Email
Address
Site
Index
by Subject (Search)
If
you haven't already done so, please read Section
4.5 on the Action page
Industry / Police PR - and Ours
Including Crash Photos !
Book cover art by Dan Perkins
On this PR page - scroll down, or click on these
links:
1.
Astroturf Lobbying
2. Conventional Lobbying
3. Their "Sophisticated
Technology"
4. Dueling Studies -
and Candor by Officials
5. Crash Photos
1.
Astroturf Lobbying
In the Summer of 2010 a series of
articles exposed "Astroturf" lobbying
by the Industry.
In
the political arena, Astroturf
lobbying is when a PR firm creates an
artificial grass roots movement by
setting up a local "citizen sponsored"
website, or when the PR firm's
employees post comments to articles in
the local newspapers.
Astroturf
lobbying by the camera Industry became
evident when petition drives to ban
cameras in several cities were
met by "cookie cutter" opposition.
From
BanCams.com. (Sorry, in this image
from the article, the links are not
click-able!)
When
the petition sponsors examined the
pro-camera websites, they were found
to be owned and operated by a Texas PR
firm employed by ATS. On Aug. 13
and 17, BanCams.com wrote about the
paid opposition. Links:
http://bancams.com/does-ats-think-we-are-stupid/
http://bancams.com/more-front-groups/
On Aug. 24, 2010 the Washington State
Wire wrote about Astroturfing:
On Sep. 30, Rynski wrote about it in
the Tucson Citizen:
   |
Lest anyone get the impression that ATS is the sole
creator of "citizen supported" websites, here is one
attributed to RedFlex.
An Oct. 2010 Cleveland Plain
Dealer
investigation
revealed that RedFlex helped start Safe Roads Ohio and
gave it $7500. The Plain Dealer also pointed out
that RedFlex' support was not noted on a mailer Safe
Roads sent out. Nor (even as late as Jul. 2011)
was RedFlex mentioned anywhere on the website for Safe
Roads. Safe Roads describes itself as
"grassroots."
In Jan. 2011, BanCams did another
article.
Sorry, in this
image from the article, the links are not
click-able! Original article: http://bancams.com/fake-comments/
In March 2011 an article
talked about ATS' activities in Missouri.
At ATS, Some of
the Astroturf was Manufactured in the
Executive Suite, by a Ph.D.
In a May
17, 2011 article the Daily
Herald of Everett,
Washington (heraldnet.com)
exposed extensive
Astroturf commenting on
its red light camera
articles - 43 pro-camera
posts by a person using
the screen name W
Howard. (He also
appeared on the
bancams.com website - he
is in the example, above.)
The Herald traced the W Howard posts back to the Arizona office of ATS Vice President for Business Development Bill Kroske Ph.D., whose middle initial is "H." The Herald article showed that Dr. Kroske had posed as a concerned resident of Monroe, Lynnwood, and Everett.
William H.
Kroske, Ph.D.
A later article in
the Spokane Spokesman-Review revealed that
Kroske had also posed as a resident of
that city, under the screen name Obie1.
On May 18 the stock
of ATS competitor RedFlex jumped 4%. (ATS
is privately held; the stock is not
publicly traded, although Goldman-Sachs is
known to own 1/3 of the shares. See
FAQ # 34 for further details about ATS'
finances.)
RedFlex
Stock Price, May 2011, in Aus$
Then, in a statement
given to the Herald on May 18, ATS
President and CEO James Tuton said:
"Such a lack of disclosure violates
not only ATS company policy, but also our
core values. While we
share in the commenter's passion for red
light safety cameras, we also recognize
the importance of honest engagement.
The employee in question has been
suspended indefinitely pending further
investigation. Furthermore,
we are taking steps to make sure all
of our employees know that this type of
activity is unacceptable." [The
bolding has been added.]
ATS CEO
James Tuton
So, now that VP
Kroske is suspended, will Tuton be rooting
out the other ATS employees or vendors who
may be responsible for the huge number of
comments by "giggley," "yogilives,"
and the like? Or do they expect us
to believe that Kroske was sufficiently
prolific to be the source of all of it?
Will ATS also be
firing Advarion, Inc., the PR firm behind
their cookie cutter "citizen supported"
pro-camera websites?
Another ATS' employee was Mark
Rosenker.
Mark
Rosenker monitoring tapes and equipment
at the CRP (Committee to Re-Elect
President Nixon) headquarters, June 29,
1972.
The Watergate break-in occurred on June
17.
Photo by Fred
J. Maroon
Mark
Rosenker, (Former) Senior Advisor to
NCSR
Starting in Apr.
2011, Rosenker, using his credential as a
former chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board,
published numerous pro-camera
"guest columns" in newspapers
around the country. In those columns
Rosenker mentioned his position as Senior
Advisor to the National
Coalition for Safer Roads but never
disclosed that the NCSR is operated
by ATS.
