Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
111600 PTS Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] CALLTO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Thursday, November 16, 2000 at 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Edwards, Katan, Lanier, Connerton A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers ai'e limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you am called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICETOTHEPUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. North General Kearny Road Traffic Concerns RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide direction to staff. 2. Request for Traffic Signal - Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny the request for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road. 3. Request for Multi-Way Stop Controls - Nicolas Road at Roripaugh Road RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Roripaugh Road. 4. Signalized Intersection Enforcement 4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide direction to staff. 5. Traffic Engineer's Report 6. Police Chief's Report 7. Fire Chief's Report 8. Commission Reports ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 2 r:\t rafficXcommissnMgcnda',2000\ I I 16'xAgenda~'ajp ITEM NO. 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Engineer, Senior Traffic November 16, 2000 Item 1 North General Kearny Road Traffic Concerns RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of September 14, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a status report regarding the outcome of the North General Kearny Road Neighborhood Meeting. Following a brief discussion, staff was directed to agendize the issue for the November meeting to discuss traffic control alternatives including the possible closure of North General Kearny Road west of Willow Creek Road at the city limits and installation of multi-way stop controls. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. In October 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a request from Mr. Bob Lopshire, to evaluate the possibility of installing speed undulations or traffic circles on North General Kearny Road to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes. A petition with approximately two hundred-forty (240) signatures was received from residents of the area. Subsequently, at the meeting of November 18, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission denied the request for speed undulations and directed staff to bring the matter back after completion of the traffic circle feasibility evaluation and adoption of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. In June 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approved the staff recommendation to implement Stage 1 of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which ihcludes the implementation of the radar trailer, additional enforcement and a meeting with the residents. To date, the Police Department has posted the radar trailer and provided periodic enforcement of the speed limit on North General Kearny Road. In August 2000, approximately 280 notices advising the residents of the neighborhood meeting were delivered door-to-door by staff. The meeting was held Aug.ust 28, 2000, at City Hall Council Chambers. In attendance were Chairman Connerton, Commissioner Edwards, staff and 8 members of the community. The discussion of the issues resulted in the development of several educational and enfomement alternatives. r:\traffic\commissn\agenda\2000\0914\N. Genl Kearny As a result of the Commission meeting of September 14, 2000, staff investigated the feasibility of implementing signs denoting the fines for speed violations. Signs will be posted directly below the speed limit sign indicating "Fine To $281", as a means of deterring excessive vehicular speeds. The Temecula Police Department has been asked to monitor vehicular speed along North General Kearny Road to determine if the signs are effective in reducing vehicular speeds. The residents along North General Kearny Road have continually asked for a road closure at the tract boundary (city limits) west of Willow Creek Road. Although a closure at this location would greatly benefit the residents, the City Council is opposed to implementing further roadway closures as a means of controlling vehicular speeds and volumes. Therefore, staff cannot support or recommend a street closure on North General Kearny Road west of Willow Creek Road. The residents have also expressed interest in the installation of multi-way stop controls at several locations on North General Kearny Road as a means of reducing vehicular speeds and volumes. Our experience with implementing multi-way stop controls to control vehicular speeds on Calle Medusa and Via Cordoba has proven that stop signs are ineffective at reducing overall vehicular speeds. Before and after studies at these locations have shown that 85~ pementile speeds have remained consistent, even after the implementation of stop signs. A review of the warrant criteria for the use of multi-way stop controls was performed at four locations on North General Kearny Road. The intersections are Sierra Madre Drive, Cross Creek Court, Golden Rod Road, and Pauma Valley Road. The warrant analysis performed indicates that the existing volumes are considerably lower than the applicable warrant criteria. Therefore, staff does not support the implementation of multi-way stop controls to reduce vehicular speeds along North General Kearny Road. The Commission has considered the issue of vehicular speeds and volumes on North General Kearny Road at least six times in the past five years and each time, the Commission has denied the request for the installation of some form of traffic control device to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes. Since June 2000, Stage 1 of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program has been in place with concentrated enforcement (resources permitting) being performed on a weekly basis. To date, the residents along North General Kearny Road believe that enforcement has been ineffective in reducing vehicular speeds and volumes and would like the implementation of multi-way stop controls or a road closure. It is staff's opinion that consistent enforcement of the speed limit is the most appropriate means of reducing vehicular speeds along North General Kearny Road. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map r:\traffic\coramissn\agenda\2000\0914\N. Genl Kearny EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP [] ITEM NO. 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~li Moghadam, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer, November 16, 2000 Item 2 Request for Traffic Signal - Nicolas Road at North General Kearny Road RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny the request for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road. BACKGROUND: A request was received from Chairman Connerton to evaluate the need for traffic signal control at the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road. An evaluation of traffic conditions has been performed to determine if the intersection satisfies the minimum warrant criteria for the installation ora traffic signal. The evaluation includes a review of 24-hour vehicular volume data and accident history at the intersection. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. The justification for the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection is based on a series of eleven (11) warrants that have been established by Caltrans. Satisfying any one of these warrants, or a combination of warrants, could be justification for the installation of a traffic signal. These warrants are contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual that has been adopted by the City of Temecula as a guideline to be used in the evaluation and installation of traffic signals. The traffic signal warrant analysis performed for the intersection indicates that none of the 11 warrants am satisfied, either eighty pement (80%) or one hundred percent (100%). Therefore, a traffic signal is not justified at this intersection, at this time. Therefore, Staffrecommends denial of the request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolas Road and North General Kearny Road. Our review of the reported accident history for a twelve-month period from September 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000, revealed that no collisions occurred during this twelve-month period. This indicates that the existing multi-way stop controls are providing an effective means o fright-of-way assignment and traffic control. r:\tr affi c~commissnXagcnda~20O0\ 1116kNicolas~ngeneralkeamy.agn/aj p Although a traffic signal is not justified at this time, this intersection will be added to City's Traffic Signal Priority List. The list is reviewed annually and provides a means of programming projects and funding for inclusion in the City's Capital Improvement Program. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map r:\traffic~ommissn~agenda~2000\[ 116'xNicolas~ngeneralkeamy.agrdajp EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP I '~ 11 / / ITEM NO. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic November 16, 2000 Item 3 Request for Multi-Way Stop Control - Nicolas Road at Roripaugh Road RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Control at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Roripaugh Road. BACKGROUND: A request was received from Chairman Connerton to evaluate the need for Multi-Way Stop controls at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Roripaugh Road to encourage pedestrian crossing at the intersection. An evaluation of traffic conditions has been performed to determine if the intersection satisfies the minimum warrant criteria for the installation of Multi-Way stop control. The evaluation includes a review of 24-hour vehicular volume data and accident history at the intersection. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. The Caltrans Traffic Manual indicates that the Multi-Way Stop installation may be useful at locations where the volumes of traffic on intersecting roads am approximately equal and/or where a combination of high speed, restricted sight distance and an accident history indicates that assignment of right-of-way is necessary. There are three (3) criteria that Caltrans has established for the evaluation of Multi-Way Stop signs. These criteria are as follows: Where signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi-way stop may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installations. An accident problem, as indicated by five (5) or more reported accidents within a twelve (12) month period ora type susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such accidents include right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum Traffic Volumes The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight (8) hours of an average day, and r:\tra ffic~co mmissn~agendaL2000\ 1116~Nicolas~rodpaugh.agn/ajp The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight (8) hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but When the 85-pementile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 pement of the above requirements. The Multi-Way Stop warrant analysis performed for the intersection indicates that the existing volumes are considerably lower than the applicable warrant criteria. Additionally, them were no reported accidents within a twelve-month period at the intersection. Therefore, Multi-Way Stop signs are not justified at this location. In so far as providing a controlled crossing for school-aged pedestrians, there are currently two controlled crossings that are accessible to residents living on the eastside of Nicolas Road. The crossings am located at North General Kearny Road and at Winchester Road. Since the intersection does not satisfy the minimum warrants and separate safe pedestrian crossings are available, staff recommends denial of the request for Multi-Way Stop Control at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Roripaugh Road. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" - Traffic Volume Data r:\Waffi c~commissn~agendak2000\ 1116xNicolas~roripaugh.agn/ajp EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "B" TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA Z!TY CF TEMECULA NICOLAS ROAD S/O WINCNESTER RCAD 24 RR DIRECTIONAL VOLUME COUiql ~in < ...... NBND Ti~e A.M. !2:00 07/18 15 12:15 25 12:30 16 !2:45 7 63 01:00 i4 01:15 9 01:30 5 01:45 3 3i 02:00 8 02:15 ] 02:30 3 02:45 4 18 03:00 3 03:15 4 03:30 5 03:45 4 16 04:00 3 04:15 3 04:30 1 04:45 3 10 05:00 4 05:15 5 05:30 5 05:45 12-- 26 06:00 20 ~"15 30 ~0 29 06:45 50 129 07:00 77 07:15 38 07:30 44 07:45 27 186 08:00 43 08:15 34 08:30 40 08:45 46 163 09:00 43 09:15 56 09:30 49 09:45 46 194 10:00 36 10:15 40 10:30 46 10~45 60 190 11:00 58 11:15 61 11:30 70 1I~45 70 2~ Totals 1285 Day Totals 5289 Split % 30,8% ...... >< ...... SEND '2 8 E 9 54 8 122 348 6 31 ~? 2 ~0 8 ': 311 3 24 !4 7 85 4 98 337 3 15 84 6 75 4 115 357 9 26 84 19 104 22 i44 454 36 96 136 53 I38 49 143 65 113 530 82 249 i!3 76 124 123 104 452 152 428 94 176 86 118 78 343 I57 552 89 110 87 96 88 97 ~2 334 I01 404 86 93 72 90 80 99 50 2SB 80 362 58 78 38 84 23 82 19 !50 i01 345 :~ 85 22 102 ': 80 ': lO0 77 344 4004 2876 6140 $~.~% 69,1% 68 66 74 84 98 77 55 7I 62 46 51 55 42 30 40 38 31 22 22 17 18 14 22 14 3264 COUNTS UNLIMITEi 909-247-67!6 NORTH/SOUTH ...... >< ...... Combined 77 ZO 99 125 370 10 94 98 !6 84 92 i8 90 364 S 55 84 i5 79 69 7 93 325 ? 33 77 9 88 8. 65 !2 95 325 !3 42 93 22 105 89 23 99 386 39 106 106 57 94 54 90 7O 87 377 94 275 97 106 182 292 202 557 253 I39 162 301 184 738 158 i30 137 21~ 147 567 136 146 150 i26 556 114 132 128 92 161 535 I43 163 150 4161 11429 44,~% P,M. 158 !52 I63 247 718 185 !64 161 185 675 168 151 154 18) 662 171 163 138 210 682 187 217 193 243 840 242 232 233 200 907 179 179 198 188 744 192 162 141 149 644 I51 133 117 I47 548 128 102 120 88 438 80 6i 55 36 242 48 ~4 47 29 i68 7268 Peak Hour !h00 04:~5 06:30 12:30 06:45 04:45 V~hme 259 5~! 552 406 756 950 F. .92 .? .78 .8i .74 .97 Site <:~ : 15513945 Starc ~:e: 07118/2000 File 2.2. : TE0046EW Pas~ : ~ Tuesday CxTY DP ?INBL~LA 101IPAgGS lOAD I/O BIC0LAS i0AD 24 I~ i]l~lJlJ~ VOL~J~ ~DIT 009£m < ...... GlO Tile 12:00 10117 2 12:15 0 12:]0 0 12:45 0 2 01:00 O 01:15 01:30 0 01:¢S I 0 02:00 0 02:30 0 02:45 0 03:00 0 03:~5 0 03:30 1 0]:4S 2 Ot:O0 04:15 04:20 ] 0i:45 ~ 05:00 2 05:15 ~_ 05:45 4 lO O(:lS 5 IQ 0~:30 I ? 06:45 1] 36 4 07:00 1! 9 07:15 14 4 07:30 0 0?:45 4 A 2 00:00 5 0 00:]5 12 5 00:30 10 5 00:45 22 ~ 4 09:00 9 0~:15 4 4 0~:30 0 1 05:45 ~ ~ 2 lO;QO 0 3 10:30 4 2 20:65 0 26 1 11:00 ! l 11:15 S 0 11:30 5 22:~5 ,.7 ?st&lo {10 Da7 ToClla 541 SnliL I 10COt 100.00 P.M.. A.H. 5 10 2? 7 2 ] 26 24 7 16 12 Il 10 ? 0 Peak Hoer 00:15 02:]0 VO]Ule 52 1! ¢OOr~S ~LI#ITJD, 909'247'S716 iii't/liST ...... )( ...... COlbi~Jd P.#. O 0 0 * 0 2 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 ' 0 1 0 0 0 * 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 18 0 l& 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 ' 0 ' 1 0 08:15 .SO 5 6 6 10 IG 21 51 24 ? 0 t5 54 14 02 14 12 12 7 39 26 2? 44 18 48 22 22 Il 2i ? {.{ ! 4 542 02:30 .?S Site Code: ISI? ~tar: Date: 10/17/2000 file l,O. : ?{lO#Oil ~g ~L'J~cl JNI G'qlINI~N~ SINIqOO Pgggb~6606 TG:Sg gglaZ/£~/GT ITEM NO. 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~"~Ati Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic November 16, 2000 Item 4 Signalized Intersection Enforcement RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive the report and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the issue of intersection red light violations and consider various alternatives. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. At the meeting of Mamh 9, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a detailed presentation from Ms. Lauri Keller, representing Lockheed Martin IMS regarding traffic signal photo enforcement. Following a brief discussion, the Commission recommended and approved a motion that the City Council pursue the implementation of the photo enforcement program and that the project be included in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Subsequently, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2000/2005 Operating Budget that included funding for a consultant study to identify the benefits and costs of various enforcement programs in the City of Temecula. Staff is in the process of preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a consultant for the study. Prior to the installation of their red light camera program the City of Garden Grove performed an extensive evaluation of other camera systems and the legality of those programs. The results of the evaluation are attached as Exhibit "B". In 1995 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), created a Stop Red Light Running Program to raise driver awareness of the dangers of red light running and to help reduce fatalities attributed to red light violations. For the past three years, during the month of October, the program has sponsored a nationwide campaign called National Stop on Red Week, a week dedicated to educating Americans about the dangers of running red lights. Although we have missed this year's campaign, the Commission may want to recommend that the City Council consider promoting a campaign next year. Staff recommends that the Commission review the attached (Exhibit "C") Stop Red Light Running Program material and agendize the issue for further discussion at a future meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: Exhibit "A" -Minutes and Agenda Report, Public/Traffic Safety Commission Meeting 03/09/2000 Exhibit "B"-Red Light Camera Program Evaluation, City of Garden Grove Exhibit "C" - Stop Red Light Running Program r :\traffic\commissn~agenda~2000\ 1116Xphot cen forcemcnt.agn/aj p EXHIBIT "A" MINUTES AND AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 9, 2000 For informational purposes, provided the Commissioners with an article from the Los Angeles Times newspaper, dated March 1, 2000, entitled Pedestrian Versus Automobile; It's a Two-Way Street. Commissioner Ccc, echoed by Commissioners Connerton and Edwards, relayed to Mr. Markham that he was greatly missed on the Commission. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 10, 2000 MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ccc and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Katan who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Traffic Si,qnal Photo Enforcement RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public.~'raffic Safety Commission review a presentation on Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement, and make a recommendation to the City Council. It was noted for the record that Commissioner Katan ardved at the meeting at 6:55 P.M. 'Senior Engineer Moghadam introduced Ms. Keller, noting that she would provide additional information regarding the photo enforcement system. Ms. Laud Keller, representing Lockheed Martin IMS, via overheads, provided a detailed presentation regarding Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement, relaying the following: Provided information regarding the technology of the system, as follows: 1) the automated traffic enforcement which created photographic evidence of the violation, 2) the key components of the photo enforcement inclusive of the detection system, and the violation processing system, and 3) the deployment strategy. Relayed the procedure of processing citations, noting the alternate entities that would be involved (i.e., the Police Department, Court Services). Apprised the Commission of the documented data regarding reduction in red light violations ranging from 40-92% in alternate cities after the implementation of the program. Noted that the housing components for the red light cameras could be custom designed, citing examples from alternate cities. Specified that for each violation there were two images taken, noting that the speed was also measured. Via photographs, presented samples of the photo images, noting the additional specifications provided per the violation data box. Provided additional information regarding the complete violation processing service, collection efforts, and provision of monthly analysis reports. Relayed that per California Legislative requirements there would be a 30-day warning period prior to commencement of the program, noting the community education process. Noted that waming signs were required via State law to be installed either at the major entrances to the City (which was recommended) or at the intersections. Provided additional information regarding the studies completed in order to determine which intersections and which approaches would be effective locations for placing the units. Relayed the comprehensive services offered by Lockheed Martin IMS. Noted the potential for the utilization of digital cameras at a future point in time, relaying that the cameras would be upgraded to digital at that time. Provided additional information regarding the manufacturing firm utilized by the company. For Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Keller provided additional information regarding the reduction in red light violations after installation of the units, In response to Commissioner Edwards, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the interaction between the loop system had been investigated, noting that there would be no negative impacts. For Chairman Connerton, Ms. Keller relayed that initially the film would be picked up daily, noting that there was a six-day turnaround time from the day the violation was photographed to the time the citation was sent out; noted that the costs associated with the warning signs would be funded by the City; provided additional information regarding tickets fought in court, noting that after the first three months, there was a dramatic decrease, relaying that there was training involved with respect to the courts; and confirmed that for five camera units (which had a three-year contractual period) the cost would be $17,000 a month for one year which would be for the construction, hardware, and technology, noting that there was an on-going per ticket processing fee which would be a portion of the violation fee. In response to Chairman Connerton's' queries, Police Chief Domenoe provided clarification regarding the revenues associated with violations, noting that there was a cap amount of revenues the City could collect from the issuance of citations; recommended that the City make its decision as to whether to install the cameras based on the safety aspects of the program. Clanfying that this particular program would not be a revenue generator for the City, Commissioner Edwards recommended that the consideration be aimed at the program's effectiveness with respect to preventing accidents, saving lives, and safety issues. For Commissioner Coe, Police Chief Domenoe advised that red light violations contribute to solely 10% of traffic collisions; and advised that pdor to making a recommendation in favor of, or opposed to the program, he would need to investigate input from alternate cities that had utilized the cameras. For Commissioner Edwards, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that red light violations associated with left-turning movements did not significantly negatively impact the traffic circulation in the City; advised that the majodty of collisions in the City were caused by rear-end accidents which the red light cameras were not expected to decrease; and for Commissioner Coe, noted that this issue could be brought back to the Commission with additional data from alternate cites that had utilized the red light camera program. Police Chief Domenoe relayed that the most effective aspect of this device would most likely be with respect to changing the ddving culture due to the surety of being cited. For Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Keller provided additional information regarding installing additional housing units, and transferring the camera units. In response to Senior Engineer Moghadam's queries, Ms. Keller provided additional information regarding the companies involvement with public awareness programs (i.e., press conference, training, web-site page); clarified the analysis process with respect to the data revealing reductions in violations; and provided additional information regarding the City's share of revenues that would be collected on a per ticket basis. For Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Keller relayed that videos regarding the red light camera program would be available for the City's use for public awareness. Chairman Connerton relayed that it appeared to him that the cost figures and percentages denoted in the data provided were inaccurate. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that this presentation to the Commission was for the purpose of reviewing the red light camera system, noting that the cost aspects of the issue would be addressed by the Council in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); relayed that if the City pursued the matter, a consultant would be hired to evaluate numerous systems, and then the project would go out for competitive bid. Mr. John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, noted that the number of red light violations has increased in the City; and relayed that he was strongly in favor of the program. In response to Commissioner Edwards' quedes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the Commission should consider the following with respect to the red light camera system, and its recommendation to Council: the enhancement of public safety, the impact on accidents, the minimizing of the need of patrol officers; and advised that the Commission could additionally recommend that specific intersections be considered for this program. For Commissioner Katan, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the intersection monitoring system denoted in the five-year CIP was unrelated to the red light camera units; and provided additional information regarding the monitoring system. For Commissioner Coe, Police Chief Domenoe relayed that the red light camera program would most likely not significantly impact citizens committing alternate violations. Commissioner Edwards recommended that the program be pursued by the City Council and that additional data be compiled. Chairman Connerton relayed that this program would be beneficiai to the City. MOTION: Commissioner Coe moved to recommend that the City Council pursue the implementation of the red light camera program. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Edwards. (This motion was ultimately amended, see below.) In response to Chairman Connerton's' quedes with respect to funding issues, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Commission's recommendation could be inclusive of a recommendation to add this project to the CIP. MOTION: Commissioner Coe moved to recommend that the City Council pursue the implementation of the red light camera program; and recommended that this program be included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3. Citywide Traffic Enforcement - Additional Police Officers RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a report regarding additional Police Officers and Citywide Traffic Law enfomement, and provide further direction to staff. Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed the Commission's request to agendize this issue to investigate the feasibility of providing additional Police Officers in order to increase enforcement throughout the City. Police Chief Domenoe thanked the Commission for its continued support of public safety in the City of Temecula, specifically with respect to the Police Department's role in the matter; noted his involvement with the Commission prior to City's incorporation, acknowledging that the Commission has always sought to serve the best interests of the community; relayed that the Police staffing levels are ultimately set by the City Council via the annual budgeting process after consideration of recommendations from the Police Department and the City Manager; advised that the current staffing level was adequate for this budget year, noting that he anticipated that the Police Department would be requesting additional personnel due to the continued growth with respect to AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam,.P.E.,.Senior Engineer, Traffic March 9, 2000 Item 2 Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a presentation on Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement, and make a recommendation to the City Council. BACKGROUND: At a recent meeting, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission requested that staff agendiTe this item and review the feasibility of implementing a traffic signal photo enforcement program at major intersections throughout the City. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's comiderailon of this issue through the agenda notification process. At the meeting of Oclober 14, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a brief status report regarding the use of traffic signal photo enforcement. Subsequent to the meeting, staff received a demonstration from Lockheed Martin IMS that identified the system's operation and alternative methods of processing the violations. Ms. Lauri Keller, Regional Marketing Manager, Lockheed Martin IMS will provide a brief presentation and answer questions regarding the photo enforcemem system. Additional information and handouts will be provided at the meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: None EXHIBIT "B" RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAM EVALUATION CITY OF GARDEN GROVE RED LIGHT CAMERAS QUESTIONS & ANSWERS What are red light cameras? Red light cameras help communities enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing the license plates of vehicles whose drivers commit red light violations. A md light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensom buried in the pavement, at the crosswalk, or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal, and the camera itself is triggered by any vehicte passing over the sensors above a pre-set minimum speed and following a specified intenral after the signal has turned red. Is red light running a big problem? Yes. U.S Secretary of Transportation, Fededco Pe~a, recently stated that one fourth of urban accidents am due to red light violations. Most communities throughout the nation are reflective of this trend. Isn't conventional law enforcement sufficient? Enforcing traffic laws in dense urban areas by traditional means poses special difficulties for law enforcement off(ers, who in most cases must follow a vehicle through a red light to stop it. This can endanger other motorists and pedestrians as well as officers, and ofrmers can't be everywhere at once. Communities don't have the resources to allow officers to patrol intersections as often as would be needed to ticket all motorists who run red lights. Consequently, few red-light violators actually receive tickets which is why red light violations have become such a big problem. What safety benef'~s do red light cameres provide? They've been shown to reduce md light violations and intersection crashes. For example, in Los Angeles County where the cameras have been in use for over two years violations have been reduced up to 92% at monitored intersections. Do the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection? No, a photograph is only triggered when a violation occurs. Drivers who enter on yellow and find themselves in an intersection when the light changes to red aren't photographed. Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy? No. Ddving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, motorists agree to abide by cerlain rules - to obey traffic signals, for example. In January 1996, California Senate Bill 833 took effect, specifically authorizing the use of the cameras at intersections in California. Are red light camera programs expensive? There are no initial investment costs to the City. All operating costs are offset by fines paid by violators. In this manner, the Red Light Camera program is a violation funded program th~at has no cost to the taxpayer. What communities CU~Tently use red light cameras? They are currently used in New York City, Los Angeles County, Fo[t Meade (Florida), Arlington (Virginia) and Jackson (Michigan). In addition, the California cities of El Cajon, Poway, Ox'nard, and San Francisco are currently installing units for enfomement. RECEIVED ;.,,~, :~ ,~ 2000 Cl~' OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Red Light Camera Contact People City of Los Angeles Joe Kennedy (213) 485-3039 Court Action V.J. Khwani System Operations Manager (213) 922-7275 City of Los Angeles Glenn Ogoura Working on Red Light Programs (15 Loc) (213) 580-5220 City of Oxnard Joe Genavice Has wri~en a report 22% reduction (805) 385-7868 Culvert City Sgt. Fogel (310) 837-1221 Beverly Hills Police Traffic Division Bill Kirkpatric (310) 285-2195 Beverly Hills Municipal Court Court Administrator Joe Padilla (310) 288-1288 Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Jim Curry (213) 362-8377 Joseph Kolkmeyer 181 Bridle Path Williamsville, NY 14221 Lockheed Martin (619) 703-2000 Dana King or Robert Ken Nestor, Inc. One Richmond Square Providence, RI 02906 Douglas L. Reilly, Ph.D., Senior V.P. (401) 331-9640 Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. 703 Market Street, Suite 1903 San Francisco, CA 94103 Barbara Y. Miller, President (415) 538-1800 ext. 1801 3.doc City of Garden Grove INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: George L. Tindall From: Les M. Jones II Dept: City Manager Dept: Public Works Subject: TRIAL AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT Date: July 27, 1999 CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVE To hold a public hearing and award a contract for the installation of a six-month trial automated red-light camera enforcement program. BACKGROUND Since 1989, the City of Garden Grove has experienced an increase in the number of traffic collisions involving red-light violations. These violations have resulted in sedous injury and/or fatal consequences. The following chart shows the results of a three (3) year analysis of red-light violation accidents compared to the total accid&nts for the City of Garden Grove: Year 1995 1996 1997 Injured 209 169 240 Fatalities 4 9 8 Total Injured and Fatal 213 178 248 Property Damage Only 564 594 652 Total Number of Accidents 1131 1108 1277 % of Fatalities Caused by Red- Light Violations 75% 33% 40% The above chart illustrates that, in addition to a high percentage of fatal accidents attributed to red-light violations, there has also been an extremely high number of injury and property accidents resulting from red-light violations. Moreover, fatal crashes resulting from red-light violations rose to 40% in 1997, from 33% in 1996. Nationwide, red-light violations have also increased. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a report (1997) stating that there were 809 fatal collisions nationwide involving red-light violations in 1996, up from 702 in 1992. Nationwide, drivers who violated red-lights caused approximately 2.5% of all fatal crashes. DISCUSSION As required under California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21455.5 and 21455.6, staff has posted a notice of a public hearing for a six-month trial of an automated red-light camera enforcement program. TRIAL AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENTPROGRAM July 27,1999 Page 2 DISCUSSION (Continued) Red-light cameras can help the City of Garden Grove enforce traffic laws by automatical~y'~hotographing vehicles whose drivers clearly run red lights. A red light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors buded in the pavement at the crosswalk or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal, and the camera itself is triggered by any vehicle passing over the sensors above a pre- set minimum speed and specified time after the signal has turned red. This assures only true violators are recorded. A second photograph is taken that typically shows the red light violator in the intersection. The camera records the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and the speed of the vehicle. Electronic flash produces clear images of vehicles under all light and weather conditions. Citations are sent by mail to owners of violating vehicles, based on review of photographic evidence. Staff has researched automated red-light camera enforcement programs with the following cities that have over one year of experience: · City of San Diego, CA · City of El Cajon, CA · City of Poway, CA · City of Beverly Hills, CA · MTA Los Angeles, CA · City of Los Angeles, CA · City of San Jose, CA · City of San Francisco, CA · City of Oxnard, CA · City of Fairlax, VA All of the cities responded that accidents rates were reduced between 27% and 40% and that the program was very effective in changing driver behavior. Additionally, staff found that the program procedures employed by the City of Beverly Hills provide an excellent model for Garden Grove to f~llow. On November 2, 1998, staff met with Presiding Judge Thomas Bords at West Court to discuss the operational procedures and concerns that the Court might foresee in using the red-light camera violation system. Judge Borris noted the following two concerns related to the issuance of citations for a camera violation: 1) original failure to appear and 2) prosecution. Staff researched these two concerns and found a solution to both. Therefore, staff met again with Judge Borris regarding these issues. He stated he was willing to use a trial period to determine the effects the program would have on West Court. As a result of this meeting, staff has proceeded to determine the operational needs and economic benefits of this program. The following information was developed: Failure to Appear Initially, the Court was concerned that there may be a high number of violators who will not appear because the citation does not have the violator's signature promising to appear. It was determined that CVC Section 40518 covers this concern; the Court may choose any appropriate method io compel the violator to appear if there is proof of mailing provided by the citing agency. In addition, and in order to address the concerns of the Court, the City agreed'to implement a trial program for a period of six months. TRIAL AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM July 27, 1999 Page 3 Prosecution With the reduction of Court personnel, the Court was concemed that prosecution of the offenses would not be feasible. The Court has now agreed that if police officers are trained and certified on the camera enforcement program, they can testify the same way they presently do with radar citations. Red Liqht Camera Staffinq The automated red-light camera enforcement program requires a high degree of training to process and present cases in a court of law. The minimum staff required would be two sworn police officers. With two officers, there would be no gap if one officer is on vacation, sick, or unable to appear or process the citations as required. Additionally, it is estimated that approximately 500 man-hours will be required of the Traffic Engineer to monitor the system during the tdal period. This time will be used to work with the Contractor, Police Department, and West Court to make certain that the final evaluation of the program is realistic. Economic Benefits The red-light camera programs found to exist in California have established two verifiable benefits. First, the system significantly reduces traffic accidents. Second, significant revenue is generated through photographic enforcement due, in large part, to the enactment of AB 233. Currently, the City is collecting approximately one million dollars ($1,000,000) per year, as a result of AB 233 which became effective on July 1, 1998. AB 233 redistributed traffic fine revenue to provide a higher percentage of revenue back to the issuing agency. Implementation of an automated red-light camera enforcement program should result in a significant increase in traffic fine revenue to the City. Alternatives considered The Garden Grove Police Department would continue to enforce red-light violations through traditional, yet less effective, motorcycle officer enforcement with no red-light enforcement tools in-place. Committees On February 13, 1997, staff made a presentation to the City Traffic Committee at their regular scheduled meeting. Staff continued to research the feasibility of implementing a red-light camera program. Staff presented additional information at the August 13, 1998 Traffic Committee meeting; the Committee recommended approval unanimously. Proposa~ Staff requested proposals from four firms who provide red-light camera systems. These included: 1) Redflex Traffic Systems of San Francisco, CA 2) Nestor Traffic Systems of Providence, RI 3) Tellis Traffic, Inc. of Scottdale, AZ 4) Lockheed Martin IMS of San Diego, CA TRIAL AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM July 27, 1999 Page 4 DISCUSSION (Continued) The proposals were reviewed by Public Works, Police Department, and Controller's Office. staff and ranked according to the firm's qualification and an evaluation of the technical support criteria. Redflex received the highest ranking. Redflex will install and maintain all equipment, and process all citations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts. FINANCIAL IMPACT The expected revenue generated from this program would offset the cost of the two enforcement positions, and also provide significant revenue potential to the City. A Iow estimate shows that the system would generate approximately one million dollars annually. Moreover, the two officers could work additional field enforcement when they are not working on the red-light camera system, thus producing additional revenue. Redflex Traffic Systems has agreed to an evaluation trial period of six months at six approaches, as requested by the West Court. Using a conservative estimate of ten citations issued and a collection rate of 70% per day, per approach, the revenue of this trial program would be as follows: Red-Light Camera Program Service Pricing - Transaction Based Per Paid Ticket Pricing 6 Mos Trial TOTAL Violation Data Number of Violations per day per approach 25 * Issuance Rate 40% = Number of Issued Citations per day per approach 10 * Number of installed approaches 6 = Total Number of Issued Citations 10,950 * Collection Rate 70% = Total Number of Citations collected 7,665 7,665 Gross Revenue Information $ 1,086,897 $1,086,897 Fee Information Transaction Fee paid to Contractor* $ 935,130 $ 935,130 Project Management Fee $ 0 $ 0 On-going Transaction Fee $ 0 $ 0 Total Fee $ 935,130 $ 935,130 Net Revenue Information Total Net Revenue received by City $ 151,767 ,' $ 151,767 Assumptions: Fine revenue received per paid citation by City Transaction Fee paid to contractor for first 18 months* Monthly Fee for Project Management, per approach On-going Transaction Fee Per Paid Citation Reduction in violations after Year 1 Reduction in violations after Year 2 $ 141.80 $ 122.00 per citation 0 0 25% 40% 'After 18 mos. the equipment is paid for and the transaction fee paid to the Contractor is eliminated. At this time, the transaction fee is replaced by an annual project management fee of $561,600. AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM July 27,1999 Page 5 FINANCIAL IMPACT (Continued) A special revenue and capital fund will be established with 50% of the net revenue, altec providing for operational expenses. This is to assure that additional traffic safety projects to reduce accidents can be provided without using monies from the general fund. These would consist of projects such as restriping, intersection improvements, signal modifications, and community safety programs that the City Council may wish to initiate. