Evelyn Solano

English 102

22 March 2012

Problem Solved: Increase Yellow Light Timings

The dreaded red light photo enforced tickets have caused a huge controversy not only in Chicago, but in all parts of the United States. Although more than 15 states and 21 cities have banned the use of red light cameras, Chicago doesn’t seem like it will be one to budge. The first red light camera in Chicago was placed in 2003 along with the impression that these photo enforced cameras will benefit all on the road including pedestrians and bicyclists. Red light cameras were introduced to the people as a form of protection to help ensure driver safety and reduce red light running. Since the first camera was installed, there has been a rapid spread all across Chicago to where there are even two cameras at one intersection. Based on the studies reported, there is, however, strong evidence that suggests that red light cameras are less effective than the high hopes that were placed at their inception. In this debate, I’m not asking to take down red light cameras because some people believe they are to create revenue, nor am I saying the cameras are worthwhile. The priority is to get them to work in the way they were intended to be used for not just for revenue as it has now become. Changes in the engineering aspect to create a better flow would do the best for the city of Chicago.

A great amount of technology, contracting, design, and implementation goes into these traffic signals we use every day which help keep road regulation smooth and safe. Although road signals are organized, getting motorists to follow regulations is the hardest part. The problem the federal highway administration was faced with was the great amount of accidents resulting from motorists running red lights. They have found that red light running accidents to be more deadly than any other crashes (“Q&A: Red Light Cameras”). This is why the FHA chose to tackle this issue to help keep roads safe. This is when Redflex came to the rescue claiming “itself as a world leader in traffic enforcement products and services, and operating the largest network of digital speed and red light cameras in the world” (Redflex holding: limited). With this statement, more and more cities started to sign up contracts insuring they would provide the highest amount of protection when using their technology of cameras. Their red light cameras were placed on designated intersections capturing the driver’s license plate along with a 12 second video footage including the exact second the driver passes a red light. Once the picture would be taken, it would be sent for review and the owner of the vehicle would receive a $100 ticket in the mail for violation. Soon after the cameras went active complaints were soon arising giving out different thoughts about the red light cameras. People started to doubt the use of red light cameras after finding unfairness in the system. Drivers started feeling invaded, unsafe, and cheated due to red light cameras as if constantly watched and criticized of their driving. Red light cameras then became a huge controversy which resulted in Reflex’s first ban against their red light cameras in Wisconsin in 1995. After that, more and more cities followed after finding flaws in their system. In one article by California, Councilman Rhodes Rigsby stated after placing the cameras up “if we’re going to fine our visitors and our citizens $12 or $14 million over four years, we should at least expect a safety benefit, and I just don’t see it”(The Expired Meter). These are the true signs of a leader, not just someone feeding lies.

Now just because cities and states are choosing to turn away from red light cameras doesn’t mean they are completely unreliable. People all over the world are pleading to keep cameras rolling because these cameras have lots of potential. The cameras do stop people from repeatedly running red lights, help drivers drive better, and in case of an accident, there will be footage caught on camera to see who is wrong in an accident. Red light cameras catch all perpetrators whether purposeful or unintentional because weather an accident or not, these types of violations are definite hazards on the road and have been a problem since the beginning. This is the reason cities and states are implementing these cameras so they can prevent these careless mistakes. This tactic can give drivers an awareness of the road and create better driving habits. If rules were followed and mistakes were never made then life would be perfect. I understand what these cameras intentions are but there is one huge flaw in their system that changes every aspect. Stopping at a red light is not a hard concept for drivers, but how Redflex tweaked the system, they made these cameras more of a hazard than when cameras weren’t up. On every intersection where cameras are enforced the yellow light timings are shortened giving drivers less time determine whether to stop. This then increases the amount of red light runners, which increase the amount of revenue. It’s not right for Chicago to shorten the yellow light and expect one to stop immediately on cue and if not’s the driver who is in violation. It’s not justifiable when people are getting charged for offenses that the cameras set them up to start.

Although much time and effort went into these technical systems, research findings from red light cameras were astonishing. They found a 25 percent decrease in drivers running red lights, but found an increase in rear end collisions from cars stopping too short trying to avoid red lights completely (“Red light Camera Enforcement”). It seems that they have fixed a problem by creating a new one. People have complained because these cameras take pictures of the license plate leaving no way in proving that the registered owner was the driver in the car. Drivers thought that they were “forced to prove their innocence rather than the government to prove their guilt” (Copeland).

Like most people, I believe in safety and the idea of helping to save lives in whatever way possible. If red light cameras have proven to be a success, by all means, then give those disobedient drivers their hundred dollar tickets for creating hazards on the road. But if this was the issue I wouldn’t be writing this paper. The truth of the matter is that I think red light cameras are a scam, a way Chicago’s Illinois department of transportation can create more revenue in a shorter amount of time. What it originally started out as is not what it has become to be. Sadly our government and society is run on money, the main objective of all companies is to make profit. Using less quality products and selling things at a price worth more than you’re getting is key. This is how companies work and how people get paid. So then why should red light cameras be any different? Safety and peoples’ lives are what’s different. People can choose to buy cheaper made things for a lesser price, but people can’t choose the drivers on the road with them and the decisions they make. Giving leeway for drivers to better direct the correct way to drive comes from traffic signals and lights. This is why I want to establish an increase in yellow light timings on all intersections because not only do I believe, but from the research conducted evidence found increasing yellow lights decreased straight through violations by 92 percent (“California: Longer Yellows Nearly Eliminate Violations”).