Rosenker left the NCSR in late 2011.
David
Kelly, NCSR President, and Principal,
Storm King Strategies, Washington, DC
On March 31 someone (not me!) started an "Anti-National-Coalition-for-Safer-Roads" page on Facebook!
What about the 1000+ videos ATS began to distribute on May 18? They were attributed to the NCSR, with no mention of ATS, despite Mr. Tuton's pledge, made on the same day, of "honest engagement."
|
About the ATS Video
ATS created a short video* which recounts, in the words of family members, three fatal accidents. It appears ATS bought space and inserted it into at least a thousand websites. The video began showing up on websites on May 18, with more insertions occurring as late as May 30. How to find the videos: Each insertion of the video includes the words "powerful video" in the introduction, so Google ["national coalition for safer roads" powerful video] to find examples of the video. An interesting detail: A large proportion of the websites carrying the video are "Mom Blogs." Per the website mombloggersclub.com, there are at least 13,000 of these. Many will host advertorials without mentioning that it is a paid ad. The closest to a proper disclosure was this, which I found at the bottom of one site:
This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. For questions about this blog, please contact info @ themommaven.com. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation. The owner(s) of this blog is compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though the owner(s) of this blog receives compensation for our posts or advertisements, we always give our honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question. This blog does contain content which might present a conflict of interest. This content will always be identified. To get your own policy, go to http://www.disclosurepolicy.org The Wall Street Journal commented: "Many bloggers are embracing corporate relationships as they seek to turn their Web hobbies into businesses. Mom bloggers have been especially courted because marketers believe they are regarded as more authentic." One of the brokers facilitating the insertion of the ATS video into Mom Blogs was Global Influence ("A resourceful mommy media network"), based in the Washington, DC area. On its site, it says: "Global Influence is a network of nearly 1500 bloggers and social media users who have chosen to receive campaign information tailored specifically to their audience and to Global Influence client needs. Founded by Amy Lupold Bair of Resourceful Mommy Media.... formerly known as Momfluence..." ****
*This discussion is solely about the method used by ATS to distribute their video, and is not intended in any way to make light of, or in any way minimize, the terrible tragedy suffered by the families depicted in the video. |
Another ATS VP
Bites the Dust
At the same time ATS
was suspending VP Bill Kroske, it was
firing another another top executive,
Senior VP Michael Lenza. The
company also filed suit against him, for
(allegedly) "diverting opportunities away
from ATS."
ATS:
"Honest Engagement? You
Misunderstood Us. We said, 'Oddest
Management'"
In May 2011 ATS claimed (see CEO Tuton's statement, above) to have a "Core Value" of "Honest Engagement." But two months later yet another secret ATS lobbyist was exposed, this one in Texas. On July 12 KTRK (ABC) Houston wrote:
| "In the back and forth
over red light cameras in Houston, there
is a question over who you can trust.
American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the
camera company, was looking to keep the
red light cameras on across the state,
so they hired nearly a dozen lobbyists,
including a well-known Houston police
officer in a deal we only found out
about once it was over. "[Mark] Clark was paid at least $10,000 by ATS to fight a possible statewide camera ban in Austin. It wasn't for work in Houston, but camera opponents still cried foul.  Mark Clark, Houston Police Officer and ATS Lobbyist " 'People, naturally and rightly so, trust when a police officer tells them something; that they can be trusted and what they're saying is true. When that influence is being bought and paid for, then the public can be deceived,' said [camera opponent Byron] Schirmbeck. "While Clark did disclose his deal to the state, the city and the union, he never said anything publicly. So when he told Eyewitness News viewers last weekend, 'We're glad the cameras are back on. They never should have been turned off to start with;' neither you nor us had any idea he had worked for the company at the same time he worked for the union and the city. " 'I gave viewers what they needed to know. If you're worried about red light cameras, don't run a red light,' Clark said. "Clark and ATS say their work together is now over. However, so is the legislative session which means there is no need for any more lobbying. The legislature, by the way, didn't ban cameras statewide, and ATS won that battle." |
ATS Still Doesn't Get It!
For a whole year,
starting in the Summer of 2010, ATS was pounded
in the press and on the 'Net for failing
to disclose its presence (and supporting
money) behind front people (like Rosenker,
Kroske and Clark) and front organizations
(like the NCSR and Keep Houston
Safe). You'd think that by the
following Summer ATS would have figured
out that bad press is bad for business -
but evidently they had not.
On Aug. 8, 2011, the ATS-operated NCSR
distributed a press
release which named six groups
participating in the NCSR - but didn't
mention the elephant in the room, ATS,
whose corporate officers constitute
a majority on the NCSR Board of
Directors.
