Hard to Put Red-Light Violations Under a Lens

Interesting article.
Thanks.

The debate will continue. I wonder if any State will put this kind of decision up to a public referendum.

Fred

Commenting about red light cameras, FZbar wondered

I wonder what the public would decide if any state put having parking meters on downtown streets put them up to a public referendum?

I'd vote for parking meters - no problem!

Fred

Wouldn't we be comparing apples and oranges at that point. Safety (presumed) caused by the RLCs vs income from parking? We could also go further and put up a referendum for paying for food or medical care or.......

We have some left turn only signals that only allow 2 - 3 (at most) cars through per cycle. Needless to say many motorists consider it a suggestion!

Opponents of red light cameras have, for years, used the fact that when RLCs are put to a vote that they are voted down as one of their arguments why RLCs should not be employed (or installed in the first place).

Both RLC and parking meters are ways that a municipality generates money. Since parking meters have been with us for as long as I can remember, I believe most people have come to accept the fact that if you don't feed the meter you may get a ticket. However, RLCs are relatively new and I believe that most people have grown up believing that "STOP" on red before making a right turn is just a suggestion - rolling red right turns being the norm - no harm if done safely, etc. Because they realize that they have been doing this routinely and may now get caught if they do it again, they get bent out of shape and begin claiming that cameras are just for the money. Well - what is so wrong with that? That is what parking tickets produce.

I think cities would be better off by not making a claim that their RLCs are there only for safety reasons - as I certainly think that most if not all are aware of the revenue they will generate.

When any city tries to maximize revenue by not having grace periods (say entering the intersection on red within .5 sec or not issuing rolling right on red when there are no cars or pedestrians in danger - similar to what an officer on the scene would decide), then that city should be called to task and have to defend the need for revenue.

I think people often overlook the fact that having RLCs increases safety of citizens because officers are available to reduce crime in other areas. See
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/37272/#comment-317738

The mayors of Muscatine and Davenport have both said in interviews that the revenue produced is important to their city budgets..

All the states that currently have these things should put it up to a vote by the people. I think you will find that the majority of people don't want them.

Probably true, but can you think of a REPLACEMENT source of revenue that the majority would be in favor of?

Since states must balance their budgets, replacement revenue must come from somewhere or other cuts will take place. They have already cut education funding so much that the US is way behind the other developed countries. They have cut infrastructure maintenance so much that our infrastructure is crumbling and becoming dangerous.

You know what? Yeah, drivers have been rolling through red lights forever. And so what? It's what we do. Everybody does it at one time or another. Police overlooking unimportant things like a driver cheating a little on a red light is part of what makes a city livable. Who the hell wants to live where your every move is under surveillance and every little transgression costs you money? C'mon, this is America, not some wimpy country like England. RLC's are taxes, plain and simple, and we the people should get them, and the politicians who put them there, out of town.

Phil

@jgermann:
I appreciate your posts comparing RLC tickets and parking tickets. It is an aspect of the RLC debate that I had not considered before.

@plunder:

Just to play the Devil's Advocate here, can we conclude that if you have RLCs in your town then you are willing to pay higher property taxes so your town can recoup the lost RLC revenue (and possibly hire additional traffic safety enforcement officers)?

@plunder, most recent studies have concluded that RLCs have improved safety, but that is not what struck me about your comment.

I imagine that your municipality and state must have some form of taxation - otherwise it could not provide any services. Have you given some thought to why you single out RLCs for such comments?

In my opinion, the Red Light Cameras have always been a source of revenue, nothing more....nothing less. The city/village politicians can claim all they want about safety, but you need to follow the money. There really is no limit on how others will spend "your" money.

If you go through a redlight you get a ticket no matter how you are caught. PERIOD!!!..my goodness how long do we have to worry about this issue???? ?Are there not more important things to worry about... I don't have an issue with the RLC'S at all.

@Dudlee - Since most recent studies have shown safety benefits of RLCs, for you to say they are "nothing more...nothing less" than a "source of revenue" is to ignore these studies and deny that safety gains exist.

I have always agreed that RLCs generate income to the city/village. From my perspective, having lawbreakers pay for their misdeeds is part of our system of justice. No one seemed to cry foul that the city/village was just after "your" money when tickets for running a red light were issued by a police officer.

