Tag Archives: red-light cameras

State Legislation, State of Illinois, Traffic

Red-light camera update

12 Comments

Illinois State Sen. Dan Duffy may not get his wish for a complete ban on red-light cameras in Illinois, but he says “there’s more than one way to skin a cat.”

A special subcommittee on red-light cameras met Tuesday evening and heard testimony on both sides of the issue. Many citizens and experts, including the Illinois Policy Institute, spoke out against the cameras. Law enforcement representatives spoke in favor. In the end, a “shell bill” was passed out of committee:

A shell bill or vehicle bill is essentially a blank bill passed out of committee that allows lawmakers the flexibility of cobbling together a coherent bill, without the pressure of legislative deadline. In this particular case, because there were a total of five bills containing RLC [red-light camera] reforms, senators will have to work together to find agreement on a single, comprehensive bill on this issue.

What measures might make it into the shell bill?

The next step for anti-red light camera activists is to push legislators to include any and every measures possible that improve safety and decrease red light running. This includes mandating an increase in yellow light timing to 4 or 4.5 seconds, increasing the use of an [all] red interval, and eliminating RLC enforcement [for] right turns on red.

Short yellow-light intervals create what is known as a “dilemma zone.” The driver is too close to the intersection to stop without slamming on the brakes, but too far from the intersection to make it through before the light turns red. By increasing the yellow-light interval, the “dilemma zone” can be eliminated. This change in itself lowers the number of red-light running violations by giving motorists ample warning to stop. Some cities with red-light cameras have been caught deliberately shortening the yellow-light interval (or varying it) in order to induce more tickets. In Peoria, the yellow-light interval is three to four seconds, depending on the size of the intersection according to Public Works Director David Barber.

An all-red interval is the period of time that traffic traveling in all directions have a red light. In other words, once a light changes to red, the cross-traffic doesn’t immediately get a green. There’s usually a one- to two-second delay during which all lights are red before the the cross-traffic light turns green. This allows more time for the intersection to clear before allowing cross-traffic to proceed, which improves safety. In Peoria, signalized intersections have a one-second all-red interval.

Turning right on red is legal at signalized intersections unless they have a red arrow or are otherwise posted with “no right on red” signs. Because of the geometry of the intersections, it’s often necessary to pull up past the stop line in order to see around traffic in the forward lanes. In communities that have red-light cameras, a lot of their revenue is generated by giving red-light citations to drivers who pull up in order to turn right on red in this way.

“We want to put in every reform possible,” says Scott Tucker, GOP nominee for state representative in the 11th district and organizer of a road trip of citizens to the hearings. “So many sensible reforms will kill the cameras over time because there will not be enough revenue to operate the cameras.”

In most cities (perhaps all–I haven’t done an exhaustive search), the police department doesn’t buy the red-light cameras, but instead contracts with a third-party vendor. The vendor installs and maintains the cameras, and in many municipalities, actually sends out the citations to violators. Other municipalities have an officer review the violations and send the citations out from the police department. The vendor gets a cut of the fines imposed on violators. If there are fewer violators, there will be less profit incentive for the vendors. And if that happens, you won’t need a ban on red-light cameras because simple economics will drive the vendors out of business.

State Legislation, State of Illinois

Red-light camera subcommittee to meet March 2

4 Comments

State Sen. Dan Duffy’s bill to ban red-light cameras in Illinois (S.B. 2466) was assigned to a special subcommittee earlier this month. Now a date has been set for the subcommittee to meet: next Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at 6 p.m. According to a recent Christian Science Monitor article, “State Sen. Dan Duffy (R) says the bill could move to the Senate floor in two weeks.”

The bill currently has fifteen co-sponsors, including gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady.

General News

Bill to ban red-light cameras sent to subcommittee

9 Comments

State Sen. Dan Duffy (Dist. 26) is the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 2466, which would ban red-light cameras in the State of Illinois. The bill was assigned to the Transportation Committee, where it got a hearing yesterday.

