About a month ago, I came upon a car accident at a signalized intersection. One car was completely flipped over and on the opposite side of the road. The other car was spun around in the intersection. I stopped to speak to people on the scene and the police. Apparently, a middle-aged driver blatantly ran a red light, striking the other car and flipping it over. Luckily, no one died.
In 2006, almost 900 Americans were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red-light runners. About half of the deaths in red-light-running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles.
With the City of San Jose’s nearly 900 signalized intersections, it’s impossible to have a police officer on every corner. Also, having police sit at intersections probably isn’t the best use of their time when you take into consideration that they are investigating and catching those who commit crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault, murder, burglary and vandalism, as well as gang intervention and undercover work to catch copper-wire thieves … and the list goes on.
Last year, when I chaired the traffic-calming meetings, we prepared a survey with a list of about 15 questions. People who attended (and those who didn’t) were invited to participate in the survey that was available via the web and hard copy. From the surveys returned, 90 percent of the respondents supported red-light cameras.
I was already supportive of using these cameras, and the surveys cemented my support. Red-light running cameras are legal according to our state vehicle code and are used today in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC, plus many smaller communities. They take video of cars that run red lights 24/7. If a person receives a ticket from running a red light then he or she will pay a fine, of which approximately 14 percent goes to the city. Since most cities are facing tough economic times, the vendors of this technology have now made arrangements to give the technology to cities for free and instead be paid a percentage of the cities’ share of the citation.
The cameras also provide valuable information to our Department of Transportation on intersections that could be improved to avoid future car and /or pedestrian accidents.
I submitted a memo to council that asked that we do a pilot program for one year to gauge the effectiveness of cameras at intersections. The council accepted the memo and passed it on to the Chief of Police for review and feedback. Unfortunately, the Chief does not agree with the program and asked that the city “terminate” the idea. However, the Transportation and Environment committee was not yet ready to do so, and asked for more information to be brought back to the committee within the next month or so. (Prior to my memo, former Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez had pushed for red light cameras but was unsuccessful.)
Technology will not replace our police officers or stop all crimes or red-light runners. However, in my opinion, utilizing technology (especially in this case) could prove to be beneficial in lowering the number of red-light runners, provide some income to the City and influence people’s driving habits to obey the law.
The Police Department, like our Fire Department, is a core service. Fire Departments support smoke detectors; police, in my opinion, should consider supporting cameras at intersections. Smoke detectors haven’t put the Fire Department out of business; red light running cameras won’t put the SJPD out of business.
Do you think that red-light running is serious? If so, do you support using technology to make people think twice about running a red light?
Pierluigi,
What are the ramifications if we find that the cameras are too effective at curtailing the running of red lights thus reducing the amount of traffic fine revenue?
Will the city take the principled stand that even though the city is losing money on the cameras the safety and well being of it’s citizenry is more important than revenue?
This sets up quite a nice litmus test.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-redlights_15met.ART.North.Edition1.468120d.html
About time, thank you.
We keeping hearing are police are stretched thin so they should be embracing technology like this.
Pierre and #2,
How can you say the police are stretched thin. I go downtown on many weekends. You see them in large groups hanging around bars and clubs.
Why not have em hang out and busy interections and give out tickets?
Novice, you’re most worried about the lost revenue as opposed to the potential lives being saved? That’s really classy.
Pierluigi:
I know that Cupertino had a few of those cameras in operation. (Wolfe and Stevens Creek) was one intersection. Perhaps you should check in with Cupertino to gather data relative to this program.
Pete campbell
Pierluigi,
This is a policy question, not a technology question.
This should not be a yesno on cameras. We should ask ourselves “What do we want to be the penalty for running a red light?” “Do we want to catch every single person, or enough to deter the behavior?” “Do we want notifications of running red lights to affect driving records and license renewals?” “Do we want this information to feed back into stop light times and traffic management algorithms?”
The answers to these questions will get us to the technology we need—whether it is cameras, video capture, digital image analysis, etc. Or plain old cop-on-a-corner, plain-clothed snoops, etc.
Pier,
Traffic Enforcement has done NOTHING about the illegal parking by parents at the school on Woodard, the speeders on Woodard, or the red light runners on Woodard. What was the point of going to that meeting, following up by emailing Sam Koosha and YOU, with photos of illegal parking if you guys weren’t going to do anything about it?