I am struck by the expressed feeling that it is "your" money that RLCs are after. RLCs are after money from people who break the law by running red lights. Are you in that group?

Many of the studies are either funded or promoted by the people that benefit from the revenue. ATS, Redflex, and politicians.
If Dudlee funded some studies, I'm sure he would promote the studies that favor his point of view.
Easy to do. Just review the data from existing studies, Cherry pick different intersections and arrive at a different conclusion.

Well said. I'm all for fair enforcement, but the cold enforcement of a computer with a camera takes humanity and compassion out of a civilization.

And there is the problem with our judical system. Not everyone is treated the same!

I can recall no recent studies by these groups. I think your assertion can not be supported.

If Dudlee funded a study, I imagine he would want the study to show results that supported his point of view; I can not assume that Dudlee would be dishonest.

Several anti camera sites have accused the IIHS of having a financial interest but that is a smokescreen because it is the facts of studies that must be questioned. If the statistics are sound then it does not make any difference whether the author does, or does not, have a financial interest.

Following the same logic as you, I can state that you and the anti-camera sites have a financial interest in getting rid of RLCs so that members of anti-camera organizations will not have to pay for running red lights.

The accuracy applicability and completeness of the statistics are what makes a good study - regardless of who does it.

One item people who hate cameras usually present a quotation from some person stating that they are no longer making money from some sites.
This proves that by the loss of revenue the cameras are working and maybe they should put more cameras elsewhere.
Cameras do not cause more crashes for because it is tailgating that causes the crash. How many rear end crashes will one have before he/she will back off and slow down?.
There are no "accidents" because the person either broke the law by running a red light or was tailgating and lost so it was intentional.

Seems like the WSJ and I agree.
I just looked at the first study that Google pointed me towards.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

Studies are not consistent. I rest.

You have just done what most camera opponents do - find one thing that fits their preconceived notion and then "rests".

Did you fail to read the "Abstract" of the above study?

Did you notice when the study was published?

The WSJ was, on balance, favorable toward red light cameras. Even though the article started with

it ended with

Most of the early studies (like the one you quoted from) were finding that rear-end crashes went up - with red-light opponents zeroing in on that fact. Recent studies are finding that rear-end crashes often (but not always) are going down. That is likely because of signage that is now required in many jurisdictions indicating that cameras are ahead. Drivers are getting used to the fact that a camera is ahead and are not assuming that the person in front of them is going to run the red light and they will just follow (OK - that was a bit much - let's just say that drivers are keeping their distance in light of upcoming cameras).

When cameras were first installed, drivers were not used to them and cities had not learned and applied what makes intersections safer - like longer yellows and all-red intervals. If you want to quote studies, then wouldn't it be fairer to use ones that reflect the current situations?

The more I think about it the more I believe that jgermann's parallel between RLC tickets and parking tickets makes a lot of sense. Obviously the RLC system shouldn't be "rigged" to unfairly inflate the number of citations (e.g., fudging the timing of the signals), but a reasonable setup with signs warning drivers of "traffic camera ahead" is okay with me.

re: "They are just a tax" - Indeed, instead of insisting that "it's ONLY about safety" maybe some courageous city officials could start talking about enforcement cameras in terms of a "voluntary tax". If you choose to run red lights (or speed, or park illegally, ...) then be prepared to pay for that decision when you get caught.

Sorry to mention an old study. But let me point out that you tend to pick and choose which old studies are still valid.
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/38127
Boxcar posted a link that contained.

THen you responded

check this out
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/parking-in-d-c-city-wro...

I am not sure I am following your thinking. It sounds like you are saying that I was thanking Box Car for a quote taken from the 2012 report to which he provided a link. The quote from the 2005 study dealt with "Effects of Change Intervals on Driver Behavior" and, as far as I can tell, nothing else from that 2005 study was mentioned.

Look again at what Box Car said:

I hope that you read the report which was entitled "Guidelines for Timing Yellow and All-Red Intervals at Signalized Intersections". I found the information interesting and valuable as I indicated to Box Car. But, I was not picking and choosing reports. And, in any event, it was a 2012 report that I read as a result of that post.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, Lord knows that would not be a first. As I have read the statistics the majority of tickets, ie money, is earned from right turn on red. Stopping past the white line before proceeding, rolling at a crawl past the white line before turning right. Very little if any safety issues here other than generating revenue.