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: · Adopt a resolution to implement a red-light camera enforcement program. · Approve a contract with Redflex Traffic Systems for a trial of six months (6) and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. · Authorize the City Controller to establish a traffic safety improvement special revenue -. and card with 50% of the net revenue and the remainder going to the general ,~~.~.~ ~...__fund'(/ _'~-- . LES M. JONES II ~,, '~ Public Works Director ~ By: Attachments: Resolution Agreement Attachment A, B, and C Letter of Intent Vehicle Codes h:\george\trialau 1 .doc' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ESTABLISHING AN AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM WHEREAS, a public hearing was called for on Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the Community Meeting Center, Garden Grove, California, to ascertain whether the public necessity, health, safety, or welfare requires an automated enforcement system within the city. WHEREAS, Vehicle Code sections 21455.5 and 21455.6 authorize cities to establish automated enforcement systems employing photographic equipment for traffic violations at intersections, and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing regarding the possible establishment of an automated enforcement system was published in the Orange County News, and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 27, 1999, regarding the possible establishment of an automated enforcement system. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Garden Grove that an automated enforcement system as set forth in the staff report dated July 27, 1999, be and is hereby established. h:~george\resol6.doc VEHICLE CODES 40518. Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems: Notice to Appear: (a) Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of Section 22451, or, based on an alleged violation of Section 21453, 21455, or 22101 recorded by an automated enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 22451, and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle on file with the department, with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a ptea. Preparation and delivery of a notice to appear pursuant to this section is not an arrest. (b) A notice to appear shall contain the name and address of the person, the license plate number of the person's vehicle, the violation charged, including a description of the offense, and the time and place when, and where, the person may appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail. The time specified shall be at least 10 days after the notice to appear is delivered. 40520. Notice to Appear: Affidavit of Non-Liability (a) A notice to appear issued pursuant to Section 40518 for an alleged violation recorded by an automatic enforcement system shall contain, or be accompanied by, an affidavit of non-liability and information as to what constitutes non-liability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the issuing agency. (b) (1) If a notice to appear is sent to a car rental or leasing company, as the registered owner of the vehicle, the company may return the notice of non-liability pursuant to paragraph (2), if the violation occurred when the vehicle was either leased or rented and operated by a person other than an employee of the rental or leasing company. (2) If the affidavit of non-liability is returned to the issuing agency by the registered owner within 30 days of the mailing of the notice to appear together with the proof of a written rental agreement or lease between a bona fide renting or leasing company and its customer and that agreement identifies the renter or lessee and provides the driver's license number, name, and address of the renter or lessee, the agency shall cancel the notice for the registered owner to appesr and shall, instead, issue a notice to appear to the renter or lessee identified In the affioavit of non-liability. (c) Nothing in this section precludes an issuing agency from establishing a procedure whereby registered owners, other than bona fide renting and leasing companies, may execute an affidavit of non-liability if the registered owner identifies the person who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and whereby the issuing agency issues a notice to appear to that person. 23. When Notice Complete The giving of notice by personal delivery is complete upon delivery of a copy of the notice to the person to be notified. The giving of notice by mail is complete upon the expiration of four days after deposit of the notice in the mail, except that in the case of a notice informing any person of an offense against him under section 40001, the notice is complete 10 days after mailing. C VC 21455-21455. 6 21455 When an official traffic control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this article shall be applicable except those provisions which by their nature can have no application. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or crosswalk or limit line indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of any such sign or marking the stop shall be made at the signal. 2-'1455.5 (a) The limit line, the intersection, or other places designated in Section 21455 where a driver is required to stop may be equipped with an automated enforcement system if the system is identified by signs clearly indicating the system's presence, visibte to traffic approaching from all directions, or if signs are posted at all major entrances to the city, including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes. Any city utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system at intersections shall, prior to issuing citations, commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program. Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated enforcement system. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other provision of law, photographic records made by an automated enforcement system shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies for the purposes of this article. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the registered owner or any individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation. '2 2'1455.6 (a) A city council or county board of supervisors shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of automated enforcement systems authorized pursuant to Section 21455.5 prior to that city or county entering into a contract for the use of those systems. (b) The authorization in Section 21455,5 to use automated enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar by any jurisdiction. h:\george~vehcod.doc CITY OF GARDEN GROVE INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM. To: George Allen From: Inv. Karl Mansfield Dept: Traffic Engineering Dept: Traffic Unit GGPD Subject: Red Light Camera Staffing Date: May 24, 1999 This memo is intended to address the future departmental needs pertaining to the implementation of the city's Red Light Camera Enforcement Program. Several similar programs throughout the state have been evaluated and an 'on-site' visit was made to determine the feasibility of the camera system. Rather than re-invent the program, the program most similar to our needs was studied closely, the Bevedy Hills PD program. Their mistakes, successes and adjustments clearly establish the resources needed to effectively run the program. The primary resource needed is personnel. As established through the Beverly Hills model the Garden Grove program would require two additional motorcycle traffic officer positions. Two officers are needed due to the high level of training required to process and present the cases in a court of law. With two officers there would be no gap if one officer is on vacation, sick or injured and unable to appear or process the citations as required. If only one officer were in charge of the program his or her absences would create a serious dilemma. I would strongly argue against the idea of assigning the program to existing traffic officers due to work load involved. The traffic unit is currently involved in a two year Office of Traffic Safety Grant which requires a great deal of work for the existing staff. In addition to the grant the current traffic staff is already assigned multiple specialized functions and some of the officers are currently performing two to four functions, they would not be able to absorb the additional work requirements of the camera program. If the program were assigned to current staff it could cause the failure of the current traffic grant which would in turn cost the city of Garden Grove several hundred thousand dollars. The Red Light Camera Programs currently in existence have established two verifiable facts. The system significantly reduces traffic accidents and their related violations, and significant revenue is generated through photographic enforcement. I strongly recommend the Red Light Camera Program be implemented in the following manner. The police department currently has two motorcycle traffic officer positions left vacant from the Office of Traffic Safety Grant of 1991 to 1993. These vacant position would be ideal in dealing with the demands of the Red Light Camera program and the officers could be dedicated solely to the program. The revenue generated from this program would easily offset the cost of the two positions while still providing considerable revenue to the city's general fund, A Iow estimate shows that the system would generate one million dollars annually, the two officer positions would cost one hundred to one hundred twenty thousand dollars leaving a eight hundred to nine hundred thousand dollars surplus to the city's general fund. In addition these officers could work additional field enforcement when they are not working on the Red Light Camera system, thus producing additional revenue. Respectfull ~.~ ubmitted, ~ K~I ~. Mg;field~ Traffic Accident Investigator RED LIGHT CAMERA MEETING APRIL 26, 1999 3:00 P.M. AGENDA Police (a) (b) (c) (d) Department Personnel Motor officer needs 1. One full day a week 2. Hours for remaining days How much from ticket revenue? Can we operate like Beverly Hills? Establish type of criteria for ticket issuance II. Courts (a) Assign a Judge-Pro-Tem one day a week (b) How much do we offer COUrt from ticket revenue? 1. Percentage per court ticket paid 2. Flat fee each month 3. Other possibilities (c) Discuss with John Shaw possibilities of agreement 1. Statement to cover if and when new law places burden on courts Iit RFP (a) Both wet film and laser 1. Can we incorporate laser when data supports effectiveness? 2. Existing operations i. Name of City and contact person ii. Demonstration locations for review 3, Experience with "turn key" operations i. How system works ii. Success rate on average IV Develop split of ticket revenue percentages (a) Motor officer (b) Courts (c) Safety project (trust fund) (d) General revenue Note: City will receive $137.69 for each paid citation. V. Next step (a) Agreement with courts (b) George Tindall (c) Central Management (d) EDIC again (e) Council VI. Final comments and direction for proceeding h:\george~'edl.doc City of Garden Grove INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: George L. Tindall From: Les M. Jones II Dept: City Manager Dept: Public Works Subject: STATUS OF RED LIGHT CAMERA Date: March3, 1999 PROPOSAL Staff has received four proposals for the installation and operation of a Red Light Camera program. Each proposal has been evaluated by staff, Police, City Attorney, and Controller's Of flee. Staff is prepared to present its recommendations once the details with the local courts have been cleared. A second meeting was held with the courts on February 3, 1999, and additional questions were raised. Stuff is currently working on a proposal that will satisfy the courts' current concerns. Data has been obtained from the Cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Oxnard, Culver City, and from Metro Transit Authority (MTA). Only MTA has resolved the issues that concern the courts, because they are processed through city courts, not through the county court system. It is anticipated that by the end of March staffwill have developed solutions that will allow us to proceed with a trial installation as suggested by the West Court. Staff would like to develop, if possible, a complete~lution to the courts' concerns whereby a full program can be implemented. LES M. JONES~I~~ Director of Publi~J~t~s By: Tra ~Engineer h:\george~tared.doc City of Garden Grove INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: George L. Tindall From: Les M. Jones, II Dept: City Manager Dept: Public Works Subject: RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT TRAFFIC Date: October 6,1998 CAMERA PROGRAM Staff from the Controller's Office and Engineering has met with Red Flex Traffic to discuss their proposal for the installation of a Red-Light Enforcement Traffic Camera program. Staff is currently in consultation with the Police Department to coordinate a meeting with the presiding judge of the West Traffic Court to resolve any concerns the court may have in such a program. Upon completion of resolving any issue relating to the implementation of an enforcement program, staff will prepare a report to present to the Council for consideration and possible authorization to install such a system in the city of Garden Grove. :LES M. JONES, II Director of Public Works By: h:\george\redlight.doc To: Dept: Subject: Ci~ o: garden Grove ~.. .. ~...~Ow_l~k,O INTER-DEPARTM~T ~MO~NDUM ~0~ Les M. Jones, II From: Jim L. Smith Public' Works Dept: P.W. - Engineering RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT TRAFFIC Date: November 12. 1998 CAMERA PROGRAM On November 2,1998, staff met with the Presiding Judge Borris at West Court to discuss the operational procedure and concerns that the court might foresee in using the red-light camera violation system. His Honor noted that the Courts would have to face two major problems related to the issuance of citations for a camera violation, which are as follows: Original Failure to Appear. The judge stated there is a major problem when the original notice is not signed by the driver, therefore failure to appear is not enforceable. There are two possible solutions. First, the City of San Francisco, City of E1 Cajon, and the City of Poway use the California Vehicle Code (CVC) number 40509.1. The court could use this code to advise the Department of Motor Vehicles of such failure which permits DMV to refuse to reissue a driver's license or automobile registration. Second, the court could issue a Bench Warrant for Failure to Appear. When a person appears at court to receive a court date, he or she would be required to sign a statement that he or she would appear as promised. This could be used the same as signing the actual violation. Prosecution. Judge Borris stated the courts do not have a person to prosecute traffic violation citations. Solution. The City Attorney':; office could be assigned to prosecute traffic violations. The additional cost connected with this prosecution could be conveyed from fines. RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT TRAFFIC CAMERA PROGRAM November 12, 1998 Page 2 It is recommended that a meeting be scheduled with the City Attorney, Chief of Police, and Traffic Engineer to establish the preferred approach and again meet with the Presiding Judge for his concurrence. When the preferred procedure has been agreed upon, staff will, in January, present a report to City Council. JIM L. SMITH, I~E. City Engineer By: . , .E. Traff~ Engineer Attachments cc: Police Chief Polisar Officer Mansfield h:\george\cameral.doc Page I of 2 From: Steve LaFond <stevela@ch.ci.garden-grove.ca.us> To: georgea@ch.ci.garden-grove.ca.us <georgea@ch.ci.garden-g rove.ca.us> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:57 AM Subject: Fw: Good News on Red Light Running ..... Original Message .... From: CONNIESDAD@aol.com <CONNIESDAD_~,aol.com> To: Multiple recipients of list cpslist <cpslist@wildhack.com> Date: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:42 AM Subject: Good News on Red Light Running Automated Cameras Work: FHWA Study Finds Red Light Running Violations Down 60 Percent A report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration shows that red light running violations decreased by as much as 60 percent at intersections where cameras automatically enforce the law. The report analyzed results of red light running camera programs in Los Angeles County; San Francisco New York City; Howard County, Md.; and Polk County, Fla. In Los Angeles, cameras were ~nstalled at rail-grade crossings. Reductions in violations by 92, 78 and 34 percent were found at each of three crossings where cameras were initially installed. Six months into the pilot program in San Francisco, the number of vehicles photographed running red lights at intersections with enforcement cameras decreased more than 40 percent. A 38 percent reduction in violations in New York City led to the extension of state legislation enabling the use of automated enforcement. Maryland's public education and awareness program, which included automated cameras at selected intersections, resulted in a decrease in violations from 90 per day to 60. Florida transportation officials reported that this technology brought about a decrease in violations and proved to be accurate, safe, reliable & cost-effective. In 1998, there were almost 1.8 million intersection crashes, including those caused by drivers running red lights. The crashes resulted in 1.2 million injuries and more than 8,000 deaths. This message was sent by the CPSLIST mailing list. The CPSLIST is provided by the Center for Injury Prevention (CIP). Funding support is provided by CIP and our 1998 Child Passenger Safety Advocacy Conference Sponsors: Graco Children's Products, Century, Safe Ride News, Britax, Ford Motor Company, National Safe Kids Campaign and 2/24/00 SafetyBeltSafe USA. To subscribe or un-subscribe please go to: http://www.childsafety.org/cpslist.html Please report any problems to: jeffrev@wildhack.com Page 2 of 2 2/24/00 City-Certificate of mailing Code of Civil procedure 1013 & 1013a Copy of Cert of Mail · Citation · Cert of Mail California State Code of Civil Procedure 1013 & 1013a need City Attorney to develop a fohn that meets these standards so courts will have to accept method we use. 1 .doc FEB £6 ~D9 OI:~SPM LOS AM~ELES FAX COVEI~SHEET i pages including this fax transmittal sheet You should receivei ~ i Subject ~"~".'~'--~' [--~-,'~,-r' ~ ~~~ FEB-2~-1999 13:49 Red Light Camera Enforcement Facts: · 1998-12,000 citations issued for 3 intersectigns · Courts could use $250 civil aSsessment on license renewal · 46% issuance on wet film, 68% on digital · Wet film has up to 800 pictures per roll · Digital no limit · Picture goes through a minimum of 19 steps before a citation is issued 2.doc PROOF OF SERVICE VIA HAND DELIVERY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1925, Los Angeles, CA 90067. I served the within MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION in these proceedings on the opposing party(ies) in the said action: VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: BEVERLY HILLS CITY ATTORNEY 455 Rexford #220 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 I declare under penalty of perjury that tf~e foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 19, 1999, at Los Angeles, California. N BELETE Mike, Here is the document I mentioned on your voice mail. In addition, I have attached a text version at the bottom. I'm just not sure how well the tables will survive the electronic journey. Let me know if you have any questions. You can look up Penal Code Section 1463:002 on the Internet at www.sen.ca.gov. Choose Legislation, then California Codes. -- Mark To: From: Date: Re: County Auditors Assemblyman Kevin Shelley and CSAC August 4, 1998 AB 1191 - allocation of fines for red light violations On October 10, 1997, Governor Wilson signed into law AB 1191, which increases the fine for motorists who run red lights and allocates half of the increase to the city or county where the violation occurred. This memo is meant to clarify how the base fine and penalty assessment monies for red light violations should be distributed under AB 1191, both before and after the effective date of the trial court funding legislation. This supercedes the memo of November 14, 1997. 1. As of January 1, 1998, the base fine for running a red light is $100. This applies to all violations of Vehicle Code Sections 21453(a), 21453(c), 21454(c), and 21457(a). There is no increase in the base fine for subsequent violations. 2. The mandatory state penalty assessment of $100 (PC Section 1464) and a local penalty assessment of $70 (GC Section 76000) are added to make the total bail $270. 3. Pursuant to Government Code 68090.8, two percent of the total penalty amount shall be distributed to the State Trial Court Improvement Fund. This works out to be $5.40. 4. As a result of AB 1191, thirty percent (30%) of the remaining total shall be allocated to the general fund of the city or county where the violation occurred. This works out to $79.38. 5. The percentages subtracted in steps 3 and 4 are taken out of the base fine and assessments in equal proportions. As a result, the remaining base fine equals $68.60. The remaining state penalty assessment is also $68.60. The remaining local penalty assessment is $48.02. 6. For red light violations committed in incorporated areas between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998, the $68.60 in base fine monies shall be distributed as follow: 1) The county receives its corresponding share pursuant to Penal Code 1463.002. This amount will vary according to county. 2) What is left after subtracting the county's 1463.002 share is then split 50%-50% between the city and the county. 7. For red light violations committed in incorporated areas on or after July 1, 1998, the $68.60 in base fine monies shall be distributed as follows: 1) The county receives its corresponding share pursuant to Penal Code 1463.002. This amount will vary according to county. 2) The city receives all of base fine money left after the county's 1463.002 share is subtracted. 8. For all red light violations committed in unincorporated areas on or after January 1, 1998, the entire $68.60 of base fine money shall be distributed to the county. The following table breaks down the monies required by AB 1191: January 1, 1998 - June 30, 1998 Violations in incorpo-rated areas State Trial Court Imp. Fund$5.40 City General Fund $79.38 State Penalty Assmnt $68.60 County Penalty Assmnt $48.02 City and County Shares* $68.60 Total $270.00 Court Imp. Fund $ 5.40 City General Fund $79.38 State Penalty Assmnt $68.60 County Penalty Assmnt $48.02 City and County Shares** $68.60 Total $270.00 Violations in unincor-porated areas $ 5.40 County General Fund $79.38 State Penalty Assmnt $68.60 County Penalty Assmnt $48.02 County Share of Base Fine $68.60 Total $270.00 Court Imp. Fund $ 5.40 County General Fund $79.38 State Penalty Assmnt $68.60 County Penalty Assmnt $48.02 County Share of Base Fine $68.60 Total $270.00 distribution of fine and assessment On or after July 1, 1998 State Trial State Trial Court Imp. Fund State Trial *County share calculated pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463.002. Remainder split 50%-50% between the city and the county. **County share calculated pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463.002. Remainder distributed to the city. If you have any questions regarding this memo, please feel free to contact Mark Stivers in Assemblyman Shelley's office (916-445-8253), Rubin Lopez at CSAC (916-327-7500) or Michael Corbett (916-442-0412). ~ ~lgD 1~:~? FAX 714585~8~0 PUBLIC REL~TIONS ~001 Automobile Club of Southern California Public Affairs DATE: TO: ORGANIZATION: FAX-: "~ [gr -'Tgff{ - S~"7' ~ PHONE: FROM: DJck Backns NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: MESSAGE: IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THIS ENTIRE FAX TRANSMITTAL, PLEASE PHONE ME AT (714) 885-2326 or FAX ME AT (714) 885-2330 NOU-24-1999 12:87 714~S2330 97~ P.01 PUBLIC RI~LATION$ [~ 002 11/24/99 IrED 12:57 FAX 71~85L J0 Assembly Bill No. 1191 CHAPTF_~852 An a~t to add S~:tion 1461t.11 of tM Penal Code, a~d to Section 42001 of, ~nd tn add Sections 42001.15 and 42007.3 to, the Vehicle Code, rela~ing to vehicles. [approved ~ GovmUX Oaob~r/0, 1~97. with 5e~-ela~ ofS=te Ociober 10. 1997.] , L~SL.AT~'~ CO UN S ~L-'S mo,~T ~.B ~91, S'ncll~. Vchic]es: tragic rules ~d. re .,,~olations. (1) Un&'r exLsting law, it is an Jul?action ptmishable by a base fine of not cxcceding IH00 for any person to fail to stop at a stead)' or fl.~hi.§ red si~,~! lisht. Existing law provicl~ far inor~scd Les for subsequcat convictions of infractions occurring within a on~-year p~J. od. This bill would change the b~.se FAc for a ~iolation of the above ckscn~cd red sil~mal light infraction to a fine of $100. (2) Uud~ cxisti~ law, 'all Fmcs ~ forfcitorcs imposed and collected for crimes, other ~h.- parla.~ offenses, resulti~§ ~om a illin[ in a cotrct are r~quirad to ~ deposited with the county treasttrer and distribut~ in accordance with a specified form-I~ each, L~month to the siam, counties, and cities. This hill woul~l require, not~viths~andin§ the sp¢citiexi disin'bution for fines, for~citorcs, and asse.~smcnts, that, far each conviction, ~s desig~a[ed f~m fmea, fora&utes, a~d sssessmems oollcctccl, of a violalion of specified Vehicle Cod~ l~ovisions co~cerni-fl z~l li§h~s, 30% be alloc~d by the county treasure~ to the general fund or the city .or county in which the off. scs occun'ed, with thc b~l..ce m be deposited by the coun~ ireasu~r in accordance with the formula spcdficd above. Thc bill would makc a similar allocation of revenues derived from fees collectgd from p~rso~s ~equlred or pC~-mit~ed to attend t'rai~c violator schools because of violagons o~ the same red light offenses. By imposin§ sdditianul adrnini~tr~tivc duties on counties. ~ bill would impose a s~atc-mandatcd local program. (3) Thc bill would sc~ ionia ccrain lc-§islaLiv¢ ~-rndi~s and dedar~ions. (4) The C~l~om~ C,~nstitulin~ rcquir~ ~ state to ro~rnbu~c local a~endes an8 school dis~cts for ~ costs ~,~ed by the stye. St~tuto~ provisions est~b~sh procedures for reimbursement, /nclud/ng the creation of a Sta~ ~Vfnnd~ea Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 ~1/24/99 WED 12:58 FA]~ 7~48852330 ?[~L[C RELATIONS ~]003 Ch. 852 --2-- sta~ev~de and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. l-nL~ hill would provide that, ff th~ Commission on State Mandaxes c~.;~,,~.~cs r_hat thc bill contains costs mandaled by rcimbuz'sgmcnt for those costs shall be m~rl¢ pursuant to these =tat,,*c=y l~ovisions. The people of tha State of California do enact as follow': S£CTION 1. The Lcgi~l~tu~e fmd~ ~ud d¢chu'e$ following:. iuj~, ~ ~ ff roomy, ~ ~ly p~, ~ ci~ ~ ~ ~ phy~y ~ablcd. (b) The aa~ob~ ~d~ ~u~ by ~i~a ~,,~i,5 ~ 1~ ~, ~d ~b~ ~, ~ ~11 ~ me~l c~, ~vol~g p ~lic bosnia. (c) ~ h~fic ~ ca~ ~ ~v~ who ~ ~t!nu, to be a ~j~ so~ of~c a~d~ ~ ~ ~ious ad ~y ~ ~g ~ ~ a ~ H~ (e)~ ~ h ~e b~ fao ~ uot l~s ~ one ~ed doil~ ($I00) w~d si~fi~ ~ ~e u~ of r~ light ~o~ons, ~ ~ Hves, m~ng p~o~{ inj~ pm~ ~e, ~d Iow~ ~e co~ of ~al govemm~t ~i~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ light ~ola~. ~C. 2. $ce6~ l~3.11isa~to~P~ 1~3.11. No~ Se~ 1~3 ~ 14~ of S~on 76000 of ~e ~vemm~t ~, mon~ ~at ge coll~ a ~ohfi~ of sub~ (a) ~ (c) of S~ 21453 of, Ve~cie Cod~, ~d wMch ~ r~k~d ~ be deposimd wi~ the ~ ~r ~t to Se~on 1~3 of ~s ~de ~1 be ~o~ ~ ~HOWS: (a) ~ fi~ 30 prat of ~e mo~t colloid sh~l be allied to ~c g~l ~ of ~e ~ or co~ ~ wM~ ~ o~e o~d. (b) ~e b~ls,ea of ~ ~o~t coHc~ s~ bc ~po~ted by ~ ~ ~d~ S~fi~ 1403 ~d 1~. SEC. 3. 8~on 42001 of~ VeMcle ~d* is ~e~ m r~ 42001. (a) ~x~t ~ p~d in Se~ 12000.5. 42001.1, 42001.2, 4200i.3, 42001.5, 42~1.7, 42001.8, 42001.9, 42001.11, 42001.12, 42001.14, or 4200].15, ~ ~b~si~ ~) or (c) of ~s ~ion, or ~cle 2 (~cing wi~ ~on 42030), eve~ pemou con~ of au iu~ ~r a viola~on of ~s ~de or of ~y loc~ ~pt~ p~t ~ ~ code sb~l be p~aish~ ~ follow: NOU-2d-I~9 12:07 71d8@52330 P.03 11/24/99 WED 12:58 FAX 71¢8852350 Pt~LIC RELATIONS ~004 Ch. g~2 (1) By a i'me not exccedin~ one hu~drcd dolla.~ ($100). (~) P~ a s~nd in~cn oc~ng ~thin ~e ye~ of a prior in~on which ~cd in a ~o9, a ~e ~ot ~ce~g (3) F~ a ~i~ or ~ ~s~ ~o~ o~ ~ one y~ of ~o or mo~ prior ~o~ ~ch r~l~ ~ a ~e not ~ ~o h~dmd ~ do~s (~0). ~) Eve~ ~n coflvi~ of a ~d~r ~oh~ of S~ 2800, 2801, or 2~03, ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~o ~ ~ i~e~ ~ ~t or for ~ ~ condMon enduing p~, shall ~ ~ish~ ~ foll~: ~) ~ a ~ ~ ~b;~ a p~ of ~ ~, a 6ne not ex~ o~ h~d~d do~ ($100) or ~t ~ ~c co~ j~ not ~ 10 da~, ~ bo~ ~at ~ ~ (~) For a ~ or ~y ~bs~t ~ ~ a p~ y~r, a ~e ~ e~g five hunted do~ (I500) ~pfisom~ ~ ~ co~w jdl not ~c~ ~ m~, (c) A p~ ~n~ of ~ ~ f~ a ~o~ of ~ ~ any I~ ~i~e ~p~ p~t w ~ codc ~ be (~ No~i~g ~y o~ ~si~ of law, ~y I~ (~men~nt ~ Se~ou 830) of ~e 3 of P~ 2 of ~e P~al Code, ~ ~if~ S~c U~v~, ~d ~e Uni~i~ of ~o~ ~y, ~ ord~ ~ resolu~ cs~b~ a ~c of fines applic~le ~ ~;..;,,~i~ by Mcyc~ ~ i~ j~. Any ~ne, ~clud~g aR ~1~ as~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~lish~d ~cl~ p~ ~sm~t ~d ~ c~ o~ hy ~is co~ ~r ~a ~o~Oon. If a bi.cie ~e s~cd~ is adopted, wM& ~c ~ai...~ ~ ~olugon is ap~li~le ~s~ of ~e frees, ~l~d~g p~ ~s~ts s~d co~ cos~ o~e appli~ble under ~is ~. $EC. 4. S~on ~2001.15 is a~ to ~e V~cle Codg ~ 42001.15. Ev~ p~ con~c~d of an in~oR for a of ~Mi~i~ (~) or (c) of Scc~ 21453, sub~sion (c) ~ 21454. or abdiv2ion (a) of S~on 21457 ~ bc p~s~d by a SEC. 5. S~oa 42007,3 is -tiffed ~ ~e VeMcle ~e, ~ ~ad: 42007.3. (a) No~ng ~on 42007, r~ena~ d~v~ ~m t~g~ coll~ ~ $e~on 42007 tom egh pe~on requ~d or p~iR~ m aRend ~ffic ~olator school puget to 4200~ ~ a ~t of a ~olafion of ~sio~ (a) or (c) of NOU-24-1999 12:88 ~148852330 P.04 11/24/99 V/liD 12:59 FAX 7148852330 PUBLIC RELATIONS ~005 Ch. 852 ~4m 21453, subdivision (c) of Sec'don 21454, or subdivision (a) of Sc~xioa 21457 shall be allocated. ~ follows: (l) The first 30 percent of the amount collected shall bc allocated to the general ~nd of the city or county in which thc offense occurred. (2) The balance of the amount collect~cl shall bc d~posited by the county treasurer uncle' Section 42007. (b) This section docs not apply to the additional twcnty-four dollars ($24) collected ,,~der sabdivision (a) of Scion 42007.1. SEC. 6. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, ii' Che Commission on Staze IVlandates deha.,ines that this am conlains costs m:mdated by the state, reimbursement to local age.ties ~lld sahool dish'ib'ts for those costs shall be made pwsuam to Pan 7 (cemm,'~,,~ with Stctio~ 17500) of Divisio~ 4. of Title 2 of the Governmcnt Code. If the statewid¢ cost of the c].~i,~ for zcimbtttscmcnt does not cxteed oI~ million dollats ($1,000,000), reimbursement ,~!! be made from the State Mandates Claims Fuad. lqotwiths~mdinil Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same rL~te that the act takcs cffcct puxsuant to thc California Constitutioa. NOU-2~-1999 12:08 ?i~88523~0 P.05 ~it 50 perCent~hall b~ Wansferred'tb ~ : having authority'/, to ~ approve: ~ ~cy' vehicle lanes-~pUrSuant 6 .of. thc Vehicl~ Code..Money agency-having ~the..g-~hority f to, app~ :cupancy '~ehiclc ~lanes' pursuant to ~. ~ 655_.6 .of. the ,~ehic,le ,Code shall t,agency fo~.~th~, flo~ and;tra~ ope~ions u '. In cou mies.whe~e~e exists nauon c0mm!~on, created, pursuaar~ · la 12 (commencing .with Section 13000~ · Public Utilities.Cod~ thai a0mmissi~'h · racy foi' piii~o'~;of thls-section. Adlg · . Added. Sta~s 1989 bh 343' § 1, to Iranlsfcrs lb Department"of F0fi~ ~ $~en-a ............................. re Protection or fire protaCtion' juridic. ........ :on ~ed'in%Ubdivisionl (b);'thii I~; {~) F~e~t ~ provfiled in Sectlor~ 40200.3 ~ '; i Se/~ign ,7.6000): 6f ,,.~tle~. fines'~:forfeitures~,,w~eae~ C°llec~ a20~.4 o/ tae Vehicle Co.,tats secOnd.es lTx~:fO~'all~B~Wh~ · mU ,or 'by ,otb,er, processing agen~.c~,_ Iot~pty. to the collection ofl~arking pe~d//es.?i ~re atin'l~d~a~i~ to an ih~ ia th~lfii] ~endcd Stats.-1992 ch 1244 §4 (AB 408), guaiimti~ ~ ad6pted subsequent to the reso!utioa ~alive July~l 1993. c. :; .... 'as:~:':c'~::a ;i~iw (b) Whcre multiple'offenses ate ~t t~[subdivisi6fi (c) or.(d):Of Sectim ~a~'c .... ' '; "~'? '-' ~ -":: ': ........ : stata[:penalty.shall~oe[bascd.,u~nlthe 11463.29.'- 'Added 'Stats 1989 ch' llSr'§ 2.~ 'lfi~adcd stats .i991 ch 38 .§ 1 .(AB 67)..~Re~ whlchlWfuld'btherwis~' be ilivided'bb ~'c°unty. and, cities within the counlI ~' d~posited into the"bOunty .gbfieraI he' annual limit li~tod in'subdivisi~n'(b) : county. F'me 'find forfeitu~e~increm~ts ,~xceed file specified'l~lual limit shall I~ between the county'and the cities wilt~ nty .as :otherwise; provided 'by.lawl TI~ ed bar'l amounts in"suclf'ar. 6ohnty any limit established purshant to.s~uMi- d) of Section 1269bYi btm ac, m;i counties which may adopt a resolufi~ · e~¢ .as, ~S.l~cified io~ subdi,vision .d i~ the, county genecal fund and the a~- .it. appli ,c~ole .t.o~,tho~e.cguntie~fis aslf0f '0~.75: , .".?l. ~,a'~P. ~. . ual~":Limit"?" :" ~ Stats '199i 'ch 90 § 59.(AB :1297); effeC- fi~Jtme 30, 1991. The repealed Section ~elated I~,Ct~t to public transportation system for ~ifiedfines --. '. -,: ,.:'-. , '~ .m [14~4. Penalty assessment; Dislribulion,ol ~mals, (a) Subject tO Chapter .12 (commenclnl .~...~cfion ~.60~0_ ) .of. Titl~ ,8 .of .Ihe~.Goyem. ..Gj~JC~ there shall.b6.1eyied a,Stata peanlD,, amouni equal to tan.do_liarsX$1 O) for e~m3, [~.dollan ($10) or fraction thi:rbo£, upon eve~, ~aity,' or roaeimr~ iaposed and courts for criminal offenses, including all ~ek~, except parking Offenses as define~l or bail fo~ cach in whglb.~or.iin :pan,qT. he ~state:.Lmbkl (c) When any deposfled bail ~s fense: to.f. which:, tliis~scctidn fapplies,::anit (d) .Ia offense,V,io ~ v~hiali5 ah~ REDI:I X ECEIV D NOV 6 ' 1998 Redflex Traffic Systems USA 120-A Solano Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415 789 (~001 Fax: 415 789 5451 November 3, 1998 George Allen City Traffic Engineer City of Garden Grove 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92642 Dear George, In response to the issue regarding the ability to enforce photo red light running tickets, below is the response ! received from Ms. Peggy Ketchum, the Division Chief of Traffic for the San Francisco Courts. As you know, San Francisco does enforce these traffic camera tickets, and her response was as follows: Odainal Failure to AoDear- Since the original notice is not signed by the driver, SF cannot issue an official Failure to Appear, Failure to Pay, Warrant, or Ucense Suspension. However, under Vehicle Code 40509.1 (not complying with a court order), SF Courts notify DMV and put a hold on their license. Sioned Promise to Appear- Once the violator schedules a court date with a signed Promise to Appear for the original violation the situation changes. !f the violator then fails to appear or fails to pay, then the SF Courts can pursue them with a Warrant or License Suspension. Ms. Ketchum says she is happy to discuss this further with other jurisdictions so feel free to pass along her phone number of 415-553-9456 to the Orange County Courts, Yours Sincerely, Barbara Y. Hiller President Redflex Traffic Systems A member of the Redflex Group _------ Beverly Hills Viewing ~1~ Time Distance - Vehicle should not be cited until: · .3 at 17 MPH et 1~4.1~1, 1~2, 1~3, 1784. 1793, & 1794 ' · .3 at 20 MPH at 1773 · ~e vehicle m~ be proc~d ¢ho~h th~ int~s~tian. Vehid~ which ~ter the i~ection after the h~lf second delay, but 5top for the red light se~J feet ~ the limit line, ~hould not be cit~. ~ultipl~ v~icle c~ be cited per photo. ~e p~s~ ca~ ~eceive more th~ o~ citatlan ~ day. No em~ency veh~cl~ will be ~rged. · Ho photos wiJJ bt prov/d~ to the violator. Printing 1 4 Violator receives: Citation and BHPD Znstruction Sheet in a #!0 window envelope Police Department receiveS: Cit~ion T~mitt~{ a~ ~cellatien Tra~mitt~L ~e PD will sign ~d for~d the Cancellation Tra~mittol to the court with their sig~ture. Court receive: Cit~ti~ T~mit~, C~ifi~te of MaiJ/n~, ~d the Cou~ copi~ of the Citatio~ Locati~s 1764 WB Wilshire Bird, at 5~nta Man/ca t763 EB Wilshire Blvd. at Santa Monico 176i NB Santo Monico at Wilshire Blvd. 1762 SB ~nta Monico at Wilahire Blvd. 1774 WB Wilshire Blvd. at La Ci~e~ 1773 ~ WiJ~hi~e ~[vd. at ~a Ci~ 1771 NB La Cien~a at WiJshire 8[vd. 1~2 ~B La Ci~ a? W}ishire B}~. 1783 ~B OF/topic Blvd. at 5~[di~ Orive 1793 ~ S~et Bird. ~ Whirler 1794 WB Sunset Blvd. ~ Whitti~ 309 Lieutencu~t Al Munoz-Floce. s .'lc .L:_.*....',~,: ~,;d 3,-lffo/ 3ZZ 5erg~nt Robert Smith 340 Officer B~d Cornelius 413 ~ficer Bill Kir~trlck Serges1' Richard Brown SURVEY REGARDING CALIFORNIA RED LIGHT CAMERA PROGRAMS JURISDICTION San Francisco Santa Rosa El Cahon Beverly Hills San Diego Poway Oxnard CONTACT NAME/DEPT Peggy Ketchum, Muni Court Linda Chen, Police Dept Sgt. Brad Marsh, Police Edward Kruilkowski, Engineering Lt. Albert Munoz-Flores, Police .loe Padilla, Courts Sgt. Boyd Long, Police Mike Robinson, Engineering PHONE NUMBER 415-553-9456 415-553-9777 707-543-3639 619-441-1651 310-285-2193 310-288-1288 619-531-2117 1~'-What is the scope of your program? · Number of intersections monitored · Number of cameras systems operating If rotating, ratio of cameras to housing (eg. 1 cam: 3 housings) · What is the term of your contract? (eg/ Start MM/YY - End MM/W) 2. Do you have any supporting information to show that the program has been successful? (e.g. reduction in violations counted, public opinion, etc.) 3. How many average violations are captured per camera per day? 4. Do you imprint b/w or color violation photographs on the citation? 5. What is the Court breakdown percentage (or numbers) of the following: · Violations paid · Traffic School Scheduled · Traffic School Complete · Failures to Appear Non-court Failure to Appear Yn-court Fined in Court Dismissed without appearance Dismissed in Court How are citations mailed? CeKdfied Mail Accountable Mail First Class Mail Regular Mail 7. How do you enforce citations that are ignored, and which VC Sections support your enforcement? (e.g. DMV hold, warrant, DMV Soundex comparisons, etc.) 6. 8. What procedure do the Police use to approve the citations? (e.g. Manually sign each citation Predetermine criteria with Vendor and Sign a faxed listing of citations Electronic signature on citation Compare copies of DMV Soundex images for each citation Other, explain) 9. How often is it required for the Vendor to supply Expert Witness testimony? And what criteria do you use when you call in the Vendor for testimony? 10. Can you supply any statistical reports from the Program, Courts, for City Council, etc that would be helpful in supporting our efforts to progress a program further? BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DATE: RE: Barbara Y. Miller, President Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. June 24, 1999 CC: FILE NO. 03860-0001 Digital Images: Admissibility Standards and Kelly-Frye Introduction Under the Kelly-Frye test, scientific evidence is admissible if it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, but it is not admissible if there is a significant dispute among experts as to its validity. Accordingly, if evidence does not involve new methods or proof or new scientific proof, a Kelly-Frye inquiry is unnecessary. This memo explores the relevance of Kelly-Frye to the submission of digital image evidence and discusses the evidentiary standards required to admit such evidence in court. Questions Presented 1) Does the digital imaging process used by Redflex pass the Kelly-Frye test? 2) What evidentiary standards must be met in order for a digital image to be admissible as evidence in court? Short Answers 1) A Washington Court of Appeals, in State of Washington v. Hayden, found that enhanced digital image processing was not a novel scientific technique and it was accepted in the relevant scientific community. Thus, this type of processing passed the Kelly-Frye test in Washington. Given that this enhanced digital image processing passed the Kelly-Frye test, it can be argued that the digital imaging endemic to the subsequent processing enhancement also passed the Kelly-Frye test. Although this decision is not a California decision, a California Court of Appeals, in People v. Axell, 235 C.A.3d 836 (1992), found that under Kelly-Frye it may consider decisions from other jurisdictions in deciding whether a technique is generally acceptable and thus meets the requirements of the Kelly-Frye test. Thus, the Hayden and Axell decisions indicate that digital imaging would also pass the Kelly-Frye test in California. t Please note that this Memorandum has been prepared for informational purposes ~nly and for the sole benefit of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Statements herein shall not be construed as a guarantee of any particular result in litigation. This Memorandum is not intended for, nor shall inure to, the benefit of any third party. #26601 Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 2 2) California Evidence Code section 1553 (effective January 1, 1999) provides, "A printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the images it purports to represent." Under this Code section, the party introducing the digital image must show that it is an accurate representation by a preponderance of the evidence only if the opposing side introduces evidence that the image is inaccurate or unreliable. Thus (unlike photographs) this Code section seems to eliminate the need for a foundation for digital images, making a digital image admissible without either the testimony of an eyewitness that the image is accurate or the testimony of a photographic expert that the image is a pure image, i.e. has not been tampered with (as required for photographs). The side that introduces the digital image is not required to introduce an expert who can testify to the reliability of the digital imaging process, however such an expert may be needed to rebut a challenge to a digital image as inaccurate or unreliable and meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. Discussion II. The Kelly-Frye Test A photographic image is not subject to the requirements of the Kelly-Frye test2 pr/or to admissibility if it does not constitute scientific evidence. Accepted scientific methods utilized by experts in conducting tests and reaching their conclusions are not scientific evidence and therefore not subject to the Kelly-Frye test. In People v. Peneda, 32 C.A.4th 1022 (1995), law enforcement officers seized white powder from defendants house. A criminalist for the Sheriff's crime laboratory tested a small sample of the white powder that was seized and determined that all of the powder seized was cocaine. The method he used to make this determination is known as probability extrapolation. Defendant argued that this probability extrapolation was a new scientific technique which the proponent failed to show met the foundational requirements of People v. Kelly. Under these requirements, as will be discussed, new scientific techniques must be shown to be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community as reliable. The court found that the proponent did not have to meet the Kelly requirements because probability extrapolation was not a new scientific technique but a long-established scientific method for testing theories. 2 The Kelly-Frye test is also referred to by the courts as the Frye test, the Kelly test, or the Kelly-Frye test. The reason for this variety of names is that the original test was articulated by the D.C. Circuit in a case named Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013. California's Supreme Court expressly adopted this test in a case named People v. Kelly, 17 C.3d 24 (1976). Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 3 A photographic image is subject to the Kelly-Frye test if it is scientific evidence, or a novel scientific technique. This test was first articulated by the D.C. Cimuit in a case named Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013. California's Supreme Court expressly adopted this test in a case named People v. Kelly, 17 C.3d 24 (1976). In Kelly, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the new and emerging technique of speaker identification by spectrographic analysis, or a "voiceprint", had achieved general scientific acceptance as a reliable identification device that would permit the introduction of voiceprint evidence in California courts. The Court articulated the Kelly-Frye test in addressing this issue. This test has three elements. These are whether: 1) the reliability of the scientific method is established by expert testimony; and 2) 3) the witness furnishing such testimony is properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject; the proponent of the evidence demonstrated that correct scientific principles were used in the particular case. Id. at 30. The Court went on to explain the test. It stated: The test for determining the underlying reliability of a new scientific technique was described in the germinal case of Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013, 1014, involving the admissibility of polygraph tests: "Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable states is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Id. The Court further stated that it expressly adopted the Frye test. Therefore, when California courts are faced with a novel method of proof, they must require a preliminary showing of general acceptance of the new technique in the relevant scientific community. Id. The Court articulated the benefits of the Kelly-Frye test. According to the Court, these are: Digitallmages June 24, 1999 Page 4 The requirement of general acceptance in the scientific community assures that those most qualified to assess the general validity of a scientific method will have the determinative voice. It promotes a degree of uniformity of decision. Individual judges whose particular conclusions may differ regarding the reliability of particular scientific evidence may discover substantial agreement and consensus in the scientific community. o Although it is conservative in nature as it creates an obstacle to the admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles, this judicial caution has benefits. The Court stated that lay jurors tend to give considerable weight to "scientific" evidence when presented by "experts" with impressive credentials. Being cautious about the use of new scientific techniques as a method of proof guards against an unreliable method of proof being relied on as reliable or definitive by jurors. Id. at 31-32. Thus, whether or not the Kelly-Frye test applies to digital images depends on whether these images qualify as scientific evidence, or a novel scientific technique. While no reported California case has addressed the issue of whether digital images per se constitute part of a novel scientific technique, there has been consideration of digital image processing techniques to which digital imaging is endemic. (See A. below.) A. California Case Law: Digital Images and Kelly-Frye In People v. Williams, 46 C.Ai4th 1767 (1996), the Califomia Court of Appeals addressed whether segmentation evidence was admitted in error because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the process was acceptable or reliable. Specifically, in this case, a newspaper photographer took a picture from a helicopter ora man as he threw a brick at an individual's head. The man appeared to have an undefined mark on his left arm. At trial, it was established that appellant had a rose tattoo on his left ann partly due to the enhancement of the photograph through the use of a digital image processing technique called segmentation. Segmentation is a digital image processing technique wherein regions or objects within a photographic image are identified based upon their color or luminance. The regions or objects identified may then be highlighted using mathematical formulas in order to create a more discernible image. This technique is used to enhance the objects of interest while diminishing the contribution of irrelevant image components? The director of research and development of the laboratory that performed the segmentation, Dr. Rudin, testified at trial that segmentation had primarily been used in the medical field to locate the precise boundaries of brain tumors and track their development and in the environmental field to locate pollution or hazardous waste sites. He cited several articles and 3 GONZALES, RAFAEL C. AND WOODS, RICHARD E., DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING 414 (1992). Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 5 books on segmentation and stated that it xvas commonly accepted and used in the image processing field. He further testified that he was not aware of any other court case in which segmentation was used for identification purposes. Williams, 46 C.A.4th at 1778. The court analyzed whether the prosecution met the requirements of the Kelly-Frye test with respect to the introduction of evidence based on this segmentation process. It stated: The test for determining the reliability of a new scientific technique is whether the technique is "...sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." The People have met that test. Dr. Rudin testified to the general acceptance of segmentation for identification purposes and cited several supporting texts authorized by the image processing experts. No evidence was presented in opposition. Moreover, we do not find the lack of documented uses of the procedure in court cases to be fatal to the court's determination of reliability. Id. Thus, in Williams, the court indicated that if an expert can testify to the general acceptance of a new scientific technique and cite supporting texts authorized by experts in that technique, the technique satisfies the requirements of the Kelly-Frye test. While Williams did not specifically address the use of digital imaging, the court did note that photographic and video tape evidence that was introduced at trial was "digitized" and that, although Defendant objected to "segmented" evidence, he did not object to "digitized" evidence. Additionally, in United States v. Mosley, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23969, Defendant argued against an expert witness' testimony about digital imaging processing on the grounds that this testimony would not assist the jury. Defendant did not object on the grounds that this evidence did not satisfy the Kelly-Frye test. Reported Case Law in Other States Regarding Digital Images and the Frye Test At least one court in the state of Washington has found that enhanced digital images are not novel scientific techniques and thus meet the Kelly-Frye admissibility requirements. In State of Washington v. Hayden, 90 W.A. 100 (1998), the Washington Court of Appeals decided whether the trial court erred in admitting enhanced-fingerprint evidence after conducting a Frye hearing.4 Id. at 102. In this case, the police took pieces ora sheet stained with a bloody palm and finger print to an expert in enhanced digital imaging for computer enhancement in order to identify the owner of the print. The expert took digital images of the pieces of sheet and utilized computer software to filter out background patterns and colors to enhance the images so that the prints could be viewed without the background patterns and colors. Id. at 103. See infi'a note 2. Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 6 The Court of Appeals stated, Here, the trial court held a Frye heating to determine the admissibility of the prints identified by use of the enhanced digital imaging process. The State presented testimony fi.om two experts...who explained the steps they took to ultimately identify [the] palm and fingerprint from the fitted bed sheet. The State also provided the trial court with forensic literature regarding digital image enhancement...Based upon the testimony, the trial court found that the...enhanced digital imaging process is not novel scientific evidence to which the Frye test applies. Nonetheless, the court also concluded that the enhanced digital imaging process passed the Frye test. Id. at 105. The Court of Appeals analyzed the literature and cases presented by the State at trial to support its position that enhanced digital imaging was not a novel scientific technique. The Court found that no court had ruled in a published appellate decision on the admissibility of latent prints processed by enhanced digital imaging. Despite the absence of a published appellate decision on this issue, the Court concluded, "Certainly digital photography is not a novel process. Neither is the use of computer software to enhance images. It is only the forensic use of these tools that is relatively new." Id. at 106. Thus, the Court provided that digital photography is not a novel process that would be subject to a Kelly-Frye inquiry. It may be argued that consideration of the application of digital imaging technologies to traffic law enforcement is parallel to the Court's consideration of forensic use of the tools in Hayden. Even though it reached the conclusion that enhanced digital imaging was not a novel scientific technique, the Court examined the record to determine whether enhanced digital imaging is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The Court analyzed the testimony of the State's expert on enhanced digital imaging. Id. at 107. The Court stated: Berg is employed by the Tacoma Police Department as a forensic specialist and had spent the two and a half years prior to this trial specializing in enhanced digital imaging and its application in the field of forensic science. He is the author of two articles on the enhance digital imaging process: Latent Image Processing- A Changing Technology, The Pacific Northwest International Association for Identification Examiner, Second Quarter 1994, and The Digital Future of Investigations, Law Enforcement Technology, August 1995. At thai and in his articles, Berg explained the process of enhanced digital imaging in detail. See also B.E. Dalrymple & T. Menzies, Computer Enhancement of Evidence Through Background Noise Suppression, 39 J. Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 7 Forensic Sciences, Mar. 1994. The advantage of digital photographs, rather than analogue film photographs, is that digital photography can capture approximately 16 million different colors and can differentiate between 256 shades of gray. Digital photographs work with light sensitivity, just like film photographs, except the computer uses a chip and a hard drive in place of the camera's film. At trial, Berg testified that there is no subjectivity in this process. The digital photographs are enhanced using software that improves sharpness and image contrast. In addition, pattern and color isolation filters remove interfering colors and background patterns. This is a subtractive process in which elements are removed or reduced; nothing is added. At trial, Berg testified that the software he used prevented him from adding to, changing, or destroying the original image. In contrast with "image restoration," a process in which things that are not there are added based upon preconceived ideas about what the end result should look like, "image enhancement" merely makes what is there more usable. See William J. Watling, Using the FFT in Forensic Digital Image Enhancement, 43 J. Forensic Ident. 574 (1993). The literature presented by the State indicates that digital image processing has been used as a means of enhancing latent fingerprints by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department since at least 1987. See A.L. McRoberts, Digital Image Processing as a Means of Enhancing Latent Fingerprints, Proceedings o f the International Forensic Symposium on Latent Prints, July 7-10, 1987, at 165-166. Because there does not appear to be a significant dispute among qualified experts using appropriate software, we conclude that the process is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Id. at 108-109. Thus, the court found that enhanced digital image processing was not a novel scientific technique as it was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Thus, digital image processing passed the Kelly-Frye test in Washington. Given that this enhanced digital image processing passed the Kelly-Frye test, it can be argued that digital imaging endemic to subsequent processing enhancement also passed the Kelly-Frye test. The Hayden decision can be used in California courts to support the argument that digital image processing is not a novel scientific technique subject to the Kelly-Frye test. Under the California Court of Appeals decision in Axel, a court may rely on decisions from other jurisdictions to determine whether a technique meets the requirements of Kelly-Frye. People v. Axell, 235 C.A.3d 836, 854 (1992). Ifa defendant challenges the introduction of a digital image on the grounds that it is a novel scientific technique that is subject to the requirements of Kelly4 Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 8 Frye, the Hayden decision may be used to show that a digital image is an accepted scientific method and therefore not the type of scientific evidence that would be subject to the Kelly-Frye test. Even if the court did run through this test, underHayden the digital image evidence would most likely pass the test and thus be admissible because this type of scientific technique is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. II. Admitting Image Evidence in California Courts A. Foundational Requirements for Digital Images On January 1, 1999, California Evidence Code section 1553 became effective. This Code section provides: A printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the images it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof of producing evidence. Ifa party to an action introduces evidence that a printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the printed representation is an accurate representation of the existence and content of the images it purports to represent. Thus, under this Code section, a digital image is presumed to be an accurate representation of the image it purports to represent. However, if the opposing side introduces evidence that the image is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the digital image must show that it is an accurate representation by a preponderance of the evidence. This Code section seems to eliminate the need for a foundation for digital images. Thus (unlike photographs) a digital image is admissible without either the testimony of an eyewitness that the image is accurate or the testimony ora photographic expert that the image is a pure image, i.e. has not been tampered with. Although the side that introduces the digital image is not required to introduce an expert who can testify to the reliability of the digital imaging process, such an expert may be needed to rebut a challenge to a digital image as inaccurate or unreliable and meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. B. Foundational Requirements for Photographs Under California law, photographs of accident or crime scenes are admissible as independent evidence. In People v. Turner, 50 C.3d 668 (1990), Defendant, who had been found guilty of first degree murder and robbery, contended on appeal that he was prejudiced on both guilt and penalty by improper admission at the guilt trial of a videotape depicting the crime scene Digital Images June 24, 1999 Page 9 and the victim's body as initially encountered by the police. Id. 706. The court rejected this argument. It stated: ...[T]he challenged evidence was highly pertinent, since the two divergent theories of how the homicide occurred depended for support on details of physical and circumstantial evidence, including a clear understanding of the clues provided by the condition of the victim's body and the crime scene itself. The prosecution was not obliged to provide these details solely from the testimony of live witnesses, and the jury was entitled to see how the physical details of the scene and body supported the prosecution theory of murder for robbery. Id. Thus, this case indicates that videotapes may be highly pertinent independent evidence in a case. The rationale that applies to the admissibility of videotapes in trials also applies to photographs. People v. Bowley, 59 C.2d 863 (1963). Thus, photographs may be introduced as independent evidence in a case. Id. at 861. Prior to being admissible evidence, a foundation must be laid for a photograph. The foundation that is laid for a photograph under the California Evidence Code is the same as a foundation that is laid for a writing. See Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 20 C.A.4th 436, 440 (1993). Under Evidence Code section 1401, authentication of a writing is required before it may be received into evidence. Under Evidence Code section 1400, authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writin~ that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law. Thus, under the Evidence Code, the testimony ora person who was present at the time a photograph was made that it accurately depicts what it purports to show is legally sufficient foundation for its admission into evidence. See Jones, 20 C.A.4th at 440. The foundation laid for a photograph does not require testimony by the photographer or an expert as to the process that was used to obtain the image. As the California Supreme Court stated in People v. Bowley, 59 C.2d 863 (1963), No photograph or film has any value in the absence of a proper foundation. It is necessary to know when it was taken and that it is accurate and truly represents what it purports to show. It becomes probative only upon the assumption that it is relevant and accurate. This foundation is usually provided by the testimony of a person who was present at the time the picture was taken, or who is otherwise qualified to state that the representation is accurate...When authenticated by a witness from personal observation its admission into evidence presumes confidence in the witness' veracity. Id. at 862. Digital Images Jtme 24, 1999 Page 10 However, if them is no witness who can testify to the accuracy of the photographic image, testimony by a photographic expert that the image had not been faked but is a pure image is sufficient to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the image. Id. at 860. Thus, under these standards, ifa photograph is introduced as evidence in a case, this image is admissible either upon testimony by a witness who was present when the image was taken that it accurately depicts what it purports to show or upon testimony by a photographic expert who can establish that the image was not faked but is a pure image. These admissibility requirements do not require that only a certain type of photographic process be used for photographic images introduced as evidence and these admissibility requirements allow, but do not require, expert testimony. ara of nota~ public,~c!'i',': u .: q other officer authorized ? :.' administer oaths;)- -~' ~ ~:. ;', ... ~tats 1998 ch:931 § 416' (SB 2139), _'ptember 28,'199g.. !, ,i ~ :.'i ,. & Epstein, Criminal Law' (2d ~17; Ccd Jur3d (Rev) Criminal Law 512' ~ ,.~.~',~::.! :~ i<. ,"~"~': ~ 187~l. Repealed Stsls 1951 155 p 3860. $~:§ 690.;." ' l:,,g~t~l;1872. Aineoded $~ats 1927 p 3.54; Stats 1951 ch 16'74 § 156 p .'aled Stats 1961 ch g7 § 1. ^dded Stats 1925 ch 435 § 1 p 943. Stals 1931 ch '740 § I p 1535; Stats ~8 § 1 p 2151; Stats.1943 ch 181 §1 epealed S~als 1951 ch 16'74 § 157 p .... . , . .. ,~uri~0n Or meaicipai und ~ (a) Each municipal * * *coun to misdemeanor, where the off~n~ .'as committed within-the coomy in municipal eonrt/~ e~t~/is/~d. Each · * * cour~ shall have e~¢lusivn j~- in all cases involving the violation ; Of cities or towns situated within which the court is cs{abllsbed. ~unlcipal *** counshallhavcjuris- all 'nohCapithl driminal cases to .ca of guilty or nolo contendem, ap- me for pmnonncing judgment und~ 'ga, pronounce judgment, and refer !m prob~i0n' officer;.., if ¢li~ibln fix p~or courts shall have jurisdiction in neano~ criminal cases to receive a ~r nolo conmn&m, appoint a time fa nil judgnmnh and pronounc~ jud~- uperior court in a county in whic~ o municipal court has the jurisdiction in subdivisions (a) and (b). Ame~e~ $ ch 931 §417 (SB 2139), r 28, 1998. ~ & Eps~ein~,~Crimi~al Law (2d ed~ ~ 838, 1886; Wi~kin Procedure ( 3d ed) ~ 195, 2i¥; jU~i~ § 361~ Cai Jut 9, effective September 28, 1998. ~'tion related to concurrem juris~k- sti~ and municipal courts. §It~.2.' Proper court for.triai of misdi,. ~nor. Except as otherwise provided in'.th~ yd~le Code, the proper court for .the trial of aimiaal cases amounting:to misdemeanor shall be degimined as follows: Any municipal ~.*.* c~n, having jarisdicti, on of the.subject rnan~' silich th~ offeuse cl]~gedlwali 'co'm~itted,'~r flz ~ial of e case. . If an acUon or proceeding ~s cornmen~i in a c0~a having jorisdiedon'.of the .subject matter tlz~of other than the court herein designated as fl~ pteper court for the ~ial, the action may, aomi~smnding, be tried in the court where ~0mmencech unless the defendant,'at the time of ~/tad/~g, requests an order transferring the ac- ~0n or proceeding to the proper court. If after such request it appears that the action or pro- needing was not commenced in the proper court, 8z court shall order the action or'proceeding rangenvA to the proper court. The judge must, ~t the time of an'algnment, inform the defendant 0f~be right to be Cried in the county wherein the 0ffeme was conunitted. Amended Stats 1998 ~h 9~1 §419 (SB 2139), effective September 28 1998 ~, Witldn & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) §§1834. 1838, 1886~. 2~07; Cai dur Sd (Rev) Ctin~al La~ § 2455.~:. )x. ~. :_7: :,.'~ ~ 1~.2~. Charges of driVing On suspended lice~e in different counties; Waiver of trial and ~esent to sentencing in first court. (a) A ~fendant formally charged with a violation of V~cle Code Section 14601 in one court ("the ~rst court"), against whom a formal charge of a violation of Vehicle Code Section 14601 is p~nding in one or more other courts, may state in writing his or her agreement to plead guilty or nolo contendere to some or all of the charges ~ending in the other courts, to waive trial or hearing in the other courts, and to consent to d/sposition of the case in the firSt court. The fendant s agreement ~s meffecuve unless the t~m'ict attorney for the other county approves in ~i~g. Upon receipt of the defendant's agree- mst and the dis~ct attorney's approval, the clerk of court in the' Other court shall Wansfer ~ pending matter to the first court,' and trans. ~t the papers Or certified Copies. The prosecu- ~0s of each transferred matter shall proceed in ~ first cc un ~,, ~art c-;' ~he case pending against ~e defendant them, but shall be limited to proceedings upon the defendant's plea of guilty ~ ~01~o contendere, and sentencing or probation. If thedefendei~t preaiig'no_t?~milfy;;:thd~'r~'k ~Un~t a~ ~ pl'~ ~.:~ ~1~ ~ ~ not ~ ~ ~t.~f~ ~).~e ~ s~m;su~l~a by ~1: m,~e. o~ ~ ~ ~(~f~t (c) A defen~t ~_~t2'~t of U~n ~ei~ng.~q ~fen~q.S · c o~er ~ s~ ~~l~ ~.~ ~gs ~f~ p~t ~q Su~si0~la). not co~cn~ ae ~g of ~e liffi~-~ S~on' 859b, 8~, 861, ~', 1382."~' S~ I 4 i 1~23. Re~ S~ 1992 chr:l~ -~ 2 (~ ~8); o~vc l~y 1,.1~. s~fion mla~ to au~on'0f ~cive b~ for p~g ~ol~o~/~nu~O" (d) f~, ~d f~.~h '~ent,~r~ pa~ent of a ~e;~n~;'f0dei~'of f~ ~ ~m~ ~ong ~e sm~ ~d co~g to ~e ~'~o~gsys~m ~sh~ by ~e S~ Con~He~ p~u~t to S~ ~on 71380 of ~e.~v~nt C~2~ subj~t to S~fion 1~3.18 of ~e Pen~ c~; ~on shY'not ~'~fil ~e minim~ ~oun~ have ~n ~sfe~ to ~e Resd~on Fund ~ pm~d~ ~ ~at s~fion. Ad~ S~ 19~ ch 980 ~ 6. ' ' · ~ I~. D~p~fion of ~ ~d fo~ ~fio~. ~ fines' ~d fo~ei~ ~d coll~ for ~es sh~ ~ ~s~bu~,~ ~o~ ~ S~fi6n ~l~3.~E b~ ~1.~ ~e following deflations s~ 'apply"t~ u~ in ~s chap~:~a~=~ ~a~3~cq lmoT" (~) (a) "~st" ~un, ~chi&ng iss6~ce of a n6fice to ap~br no~ of violafion~ w~ch ~sul~ ~h' a. ~mln~ c~ge..,~;:~:r~qrzo~ ~niwoHo~ ~) "Ci~" includ~ '~y ci~, ci~ ~d' cb~. ~ck includ~'~ ~y ~n~se S~i~ ~:~i~ ~.' ' ze ~s~ck or co~u~ vice ~ ~gag~ in police pmt~fi08 ~ ~po~ ~ ~e Condoner for'inclu~i0n 1989-~ ~fion of ~e' Fin~ci~ :T~s~fiom /:,~s ir~i~ cringes or ~ti~i~ * * * i~di~st~ omis~ 839 ~§ 14(3 Report. Concerning _Spechll..Di~i¢~, under:;the heading of Police Pmteution md Publi¢~af~ty; authority;-: or -bth~ local:-agc~yz(oth~' th~m county) which cmploys~:perSOns: aUthorizedc.to ~ .arr6sts :or '.~ds~ue; noli~s' to: notices of violation Whichmay be filed in coUm (c) CRy arrest ,, means,an atre~,bv 'an: em-' ployce of a'cny,:or by:a California 'HighWay Patrol bffiea? within the linc'ts of a city:~o:~ (d)',,'Coimty': 'nmi6S. t~ ~0~ty i~'~,hich th~ ~rest took place. . .~.noo~ ~tI~o ~tfl e) "C0umyarre~t?~neans ~n hn~t by a Call: fornia Highway palrOl officer 'ootgide the~liinits ora city, or any arrest by fi COunty officer any other stat~ officer." i~_ ~i, :,.. :i.o; 'i:~i;,: (0 "C0un'" means the'!sup~}:br court or a juvenile forum established unde~ .qe~: tion 257 of the Weffaro and Institutions Code; in which the ~ arising from toe arrest is' filed: (g) "Division of m0neys", means :an allocation of base fine proceeds between agencies:hs:i:e'- quired by statute including, but not limitad Sections 1463.003, 1463.9, 1463.23, 1463.26; and Sections 13001, 13002, and 13003.of.the Fish and Game Code, and Section 1150} of the Health and Safety Code. ,, i . .'~.-~ ;. (h) "Offense" means any infraction, misde; meanor, or felony, and any:.act by a ,juvenile leading to an order to pay a financial sanction by reason of the.ant being defined as an infrac. tion, misdemeanor, or felony, wh~the[.'defuied in_this or any other code, except any parking onense as defined in subdivision (i):: ..-' (i) "Parking offense" means any' Offense charged pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 40200) of Chapter I of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code, including registration and equipment offenses included on a notice of parking violation. · (j) "Penalty allocation", means the deposit of a specified pan of moneys to offset designated processing, costs;i, as provided by Section 1463.16 and by Section 68090.8 of the Govern- (k) "Total parking penaityV means the total sum to;be collected .for.a parking offense; whether as fine, foffeitt~ of bail, or payment of penalty to the Depanmant of Motor Veh/cles. It may include the following components: .:.; (I) The base parking penaitylas established pUrSuant to Section 40203.5 of the' Vehicle Q). The Depanment of ·Motor .Vehicl~ fees added upon th~ placement of a hold pursu- ant to Section 40220 of the Vehicle Code.;:/": alcohol analysis 1464. Amended Stat~, 1994 ~ch 1220~ ,I 3132), ~ff~v~ ch ~5. ~ 1, (~,433):: 931 ~ 420 (SB 2139), eff~ve 1998.., : ':.:-~ ~,.~ · · K.-c)'~ . mn b'rl{ 6~' (2) B~ g~.~s.,t included :in; paragraph.;(!),' s_hail...be. ; ,~o the p~oper.funds.of the... (3). B~se ' fines 'resultifig'~ffom city .arms, ts ~a thcluded 'in paragraph- (1); an amount, eqi~l 84O §146423 sury. The porfion-the~of attributable to Chapter 12 (commencing ,with ,Section .7.6000).of. Title I~.. of the Govemm ,e~_ Code shall.l~. the appropriate county fund,and. 70 percent.o~. the balance shall then be transmitted to the Sta~. ~&eral. fun,,d~;The L..h'~mmission to the ,qtete ner as fm?,'c,91~,,~.,~ for the ~s..m~..bx (0 The moneys'so deposited in t~[ .S.t~t~. ,P~n~Ity. Fund shall t~ ~,m_'buted as fp~lg~s...,~. i }'~[ .... (1) Once a month there shall be transfelred into the Fish am[i.C_~ Pre ~.s~.~iop...F~nd} .a!l. amount equal [o 0.33 per~nt Of file s.tate pel!alty. funds deposited.in.~he State Penalt in§ the preceding month, except ,that .thC.to,al., amount shall n,.o. Lbe less than.thC, sta~ la[ .ml. ty. levied on fines or forfeitures for violation of state laws relating ~o the prot~ii0if or: i~Wpi~a-' lion of fish ~nd g~ii~e. These 'mbni:~,~ sliall b~' used for the education or train~l/of d~i~rthient employees Wl~c~ .fulfills a need coniisteht ~ivith' the objectives bf the Departm~nf 'of Fish ai~d Game. ~ ~, ,?',:, '" (2) Once a mo~th there shall be transferred into thc Restitution FUnd an amount equal 'to }2.02 percent- of3the:!state ix~altyI thc State;Penalty Fund,dorinE;tlii; inunth. Those funds shall be'made available,in accordance, with Section 13967. of the (3) Once a month there {hall be transfen~i into the Peace Officers' :Training'Fund. an': :/ra6unt equal to 23.99 percent of the state penalty funds deposited in the State Penalty Fund duiing the preceding month, i .i.,, !:~;:,~.:i.~,) ~r:,~, (4) Once a month there shall be transferred Jntb the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund;un amom!t .equal :to. 25.70 pemun.t, 0f'~hc. stat~ penalt~;':fuhds, deposited in thecState,Pefiilty 'Fund during'the precedingm6nth:;'6 i~:~h'~z~'~q (5) Once a month there'shall be transferred lnt6 the Correcti6ns' TrJining Ffind"anfamOunt: equal to ·7.88 percent of the state penalty funds dcpos- ited in.thc State Penalty Fund during the preced- ing: mqn.fl!.:Money in the I~Orrecli0iis~Tmining Fund, is no[ continuouily app. ro~ated~nd shall I:~ app[oprie, ted in thc Budget Ac~:; (6) Onc~'a "~ mgn: hem shall be ¢~l,'si'~." the Local Pubhc Prosecutot~ and Pi~bl. ers Training Fund. established pursuant,,lo(,~Is~- lion 11 ~03 an. amount equal' to 0.78 percent:of thc.s ,mte;penalty~:funds deposited; ~,;the~ .~tate 858 i:xccss of. e: ' nt Howe~r, '199~1.9~' ~ith (1)~t~2t8~. ~ :Wi~kin &. E{Jsttm, § 2148;' Cai Jur Sd(R~) shall: be' or: addit~oial, ion o,f;fille/;folfeitlL~ udge. s. ets Oakland roadblock o mailing of speeding tickets ASSOCIATED PRESS P oto-radar speeding tickets where OAKLAND- Motorists caught a ticket is merely mailed to the speeding by' a sophisticated photo registered owner of a vehicle," Mu- ' radar system will not have to pay niclpal Court Presiding Judge Ste, their tickets anyth-ae sOon, a judge phen Dombrink said Friday. has said. Dombrink said that with no,law, judges are powerless to issue a More than 2,000 tickets'a month rant or put a Department o! Motor':.] have been mailed since about 200 Vehicles hold on someones electronic devices w~re placed registration. ' ' F along Oakland roads i~ Mar~ii. But. But the decision angered ~om~: an .Oald~. d judge said there is no city officials, who said they~may.~} ~C~if~'e~ ,r~_ ~w .t/?t.allo.ws'speeding resort to' suing the/r own ju/iges to'/ ~a tu oe mallecl to drivers, force them to prosecute the ! "The court will no longer process tions. ~ :ss d,,,,,,,a ,~,so~r L~. ~- '/~,,1¢.~ ,. Automotive Classified BUYING, SFI lING ' . INSIDE ?labart O[N~HI With. ~e new Santa ,Fe ~UV~ left. ~.~n itiVe U.S. i;ha~:leai"~ed from the ,by the deluge 'of;e;mail~'land ca~s we ye ~eceived, the debate over cameras remains a hot-button · ;~ It seems there's no middle grotmd In~'d~e COpiers'y, based on the ~--po~, ,~...gert? 'amd by, our sto[~ last :wep.~ ,o. ~...plam bY me : of lx~ ~tgdes to install tts:fus~. 16:_[~. - ~Big ;.the c of Japan .mae , ,, rs ve~cles' saUmg · ~g~ ' The Znsurance' Instituie ' for'. H!ghm~tY' · Sa~etyjn Arlington, Va., estimates:th~.t . - · The Insurance' Institute 'for High,~ ~S,3fety~in Arlington, Va., estireate/:,tl~t n cause about hnd~:~f, in:t~Jut StUdies of urban'inte~ons!~-b ~ enforcement f6und'ihht/dc )rt~j :e~o; wh~e the city p~ . Su~fior ~ ~U~ ~ ~t ~t a;b~.~ , be used In ~,ci~ , ~ Of any ~'-dde i prosecution.'.' camera system'm, i of',h~r~clienCs Vehide, d= items h~clucllng :ai~,! ~s' ~nd window~ ~tions.on ~ or' $500,; leather~ ~ ,from the. Camera to calculate wfien,St~ · :affs car entered the intersection, ~he poi ~ oilier tbld., the. judge, the case ~ould ~ Stewart,. accord~g !o~lJ dismfssed the cita~ion,aga~ Stewart, as well as: ~wo other red4ight-n although beefed:up ,rear anti'sway bar and ' mil~, and.this nion~ institt/ted an'addi~, n/ng cases from the' same inte~%'fibn hJfler was jiggly and im- stiffer~springs for 2000. The M-inch Q6nal plan t0 b~.cl~ its quality claims. Ev~~ i Harbor Drive and GraPeStreet*aSanDi( I it about as easy to wheels and ~es ase adequate, butthnse ; '"PI..e~, ~Rr~,~i' SuperiorCourtoflicialconfumed. , · San Diego Deputy City Atty. Steve H; lent June idstofa led in 1908. ~ on early is free to el~ Call ~01-4775, ~.u'r, a $200 bed to the Anywhere from 10% to 45% of thnse injured in auto accidents suffer later from post-U'anmatic stress disorder, according to recent research. Good Carla offers advice fo accident survivors. Phone: (800) L~-TIMES, Ext. 74680 Fax: (2~.3) 237-783 E-m~l: hlg~lnUnms.com U.S. mail: TIm~ Mlrrm' Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053 Oa the Intemel: Highway 1 can be found on *,he Worm Wide Web h tt~:llwwuz latimes, com/high way I ' : ' ' ' · ' ~ · .... ' in which citations were challenged ara Fe, b,' mid-slze car-~ :- Kla will also beat-Hyundai into Wheel i · . .~"" "~:: ': : by drivers who said the cameras thatwill compete m a~,the U;S,.minlvan market vath the r ~, ' ', · : · ...... · ' ; · - ¥ with vehicles such ns~ Sedon,t, set to arrive in June 2Q01..,:~: ....... ,..~_ ,~,~: ~ .. :~.~ ~,~ _ cape; one e~azoa ~no-.;,F',, At uaewoo~.me omy new ouer.;. ~o,.",~n.d th.;-~ommlsaini{er's nil.? ~ · ,,~,,~ .... ~ ho,~ ,,,,t np~,~.iS alSO int~x!u,C;? in~Sidefinitely on the table are the? .~[,'~,~,~1~'t, u~.~.. ,L~,~ ,.,~.e~'~: ::' ...o~e. · .... :... , ....-~..: ~.o._C~nao;:.~U°c° .P . .::~ proponents ~0~ ~he cameras con~., he said. The la~ Is that if you are out '.. .c~..'~-.exl'i;;ease~. °:n} ~th~nextl2m~nths~andthe~':tendithatthilspeed-traplawdoes; inpublic,"yoU:'~dan't hevean o m~:t~rsn~r ma[~ 'mid-size Magnus sedan~ a 2002 re~? ~fiot~pply t0~'the-rL~l~iight cameri' expeciatiunofprivaey.'! ' ' :' '~' h Korea;'- ...!;.- . ~?.. ' pl~,¢enient: for' the top~of-th~-line ~-'~ I~ec~e 'al{hoU,gh"the' ~rni Some ,~.cl light '0ffende~ have ~. ~,' ~h so f~ has me omy_ Leganz~ that will offer:a bigger in-,, era records'the vehicle s speed th& '~m~sguidedanltude," Litvak said, re~ · ,ibly late neXl year. Koreuns are not discussing, at leant ' "The speed-trap iseue come up that they gut ~u,_ght by the red-light ~rtage' ah~mints the not out loud, are pickup trucks in the past, but we thought it had- camera as they 'were henying to ge~ l~,,hia com,~a,~ Kla's and rol/.dstars~and both HYUndai all been resolved," ,Hansen said. their childrefi to schooL" , .. ~-v ~,,,~u~' antil~ and Kla have shown eye-catching Goodman's ruling does not set a . "they are concerned about .Big ' a-g. er' .c~.-.flne ? .-._)two-seat regtop concept cars at re- ' legal preCedent, both H~n and ~, Bmther~ but in reality they- put their ctra f0u~;d0or hatch-~ ~ ..... · · .~' ', :. Other .comrmsetoners~are no thre~' other..'childsen from other h shares the Sophia's Timessta~writerJohn O'Dellcan throwing out the citations, on f~milleS at risk by rushing through : ~t and underpinnings,, be reached'atjohn, odel[ ' ;, · g!'o~nds tha~ the :cameras violate, the!nterseaionfi'. . ~. newRlo gubcompact. @/at/rnes. corn ...... ' :> the speed-trap law, HunSen noted.,: :. Liivak Litzenhetger ired 'Hansen i Go0dm*n is on a. planned medicol.: knew; of no. red.light.miming 'cases :' ...... ': ' ' ' '~ levite 'and' was: Unavailable for" on ~'"'00~ above the ~,,,,.,i,,r r',~'"~ ' · .~: .: .; ~; .:'.: ::';.,..:~ ~ ,~ -~ .., ,, ; .. _~ commen~cotutpfticia!s ,smd. '.:.i~ ~ in California. A'spokoswornan 4s~ .? ~ . .,-. llle interior ts rainy oasic out - The Sah Die~io couiX ruline'wiii.. *h~,:-An~riran Civil. Hbenios ' '""~g~?:i ,.~ :: ' '.nke.~.arrange.d .so .~at e,~.ryth?g not affect .~Lo~'Angeles' p~ot°-' U'~t~to~'agtg'--u~p"~llyctitical ofred~ dd he."ICIa'$ chance to ~e.onverneeosls c~ose ar none--- ~'-r"-"oment ~',,lan: -:iaid. John :~...L....-..~..- 0~.~ ;~.a ,,~ is-,.4 .: little;r..e~pectla~.:og_g ~e,.,i=~r-e_~_, ..F~...eCi .all..y benefi, c.iaL the; Fisher assistant gen~ra~ manager' awa~e of any high.levd court chal.. ct'°wd.;'Whii~die"~Pec'~":nrstlOaramowlmcontrolouttons fneth,.~qtv'~Devi~en[ofTrans- ~....,.~ ' ·. - - · willhitshowreomsthts?:la~geengugh,~ohefo..un, dvathout ponatio~~'. ~ :, ;/:~ ~''r,''°'' :- .. . : · rares the plain-vanilla?_ the aid o(.-.a~.magmfying gla. ss. ~. Fishei a~ees'with HanSen that ' · ....a.~. ;,.tere~,~o annie in th~ ,la~o=..~.d~,~<~,~'~.e~· o: . laodaa;the 'speed'-trap law a,p, pli~s' to. A~t'."l~h["cam~a"~b~e is ~e ~owef plant and: drt,,,~,:?;I}gl~.~ ~:~,.V~:= . ,.;~,.... . g Slk~.,cling'violatimis but does not' smprisingly ~ percentage Of the ks bettei. . .:~? :.~ n'nc[.wtIlo~ws up ~ tile levels were. ' . . ; . . ..... · ;..f' .? .~ :~ :~.?.~. ,::: ;. · .. ,:~., ·~.;~ : apply to red-light cameras. SLr/l orations that actually stxcl~ and ~la a'owa ans point out,~d;;qpir~ ~cep~ao!e.. · ;:~::'~ ~: ' -: q~ ~lthouoh the sneed of the vehi- ,~,.o;a .. · ' ' ', · eve : :;~'.~:~ ;L~"q,w~rent a:haf~cl},bacl0 is plentiful.... . .:. .,: r~-r.. ...... .~g" :i., .·- ';;'t~-'-~e.'2.'~-:--:t, ..~: '~ni'Ftho et~ndnrd tiinlthlg a.red ,light, not all red-. lions result m.tickats being paid,,·. . .. . ...... ~.~ ',,.: .,... :~..:~__~. r_,..~ ..... ~. light runners are exceeding the send.Fisher of L. Ls Tramportation :- tops; out,. fully lomb. mahe for added corgn .... ... : .....i, ... . ..... ; . ~:..~'~'..:..~.o.~_.~..,._..~:~... offense, Fishetsald~?,~,~.. :,. He smd research based on the ex- nuse control;-mt'condi~,~ ities, Kla~recently did a brave thing.; ,..: .,- ,,.. .' ,' ,.., _-1 ; .~ ..... ,anu~toc~c 0ra~es,'.!.~,~;.~. ~,_,~yc~::~e-~,~' ~:r' dliam Litvak Of Dape~r, Rosenblat ated iickets are sent out to offende~ ~aese enUT;, power:win,-., u~u u~ p~ u, · , , ~ , ." :;'. ,". .... Ii .. ~.,,.t.o o,,,t~,,,;~-r,r~;:' 1.~-k~nn of Iickafin Racine,.onto'a~'&':Litvak,'. ~oi~ep~es~pts Beverly because blur~ photos make the .- ..... --~- ,;~.o~,..aa '.,,o,t ~ack';,~ Palimmn.~JHlilsmred,ligi~tcourt:cases notes ceme plate numbers and ptctUros ', PP , ..... ~ _._ a.~.. ,...- o.. ~ .--...:*~;~ that a similar chellenge, was made· the-drivers unrecogm~hle, or be- ,4'eel ~tt:lRfl~l' "n.tnnintlvewrtt~rs ',! ' '-~:~-:.'bTa dfi~r~.~,t~ho~ was,. caught on . canse there ate no lkeme plates on ~t-ed~no,'"aont,,,',,il"it which also snorted camera mnnigg, a~red,light at the. thevehides: ,,,, ~i,¥ ^ ..... ,~ s,,ecial, tR 000 naint iobs; .ware',~ intersection of Wilghire and La Ct- ,: Even when uckets are sent out, ~ e.~,-,.. ~.oo enou,,hCenuinned with about $2,000zof~,enegaoomevarns; me anver meu i-~snetsmo, toeymayoemarm,'~.vcu ;U~;e'~'o'b;',~ually ~: ~e~'~n~a~ket equipment-~unproved' unsuccessfully to use the speed the registered owner can prove ihat (note, it is a car that is air ~ters and exhaust systems; trap argument to overturn the con- he or she was not driving the car or any justice by its photos, stiffer springs; a heftier clutch and 'Action in Los Angeles County Su- that there were extraordina!T cir- d to flatten out the lines), shorter shift linkage; and 16-inch periorCourt. -cumstances that required them to ;ia Kia calls it a live-placewheels and high-performance In a written opinion April 18, enter the intersection on a red d provides rear seat b~lts tires. The difference was remark- presiding Iudge George Schiaveifi light--getlJng out of the way of an the Spectra will do better able. wrote: "A speed trap exists where ambulance, for example,. seater. There is plenty of They gained about ? horse- an unjustified reduced speed zone Despite the projected iow per- front, though, and the power from the modilied breath- suddenly catches a motorist un- centage of paid tickets, camera eh- ars are comfortable even lng apparatus-and that, with the aware. Where an automated traffic forcement is expected to add about , hefty driver, new clutch, tight shift pattern, enforcement system is utilized, $7 million a year to city coffers, Los ectra is EPA-rated at 23 heftier suspension pans and big- there is no unexpected zone to Angeles City Councilwoman Laura ecity, 29 on the highway, ger rubber, made it fun to hurl catchamotoristoff-gUard. There- Chick has said. 8-liter engine puts out a them into tight comers and easy to quirement that a driver stop at a le125 horsepower. Thati control them coming out. red light comes as no surprise, and ]eanne Wt~ght cannot answer mail with the standard live- It might be worth Kla's while to drivers approaching an intersec, personally but r~ponds in this col- mual transmission, was put the performance package to- tion are presumed to know that if umn toau~omotii,equestionso, f ush it up and down Ne- gerber as un additional option-or, they proceed through the Intersec- general interest. Write to Your ;pring Mountains and better yet, as standard equipment finn after the light tums red, they Wheels, Business Section, LosAn- he Pahrump Valley with with as litde markup as possible, will violate the law." geles Times, Times Mirror Sqnare, in during a recent test That could go a long way toward Litvak says he has represented LosAngeles, CA 90053. E-mail: ..... : ...... m~ ~ ,~ ~a R~verlv Hills in a number of cases ieanrite~aoLcom. 'Motorist. taking San DiegO's Bob Stewart was driving home from Lindbergh Field airport late one night, when -- Click] Clidd -- a camera caught him allegedly run- ning a red light near the Embarca- dero. Once he stopped seeing spots from the bright flashes, Stewart saw red. He paid a lawyer about $2,000 to fight the $271 ticket -- ~ ex- pecting to lose. Stewart was hoping his ca~e Would test the legality of San Die- go's 16 red-light cameras, which last year generated ~27,000 for the cry. He would take it ali the way to the California Supreme Court, if needed. Butto Stewarfs surprise, San Die- go Superior Court Commissioner Michael Goodman dismissed the ticket-- and two others like it. Goodman ruled in favor of Stew- art's ailomey, who argued that red- light cameras are illegal because po- lice officers use a speed trap as evidence. Speed traps are prohib- ited by the California Vehicle Code. Does this mean San Diego's red- light camera program is about to come to a screeching halt? For now, the answer is no. More than 4,000 San Diego mo- wrists are caught on film each month and ticketed for running red lights. · The cameras are installed, operat- ed and maintained by Lock_heed Martin IMS, a San Diego-based company that receives $70 for every ticket paid. Although nearly' 40 cities 'nation- wide use cameras to catch red-light .red-light cameras to court runners, California's penalties are vehicle's speed by timing how long, lxap, other sections in the vehicle the steepest-- and result in points it tskes a car to travel between those code say speed traps only apply.to that would affect a drive~s record. The high stakes are leading more motorists to Kearny Mesa traffic court. Few drivers send a hwyer armed with a 12-page legal brief to argue for them. ~Fhis isn't about public safety. It's about revenue," said Stewart, 53. "I think it's wrong, and I have the money to do something about it" A speed trap involves two points on a highway a known distance apart. Police officers can estimate a points. At Nor'th Harbor Drive and Grape Street, where Stewart got his ticket, two sensors are embedded in the pavement A computer calculates the speed of the car based on the time it took the vehicle to pass over both sensors. In court, police officers use that information to show how many feet from the intersection the car was when the light turned red. While it may sound like a speed speeding tickets, said Steve Hansen, a deputy San Diego city attorney.. ~re do not think the photo red- light system is a speed trap," Han- sen said. ~I'echnically, you can fit it into that definition, but the vehicle code makes it dear that the speed- trap hws only apply to cases involv- lng speeding viohtions.' . :. Not only that, a case in traffic See COUR~ on Page Court California's penalties are steep for red-~ht runners Continued frora B-1 court cannot set a legal precedent, said San Diego City Attorney Casey Gwinn. However, another case scheduled to be heard later this month in the appellate division of the San Diego Superior Court is attacking the cameras on additional grounds. in that case, Marlo Patino, 26, argues that, not only are the cam- eras speed traps -- but that neither the computer nor police know how far from the stepping line the car is when the light tums red because the calculations don't take into ac- count acceleration or deceleration. Typically, cameras are Wained on left-turn lanes, although in San Die- go sigu~ notifying motorists the in- tersection is "photo en/oreed' make it appear cameras are watching ev- ery l_~e in. all. directions. 