According to the Daily Herald’s live blog of the meeting, it sounds like there wasn’t enough support for the bill to get it sent back to the floor for a vote. Instead, a five-member (3 Democrats, 2 Republicans) subcommittee was formed to try to “find the middle ground on this redlight camera policy.” Sending a bill to subcommittee is often the same as killing the bill, but the chairman of the committee indicated that he would like to schedule a subcommittee meeting in early March.

They don’t say who was assigned to the subcommittee, but local senator Dale Risinger is a member of the larger Transportation Committee. Risinger doesn’t sound like a big supporter of red-light cameras, judging from this Peoria Times-Observer article.

Risinger, a former IDOT engineer, said, in his view, red-light cameras do not reduce accidents….

Risinger added he is also concerned about tickets being issued to motorists who pull forward to make a right turn on red without making a complete stop.

Risinger said he is concerned about the city growing dependent on the revenue that could be generated by tickets to red light violators.

He said Chicago became dependent on this revenue and began ticketing motorists who pulled forward at red lights for visibility reasons while trying to turn right on a red light.

I believe his concerns are warranted.

Peoria Police

Settingsgaard on red-light cameras: “I don’t care about the revenue”

92 Comments

Peoria Police Chief Steven Settingsgaard says he’s not proposing red-light cameras as a way to bring more revenue into the city, but only as a way to improve safety because speeding is one of the most common causes of rear-end collisions.

“I don’t care about the revenue, not one bit,” Settingsgaard said via e-mail. “It would be a Council decision ultimately but I would like to see any revenue go toward something that also helps traffic safety in the City rather than going into the general fund or to the police department.”

For example, he suggested the revenue could go toward construction or repair of sidewalks, which would improve pedestrian safety. “I believe there a lots of options here that would put the money to good use but would also alleviate any fears that red light cameras are first and foremost revenue generators.”

According to a recent Peoria Times-Observer article, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis also “told [state] legislators this request was not being sought to create a revenue generator for the city.” Instead, it’s all about safety. “Our community is very dangerous,” he was quoted as saying.

According to the 2009 Crime Summary and additional statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, only 2.8% of all traffic citations (721 of 25,476) and 3.8% of total accidents (173 of 4,560) were for red-light violations. But Settingsgaard believes these numbers can be deceiving.

“The number of citations or percentage of citations issued do not reflect the severity of the problem,” he explained. “It is the difficulty of enforcing red light running that is a major deterrent to enforcement and contributes to the low number of citations, not the lack of violators.”

For the police to safely and effectively enforce red lights, it takes two officers and two cars. One officer (the “witnessing officer”) is positioned in front of the intersection and is the one who actually observes the violation. The other officer (the “pursuing officer”) is positioned on the other side of the intersection and is the one who pursues the violator. It would be unsafe for the witnessing officer to try to pursue the violator through the intersection.

Given the time and staffing required to stake out traffic signals, Settingsgaard believes it would be cheaper and more effective to use photo enforcement.

While recent studies have shown that red-light cameras actually increased the number of crashes at photo-enforced intersections, those crashes have been rear-end fender-benders. In contrast, red-light runners cause “T-bone” style crashes, Settingsgaard point out, which “are extremely hazardous and injuries can be severe if not fatal.”

“It is important to note though that the need goes beyond the actual number of crashes or even the severity of crashes,” he continued. “Just like perception of crime is nearly as important as crime itself, perception of traffic safety is important. It is a common perception, and maybe a common reality, that it is wise in Peoria to pause before proceeding with a green light due to the prevalence of red light runners. This perception/reality impacts the quality of life in Peoria and it frustrates the public when they believe the police don’t give it enough attention.”

My take: With all due respect to the Chief and the Mayor, I don’t see any warrant for using photo-enforcement. I think it’s clear that all safety concerns are based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence and subjective experience. Thus, if photo-enforcement were established, there would be no objective way to quantify or measure its effectiveness. Any claims of improved safety would be anecdotal as well.