Jgermann wrote:

I am struck by the expressed feeling that it is "your" money that RLCs are after. RLCs are after money from people who break the law by running red lights. Are you in that group?

.............................

Am I in that group, no. In fact I have never had a ticket for running a red light, in fact, I have only had 2 tickets in my 50 years of driving. As the local municipalities are faced with their poor management of their finances over many many years and are going broke, they are going for any revenue that can try to bail them out. As an example, I moved into my current home 10 years ago. At that time my property taxes were $3000 on a 55 year old house. After 10 years here my property taxes are $14,000. The village has no idea how to correct their inept management of the village finances and so have to go after "my" money to cover that ineptitude. It took 55 years to get my property tax up to $3000 and only 10 more years to get it up to $14000. Why do you think that is so?

I really don't care about a replacement source of revenue, since the cameras are so awful. Keeping them because of the revenue is like justifying stealing because you need the money.

If you want suggestions, I would suggest cutting back where possible, or if something is so necessary that people demand it of their government, add a tax or charge them a fee for a service. At least it would be more evenly divided and/or the person actually using the service would be paying for it. In any case, they first need to spend what they already have more wisely.

So you would be in favour of more toll roads, then?

Please explain what is different about getting a ticket from a police officer or a RLC when you run a red light. You should get away with it as long as the police don't catch you doing it???? Quit worrying about where the money goes. Break the law and pay period!!!

RLC. A rich man can afford to run lights as many times as he chooses, with no real penalty. A poor man can not.

Police Officer. Rich man, poor man, no difference. Both will lose their license.

Remember that the violation is the same but with different penalties.

Nope. The actual collecting of the tolls causes more problems than it is worth and adds much more expense than is needed. If they need to raise taxes on gas, so be it, but they need to spend what they have now more wisely first.

I once saw a post on here where there was someone who was in favor of photo enforcement because he did not want the city to charge him for his garbage collection. That is certainly a service that could have a fee associated with it and there may be others.

The rich man still paid. The fact that he does not feel much pain is not material to the fact that he paid.

Concerning your last paragraph only, the comment on garbage collection might have been me. If a municipality does not get revenue from cameras, they need to get it from somewhere. I would rather have wrongdoers contribute revenue than myself.

The fact that someone does not like cameras does not disqualify it as a revenue source if the camera tickets are issued wisely (and by that I would say that tickets for rolling right turns not deemed from the video to have endangered another car or pedestrian should NOT be issued)

You missed my point.

This issue is not going away soon.

Obviously, I did. Would you expand a bit on how it does apply? and perhaps I should ask to what it applies.

Keep the RLC if it will benefit the city financially, but be fair. A 2 second duration for the yellow light phase is unfair and dangerous.

RLCs make intersections more hazardous for attentive drivers because they force drivers to split their attention between the traffic (where they would normally focus) and the traffic signal itself, watching continuously if it turns yellow. Inattentive drivers will be unaffected either way, because if the risk of a traffic accident and bodily injury doesn't dissuade them, then the risk of a ticket certainly will make even less of an impression.

Also, I seem to recall that more than one study has shown that the vast majority (~90%) of these RLC tickets are issued for very minor incursions into the intersection under the red light ("Split-second violations") or stopping slightly past the stop line (which is sometimes NOT where the painted line is). A human police officer would never issue a ticket for "violations" like these (unless using it as an excuse or pretext for something else).

In my area, every local municipality that had RLC installed has always claimed that every set of photos used to issue a citation were reviewed by actual police officers to make sure they were actual violations, and not some type of mitigating circumstances.

But inevitably there have been many stories that make the news where all sorts of people end up getting citations when they should not. Some noteworthy examples include funeral processions and cases where a police officer was in the intersection directing traffic. It quickly becomes obvious that if there is any manual oversight, it's just cursory... maybe a clerk quickly flips through a stack of photos, just so they can claim they reviewed them. But IMO the only ones they ever through out are the ones belonging to fellow officers, and they find those by matching plate numbers to a "safe list" not be reviewing photos.