(This press release also appeared many
other places, including
FamilyCarGuide.com, TheCarConnection.com,
and the Sacramento Bee.)
More Police
Lining Up to Lobby for ATS
On Aug. 18, 2011 the Everett Daily Herald revealed that in Lynnwood, Washington, the deputy chief responsible for negotiating the City's red light camera contract with ATS was asking the company about employment at the same time she was negotiating the contract, and the sergeant who ran the camera program was offering to assist the company with lobbying and marketing. See their emails to ATS at http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929 .
More Bad
Press for the Boys
On Oct. 11, 2011 the
Miami New Times ran an article
discussing the pasts of some of ATS'
employees in Florida.
Dr. Kroske Back
in 2012? Was He Ever Gone?
A July 2012 Press
Enterprise article
revealed that in April 2012 - ten months
after CEO James Tuton stated he was
"suspended indefinitely," Dr. William
Kroske was still working for ATS, and he
was working hard. He was putting
together a lawsuit to force an anti-camera
initiative off the Nov. 2012 ballot in
Murrieta. His emails to the City,
obtained via a Public Records Act request,
showed him looking for a local
entity or person to "front" the lawsuit,
as the plaintiff.
In the PE article,
ATS Vice President Charles Territo was
quoted as saying of Kroske,
"He was allowed to keep his email address as he closed out his relationships with customers he had been directly involved with during his tenure." "He was not authorized nor was he instructed to make any outreach on behalf of the company on this particular issue."
ATS' name did not
appear as plaintiff on the Murrieta
lawsuit, and ATS has refused to admit that
it is funding the suit. For more
information about the lawsuit, see the
Murrieta Documents page.
Statistical Sleight of Hand from ATS
In April 2013 ATS
distributed a memo containing this
graph...
...and claimed that
two months after ticketing was suspended
in Murrieta, violations had increased
86.9%.
The way ATS obtained
that high percentage - by cherry picking
the data - teaches us some important
lessons:
1. Don't let an interested
party such as the camera company - or even
the police department - produce the
analysis of the system performance.
2. Don't let interested parties
control the only copies of the raw data.
3. Don't believe a company when they
say - as ATS did in 2011 (above) - that
they have a policy of "honest engagement."
For more about ATS
and how they produced this graph, see the
Murrieta
Docs page.
2.
Conventional Lobbying
The Industry also
invests heavily in conventional
lobbying.
An Apr. 2011 article in the Hartford (Connecticut) Courant revealed that the Industry, and two interested cities, had engaged seven lobby firms to push for pro-camera legislation by the Connecticut legislature.
An Aug. 2011 article
in the Orlando (Florida) Sun Sentinel
revealed that ATS spent $1.5 million to
lobby in that state.
Alternate
Link
Baloney from
RedFlex
On Dec. 6, 2011 RedFlex held a press conference at
an intersection in Chandler, Arizona, to try to get
Phoenix-area cities to try its collision avoidance
system. During their interview,
the reporter from the local Fox affiliate asked
RedFlex spokesman Tom Herrmann, "Have you tried this
[collision avoidance] anywhere else?" Herrmann replied
(at 2:35), "We have done a test, in Northern
California, and it was very successful."
Herrmann didn't name the city, but that test is in
Marysville. The Chief of Police there was
surprised when I told him, in December, that RedFlex
had called the Marysville test "very
successful." The chief noted that since the
Marysville contract had just been approved in
June, it was too early to tell if the Marysville
system is a success.
Six months later, it still was too early to tell: In May 2012 I filed a public records request, for "All writings, presentations or communications concerning the City's collision avoidance system." The Marysville city clerk replied: "There is not any information regarding the Collision Pre-emption System."
3. Their
"Sophisticated Technology"
Yep, that's a camcorder. (Click image to enlarge.)
4.
Dueling Studies - and Candor by Officials
The Industry sponsors a lot of studies but
fails to make the most important kind. For
example:
In Sep. 2010 I saw a guest
editorial [City's red-light cameras are
mitigation tools, not 'cash-extracting' machines],
where the author, a traffic engineer employed by the
City of Bakersfield, said that the cameras' primary
purpose is to gather data so that "mitigation measures
may be devised." In other words, the pictures,
etc., of red light runners and accidents will tell the
City's engineers what to change in order to cut
accidents. His piece was 604 words long, but he
did not tell us whether mitigation measures had
actually been devised since 2003, the year the cameras
were installed in Bakersfield.
Now it's 2012, and nine years should have been long
enough for Bakersfield engineers to study the data and
install simple/cheap mitigation measures, like
brighter street light bulbs at camera enforced
intersections, more and bigger warning signs, better
pavement markings, bigger diameter red lights and more
of them, and longer yellows. We hope the Bakersfield
paper will be so kind as to grant the City engineer a
new guest appearance in their columns, so he can tell
us about the studies they have made and the mitigation
measures they have installed, to stop the running.
