engineering solutions that would make intersections safer?
Answer: Jurisdictions considering the use of RLC systems should conduct an engineering study to determine the factors contributing to red light running violations and to identify appropriate countermeasures that could be implemented to reduce the number of crashes resulting from red light violations. Red light running is a complex issue that needs to be addressed through a comprehensive approach that includes engineering, enforcement and education solutions.
In many areas, RLC programs have not produced profits to cities. One example is the finding of the California State Auditor that "local governments themselves make little or no profit from their programs." (California State Auditor, Red-light Camera Programs: Although They Have Contributed to a Reduction in Accidents, Operational Weaknesses Exist at the Local Level, Bureau of State Audits, Sacramento, California, July 2002.)
Question: How many cities in the U.S. are using RLCs today?
Answer: As of December 2005, approximately 35 cities are using RLCs. An additional 6 States have legislation that allows RLC enforcement statewide. Four other States have legislation that allows RLCs in cities of certain size population.
Question: What is the appropriate and proper use of RLCs?
Answer: First and foremost, the primary focus of any RLC program must be traffic safety. The solution to the problem of RLR and resulting crashes requires one or a combination of engineering, education, and enforcement measures. These are detailed in the FHWA and NHTSA document, Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FHWA-SA-05-002, January 2005), and include:
- Intersection Engineering Improvements (including proper traffic signal timing*)
- Education
- Traditional Enforcement by Law Enforcement Officers
- RLC Systems
An engineering study should consider each of these possible solutions in order to identify the most appropriate solution(s) to the documented problem at the intersection. If a decision is made to use a RLC program, key elements recommended are:
- Establish a Steering Committee.
- Establish Program Objectives.
- Identify the Legal Requirements.
- Assess system procurement alternatives (Avoid compensation to vendors based on the number of citations).
- Ensure complete oversight and supervision by public agencies.
- Establish an ongoing public awareness and information campaign.
- Safety results should be measured, evaluated, documented, and communicated to the public.
*The existing Institute of Transportation Engineers' report, "Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals" provides direction to practitioners on the lengths of yellow interval and all-red clearance periods.
Question: Are other measures as effective as cameras, or are cameras the only option?
Answer: Like any traffic safety problem, there is no single solution or answer, but rather a multitude of solutions depending on the specific situation. Engineering improvements can make a difference. Enforcement, whether traditional or automated, can be an effective deterrent. FHWA and NHTSA have developed the Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FHWA-SA-05-002, January 2005) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers and FHWA have developed an informational report, "Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red Light Running," to assist communities in reducing RLR crashes.
Question: Is FHWA providing any guidance on RLR countermeasures (other than enforcement as a countermeasure)?
Answer: Yes. The most mature part of our Stop RLR Program, in partnership with the American Trauma Society, is a public education campaign. We make a wide variety of materials such as radio and TV public service announcements, guidance documents, and camera-ready artwork available to communities that are interested in initiating a program, as well as work with the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running to distribute information, materials and assist with media campaigns.
FHWA worked with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to develop an informational report, Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running, 2003, ITE, IR-115. Engineering countermeasures that are considered useful include: improving signal visibility (placement and number of signal heads, size of signal display, line of sight), improving signal conspicuity (redundancy, light emitting diode signal lenses, backplates, strobe lights), increasing the likelihood of stopping (signal ahead signs, advanced warning flashers, rumble strips, left-turn signal signs and pavement condition), addressing intentional violations (traffic signal optimization, change in cycle lengths, change in timing of yellow and red intervals, and dilemma zone protection), and eliminating the need to stop (remove unwarranted signals, change to flashing mode operation or convert intersections to roundabouts)."
Question: In light of the consequences - increased insurance costs, for example - do insurance companies support RLCs out of self-interest?
Answer: Most states using RLCs do not add points to the driver's license. Therefore, RLR citations do not result in higher insurance rates because most states do not report the citations to insurance companies. The insurance industry does have a vested interest in the traffic safety programs that result in fewer crash claims for vehicles hit or damaged in RLR crashes.
Question: It often takes weeks before a person receives a RLR citation in the mail - will this make his or her ability to challenge it more difficult?
Answer: Photo enforcement technology and processing systems typically mail the citation in a very short timeframe. This is also comparable to many court dates motorists would receive from traffic citations given by police patrol officers.
Question: RLC citations are often issued on the assumption that the driver of the car and the person to whom the car is registered are one and the same. If this assumption is not true, the owner of the car will nonetheless be forced to pay. Is that fair?
Answer: Driver or owner responsibility is a State issue. States have handled this issue differently. See Appendix A of the Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement (National Cooperative Highway Research Program's Legal Research Digest Number 36, 1997, http://gulliver.trb.org/bookstore/) for a synopsis of State laws on photographic enforcement of traffic laws. Most RLC citations are similar to parking violations (citations are imposed on the registered owner).
Question: How can RLCs taking a photograph of my vehicle without my permission not be an invasion of privacy?
Answer: The Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement (National Cooperative Highway Research Program's Legal Research Digest Number 36, 1997) contains legal and policy information regarding RLCs. Specifically regarding the right to privacy, it states, "The Supreme Court has held that driving in open view on a public highway does not afford Fourth Amendment protection of an individual's privacy." This publication also cautions "that provision should be included in any photographic enforcement program or in the enabling statute limiting the use of traffic photos to driver identification for purposes of prosecution and holding them as strictly confidential."
Question: Do private companies responsible for the cameras get a 'kickback' for each ticket issued?
Answer: Localities and States have different ways to compensate contractors. Where a private contractor is responsible for the processing of citations, compensation based on the number of citations issued should be avoided. In multiple jurisdictions, the courts have determined that it is inappropriate for the private contractor to be responsible for determining installation locations and operation of the system because of an appearance of a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest should be avoided in all phases of the system installation and operation: startup, design, installation, operation, and maintenance. At all times, the State or local agency should verify and exercise complete oversight of all actions of the private contractor.
Some agencies are compensating their camera system vendors based on a flat fee per location per time period. Others have installed and operated their own systems. It may also be appropriate to pay a vendor to operate and maintain an agency-designed and - implemented system. Compensation should be based solely on the value of the equipment or the services provided.
Question: How do I get information on starting a Stop Red Light Running campaign?
Answer: The best place to get information is on the FHWA website at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/srlr_week.cfm You can get detailed information as well as contact information for FHWA specialists that can answer your questions.