In all cases, the people who got these citations had to go make their case; they have to go to a lot of trouble to prove their innocence. This is wrong - the burden of proof should fall on the accuser. As it stands now, it's an automated rubber-stamp process, one in which the vendor that promotes the equipment gets a big piece of the action (two-thirds in my area).

This is not the way due process is supposed to work. That's why in my area the RLC tickets have to be classified by ordinance as "non-moving" violations, even though that is clearly NOT what they are.

And something that always bothers me about these, but nobody else seems to notice, is the concept that there is never any PROOF of notification. All they do is mail out these tickets, not even by certified mail, so they can't even provide any evidence that the intended recipient of the citation was ever notified. When you get pulled over, you know that you got a ticket. When you drive in an area filled with enforcement cameras, you don't. This becomes especially troubling for municipalities that will issue an arrest warrant for an unpaid RLC citation (only a few in my area do this; some others report it as an unpaid bill to screw up your credit, which if you think about it, shows how ludicrous it is). I believe that the practice issuing these citations by mail without *ANY* proof of receipt should be outlawed nationwide, but of course, that will never happen because the federal government usually imposes more restrictions, rather than relieving some of them.

What we have is a situation where RLCs contribute to a larger "ZERO-TOLERANCE" trend, where the laws are so numerous and complex (not that running a red light is complicated), and the enforcement potentially so total, that you can't live your life without becoming a criminal.

BTW, as for the revenue argument, the same municipalities that have RLCs also usually have the highest sales tax rates too )another reason to not shop there), and their sales tax revenue is hundreds or even thousands of times higher than the RLC revenue.

The way I see it (turning the claim of "safety" around on the bureaucrats who believed RLCs were necessary in their city) is this: If a city has really determined that its drivers are so RECKLESS that RLCs are needed at some intersections, what about everywhere else those same "reckless" people drive? They drive though other intersections and in parking lots too. How could I ever risk trying to cross the street or even make it from the parking lot into a store? So, I'm afraid that the installation of RLCs in an area is my signal to avoid ever venturing into that area - it must be much too dangerous to ever be a pedestrian. So I will stay away, and shop elsewhere. [Just to be clear, that's my "retort" to their "needed for safety" claim, not what I really believe. The main reason I actually avoid RLC intersections is that I fundamentally object to the idea of not having immediate notification; I don't think notification of of a traffic violation should be dependent on the USPS to deliver it.]

So, my answer to RLC is simple: I don't drive through those intersections. As it is now, that's still possible because they are the exception rather than the rule. If more people did that, the municipalities would soon get the message, since they are largely dependent on the sales tax revenues from the large numbers of stores that are usually in the same area as the RLCs.

Most of the recent studies (last 5 years or so) are showing that accidents are down at intersections with red light cameras. Given that, I am wondering how you would arrive at a conclusion that RLC intersections are more hazardous for attentive drivers. If you are an attentive driver, you are driving in such a manner that you can handle any upcoming intersection - whether it has a camera or now. What might the extra hazard be?

When I first read that the vast majority (about 90 percent) of RLC tickets were for "very, very minor" "split second violations" - and this was "well documented in several studies", I thought you were referring to the fact that most RLC tickets were for rolling right on red. On re-reading, I concluded that you were saying that most municipalities were giving tickets for red light running even though the violation amounted to only split seconds into the red.

Since my municipality has grace periods before tickets are issued after being reviewed, I have to assume that there are other municipalities that follow the same procedures.

I have tried to read closely every red light camera report/study but I have not seen one that made the claim that approximately 90 percent of all violations were within split seconds after the light turned red. Would you be able to find a link to one of these "several studies" you referenced?

In the local municipalities that put in RLC, what I've noticed they have done in most cases is post new "No Right Turn on Red" signs, even though RToR was allowed before. The fact that they impeded traffic flow compared to the previous situation doesn't seem to bother them too much. My assumption is they've done this to help make it easier to issue "valid" RLC citations.

Personal observation. I've been with people approaching an intersection with a RLC and if you weren't there when the light turned green, you really have no good idea how much time you have. part of the problem is there's NO standardization of light cycle times (especially the yellow light), and in addition to banning the practice of merely mailing out camera-based citations, the other thing that needs to happen if RLCs are going to be used, is some type of visual indicator of how much times is left. A few intersections have count-down timers on the crosswalks, but it's not as easy to do that for vehicular traffic.

