Red Light Running and Photo Enforcement - Myth vs. Fact

1. MYTH: Chapel Hill does not have a red light running problem.
   
   
   FACT: In the 3.5 years ending July 2003, there were 135 red light running crashes in Chapel Hill. Of these, 58 carried some level of injury with five being severe or fatal. At the intersection of 15-501 and Sage Road, there were 1,312 incidents of red light running recorded on only one approach (northbound) from September, when the photo enforcement equipment became operational, until December 31, 2003.
   
   
2. MYTH: Red light cameras do not improve intersections safety.
   
   
   FACT: Numerous scientific studies have shown that cameras improve intersection safety. This includes research done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Michigan State University, the Texas Transportation Institute and the Highway Safety Research Center at UNC Chapel Hill. Every scientific study in the U.S. and all but one abroad has shown red light cameras to be effective in reducing violations. More importantly, every study of the cameras’ effect on injury crashes has shown a reduction in right-angle crashes, the most severe form of crash.
   
   
3. MYTH: Red light cameras are invasive to individual privacy.
   
   
   FACT: This defies common sense. Red light cameras that only photograph the rear of the car from a distance of 45 feet are much less invasive to privacy than a traffic stop by a police officer. In stopping an automobile, the police officer can examine the floor of the car, the breath of the driver, articles in the passenger’s lap, and any number of visual cues to criminal or private activity that wouldn’t be available from a photograph.
   
   
4. MYTH: Other engineering methods, such as adjusting the timing of red and yellow lights, would be more effective at controlling red light violations, yet were not attempted in Chapel Hill.
   
   
   FACT: Prior to the installation of cameras, the town engineers and the state did an engineering review at the two signal locations, which are both controlled by the state. Before the cameras were installed, the timing of the yellow signal was set to North Carolina state standards, which require a longer yellow sequence at intersections where photo enforcement is used. North Carolina standards exceed those set by the Federal Highway Administration. The yellow light timing was increased at both intersections and the red light timing was set appropriately. The Town also added back plates to make the traffic lights more visible. Furthermore, the Town put an extra set of signs at camera approaches, warning drivers that the cameras were in use. N.C. standards only require one set of signs, but two sets were installed.
   
   
5. MYTH: Research shows that rear-end collisions increase at red light camera enforced intersections.
   
   
   FACT: This statement distorts research findings. A March 2003 study done by Quiroga et al at the Texas Transportation Institute found that while red light cameras can contribute to an increase in the number of rear-end crashes, “this effect is relatively small and temporary.” Further, rear-end crashes are typically less severe and less damaging than side-angle red light crashes. According to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program TRB Synthesis, “Red light cameras can bring about a reduction in the most severe angle crashes with, at worst, a slight increase in less severe rear-end crashes.”
   
   
6. MYTH: The Chapel Hill Safelight Program is not successful since only 33% of photos taken result in citations.
   
   FACT: This figure is a percentage of all cars that cross into the intersection on red and does not take into account the number of incidents that are not citation-appropriate for various reasons, such as ambulances, funeral processions and automobiles whose license plates are missing or obscured. Even if every valid violation does not receive a citation, the program is working to improve safety nonetheless. The effectiveness of the cameras is clear: violations have been cut by 40% at the Hwy. 15-501 and Sage Road location.
   
   
7. MYTH: Red light cameras take jobs away from the police department.
   
   
   FACT: The Chapel Hill Police Department has been actively recruiting for some time and there are currently eight unfilled positions. The truth is that photo enforcement is a police force multiplier – it leverages the manpower of the department to get more done. Instead of sitting at traffic lights and trying to chase down offenders or, worse, responding to crashes, officers on patrol are able to focus on other crimes that technological tools cannot effectively reduce.
   
   
8. MYTH: Red light cameras sometimes snap when traffic lights are green.
   
   
   FACT: No citation has been issued to a driver whose car entered the intersection on a green light. Occasionally a car may approach a red light at above 15 mph, anticipating the change to green, but any photographs related to these instances are automatically rejected if the light is green when the car enters.
   
   
9. MYTH: Red light cameras violate due process by not allowing a driver caught by a red light camera to have their day in court.
   
   
   FACT: With photo enforcement, any individual can appeal their citation and have a hearing on the merits of the case. A citation is a summons to appear, or, if they so desire, an individual can admit fault and pay. The fact is the photograph provides compelling evidence of guilt and many people choose to pay.
   
   
10. MYTH: Red light cameras reduce a criminal violation to a civil violation, resulting in citizens no longer having the right to challenge witnesses against them.
    
    
    FACT: Citizens can bring their own witnesses and challenge the photographic evidence. Under any photo enforcement system, the town is the accuser and the photograph is the evidence of the violation. While the town could choose to present witnesses, there may only be the photographic evidence of the offence. This is in complete compatibility with the state and federal constitutions.
    
    
11. MYTH: A corporate third party inserted between resident and government fundamentally changes the relationship between the municipality and its citizens.
    
    
    FACT: The Chapel Hill Safelight Program is run by the Town, which must approve and sign-off on every citation issued. Contracting for data processing or equipment does not change the Town’s relationship to its citizens. This argument is similar to saying a postage meter company is a corporate third party between the government and its citizens and fundamentally impacts that relationship.
    
    
12. MYTH: Many red light camera vendors have been sued for calibrating the timing of photographs to maximize the number of citations.
    
    
    FACT: The relatively few lawsuits that have been brought against red light camera contractors have not involved this claim and have been on entirely different grounds. The majority of these lawsuits have involved constitutional issues and have been defeated in every case.
    
    
    In a much-publicized lawsuit in San Diego, the city — not the vendor — was sued, and the only fault found was with the city for not exercising proper oversight of the red light camera program
    

back to top