'lhey don't know how far back you were from the limit line when the light turned red}' said Patino, whose case also was first heard be- fore Commissioner Goodman. ~fhat means they don't know if you could have stopped safely. They try to make this bhck and white, but it's not." City attorneys are confident they wili prevail, in the first place, the system is designed so the cameras · are not tripped until the signal turned red. Secondly, a Los Angeles County appellate court recently ruled red-light cameras are not speed traps. Judith Litzenberger, Stewart's at- torney, counters that the vehicle code says speed traps cannot be used as evidence in prosecuting any violation. She posted her 12-puge legal brief on her law firm's lnteruet site (www.bardsleyandcarlos.com) so other drivers can use it for their defense. ff you've been ticketed by a red. light camera and are considering using the speedqrap defense, be warned: Other traffic commission- ers are not following Goodman's lead. si ~. ~ff~ i~i:~:/, rqar g~ated $8~7~000 for ~e d~. ~ht ~ .~ is :a~ut ~ ~' ~ :.~,~ ~.home He ~d~e it ~ ~e ~ ~ ~e ~me ~ a ~hlng ~. ~: ~ ~m :~ ff?~d :~ ~ ~o~a'" Supreme ~ :C0~ 'ff · - For n~, ~e ~ is no. ~: '~ne~ i~~--a h~ ~ · ' '. · " Mo~ ~'4,~ ~ Di~o..m~ ~ ~b;;~'~ ~ B~WS~s~fi~,~Di~ · Wfis~ ~e ~t on '~ nine a ~ ~t'n~ ~e ~b~ go ~0r ~ ~on~ mon~ ~d fi~ for ~nlnE ~ d~. '.-.- ~ ?.?: ;' ........... :. · ~ ~m~n':.d~ ~e ~h~. - *- .~'- ·: On~ he s~ ~in~ ~ - g~et~ ~d ~o o~em ~e it ~e ~ ~s~, o~- ~m~eb~htfl~h~w ~~hvor'of~- ~ ~d ~:~by ~ ~.He~dah~a~ut~,~ ~s~m~,.~0~~ ~'~S, a ~ Di~b~ ~-~ht~e$271fi~et--~- ~t~ffi~u~ ~y~t~$70ior~ ~1o~. ~ offi~ u~ a ~ ~ '~ fi~et~d. : : S~'~s 'hop~ ~s ~ ~d~. S~ ~ ~ pm~ ~o~ n~ ~ ~ ~ :~J!~ ? ~..P~ i~ by ~e ~o~.Ve~de ~. ~de u~ ~e~'~ ~teh ~ht , - ··7'7 ' ~ red- gh ?cameras to' . · m~; ~om%'~'~ v~e's~by~howlo~ ' " '' ~"" the' steepest :--~ a~d~result in points that would affect a driver's record, point. ~ - The high stakes a~e ]~dlnE more At No .rth Harbor Drive .a~,d .G. ,z~ motorists~ to: Kearny Mesa ~Irsffic ' ~ Slreet, where Stewart.got tUs ucse~, court~ Few drivers'send a lawyer ~ two .sensors are embedded in the re'reed wlth a ~ legal brief to pavement. A computer calculates argue f6r them. · .: ! · the speed of the car based on the ~l'his ian~ about.pablic ~feiy.'It~s lime it took the verde.to pass ever about/~.,venue,~saldS~-vrart,53.~l both sensors. · . . :think it's wr°~lff; and lhave the In cotu% police officers use'that speeding fickets~ said.Stev~ a deputy San Diego ~ attor~.~.Q. · ~sre do nbt thin~:ltie'.phit~?~ ~.f~. light system'i~-l' · into that'd,~nifion, but;th~ ~e_. money to do something about ~': on' a highway ~.:a':lmown i:lis~ce' ! Cahforma s. enalt les are .'steep .fo md-light r mners 'court cannot set'a lelal precedent,:. sald-San Diego City AIlomey Case~. Gwinn. However, another case scheduled to .be heard laer. this .. month in the appellate division of ~" the San Diego Superior Court is- alIacklngthe cameras on additional. ~'ounds.' 'In that case, Marlo Pafino,:26,' · argues that, not only are ~he cam- erss speed .traps -- but that neither: the ..computer nor.l~olice know hOW" far,f~om the gtoppmg line. the ca/' is: · i-'l~Pi .,c~,~'ar~"trainL'd o~tV information to show. hoW magy fe~t Not only that, a .~, in. ~..C from :the'intecseclion the car~-was · .: .,. ~:~ ': :.:~...: .-~;~. , when the. light turned red;,~,?~ i '..-, ,,.... "While it may sound like a speed · ... i .~ ~NIRT~/:~..~i~i j "lhey aon't know h~.!f~'~bacl~ ~you were from the, llmii ~ine ~vhen ? the light turned~ ~:~,~ said Pafino, · ~ whose case also v~s ~rst heard be- : fore Commissioner. Goodman. 'Fl'hat means they don't know ffyou could have stopped Safely. They to make this black ~md white, but it's not.~. City.~tt~meys. are ~onfident they will'prevail. In the first place, the system is designed so.the cameras are not tripped un~il the signal turned red. Secondly, a Los Angeles County appellate court recently ruled red-light' cameras are not Judith Litsenberger, Stewart's at- torney, counters that. the vehicle cOde 'says speed traps' cannot be used as evidence in prosecuting any violation. She pasted her 12-pa~e legal brief on her law titan's internet site (www.bardsleyahdcarlos.com) so other drivers can use'it f~r their,. · ~f you,re ~.licketed ~ a red--. · GARDEN GROVE Motorists beware: Starting at midnight Sunday, motorists caught on film running red lights at Brookhurst Street and Westminster Avenue will be ticketed. Video cameras designed to catch red-light run- ners were installed at the intersection in Feb- ruary, but only warnings -- not $271 tickets -- have been issued be- cause of computer glitches and the need to revise legal forms. - Oaniella Walsh (714) 445-6694 Oaniella~W&lsh(o link.free,om.corn Sent oy: .:U~LCX IHAPPJ. U ~SY~ICM~5 ZN~ 4UU ~0! 01b;~; 01/1~/00 15:50; ]~.i~__#31; Page 1/1 Red-light. cameras send signal for more Y~N-13-2000 14:59 aGO ~? 0?52 95~ P.01 m~ cHALLeNGE (chal;.unj) n I A Chance how this 'revival' has come with challenges as welt as opportunibes. Thc marked progress thc community is in thc midst of didn't happe~ ovemi[ht, he said. Nor was it an easy road for City officials to take, he explained to thc audience of business owners and civic leaders. · Being a 'Renaissance City' can, at times, be difficult, because it means touEh issues need to be tackled, like taking over the Sanitary Dist.dct to protect thc long-term heatih of the community. Unfortunately, when we did, we inherited a weak infrastructure without thc reserve funds to pay for the maior upF~ades needed, so rates had to be raised,' the Mayor said, 'Our renaissance has brought us challen§es like those, but it has also brought Garden Grove a lot of opportunities, like being able to capture some of the Disneyland tourist dollars by buildin§ six hote{s on Harbor Boulevard, just a hag-mile from it. Developments like this will help protect the Ions-term financial hca[th of the community," he added. '~is rebirth has a~so brought higher education to the city for the first time, as welt as amenities like new housin§ in §ated nei§hborhoeds, and a mulliplex rno~e theater. There's a lot to celebrate in this community and we're just §c~tin§ started~' DIGITAL DETERRENT At left, City workers ready a traffic si§nat at Brookhurat Street and Westminster Avenue for the installment of 12 di§ital cameras as part of the Red Light Camera Enforcement Fro§ram. The cameras, (pictured right) placed at atl four comers, and north and southbound, are tdF~ered when a motodst runs a red light A $271 citation, complete with a photo of the ddver and the front and rear ticense plate of the vehicle, will be mailed to red light runners be§innin§ midniDSt, March 13. Recently, a nev~ pro,ram aired a stor'J about a §asolin¢ additive called MTB£ (mcthy-tertie~7-botYI ether), which had seeped into a city's ~roundwater and contaminated thc ddnkin§ water Garden Grove water customers have nothin§ to fear, however - none of the City's wells have been affected by MTBE. In fact, even though teslJn§ for the additive was not mandated at the time, the Orange County Water Distdct (OC"WD) - which supplies water to Garden Grove - began testing for MTBE in 1995. The OCWD uses monitoring weJls to detect contaminants before they can reach ddnkin§ water wells. Over the past year, trace levels of MTBE were found only once in an Oran§e County city's ddnking water well, and that occurred in Yorba Linda. MTBE has been added to gasoline as an anti-knock compound since 1979. Fortunately, clay layers that cover much of Orange County's vast underground water basin retard leakage in most Orange County wells. GARDEN GROVE JOURNAL/THURSDAY, FEB. 17, 2(~00 3 ' -- THE INTERSECTION of Westminster AVenue and Brookhurst Street is.where the program;begins.~/: Smile! You're .on theRed Camera! 'busy intersection The new Red Light Camera Enforcement Program of the City of Garden GrOve is now underway at the intersection of Westminster Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Beginning on Monday, a digi- tal camera perched atop a traffic signal pole has been ready to take a photo of any car that runs a red light. Garden Grove is the first city in Orange County to implement the program, which begins with a 30- day grace period. From Valentine's Day through Monday, March 13, red light runners will receive ~'warning only" notices in the mail. But starting, Tuesday, March 14, red light runners will receive a $271 ticket in the mail. The viola- tion features a photograph of the driver and the front and back li- cense plate of the vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports red light running causes 260,000 crashes nationwide each' year. In Garden Grove in 1997, eight people were killed and another 240 were in- jured due to motorist~ driving through red lights. Garden Grove's Red Light En- forcement Program is self-fUnded and will be administered by Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., which operates similar successful programs in California, Arizona and Colorado. If the Westminster Avenue/ Brookhurst Street photo enforce- ment site proves successful, the city will be installing digital cam- eras at other accident-prone inter- sections in Garden Grove. For more information about the program, contact Traffic Engineer George Allen at (714) 741-5190. CONTACT: CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 3070, GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92842 http://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE: (714) 741-5280 George Allen, (714) 741-5190 Traffic Engineer, City of Garden Grove FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, February 8, 2000 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE SAYS, "NO LOVE LOST ON FEBRUARY 14 FOR RED LIGHT RUNNERS!" This Valentine's Day, it won't be love in the air at the intersection of Westminster Avenue and Brookhurst Street in Garden Grove, but rather the watchful lens of a digital camera perched atop a traffic signal pole, waiting to take a photograph of any motorist who runs a red light. Monday, February 14, kicks offthe City of Garden Grove's Red Light Camera Enforcement Program, aimed at reducing accidents and fatalities at the city's most high-risk intersection. Garden Grove is the first city in Orange County to implement the program, which begins with a 30-day grace period. From Valentine's Day through Monday, March 13, red light runners will receive "warning only" notices in the mail. But starting Tuesday, March 14, red ligl~t runners will receive a $271 ticket in the mail. The violation features a photograph of the driver and the front and back license plate of the vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports red light running causes 260,000 crashes nationwide each year. In Garden Grove in 1997, eight people were killed and another 240 were injured due to motorists driving through red lights. -more- Garden Grove Says, "No Love Lost on Red Light Runners!" - Page 2 - Garden Grove's Red Light Enforcement Program is self-funded and will be administered by Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., which operates similar successful programs in California, Arizona and Colorado. If the Westminster Avenue/Brookhurst Street photo enforcement site proves successful, the City will be installing digital cameras at other accident-prone intersections in Garden Grove. For more information about the program, contact City Traffic Engineer George Allen at (714) 741-5190. TIMES November 23, 1999 :Feeling Casual About Running Red Lights? .: Cameras.to Give Pause:: · :December~will bring .the .first of possibly many camera~ to accudent-prone intersections and fines will follow "' Be'CHRIs CEBALLOS S¢0ffiAw drivers.in Garden Grove · Allen reports that in 1997 there ' shbuld make this New Year's rnso- were' 1,277 accidents in Garden intion if they want to avoid a $~/1 Oreve caused by r~l-light violators · ' ':~: .: , · . , ticket:..."I . Alien reports that in l9ff/ there ' resolve to. were 1,277 accidents in Garden · VCestmln- . stet ,Ay- : ~nu~;" ': '"' B~gin- : ' : : ' .r/ingT.the first week of December, that inter- section in.Garden 'Grove will have one of Orange County's firs[ red- !ight traffic entorcement cameras. It's part of a six-month test of the cameras' effectiveness, and only warnings wil! be issued for ~h~ first · _. mon[i~ 9f t13~ p~og:c~. , i .... But after th?,.~$,w..y~,-)~gins violators w receve citations ~hiou~h ~e mail.. ..... : ..... ;, ; Two..d~gitsl ,camerasLwill. repord the license plate nUmbers of:cars running through red signals, in- eluding left turns, o/¥.Brobkhurst, and those running left-turn reds on Westminster. Similar camera programs have been operating successfully in Bev- ' erly H~lls, Oxnard, E1Caion, Poway, 8an Francisco and Santa Rosa. Irvine is installing cameras in: the coming weeks, and in Odtob~r th~" San Juan Capistrano City Council approved their use: ............. 3md while sb~e m~y ce.m.p!~ o~ "Big B½'o~her" ii/t~Usion, c'i{.y 'offi: ~ials are hoping to reduce the number of accidents caused by those red-light, violators. "Red-light running is a big prob- lem and a serious accident prob- lem,'' said George Allen, Garden I~ORIS SHIEIDS/!.OS Angeles Time:. Grove traffic engineer. ...not mn red 0r0ve e~used by i'~d-light violators. at leas~ '.p~-~ Injured "6ig'hi ~: rata ly And.. ,the LB r 9 o;k. ---'. t~¢31 gUmber of, people hurt or: ' ' "q~h~ NaU0nal:Institut~ for !.yra¥. Safety reports that red-light f violaUofis account for'260,000 aeei-, ! dents each year in the U.S. and the number of accidents has increased ! 15% from 1992 to 1996. But Allen knows firsthand that cumerg enforcement works When he was a t?~ffic engineer with the city of Santee, he insti- tutL~d a'makesMft surveillance pro- gram. ,,"The She~;ifffs Department gave/ne.a cas unJ. t with a'.camera 'and ~;~o'motorcyc e officers to issue ;'ei~ati0ns;":-Al en..sa d ,~We.;were :able't~:reduee accid&nts':by 27%.' Allen expects the program"t~ ~ue ~ ooo to iaooo uc~eu dung t~e t.ns. t run.'l.f the.program proves eo~t:effectiye. ~.o'¢ount7. and eij~ offieia!s, nine-.more int~rseetians:in (?14) 966-7440. Orange County News February 9, 2000 Cameras Aim to Show Who's Not Stopping By John Seymour there will be greetings in the mail. Happy Valentine's Day. For the first 30 days, said The tentative target date to Standiford, it will be a warning. launch the cameras going up at After that, it will be a citation Brookhurst and Westminster Ax,- along with such information as the enue is Monday, Feb. 14 -- amountofthebail(fine)andwhere Valentine's Day. to send it. And an action photo. Garden Grove city officials "This is just the first intersec- would tell you that the dat~ is ap- ' ' ' ,, - Uon, smd Stand,ford. We wall r5, propriate and that the cameras are ~t for six months and see if it an act of love. Love? You betcha! Traffic safety is the goal. Your safety. Dep. City Mgr. Catherine Standiford said it is the start of a six-month experiment. "If it works," said Standiford, "then we will install cameras at other intersections where there is a problem..." The problem is motorists who go through red lights that have just changed from green. The cameras will take a picture of the offending motorist and the vehicle's license number and then works..." When the project was first con- sidered, one citizen raised the spec- tre of Big Brother. Not sO, said members of the City Council and staff. The cameras will "clearly docu- ment"'the alleged offense; said Standiford, echoing what other city officials also have said: "This is for traffic safety." City officials consistently have said that they hope the project will prevent accidents, thereby avoid- ing injuries and saving lives. Motorists who mn red lights will soon feel like they're being told: "Look ! You're on Candid Camera Police Contract To Be Signed By Cheryl Scott Abrecht, publicinformationofficer State of California. The State ts The Garden Grove Police for the department, the contract currently offering a new plan that Officers Association has voted to will be retroactive to October 1. would cost more. approve the contract that is the "last, best and final' offer by the city. The agreement must now be approved by the 'Garden Grove City Council. The contract was not on the agenda for the February 8 meeting of the Council, since the lengthy memorandum of agreement has to be typed and reviewe& According to Captain Dave 1999 and will expire on June 30, 2000. It calls for a 5% pay raise, also retroactive, and $13 to $15 each month "to offset increases in medical expenses." The city has also agreed to discuss the new state retirement plan options that the officers want to participate in. The officers are participants in the Public Employees Retirement System program, offered by the Abrecht said the retirement plan "may be a moot point, because new contract negotiations will begin sometime around the end of April." The agreement to discuss ihe plan ensures that the item will be included in the negotiations for the next contract. The Garden Grove Police have been working without a contract with the city for many months. Register Register February 5, 2000 February 7, 2000 GARDEN GROVE Contract approved: The Garden Grove Police Of- ficers Association has approved a contract with the city that will in- crease 149 officers' pay 10 percent over two years. The officers voted on the offer Thursday night. The officers, who asked for an 18 percent increase, plan to renego- date the contract in April. The force is one of the lowest paid in the county. - Wes Orshoski (714) 445-6694 GARDEN GROVE Haster Gardens: The Own- ers of Arroyo Vista Apart- ments (formerly Haster Gardens) will discuss how the complex will be re- vamped at a meeting Friday at 2 p.m. at the site, 12244 Haster St. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove, will be among a group of state, county and city officials who will tour the complex, which the city has helped rehabilitate al- ter tenants were found ~v- eral months ago living ~r~*. substandard con ditio nC,..', Fax items to Eleanor Collins at (714) 825-0434, or e-mail to closeup~ link.freedom.com. Register February 8, 2000 Register February 9, 2000 Register February 10, 2000 GARDEN GROVE Red-light cameras: Cameras that will snap photos of drivers run- ning red lights at Brook- hurst Street and West- ~ninster Avenue are be- mg installed. The Police Department hopes to be- gin using the cameras the first week of March. - Wes Orshoski (714) 445-6694 GARDEN GROVE Renovations funded: The city's redevelop- ment agency allocated $125,000 on Tuesday for the continued rehabilita- tion of the USASIA retail center at 9580 Garden Grove Blvd. In ex- change, USASIA's own- ers agreed to operate the facility as a retail center for at least seven years. USASIA has been mak- ing improvements to the center for several years. The city hopes USASIA's work will spur other small-business owners ill the area to make similar improvements. - Wes Orshoski (714) 445-6694 GARDEN GROVE Blight fight: A month rehabilitation of the former Haster Gar- den Apartments at Lampson Avenue and Haster Street will be an- nounced Friday by its new owner, Vista Equi- ties. Manager Charles Fry has said $2.5 million will be spent to renovate the complex, which is now named Arroyo Vis- ta. The city is kicking in an additional $600,000. - Vik Jolly ' (714) 445 6684 Cameras catch light-runners red-handed NEWS FOCUS: Three cities em~ ploy new weapon at busy intersec- tions in an effort to cut collisions. ay HEAmER I.OURiE The Orange Coun0/Regret blowh~eron~v~e__°r~,.de,.vil'ma¥~are drivers who -.,,~.gu r~ agars are about to encounter a new type of law erfforcement in Orange County. Three cities in the past month or so have in- istalled cameras at intersections with high traffic volumes and accident rates, part of a nationwide effort to combat the growing number of red-light violators and reduce col~sions. .Tb~ e ca~. er~. mounted en a 25-foot-high pole, -o ,~, u~,cx~ecuen aner the signal .turns red. About 10 days later, the vehicle's re lstered owner receives - ,, ,~x ucl~et m the mail els~wthhee~?nui~ oa~van~g .~.e they have been · . y.wm acc~aents ye reduced, but c~ty l~'enSunes will become fatter and a pub- lic de.hate will ensue over ~ri ....... good law enforcement inlxude too far into , ple's lives? t will prehahi¥ offend a lot of people," said l{obert Pugsley, a professor at Southw Universi Sch . estern · . ty ool of Law m Los el ' p~e m the act of doin ........ ,~o es peo- The,-~ ~ .... s o~mcmlng Wrong." . · ,~ ,o ,~u queslion the cameras are effec- ~cVune. ~ Juan Capistrano, the rust Orange ty city to get its system running, expects to ~ssue 129 c~lal~ons - about four limes the normal amount - for alleged violations at a sin lem tersec~on dui'in-- - ~,~- . . g ' - April I0. ~ '~ oo-oay per~ocl that began Garden Grove, with one intersection equipped, and Irvine, with two, will be ' c' ' red-light runners cau,~-, ~- gm next several weeks. By the end of the year, the three cities together will have outfiaed more than a dozen intersections. Dana Point is study- -- Please see CAMERAS Page 5 g EXHIBIT "C" STOP RED LIGHT RUNNING PROGRAM ITE - Washington Weekly - October 01, 1999 Page 8 or' 14 SURVEY SHOWS AMERICANS RUN RED LIGHTS WITHOUT REGARD TO CONSEQUENCES This week, U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater, announced the results of a survey by the Stop Red Light Running partnership revealing that 98 percent of Americans agree that red light running is dangerous, but over half admit deliberately running red lights because they are in a hurry. The release of the survey marks the second annual "National Stop on Red Week," which runs from Sept. 24 to Oct. I. The program is a public/private partnership between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Trauma Society (ATS) and DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The research also provides new' evidence that red light runners do not conform to a set demographic -the dangerous practice reaches across to drivers of all age, economic groups and gender. The perpetrators are everyday people; professionals, blue-collar workers, unemployed, homemakers, parents, and young adults. According to U.S. Department of Transportation statistics, drivers who run red lights are involved in 89,000 crashes a year, inflicting more than 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. In addition, from 1992 to 1998, the number of fatal crashes at intersections has increased by 16 percent, while all other types of fatal crashes have increased by only five percent. Although, social scientists involved with the survey hypothesized that "frusn'ation" and "road rage" would represent what most people perceived as the cause of red light running, the results proved otherwise. Only 15.8 percent of respondents cited those reasons, while nearly half (47.8) admitted to being prompted by nothing more complicated than being in a hurry. The survey t'ocused on what drivers reported to be their red light running behaviors, as opposed to what they believed about red light running. Overall, 55.8 percent of the respondents admit running red lights. Those in lower technology (68.3) and blue-collar jobs (59.7), as well as unemployed (68.8), and non-parents (65 percent) reported significantly more red light running than respondents in other categories. Professionals (59.7) and homemakers (54.8) also rank high. Parents with children less than 20 years old (65.6) are likely to run md lights more than parents of older children (40.8). Respondents with bachelors and post-graduate degrees rank at 58.4 and 56 percent respectively. The survey also found that a majority of drivers (80.5) were more frustrated with discourtesy on the roads than they were with any other traffic problem, including congestion. TOP OF PAGE TRANSPORTATION; CONNECTING TO TODAY'S RURAL AMERICA The National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) has released 'Transportation:Connecting to Today's Rural America" in conjunction with a recent symposium..Articles included in the publication include: · Enhancing Transportation Choices for Rural America; · Maximizing the Potential of New Highways in Appalachia; · TEA-21: Empowering Rural America in the Decision-Making Process; and, · Recent Rural Public Transportation Connections. A full copy of the publication is available at http://www.nado.org/rtoc/libral?/greyhound.htmlas part of the National Association of Development Organizations' Web page. TOP OF PAGE http ://www. ite.org/membersonly /weekly /ww991001 .htm 10/27/2000 Satbty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Stop On Red Week Page 1 of'2 SAFETY P_rofessional Resources (~) ,Stol~ Re;l Light RUnp!ng home I site map I search Kno~led ~ R4~'O u ~c~_~ Communication Community Resources Proqrams Road User Resources Proqrams Media Center News and Events ~rji Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LIGHT crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. RUNNING Public costs exceed 7 billion. 2000 Stop On Red Week- October 8 - 14, 2000 For the third year, Stop Red Light Running is sponsoring National Stop on Red Week - a week dedicated to educating Americans about the dangers of running red lights. National Stop on Red Week '00 runs from Oct. 8 - Oct. 14. The success of this week depends on local efforts around the country. Following is a list of 10 activities you can coordinate to help promote National Stop on Red Week in your community: Ten Activities for National Stop on Red Week · Press conference. Hold a press conference to announce national and statewide statistics gathered from local law enfomement agencies and the National SRLR program, · Proclamations. Encourage the governor and state legislators to declare SRLR week and work with them to enact stiffer penalties.* · Pledges. Motivate drivers to sign a pledge to stop running red lights, Deliver the pledges to the statehouse [awn during a press event.* http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr week.htm 10/27/2000 Satkty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Stop On Red Week Page 2 of 2 · Radio promotions. Encourage radio stations to do live broadcasts from high-crash intersections in town. Stations can give away promotional items in support of the week. · Schools. V'v~rk with the local school system to ask all children to wear red during the week. · Police ride-alongs. Encourage journalists to ride along with police officers as they make traffic stops, · SRLR posters. Hang posters at schools, local businesses and other high-visibility areas.* · Movie theater slides. V~rk with a local movie theater to include a SRLR slide in the pro-film slide presentation.* · Paycheck reminders. Encourage local employers to develop paycheck reminders announcing the week and providing safe driving tips.* · Billboards. Seek donated advertising space on billboards, buses, cabs and at gas stations.' · Design layouts, ideas and materials are available through the Stop Red Light Running Program. Back To Top 0 FHWA .................................. professional resources / programs Home I About Us [ Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration http://safety.thwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr week.htm 10/27/2000 Sat~ty - Stop Red Light Running Page 1 or' 1 home I site map I search Frofessional Resources Cornmunity Resources Road User Resources '.:eoia Center News and Events O Knewledge Communlgatlon STi~p The Stop Red Light Running Program R£D LIGHT was created by the RUNNIN(~ Federal Highway Administration in 1995 as a community-based safety program. This campaign raised awareness of the dangers of red light running and helped reduce fatalities in many of the participating communities. In April of 1998, DaimlerChrysler and the American Trauma Society partnered with FHWA to continue the Stop Red Light Running Program. Together, we sponsor the Annual National Stop on Red Week, support local programs around the country, work with victims and family members, and develop and distribute educational materials. ~FHWA Home I About Us I Contact Us I Feedback DepaC(ment of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/srlr.htm 10/27/2000 Satkty - Stop Red Light Running National Partnership Page I or'2 SAFETY Professional Resources (~ Stop Red Light RUnning home I alta map I search Y. nowledge Resources Communication Community Resources R_oad U s_er~R~esou rc_e_s Programs News and Events ~p Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LIGHT crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly %000 deaths. RUNNING Public costs exceed 7 billion. Scope of Red Light Running Problem Partnership [~Surveys have revealed: Over 90 percent of Americans believe that running a red light is "extremely" or "very" dangerous. Two in three Americans see other drivers run red lights almost every day Source: Stop Red Light Running Partnership Survey Mission Statement "To continually reduce the incidence of red light running in order to prevent related crashes, trauma center admissions and fatalities." The red light running partners accomplish this mission by providing leadership, advice, guidance and information to interested parties throughout the United States. The efforts undertaken by the partners are designed to inform and educate the general public and to enlist communities to take assertive action in combating red light running violations http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr partner.htm 10/27/2000 Sat~ty - Stop Red Light Running National Partnership Page 2 of 2 Program History The Stop Red Light Running Program was created by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1995 as a community based safety program. This campaign raised awareness of the dangers of red light running and helped reduce fatalities in many of the participating communities. In April of 1998, DaimlerChyrsler and the American Trauma Society partnered with FHWA to continue the Stop Red Light Running Program. Together, we sponsor the Annual National Stop on Red V~ek, support local programs around the country, work with victims and family members, and develop and distribute educational materials. To date, the Stop Red Light Running Program has expanded to over 200 communities and counting. V~ invite you to look at the information contained in this Web Site to learn how you can help reduce the fatalities, injuries and crashes caused by red light running. [~lmplementation Site Backqround RED LIGHT RUNNING Acrobat Reader is required for viewing files. Back To Top 0 FHWA .................................. professional resources / pro(jrarns ~,,~% Home I About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration S,~F[/Y http://safety, fhwa.dot.g ov/fourthlevel/pro_res_srlr~artner.htm 10/27/2000 Introduction The FHWA, an agency of the U. S. Department of Transportation, is responsible for working with state and local highway agencies, and other Federal agencies to develop a safe, economical and efficient highway transportation system. Increasing awareness of roadway-related safety issues, such as those related to traffic control devices, serves to enhance safety for the motoring public, which translates to a health and economic benefit for the entire country. In response to alarming statistics on the number of crashes and injuries resulting from drivers running red lights, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the Stop Red Light Running (Stop RLR) Campaign, a comprehensive safety outreach program that combines public education with aggressive enforcement. In order for a campaign of this type to be successful, FHWA determined that there was a need to partner with individual communities, providing these areas with public education materials, tools and tips to implement the campaign, and grant funds for seed money. Following a successful pilot site test in Charleston, SC, the FHWA planned the national implementation of the Stop RLR Campaign. Summary Report E~ei:utive Summary Red light running is a dangerous form of aggressive driving. Each year, red light running accounts for nearly 100,000 automobile crashes, over 90,000 injuries and is associated with more than 1,000 deaths. The costs to the public are an estimated $7 billion per year, in terms of medical costs, lost productivity and property damage. · In response, the US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration developed a public information and education campaign about the dangers of red light running. The Stop Red Light Running (Stop RLR) Campaign is predicated on two essential elements: ensuring that signal systems are properly working and aggressively enforcing red light running violations whether with stepped-up enforcement or camera system detection. Following a successful pilot test in Charleston, South Carolina (1994), the FHWA awarded over $600,000 in Stop RLR Campaign mini grants to 31 communities nationwide for the purpose of implementing and evaluating local Stop RLR Campaign efforts. These local campaigns spanned a three year period from 1995 to 1998 and have demonstrated the effectiveness of the campaign. · In virtually all of the sites that tracked crash data, crashes decreased during the campaign months as compared to the prior period. Stepped-up enforcement activities resulted in a significant increase in traffic signal-related citations in several sites. Coupled with increased public awareness of the dangers of red light running, the overall impact of the campaign led to a decrease in crashes in these same communities. Traffic citation and crash results were consistent across those sites which tracked both sets of figures against comparable periods: the number of citations increased by double-digit percentages, in over half of these tracking sites, there was a 150 percent increase at specifically-monitored intersections. Conversely, crashes decreased by double-digit percentages, and by as much as 43 percent in one of the sites. These results have occurred against a national trend of annual increases in total RLR crashes since 1992. · Awareness of the dangers of red light running increased in the grant sites. The campaign helped communities across the country raise awareness of traffic safety messages. The post campaign survey showed a 12 percent overall increase in awareness of highway safet~ messages. Specifically, the Public Service Announcements used in the campaign were recognized by a substantial number of those polled (averaging 19 percent in the sites as a group, and reaching upwards of 50 percent for particular spots). About half of these people said they had changed their driving habits as a result most often by being more careful to stop for yellow lights. · The Stop RLR Campaign has become institutionalized in grant sites, as well as other sites. Stop RLR Campaign efforts are continuing in all 31 communities beyond the close of the official FHWA campaign and the depletion of federal grants. Every one of the 31 sites has indicated that the campaign is continuing in some form, with the majority of the communities continuing to distribute materials, maintaining stepped-up enforcement or installing RLR camera systems. In addition, communities and organizations from around the country continue to request materials and information on how to conduct local Stop RLR Campaigns even without the support of federal funds. · The Stop RLR Campaign has grown into a national partnership to improve highway safety and reduce highway-related fatalities and trauma. On April 30, 1998, DOT Secretary Rodney Slater and FHWA Administrator Kenneth Wykle unveiled the second phase of the campaign to Stop RLR a partnership with the American Trauma Society (ATS) and the DaimlerChrysler Corporation to expand the Stop RLR Campaign to an additional 200 communities nationwide. Flanked by ATS Executive Director Harry Teter, DaimlerChrysler CEO Bob Eaton and NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez. Slater announced that the Stop RLR effort had been selected as the ATS's injury-prevention campaign for 1998. With the support of DaimlerChrysler and materials developed by FHWA, trauma centers across the country will be implementing local campaigns to stop red light running throughout 1999. Summary Report In the early 1990's, failure to comply with traffic control devices (including running red lights) was the cause of approximately 22 percent of all urban crashes, according to an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study of police reported crashes on public roads in four urban areas. Focus group research conducted with members of the general driving public at about the same time indicated that more than three-quarters of adult drivers knew what constituted a red light violation, but over half readily admitted to occasionally running a red light. Nearly two-thirds reported seeing their fellow drivers do the same. In response to these alarming findings, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the Stop Red Light Running (Stop RLR) Campaign, a comprehensive safety outreach program that combined public education with aggressive enforcement. Increasing awareness of roadway-related safety issues serves to enhance safety for the motoring public, which translates to a health and economic benefit for the entire country. The FHWA, an agency of the U. S. Department of Transportation, is responsible for working with state and local highway agencies, and other Federal agencies to develop a safe, economical and efficient highway transportation system. In order for a campaign of this type to be successful, FHWA determined that there was a need to partner with individual communities, providing these areas with public education materials, tools and tips to implement the campaign, and grant funds for seed money. Formative Research The Stop RLR Campaign began with the establishment of campaign goals, objectives and messages, developed through formative research. A total of twelve focus group sessions were conducted with members of the general driving public and law enforcement representatives on three separate occasions: April 1992, in Washington, D.C., and January and October 1994, in Charleston, South Carolina. These groups were complemented by two moderated discussion groups with traffic safety professionals, including engineers, on separate occasions: August 1991 and February 1995. Although focus and moderated discussion groups do not yield quantified, definitive information on attitudes and behaviors, the following findings helped shape the campaign: · Drivers are in a hurry and under stress; · Drivers have confidence in their own skills, not in other drivers' skills; · Drivers believe that there are too many cars on the road; · Drivers believe that traffic signals are mis-timed, and they are unclear as to the intended meaning of the yellow light; · Over half readily admit to occasionally running a red light. Nearly two-thirds report seeing their fellow drivers do the same; · Drivers do not perceive much risk associated with not complying with traffic control devices; and · Drivers are vitally concerned with not hurting others. Development of Campaign Messages Based on the formative research, the following assumptions were made for the Stop RLR Campaign: first, that the target audience would be the experienced, adult driver, who is generally law-abiding but who also does not consistently comply with traffic control devices; second, that yellow lights could not be the focus of the campaign due to local jurisdiction differences as to whether or not entering the intersection during the yellow cycle is an offense; third, that a very real threat of enforcement had to be present for any campaign message to work; and fourth, that drivers knew they were wrong in running red lights, but had developed a well-defended position based on Iow experience of being ticketed or involved in a crash. Due to the short duration (i.e, approximately 3 months, based on the length of time a concentrated, coordinated enforcement and media campaign could be expected to last) of the initial phase of the campaign, success would be measured primarily by changes in community attitudes, awareness and self- reported behavior, in addition to citation data. Although crash and injury data would be tracked, expectation of significant changes would not be high at this initial stage. To provide as much potential for creating awareness as possible, public service announcements were developed in the three major media vehicles television, radio and print (i.e., newspapers and magazines) and tested among adult drivers and law enforcement groups in the pilot site. All materials focused on the consequences of red light running behavior, such as being stopped and ticketed and/or potentially being involved in a severe crash. The PSA tag line was "The light is red for a reason. So stop." All campaign materials were specifically developed with the intention of incorporating one or more tag- or credit lines to give local jurisdictions an opportunity to demonstrate ownership of the campaign. Pilot Test The FHWA decided to test the campaign in a single pilot site location prior to introducing the program nationally. Through discussions with field staff, Charleston, South Carolina, was identified as a logical pilot site. Although specific site selection criteria had not been formally drafted when Charleston was chosen for this initiative, attributes were present in the community that would become the foundation for the selection of future sites: · accurate identification of a problem with signal compliance, and the economic impact on the community; · information confirming that the traffic signal system was not the cause of the red light running problem; · a very active and successful broad-based community traffic safety program; · strong support of law enforcement; and · a willingness among all groups concerned (i.e., chamber of commerce, city, law enforcement, traffic engineers, state department of transportation, etc.) to address the issue. Necessary and present as well was the organizational structure to support a coordinated local effort, including FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) field staff, Charleston's metro area Community Traffic Safety Program (CTSP}, the City of Charleston, 27 different law enforcement agencies, the South Carolina Department of Transportation, and the South Carolina Department of Public Safety. Strong ties to the business community, through C~-rleston's Chamber of Commerce, was also an important factor. CTSP's first step was to publish a study that showed that local businesses carry a $240 million cost of lost productivity, health care, EMS services, and property damage as a result of traffic crashes. This support structure also provided the resources to gather pre- and post- campaign crash data, pre- and post-campaign awareness and attitudinal studies among the general public, and citation data from law enforcement. Funding sources were also identified, including the FHWA's 402 and Surface Transportation Programs, and FHWA's Technology Application Funds. The enforcement and education campaign took place in June, July and August of 1994. The campaign kickoff was held on May 20, 1994 (immediately preceding the Memorial Day holiday), and was attended by representatives from all 27 law enforcement jurisdictions involved. Campaign activities included publicizing the economic costs of red light running and providing this information to the business community, increased enforcement by law enforcement agencies, a series of traffic safety events, and contact with local media to obtain PSA time and space. Following campaign activities, the pilot site collected citation and crash statistics and conducted a post- campaign analysis. Because there were 27 different law enforcement agencies involved, the pilot site coordinator experienced difficulty obtaining citation and crash statistics, but highlights from five of the Charleston-area jurisdictions indicated successful enforcement campaigns. Findings from the post-campaign telephone surveys indicated 48 percent of the general public recalled seeing the television PSA regarding the crash-related consequences of red light running, and 34 percent recalled the second PSA on being ticketed. Aisc, over 30 percent recalled the radio PSAs. (Note: in a social marketing campaign, public recall of over 10 percent is considered excellent.) Most importantly, 22 percent of those surveyed reported that either they had changed, or intended to change, their driving behavior as a result of the campaign. National Campaign Rollout Based on the successes and learning from the pilot site test, the FHWA planned the national implementation of the Stop RLR Campaign. The national rollout, including coordinating, implementing and evaluating the Stop RLR Campaign, spanned three years and can be divided into two phases: 1) planning and marketing and 2) program implementation. Planning and Marketing Phase Based on the evaluation of the pilot phase, the following goal, objectives and strategies were created for the roi[out phase: Campaign Goal The goal of the Stop RLR Campaign was to promote "safe communities" by re-establishing respect for traffic control devices, specifically the traffic signal. Campaign Objectives Local (implementation site) Objective: The objective of this campaign for the participating sites was to begin to reduce the number and severity of intersection traffic crashes by increasing awareness of the hazards associatec~ with non-compliance of traffic signals. National Objective: National objectives for the campaign were to create a program that could be used in a variety of communities with or without Federal assistance and could be sustained beyond its Federally prescribed time period. It was also important that FHWA provide a qualitative research- based program that would be recognized for its integrity, effective countermeasures, and ability to dovetail with complementary initiatives, such as speeding and overall traffic enforcement campaigns. Campaign Strategies Campaign strategies incluaed: · educating the community on red light running hazards by obtaining media coverage for the campaign, both in terms of public service announcement placement and news coverage; · supporting the campaign news coverage with targeted enforcement by police agencies that have jurisdiction over the community; · fostering grassroots red light running education efforts in businesses, schools, and community organizations; and · dovetailing the Stop RLR Campaign with other local traffic safety education and enforcement programs. Program Implementation Application Process and Site Selection The pilot site results and the plans to roll-out the campaign nationwide were announced at a technical workshop of the National Association of Governors Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) annual conference for traffic safety professionals. Feedback gained at this conference helped FHWA develop site criteria, and the campaign was then presented to potential rollout phase applicants at Lifesavers 13 in April 1995. Lifesavers is the nation's largest traffic safety conference and draws representatives from a variety of disciplines concerned with traffic safety issues. Because limited resources were available to help implement the rollout of the Stop RLR Campaign in the various communities and to help ensure success, it was important that each of the sites selected meet minimum selection criteria and provide a demonstrated ability to fulfill organizational, evaluation and reporting requirements. Site selection criteria were: 1. Organizational capabilities, including the existence of an established organization or infrastructure such as a community corridor traffic safety program (CTSP), a site coordinator with sufficient safety experience and knowledge to execute the daily activities of the project, and demonstrated support from the law enforcement community. Aisc, the ability to bring additional resources such as already established public or private-sector partnerships, to the project. 