Most cities have failed to study or install
mitigation measures, despite having had cameras for
many years. Perhaps it is because they know that
such measures would show that the cameras never were
necessary. See FAQ # 6,
Alternatives to Cameras.
Because
it would raise the sort of question
posed above (Why hasn't the city
installed mitigation measures?),
the Industry doesn't want the public
to focus on any particular city or
town. To distract us, the
Industry churns out state-wide or
nationwide studies, often by the
authoritative-sounding Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
always touting the safety benefits of
red light cameras. These studies
are widely available in the popular
media, and many are listed on an Industry
site, so will not be listed
here.
Camera
opponents point to several studies
of studies:
1. The 2004 Burkey/Obeng
study, which criticized and reworked
a large pro-camera study by the IIHS.
2. The peer-reviewed 2011
University of South Florida study which found:
| "Q: Of the seven studies
identified by the NHTSA compendium as the best
observational RLC research, is there any consensus
in the findings? A: There is convergence: none of the seven studies identified as the best in design and data in the NHTSA's compendium statistically permits concluding RLCs provide a safety benefit." (Langland-Orban et al., Florida Public Health Review, 2011; 8, 1-9 ) |
3. The peer-reviewed 2012 University
of South Florida study which criticized
the methods used in another large pro-camera study by
the IIHS.
None
of us should blindly bet our life on
studies from either side, just because
the studies are numerous or appear to
be independent. Read this article
- It will open your eyes about all
kinds of studies.
|
EXTRAORDINARY
CANDOR BY OFFICIALS
More from
Riverside: "It’s
impossible to
attribute causality to
one thing. I don’t
know whether and to
what degree the red
light cameras have
contributed to a
reduction in traffic
crashes." Chief
of Police Sergio Diaz. More from
Riverside: "I
have spoken publicly
against the program
several times in the
past, once before the
public safety
committee and twice
before the entire
council. Each time, I
expressed my dislike
of the general concept
of the program, the
unethical tactics used
to collect fees,
inconclusive data
regarding their
effectiveness and the
realization of
corporate profits at
the expense of our
citizens. My
position on these
matters has not
changed."
Retired 28-year
Riverside fire
captain, in letter
submitted for the Oct.
2, 2012 city council
meeting.
Source: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsRiversideContractOpinionByRetdFireCapt.pdf
Emeryville (cameras
installed in 2004,
removed in
2012): "Staff
also analyzed the
number of
accidents for the
same seven year
period and found
that the red light
cameras did not
significantly
impact the number
of
accidents."
"Finance has
estimated that
elimination of the
program would
result in a
$200,000 per year
savings to the
City." Chief
of Police Ken
James, in reports
submitted for
5-15-12 city
council
meeting.
Source: http://web01.emeryville.org/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=87&doctype=agenda
El Monte (cameras
installed in 2003,
removed in 2008): "A
comparison
of traffic collisions
at Redflex monitored
intersections vs.
non-Redflex monitored
intersections revealed
that there is no
statistical difference
in the number of
traffic collisions
because of Redflex
monitoring."
Chief of Police Ken
Weldon, in memo
presented at 10-21-08
council meeting.
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsElMonteContrTerminateWeldonMemo.pdf More
from El Monte:
"We're spending a lot
of staff time on this
just to gain $2000 a
month." "It doesn't
reduce accidents --
that's what our
studies and results
have come back."
City Manager James W.
Mussenden.
Source: Granicus
video of council
meeting of 10-21-08,
at 1:28:40, available
on City's website at http://www.ci.el-monte.ca.us/IWantto/View/VideosonDemand.aspx
Upland (cameras
installed in 2003,
removed in 2009):
"The system
appears to have little
influence on the
number of red light
related collisions at
monitored
intersections.
At times, rear
end collisions have
actually increased."
Chief Steve
Adams, in memo
presented at 3-9-09
council meeting.
Whittier (cameras
installed in 2004,
removed in 2010):
"Initially, the
red-light program did
change behaviors
because it did lessen
the number of
red-light violations
but over the long term
it didn't appear to
lessen the number of
injury
accidents."
Assistant City Manager
Nancy Mendez.
Loma Linda (cameras
installed in 2006,
removed in 2010):
"I believe these
red light cameras are
ways for city
governments to legally
extort money from
their citizens." "The
month after we
lengthened the yellow
light by one second,
the number of
violations that we
have seen dropped by
90 percent."
Mayor Rhodes
Rigsby, M.D.