The only thing we would be able to measure is how many citations are being issued and how much money it’s bringing into the city. Despite the Mayor’s and Chief’s professed disinterest in that revenue, I don’t think it’s cynical to recognize the city will inevitably become addicted to the revenue once it starts. So even if the establishment of photo-enforcement is not motivated by desire for a new revenue stream, the end result will be the same. Red-light cameras will be little more than a means to extract more money from residents under the pretense of improving safety.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Police

Red-light cameras on Peoria Police wish list

11 Comments

I was reading over the agenda for the City Council meeting tonight, and this caught my eye: “2010 Legislative Agenda Items.” It’s described as “a list of items [that] are submitted to our local legislators with the expectation that the items will be reviewed with possible action taken in Springfield.”

One of the items on that list is a request that Peoria be able to use red-light cameras:

9. Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Technology/Red Light Running Expansion.

Current law allows for a governmental agency in a municipality or county located in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Madison, St. Clair, and Will Counties to establish an automated traffic law enforcement system, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency that produces a recorded image of a motor vehicle’s response to a traffic control signal. The technology is designed to create a clear recorded image of the vehicle and the vehicle’s license plate. It further provides that the owner of the vehicle used in the violation is liable for the violation if the violation was recorded by the system, with exceptions. This legislation would give Peoria the authority to operate automated traffic enforcement technology for red light running.

On the one hand, I can understand the reason for the request. Since the City Council has cut dozens of police officers, the police department is having to look to alternative methods of law enforcement, including automation. These red-light cameras would allow intersections to be monitored without any officer present at all. If a vehicle runs a red light, the camera snaps a picture and the driver automatically get a traffic ticket in the mail.

On the other hand, however, photo enforcement is a bad idea. Consider this Chicago Tribune report that came out just over the weekend:

If improved safety is the goal of red-light cameras, then it is a mission largely unaccomplished for the first crop of area suburbs that raced to install the devices after they became legal in 2006, according to state data.

Accidents rose — in some cases, significantly — at half the 14 suburban intersections outfitted with traffic cameras by the end of 2007, the data show. The number of crashes fell at just five of those intersections after cameras went in, while two showed little change.

These findings aren’t unique to Chicago. In fact, numerous independent studies have shown an increase in traffic collisions due to red-light photo enforcement. Peoria (Arizona) saw the number of accidents double this past year at intersections where red-light cameras were installed.

Of course, these statistics are routinely ignored by municipalities because of another, more compelling statistic: increased revenues. Photo enforcement can be a cash cow for municipalities. A physical police officer at an intersection can only catch so many people in a day running red lights, whereas cameras catch every person, every time. That means a tremendous increase in the number of traffic citations, and hence, a windfall of revenue. A report by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, for example, found fine collections in Kingsport (TN) quadrupled after cameras were installed.

It’s because of this conflict of interest (revenues vs. safety) that many people are opposed to photo-enforcement.

The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, and some municipalities with red-light cameras have allowed themselves to be corrupted by the love of money. The National Motorists Association reported in 2008 that six cities were caught shortening the length of yellow lights at photo-enforced intersections in order to increase revenue. In some cases, the yellow lights were so short that they were actually unsafe — i.e., drivers got caught in a situation where they were too close to the intersection to stop safely, but too far away to make it through before the light turned red. Thus, these municipalities were blatantly trading safety for revenue. In other cases, the municipalities simply tried to trick motorists by making the yellow light durations shorter at photo-enforced intersections and longer at non-enforced intersections.

Yellow light duration turned out to be an interesting topic when looking up information on red-light cameras. Several sources cite studies that show longer yellow light durations are more effective than photo-enforcement at increasing safety and reducing red-light running. So if safety is really the motivating factor here, perhaps instead of asking legislators to approve photo-enforcement in Peoria, the police department should ask the Traffic Engineering division to increase yellow phase duration at intersections.