2. Identification of traffic safety issues, including evaluating an~ updating the signal system prior to all other campaign activities, and identifying the red light running problem within the community. 3. Additional attributes, such as relevant past experience with similar projects and issues; identification of a resource to undertake the pre- and post-campaign evaluation process, and the ability and intent to seek out creative ways to execute the campaign. In addition to input from FHWA field office representatives, a "site selection committee" (made up of representatives from the Office of Highway Safety, the Office of Technology Applications and the Public Affairs Office) was instituted at FHWA headquarters. The response from communities across the country was overwhelming. Fifty-four communities applied, exceeding FHWA's expectations. FHWA was committed to helping all interested communities and decided to award mini grants to 32 sites and provide materials to 22 addittonai sites. Grant funding for each site ranged from $7,500 to $40,000 based on funds requested in the application. In total, $637,200 was awarded for all sites. These "start-up" grants were provided in addition to camera-ready and broadcast-quality public service announcements (TV, radio and print), Strategic Planning Guides, and access to FHWA representatives for assistance in implementing the campaign. The Stop RLR Campaign implementation sites varied greatly both in size of community and type of organization coordinating the campaign. Diversity was important to the site selection committee, including size, population and rural/urban makeup. Since red light running is primarily a problem in urban areas, the majority of sites were located in the more populous areas of the North, Southeast and the West, with some Midwest representation. Five of the sites were in communities with a po.pulation of under 50,000, twelve with a population between 50,000 and 200,000, six with a population between 200,000-500,000 and nine with populations of over 500,000. Following are the community organizations that received Stop RLR Campaign grants (see appendix for more site-specific information): Municipality of Anchorage, AK - Traffic Engineering City of Bellingham, WA- Department of Public Works Black Hawk County, iA - "Arrive Alive Committee" Boston, MA - Boston Transportation Department Burlington, VT - Burlington Police Department Central Oklahoma - Association of Central Oklahoma Governments Colorado Springs, CO - "Drive Smart Colorado Springs" Columbia, SC - Metropolitan Columbia Traffic Safety Programs Howard County, MD - Howard County Police Department Jackson, MI - Jackson Community Traffic Safety Program Kenner, LA - City of Kenner Police Department Lancaster, PA - Lancaster Bureau of Police Lexington/Fayette County, KY - Division of Police City of Liberal, KS City of Lincoln, NE Milwaukee, WI - Milwaukee Police Department/Milwaukee Safety Commission NorthWest Alabama Council of Local Governments Natchez, MS - Natchez Police Department Phoenix, AZ - City of Phoenix Police and Street Transportation Departments Polk County, FL - Polk County Community Traffic Safety Program City of Portland, OR Radnor Township, PA - Police Department Richmond, VA - Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles City of Rutland, VT - Police Department Sacramento, CA - "Drive Smart Alliance" City and County of San Francisco, CA - DPH, EMS Agency Spokane, WA - Spokane County Traffic Safety Commission Tuscaloosa, AL - Tuscaloosa County Highway Traffic Safety Washington, DC - Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments Wood County, WV - Wood County Highway Safety Program (Cary, NC, and State of Utah were selected to receive grants, but declined participation in the campaign). The following communities received comprehensive campaign materials: Baton Rouge, LA- City of Eaton Rouge Police Department Carson City, NV - Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Essex Junction, VT - Essex Police Department City of Everett, WA City of Fort Smith, AR City of Hammond, LA Homewood, AL - Homewood Police Department Honolulu, HI - Hawaii CODES Project City of Ithaca, NY Newark, DE - Newark Police Department Oakland County, MI - Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County Ocean County, NJ - Ocean County Engineers Pasadena, CA - Pasadena Police Department St Johnsbury, VT - Caledonia County Sheriffs Office City of Slidell, LA City of Springfield, IL Stark County, OH * Ohio Operation Lifesaver Tucson, AZ - Community Services Section Upper Merion Township, PA - Upper Merion Police Department West Munroe, LA - West Munroe Police Department Whitehall Township, PA - Whitehall Township Police Department Williston, VT - Williston Police Department National Campaign Kickoff Press Conference To formally announce and recognize the sites that were awarded Stop RLR Campaign grants, FHWA staged a press event on August 29, 1995, on the grounds of the Washington Monument at the intersection of 14th Street and Constitution Avenue. This location was selected by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (WashCOG), as one of the intersections with the highest rate of red light runners. Speakers included then Secretary of Transportation Federico Pe~a; then FHWA Administrator Rodney E. Siater; and then WashCOG President and Mayor of Bowie, MD, Gary Allen. The event focused on the growing national problem of red light running, resulting injuries and societal costs, including health care, time off work, insurance rate increases and property damage. In addition to announcing the implementation sites, WashCOG also was presented with its grant at this conference. As part of the event, participants were encouraged to sign a pledge to stop for red lights. The Secretary was the first to sign this "pledge board," followed by the Administrator and WashCOG representatives. The sites were notified they were grant recipients on the morning of the event. The Washington, DC, news bureaus of the major stations and newspapers in each of the grant sites were also contacted with the information, and the public service directors in selected TV and radio stations were sent the PSAs to complement the news coverage. This media tactic turned out to be very successful, with more than 115 TV and radio placements, and nearly 100 print placements in publications across the country. Technical Assistance to Implementation Sites Prior to presenting the campaign to communities, FHWA created an implementation and technical assistance plan including methodologies for sites to receive campaign assistance. FHWA concentrated its efforts on providing assistance to the local organizations coordinating the campaign. In order to be successful, each community needed to make the campaign its own. This method posed distinct advantages, such as presenting a campaign that was not "cookie-cutter," but based on a common theme using federally supported facts and materials. However, by advising and not insisting sites implement certain portions of the campaign, the FHWA could not ensure that the local campaigns could be easily evaluated and compared. In most cases, sites were willing to comply with reporting and campaign demands, but in some instances their ability to comply with measurement and evaluation requirements was limited. Specific measures were undertaken to ensure as much consistency and order as possible in assisting and measuring site successes, including the development of a Stop RLR Campaign Strategic Planning Guide that acted as a step-by-step manual on implementing the campaign. The Strategic Planning Guide contained detailed information on goals, objectives and target audiences of the campaign; instructions for obtaining technical assistance from FHWA; campaign reporting guidelines; funding information; and guidelines for evaluating the campaign. It also included tips on organizing staff, coalition building, working with law enforcement and media, campaign kickoffs, events and activities. The Strategic Planning Guide stresses the importance of adapting the campaign to fit the community, and the need for planning on the part of the coordinating organization. One interesting benefit of the Strategic Planning Guide turned out to be its effectiveness as a boilerplate resource on how to implement any sort of community traffic safety public education campaign. This feature was noted by many of the sites in their final reports, as weld as in the campaign exit interviews of the site coordinators. In addition to the Strategic Planning Guide, FHWA created a plan for providing technical assistance to the communities. The organizational structure for providing assistance was formed in such a way that the sites could access information from a number of contacts, according to their specific needs. Technical Assistance Workshops were also held two regional and one national to provide face-to- face contact with site coordinators and answer specific questions. In addition, newsletters were mailed in July and September 1996 (during which time the majority of sites were implementing their campaigns) to facilitate tips and information sharing among sites. The one-and-a-half-day national workshop was held in Albuquerque, NM, preceding the 1996 Lifesavers Conference to give site coordinators an opportunity to attend the nation's largest traffic safety conference following the workshop. Sessions were selected based on requests from site coordinators and conducted by a panel that included FHWA Headquarters staff, site coordinators and additional technical experts (such as Richard Retting from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Jim Swinehart, of Public Communication Resources, Inc.). th addition, a plenary and networking session enabled the site coordinators to meet each other and peer- assist. According to a compilation of evaluation forms completed by attendees, the workshop was very helpful and informative. Site coordinators commented that it was an opportunity for peer-to-peer communication, an effectively combined meetings and networking time, and provided group cohesiveness ano commitment to the cause. They also appreciated the time to share ideas and experience and meet the FHWA staff, as well as the opportunity to attend the Lifesavers Conference. FHWA RLR Mini-grants Implementation of campaigns at the local level was also augmented by mini-grants, in amounts ranging between S12,500 and $40,000, depending upon financial needs indicated in the sites' campaign application. Since this was FHWA's first foray into a national safety campaign, mini-grants were obtained through FHWA Headquarters Technology Transfer funds and administered through FHWA field offices. The Strategic Planning Guide provided specific guidelines to the sites by indicating appropriate uses for the Stop RLR Campaign mini-grants. Guidelines prohibited the use of these funds to purchase non-consumables, and because funds were limited, FHWA discouraged use of Stop RLR Campaign mini-grants for advertising and overtime law enforcement. Im~l-ementation Site Reporting and Program Requirements In order for FHWA to report on and evaluate the implementation, each site was asked to complete a strategic plan and provide monthly status reports and a final report summarizing and highlighting all activities associated with the campaign. These activities also provided the site coordinator an opportunity to comment on elements that were particularly successful or were barriers to success. Prior to kicking off their local campaigns, sites were also asked to work with engineers to evaluate their traffic signal system, compile citation and crash statistics for the months in the prior year that paralleled the time period planned for campaign execution, and conduct a community survey to gain benchmark data on attitudes and awareness of the red light running issues. Following campaign implementation, sites were asked to gather citation and crash statistics for the campaign time period and conduct a post- campaign community survey. The second survey was typically conducted three months after the pre- campaign survey was completed, and each wave generally involved at least 500 respondents. It should be noted that, while all data gathering was strongly encouraged and recommended, such actions were essentially voluntary. Data gathering, whether through community surveys or citation and crash analysis, proved to be the most difficult, time- and resource-intensive step in the campaign planning and assessment process. In an effort to ensure that as many campaigns were launched as possible, FHWA did not enforce mandatory compliance with campaign data gathering. This is not to say that all standards for campaign approval and support were relaxed, only that sites were allowed some degree of flexibility in collecting information. Because of the importance of working with the communities to determine the best way to reach adult drivers in their areas, FHWA also enabled the sites to determine the best time to kick off campaigns and the time period in which to conduct the campaigns. The only time constraints invoNed requirements to conduct at least a three-month campaign and to complete all activities, including submission of a final report, by April 1998. Overview of Implementation Site Campaigns Implementation site campaigns, including pre- and post-campaign activities and evaluation, were well distributed among the three years of the program. Some sites began as early as September 1995 and others did not start activities until mid 1997. This proved beneficiak as sites' technical assistance demands and needs fluctuated depending upon the campaign stage, FHWA was able to provide personalized assistance. The highest level of technical assistance occurred in the first year, with the local tagging of the PSAs, assistance with sites' strategic plans and pre-campaign evaluation, and the Albuquerque Technical Assistance Workshop. !n reviewing site activities, it was apparent that the campaign achieved the objective of providing a consistent message across the country and the flexibility to make each campaign unique, depending upon local needs, community size and make-up, and complementary campaigns. A few consistencies in the campaigns included: press kickoff events that involved community leaders, enforcement representatives and FHWA field staff; meeting with and involving local media; involvement in special events, such as local fairs, parades and safety days; and presentations by campaign coordinators or enforcement representatives to schools, businesses and community groups. Campaign Evaluation Because the Stop RLR Campaign had both national and local (implementation site) objectives, it was evaluated at two levels the implementation site level and the national level. Implementation site level evaluation: According to the goal of the campaign, the focus of the Stop RLR Campaign was to decrease intersection-related crashes by reviving respect for the red signal. In order to accomplish this goal, FHWA targeted specific communities and worked with them in par[nership to reach the motoring public in those communities. Thus, when it came to evaluating the campaign at each of the implementation sites, it was crucial to examine three separate success factors: 1) The relationship created between FHWA and the community that conducted the campaign (process evaluation); 2) How that partnership affected the motoring public in those communities (impact evaluation); and 3) The campaign's effect on intersection-related crashes (outcome evaluaiion), although over the course of such a short~term program, any significant impact on crashes was thought to be subject to a wide variety of other forces (e.g., weather, multi-vehicle collisions which could skew data in smaller population sites, etc.). Tools used to evaluate local campaigns included monthly status and final reports detailing campaign activities, including how the community and media were responding to the local campaign; the collection of pre- and post-campaign crash and citation statistics to examine both impact and enforcement agency support for the campaign; and the pre- and post-campaign surveys conducted among community members. National level evaluation: The following components were used to evaluate the campaign at the national level: 1) Response of the implementation sites. Did the sites believe that the technical assistance was appropriate? How well did the communication and reporting requirements work? How were FHWA and DOT represented by this campaign? 2) Degree of national media attention. How did media respond to the campaign, including the issue and the strategies used to implement the campaign? 3) Level of support from FHWA and DOT. Was the campaign respected and supported by the Department? 4) Recognition of the campaign by FHWA stakeholders. What was the feedback from safety organizations, advocates, communities (that were not implementation sites) and private and public sectors? Evaluation methodologies and tools, such as a post-campaign "exit interview" with each site coordinator, were developed to ensure that an overall analysis of the national campaign implementation was conducted. In addition, recognition (via awards), demonstrations of support by FHWA, and requests for materials and information were tracked to demonstrate program demand and success. Implementation Site Results Based on an individual analysis of each implementation site utilizing the evaluation criteria identified, results indicated that the campaign was successful in each community. However, the degree to which each community gained success in specific evaluation categories varied. Following are some highlights from each of the evaluation criteria, demonstrating the effect of the campaign in a variety of communities. Community Process in Development and Support of the Campaign Partnerships and Coalitions A collaborative community effort was integral to the success of the campaign. Many campaign sites used this effort as an impetus to build a local coalition or work in partnership with other organizations. The Black Hawk County, Iowa, site coordinator reported that "the objective of creating a safer community by re-establishing respect for the traffic signal was embraced by all. The "Arrive Alive" Committee expanded its membership to include other traffic safety proponents and met with health care professionals, police/fire/emergency personnel and other safety advocates. A Safe Communities grant was applied for, and funding for fiscal year 1998 was approved." In Richmond, Virginia, the campaign provided an opportunity for four counties to work collaboratively and, according to the site coordinator, served to strengthen relationships between them. Bellingham, Washington, reported that "...the campaign sparked citizen concern for continued information and education regarding the red light running issue and attracted the interest of the Washington Insurance Council, which has expressed interest in possible participation in a follow~up version of the campaign." Community Support The Stop RLR Campaign grants provided to each implementation site by FHWA were intended as start- up funds, and almost all campaign sites were able to leverage those dollars with both monetary and in-kind donations within the community. Support ranged from staff time, research, and media placement, to printing funds. From the $637,200 provided in grant funds, approximately $1,337,029 in additional contributions were realized. Institutionalizing the Campaign in the CommuniO/ It is important to FHWA that the effort put forth in both the development and execution of this campaign will not end with the expiration of federal funds. All sites indicated that the campaign would be institutionalized in their communities in some form, supported through separate funds and organizations. In sites such as Phoenix, Sacramento and Boston, PSAs continue to be broadcast and requests for campaign materials by neighborhood groups and companies are received on an ongoing basis. Polk County, Florida, reported that the Florida Community Traffic Safety Program (CTSP) Coalition decided to support the program, and about half the CTSPs in the state became involved, distributing RLR information in their areas. They also instituted a selective enforcement program called, "STOP! Red Light Running Week" (January 11-17, 1998), and suggested planning an anti-red light running activity in January every year. Fulfillment of Additional Local Objectives In order to make the campaign their own, many Ioca~ communities used it to further additional local goals and objectives. These local objectives ranged from reaching special target audiences to increasing the fine for red light violations or installing cameras used for red light running enforcement. Sites indicated that this campaign was integral in achieving these local objectives and provided comments such as this one from Sacramento, California, "The campaign generated so much community support around the issue that the public and the media continue to contact the coordinator for additional information. The committee believed that the campaign was also instrumental to the passing of a bill that increased the fine for red light running, thereby paving the way for community support of the installation of cameras." Support by Enforcement Agencies Even with the many campaigns that were coordinated by local enforcement agencies, raising the level of importance of red light running with police officers or law enforcement agencies who need to balance their time between crime patrol and other significant duties continues to be a challenge. Oye_rall, the campaign worked well to encourage enforcement support, and many of the police officers involved not only focused their patrol efforts on red light running, but also contributed to the campaign in other ways, such as making presentations at schools and neighborhood meetings. Many communities, including Bellingham, WA, and Oklahoma City, presented data which indicated an increase in citations during the campaign time period, as compared to the same time period in the prior years. In Lexington, Kentucky, traffic citations issued for red light running increased by 45.9 percent during the campaign period, while total traffic citations decreased by 14.9 percent. The number of citations also increased at nine of the 18 intersections that had the largest number of red light running collisions. Media Attention Local media outlets in the majority of the communities were very responsive to the issue and the campaign. This was demonstrated by both the high level of news coverage in each of the campaign kickoffs, and follow-up stories and media "ride-alongs" with police officers on patrol. The Lexington, Kentucky, site even reported that "Vice President Al Gore [flew] into our city to be escorted to our state capitol in Frankfort, Kentucky, the day of the kick-off. Regardless of this major event, the media covered the kick-off in full force." In addition, the air time devoted to the broadcast PSAs was often substantial. In Howard County, Maryland, "the television station hosting the NFL playoffs aired the red light running message several times throughout the game._.eight interviews for shows dedicated to red light running were done for area radio stations. Seven television stations took part in the airing of the video PSAs." In Portland, Oregon, statior~s ran a total of 508 PSA spots, and in Polk County, Florida, PSAs were aired on the majority of both TV and radio stations. Also, in many instances, the site coordinator or a police officer was interviewed on the campaign on local radio and TV shows. Impact of Campaign Community Surveys Because of the essentially voluntary status of the data gathering and reporting steps noted earlier in this report, inconsistent survey methodologies and locally revised survey instruments made it difficult to analyze the impact of the Stop RLR Campaign across different communities. Although a scientific comparison across sites was not obtainable, the surveys had significant value in helping the implementation sites examine their communities' attitudes toward and awareness of the red light running issue. The following are observations that were made from examining some of the site surveys: Frequency of Red Liqht Runninq Although red light running was not mentioned as often as speeding and some other violations, it was observed frequently in every city. A majority of drivers reported seeing others run red lights either "every day" or "a few times a week." TABLE: Community Awareness Survey Results Q. "How often do you see others run red lights?" Bel!ingham, WA il 15"/o 1[ 11"/o ][ 25"/° JL 26% Colorado ![ 39 ][ 41 ][ 32 1[ 30 Springs, CO Lexington, KY ~[ 40 J[ 42 j[ 32 ][ 32 Liberal, KS:1 ts II ~s I[ 32 ][ 27 Phoenix,~Z [ ~S~1"~ I[ 29 ][ 29 Portland, OR 23 il28 j[ 33 ][ 24 Richmond, VAt 28 il29 I[ 3'~ ][ 33 Perceived Importance and Risks of Red Liqht Runninq Red light running is a frequent occurrence throughout the country, and almost all drivers admitted to having committed this violation at various times. However, this was typically not a deliberate act, but rather something that happens unexpectedly as when a distracted driver notices too late that a light is changing, or when he or she is afraid to stop because another car is following too closely. This aspect of red light running behavior could well account for the increase from the pre-campaign survey to the post- campaign survey in self-reported violations. As with any public information campaign, the Stop RLR Campaign was successful in many sites in raising awareness of red light running, and making the target audience more attuned to their own behavior. In many cases, this also resulted in an increase in the percentage of respondents who admitted to running a red light. Regardless of the change in figures, and even in those sites where the results showed a decrease, the percentage o[ drivers who report that they have run a red light is significant. TABLE: Community Awareness Survey Results Q. "Have you ever run a red light?" Be,ingham, WA ii 53% il 57°/° Colorado Springs, CO Il 73 il 67 Jackson, MI il 4~ il 41 Lexington, KY tl 75 !1 76 Liberal, KS II 53 il 46 Lincoln, NE II 74 II 66 NW Alabama !1 59 !1 65 I Phoenix. AZ il 76 II 75 Portland, OR Il 76 II 76 Richmond, VA II 49 Il 51 Although several campaigns produced some increase in the belief that collisions and injuries result from red light running, most drivers believed the risk was slight both before and after the local campaigns. This may be true in part because no collision had resulted when they ran red lights themselves. TABLE: Community Survey Results - Bellingham, WA Q. "Out of 100 drivers who run a red light, how many do you think will..." None ii 16°/o ii 9% 11 5% ]1 4°/0 II 50/0 1[ 3% 1-2 ii 40 il 38 II 35 II 32 II 39 Ii 40 3-5 j[ 25 il 2s ii 25 II 26 II 24 ii 26 More !r 4 it 3 il 7 II 6 il 9 ir 6 Despite these difficulties, in several cities comparison of the pre-campaign and post-campaign surveys did reflect an increased awareness of red light running as a problem. Again, as noted above, increases in results from the pre-campaign survey to the post-campaign survey should not be considered negative to the effectiveness of the Stop RLR Campaign. The campaign in many sites was successful in raising awareness of red light running, which in turn led to increased observations of the behavior. TABLE: Community Sun/ey Results Q. "When you are driving, what traffic violations do you see other drivers committing?" Bellingham, WA !1 29% il 39% Colorado Springs, CO ri 55 II 72 Jackson, MI II 34 iI 26 Lancaster, PAtl 37 II 39 Lexington, KYII 62 !1 76 U,waukee, W~ II 20 il 12 Richmond, VA II 36 H 55 Law Enforcement and Red Liqht Runninq A large majority of drivers felt that there was little likelihood of being stopped and ticketed for running a red light. In some sites, however (such as Central Oklahoma), police wrote more citations · for red light violations during the early part of the campaign, and this fact was publicized. This in turn led to an increase in drivers' perception that someone running a red light was likely to be caught and ticketed. In one city (Phoenix), the post-campaign survey included a question about the appropriateness of penalties for running a red light. The penalties were regarded as too Iow by more people (20 percent) than thought they were too severe (3 percent), but almost half did not know what the penalties were. TABLE: Phoenix Community Awareness Survey Q. "Do you think the penalties for red light running are appropriate?" too severe !1 3.2°/° il 2.2% too Iow II 21.8 ii 18.2 noteure il 27.8 !1 19.5 don't knowwhat they are !1 43.7 il 50.3 appropriate iI 3.5 II 9.8 Awareness and Effects of Campaiqn Advertisinq The materials produced for the Stop RLR Campaign were not seen in isolation but appeared in the context of existing advertising and other media campaigns, including other messages on highway safety. On the baseline survey, an average of 43 percent of the survey respondents in project sites reported having recently seen or heard such messages. On the follow-up survey, an average of 55 percent answered affirmatively when asked the same question. The topics mentioned most often in the first survey were drunk driving and seat belts; in many of the sites, these topics were joined by red light running in the second survey. Descriptions of the Stop RLR Campaign PSAs used in the implementation sites were recognized by a substantial number of people (averaging 19 percent in the sites as a group, and ranging from 3 percent to 50 percent for particular spots). TABLE: Community Survey Results Q. "Do you recall seeing or hearing advertising on the radio, television or in a newspaper about safe driving in the last three months?" Q. "1 am about to describe three ads or public service announcements for you and I'd like to know if you recall seeing or hearing any of them." (A. "Stop at Red," "Your Good," "He Took a Chance." Beliingham, WA Any safe driving message 56% 62% "Your Good" TV PSA 4% 8% Colorado Springs, CO Any safe driving message 57 53 "Your Good" TV PSA 5 14 Jackson, MI Any safe driving message 51 53 "Your Good" TV PSA 8 12 Lexington, KY Any safe driving message 50 93 "Your Good" TV PSA 3 26 Polk Co., FL Any safe driving message 15 24 "Your Good" TV PSA 0 12 Richmond, VA Any safe driving message 42 58 "Your Good" TV PSA 10 28 Wood County, WV Any safe driving message 57 70 "Your Good" TV PSA 5 11 About half of these people said they had changed their driving habits as a result most often by being more careful to stop for yellow lights or not to run red lights. There is reason to be skeptical of drivers making such a claim, since they know it is the responsible thing to do and they want to take credit for it, but some objective evidence supports the claim. In Lexington, Kentucky, for example, automatic monitoring indicated that violations at high-risk intersections decreased from 7.2 percent before the campaign to 4.6 percent at the end. The number of red light crashes decreased by 4.8 percent during the five-month campaign period, even while total accidents were increasing by 8.9 percent. In Portland, Oregon, where 40 percent of drivers said they recalled some part of the campaign, there was a 19 percent reduction in injury crashes at 12 high-risk intersections that were closely monitored. Outcome Results Decrease in Crashes Related to Red Light Running A decrease in crashes, particularly those associated with signal light violations, was reported in many sites, including: Bellingham, Washington; Burlington, Vermont; North West Alabama; Polk County, Florida; Phoenix, Arizona; San Francisco, California; and Spokane, Washington. Overall, for those sites that were able to track crashes related to red light running, there was a decrease of approximately 15 percent. In Central Oklahoma, even with the state's speed limit increase, red light running crashes at half of the targeted critical crash intersections dropped after the campaign, with the percentage reduction ranging from 4.28 percent to 80 percent. TABLE: Community Crash Data Number of Crashes Associated with Signal Light Violations Bellingham, WA ] 41 I 33 (6 month comparison) Burlington, VT ] 226 141 (annual comparison) J North West Alabama ] 60 I 48 (3 month comparison) Phoenix, AZ ] 737 I 550 (4 month comparison) San Francisco, CA ] 886 if 797 (annual comparison) Spokane, WA ] 135 i 129 (3 month comparison) National Campaign Results To understand and appreciate the full impact of the Stop RLR Campaign, it was also crucial to evaluate it at the national level, taking into consideration the manner in which the campaign was recognized and accepted as a whole. This included the level of support indicated by implementation sites, reaction of national media and non-implementation communities, private and public sector organization feedback and support of the Department of Transportation and the federal government. Response of Implementation Sites To obtain candid information from the implementation sites regarding their experience with the Stop RLR Campaign, an independent research firm was commissioned to conduct personal phone call interviews with implementation site coordinators shortly after their local campaigns were completed. A standardized questionnaire (see appendices for samples of all survey forms) was used for these interviews. Many of the sites were able to participate in these interviews and valuable input on the campaign was provided. Following are general conclusions from this evaluation process: Overall, the Stop RLR Campaign was applauded for being an effective, well-crafted multi- disciplinary approach to solving a serious traffic problem. Site coordinators respect the Stop RLR Campaign because they believe it works. The reason the campaign is effective, they believe, is that the entire campaign process was well developed and built upon the winning combination of public information and stepped-up enforcement. The Slop RLR Campaign's application and strategic plan development processes were described as being "clear" and "fair." Many site coordinators interviewed believed the process used to develop and evaluate site applications was clear and fair. No one thought that the process was anything less than reasonable or appropriate in its time and resource requirements, and most believed it was handled smoothly and in a helpful manner. Site coordinators interviewed were particularly impressed by and appreciative of the support provided to them by FHWA. Throughout the campaign, site coordinators report that they were supported fully by the FHWA. They commented that the FHWA staff with whom they interacted were at all times supportive and enthusiastic. Stop RLR Campaign media materials were considered highly professional, though placing them was not easy. Site coordinators and local media alike admired the intelligence and professionalism of the media materials provided for this campaign. However, not all site coordinators believed they were either well prepared to pitch these materials to local media, or confident that they had the full attention of local media. The Strategic Planning Guide was a heavily used element whose impact has extended into other programs. For many, the Strategic Planning Guide was not only a constantly used manual for the Stop RLR Campaign, but also became the template for an approach that has been extended to other public policy programs. Local sites had some difficulty coordinating the required reseamh evaluation, but were generally impressed with the program success this research documented. Nearly all site coordinators mentioned problems funding the pre- and post-campaign tracking that was required by this program. This appears to have resulted in some inconsistency in execution and interpretation. Most coordinators, however, were pleased with the results of their research. Overall, the above information indicates that the approach and processes used in the Stop RLR Campaign were sound, well-adopted by site coordinators, and ultimately effective as a means of creating a process to achieve higher public awareness of and compliance with signal laws in the communities where the Stop RLR Campaigns took place. Recognition of Campaign by FHWA Stakeholders and the Public Sector It was always the intent of'FHWA that the Stop RLR Campaign continue beyond its designated implementation site grant program. However, FHWA did not anticipate the huge degree of interest in and support for the campaign generated by stakeholders and the public sector. Requests for Materials Shortly following the announcement of the campaign at the 1995 press conference, communities from all over the country began contacting FHWA, seeking information on how they could become involved. The requests continue today. Committed to assisting all interested communities, FHWA reprinted quantities of the Strategic Planning Guide twice, distributing them to communities who presented a need for, and a commitment to, implementing the campaign without additional assistance from FHWA. Requests came from as far away as Canada, Mexico, South Africa and New Zealand. Stakeholder Support Key FHWA stakeholders, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the National Safety Council showed support for the campaign throughout its implementation through the publishing of journal articles. Support of Private and Public Sector Organizations In addition to likely stakeholders in traffic safety, the Stop RLR Campaign garnered significant and unsolicited support from private and public organizations. In particular, DaimlerChrysler Corporation and the American Trauma Society (ATS) initiated a partnership program which continued campaign activities nationwide beyond the official close of the campaign. In the fall of 1997, as the sites' campaigns were coming to a close, Harry Teter, Executive Director of the ATS, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to the prevention of trauma and the improvement of trauma care, expressed interest in conducting the campaign in 200 of its member communities. ATS had experienced strong prior success in focusing on red light running in four trauma center communities trauma was reduced in the centers by 20% in a two-week period and was interested in conducting the FHWA campaign during May 1998, Trauma Awareness Month. At approximately the same time, DaimlerChrysler Corporation contacted FHWA to request involvement in the Stop RLR Campaign. The automobile manufacturer had been planning to conduct a similar campaign; however, after learning about the program and reviewing Stop RLR Campaign materials, DaimlerChrysler instead opted to partner with FHWA. Seeing potential for a successful private/public sector partnership, FHWA brought together ATS and DaimlerChrysler to conduct a second phase of the Stop RLR Campaign. FHWA also supported ATS efforts by producing over 200 Stop RLR Campaign Strategic Planning Guides that were distributed to the member trauma centers. In April 1999, DaimlerChrysler updated, revised and distributed the FHWA's Stop Red Light Running Campaign Strategic Planning Guide to the ATS trauma sites and other interested communities. To formally announce the joint partnership among FHWA, ATS and DaimlerChrysler, a press event was held on April 30, 1998, at the same location of the press conference in 1995 the