Bell
Gardens (cameras
installed in 2009,
removed in
2012): "To
date, 95% of the
funds collected from
verifiable
violations have been
paid to RedFlex
Traffic Systems for
operating the
cameras. The
remaining 5% of
funds collected have
been utilized to
partially offset
costs of personnel
to manage the
system. The
red light camera
program has
contributed to a
moderate decrease in
the overall number
of accidents;
however, no change
in the overall
number of injury
accidents.
Furthermore, the
police department
has recognized
unanticipated
personnel costs to
manage the
program. Based
on this analysis,
the red light camera
program is not
significant enough
of a community
safety benefit to
justify the
continuation of the
program beyond the
existing three (3)
year agreement term
that expires on
March 29,
2012." Staff
report presented at
9-26-11 council
meeting. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsBellGdnsContr2011staffRep.pdf
Hayward (cameras
installed in 2008,
removed in
2013): "In
response to Council
Member Zermeño's
question for reasons
why cities chose to
drop out of the Red
Light Camera
program... City
Manager David
commented that another
reason was the lack of
strong evidence in the
industry that red
light cameras were
effective in reducing
collisions."
Minutes, 10-11-11
council meeting.
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsHaywardStaffRep2011Oct11mins.pdf More from Hayward: “There is no concrete data that supports the fact that red light cameras are supposed to reduce collisions." “That’s not been our experience here in Hayward. We’ve had much better results with a redeployment of our motor officers. I think that having that personal contact with our community members makes a lasting impression. It’s an opportunity for us to change behavior when it’s wrong versus getting a ticket in the mail 2-4 weeks down the road.” Hayward Police Chief Diane Urban, during 3-6-13 city council meeting. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/03/06/hayward-to-get-rid-of-red-light-cameras/
The San Mateo County
Superior Court (seven
cities in the County
have cameras, earliest
installed in 2005):
"Are we doing
right by the public?"
"It's
questionable whether
the trade-offs are
appropriate." "There's
a balance there, and I
don't think we have
found it." CEO
John Fitton, San Mateo
Superior Court, on
11-13-09.
In
Other States
|
5.
Crash Photos
Examining
the Crash Photos the
Industry Publishes
New 11-6-05,
more added 8-29-07,
8-3-09, 12-11-09, 8-7-12
Or, the Industry photos depict crashes where, after a little examination, it is clear that the running of a red light was not the primary cause of the accident.
I did a Google photo search (images.google.com) for "red light camera" and "photo enforcement" and came up with the following.
Photo # 1
Source: October 2002 issue of ITS International (itsinternational.com)
The photo above has been widely circulated. It is from Ventura, California (Southbound Mills at Dean), and shows an imminent accident. Someone quickly reviewing the photo might assume it was caused entirely by the white car. However, if we look at the small white numbers in the black strip above the image, we can see that the Late Time, the amount of time that the white car's signal had been red, was 0.3 seconds ("TR 0.3"), and that the white car was in Lane 1. (For more info on how to read Late times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.) That short Late Time raises the question of how the green car got so far into the intersection so quickly after the onset of his green. Did he jump the green?
Furthermore, the speed of the white car is indicated as being 51 MPH ("VS 051 MPH") - so in 0.3 second it would cover 22 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal turned red, it would have been 22 feet or less behind the position depicted, probably with its nose well past the limit line - not a violation.
I suggest that responsibility for the accident is shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the intersection was problematic (that's supposedly why they put the camera there), and should have had an "all red" interval of at least 0.5 second programmed in the signal, and
2. The driver of the green car, who apparently jumped his green light at high speed (note his skid marks).
On a couple occasions in the past, I have asked the Ventura PD about this photo. So far, no additional information has been provided. Maybe, now that I am publishing it with my interpretation, they will respond with their own interpretation.
Photo # 2
Source: Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2004, Page B2 (washingtonpost.com)
The photo above, from Duke and Walker streets in Alexandria, Virginia, shows an imminent accident (unless everyone is very lucky). However, it should be noted that the Late Time was 8.1 seconds ("R081"), and that the limit lines have been worn away to the point where they could easily be overlooked, and that the signal lights are on the far side of the intersection.
Photo # 3
Source: www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm
The photo above is from Mesa, Arizona. It should be noted that the Late Time was 33.4 seconds ("R334").
The next photo, below, is from the same intersection.
Photo # 4
Source: www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm
This photo above is also from Mesa, the same intersection, one week later. Note that the Late Time was 45.2 seconds ("R452"). If drivers are totally failing to notice that the light is red, maybe the City needs to put up bigger lights, or more of them. These pictures were taken in 1997. It would be interesting to inquire as to what improvements the City has made to the intersection in the years since then.
