Oakland Shortens Yellow Lights After Drop in Ticket Camera Revenue

We know why they went back - REVENUE!!!!

Never met a politician who didn't enjoy finding creative ways of extracting money from citizens.

Until citizens stand up politically to protest these transgressions - by firing politicians - they'll simply get more of the above.

Fred

Most readers know that I am a proponent of Automated Traffic Enforcement and am unapologetic of the fact that ATE produces revenue.

BUT - this is a shame. I think it will have the effect of reducing safety. Indeed, I looked around and could not find a record of any discussion of concerns that safety would suffer. How much it will suffer will take a year to determine, but I think it will suffer.

SO -this is a clear example of "shortening" yellow lights to generate revenue.

As far as I can tell it is the first example that anyone has been able to provide of "shortening" yellow lights for profit. Based on the recorded comments of police officials, they were looking for more revenue. Shame on them.

...to the money.

It's only the first time you're willing to accept that this practice occurs. There have been clear examples given to you before, but for whatever reason, you dismiss them.

When cities, municipalities, governing entities begin putting revenue from automated camera systems into their budgets, you know there's a problem.

And the fact that Redflex is involved, what a shocker.

I am unaware of any other instance where cameras were in place and then yellow light were "shortened". I have debunked the "6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit" article found at http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni... several times.

While this article claimed "shortening", none of the source articles used the words "shortened" or "shortening" at all.

"shortening" and "Shortened" both imply intent - especially when the claim is after a camera has been installed. This was not even claimed in any of the articles about the six cities; it was not claimed in thenewspaper.com article about the cities; it was specifically not claimed in any of the source articles used by thenewspaper.com.

If there are other cities (other than the current Oakland case or the six cities), then please provide a link. I accept facts (as is clear from my previous post) - I do not accept rumors as others do because it confirms their beliefs.

This current instance is clear.
Cameras were in place.
Yellow times were shortened
Motive was profit.

Although the story indicates the yellow light interval was "shortened", what actually seems to have happened is that the interval was returned to its initial setting.

That does not make the action acceptable.

What amazes me is that even when the yellow light interval was increased it only reduced the number of tickets by 40%!

The length of the yellow light cannot be just arbitrary. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”), prescribes uniform standards for all official traffic control devices in California and the MUTCD section 4D-10 and Table 4D-102(CA), sets forth the minimum time for traffic signal yellow light change intervals. Section 4D-10 also provides that the time for a yellow light change interval may be increased through field review and appropriate judgment of the local agency. The MUTCD is very clear that increasing the yellow light interval above the minimum prescribed in the same section is an option and in no manner a requirement. Decreasing the yellow light interval below the minimum however, is not an option.

Check the Table (Table 4D-102) to see if the yellow light change interval at your intersection is non- compliant. Here are a couple examples of minimum yellow light times:

• If the posted speed limit is 25 (or less) mph the minimum yellow interval is 3.0 seconds (this includes both right and left hand turns).
* If the posted speed limit is 35 mph the minimum yellow interval is 3.6 seconds.
• If the posted speed limit is 45 mph the minimum yellow interval is 4.3 seconds.

http://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/02/what-is-proper-length-...

The posted article indicates that the initial interval was 4 seconds, and was increased to 4.5 seconds and then to 5 seconds by the traffic department. It was the police department that requested it be returned to 4 seconds (which would be below the 45 MPH standard.

The article indicated that tickets for running red lights went down with the extended interval, but it was not clear if MVAs declined with the extension.

This particular 1715 drop in violations of 1715 amounts to about 47%. The 40 number was per day (over 1200 per month)

thenewspaper.com often quotes a study whose conclusion said

That seems consistent with the 47% drop - although it is based only on two months data.

However, the yellow timings had - before any traffic camera were installed - been increased by "about a half second" so that likely explains the lower 47%.

I'm all for speed cams and red light cams. Instead of the "not in my neighborhood" mentality, I want them in my neighborhood. Because too many people are driving up to 65 in a 25 mph street. Once the cam is in place, that changes. There are arguments that slowing down and stopping causes accidents, but I really don't buy it.

What I am not for, however, is shortening yellow lights in the interest of generating revenue. That's nonsense.

Like I've said, in MD, you are given up to 11 mph over the limit with a speed cam. Drive 12 mph over, and you get a $40 fine. The tolerance is rather high, and the fine rather small. That imho shows a sincere interest in public safety.

Criminal.

Gives them more money to feed the worthless

Cities advocate red-lights for safety, and if that is the case, why they lower the yellow to the point of putting pedestrians and drivers in more dangerous.

Sad,sad sad, this is pure robbery and disregard for the safe of people in prowl of revenue .

No matter what spin you put on it, red-lights are are not needed if they increase the yellow time.

You just proved my point, thank you.

But, I want to make sure I did not miss anything. Has there ever been any proof prior to multiple source articles on Oakland that a city "shortened" yellow yellow light timings after cameras were installed? If so, I have not seen such proof.

The reason why I quickly jumped in to comment on Oakland was to admit that it occurred. Profit was clearly stated by city officials as a motive.

This is absolutely disgusting. They essentially made the intersections less safe so they could haul in more cash.

Not every politician is for RLC's ....

"TRENTON, N.J. -
New Jersey resident Ruby Ross is outraged that she had to pay a $140 fine after being cited for "a rolling turn" at the intersection of Franklln Corner Road and Route 1 in Lawrenceville.

Ruby insists she came to a full stop before turning right on red.

The camera saw it differently.

"I didn't do it. I had to pay for something I didn't do," said Ross.

It's because of people like Ruby that state Sen. Shirley Turner wants to post signs at red light camera intersections that say "no turn on red." She has always opposed the red light camera program and says the signs will help motorists.