grounds of the Washington Monument. The conference also served as an opportunity to higffiight the success of the implementation sites and underscore DOT's commitment to safe communities. A second press event took place on September 4, 1998, to kick off National Stop On Red Week, the result of the FHWA/ATS/DaimlerChrysler partnership. In addition, a group called National Organization for Traffic and Intersection Safety (NOTIS) was formed in late 1998. The objective of the group is to advance traffic intersection safety through the enactment of red-light running photo enforcement- enabling legislation and other appropriate measures. Degree of National Media Attention Judging by response of the national media to the campaign, red light running is increasingly being recognized as an important safety issue by national media. From the announcement of the campaign in 1995 to the 1998 press conference detailing results of the grant sites and continuation of the campaign, the media have continued to report on the campaign as well as the issue. Also of interest is the increase in placements resulting from the first press conference to the second event. Although the first conference could be said to be more newsworthy (with the announcement of grants to communities and the introduction of the campaign), the second event generated many more TV, radio and print placements. Some of this additional coverage can be attributed to a video news release and satellite radio tour that was not a part of the first event. However, the second event's coverage presents the issue of a red light running as a significant traffic safety issue and a symptom of "aggressive driving." Aggressive driving was a term that was barely used in 1995 (although noted early on by FHWA in focus groups) but, during the three years of the campaign, grew as a major media topic. In the media's mind, red light running has changed from being an insignificant act to a highly recognized safety concern and act of aggressive driving. The emphasis in at least 31 communities on the topic could be said to have played a part in this increase in media attention. Support of DOT Along with recognition by national media and independent organizations, the Stop RLR Campaign enjoyed the strong support of the DOT. It was supported by other agencies such as te National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in speeches and newsletters, and it was also presented as an example of a success story in the 1996 National Performance Review (NPR) Status Report, which was forwarded from DOT to Vice President Gore. Lessons Learned Throughout the Stop RLR Campaign, FHWA garnered many "lessons learned" that would be useful to either the planning or implementation of future public information campaigns. The following provides a brief overview: Campaign Planning & Design U~ront Planning Crucial to the Stop RLR Campaign's success was its design from the very outset in the balance between, and emphasis on, both public education and enforcement. Other key elements of the Stop RLR Campaign's overall program design were the 1) availability of mini-grants to provide valuable seed money and a base from which to secure additional funds, and 2) the availability of FHWA headquarters and field staff to provide technical assistance. Future campaigns should strive to be as comprehensive in their strategic approach as the Stop RLR Campaign. Importance of Site Selection Criteda The site selection criteria developed by FHWA provided proper emphasis on those aspects of the campaign (e.g., ability to work effectively with law enforcement, experience with other traffic safety issues and campaigns, and existing organizational structure and contacts to assist with planning and implementation) which would ultimately prove important to achieving success. Developing and adhering to such strict criteria should be a feature of future campaign processes. Balance Between Control and Flexibility As noted above, FHWA's stance of essentially advising and not insisting on completion of certain aspects of the campaign helped free up time and resources that made other aspects of the campaign a success. However, the essentially voluntary aspects of the campaign, such as pre- and post-campaign surveys, were inconsistent. For future campaign planning, either additional funding should be committed to resource-intensive activities such as market research, or alternate strategies (e.g., develop a self- administered version of the survey instrument in addition to the phone survey form, or field all surveys from the national level) should be identified. If the decision is made to field future surveys at the local level, campaign planning documents should specify exactly the amount of resources which are involved in the pre- and post-campaign survey process (i.e., approximate costs for a local market research firm, appropriate or suggested time-lines, the importance of consistent pre- and post-survey methodology, etc.). Campaign Implementation Technical Assistance Workshops To help ensure consistency of message and approach, in addition to encouraging teamwork and information sharing among Stop RLR Campaign site coordinators, the national and regional technical assistance workshops proved invaluable. The opportunity to meet face-to-face with local law enforcement and other traffic safety professionals can provide important opportunities for shared learning on campaign strategies and gaining feedback on almost any issue or campaign. Though relatively costly on a national level, such workshops should be strongly considered. Strong Kick-off Events One of the most consistent elements of successful local campaigns was a carefully planned, well- attended kick-off event to launch the campaign. This event helped coalesce support and provide initial momentum and press attention which carried though the local campaign efforts. The initial phase of future efforts should be launched in a similar fashion. Crash and Citation Data Some sites encountered difficulty in accessing crash and citation data to help evaluate their campaigns, especially on a timely basis. Other coordinators helped change their organization's or agency's data gathering and analysis procedures based solely on the reporting requirements of the Stop RLR Campaign. The availability and access to such data should be considered as a primary criteria for future campaigns, and potential coordinators should be encouraged to investigate the amount and quality of data at the time of application. Also, FHWA should allow for additional time at the close of the local campaigns for coordinators to collect and analyze data, which is often unavailable until year-end. ProVide a Wider Range of Media Materials Although campaign site coordinators applauded the range and quality of materials provided, future campaigns could benefit from both additional materials and revisions of existing materials developed at the national level, including: · Closed-captioned television PSAs · Television PSAs which can accommodate longer local tags · Print PSAs with less copy and/or in a wider variety of smaller sizes · Artwork for other applications (e.g., bus and billboard signs, milk cartons, etc.) · Broadcast and print PSAs, in addition to survey instruments, translated into Spanish · Print PSAs in disk format, in addition to hard copies Conclusion From selection of the topic and formative focus research conducted prior to the development of materials, to pilot testing materials and constructing campaign procedures, the Stop RLR Campaign was carefully developed, monitored and evaluated. The result has been a successful campaign that was able to effect change not only in the 31 grant communities but also nationally, raising awareness of re~ light running as a traffic safety issue. Although the FHWA program has been completed, the campaign will continue: all 31 grant communities have indicated that they will continue focusing on reducing red light running, the DaimlerChrysler-ATS partnership will support the campaign in more than 200 communities; and more than 70 communities have requested and received RLR materials to conduct the program with their own funding. Red light running is an issue that will never completely disappear, but through this campaign, has t~een brought to the forefront and exposed as a valid safety concern. It is now up to the partners established through the Stop RLR Campaign to continue to reduce the number and severity of crashes caused by non-compliance with traffic signals. Safety - Stop Red Light Running Facts Page 1 of 2 (~ :$tOJ] Red Professional Resources Community Resources Road User Resources home { site map I search I(no~ledge Resources Communication News and Events ST~P Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LIGHT crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. RUNNING Public costs exceed 7 billion. · ~ In 1998, there were 89,000 red light running crashes that resulted in 80,000 injuries and 986 deaths. ~ Overall, 55.8 percent of Americans admit to running red lights. Yet ninety-six percent of drivers fear they will get hit by a red light runner when they enter an intersection. · El This campaign's safety message is clear to everyone: red light running is the leading cause of urban crashes today. Phase I of Red Light Running significantly decreased these crashes in 28 of 31 participating communities. During the most recent years of the campaign, we have seen nearly a 10% decline in red light running crashes and fatalities. ~One in three people claim they personally know someone who has been injured or killed in a red-light-running crash -- similar to the percentage of people who know someone who was killed or injured by a drunk driver. · '-~ About 21 percent said they felt that drunk driving incidents are decreasing, but only six percent felt that red light running hup://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr facts.htm 10/27/2000 Satkty - Stop Red Light Running Facts Page 2 of 2 incidents were decreasing. ~ Although, social scientists might hypothesize that "frustration" and "road rage" would represent what most people perceived as the cause of red light running, the results proved otherwise. Only 15.8 percent of respondents cited those reasons, while nearly half (47.8) admitted to being prompted by nothing more complicated than being in a hurry. J~Red light runners do not conform to a set demographic - the dangerous practice reaches across drivers of all age, economic groups and gender. The perpetrators are everyday people; professionals, blue-collar workers, unemployed, homemakers, parents, and young adults. Back To Top 0 FHWA .................................. progressional resources / procJrams / ~.'~ Home [ About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transpor~atiom Federal Highway Administration http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevet/pro res srlr facts.htm 10/27/2000 Satbty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light FAQ Page 1 of 3 SAFETY Professional Resources (~$t~ Red :L~l~t R#n n!n~ home I site mep I search Knowledge P.e_eou~:e.s CommunlcaUon Community Resources Road User Resources Proqrams Media Center News and Events ST~P Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LI(;HT crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. RUNNING Public costs exceed 7 billion. Questions and Answers about the FHWA's Stop Red Liqht Runninq Campaign / Common Questions and Answers About Traffic Siqnals Red Liqht Cameras Quest ons& Answers Questions and Answers about the FHWA's Stop Red Light Running Campaign 1. What is the Stop Red Light Running (RLR) Campaign and how does it work? The Stop RLR Campaign consists of two phases. The Federal Highway Administration started the Stop Red Light Running Campaign (phase 1) as a comprehensive safety outreach program that combined public education with aggressive enforcement. Increasing awareness of roadway-related safety issues serves to enhance safety for the motoring public, which translates into health and economic benefit for the entire country. The Federal Highway Administration created Stop Red Light Running in 1995, as a community-based safety program. The campaign provided a total of $637,200 in seed money to 31 communities--these grants ranged from $7,500 to $40,000 per site. This money was provided on a one time only basis, and funding for further RLR Programs such as this one are no longer available through FHWA. On April 30, 1998, Secretary of Transportation Rodney E Slater announced the start of the second phase of Stop RLR campaign, in partnership with the Daimler Chrysler Corporation and the American http://safety.fl~wa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_srlr_faq.htm 10/27/2000 Saibty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light FAQ Page 2 or3 Trauma Society (ATS). As a result of this three-way partnership, .:rauma centers throughout the country have started local safety outreach campaigns against red light running. The ATS, which is based in Washington, D.C., has nearly 200 trauma centers across the country that will be implementing the campaign. Each participating trauma center will have a dedicated campaign coordinator to work with local law enforcement, engineering and safety professionals to promote safety messages against red light running. To assist trauma centers with local campaign implementation, Daimler Chrysler will dedicate the services of its public relations firm. 2. How did the Federal Highway Administration determine the Step Red Light Running Campaign was necessary? In 1992, FHWA conducted several focus groups consisting of law enforcement officers, engineers, and adult drivers to determine which outreach efforts FHWA should be focusing on. RLR was identified in these meetings as something that needed attention. 3. How many localities were in the first pilot? 31 localities were in the first pilot. However, since 1995, communities and organizations from around the country requested materials and instructions to conduct the campaign, without the support of federal funds. In addition to the 31 grant sites and 22 communities that received only materials, community organizations interested in implementing the campaign on their own have requested Strategic Planning Guides (SPG). 4. What is the Strategic Planning Guide? The Strategic Planning Guide (SPG) was provided to the 31 initial Stop RLR Campaign sites. It is a step-by-step guide (including public service announcements for radio and television) to conducting a RLR public information and education campaign. Daimler Chrysler Corporation is developing another version of the original SPG. Interested communities can request copies by sending an e-mail to "iberna rdCb, golin harris.com." 5. How were communities chosen? The communities chosen were volunteers. In addition, they had to meet two criteria: (1) the targeted traffic signal system had to be functioning correctly (i.e. be correctly timed) and (2) the community had to have crash data of the "before" condition. 6. What has been the impact of the pilot Stop Red Light Running Prevention campaigns? Phase I of the Stop RLR campaign resulted in a reduction of upwards of 50% in the number of red light running incidents and a decrease of up to 40% in the number of crashes in the communities that provided follow-up information after their campaigns were completed. 7. How long does the FHWA plan to continue this red-light running prevention effort? http://sa fety. fhwa.dot .gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_srlr_faq.htm 10/27/2000 Safety - Stop Red Light Running Red Light FAQ Page 3 olr'3 ~FHWA Home t About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration http://safet).fl~wa.dot.=ov/fourthlevel/pro res srtr faq.htm 10/27/2000 Sa[bU' - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Cameras Page 1 or'2 SaEeTY Professional Resources Community Resources Road User Resources Proqrams Media Center Sl:ol~ k!g~B~RUnning home I site map I search Knowledge Resources Comrnun~.aUon News and Events ~p Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In t998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LIGHT RUNNING crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. Public costs exceed 7 billion. Though red light cameras are not a formal element in the national partnership, the information is provided here as a service to those people and communities who are using or considering using red light cameras as another tool to stop red light running. Use the following links for detailed information on Red-Light Cameras · Overview · Camera Technology: brief descriptions ofthe different camera technologies -- i.e. wet, digital and video -- being used today and how they work. · Effectiveness: information on how effective cameras have been in reducing the incidence of red light running and related crashes. · Legislation: Samples of actual State and local legislation to illustrate this important component of implementing red light cameras in a jurisdiction. · Implementation Issues: An outline of issues that http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr camera.htm 10/27/2000 Safety - Stop Red light Running Red Light Cameras Page 2 of 2 need to be addressed when pursuing the use of red light cameras. Red Light Camera Links O FHWA .................................. ~fes~tonal mr, ourc~,/prt~r~ms~ Home [ About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro res srlr camera.htm 10/27/2000 Satbty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Relevant Links Page Iot 2 Professional Resources Light* R#n~g home I site map ] search Kn~vled ge Resources Commun~caUon Community Resources Projrams Road User Resources News and Events ~p Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LIGHT crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. RUNNING Public costs exceed 7 billion. Useful Links · FHWA · Insurance Institute for Hiqhway Safety · National Hiqhway Traffic Safety Administration · NHTSA Legislative Tracking System a American Trauma Society · State Farm Insurance Links To Information About Red Light Cameras · www.ci.sf, ca.us/dpt · www.trafficcame ras, com/lin kstxt.htm · www.traffic.com/ · www.redflex.com.au/traffic/TrafficFrame.htm · www.nawqits.com/elec enf. html · www.dpwt.com/redlight/ · www.atdnw.com · ttg.saic.com http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr links.htm 10/27/2000 Salary - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Relevant Links Page 2 o1'2 Please Note: Some of the sites listed are links to manufacturers. However, you should be aware that FHWA does not endorse these manufacturers or their products. These links are for informational purposes only. ~ FHWA .................................. professional resources / programs ~ Home I About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transpor[ation- Federal Highway Administration ~a.I'ETY http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res stir links.htm 10/27/2000 Sat~ty. - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Relevant Links Page 1 ol-'2 SAE TY Professional Resources :Red Light Running home I site map I search Knowl~ge Resource~ Commun~aUon Community Resources Proqrams Road User Resources Proqram_s Med~a Center News and Events ~p Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LIGHT crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly 1,000 deaths. I~UNNING Public costs exceed 7 billion. Useful Links · FHWA · Insurance Institute for Highway Safety · National Hiqhway Traffic Safety Administration · NHTSA Legislative Tracking System · American Trauma Society · State Farm Insurance Links To Information About Red Light Cameras www.ci, sf. ca.us/dp_t www.tra fficcameras.com/lin kstxt.htm www.traffic.com/ www, redflex.com au/traffic/TrafficFrame, htm www.nawgits.com/elec en[html www.d pwt.conflredliq ht/ www,atdnw.com t_tg, saic.com http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr links.htm 10/27/2000 Safety - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Relevant Links Page 2 of 2 Please Note: Some of the sites listed are links to manufacturers. However, you should be aware that FHWA does not endorse these manufacturers or their products. These links are for informational purposes only. ~ FHWA .................................. professional resources / programs Home I About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transportatio~ Federal Highway Administration http://safe~,.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res srlr links.htm 10/27/2000 Satbty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Reports and Articles Page I of 2 Professional Resources Stop Red Lig~!: ~Pning home I site map [ search Community Resources Proqrams Road User Resources _Pr_oqrams MeOia Center News and Events ST~P Each year, more than 1.8 million intersection crashes occur. In 1998 (SRLR) crashes accounted for 89,000 RED LICHT RUNNING crashes, 80,000 injuries and nearly %000 deaths. Public costs exceed 7 billion. · Fleck, Jack L. and Smith, Bridget B., l.~Can W~ Make Red Liqht Runners Stop? Red Light Photo Enforcement in San Francisco, California, San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, March 1999. · Turner, S. and Polk, A.E., ~:~Overview of Automated Enforcement in Transportation, ITE Journal, Washington, D.C., June 1998. · Passetti, Karl A., ~,..~Use of Automated Enforcement for Red Light Violations, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. · Institute of Transpo~ation Engineers, r~Biblio.qraphy of Automated Enforcement Reference~, ITE Automated Enforcement Technical Committee, Washington, D.C. · Federal Highway Administration, []Syntheses and Evaluation of Red Light Running Electronic Enforcement PrQgrams in the United States, FHWA, Washington, D.C., September 1999. · Federal Highway Administration,~-.~ Association of Selected Intersection Factors with Red-Light-Running Crashes, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2000. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_srlr_report.htm 10/27/2000 Sat~ty - Stop Red Light Running Red Light Reports and Articles Page 2 or'2 · Old Dominion Survey a National survey of Red Light Running: measuring drivers behavior's for the Stop Red Light Running Program, June 1999. · Patrick Hasson, Federal Highway Administration, [] Red Lights Mean Stop, FHWA, V~shington, D.C., 2000 Get:l~l~it~:E: I Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for viewing files. O FHWA .................................. 13~oCesstonal resources [ programs Home I About Us I Contact Us I Feedback Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration http://safety.fl~va.dot.gov/fourthlevel/pro_res_srlr_report.htm 10/27/2000 CAN WE MAKE RED LIGHT RUNNERS STOP? Red Light Photo Enforcement in San Francisco, California Jack Lucero Fleck Bridget B. Smith Mamh 1999 E-mail: jack_tleck~ci.s f. ca.us bridget_smith~ci.s f. ca.us ABSTRACT Violating red lights is a serious safety issue. In recent years awareness of this problem has become especially acute in the United States. With its compact driving environment and dense network of signalized intersections, red light running in San Francisco reached a political crisis in 1994. Jack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 2 The City and County of San Francisco recently completed a pilot red light photo enforcement program. The number of vehicles photographed violating red lights at the photo enforced locations dropped by more than 40 percent just six months into the pilot. Recent statistics indicate that San Francisco's combined efforts to combat red light running have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of annual collisions caused by red light violators citywide. Based on the success of the pilot and supportive state legislation, San Francisco is moving forward to expand the red light photo enforcement program. This collaborative effort involving several agencies will soon be one of the largest programs in the United States with twenty-six cameras rotated through thirty- five intersections. San Francisco's experience with red light photo enforcement is valuable for all jurisdictions considering the use of automated enforcement. This paper contains discussion of the level of preparation required to initiate a program, legal framework, cost effectiveness of automated enlbrcement, criteria for site selection, and suggestions for increasing citation issuance rates. Recommendations from San Francisco's experience stress the importance of creating partnerships within your agency and without, combining engineering and enforcement efforts with an educational campaign, and influencing local legislation. INTRODUCTION Nationally red light violators cause a significant number of collisions and injuries. _According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, red light runners cause about 750 deaths and more than 260,000 injuries every year(O. In San Francisco, red light violators cause approximately 25 percent of all injury collisions at signalized intersections. Over the past five years San Francisco motorists running red lights have averaged 786 injury crashes with 1,324 annual injuries according to the Department of California Highway Patrol, State Wide Integrated Records System . Based on this average, red light violators cost the local San Francisco economy approximately $40 million each year not including property damage costs (2). Although cities throughout Europe, Australia and Canada have used photo enforcement of red light violations since the 1970s (3), American cities have been slow to take advantage of the available technology. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority began automated enforcement at grade crossings of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Blue Line in 1992. Gate violations decreased more than 90 percent at some locations (4). Following on the heels of this experience, California's Legislature passed a bill allowing automated enforcement at railroad grade crossings in 1994~5). In 1993, New York City became the first major U.S. city to implement a red light photo enforcement program. Within a year, New York issued 168,479 tickets with just 15 cameras in place. After three years of photo enforcement and an average conviction rate of 85 percent, red light violations at photo enforced locations in New York City reduced by nearly 60 percent (6). In October 1994, a motorist ran a red light near San Francisco State University. The driver swerved to avoid another vehicle and lost control, injuring 13 pedestrians waiting for a bus. This led then Supervisor Susan Leal to wage a campaign to utilize cameras for red light photo enforcement in San Francisco. The San Francisco public and media rallied her cause. At San Francisco's urging the California Legislature built on the success of automated enforcement at railroad grade crossings by extending the authority to use automated enforcement at signalized intersections~7). Unlike most other jurisdictions utilizing automated enforcement, California's law assigns liability to the driver and not the registered owner of the vehicle. This law took effect in 1996, including a three-year 'sunset' clause allowing the program to be tested through the end of 1998. Jack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 3 TECHNOLOGY Since California law requires a "clear photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the vehicle"~8), cameras must photograph vehicles from the front. Cameras rotate among specially made housings at each monitored intersection approach. Motorists cannot easily distinguish which housings contain cameras and which do not. Camera poles stand several feet back from the traffic signal equipment and typically view no more than four lanes of approach traffic. Inductive loops placed just outside the intersection trigger cameras. Each enforced approach lane contains two successive loops, allowing the enforcement system to calculate the speed of passing vehicles. In San Francisco the vehicle speed must be greater than 24 kilometers per hour (15 miles per hour) to trigger a photograph. Cameras only receive power when the signal is red. Therefore, they can only take photographs when the vehicle is illegally entering the intersection on the red signal. Violators receive a grace period: cameras will not photograph vehicles entering the intersection until after the signal has been red for 0.3 seconds. The camera first photographs the vehicle as it illegally enters the intersection. The camera takes a second photograph when the vehicle is in the center of the intersection, allowing for a clear photo of the driver. The timing of the second photograph depends on the speed of the vehicle and the width of the intersection: the faster the vehicle, the shorter the time between the first and second photographs. PILOT PROJECT Preparation With a new law in place and support from the media, public, and local officials, San Francisco welcomed all interested vendors to participate in a pilot red light photo enforcement program involving six intersections. Three vendors came forward but due to some unforeseen hurdles, only two remained interested when it came time for implementation. One early obstacle to implementing the project was that each vendor had to secure access to both the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) registration and driver's license databases. Because of California's driver's liability law, access to the DMV's driver's license database is essential. For photo enforcement citations, Municipal Court Commissioners in San Francisco require that the address for the registered owner match that from the driver's license file on record with the DMV. The project experienced delay while one of the vendors sought permission to access these records. Another delay occurred developing a special Notice to Appear form to meet the approval of the California State Judicial Council. Alleged violators receive this form to notify them of the violation. Fortunately, California legislators made a special provisiori in the law to allow the Notice to Appear for photo enforcement citations to be mailed~9). All other red light violations require motorists sign a Promise to Appear for citations issued by police officers in the field'lO). After much debate the Judicial Council approved a form now used not only in San Francisco but also throughout California. San Francisco escorted a standardized photo enforcement sign through the California Traffic Control Devices Committee. The sign approved for use statewide is a collaboration of San Francisco's design and input from the California Department &Transportation (Caltrans). According to California's law, jurisdictions ulilizing automated enforcement must post these signs at each monitored intersection or at all major entrances to the city. Jack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 4 After clearing hurdles for all California jurisdictions interested in red light photo enforcement, San Francisco began issuing photo enfomement citations in October 1996. Two vendors, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and U.S. Public Technologies (USPT), participated in the pilot project, each initially responsible for two intersections. Funding San Francisco paid $30,000 to each vendor to install all necessary equipment including loops, wires, poles, and cameras at each monitored intersection. The vendors also received $17.50 per paid citation, San Francisco's portion of each $104 fine paid by violators. All above the ground equipment, including cameras, poles and housings, remained the vendor's property. Early in the pilot project it became evident that $17.50 per paid citation was inadequate to fund a full- scale program. EDS withdrew from the program atter six months citing the financial shortfall. USPT continued, taking over one of the EDS locations, and finished out the pilot operating five cameras at five intersections. San Francisco urged the State Legislature to increase the fine for red light violations. Legislation Until 1998, the revenue received by local California agencies from red light violations was not adequate to make photo enforcement self-financing. Many local government officials may support the program in principle, but are not willing to sacrifice funding for other programs to implement photo enforcement. In 1997, the California legislature addressed this shortfall by raising the fine from $104 to $271 for running red lights (3). With this change, the Legislature also changed the formula for distributing the fine revenues so local agencies now receive almost $148 from each fully paid citation. This year controversy sprang up over a bill to eliminate the sunset clause on the law authorizing red light photo enforcementQ/). Both the State Senate and Assembly Transportation Committee approved this bill quickly. It hit a snag on its first pass through the full Assembly when it fell four votes short of the 41 needed for passage. One month later the bill passed the Assembly with 49 votes. The bill then received not only the Governor's signature, but also his endorsement at a press conference on June 1, 1998. The media provided much coverage on the controversy and arguments associated with the first unsuccessful vote, but not much about the bill being signed into law. Opponents of the bill argued loudly about unfair intrusions into the rights of motorists. Former San Francisco Supervisor Susan Leal's response to this charge is, "Being hit by a 3,000-pound car is a real invasion of one's rights." Q2) Building a Team A project as complex as red light photo enforcement cannot work without teamwork by many public agencies, elected officials, and private contractors. San Francisco's pilot project represents a coordinated effort with maay city departments including the Police, Municipal Court, Public Works, City Attorney, District Attorney, Public Health, and Parking & Traffic. Being both a city and a county agency helps San Francisco to coordinate the efforts of such diverse departments. For a photo enforcement program to be effective, all agencies involved must work well together to attend to the many details of the effort. The Department of Public Health's "Stop Red Light Running" campaign, sponsored in part by the Federal Highway Administration, has been an important factor in the success of the photo enforcement in San Francisco. The Campaign distributed "I Stop for Red Ligbts" bumper stickers, posted "Red Means Stop" billboards, held press conferences, and inspired many media stories about the dangers of red light running. The public and media interest helped spur widespread coverage of the Campaign. In follow-up Jack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 5 surveys conducted by the Department of Public Health, 61 percent of San Francisco drivers were aware of the camera program and 29 percent had seen or heard messages from the Campaign (unpublished data). The Department of Public Health determined that red light running is a public health problem that requires a change in attitudes to resolve. Campaign strategy aimed at attitude changes similar to those required to get people to wear seat belts, place children in car seats, and to stop drinking and driving. The department sponsored focus groups that divided red light runners into two groups, aggressive drivers and distracted drivers, in an effort to understand the psychology of red light running and target campaign messages appropriately. The Campaign found that most red light runners in San Francisco are professional males over 40 years of age (unpublished data). Obviously, the Police Department plays a pivotal role in enforcing red light violations. Trained police officers review all citations before issuance. Working closely with the Municipal Court and City Attorney, the Police developed policies and procedures for reviewing and signing photo enforced citations. San Francisco takes a conservative approach to photo enforcement to protect the integrity of the program and the rights of individuals photographed. For example, all passengers are blocked on violation photographs sent to alleged violators. Along with this effort, the Police have maintained an increasingly active presence on the streets. Since San Francisco began red light photo enforcement, the Police have issued more citations to red light violators. In 1996 they issued nearly 20,000 citations and about 22,000 in 1997. Previously their average issuance was 15,000 to 18,000 red light violation citations per year. The Police Department is also testing a red light enforcement pilot, adding a squadron of motorcycle officers specifically targeting red light violations. - San Francisco's Parking Control Officers also support the photo enforcement program by cracking down on vehicles without front plates. They issued over 48,000 such citations in 1997, six times their previous average. California requires front plates, but consistently about 15 percent of vehicles photographed violating red lights do not have them. The current fine in California is only $25 for not displaying a front plate, which reduces if motorists replace the plate. The city of Yuba City, California has taken the initiative to raise this fine locally to act as a stronger incentive to display both plates. The new fine is $150 with a reduction to $75 once corrected (John Buckland, unpublished data). RESULTS Since October 1996 the pilot red light photo enforcement program has issued nearly 10,000 citations. San Francisco Municipal Court records indicate that violators pay these citations at rates comparable to citations issued by Police officers in the field (approximately two-thirds paid). According to California law, violators who fail to respond to the mailed Notice to Appear have a hold placed on their driver's license and on their vehicle registration. The first six months of the pilot project showed that San Francisco's approach is effective. The number of red light runners at photo enforced intersections dropped more than 42 percent. In a separate study in Oxnard, California, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also recorded a 42 percent reduction in red light violations. The Oxnard study included locations not equipped with cameras and found that there was a "spill over" effect at these locations as well (3). The most notable impact of the pilot program may be a citywide reduction in collisions and injuries caused by red light vinlators. Although statistically it is too early to conclude that efforts tu reduce red light running in San Francisco are responsible for this reduction, the future looks promising. Table 1 shows statistics from the State Wide Integrated Traffic Records System. Comparing data from the previous five years, there was a 9 percent reduction in injury collisions caused by red light violators in 1997. :ack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 6 PILOT EVALUATION Debate continues nationwide on whether it is more cost-effective to use cameras versus police officers in the field. Given the low issuance rate and the high cost of automated enforcement, this is a valid concern. However, red light photo enfomement has the advantage of operating 24 hours per day. it also may have a spill over effect (3), most likely because drivers cannot always keep track of the monitored locations. It is also likely that the cost of photo enforcement in the United States will drop as more cities start programs, technology develops, and the law evolves. Cameras are clearly not a replacement for police officers. San Francisco's expanded program is considering 35 intersections; but has more than 1,000 signalized intersections. Obviously, the Police are always going to be a critical part &enforcing red light violations. In addition, police officers enforce many laws besides red light running. Ideally, an automated enforcement program is one component ora broad-based traffic safety program including engineering, education and enforcement. Fortunately, the increased fine established in California provides the resources to support such a program. The bottom line is that photo enforcement, in combination with education and stiff police enforcement, has shown that it can increase public safety in a revenue neutral manner. Site Selection In the pilot program, project staff selected intersections based on five criteria: 1. Number of collisions caused by red light running 2. Suggestions from community groups 3. Suggestions from the Police Department 4. Geographical dispersion 5. Political and historical factors It is also important to consider several other factors. Construction difficulties such as inadequate conduit space, sub-sidewalk basements (typical in San Francisco), and other obstacles to installing detector loops or conduit can greatly increase the cost of a program. Field observations of red light violators at prospective intersections is useful before selecting locations, especially to determine which intersection approach is best for photo enforcement. Time and effort can be saved when working with community associations by giving them a list of priority intersections and asking for their comments, rather than asking for their list of candidate intersections for photo enforcement. Of the various considerations and criteria, the best indicator of red light running is the number of collisions caused by red light violators. However, experience shows that engineering solutions should be considered first. The intersection near San Francisco State University where the 1994 collision took place that inspired the program was one of the first locations equipped for photo enforcement. After traffic Jack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 7 engineers modified the signal progression, red light running virtually stopped at this location. Preliminary data from other pilot intersections suggests that engineering solutions can often reduce red light violations significantly. Several pilot locations are undergoing engineering improvements, such as increasing the amber interval and the introduction of mast arms. The presence of photo enforcement equipment at these intersections will allow San Francisco's traffic engineers to learn more about the effectiveness of various engineering improvements on making red light runners stop. Future locations with the potential for such engineering solutions are not being considered for the program expansion. Photographs on the Citations During the first year of the pilot program, EDS printed photographs on each citation issued while USPT provided prints for public viewing. San Francisco's staff concluded that there are substantial benefits to printing the photographs on the citation. Registered owners do not have to visit the court to view the photographs. People are less likely to tie up the court by contesting when they can see the photographs up front. San Francisco's program now provides four photographs on each citation: one of the vehicle entering the intersection, one of the vehicle clearing the intersection, a close-up of the driver's face, and a close-up of the license plate. FUTURE OF RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT California's law requires a clear photograph of the driver. The intent of the legislation is that driver's receive a point on their driving record for this moving violation. An important consequence of this requirement is that the issuance rate in San Francisco is approximately 25 percent of all vehicles photographed running the red. It is difficult to obtain a clear photograph of the driver due to glare on windshields, dark interiors, blocking by other vehicles, etc. The issuance rate would more than double if driver identification was not necessary and the only requirement for issuing citations was a clear photographofthelicenseplate. In 1998, San Francisco Assembly Member Kevin Shelley introduced a bill to the State Legislature in an attempt to make this change. However, after the controversy over the removal of the sunset clause in the Spring of 1998 and continued debate about how this bill should work, Assembly Member Shelley shelved his registered owner liability bill. Most agree that for cases where the driver is not identifiable, the registered owner should not receive a point against their driving record. Some debate continties about whether to assess points only to convicted drivers, or to eliminate points altogether as in New York State and under Maryland's new law. In 1999, Assembly Member Shelley plans to introduce his registered-owner liability bill again. This bill would also eliminate points when the violation is observed using automated enforcement. How the law will evolve in California is still an open question. On a national level, Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater announced a national campaign to halt red light running at a press conference on April 30, 1998~13). The program will include safety education, increased police presence and red light photo enforcement. Since the Governor has approved the bill to remove the sunset clause from California's automated enforcement law, San Francisco can now move forward to expand the red light photo enforcement program to 35 intersections. San Francisco executed a contract with USPT in December 1998 to install camera equipment at 26 intersections. Photo enforcement should be operating at these intersections by Summer 1999. Cahrans has agreed to fund five additional locations as part of a roadway project, and the Moscone Center Expansion Project will fund four additional locations through separate contracts, which are expected to begin by Fall 1999. CONCLUSION Jack Lucero Fleck and Bridget Smith 8 Overall, San Francisco's experience has been enlightening and gratifying. San Francisco's public, media, and elected officials have all supported the program and worked hard to make it a success. The drop in red light runners and the drop in collisions justify continuing and expanding the program. San Francisco's pilot red light photo enforcement program has shown that we can make red light runners stop. Red light photo en fomement is one tool to make this happen. ACKNOWLEDG>,t ENT The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation and contributions of the following individuals and organizations: Peggy Ketchem (The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Traffic Division), Ricardo Olea (City and County of San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, Traffic Engineering Division), Abbie Yant (City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health, Emergency Medical Services Agency), the Mayor and Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, the Federal Highway Administration, and the San Francisco County Transportation Management Authority. REFERENCES (l) Ericson, Nels. Putting ~ Stop to Red-Light Runners. ITS WorM, Vol. 3, No. 6, July-August 1998, p. 23. 