Photos # 5(a) - (c)
Source: http://www.mesaaz.gov/POLICE/photo-enforcement/photos.aspx
The three photos above are from a Aug. 17, 2006 crash in Mesa, Arizona and have been used extensively as a red light camera sales tool in other states. The MPD did not provide a caption or other information about the accident depicted.
Someone quickly reviewing the photos could assume that the red SUV caused the accident, but it's not that simple.
If we look at the small white numbers in the black strip above the first photo, we can see that the Late Time, the amount of time that the SUV's signal had been red, was 0.2 second ("RTIME 0.2"). (For more info on how to read Late Times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.) The SUV's speed is indicated as 30 MPH, so in 0.2 sec. it would cover 9 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal turned red, the SUV was 9 feet or less behind the position depicted in the first photo, which would mean that its front bumper (and probably much more) would be past the first line of the cross walk. In California and many other states, that would not be a violation. But in Arizona - it is a violation!
Why?
Arizona law says:
...vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection..."
and then goes on to define "intersection" as:
"...the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines...."
So, in Arizona you have to get the front of your car past the "prolongation" - the thinnest white line (I've added a yellow arrow in the second photo above) - before the light goes red, or it is a violation. And, since you are expected to actually make your stop before the crosswalk (so that you're not blocking pedestrians), the net effect is that you will have 12 - 15 feet less room (crosswalks are 10 -12 feet wide) to stop in Arizona than at a California intersection having the same length of yellow. That's equivalent to having a yellow that is 0.3 second shorter.
So who is responsible for this accident?
First we look at the sedan's actions. In the first photo, the light has been red for only 0.2 sec., but the front of the sedan is already well into the SUV's lane. To get there, the sedan traveled about 20 feet beyond its "safe" zone. If we guess that the sedan moved at an averge of 10 MPH ( = 15 ft./sec.) up to that point, it would have taken 1.3 sec. to move that distance. Thus, the sedan began its turn approx. 1.1 second before the light turned red.
Next we look at the SUV's actions. The first picture shows what appears to be a clear violation - the SUV is not yet past the limit line, and is facing a light that had been red for 0.2 second. But the SUV was braking hard at the time the first photo was taken, in response to the sedan having begun its turn some 1.1 secs. or more before. (The skid marks are visible in the second photo.) It's arguable that if the SUV had not been forced to brake, it would have made it to the limit line 0.2 sec. or more sooner, before the light went red.
I suggest that responsibility for this accident is shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the unprotected (no arrow) left turning at the intersection was unsafe (they should have installed an arrow, but chose to put in a camera instead), and
2. The driver of the sedan, who carelessly began his left turn without checking to make sure that opposing traffic - which was not facing a red light at the time he began his turn - would clear the intersection.
Arizona's unusual Limit Line location seems to be a trap for visitors from out-of-state - and maybe even some Arizona residents. (See a further example, in Photos # 6, below.) In Oct. 2007, I asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) whether there was an effort being made to mandate a nationwide standard for the location of Limit Lines. They said "no" - that that the Federal government cannot dictate the states' traffic laws*. They referred me to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, which publishes a voluntary nationwide standard called the Uniform Vehicle Code. The UVC says:
"Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection..."
In Nov. 2009 an Arizona resident got the FHWA to rule that these unusual Limit Lines are "non-compliant," but then lost at court when she tried to use the non-compliance as a defense.
In 2011 Arizona State Senator Frank Antenori sponsored a bill to alter the legal definition of an intersection, but on May 9, 2012 Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it. Article.
Photos # 6(a) - (b)
Source: Peoria AZ Police Department video, Sept. 2008
The photo above is from another "That woulda been legal in California" accident from Arizona. (See also Photos # 5, above.) Well OK, it "woulda been legal" here in CA before the ban on hand-held cellphones. If you play the video a frame at a time, the you can see that the eastbound SUV was past the first white line before the light turned red. The actual Limit Line is not visible in the video - in Peoria, it is marked using red "Thermo" tape, and I was told that at this intersection the tape is just beyond the third white line. It may be the dark area in the video. Below is an aerial view of the intersection, with yellow lines added to indicate the two possible Limit Line locations - both of which are two car lengths beyond the Stop Line.
I suggest that responsibility for this accident is shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the unprotected (no arrow) left turning at the intersection was unsafe (they should have installed an arrow, but chose to put in a camera instead), and
2. The driver of the pickup, who carelessly began his left turn 1.5 secs. before the light turned red and without checking to make sure that opposing traffic - which was not facing a red light at the time he began his turn - would clear the intersection.
Photos # 7(a) - (b)
Source: www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm
The photos (above) are from the UK. The caption for the photos said:
"The first image was taken at 4.5 seconds [Late Time]after the lights turned to red, the second was taken at 5.5 seconds."