It sounds like it will just turn into a pointless argument, but it should be common sense:

It is far better to watch the traffic more than the traffic signals. That's how you avoid becoming a victim in an intersection. Having to focus on the "down-to-the-wire" zero-tolerance aspect of a machine forces a distraction away from what you need to watch most: the other vehicles that might collide with your car. You can look at the very pertinent quote below, and see the problem: you have to carefully watch that yellow light, instead of being able to watch for oncoming traffic. It is another example of having to conform to a machine, instead of the other way around. If this doesn't make sense, I apologize for not being able to explain it any better, but it should be a very obvious truth.

I've been driving for over five decades now, and in all that time, not once have I ever caused an accident, and I have never been in any accident outside of a parking lot (and that was when somebody in a restaurant parking lot backed into me as I waited in the drive-thru line).

If you google "red light camera split second violation" you'll get plenty more to spend your time reading. Even sites that generally support the proposition that RLCs improve overall safety discuss the problem of how it subjects people to this problem. And at thew end of all that reading, you'll probably still believe what you already believe (along with almost everyone else).

Here's a choice quote from the first one that comes up:

'Matthew J. Weiss, a New York City lawyer who has built a practice around defending motorists in traffic cases, warns drivers on his blog, “If you see yellow and you are not already in the intersection, hit your brakes.”

But that can be a dangerous practice in some situations, according to Hesham Rakha, a Virginia Tech engineering professor who has conducted studies of driver behavior when traffic signals turn yellow.

At the moment the light turns yellow, every motorist approaching the intersection is suddenly “trapped in a dilemma zone” where an instant decision must be made whether it’s safer to stop or proceed.'

-----

While it would be more fair if a human being actually reviewed the photographic evidence to screen out these violations of mere feet and split-seconds, the reality is that is contrary to the municipality's goal of increased revenue:

Expending manpower to review photos to REDUCE the number of tickets issued is simply not something most municipalities will do. Over time, the review process (to the extent that it ever exists) dwindles to nothing. Also over time, more people get accustomed to just paying the ticket, especially if it isn't so costly (like they are in California, etc.) that makes it not cost-effective to fight it.

That's how cases of people getting tickets while directed to proceed by a cop standing in the middle of the intersection end up on the local news. I've seen a number of these stories locally (which included the photos, so they didn't just make it up), and I'm pretty sure they're not unique, but I'm also not interested in wasting time trying to look up these cases.

FYI: All of these points are valid:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections
I see that they did pick up on my objection (#3 in their list).

There's a lot of info and links here:
http://wrongonred.com/myths.html
Hopefully you won't dismiss it because it's an anti-RLC site. Maybe these are good reasons to be anti-RLC, and the reasons came first, not the other way around. Somewhere on this site, they cite studies showing the very high percentage (about 80%) of "split-second violations" amounting to a few feet or a few tenths of a second. So maybe I overstated that percentage somewhat, but the point is still valid.

The bottom line is simple: somebody who is inattentive or reckless (usually the former) enough that they risk a collision, will not be any more dissuaded by the risk of a citation than the risk of serious injury or death. I know the concept is to "catch them" and "remind them" preventatively. Maybe that's why RLCs seem to reduce the death rate (in some studies), but the problem is the sample size (deaths at any given intersection) is far from being large enough to know for sure. It could be thatr reductions (if any) come from any number of other factors, that RLCs are coincidental rather than causal.

Lastly, if there's any technological solution that would make the biggest improvement in traffic safety, it would be some way to prevent people from using their cell phones while driving. That's also based on personal observation, and it's easy to see the symptoms, even though I can't always see the phone. The problem is that it's not easy to stop this abuse. The easiest thing would be to make cell phones not work in a moving vehicle, but then what about passengers? ...or people who actually need to make emergency calls? I for one would be in favor of the only phone number that would work in a moving car would be 911, but there's still the problem of incoming calls, and passengers.

I, and there are others as well that will see a lot of supposition in the conclusions you draw from your observations. Many of your points are valid. I will agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion a lot of the problem resides with inattentive drivers. From my observation the problem stems from two sources, lack of education on the rules and responsibilities that come with being granted a permit to operate a motor vehicle and personal responsibility.