62) 1996 Annual Report of Fatal and lnjury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions. Department of California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 1996, p. 47. 63) Retting, Richard A., Allan F. Williams, Charles M. Farmer and Amy F. Feldman. Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, March 1998. 6 4) Photo Enforcement at Long Beach Blue Line Grade Crossings: Final Report. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, December 31, 1997, pp. l- I I. 65) California Senate Bill 1802. 66) New York CiW. Red Light Camera Program Program Review: Twelve Months Ended December 31, 1996. Electronic Data Systems, February 17, 1997, pp. 9-14. 67) California Senate Bill 833. 68) State of California 1998 Vehicle Code. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1998, Section 210. (9) State of California 1998 Vehicle Code. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1998, Section 40509. (lO) State of California1998 Vehicle Code. State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1998, Section 40508. 611) California Senate Bill 1136. (12) Taylor, Michael. Photo-Radar to Catch Speeders Is Slow to Catch On is U.S. San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 1997, p. 1. 613) Associated Press. U.S. boosts red-light running campaign. San Francisco Examiner, April 30, 1998, p. A-15. Patrick Hasson, Safety Engineer, FHWA Midwestern Resoume Center A Dangerous Act Red light mnning is a dangerous form of aggressive driving, which is as serious a concern as drank driving and not using seat belts. In 1998, for example, red light running accounted for about 89,000 crashes, 80,000 Injuries, and nearly 1000 deaths. The cost to the public is estimated to be as much as $7 billion per year. Nearly all drivers are concerned about this form of aggressive driving. More than 95 percent of those surveyed in 1998 by the National Stop Red Light Running Partnership said they were concerned about the actions of other drivers when they approach an intersection. Yet, in a surprising contrast to this concern, a second survey performed by Old Dominion University on behalf of the National Partners and released in September 1999 revealed that 56 percent of all Americans admit to running red lights. This number represents all income, gender and educational backgrounds. N_atjonal Partnership Tackles the Problem In response to this type of information, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created the Stop Red Light Running Program in 1995 as a community based safety program. The program raised awareness of the dangers of red light running and helped reduce fatalities in many of the participating communities. In fact, all of the communities have committed to continuing the Red Light Running Program, even in the absence of further funding from the FHWA. In April 1998, DaimlerChyrsler and the American Trauma Society joined a national partnership with FHWA to continue the Stop Red Light Running Program. The Mission Statement for the program is: "To continually reduce the incidence o fred light running in order to prevent related crashes, trauma center admissions and fatalities." The red light running partners accomplish this mission by providing leadership, advice, guidance and information to interested parties throughout the United States. The efforts undertaken by the partners are designed to inform and educate the general public and to enlist communities to take assertive action in combating red light running violations. To date, the campaign has expanded to more than 200 communities nationwide. One of the principle means of capturing the public's attention and mobilizing resources to combat red light miming is National Stop on Red Week. This is an annual event that provides local communities with the opportunity to tie their message in with the national program in order to expand the results of their efforts. This year, National Stop on Red Week takes place from October 8 to October 14, 2000. New Enforcement Techniques Help While FHWA recognizes that raising public awareness of the red light running problem helps, the FHWA also believes the use of red light cameras for enforcement can combat the problem. For instance, a recent report released by the FHWA shows that red light running violations decreased by as much as 60 percent at intersections where cameras automatically enforce the law. Reports from other locations indicate cameras can reduce related crashes and injuries by as much as 20 percent or more. As well, cameras increase the personal safety of police officers who no longer have to chase vehicles on the roads and frees them to carry out other important crime fighting responsibilities. Currently there are 22 known states and one territory which have considered camera technology for enforcement and have either passed or considered legislation to enforce red light running with camera technology. For instance, the District of Columbia now operates cameras at as many as 50 intersections around the city. The FHWA supports communities that choose to put cameras to use by providing technical advice and support through the FHWA Internet homepage (http://safet¥.thwa.dot.gov/programs/srlr. htm) and in person. As well, cameras are eligible for Federal-aid funding through the normal channels in a State. However, the FHWA also cautions con3munities about md light cameras in two ways. First, make sure that the red light running problem is behavioral and not a result of an engineering problem such as poor intersection sight distance or improper signal timing. Second, cameras and the associated fines must be strictly used to enforce traffic laws and not simply as a means to raise revenues. When localities emphasize the money-making possibilities of these cameras rather than the safety benefits, people are likely to be less receptive. More Information is Available The FHWA and our partners have made a number of materials that are available through the Intemet or by contacting the FHWA. They include: i) A Nationwide Survey of Red Light Running: Measuring Driver Behaviors for the Stop Red Light Running Program; ii) S3tmmary Report: Phase l of the Stop Red Light Running Campaign; iii) A report entitled Synthesis and Evaluation o fRed Light Running Enforcement Programs in the United States; iv) An internet homepage at safety.t'hwa.dot.gov/programs/srlr.htm. v) A Step by Step Guide for community level stop red light running campaigns; vi) Report on Intersection Factors that Affect Red Light Running; Conclusion Red light running is a road safety concern that can be targeted to bring about the elimination of the related fatalities and injuries. Over the years, the U.S. Department of Transportation has been pleased to work with partners who are also committed to reducing the incidences of red light running. These partnerships have led to Federal, State and local efforts that have contributed to a 7.5% reduction in red light running fatalities and a 9% decrease in total red light running crashes in the last two years. Surveys conducted by the National Partnership indicate that most people who run red lights do so because they are in a hurry. The time saved by avoiding a red light is not worth a human life. It is therefore critical for drivers to recognize that they can prevent intersection crashes by observing all traffic controls, driving the proper speed and being aware of other drivers. Safety is a two-way street -- all drivers share responsibility in avoiding motor vehicle crashes. OVERVIEW OF AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT IN TRANSPORTATION Prepared for publication in the ITE Journal by Shawn Turner, ITE Member Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Phone (409) 845-8829 Fax (409) 845-6008 E-Mail: shawn-tumer~tamu.edu and Amy Polk, ITE Member . Jet Propulsion Laboratory 525 School Street, SW, Suite 203 Washington, DC 20024 Phone (202) 426-9250 Fax (202) 426-9355 E-Mail: agribbon~jpl.nasa.gov June 1998 ABSTRACT This article provides a brief overview of automated enforcement in transportation. Automated enforcement is the use of image capture technologies to monitor or enforce traffic control laws and is seen by some public agencies as a means to combat aggressive driving behaviors such as speeding or mrming red lights. The article summarizes implementation elements that were found to be important in the success of automated enforcement programs worldwide. These implementation elements include public education and awareness, involvement of the local judiciary, and the passage of enabling legislation. Examples of automated enforcement programs are provided for each element. The article also provides a discussion of several issues currently being debated, including privacy, distribution of ticket revenue, ticketing procedures, the effectiveness of automated enforcement. The authors conclude that the ultimate success of automated enforcement will not rely on the technology so much as how the technology is applied and how transportation professionals interact with state and/or local legislators, local judiciary, and most importantly the public when implementing automated enforcement. INTRODUCTION Recent testimony before a congressional committee highlighted the problems associated with aggressive driving, and included potential countermeasures such as increased and innovative enforcement of traffic laws (.!.,2). In his testimony, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that about one-third of all crashes and two-thirds of the resulting fatalities in the United States in recent years can be attributed to aggressive driving behaviors. Aggressive driving is often manifest in irresponsible driving behaviors such as speeding, running red lights, and tailgating. Increased enforcement of traffic laws is viewed as a potential solution for aggressive driving, but limited financial resources have led some public agencies to consider the use of automated enforcement. For this article, automated enforcement is defined as follows: "Automated enjbrcement is the use of image capture technology to monitor and enforce traffic control laws, regulations, or restrictions. Where enabling legislation authorizes the use of automated enforcement, the image capture technology negates the need for a police officer to directly witness a traffic offense." For example, Figures I and 2 show pictures captured by an automated red light enforcement system in Howard County, Maryland. Pictures such as these are used as evidence (in addition to other testimony) to prosecute a traffic signal violation. Background Because of widespread interest in automated enforcement, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) Traffic Engineering Council developed a draft position statement on the use of automated enforcement (published in the March 1998 ITEJournal). A Traffic Engineering Turner and Polk Page 1 committee, chaired by Shawn Turner, is currently gathering information on the use of automated enforcement, with an emphasis on red light, speed limit, and rail-highway grade crossing enforcement. The committee is also investigating applications of automated enforcement with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and bus lanes, electronic toll collection (ETC) systems, and vehicle inspection and weigh-in-motion (WlM) stations. Table 1 contains a summary of automated enforcement programs identified thus far by the committee. The committee findings will be published in an ITE Informational Report later this year. IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS Based upon a review of automated enforcement programs worldwide, several elements were found to be important in successful programs. These implementation elements include public education and awareness, involvement of local judiciary, and passage of enabling legislation. Public Education and Awareness Public education and awareness of automated enforcement activities is a critical element of nearly all successful automated enforcement programs. Favorable public opinion and public acceptance have been named most often as the aspect that can "make or break" an automated enforcement program. Numerous cities or jurisdictions have discontinued programs due to public or political disapproval (see Table 1). Public safety campaigns explain why the state or local government is implementing the program, the traffic safety issues being addressed (e.g., speeding on local streets, red light violations, railroad crossing gate running, etc.), what advantages automated enforcement has over conventional law enforcement methods, and how ticket revenue will be used. These programs also inform people who receive notices by mail of their options, such as paying the fine by mail, contesting the ticket in court, or identifying another driver who committed the alleged violation. The Federal Highway Administration developed a "Red Light Running Campaign Strategic Planning Guide" to assist local agencies with public education and awareness (.1). Many examples of public education materials can be found on the World Wide Web (_4). Involvement of Local Judiciary Getting the judiciary involved early in the public debate (either before or concurrent with debate at the legislative level) is another critical but frequently overlooked step. Judges at any level have the ability to nullify automatic enforcement programs if the right case is brought to their courtrooms. Therefore, program implementors must figure out which court(s) will end up hearing contested tickets and involve those judges in the design of the program. In addition, there are several legal issues that vary among different states and municipalities, such as whether the state constitution contains an explicit or implicit right to privacy, whether the "silent witness" theory applies, and whether "service" by mail is allowed (~). Local judges can answer these questions. Turner and Polk Page 2 Anchorage, Alaska's photo radar program was struck down at the local judicial level. The program had not been tested in the courts prior to initiation of the program (~). In New York City's successful red light running program, however, the City DOT involved administrative law judges in design of their program (7). Passage of Enabling Legislation Enabling legislation permits the use of automated enforcement by providing for the mailing of a ticket to a suspected violator. In most areas of the U.S. and elsewhere, explicit enabling legislation is necessary prior to initiation of an automated enforcement program. Several states' attorneys general have ruled that a combination of current laws and court rulings in effect prohibit automated enforcement (~). In addition, the public debate at the state legislature or city council level will allow prospective implementors to address the public's concerns before implementation of the system. There are several open questions concerning the implementation, such as whether photos will be taken of drivers in addition to vehicle license plates, whether the owner or the driver of the vehicle will be ticketed, whether the ticket will be a moving violation or the equivalent ora parking ticket. Public debate will allow implementors to change the system design to suit the particular concems of their community. In a 1995 research synthesis (~), the authors present model state legislation to allow automated enforcement programs, along with a discussion of the proposed legislation. A 1996 legal rest_arch digest ~) provides examples of proposed enabling legislation from California, Maryland, Michigan and Virginia that contain different language to reflect different choices for implementing an automated enforcement program. There have been instances in the U.S. in which an automated enforcement program was started without enabling legislation at the state level. In 1987, the Arizona Legislature changed the penalties for driving less than 20 mph over the posted speed limit from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. This change allowed the City Council of Paradise Valley, Arizona to pass a city ordinance permitting an automated enforcement system to detect and provide valid evidence for this type of civil infraction. Paradise Valley operated their program for 10 years without specific enabling legislation (9). Other Arizona cities, including Scottsdale, Mesa and Tempe, have also developed automated enforcement programs. The city of Anchorage, Alaska, however, provides a more typical example. In 1996, the City of Anchorage initiated an automated enforcement program to enforce speeding. However, the city lacked statewide enforcement legislation. The program engendered public opposition because it began as a speed enforcement program for school zones, but then hours of operation were expanded to beyond school hours. Local judiciary, and later the state Supreme Court, ruled that existing state law required officers to be present at the time of the violation as a requirement of due process. The program was terminated later that year CURRENT ISSUES Turner and Polk Page 3 The use of automated enforcement has met with opposition in some locations. The opposition has centered around a number of issues such as privacy, distribution of ticket revenue, ticketing procedures, and effectiveness of automated enforcement. These issues are introduced in the following sections. Privacy Legal experts have concluded that automated enforcement does not violate a citizen's legal right to privacy (.6,_9,9). However, most people have the perception of privacy while driving in their automobile. People feel they are giving up this perceived privacy if they drive in an area with automated enforcement. Therefore, advocates must make very clear what the public is gaining in return. A public information campaign must make clear the safety objective the program is trying to achieve, complete with data on the effectiveness of similar programs. Advocates must be sensitive to this trade-off and not dismiss the issue just because it has been shown that automated enforcement does not violate the legal definition of privacy. It may be the case in some areas that the value of perceived privacy is so strong (or the government's ability to make the case for a safety trade-off is so weak) that automated enforcement programs are defeated because of the privacy issue. There are steps implementors can take to lessen the threat to perceived privacy. Photographing vehicles from the rear showing only the rear license plate, instead of from the front showing the front plate and driver, is less of a threat to privacy. However, not being able to identify the driver of the vehicle may require changes in the severity of penalty of citations issued by automated enforcement systems. Not mailing the photograph along with the ticket sent in the mail is another step implementors can take if prlvacy is a strong concern in their area. Turner and Polk Page 4 Distribution of Ticket Revenue Some opponents may argue that revenue generation is the primary goal of amomated enforcement. For this reason, it is important to decide in the design stage for what purpose the revenue generated by the automated enforcement system will be used. Will the additional revenue be put into the city general fund.'? Or will it be put into a special fund to pay for transportation safety improvement measures.'? Either answer is acceptable, but a targeted safety fund is easier to defend. If the fines are set low enough so that the program breaks even and no revenue is generated, that fact should be included in the public education campaign. Because the Ontario and British Columbia programs were spearheaded by the state-owned auto insurance companies, these programs are vulnerable to charges of conflict-of-interest. The increased number of moving violations issued by automated enforcement translated into higher insurance premiums for the state-owned insurance companies 7(~). California's "Shelley Bill", which went into effect January 1998, increased red light running tickets to $27 I, of which a portion is directed toward the local automated enforcement program to ensure continuing operation. Ticketing Procedures It is very important for implementors to decide early on who will be ticketed for a violation detected by automated enforcement systems: the driver or registered owner of the vehicle. This may_ depend upon provisions in state and/or local enabling legislation. If tickets issued by an automated enfomement system are not moving violations, do not result in "points" on the alleged violator's license and are the equivalent of a parking ticket, it becomes much less important for the system to identify the driver of the vehicle. It would be impractical for the system to issue a moving violation to the registered owner of a vehicle when it could not be determined conclusively that the person actually committed the violation. Many automated enforcement programs give the registered owner the opportunity to identify the driver who committed the violation. The New York City red light running program calls a ticket issued by their system a "Notice of Liability", which is a civil infraction or the equivalent ora parking ticket. Only the vehicle's rear license plate is photographed. Notices of Liability are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle (8). This option was more acceptable to the New York State Legislature that passed enabling legislation. The San Francisco red light running program photographs drivers from the front and issues a moving violation to the driver of the vehicle. Photos taken by the system are compared to driver's license photographs of the vehicle's registered owner. If both photos show the same person, that person is given a moving violation that has the same severity as if a police officer had witnessed the violation and issued at ticket on the scene. A disadvantage to photo matching is that a significant number of citations may be discarded due to lack of a match or lack of clarity of the photo. In Paradise Valley, Arizona, as many as 25 percent of the tickets had to be discarded because of photographs where the driver could not be identified Q). Photo matching Turner and Polk Page 5 may also require additional time to process and mail violation notices, although San Francisco has not had problems mailing notices within two weeks of the actual violation. Effectiveness of Automated Enforcement Some opponents of automated enforcement may question its overall effectiveness and it effectiveness versus other strategies. Automated enforcement of speed limits is perhaps the most debated area, since few will argue that running red lights or rail-highway grade crossings is an acceptable driving behavior. Some opponents disagree with the basic premise that speed kills (7). They assert that other factors are to be blamed in vehicle crashes and that all too often speed limits are set arbitrarily. Other research by Bloch I(!.Q.) questions the effectiveness of automated speed enforcement versus other enforcement strategies (e.g., speed display boards or periodic police patrols). Bloch claims that more than half of the 18 studies evaluating automated enfomement programs have serious methodological problems, thereby negating the validity of their positive results. This opposition points to two considerations for agencies considering automated enforcement. First, agencies should consider a balanced 3 E's approach (engineering, education, enforcement) instead of relying solely on enforcement to fix engineering and/or education problems. Second, agencies should be extremely thorough in documenting the traffic violation problem and the effectiveness of automated enforcement in addressing this problem. CONCLUSIONS Tliis article has provided a brief overview of automated enforcement in transportation. Several implementation elements that have been found in successful programs worldwide were summarized. In addition, the article presented several issues that are currently being debated among transportation professionals and opponents of automated enforcement. The numerous enforcement programs summarized in Table 1 and reviewed by the authors indicate that the technology does exist to capture images of traffic violations and prosecute violators using a mailed ticket approach. The ultimate success of automated enforcement will not rely on the technology so much as how the technology is applied and how transportation professionals interact with state and/or local legislators, local judiciary, and most importantly the public when implementing automated enforcement. Turner and Polk Page 6 Figure 1. First Picture Taken By Automated Red Light Enforcement System (Courtesy of Howard County Police Department) Figure 2. Second Picture Taken By Automated Red Light Enforcement System (Courtesy of Howard County Police Department) Turner and Polk Page 7 Program Type Red Light Running Table 1. Automated Enforcement Programs Worldwide Programs in Operation Discontinued Programs Oxnard, California San Francisco, California Howard County, Maryland New York City, New York Victoria, Australia Polk County, Florida Jackson, Michigan Lincoln, Nebraska Speed Limit Paradise Valley, Arizona Campbell, California Pasadena, California National City, California Riverside, Califomia San Jose, California Garland, Utah Sandy City, Utah Wellington, Utah West Valley, Utah Washington State British Columbia Alberta, Canada Victoria, Australia Germany Norway Switzerland Finland Anchorage, Alaska (discontinued) Peoria, Arizona (discontinued) Danville, California (discontinued) Folsom, California (discontinued) Pasadena, California (discontinued) Roseville, California (discontinued) Beaverton, Oregon Portland, Oregon Huntington, Utah Ontario, Canada (discontinued) Railroad-Highway Grade Jonesboro, Arkansas Miami, Oklahoma Crossing Los Angeles, CaIfomia Texas Ames, Iowa HOV/Bus Lane Victoria, Australia Atlanta, Georgia London, United Kingdon Minneapolis, Minnesota Dallas, Texas Electronic Toll Collection More than 580 toll plazas on at least 75 separate facilities/bridges are or will soon be implemented with electronic violation enforcement systems. Other unique automated enforcement applications include commemial vehicles (e.g., Saf-T-Cam, New South Wales, Australia), remote emission sensing (e.g., Smog Dog in Southern California), and tailgating (e.g., Marom system in Israel). Turner and Polk Page 8 REFERENCES Martinez, Ricardo. July 17, 1997. "Statement of the Honorable Ricardo Martinez, M.D., Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives." Web Site "http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa]announce/testimony/aggres2.html". Willis, David K. July 17, 1997. "Research on the Problem of Violent Aggressive Driving." Testimony before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives. Web site "http://www.aaa fts.org/Text/ragetest.htm". Plosky, Mi la. 1994. Red Light Running Campaign Strategic Planning Guide Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. City of Fairfax, VA: http://www.ci.fairfax.va.us/redlight City of Ft. Collins, CO: http://www.ci.fort- collins.co.us/C_SAFETY/C_POLICE/radar.htm City of Mesa, AZ: http://www.mesa.trafficsafety.com City of Portland, OR: http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/PDOT_Services/phot_radar.htm City of Scottsdale, AZ: http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/focusonsafety City of Tempe, AZ: http://www.tempe.trafficsafety.com Howard County, MD: http://www.erols.com/trafeng/RedLight.html Gilbert, Daniel T., Nina J. Sines, and Brandon E. Bell. December 1996. Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement. Legal Research Digest Number 36. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Trenouth, Mark. 1997. The Photo Radar Home Page. http://users.cyberbeach.nt/~mtrenout/photo2.html. Ontario, Canada: Mark Trenouth. Popolizio, Rudolph E. 1995. "New York City's Red Light Camera Demonstration." 1995 Compendium of Technical Papers. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Blackburn, Robert R. and Daniel T. Gilbert. 1995. Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws. Syuthesis of Highway Practice 219. Washington, DC: Transportation Reseamh Board. Alcee, Janice V., Jonathan C. Black, Robyne R. Lau, Peter M. Wendzel, and Cheryl W. Lynn. 1992. Legal Issues Concerning the Use of Photo-Radar. Transportation Research Record 1375.. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 10. Bloch, Steven A. 1998. "A Comparative Study of The Speed Reduction Effects of Photo-Radar and Speed Display Boards." Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington, DC. Turner and Polk Page 9 A Nationwide Survey of Red Light Running: Measuring Driver Behaviors for the "Stop Red Light Running" Program June - August, 1999 Project Director / Information Contact: Bryan E. Porter, Ph.D. Departmem o£ Psychology Old Dominion University Phone: (757) 683-4458 Email: bporter~odu.edu Research Consultant: Thomas D. Berry, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Christopher Newport University Data Collected by: The Social Science Research Center Jeff Harlow, Ph.D., Director Tancy Vandecar, Associate Director Old Dominion University Research Funded by: DaimlerChrysler Corporation Purpose of the Stadg From June to August 1999, a 58-question telephone survey was administered to provide data for the national "Stop Red Light Running Week" in September. Data from the survey were also important to assess driving behaviors in 10 states of particular interest to DaimlerChrysler: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Texas. Samplin,g Strategies Overall, 5,024 respondents completed the survey. Of these, 4,007 were concentrated in the 10 target states, leaving 1,017 from the remaining 40 states as a comparison group. Second, a "national" sample of 880 respondents was constructed from the overall sample, re-weighted to include a proportional number of respondents from each of the 50 states. The Typical Red Light Ranner Red light running behavior generalized across state boundaries. Based on national data, the typical red light runner has the following general characteristics: · Is younger, is driving alone, has no children, and is in a rush to work or school in the morning hours on weekdays. Ifa parent, most likely has children less than 20-years-old. · Is employed in jobs requiring less education (i.e., blue collar, lower technology), or is unemployed. · Is more than two miles from home and is more likely to have been ticketed for red light running (although, the rate of receiving tickets is low). · Is NOT necessarily frustrated. Future Research Cousiderations Red light running research is still sparse compared to literature for other risky driving behaviors. This study was badly needed to provide a national perspective on xvhat drivers pemeive to be the red light running issue. Even so, many questions remain that are worthy of attention. These include, but are not limited to: · How do perceptions change as a result of the "Stop Red Light Running" program? · How does driver behavior actually change as a result of the program? · Is red light running an aggressive driving act? 2 :-~ ~ ~ ~cl~no~vledgements , In addition to the individuals listed on the cover page, the following were significant contributors to this research: James Bernard of Golin/Harris International: James was a partner in all phases of the research, from hypothesis and survey development, to suggesting many lines of analysis. He was also the main client contact for the Project Director. Andrea Wood, Betsy Slemmons, Sarah May, and Akieva Harrell of Golin/Harris International were also significant collaborators. Kimberly Shults of Golin/Harris International: Kimberly became the main contact at Golin/Harris International after James Bernard accepted a new position with a different company. She was responsible for adapting data from this report for Stop Red Light Running 1999. Sonja Bultynck and Sheila Gruber McLean of DaimlerChrysler Corporation: Sonja worked with the Project Director and James Bernard to develop the initial ideas for the project. Sheila is the main DaimlerChrysler contact and was very helpful in suggesting questions for analysis. Kathy Krupa, Nicole Mazzarella, Glenda Rose, and Brooks Small with the Social Science Research Center at Old Dominion University: These graduate students were responsible for the day-to-day supervision of telephone interviewers. Kathy and Nicole also played large roles in providing feedback on the telephone survey and setting it up for computer administration. · The 30 students of the Social Science Research Center who made the telephone calls and encouraged over 5,000 citizens to participate in an extended and complicated survey. Table off Contents:~, - ' Execative Summary Acknowledgements Table of Contents 2 3 4 List of Tables 5 Background 6 Parpose of the Study "Stop Red Light Running" Program Ten Target States Hypotheses 7 Methods 6 6 7 8 National Telephone Survey Survey Implementation Results and Discussion Hypothesis 1: Most Drivers Have Been Guilty of Red Light Running Hypothesis 2: Predictors of Red Light Running Included Feeling Rushed, Frustrated, and Concerned about Time Hypothesis 3: Drivers Were Cited for Red Light Running Within Two Miles of Their Homes Is Red Light Running a Problem or Dangerous? Ideas for Reaching Red Light Runners Target and Comparison States Concht$ions 8 8 9 9 12 14 16 19 19 21 The Typical Red light Runner Future Research Considerations References 21 21 23 Appendbc A: Telephone Survey Appendix B: Occupation Descriptions Appeadix C: Target States vs. Comparison 40 Appeadix D: Target States attd Comparisoa 40 Miscellaneous Data 24 33 35 4O 4 Sample sizes and tnargins of error for 95% confidence Demographic comparisons of percent of red light runners itt sample, and percent of respondents reporting to have run at least one red light in the last 10 intersections Tendencies to run red lights (1 to 10 scale, with 10 being very likely) given various passenger conditions; data also categorized into the percent who woald "be at least somewhat likely" to run red lights Respondents' choices for how time constraints and frustration affect risky driving on urban roads Extent of frustration on urban roads and the likelihood of various risky driving acts when frustrated Distance from honte when running red lights or being ticketed for running red lights. 10 12 13 14 8. Percent of respondents reporting where and when they were tnost likely to run lights Percent of respondents who believed red light rannlng (RLR) was dangerous or a problem, as well as the percent who had been in volved itt a RLR crash or had been ticketed for RLR Average estimated red light runners out of lO who run red intentionally or who will be ticketed by police for their behavior Percent of respon den ts offering various ideas for pre yen ting red light runnhtg. 15 16 18 19 11. Percent of respondents fi'om target states and the comparison group ~vho have been involved itt various types of red light running behaviors and conseqoences 2O I The potential dangers of red light running are severe. With ever increasing frequency, drivers around the country do not stop at intersections when the light turns red. This careless and reckless behavior is responsible for a significant number of intersection crashes, particularly in urban areas (Retting, Williams, Preusser, & Weinstein, 1995). In recent years, the problem has led to an interest in understanding who red light runners are (Deutsch, Sameth, & Akinyemi, 1980; Porter & England, 1999; Retting & Williams, 1996), where and when red light mnning occurs (Retting et al., 1995; Wilson-John, 1999), and what interventions can be mobilized to reduce this risky driving behavior (Porter, England, Berry, & Hebert, 1999; Retting, Williams, Farmer, & Feldman, 1998). Our growing understanding of red light running suggests it is not an isolated risky driving phenomenon. Red light runners take other risks as well. They are less likely to wear safety belts (Deutsch et al., 1980; Porter & England, I999) and tend to have more driving violations on their records (Retting & Williams, 1996). They also may be "typical" aggressive drivers. Williams (1997) suggested that red light running was one aggressive driving act that should be targeted by the safety community. More recently, Porter & Berry (1998) reported that safety officials in Virginia considered red light running as one of several typical aggressive driving acts. Others included tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, speeding excessively, and gesturing angrily at other drivers. It may be likely that aggressive drivers are those more likely to run red lights and carry out these other behaviors as well. These previous studies have been helpful in understanding red light running behavior on local levels, but national-level information would be useful. Particularly, what do the nation's drivers think about red light running? Do they perceive red light running to be a problem and dangerous? How frequently do they think red light running occurs? What are the perceived consequences of this behavior? How many people have been in crashes involving a red light runner? What should we as public-safety experts do about solving this problem? This study attempted to address these questions by creating and implementing a nationwide telephone survey on red light running. The data found were useful for (a) understanding red light running, (b) designing programs to reduce red light running, and (c) designing public relations material for the "Stop Red Light Running" Program sponsored by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the American Trauma Society, and the Federal Highway Administration. "Stop Red Light Running" Program The "Stop Red Light Running" Program is a nationwide effort to increase driver awareness of the dangers and consequences of running red lights. Sponsored by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the American Trauma Society, and the Federal Highway Administration, the program ;vas developed in 1995 and has been growing in influence since that time. Stop Red light Running Week 1999 will begin September 23. The nationwide telephone survey was developed to provide extensive data for this program and its messages. Ten Target States Lq addition to evaluating data from a national perspective, study leaders were asked to focus upon 10 states of particular interest to DaimlerChrysler. The corporation has recently spent much effort to increase driver safety in: · Alabama · Michigan · Arizona · New Jersey · California · New York · Colorado · South Carolina · Florida · Texas Therefore, these l0 states were sampled more heavily than the remaining 40 states. Hl~potheses There were tlu-ee specific hypotheses that program leaders wished to test. Additional questions of an exploratory nature were directed toward to the 10 target states. Hypothesis 1: Most drivers have been guilty of red light running. It was expected that all types of drivers engage in red light running. There may be sub-groups (e.g., males) that were more likely than others to run red lights, but in general red light running was expected to be a problem for which most drivers could benefit from education and intervention. In evaluating this hypothesis, program leaders assessed the percentage of red light runners from various segments of the community (e.g., parents, different age groups, various occupations). Hypothesis 2: Predictors of red light running included feeling rushed, frustrated, and concerned about time. Some evidence has suggested that people may run red lights because they are in a hurry and feel stopping would prevent on-time arrival to jobs or other events. Frustration seems to play a role, too, particularly when traffic congestion is concerned or drivers perceive they are thwarted by too many red lights (and so decide to run them). It was therefore expected that red light runners would report running these lights because of their driving frustration and perceived shortage of time. Hypothesis 3: Drivers would be cited for red light running within two miles of their homes: It has been suggested that crashes occur close to home, so it seems logical that many risk-taking behaviors occur with great frequency near home. The project attempted to assess whether this assertion was true with red light running. Based on the above objectives and hypotheses, and the understanding that program leaders were interested in obtaining data from all 50 states (with a concentration in 10 target states), a nationwide telephone survey was deemed the most appropriate and expeditious means for obtaining data. The survey focused on what drivers reported to be their red light running behaviors (as opposed to what they believed about red light running). National Telephone Surve}, The survey (see Appendix A) consisted of 58 questions. It was developed throughout the month of May with the help of project leaders and contacts at Golin/Harris International and DaimlerCtaysler. The survey was pilot-tested to determine any problems with questions and the length of time needed for completion. On average, the piloted survey took 15 minutes to complete; actual completion times were closer to 12 minutes. Survey Implementation On June 16, 1999, the Social Science Research Center (SSRC) at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia began making calls with the survey. Between June 16 and August 23, 5,024 surveys were completed. These surveys were separated into two different samples: (a) the I0 target states (n = 4,007; mean per state = 400.7) and (b) the remaining 40 non-emphasized states~ (n = 1,017), with each state's contribution weighted to reflect the population differences in 16-year-olds and older as of 19972. The sampling scheme was designed so that each target state could be compared with the remaining 40 states. For example, California could be compared with the remaining 40 to determine if red light running was uniquely different in California than in other parts of the country. Califomia could also be compared to Arizona, or any other state from the 10 target group. In addition, a national sample was created from the 5,024 respondents by randomly selecting cases so that each state's contribution was weighted by population differences in 16- year-olds and older as of 1997. The resulting national sample included 880 respondents. This sample was necessary to answer questions such as "What percent of the nation runs red lights?" ~ The District of Co[umbia x~as supposed to add to this group, but no respondent from DC agreed to participate. 