By the evidence shown, one simple change in the system drastically dropped the amount of red light runners. That only proves that it’s not the people who are wrong, but all that’s needs is a well-organized method to regulate traffic control. Every driver is taught the signs of the road and the rules to follow to insure their safety. The main role of a safe driver is to have the capacity to judge their situation every single second while they’re on the road. These cameras have caused a distraction which takes drivers’ eyes off the road and into the light not being able to see what’s going on around them. With the new shortened yellow lights, drivers have less of a warning to help them predict whether they will have to stop on the upcoming road. Yellow lights increase by even 2 seconds gives drivers time to judge their specific situation, giving them enough time to notice the red light coming so they can make their complete safe and full stop. When yellow lights are shortened, cars are not having enough time to stop and they run the light, slam on their breaks, or practically stop so abruptly they end up sliding onto the lane next to them. All these options increase the hazards for anyone on that road. If Redflex explained these effects in the beginning, there would have been no way any city would have agreed on the implementation of these types of enforcements. Instead “just let us set up our cameras, well give you never ending revenue from a source that has no constituency. All you have to do is take credit for saving lives” (Last). The people are what make up everything on earth, we should not look like dollar signs and we deserve the best protection even if this means no net profit, then it should still be worth it.

Most people don’t argue about red light cameras because they trust in the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to do the right thing when it comes to road side safety. People place too much trust into IDOT, but for what, it’s their job to calculate research and reports to get rid of the things that don’t work and to come up with something that does. Since the beginning, IDOT has worked to reduce accidents and help regulate laws which benefit our society, so why now has it changed. This agency’s main concern now is not safety as it used to be, but revenue and how much more they can get. A bill proposed by Senator Duffy to increase red light timings in Chicago was recently rejected by the IDOT. Duffy stated in an article, “I say that is an outrageous claim considering all studies show increasing yellow light times by one second drastically reduces red light running. I haven’t seen one study that refutes this. It’s mind boggling IDOT would oppose something that improves safety.”(The Expired Meter). In all research found, many states and university’s studied the effect of increasing yellow lights, and just as Duffy stated, only the difference in percentages, but they all decreased red light running by more than 50 percent. The differences depended on the intersection because some are fuller in traffic and due to environmental changes. The consistency shows a yellow brick pattern that we are not taking.

When lights are out, when signs aren’t clear, when paint is faded, all these problems create dangerous situations on the road. Reducing yellow light timing on intersections with red light cameras and not on regular intersections is the same thing. Yellow lights have become the new red lights, it’s impossible to make a yellow now. When drivers see an intersection coming up that has cameras, drivers don’t react with their habitual driving scheme, but it is their anxiety that turns on and people are no longer thinking about other drivers and other solutions, but they’re simply just trying to avoid getting that ticket and they do the most outrageous things like stopping early, gliding into the intersection, and even running the light all together. When drivers abruptly stop, they either increase the possibility for getting rear ended or they end up swerving into the lane next lane so they don’t cross the white line that the cameras are ready for.

This much is clear, red light cameras do give more awareness to drivers and can promote safety, but things need to be changed and revenue shouldn’t be accounted for. The IDOT should do what’s best for people like they have been doing all along. Sure creating an ever lasting amount of revenue is great, but it’s not working and they have no documentation to back them up. Red light cameras have been in effect since 2003 since the first camera went up. Ever since then, the growing population of cameras at intersections has spread to even having two up on one intersection and adding them on red light turns where accidents hardly even occur. Problems are only going to increase. Simply put, shortening the light and adding cameras is not doing anyone any good.

Works Cited

"California: Longer Yellows Nearly Eliminate Violations." TheNewspaper.Com. The News Paper.com, 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.

Cohn, Jeff. "Which States Ban the Use of Red Light Cameras?" Photo Enforced. 08 Feb. 2011. Web. 06 Feb. 2012.

Copeland, Larry. "Communities Put a Halt to Red-light Cameras - USATODAY.com." USATODAY.com. USA Today, 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.

The Expired Meter. "Illinois DOT Opposes Intersection Traffic Safety Bill." TheNewspaper.Com. The News Paper.com, 07 Mar. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.

Last, Jonathan V. "Rolling Back the Nanny State; One red-light camera at a time." The

Weekly Standard. 1 Aug. 2011.Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context.Web. 5 Feb.

2012.

“Q&A: Red Light Cameras." IIHS-HLDI: Highway Safety. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Sept. 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2012.

"Red-light Camera Enforcement." City of Chicago. Chicago Depatment of Transportation. Web. 07 Feb. 2012.

"Redflex Holdings Limited" Welcome to the Redflex Group. Redflex. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.