That is something I have never noted in the areas near me. I have seen new intersections created with a new street being built and the sign is posted before the street is opened for traffic. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it means I haven't observed it and the traffic engineers I know would agree with you there would have to be a logical reason for changing an intersection from permitted to prohibited.

In the early 70's I had to attend a defensive driving course while in the military. One of the concepts taught was that of the "stale green." It's exactly as you state, if you didn't see it turn green, you don't know when it will turn again. What you don't cover is the action that should accompany this situation. That is prepare to stop. Driver ed courses today do not teach these basic concepts. My daughter's course taught her enough rules to pass the test and driving skills needed to pass the skills portion of the exam.

You are correct in there is no standardization but there are guidelines published by both the US Department of Transportation and the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The guideline is a mathematical formula that takes several different factors into account but roughly translates to one second of yellow for every 10 MPH on a level surface. The issue with guidelines is they are recommendations, not law. Many states and cities have written them into law, but they are not a universal requirement.

Countdown timers are (in terms of road infrastructure) a new development. Consider that the structures and devices put into place to control traffic are designed for a useful life of 20 or more years. Adding something "as simple as countdown timers" isn't simple. The traffic signal controller sitting in that silver box near the corner needs to have its electronics upgraded by normally replacement, the pedestrian signals need to be replaced and a host of other things done to the intersection which can include new control cables, and an upgrade of the electrical service. Suddenly you are talking about a price tag that approaches the purchase of a new house for each intersection. In this case, education about a "stale green" becomes even more imperative.

The problem with focusing on the traffic rather than "getting the big picture" (another defensive driving technique) is you tend to emulate those around you and if they are "bad" drivers, then you enforce their bad habits. Rather than focus on the car ahead as many do, get the big picture by being aware of what's happening ahead. What's the traffic doing 30 seconds ahead? Did you see that light change? What's the posted speed limit? Are the drivers surrounding you distracted with cell phones, have earbuds from their music players stuck in their ears and just about everything else that you personally wouldn't do but others do? One of the primary causes of pedestrian deaths is "death by iPod." People plug their earbuds into their ears, crank up the volume and then tune out everything else. And that includes the not-so-common common sense.

One last point, you bring up the "dilemma zone" and reference Hesham Rakha without understanding the point of the reference. The point he makes in his study is that every driver is faced with a period of uncertainty when the light changes to yellow. There is an actual measurable area where the operator is definitely in a dilemma zone. That zone begins at the point where using normal maneuvers a driver could safely bring their vehicle to a stop and ends at the point where only an emergency maneuver could bring the vehicle to a stop. It doesn't begin when someone sees the light change and thinks "if I step on it, I can get through this one too." With many on the road today, this is the sole driving concept factoring into their decision.

And most of the time there are no consequences to "cheating" on a red light... until you don't see the car coming from your left or the kid running across the street on the green light.

I am not sure why people feel that the extra 3 - 5 seconds it requires to come to a complete stop at a red light is such an infringement on their "rights". And if you believe RLCs are just a tax, then avoid paying the tax by stopping at the red light.

Bottom line, it's about $ and nothing else.

I'm surprised that "stale green" is not still part of driver training. I certainly remember it, and still use it after 35+ years of driving. Then again, I took a "Driver Education" course (which included classroom time in addition to road time) because successful completion would get my parents a break on insuring me.

I'm not so sure it would be terribly helpful to have an indicator that the light is about to turn amber. After all, the whole point of the amber light is as a signal that the light is about to turn red. So we now have a cycle where the green light turns magenta to warn us that the light is about to turn amber, which in turn warns us that the light is going to turn red...?

Where I lived before, there were 3 fatal accidents and 7 people killed. A meth head in a stolen truck, a drunk driver and a distracted driver caused these accidents. In all cases the light had been red for several seconds. A contributing factor were "blind" intersections.
Now both of those intersections have RLC. The stats reflect that the fatalities have dropped to zero after RLC.

I have snipped out over 300 words above that you seeming were using to obscure the fact that you were unable to find any of those "well documented" "several studies" which, in your original post, you implied existed when you said

As others will tell you I would do, I followed your instructions on the phrase to use in Google and got 3,060,000 results which - on the first 5 pages at least - yielded no links to any studies that would support your quote above. If I overlooked whatever studies you have seen that caused you to make your comment, I apologize.