As to camera’s instead of Cops, unfortunately drivers can contest the citations in court, which is ANOTHER waste of tax payer dollars. My understanding is that if the camera can not get a good, clear shot of the drivers face then they can not issue a citation any way.
Apparently, a middle-aged driver blatantly ran a red light…
Are you sure that they did not accidently (not that this is an excuse) run the red light?
Kathleen –
Drivers can (and do) successfuly contest citations in court now, even without these cameras in use. I don’t think providing citizens the opportunity to excercise their rights is a waste of anything. In fact, I would think the preservation of basic rights to be a priority for taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Oliverio asks:
“Do you think that red-light running is serious? If so, do you support using technology to make people think twice about running a red light?”
Of course red-light running is serious, but the causes that lead to the violations are varied, thus it is a mistake to assume that any one solution will produce the desired result.
The cameras will produce a lot of tickets, that is a certainty. Depending on the tolerance settings, the cameras will capture a great many drivers who misjudge the light by “X” number of feet—a class of drivers who seldom intentionally violate the law and are rarely involved in accidents (which I think is most of us). Drivers ten to twenty feet late do not cause accidents, they cause people to shake their fists. They are not the drivers responsible for the horrible consequences cited by Mr. Oliverio.
Red-light camera impact: on safety modest; on revenue raised, significant.
The cameras are effective at reducing the number of violations from one class of dangerous drivers: those regularly willing to bet on their ability to safely clear an intersection several seconds after the light turns red. This is a class that has already said “yes” to the risk of a getting ticket, causing a fender-bender, hurting an innocent driver. This is a class of drivers who, when they carry insurance, pay high premiums, but often have suspended or revoked driving privileges. The certainty of capture and penalty offered by a red-light camera will likely inspire only a few of them to rein in their impulsive, self-centered ways.
Red-light camera impact: on safety significant (because these people cause accidents, and sparing even a few innocent people injury is significant); on revenue raised, none.
The cameras will have no effect on inattentive drivers, those distracted while texting, yelling at the kids, etc. Their inattention will dim their awareness of the cameras just as it does their awareness of pedestrians crossing the street, stop signs ahead, and traffic signals shining red.
Red-light camera impact: on safety none; on revenue raised, insignificant.
The cameras will also have no impact on drunk drivers. These are the drivers who tend to be speeding, have impaired reaction times, and are often oblivious to their surroundings. These are the drivers who don’t brake a moment before impact: they collide at full, often deadly speeds.
Red-light camera impact: on safety none; on revenue raised, none.
Red-light cameras will have impact. They will raise revenue, but the majority of the revenue will come from the unintentional errors of otherwise good drivers. They will reduce injuries and death, but the reductions are unlikely to be dramatic.
Until we get a camera that can identify, capture, and book drunk drivers—and do so in exact proportion to the racial make-up of the community, the life-saving potential of traffic cameras will remain a pipe dream.
#1
Hello Novice,
Thanks for the article.
Difference between Texas and California is that in California cities only get a small fraction of the fine on moving violations approx 14%. The majority of the money goes to the state and courts. Citations are not a big money maker but are used to gain random compliance.
I think it would be great if we reduced the amount of red light runners as has been done in Dallas with red light running video cameras.
Nice try Nam.
Just pointing out the all too familiar pattern of elected officials who are more interested in revenue than the well being of their constituents.
Taking down traffic cameras because they are too effective and cut into city revenue is an example worthy of a chapter in a Ralph Nader book.
Does the city have any liability in the scenario where the traffuc cameras are taken down and then a guy gets T-boned by a red light runner?
Note that I’m not referring to Pierluigi in the above. I’m referring to the city of Dallas, and the way they handled traffic cameras. See the link in #1.
When is red light running serious ?
Red light running is serious when you are out infront of you house, enjoying a sunny day, and someone comes running down the street screaming that your son has just been hit crossing the street, at the signal, while walking to the neighborhood park !
Serious … It is ALWAYS serious !
Yes, I support further analysis of the technology.
Perhaps even supporting a high school / college “robotics” challenge thru the Tech Museum. State of the art camera / sensors / Motor assemblies. (Something you might see
in Silicon Valley …)
( Chief, do not worry!… Isn’t your
helicopter cool ? )
And finally, lets all (including myself),
try to be more considerate behind the wheel.