"It just fleeces motorists and picks their pockets, and this is not a time to take money out of pockets 'cause we're all struggling just pay for gas," Turner said.

~snip~

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/19703500/nj-senator-pushes-... "

Some do increase accidents

"LAWRENCE TWP., N.J. - February 21, 2013 -- Red light cameras in Lawrence Township, New Jersey have been doing drivers more harm than good in the last year.

"If it's increasing accidents, it's a problem and it's not doing what it's intended to do," said Chief Dan Posluszny, Lawrence Township Police Department.

Posluszny is talking about the red light photo cameras at Brunswick Pike and Franklin Corner Road, arguably the most dangerous intersection in town.

When cameras were installed in November of 2011, they were supposed to cut down on crashes caused by drivers running red lights.
However accidents have actually jumped about 30 percent, and particularly rear-end crashes, which have gone from 30 to 39 in a one year period.

"The initial reason we put this camera in was to improve public safety. It is now a problem of public safety, increasing the accidents because of the red light," said Posluszny.

Tom Fritts says some drivers slam on their brakes causing rear-end crashes, others speed up trying to beat the cameras.

~snip~

http://brick.patch.com/articles/bill-would-nix-brick-s-red-l... "

And some want to take away the monetary incentive for local government

"A North Jersey state senator has proposed a bill that would take red light traffic camera revenue away from local municipalities and redirect it to a state traffic safety fund.

The proposal by Sen. Michael Doherty [R-Warren] is aimed at testing the idea that municipalities use the cameras for safety rather than revenue generation by taking away the revenue and sending it to a fund dedicated to highway safety projects ranging from education to capital improvements on roadways.

Doherty said in a statement that "if increasing safety is truly the goal, it makes sense for red light camera ticket revenues to be deposited in a fund dedicated to improving highway safety."

~snip~

http://brick.patch.com/articles/bill-would-nix-brick-s-red-l... "

There is also a thread about Oakland, Ca shortening the yellow light timing to increase violations and revenue, here:

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/37670

For those following links, this one should be
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9001...

But there is also a related link at
http://brick.patch.com/articles/study-accident-statistics-mi...

Criminal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/1/alexandrias-v...
From the article: "Brake-slamming is certain to rise because VDOT allowed Alexandria to quietly shorten the duration of the yellow light at the intersection from four to three seconds in a craven attempt to make the shakedown more lucrative."
Mark

Thanks for the assist, lots of copy/paste going on, missed the correct link.

Well, did you expect anything different..!!..?

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Shortening yellow lights at the request of the police is legal, and appears to be good police policy.

The shorter yellow light is actually an effective tool that helps the police identify and punish more red light runners. Studies have shown a shorter yellow light causes more red light runners to appear in the intersection and can be caught with Redflex technology.

And it works. By shortening the yellow lights in Oakland the police were able to catch and punish 1,000 more red light runners a month than when the yellow lights were longer.

That has to be good for us all, and make our communities safer. It's just good police work if you can catch more red light runners.

Shortening the yellow light timing is probably the most effective tool in catching a red light runner we might have otherwise missed.......It's simple math and common sense, longer yellow's are doing nothing more than hiding and protecting those who really deserve a ticket.

There is neither good-math nor any common sense in saying that recklessly tripping people up for profit is good police work. When given a published and recognized reasonable yellow-interval, one-thousand more people each month demonstrated an improved ability to stop on time. This does absolutely noting to hide any kind of willingness to run the red light, when anyone who chooses to run the light can do so no matter how long the cycle.

This just sounds like spin designed to deflect attention away from political behavior which looks distinctly criminal to many, or at least highly reckless & irresponsible to most everyone else.

Allow the accident-statistics to speak for themselves!

Sounds like the dept of truth justifying increasing cash receipts for increased spending ahhhh errrr I mean increased investments.

Hey how about removing yellow and green lights completely ... then, we could really see that 100% of the cars crossing the intersection are indeed guilty and must contribute more to the beloved state. \sarc off

you should be a politician. You think and act like you know everything. Police ask to lower what you want, but you have standers to comply with.

For safer intersections it is better a longer yellow, for the revenue side you shorten yellow two seconds.
If you lower the yellow to two seconds you see plenty of safety (doubt) and plenty of revenue (sarcastically yes.

You know, the definition of stupid:
Knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still believing the lies.
That's` why you support what you advocate blindly.

Beware of the truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.

how easy it is to turn law abiding citizens into law breakers

Man you are right on, few words but with a lot of meaning!

I think you forgot to add "/sarcasm mode off" to your post. At least I hope you were joking as if you were a Redflex and Oakland official spinning the story.

If you're serious about this, think through the ramifications of what you're saying. They could shorten the yellow light to 0.1 seconds and send tickets to everyone, all the people who couldn't slam on the brakes fast enough to stop in time. It would also make the intersection much less safe with a lot more rear-end collisions. Oh, that wasn't what you meant? Then how do you know when they've shortened the light too much?

There are standard tables used to set the timing of yellow lights based on speed limit. Those should be followed. Shortening them on an intersection with a red-light camera makes clear that the real purpose of the camera is revenue, not safety. Seems obvious enough to me it's a revenue grab even without shortening the yellow.

Hmm, the same company caught in a scandal in Chicago.

I usually was counting 5 to 7 seconds of yellow interval on the streets I drive at MD.

4.3 seconds doesn't give you enough time to hit on the brakes going on a 45 mph zone, assuming that you are allowed to drive at 10 mph above the speed limit.

Now you have to look on your rear mirror if any other car is following you at the same time that you are counting the seconds of yellow... otherwise, you can get involved in a rear-end collision.

Thanks for posting the minimum yellow light times (now I know)