Photos # 8(a) - (b)
Source: www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm
The photos (above) are also from the UK. The caption said:
"The built up traffic suggests that the light has been red for some time and the pedestrian has already crossed half of the road."
However, the caption did not reveal the actual Late Time, and it is hard to read it in the photos. But, since the cumulative Late Time in the second photo is 10+ seconds ("R10x"), the Late Time in the first photo must be 9+ seconds.
Photos # 9(a) - (b)
Source: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,547893,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|31885|.asp
The photos above are from the website of the Washington, DC police department, which added the arrow pointing to the red light. The caption said:
"These photos were taken recently [June 2000] by the photo enforcement camera at the corner of New York and New Jersey Avenues, NW. They show just how dangerous it is to run red lights for both the offending driver as well as other motorists and pedestrians."
Note that the late time was 9.2 seconds, and that the location has three limit lines in quick succession as well as a lot of signage, which could confuse drivers. If this location is experiencing a lot of accidents, perhaps the design and marking of the intersection is a contributing factor.
Photos # 10 & 11
Source: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/images/rlc_1.jpg and http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/images/rlc_2.jpg
The photos above are from the website of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS did not provide a caption.
Note that the late times were 6+ and 7+ seconds.
Photos # 12 (a) - (g)
In Aug. 2009 ATS (American Traffic Solutions) published a video "Montage" of seven crashes as part of the annual National Stop on Red Week promotion.
(a)
Motorcycle
rider
missed
red
by
4
secs.
or
more.
Probably due to inattention or
impairment; not on purpose.
Cameras will not stop such accidents.
(b)
Signals
located
right
after
cars
emerge
from
dark
underpasses
are
known
hazards
and
a
popular
site
for
red
light
cameras.
The local traffic engineers need to
put in larger diameter signal lights
and improve/better maintain the
pavement markings. Cameras can't
stop the running.
(c)
Signal was red 3 secs. or more, so
running probably was due to
inattention or impairment.
Improve pavement markings and
visiblity of the signals. Arrest
impaired drivers. Cameras cannot
stop such accidents.
(d)
& (e) The drivers made a
left turn without checking for
oncoming traffic. Since the same
accident is happening repeatedly at
the same intersection, maybe it is
time for the traffic engineers to
install a left turn arrow for the
cross traffic. Cameras
cannot stop such accidents.
(f)
This crash was probably due to
confusion - traffic cones, rainy
day. Some accidents just
happen; cameras can't stop
them. And it can be argued that
the initial flash of the camera may
have added to the driver’s
confusion/distraction.
(g)
We
can't
see the light the white truck was
facing, so there is no evidence that
he had a red light, or for how
long. He probably is an older
driver or one with poor night vision,
or otherwise impaired, and even if his
signal had been green would have been
just as likely to hit the poorly
marked traffic island and (overly
sturdy) pole. As in (f) above,
the initial flash of the camera may
have been a contributing factor.
Proper marking of the "nose" of the
island, and pole, is needed.
Overall, ATS' video collection fails
to support the use of red light
cameras. A critic
suggested that ATS' pictures
actually say:
"Look
at
all
the
accidents
our
cameras
didn't
prevent."
Intererestingly, none of the seven accidents was a right turn accident. You'd think that to justify the company's heavy emphasis on right turn enforcement, ATS would have provided footage of a few right turn accidents.
Despite
the
fact
that
the
majority
of
tickets
issued
nationwide
are
for
a
Late
Time
of
less
than
1/2
sec.,
all
of
the
accidents
depicted
showed
cars
that
were
obviously
multiple
seconds
late.
Where's the videos justifying the
numerous 1/10th, 2/10th and 3/10th
Late Time tickets?
Photos
# 13 (a) - (c)
These
photos are from the three videos
displayed on the City of Glendale,
California red light camera web site
in late 2009.
(a)
This is southbound Glendale Ave. at
Broadway, in Glendale. The
video's title ("A
Big Truck at 55 mph") suggests
that the truck was doing 55 MPH ( = 81
ft./sec.). The still image above
is the first frame where the light was
red.
The truck, which is just entering the
frame, looks to be 60 feet from the
limit line. Per the signal
timing chart provided on the City's
red light camera website, the yellow
for Glendale Avenue is 3.6 secs.
long. (Interestingly, the yellow
for Broadway is 3.9 secs.) 3.6
secs is the minimum yellow in a 35
zone. But from this video,
and from the very high speed in the
other nighttime video below, it
appears that this wide boulevard is
allowed to operate at higher speeds at
night. Were the yellow to be set
at 4.3 secs., which is the minimum
length required in a 45 zone, this
truck would not have violated the red.
Further, this wide intersection needs
to have signal lights positioned on
the "near" side.