Thanks.
#8
Hello BlueFox,
Actually the red light runner in this case passed another car that was waiting for the red light.
#9- Mark G. said “Drivers can (and do) successfuly contest citations in court now, even without these cameras in use. I don’t think providing citizens the opportunity to excercise their rights is a waste of anything. In fact, I would think the preservation of basic rights to be a priority for taxpayer dollars.”
I agree 100%, but I thought the courts struck down the use of camera citations didn’t they?
Pier,
I am all for the red light cameras to get drivers to slow down and pay attention when they drive. I do not like the aspect of taking out the contact with a police officer though. Where a simple warning may have sufficed for some drivers he/she will now get a $500 ticket. What was the reason our city council decided to stop the program a couple of years ago? Wasn’t there a court case in which the legality of the system was thrown out?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1623.asp
I do think it is ridiculous that only 14% of the ticket fine goes back to the city and 86% goes out of this area to the state to piss away. We are taking millions of dollars out of our local economy in a time when thousands of San Jose residents are barely hanging on financially. Seems to be shooting ourselves in the foot.
How about working on technology problems at our own police department which is in the stone age compared to other police departments. Seems silly that in the high tech capital our police department is using computer systems that were old 15 years ago.
Lastly, was there a police officer that told you he/she was concerned about their job security as a result of this red light camera? Just wondering why you stated “red light running cameras won’t put the SJPD out of business.”
Kathleen –
My understanding is different. As recent as this past June, the California Appeals Court ruled that they “…find no error, as red light photo enforcement is not wasteful or illegal, and the city has no duty to grant the type of writ relief sought, e.g., the overturning of drivers’ convictions for running red lights and the refund of their fines and bail forfeitures.” This isn’t my specific area of expertice, so I suppose there may be more to the story (there always is), but seems odd that more and more cities would bother with the technology if the tickets produced were unenforceable.
Pier, heaven strike me dead for saying this, but Pete makes a good point above in #5. Other cities use red light camera technology already. Might be worth exploring existing cities usage to identify pros/cons before entering into the cost of our own study/pilot program.
A few years ago I was driving my folks to the airport at about 6 a. m. and started to move forward when the light turned green and suddenly a car came racing through the red light and slammed into a car already in the intersection. Thankfully, that was the car in front of us. What was he thinking? Would a camera have been enough to make him realize that his light was red? What about the guy who turns after knowing his light turned red and is counting on people waiting to allow him to do so? Would knowing he would be filmed make him stop? And, finally, why is Chief Davis opposed to installing cameras?
#16
Hi Steve,
I don’t believe drivers should get a warning when running a red light. Because of the severity of the offense is why this technology is in the California state vehicle code. NASCOP or photo radar for speeding, is not in the vehicle code and therefore requires a sworn officer to give out tickets for speeding. This is why the city of San Jose had to stop using photo radar. Photo radar (NASCOP) actually worked by reducing average speed on streets.
Yes, it would be nice to get a higher percentage of the citation fine or be able to raise fines for speeding in 25 mph neighborhoods thus increasing revenue for all parties.
Yes, I have heard from police that they feel only a sworn officer should give out red light running violations since that is there job and this technology should not be an option.
Organizations of all sizes (public or private) are sensitive to new technology that allows for more efficiency. Often members of those organizations jump to conclusions that a certain technology will take their job away.
We have a high standard in police hiring in San Jose and because of that high quality we should utilize our police to do things a red light running video camera cannot like investigate sexual assault, homicide, burglary, vandalism, gang intervention & suppression undercover work to catch copper-wire thieves, etc…
Pierluigi
I’m not in favor of running red lights, but one of the reasons people run red lights here so much is that our traffic light system is insanely disfunctional. If the traffic lights acted in concert with the flow of traffic instead of acting to obstruct it, frustration levels would be lower and people would be more likely to obey traffic rules.
As an example, just a couple of days ago I sat through two full light cycles at San Carlos and Almaden before finally getting a green arrow.
Computer control of traffic signals is a technology that has been around for 40 years. You would think that in Silicon Valley we might be more favorably disposed to the use of computers than in other places, but in practice we seem to be dedicated to preserving the technology of the 1950s.