What you said was your first search result returned was my second. It was http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/dreaded-yellow.... In it were the comments/references to Weiss and Rakha which you quoted, but nothing that addressed the number of " very, very minor incursions". Indeed, the only reference to "split-second" was the last sentence of the article which said:

your link http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections was supposed to pick up on your objection in the link's #3.

I am lost as to what relevance this has and which objection in your original post this might be associated with.

The next link http://wrongonred.com/myths.html was supposed to, I think, be the support for the " vast majority (~90%)" statement I re-quoted from your original post. You must have misread both of the references using 80%.

The first said:

and the second said:

Both of these references are clearly related to rolling right turns on red. So, if you happen to be able to find one of those "well documented" "several studies" about straight thru red-light running, we will be interested in seeing them.

By the way - when I did your suggested Google search, my first hit was to
http://www.wtop.com/41/3208671/Study-says-Arlington-red-ligh....

The article reported that the study found:

The article went on to balance that positive result by reporting

First, note that there is a half second grace period BY LAW in Virginia. So, thenewspaper.com is saying that 61 percent of violations were between 0.5 and 0.9 seconds after the light turned red and 90 percent of all violations occurred in the first 1.4 seconds. Next, note that thenewspaper.com seems to be saying that - because of the all-red period holding the conflicting traffic - violations within the .5 seconds thru 1.4 seconds and not causing accidents and thus...........

As many on this site have said: Red means Stop. Even inadvertent red light running in the first .5 seconds is breaking the law, but Virginia does not issue tickets.

When you said that

and just looked at the number of "hits" you were getting from the Google search, you fell victim to a problem that many have in assuming that the search term is going to occur in the main article (and thus perhaps came from some real report or study). However, since most of the hits come from comments of opponents, there is no factual basis involved.

You really should follow the links.

Here's an excerpt, followed by the full quote. Maybe you already cited this.

"In fact, the average ticket is issued when the light has been red for half a second or less."

"FACT: In 2004 the Texas Transportation Institute (T.T.I.) studied 3 years worth of crash data from 181 intersection approaches across three Texas cities, and found that with only "one exception, all of the right-angle [t-bone] crashes" in their study happened 5-16 seconds after the light turned red. Yet, the camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), says "the majority of red light violations occur within the first second of the red." In fact, the average ticket is issued when the light has been red for half a second or less.

In other words, camera tickets are being issued primarily for split-second violations where statistically, collisions are not occurring. Which is why cameras can not reduce dangerous crashes.

It's safe to say that drivers who enter an intersection 5-16 seconds after the light has turned red are not trying to beat the yellow light. These incidents occur for many different factors like: distracted drivers, chemical impairment and poor visibility. Ticket cameras can not solve these problems either."

ref.: http://wrongonred.com/myths.html

_____________________

While it's great that Virginia law provides a half second grace period, plenty of other areas do not. I would say most other areas do not, but why don't you check that out?
_____________________

As for "Both of these references are clearly related to rolling right turns on red." that's a part of the problem too, and when you add that to situations where the light turns red after it is too late for the person to reasonably be expected to stop (a "split second" violation), you could easily end up with something like 90%

____________________________

The angle from which the driver can see the traffic signal has to be considered too. Depending on the vehicle, at many intersections, the driver will not be able to see the traffic signal in the zone where his vehicle actually enters the intersection. When his vehicle actually enters the intersection, the driver needs to focus on the cross traffic, not the traffic signal.

If you don't get what I mean here, sorry, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to describe it.
You are probably not very tall and have never driven a car with a low roofline.

_____________________

As for "red means stop" that is true. Based on you attitude, I suppose you wouldn't mind extending that concept to every other aspect of daily life, especially if it might save lives? Maybe cameras and automated zero-tolerance enforcement of every other law too?

The problem is that you do no want to understand the distraction that cameras create, as drivers who otherwise would watch the cross traffic have to instead focus on the traffic signals themselves, and also the vehicles behind them at the critical moment that they enter the intersection. And it seems that no matter how I describe that, you will refuse to accept that, because you don't want to.

As for not finding any studies in the search results to "red light camera split second violation" - there are about about 2,130,000 results (and in your world view EVERY single one of those MUST be pertinent to the search terms, right? because it says so), so maybe you should keep looking for the studies I mentioned before.