(b)
This is eastbound Colorado Blvd. at
Pacific Avenue. The video's
title ("A
68 mph violation") suggests
that the car was doing 68 MPH ( = 100
ft./sec.). The still image above
is the frame where the light was
changing from green to yellow - the
yellow is strongly lit, and the green
is just a pinpoint of light.
The eastbound violator's car has not
yet entered the frame. Per the
City's chart, the yellows in all four
directions are 3.9 seconds.
(Unlike Glendale/Broadway,
above.)
In the image above, the light will not
be red for another 3.9 seconds but the
left-turning truck has already begun
his (unprotected) left turn. The
truck driver probably underestimated
the speed of the oncoming car - or
failed to see it coming.
A
longer yellow, or a red light camera,
might have kept the car from violating
the red, but it would not necessarily
have prevented the (near-)
accident. An accident like this
could happen any time during the
signal cycle. All that is
required is for someone to carelessly
begin a left turn without checking
oncoming traffic.
(c) This is eastbound
Colorado/Pacific again. The
video can be viewed at "A
Near Collision."
The still frame above was grabbed at
the instant the light was changing
from yellow to red - as a result,
neither the red light nor the yellow
light is visible.
The front of the taxi is already well
into the sports car's lane. To get
there, the taxi traveled about 20 feet
beyond its "safe" zone. If we
guess that the taxi moved at an averge
of 10 MPH ( = 15 ft./sec.) up to that
point, it would have taken 1.3 sec. to
move that distance. Thus, the
taxi began its turn at approx. 1.3
second before the light turned red,
and with oncoming traffic clearly
visible.
As
with (b) above, a longer yellow might
have kept the sports car from
violating the red, but it would not
have prevented the (near-)
accident. An accident like this
could happen any time during the
signal cycle. All that is
required is for someone to carelessly
begin a left turn without checking
oncoming traffic.
Near-accidents
(b)
and (c) show that the City needs to
protect left-turners by installing a
left-arrow.
Further, this wide intersection needs
to have signal lights positioned on
the "near" side.
Intererestingly, none of the three
near-accidents involved a right turn
accident. You'd think that to
justify the City's heavy emphasis on
right turn enforcement, Glendale would
have provided footage of a few right
turn accidents.
Late
Note:
In
2012 Glendale closed their red light
camera program.
Photo # 14
In
Dec. 2011 ATS (American Traffic
Solutions) published a number of video
compilations of crashes
supposedly caused by red light
running, including one compilation of
crashes in New Jersey cities.
NE bound St. Georges Ave.
(Route 27) at Stiles Road, in Linden,
NJ (click photo to enlarge)
The Linden left-turn accident shown
above (begins at 0:58 on the YouTube
video alternate
copy) was not caused by a red
light runner. The lights were yellow
(follow the white arrows added by
highwayrobbery.net). The left turner
carelessly started his left turn too
soon, several seconds before the light
went red.
Did
ATS fail to notice that the Linden
segment was not an example of red
light running, or did they like the
violence in the video so much that
they decided to put it up anyway,
hoping the public would be fooled?
The
Linden police weren't fooled,
though. A "change report" page
of their official Crash
Investigation Report assigned
fault to the premature left turner.
Photo # 15
In
Aug.
2012
ATS
(American
Traffic
Solutions)
made
a
promotional
video
featuring
Tom
and
Lauren
Hanley,
an
Indianapolis
couple
whose
2010
wedding
was
ruined
when
the
driver
of a shuttle bus carrying the wedding
party ran a red light and collided
with another vehicle, killing the
groom's best friend and injuring
fourteen. The
video was distributed by ATS' front group, the
National Coalition for Safer Roads.
The Hanley's advocacy for red
light cameras carries with it the suggestion that a
red light camera would have prevented this tragedy,
and will prevent recurrences. But the facts do
not support their conclusion. The shuttle bus driver
didn't run the light by just a fraction of a second.
He wasn't cutting it close, he just "blew" it.
His light had been red long enough for the large SUV
he hit to be more than half way across the
intersection. Either he didn't see that an
intersection was coming up, or didn't notice that the
light was red, until it was too late. It is
understandable how he could have overlooked the
intersection and the signal - they are poorly designed
and badly maintained.
Missing Limit Line Paint, Westbound South Street
at Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Site
of June 5, 2010 Fatal Crash
1. The limit line and crosswalk
paint is worn out.
2. The signal heads are small with no backboards and
are on the far side of the wide intersection, amid the
visual clutter of the signal heads for the other
directions of traffic, a railway overpass, and large
industrial buildings.
3. The street name signs are on the far side of the
intersection, and are not illuminated.
4. There are no pavement markings warning,
"Signal Ahead."
From 200 feet away, you can't
tell there's an intersection there, at all.
There's an Intersection Ahead? South Street
Looking West 200' to Intersection with Delaware Street
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net