How much longer before San Jose’s traffic lights can be declared a historical monument like the cable cars in San Francisco?
Pier,
I’d really like answer to my question: Traffic Enforcement has done NOTHING about the illegal parking by parents at the school on Woodard, the speeders on Woodard, or the red light runners on Woodard. What was the point of going to that meeting, following up by emailing Sam Koosha and YOU, with photos of illegal parking if you guys weren’t going to do anything about it?
As you know, I live by a school and we’ve had one neighbor injured by a hit and run driver, and a lot of property damage here. I think if you are going to ask the community to get involved, then you need to follow up with us. A camera on this street is going to be about as useful as the “No Parking At Any Time” sign we have all over our streets. People will still speed down this street like loons.
#21
Hi Kathleen,
Welcome back.
I forwarded your concerns about illegal parking and speeding on Woodard Rd to your own Councilmember to follow up with Department of Transportation.
I do know that after the Traffic Calming meeting that you attended in District 9, the Traffic Enforcement Unit monitored Woodard Rd and issued several tickets for speeding. Unfortunately today the police cannot be on your street more often. This is another reason to have red light running video cameras as then we can reallocate these police resources away from intersections and into neighborhoods.
#22- Hey Pier,
As long as SJI continues enforcing its policies on comments and posts, I’ll stick around!
Thanks for your efforts but I doubt much will happen as usual. Been there and done that myself many times already. We have already sent photos and complaints to Traffic Enforcement ourselves on many occasions, no response as usual. Not that I want this to happen but, I guess we’ll just have to wait until a child is struck down and killed before something happens. That seems to be the only way the City actually takes complaints seriously enough to actually do something about a long-term problem.
I have one question for you; didn’t the courts rule that tickets from cameras were illegal, or unconstitutional? I could swear I read something about that on several occasions a while back.
Pier,
Above you state “Since most cities are facing tough economic times, the vendors of this technology have now made arrangements to give the technology to cities for free and instead be paid a percentage of the cities’ share of the citation.”
This appears illegal when reading section 21455.5(g) of the California Vehicle Code which states:
(g) (1) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not
include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer
or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the
equipment authorized under this section.
Perhaps this is why the Chief has said he does not support this program since it appears to be quite illegal under current law. I spoke to a traffic officer friend and he said they would welcome the cameras if legal since the traffic enforcement team has been cut in half over the past couple years.
Red light cameras may be a great idea but not if a private vendor participates in profiting from the ticket revenue, especially since it is against the law.
#25- Pier,
If I’m understanding you correctly, either way we would still need Police Officer involvement to do this red light camera thing, right? So the point of doing it would be?
#22
Kathleen,
Red light running cameras are legal in the California vehicle code. Video must be reviewed by police staff prior to mailing out citation to violator. Photo radar for speeding is not in the vehicle code. As far as constitutionality no idea.
Pierluigi
#24
Steve,
May I compliment you on your researching the California Vehicle Code which may induce more sleep then the San Jose budget.
What I can say is that we would not be the first city to go this route so I would defer to the city attorney when we actually get the opportunity to do an actual pilot of red light running cameras.
It is good to have another option then buying all the equipment and owning it. For example the city of San Jose bought all the NASCOP equipment outright which we can no longer use to give out citations. Had we a shared revenue model instead of buying it outright we would have saved money.
Pierluigi
#26
Kathleen,
Yes there is the need to have a human review the video to be fair so there are no mistakes. The amount of time and resources to do this versus sitting at an intersection 24/7 are tiny.
The point of doing it:
Augments police traffic enforcement.
Save lives and injuries for red light accidents.
Allows police enforcement to be reallocated into neighborhoods.
Builds a culture of obeying other traffic laws like speeding.
This comes back to Transportation and Environment committee in early January.
Pierluigi
Pier,
I don’t mean to be unfair here because I think anything that keeps our Police Officers available to fight violent crime works for me, but here are some serious flaws with what you are recommending.
The IPA and the NAACP, and several other groups are already complaining about the fact that public information requests are handled too slowly. The Police Chief has said that they don’t have enough Officers, or the funds to hire admin people to handle the load.
Secondly, I was on the Mayor’s Public Health and Safety Transition Committee and heard the same complaints about the backlog of obtaining permits to serve alcohol, due to lack of Police personnel to process them.