Try search on this instead:

"red light camera split second violation most tickets issued less than half second"

and report back after you've finished reading through the results. I'm sure you'll find plenty of statistical data that refutes many things you hold true, if only you look for it thoroughly enough.

Perfect example of lack of a meaningful statistical sample, and the anecdotal circumstances show why the RLC are meaningless.

If any given intersection had 100 deaths before RLC were installed, then had 90 after, then provided that the traffic flow continued to be the same, that would be supportive. A sample size of a handful simply does not prove the cause-and-effect. Advocates of RLC efficacy who cite declines in deaths at intersections after RLCs were installed also fail to mention that there usually is no clear trend. You can also go back a few years and find the same thing before RLCs were installed.

Moreover, consider the anecdotal evidence you provided. Do you really want to believe that "A meth head in a stolen truck, a drunk driver and a distracted driver" are likely to be dissuaded by RLCs?

I'm not sure what you mean by "tend to emulate those around you and if they are "bad" drivers" - unless you're talking about trying to keep a line of cars close together to keep running the red light. That is not what I was referring to at all.

I was not referring to the traffic ahead.

When a vehicle actually enters the intersection, the driver needs to focus on the cross traffic, not the traffic signal. The cross traffic is what poses the danger. The driver also needs to be on the lookout for any pedestrians who might be thinking of trying to dart across the intersection (and I had a "ringside seat" view of a teenager who did just that to a vehicle crossing in front of me a few years ago).

I've tried several times to express here in my posts what should be a couple simple fundamental concepts.

1. When a vehicle approaches an intersection, and by that I mean is at the actual point where it's *about* to cross into the danger zone, the driver needs to NOT be forced to focus solely on the traffic signal (if not also the vehicles behind him). At that point he is committed, and his attention needs to be on the intersection itself, mainly the cross traffic, and to a lesser extent, the presence of any pedestrians who look antsy. The presence of RLC tends to interfere with that, forcing the driver to look up at the signal the entire time. In one of my cars, that forces me to crain my head forward to look mainly up the closer I get. But then I'm 6'4" and I guess short people may not have any understanding how this happens, so to them I suggest this: put you sun visor down and then see how well you can maintain continuous view of the traffic signal until you pass completely into the intersection (rear of car has passed stop line).

2. There are only a handful of traffic deaths at any given intersection, far too few to be considered a statistically significant sample. Advocates of RLC efficacy who cite declines in deaths at intersections after RLCs were installed also fail to mention that there usually is no clear trend. You can also go back a few years and find the same thing before RLCs were installed.

3. The people who "blow through" an intersection and cause the type of severe T-Bone collision that RLCs purportedly prevent are doing this because they not paying attention (in almost all cases, with the others being people who are not in their right mind, on drugs, whatever, which is still a form of impairment). This condition causes them to not be dissuaded by the prospect of DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY. A person who doesn't care about death or serious injury absolutely DOES NOT CARE about a RLC ticket either.

4. Claims made for propaganda (promotional) purposes aside, the primary reason RLCs are installed is money. Take the profit out of the equation, i.e.: give no money to the municipalities installing these cameras, and watch how those quickly those same "safety first" advocates on the city councils become disinterested in RLCs.
____________________________

Of course I run into the objections of people who won't believe anything (even if they see it with their own eyes) unless it's in a government-sponsored study that shows up in the first few pages of a google search. I'm talking to you jgermann. Keep looking. You'll eventually find the corroboration you secretly hope you won't find (because it will ruin a little piece of your world view).
_____________________________

As someone in my twilight years who has observed the changes this country has undergone over the past few decades is troubling. This entire "zero-tolerance" mindset, combined with the incredible explosion in the number of laws in the books, and the number of lawyers adding overhead to our society, I ask this question to those who say "red means stop": do you really want to live your life in a place where every law is automatically enforced with unflinching ever-watching efficiency? Those of us who have lived long enough can't help but notice that the entire country is having more and more of the attributes of a giant prison. Welcome to America, land of the free, where your every move is watched, tracked, and recorded, and you never know when you've tripped over one of a billion carefully defined limits until you (maybe) get a bill in the mail.