Thirdly, I question the legality of revenue sharing, as Steve pointed out, and whether this will:
1.) Create a situation where we become too heavily dependent on technology, thus losing people their jobs. (Look at the self check outs in many stores that were once held by living breathing people.)
2.) The accuracy of these videos.
3.) Our right to privacy.
4.) I don’t see how a video camera saves lives. If fear of consequence were truly a working theory, our jails would be empty.
5.) I read in the Mercury News that there are technologies out there that can not only detect these cameras, but also can actually alter the image received by the camera. You can fool a camera but you cannot fool a Cop!
6.) And let us not forget the brilliant deceptive practices by those avoiding tolls on the Golden Gate Bridge! Now that was one for the books.
Sorry Pier, but sometimes technology does not nor can it take the place of a real live, trained and experienced human being. Please press one to hear this message in English, two to hear it in Spanish, and three to hear it again.
Something to consider:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10796552
Pier,
Again, thanks for putting yourself out there with your blogs, even if there are some disagreements. It is truly refreshing.
Also, thanks for not going down the same road as a couple of your fellow council people and also county supervisor Alvarado regarding the arrests of those drunk in public in San Jose. Without any further information or possible causes and effects they have made veiled suggestions that the police department is a racist group. The police auditor has also done an end around and gone straight to the city manager.
Our police department is a fine bunch of men and women of all races. They have no racist agenda. It is so tiring to see them continually bashed in the media, by the “independent” police auditor and now most disturbingly by members of the city council and a county supervisor who have thrown them under the bus. I am very glad Mayor Tom came out with the blog he did this week on this situation.
How about if drunks actually take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming others if they get out of control and end up in jail for a night to sober out.
P.O.,
I owe you a thank you. This afternoon as I was leaving, I noticed a Parking Enforcement Officer outside my door ticketing one of the many illegally parked cars on the curb, under the “No Parking At Any Time” sign. We went out and thanked him. He said he was aware that this was a problem and would be keeping an eye out.
I deeply appreciate your help Pier. When people park on that curb, we have a very difficult time seeing around their cars to pull safely out onto Woodard. I hope they continue to cite these fools, as they are creating one hell of a dangerous situation by parking that way.
THANKS again Pier!
San Jose boy on way to school suffers head injury in hit-and-run
Mercury News
Posted: 01/26/2009 10:13:54 AM PST
They had done it every school day, father and son walking, hand in hand, across the six-lane road on their way to Mildred Goss Elementary. But this Monday morning, their routine turned tragic when suddenly a speeding car ran a red light and smashed into them.
The 9-year-old boy flew into the air then fell to the street, unconscious. The father was hit in the leg. And the driver fled.
Both father and son are in the hospital, with the boy suffering a serious head injury.
Monday’s crash was the fourth in San Jose this month involving a pedestrian who was seriously injured or killed.
so if we contract fine collection to a third party, they will not want to maximize value and collection, they will be honest, right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862893.stm
no cities would ever tamper with the timing to increase profit, right?
http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html
there is NO WAY these cameras could cause more accidents as people slam on brakes to avoid a possible tax, oopsie, I meant fine?
http://www.leftlanenews.com/study-finds-red-light-cameras-could-actually-cause-more-accidents.html
everyone would be treated fairly, no special cases, right?
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dmv-police-confidential-2011354-program-records#
the companies running these programs ALWAYS do a far and reasonable job? no arguments with cities?
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/local/me-redlight2
no one would ever borrow someone elses car to run a camera, and prank their friend into a ticket?
http://www.thesentinel.com/302730670790449.php
I’m just trying to point out, that with MINIMAL research, you will find this system is riddled with fraud, difficult to monitor, potentially dangerous, and in general, not the best use of technology to save money.
I agree, red-light running in San Jose is bad. Heck, most DRIVING in san jose is bad. We have a law against mobile phones, but you see “important” people babbling on them daily.
maybe if we got our officers out of their “SWAT” fatigues, out of “anti terror” mode, and back into a community based, service, kindness, trying mindset? they could help.
Maybe if we stopped handing out licenses to anyone, and have a real proficiency test?
and finally? maybe if we acted like a community, and asked people to slow down, not in a demeaning way, just point out the errors, and ask them to try harder next time….
BAH! it will never work, any of it.