2 In actuality, only respondents 18-years-otd and older participated. Per research ethics younger respondents would have required parental or guardian permission to participate. Individual sample sizes and margins of error are given in Table 1. Main analyses are organized by: · hypotheses; · other items interesting to the "Stop Red Light Running" program; and · target and comparison state results. Table 1. Sample sizes and margins of error for each group of interest for 95% confidence. State/Group N Margin of Error (%) Alabama 474 4.50 Arizona 410 4.80 California 353 5.20 Colorado 442 4.70 Florida 359 5.20 Michigan 460 4.60 New Jersey 348 5.30 New York 336 5.30 South Carolina 432 4.70 Texas 393 4.90 Comparison 40 1,017 3.10 National Sample 880 3.00 HFpothesis l: Most Drivers Have Been Guilty of Red L~ght Running To evaluate this hypothesis, the national sample was used. Specifically, Table 2 gives the percent of respondents reporting running red lights and running at least one red light in the last 10 intersections they crossed. These data were broken down into different demographic categories. 9 Significance tests (7.2 procedures) evaluated differences within each demographic category. For example, males and females were compared to determine if one group or the other was more likely to run red lights. Another test evaluated whether males or females were more likely to have run a red light within the last 10 intersections. Similar comparisons were made for the other categories, with significance results reported in footnotes. All categories of individuals run red lights. Overall, 55.8% of the respondents reported running red lights. There were some groups that reported significantly more red light running. Younger drivers, non-parents, and those in lower technology or blue collar jobs (or unemployed) tended to report more red light running. For parents, interestingly, those with children less than 20-years-old were more likely to run red lights than were parents of older children. Table 2. Demographic comparisons of percent of red light runners in sample, and percent of respondents reporting to have run at least one md light in the last 10 intersections. Red Light Comparisons N Runners (Percent) Recency: At Least I Red Light Run in Last 10 (Percent) Gender~: Male 335 65.1 21.2 Female 545 50.1 18.3 Parent4: Yes 663 52.8 16.4 Children < 19yr. 320 65.6 21.6 Children > 20 yr. 343 40.8 11.7 No 217 65.0 28.6 Age GroupS: 18-25 99 74.7 32.3 26-35 132 72.7 29.5 36-45 194 62.9 20.6 46-55 186 55.9 14.0 Over 55 269 35.3 12.6 (table continues) 3 Z2 test for red light runners significant at p_ < .001. ~ For parents vs. non-parents, ~2 tests for red light runners and recency significant at p_ < .01 and I~ < .001, respectively; for within-parent comparisons, .~/2 tests for red light runners and recency significant at p_ < .001 and t2 < .01, respectively. '~ Z2 tests for red light runners and recency significant at p_ < .00l. 10 Table 2. (continued) Red Liggat Recency: At Least 1 Red Light Comparisons N Runners (Percent) Run in Last 10 (Percent) Education°: Some H.S. 36 44.4 30.6 H.S. De~ee 202 50.5 15.8 Tech/Vocational 62 53.2 24.2 Some College 218 58.7 22.9 Associates Deg. 60 65.0 20.0 Bachelors Deg. 161 58.4 19.9 Post-graduate 141 56.0 13.5 Occupation7: Professional/Mgr. 273 59.7 17.2 Lower Tech~Mgr. 82 68.3 22.0 Clerical/Sales 70 58.6 24.3 Homemaker 93 54.8 15.1 Blue Collar 103 61.2 30.1 Household/Service 23 56.5 17.4 Retired 162 34.0 11.1 Unemployed 16 68.8 43.8 Other 56 66.1 25.0 Urban SizeS: 100K+ population 210 55.2 21.9 < 100K population 670 56.0 18.7 National Sample 880 55.8 19.4 In Table 3, data are presented from questions asking respondents about their tendencies to mn red lights given the presence of passengers. Red light running tendencies were higher when drivers were alone than when they were with passengers, particularly child passengers. This is interesting because red light running prediction and likelihood calculations may be linked to an easily observable factor (presence or absence of passengers). ~ Z2 tests for red light runners and recency not significant. 7 See Appendix B for occupation descriptions. Two respondents did not provide occupation data; therefore, adding the n-sizes for occupation does not equal the total for the overall sample. Z2 tests for red light runners and recency significant at r~ < .001 and p_ < .01, respectively. 8 Z2 tests for red light runners and recency not significant. Size of respondents' cities derived from 1998 population estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau (1999). 11 Table 3. Tendencies to mn red lights (1 to 10 scale, with 10 being very likely) given various passenger conditions; data also categorized into the percent who xvould "be at least somewhat likely" to run red lights. Condition When Alone When One Adult Passenger When Child Passengers Percent At Least Somewhat Likely M S__~_D 25.6 1.77 1.74 15.8 1.38 1.14 4.8 IA1 0.66 Hypothesis 2: Predictors of Red Light Running Included Feeling Rushed~ Frustrated~ and Concerned about Time Several survey questions assessed respondents' concerns about time and their frustration on urban roads. Table 4 shows some of these results, demonstrating most notably that a large number of drivers, although not a majority, are willing to speed up to beat a red light that is oncoming. When asked why they would speed up, the most common responses were to save time and being in a rush. Drivers who slowed down typically did so for safety reasons. One of the more interesting findings in the study involved urban frustrations. The majority of drivers were more frustrated with discourtesy on the roads than they were with any other problem, including congestion. This finding was surprising .given the general assumptions among safety experts that congestion is a leading and perhaps most important factor in predicting risky driving actions such as red li.ght running or aggressive driving. So, if drivers are frustrated, what will they be more likely to do as a result of that frustration? Table 5 first shows that an overwhelming majority of drivers were at least somewhat frustrated (80.5%). What they reported being more likely to do, however, were other behaviors besides red light running. This, too, was a surprising finding. Respondents reported that they would be more likely to weave in and out of traffic, tailgate, speed, and gesture angrily than run red lights. This finding is explored mom thoroughly in the section immediately following results for Hypothesis 3 (see text relevant to Figure 1). 12 Table 4. Respondents' choices for how time constraints and frustration affect risky driving on urban roads. Comparisons9 N Percent Late and approaching intersection that is about to have a red light: What do you do? Slow down and prepare to stop Speed up to beat light If slowed down: Reason? (lorn = 628) Safe thing to do Afraid of getting hurt in crash Following the law My responsibility to stop Other If sped up to beat the light: Reason? (forn = 252) In a rush To save time Frustrated with having to stop again Enjoy the thrill of beating the light Other What makes you frustrated on urban roads? (for n = 708, those who were frustrated) Discourteous drivers Congestion Drivers not following the law Too many stop lights Long commute Other 628 71.4 252 28.6 364 58.0 71 11.3 97 15.4 49 7.8 47 7.5 89 34.9 87 34.1 30 11.8 7 2.7 42 16.5 308 43.5 147 20.8 90 12.7 28 4.0 7 1.0 128 18.1 9 In response to the slow down or speed up question, respondents were allowed to select more than one response for why they slowed down or sped up. Similarly, respondents were allowed to select more than one urban frustration. However, for simplicity the percentages listed reflect the percent of respondents choosing each reason or frustration as their first reaction. 13 Table 5. Extent of frustration on urban roads and the likelihood of various risky driving acts when frustrated. Percent At Least Condition Somewhat Likely M__ SD Frustrated on Urban roads: 1 to 10, with 10 being very frustrated Likelihood of doing the following when frustrated: 1 to 10, with 10 being very likely Weaving Tailgating Speeding Gesturing Angrily Runnin$ Red Lights 80.5 4.32 2.63 43.2 2.36 2.14 36.5 2.06 1.89 32.7 1.98 1.93 28.0 1.88 1.92 22.8 1.49 1.19 HFpothesis 3: Drivers Were Cited for Red Light Runnhtg Within Two Miles o[ Their Homes The last hypothesis received less support than the other two. Specifically, as seen in Table 6, respondents who remembered and did not refuse to answer said they were more likely to run red lights and receive tickets for doing so when they were at least two miles away from home. Almost half reported they were more than five miles from home. As an addendum to these findings, analyses were conducted to determine when red light running was most likely to occur, where drivers were most likely going, and whether weekdays or weekends were most likely involved. Perhaps distance from home was not as important as these other variables. In fact, this was the case. 14 Table 6. Distance from home when running red lights or being ticketed for running red lights (only for respondents who reported that they ran red lights). Distance from Home: Percent Where Running Red Percent Where Ticketed (miles) n = 460 n = 50 Up to I 11.5 12.0 More than 1, up to 2 14.1 12.0 More than 2, up to 5 27.0 28.0 More than 5, up to 20 33.5 36.0 More than 20 13.9 12.0 Table 7 shows that drivers were most likely to run red lights on weekday mornings while going to work or school. Given previous findings that being in a rush predicted their behavior, it makes sense that these times of day and destinations would predict red light running. We are in a hun'y to get to work or school on time, but we are not on a deadline to get home (or if we are late, there are different consequences than getting fired or professionally reprimanded). Table 7. Percent of respondents reporting where and when they were most likely to nm red lights (only for respondents who reported that they ran red lights). Category Percent Where going most of the time when running a red light: To work or school in the morning To shops or running errands in the middle of the day Home in the afternoon Recreation activities on weekends Other Time of day when most red light running occurs: 12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m. 6:01 a.m.- 12:00 p.m. 12:01 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. 6:01 p.m.- 12:00 a.m. What type of day is red light running occurring? Weekday Weekend 40.8 24.4 13.3 9.3 12.1 8.7 34.3 46.9 I0. I 83.8 16.2 15 An interesting comparison for these data, particularly with time of day, is to consider when fatal crashes at intersections are most likely to occur. According to NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (1999), 59.1% of fatal intersection crashes occur between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., the same interval when most respondents report being likely to run red lights. However, the FARS data also indicate more fatalities at intersections in the 6-hour period after the evening rush hour than they do for the 6-hour period before noon. This was contrary to the respondents' reports of their red light running. Is Red L~q, ht Running a Problem or Dangerous? Two interesting questions involved asking respondents whether they believed red light running was a problem or dangerous. After all, what may be most important for any public- education effort such as the "Stop Red Light Running" program is whether people believe there is a problem worthy of a program. Table 8 provides the percent of respondents reporting that red light running was a problem or dangerous. Notice that there were no significant differences between red light runners and those reporting never to have run red lights, but a majority of respondents believed red light running was a problem and dangerous. Interestingly, respondents believed that red light running was more dangerous than it was a problem. Table 8 also provides information on the percentage of respondents who had been involved in red light running crashes or had been ticketed for red light running. A significant number of respondents had been involved in red light running crashes, while fewer had actually beefi ticketed for the behavior. As one would expect, more red light runners had been ticketed than people responding that they had never run red lights. However, note that 3.3% of the respondents who reported to have never run red lights had been ticketed for doing do. These and other findings highlighted the fact that many people claimed early in the survey to have never run red lights, but later admitted to having done so in their past. Table 8. Percent of respondents who believed red light running (RLR) was dangerous or a problem, as well as the percent who had been involved in a RLR crash or had been ticketed for RLR. Believe RLR a Believe RLR Involved in Received RLR Catelgory Problem~° Dangeroust~ RLR Crasht2 Ticket13 Red light Runners 81.3 98.6 9.6 7.7 Never Run Red Light 77.9 99.0 12.6 3.3 Overall 79.8 98.8 10.9 5.8 ~0 7.2 test between two red light runaing categories was not significant. ~ Z2 test between two red light running categories was not significant. ~2 Z2 test between tx~o red light running categories was not significant. ~37.2 test between two red light running categories was significant at p_ < .01. Notice that 3.3% of the respondents reporting they had never mn red lights received a ticket for doing so. 16 Table 9 shows additional data providing insight into respondents' perceptions of the red light running problem. Particularly, respondents were given the opportunity to report how many red light runners they thought ran red lights on purpose and how many would actually be ticketed. Out of 10 red light runners, respondents believed more than half ran red intentionally. That is, these drivers planned to mn the red. Most discouragingly, of these 10 drivers running red, respondents believed that no more than two would be stopped and ticketed by police. There were no differences between red light running and non-red light running respondents in these estimates. Clearly, drivers believed red light running was often a choice with few legal consequences. Another means of investigating whether red light running was a problem was to look beyond questions that directly assessed respondents' perceptions. Recall from Table 5 respondents' measures of urban frustration and likelihood of performing various acts when frustrated. We created a new variable called the "Aggressive Driving Composite" which combined the likelihoods of performing each of the five behaviors (weaving, tailgating, speeding, gesturing angrily, and red light running) into one likelihood scaled 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all likely" and 10 being "very likely." Then, as seen in Figure 1, we plotted the average Aggressive Driving Composite for each level of reported urban frustration. For example, respondents xvho reported that they were "not at all frustrated" on urban roads (a score of 1) had an average Aggressive Driving Composite score of 1.43, or a low likelihood of driving aggressively. Notice that as urban frustration increased toward a score of 10, the likelihood of performing aggressive driving behaviors increased. The likelihood particularly increased once a score of 6 on urban frustration was reached. These data may be helpful in identifying individuals needing additional coping interventions to deal with stress on the roadway. The second set of bars plotted in Figure 1 represent the separate likelihood of running red lights when frustrated. Notice that for every level of urban frustration red light running likelihoods were less than the Aggressive Driving Composite. Put directly, respondents reported being more likely to engage in other risky driving acts when frustrated than red light running. Red light running, unlike aggressive driving at-large, may not be so much a function of frustration as a function of other factors. If so, then interventions designed to change red light running behaviors need to consider what the most likely function is. More research is likely needed in this endeavor. 17 Table 9. Average estimated red light runners out of 10 who mn red intentionally or who will be ticketed by police for their behavior. Category14 Number of Intentional Red light Runners Out of 10 M S_p_D Number of Red Light Runners Out of 10 Who Will Be Ticketed M S.__p_D Red light Runners 5.64 2.65 1.92 1.78 Never Run Red Light 5.69 2.91 1.92 1.89 Overall 5.66 2.77 1.92 1.83 3,50 3.00 0.50 0.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 Urban Frustration rn Aggressive Driving Composite m Red Light Running I Figure 1. The average likelihood of performing aggressive dnvln= behaviors (a composite of weaving, tailgating, speeding, gesturing angrily, and red light running) when fi'ustrated, compared to the separate likelihood of running red lights. ?tests comparing red light running categories for each variable were not significant. 18 Ideas for Reaching Red Ltght Runners Near the survey's conclusion, respondents were asked to suggest ideas for changing red light runners' behavior, particularly the behavior of such drivers who may not change easily. Table 10 provides information on offered ideas. To simplify the analysis and interpretation, the first idea offered by a respondent was considered the main contribution of that person. Table 10 breaks the suggestions down into those offered by red light runners and non-red light runners, and those from big city drivers and drivers from smaller cities. However, neither of these comparisons yielded significant differences. Therefore, inspecting the overall percentages for each idea, it was clear that the largest solution type was legal. Combining police enforcement, increased fines, and photo enforcement strategies, 38.1% suggested greater legal consequences for red light runners. Education was the second most-mentioned solution type, with 16.7% of the respondents suggesting either more education or driver improvement clinics as their first ideas. Discouragingly, more than 1 in 5 respondents claimed to have no ideas to prevent red light running. Table 10. Percent of respondents offering various ideas for preventing red light running. Red Light Never Small Big First Idea~5 Runners Run Red Cityt6 City Overall None 21.2 25.4 24.6 18.1 23.1 Education 16.1 14.1 15.5 14.3 15.2 Police Enforcement 14.5 13.9 14.3 13.8 14.2 Increase Fines 13.4 12.6 12.2 15.7 13.1 Photo Enforcement 12.6 10.0 10.4 14.8 11.5 Change Signal Timings 2.6 3.1 2.4 4.3 2.8 Driver Clinics 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.4 1.5 Other 18.1 19.3 19.3 16.7 18.6 Target and Comparison States Turning to the larger sample that was collected, particularly the sample that allowed statements to be made about each individual target state versus other target states and the remaining 40 states, no differences were found in the percent of respondents reporting that they ran red lights. Specifically, as Table 11 shows, each of the 10 states and Comparison 40 states had roughly the same percentage of red light runners (between 50% and 60%). Likewise, there ~ Z2 tests comparing first ideas with red light runner status and first ideas with city size ~vere not significant. ~6 Small cities had less than 100,000 occupants as of 1998 Census estimates; big cities had 100,000 plus. 19 were no differences in the percent of respondents receiving red light running tickets (approximate range: 4% to 8%). There were, however, significant differences for percent reporting to have (a) run at least one red light in the last 10 intersections and (b) been in a crash involving a red light runner. Inspection of the data show that drivers in Texas and Alabama had higher rates of running recent red lights. Texas also had the highest rate of involvement with red light running crashes, followed by Colorado. Further, it should be noted the group of Comparison 40 states had a lower crash rate than all target states. Additional data for the target states are provided in the Appendices. Table 11. Percent of respondents from target states and the comparison group who have been involved in various types of red light running behaviors and consequences. Red light > 1 Red Light Run in Red light Red light State/Group N Runners~? . ~8 Last 10 Intersecttons Run Crasht9 Run Ticket2° Alabama 474 58.4 26.2 15.2 5.9 Afiz_ona 410 52.0 12.9 14.1 7.1 Califomia 353 52.7 14.2 14.2 7.9 Colorado 442 60.2 17.6 16.7 5.0 Florida 359 52.6 18.9 14.2 5.8 Michigan 460 50.2 16.3 13.7 6.1 New Jersey 348 51.1 21.0 13.5 6.6 New York 336 56.0 22.0 14.3 7.1 South Carolina 432 56.7 23.1 1 I. 1 5.8 Texas 393 57.5 28.5 17.8 7.4 Comparison 40 1017 55.5 20.6 10.3 4.6 National 880 55.8 19.4 10.9 5.8 ~7 ~2 test of 10 targets with comparison 40 was not significant. ~8 ~.2 test of 10 targets with comparison 40 was significant at p_ < .001. ~ Z2 test of 10 targets with comparison 40 was significant at p_ < .05. 2o -~2 test of 10 targets with comparison 40 was not significant. 20 The T~,pical Red light Runner The national telephone survey has added to our understanding of who runs red lights. Based on all data collected and analyzed, the typical red light runner has the following general characteristics: · Is a younger driver. · Is a person without children; but, if the person has children less than 20 years old he/she is more likely to run red lights than parents of older children. · Is driving alone; passengers decrease red light running likelihood, particularly child passengers. · Is employed in jobs requiring less education (i.e., blue collar, lower technology), or is unemployed. · Is in a rush to work or school in the morning hours on weekdays. · Is driving more than two miles from home. · Is more likely to have been ticketed for red light running, but the overall rate of tickets is Iow (7.7% for red light refiners, 5.8% for all respondents). · Is NOT. necessarily frustrated (recall data indicating urban frustration more likely leads to other aggressive driving actions). Future Research Considerations Red light running research is still sparse compared to the literature for other risky driving behaviors. This study was needed badly to provide a national perspective on the red light running issue. Even so, many questions remain that are worthy of attention by traffic-safety psychologists. These include, but are not limited to: How do perceptions change as a result of the "Stop Red Light Running" Program? · The data collected this year provided only a "pretest" for the 1999 September program. If program leaders want to evaluate the impact of this year's program on driver perceptions, then the survey should be re-administered shortly after its conclusion, but no later than January or February. · The re-administration of the survey would act as a "posttest" evaluating change that may result from September's efforts. · Such an effort would be useful for the program's Y2K implementation, giving suggestions for how to alter messages and initiatives to make a greater impact on driver perceptions. 21 How does driver behavior actually change as a result of the program? · Like all surveys, the data reported here were self-reported. Survey respondents do not necessarily "lie" intentionally, but psychologists and other researchers have known for some time that the truth is often stretched. Specifically, respondents are sensitive to presenting themselves in the best light possible. · Self-report data, although useful in many contexts, is only a proxy fSr actual driver behaviors. It is very likely that red light running is mom frequent than reported here. · Program leaders should consider conducting naturalistic observations of drivers at intersections in key cities across the country, both before and after the "Stop Red Light Running" program's implementation. The cities chosen should be those most targeted by, or of particular interest to, program leaders. Is red light running an aggressive driving act? This study questioned the similarity of red light running with other traditionally- considered aggressive driving behaviors. Frustration, considered an integral component of aggressive driving, did not play as large a role with red light running. If red light running is a not a function of frustration, is it still "aggressive?" Or, perhaps, red light running is simply a "selfish" act on the part of a driver who feels he/she must run red lights to save time. Additional studies to address this issue would be useful and interesting. We look forward to discussing these questions with leaders of the "Stop Red Light Running" program. As the program continues and grows in the future, research support from DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the American Trauma Society, and the Federal Highway Administration will be well-invested if we are to continue reducing red light running and its consequences on our roadways. 22 Deutsch, D., Sameth, S., & Akinyemi, J. (1980, October). Seat belt usage and risk-taking behavior at two major traffic intersections. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (1999). Fatality Analysis Reporting System [On-line]. Available: http://www-fars.nhts&.dot.gov. Porter, B. E., & Berry, T. D. (1998). An action report for understanding and reducing ao_~essive driving and boating (from the "Rage Behind the Wheel on Land and Water" conference). Norfolk, VA: DRIVE SMART Hampton Roads. (No project number; three appendices; 32 pages; 13 references.) Porter, B.E., & England, K. J. (1999). Predicting red light running behavior: A traffic safety study in three urban settings. Manuscript accepted for publication pending final revisions. Porter, B. E., England, K. J., Berry, T. D., & Hebert, K. (1999). The Intersection Connection Red light Running Behavioral Database. Unpublished database. Retting, R. A., & Williams, A. F. (1996). Characteristics of red light violators: Results ora field investigation. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 9-15. Retting, R. A., Williams, A. F., Farmer, C. M., & Feldman, A. (1998, October). Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Fairfax, Virginia. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Retting, R. A., Williams, A. F., Preusser, D. F., & Weinstein, H. B. (1995). Classifying urban crashes for countermeasure development. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27,283-294. U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Place and county subdivision population estimates [On- line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/citypop.html Williams, A. F. (1997, July). Causes and dangers ofa~gressive driving. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Wilson-John, W. M. (1999). Examining aggressive driving: The effect of roadway coneestion on red-light running. Unpublished master's thesis, To~vson University, Baltimore County, Maryland. 23 24 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE "STOP RED LIGHT RUNNING" PROGRAM21 SUMMER 1999 Automatically Entered Variables Time Zone City State Date Time Introduction #1. Hello. My name is (INSERT FULL NAME). I am conducting a brief survey for the Social Science Research Center at Old Dominion University on behalf of traffic-safety educators. Your responses to this survey are confidential. Can you or someone else in your household who has a driver's license, drives a motor vehicle, and is at least 18 years old spare a few minutes? (IF NO, IHANK AND TERMINATE.) #2. (ONCE SUCH A RESPONDENT IS ON THE PHONE AND IS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE): Thank you for agreeing to participate in our survey. Let's begin. Questions 1. Are you concerned about safety on the roads? Yes/No For the next few questions, various driving scenarios will be considered. Think about how you would act in each. (COMPUTERIZED VERSION NOTE: #s 7 AND 8 WERE GIVEN IN A RANDOMIZED ORDER TO PREVENT FATIGUE AND PRIMING EFFECTS DURING THESE MORE COMPLEX QUESTIONS). 7. You are approaching an intersection at 3:00 in the morning. The traffic light has just turned red. At this time you notice that there is no traffic near you. Which of the following would you likely do? a) Stop at the red, and wait until the light tums green. b) Stop at the red, but then proceed through the red light. c) Slow down, but proceed directly through the red light. 21 Missing question numbers reflect items that were deleted from the final survey. 25 8. You are approaching an intersection at 5:00 in the afternoon. The traffic light has just turned red. At this time you notice that there is no traffic near you. Which of the following would you likely do? a) Stop at the red, and wait until the light turns green. b) Stop at the red, but then proceed through the red light. c) Slow down, but proceed directly through the red light. 9. You are late for work, school, or an appointment and have been stopped by several red lights in a row. You are approaching another intersection that has had a yellow light for several seconds, but you know it is about to turn red. Which of the following would you likely do? a) Slow down and prepare to stop at the red light. b) Speed up to beat the red light. 10a. (IF RESPONDENT SAYS HE/SHE SLOWS DOWN AND STOPS): Why would you slow down and prepare to stop? (DO NOT READ LIST, BUT MARK ALL THAT APPLY) a) Safe thing to do/too risky to mn the red b) It is my responsibility to stop c) I was following the law d) I was afraid of getting hurt in a crash e) other: 10bJ (IF RESPONDENT SAYS HE/SHE SPEEDS UP TO BEAT THE LIGHT): Why would you speed up to beat the red light? (DO NOT READ LIST, BUT MARK ALL THAT APPLY) a) To save time b) I was in a rush c) I was frustrated with having to stop again d) I enjoy the thrill of beating the light e) other: 11. Recalling the last 10 traffic lights you drove through, how many of them were red when you entered the intersections? 12. How many of these 10 were yellow? 13. Choose ONE of the following that best describes your feelings the last time you ran a red light whether by accident or choice. (READ LIST EXCEPT FOR "E") a) I was lucky b) I demonstrated that I was a good driver c) Next time I'll speed through on the yellow light before it turns red d) I'm angry that the light timings did not permit crossing prior to the red light e) DO NOT READ: I have never run a red light 26 ASK ONLY IF # 13 WAS NOT "E". 14. We are interested to learn about reasons people have for running red lights whether by accident or choice. Particularly, we are interested to learn both good and bad reasons. Therefore, using your best guess, of the last 10 red lights that you ran, how many would you consider to have been for good reasons? a) Number: b) Refuse to answer IF RESPONDENT GAVE A NUMBER OUT OF 10, AND #13 WAS NOT "E", PROCEED WITH #s 15 & 16: 15. What are some of the "good" reasons for which you have run red lights? (DO NOT READ LIST, BUT MARK ALL THAT APPLY) a) In a hurry b) Not paying attention c) No traffic around me d) The red light is too long to wait for e) Other: 16. What are some of the "bad" reasons for which you have run red lights? (DO NOT READ LIST, BUT MARK ALL THAT APPLY) a) In a hurry b) Not paying attention c) No traffic around me d) The red light is too long to wait for e) Other: ASK ONLY IF #13 WAS NOT "E". 17. Choose one of the following that best describes where you are going most of the time when you run a red light whether by accident or choice. (READ LIST EXCEPT FOR "E", CHOOSE ONE) a) Driving to work or school in the morning b) Driving home in the afternoon c) Driving to shops or running errands in the middle of the day d) Driving for recreation on weekends e) DO NOT READ: other (IF NONE OF THE ABOV~ APPLIES): 27 ASK ONI_Y IF #13 WAS NOT "E". 17A. How close to home are you most of the time when you mn a red light, whether by accident or choice? (DO NOT READ LIST, CONVERT TO CLOSEST RESPONSE.) a) One mile or less b) More than one mile, up to two miles c) More than two miles, up to five miles d) More than five miles, up to 20 miles e) More than 20 miles f) Don't know g) Refuse to answer ASK ONLY IF #13 WAS NOT "E". 18. What time of day are you most likely to run a red light whether by accident or choice? Please give a specific time that represents your answer, for example, "3:00 p.m." instead of mid- afieruoon. (DO NOT READ LIST; CONVERT THE RESPONSE TO ONE OF CATEGORIES) a) 12:01 a.m.- 6:00 a.m. b) 6:01 a.m.- 12:00p.m. c) 12:01 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. d) 6:01 p.m. - 12:00 a.m. ASK ONLY IF #13 WAS NOT "E". 19. Are you most likely to run a red light, whether by accident or choice, on a weekday or weekend? (DO NOT READ LIST; CONVERT RESPONSE TO ONE OF CATEGORIES) a) Weekday b) Weekend 20. Out of every 10 red light runners, how many do you believe run red lights intentionally? 21. How frustrated do you get on average when driving on urban roads? Please give your answer on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all frustrated" and 10 being "very frustrated." ASK ONLY IF #21 WAS NOT "l". 22. What makes you frustrated when driving on urban roads? (DO NOT READ; MARK ALL THAT APPLY.) a) Congestion b) Too many stop lights c) Discourteous drivers d) Long commute to work/school/shops e) Drivers not following traffic laws f) Other: 28 23. Which ONE of the following best describes when you are MOST likely to get frustrated when driving? READ LIST EXCEPT FOR "E', CHOOSE ONE a) Driving to work or school in the morning b) Driving home in the afternoon c) Driving to shops or running errands in the middle 0fthe day d) Driving for recreation on weekends e) DO NOT READ: other (IF NONE OF THE ABOVE APPLIES):. Think about times during which you were frustrated when driving. Now, please rate your likelihood of doing the following acts when frustrated on a scale of 1 being "not at all likely" to 10 being "very likely": 24. Weave in and out of traffic: 25. Speed more than 20 mph over the limit:__ 26. Run a red light: 27. Tailgate traffic in front of you: 28. Make an angry gesture at other drivers or pedestrians: 29. If you could run a red light without any negative consequences, how much time do you think you would save? Please estimate. (CONVERT TO MINUTES) On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all likely" and 10 being "very likely," rate your tendency to consider running red lights under the following situations (READ IN ORDER): 30. When you are alone in the car: 31. When you have one adult passenger: 32. When you have child passengers: 33. Do you believe red light running is a problem? Yes/No 34a. (IF YES) Why do you think it is a problem? (DON'T READ, BUT CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) a) Causes crashes, injuries, deaths b) Everyone is doing it c) Afraid of getting hit at intersections d) Other: 34b. (IF NO) Why do you think it is not a problem? (DON'T READ, BUT CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) a) Does not lead to many crashes, injuries, deaths b) Do it all the time and nothing bad happens c) Light cycles have time built in to allow red light running to occur safely d) Police don't care because they have more important crimes to deal with e) Other: 35. Do you consider red light running to be a dangerous act? Yes/No 29 (IF YES TO #35, COMPLETE #s 36-39): Please compare red light mnmng with these other driving behaviors. 36. Is red light running more dangerous than speeding over 20 mph above the limit? Yes/No 37. More dangerous than drinking and driving? Yes/No 38. More dangerous than tailgating? Yes/No 39. More dangerous than weaving in and out of traffic? Yes/No 40. Have you been given a ticket for running a red light? Yes/No ASK IF YES TO #40: 41. How many tickets have you received for red light running? Number: Refuse to answer ASK IF YES TO #40: 42. How long ago did you receive the last ticket for red light running? (DO NOT READ, CONVERT TO CLOSEST RESPONSE) a) In the past week b) More than a week, up to a month c) More than a month, up to six months d) More than six months, up to one year e) More than a year, up to three years 0 More than three years ago g) Don't know h) Refuse to answer ASK 1F YES TO #40: 43. Did you receive the ticket on a weekday or weekend? a) Weekday b) Weekend c) Don't remember d) Refuse to answer ASK IF YES TO #40: 44. What time of day was it when you received the most recent red light running ticket? Please estimate a time of day that best represents your answer, for example, "3:00 p.m." instead of mid- afternoon. (DO NOT READ LIST; CONVERT THE RESPONSE TO ONE OF CATEGORIES) a) 12:01 a.m. - 6:00 a.m. b) 6:01 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. c) 12:01 p.m.-6:00p.m. d) 6:01 p.m.- 12:00 a.m. e) Don't know f) Refuse to answer 30' ASK IF YES TO #40: 45. How close to home were you when you received the most recent red light running ticket? (DO NOT READ LIST, CONVERT TO CLOSEST RESPONSE.) a) One mile or less b) More than one mile, up to two miles c) More than two miles, up to five miles d) More than five miles, up to 20 miles e) More than 20 miles f) Don't know g) Refuse to answer 46. Out of 10 drivers who run a red light, how many do you think will actually be stopped and ticketed by police? 46A. Have you ever been in a crash involving a red light runner? Yes/No 48. We are particularly interested in reaching risky drivers who may not change their red light running behaviors easily. Therefore, what would you do to encourage such drivers to begin slowing down when they see a yellow light so that they can stop at the red? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY, BUT DO NOT READ LIST) a) I have no ideas (MARK THIS ONLY IF RESPONDENT HAS OFFERED NOTHING ELSE) b) Give more education to the public c) Change signal timings d) Implement photo enforcement cameras e) Increase fines for red light running f) Require attendance at driver improvement clinics g) Have police regularly enforce intersections h) Other: 49.. (DO NOT ASK UNLESS NECESSARY) Check the respondent's gender: a) Male b) Female Now I'd like to ask just a few questions about you. (READ LISTS WHEN PROVIDED UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE): 50. What age group are you in? a) 18-25 b) 26-35 c) 36-45 d) 46-55 e) Over 55 51. What is your occupation? (USE ESTABLISHED LIST FOR COD1NG.) 31 52. I am going to read a list of levels of education. Please indicate which leve! of education you have completed. a) Some high school b) Graduated high school c) Technical school degree or vocational tech d) Some college e) Associates degree f) Bachelors degree g) Post-graduate 54. About how many miles per year do you drive? Please estimate. (DO NOT READ LIST.) a) Less than 10,000 b) 10,000- 15,000 c) 15,001-20,000 d) More than 20,000 55. Are you a parent? Yes/No IF YES TO #55: 56. Do you have at least one child under four years old? Yes/No 57. Do you have at least one child between 4 and 7 years old? Yes/No 58. 'Do you have at least one child between 8 and I 1 years old? Yes/No 59. Do you have at least one child between 12 and 15 years old? Yes/No 60. Do you have at least one child between 16 and 19 years old? Yes/No Thank you for your time and for contributing to our survey. Have a nice day/evening. 32 Occupation Descriptions L Professional, Managerial Doctors, lawyers, bankers, accountants · Managers, consultants · Farm owners, managers (high income) · Artists, teachers, nurses, ministers · Computer programmers, real estate, insurance agents · Owners, proprietors · Coaches, producer, chef, counselor · Stockbroker, pilot · School administration, social worker 2. Lower LevelTechnical, Manauerial · Lab technician, lower level civil service, dental assistant · LPN, police, computer operator, teacher aid, fireman, government employee, military Clerical, Sales · Clerical (bookkeeper, mailman, elco · Sales (grocery clerk, retail clerk, etc.) · Secretary, bank teller, telemarketer · Customer service representative, receptionist 4. Homemaker 5. Blue Collar · Craflsman (building contractor, electrician, plumber--high income) · Foreman · Operative machinist (anyone who operates or runs a machine) · Mechanic, skilled maintenance (repairs machinery, cars, appliances, etc.) · Truck driver, other delivery · Other skilled (miner, printer, photographer, housepainter, etc.) · Unskilled, except farm · Farm laborers Household, Service Private household (although homemaker considered separately) Other service, unskilled (waitress, gardener, janitor, nurse's aid, beautician) Cosmetologist, maintenance worker, bar tender Retired 8. Unemployed 9. Other 34 Target States vs. Comparison 40 The following provides direct comparisons between each target state and the remaining 40 as the comparison group. Each table lists the percent of red light runners and percent running at least 1 red light in the last 10 intersections for each category that we found to produce significant differences between the target and comparison group. For example, given the Alabama table, more females in Alabama (58.9%) reported running red lights than females in the Comparison 40 (51.7%). Similarly, Alabama females were more likely to have run one red light in the last 10 intersections (26.8%) than females in the Comparison 40 (19.6%). Alabama versus the Comparison 40. Category Alabama Comparison 40 58.9 51.7 58.5 44.7 Percent Running Red Lights Females High School Degree Percent Running A t Least 1 Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Females 26.8 19.6 High School Degree 36.8 18.2 Home-makers 26.9 14.1 Blue Collar workers 49.0 29.4 Parents (all) 25.1 18.8 Arizona versus the Comparison 40. Category Arizona Comparison 40 40.7 59.4 Percent Running Red Lights Some College Percent Running At Least 1 Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Males 11.2 22.3 Ages 26-35 11.5 28.1 Some College 10.6 23.8 Bachelor's Degree 9.8 19.6 Blue Collar workers 11.4 29.4 Parents (all) 10.0 18.8 36 California versus the Comparison 40. Category California 51.7 49.2 Percent Running Red Lights Associates Degree Post-Graduates Comparison 40 76.3 64.9 Percent Running At Least I Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Females 12.1 19.6 Ages 56+ 7.6 15.7 Post-Graduates 3.4 17.6 Professionals/Managers 10.3 21.7 Retirees 6.3 16.3 Parents (all) 10.5 18.8 Colorado versus the Comparison 40. Category Colorado 70.6 Percent Running Red Lights Bachelor's Degree Percent Running A t Least 1 Red Light in Last I 0 Intersections Some College 14.0 Comparison 40 58.2 23.8 Florida versus the Comparison 40. Category Florida Percent Running Red Lights Clerical/Sales High School Graduate Associates Degree Post-Graduates 35.7 61.3 50.0 32.7 Percent Running At £east 1 Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Retired 6.9 Comparison 40 58.1 44.7 76.3 64.9 16.3 37 Michiean versus the Comparison 40. Category Michigan Comparison 40 Percent Running Red Lights Ages 36-45 54.0 66.1 Homemakers 36.4 5 I. 9 Some college 47.7 59.4 Associates Degree 40.0 76.3 Parents 44.4 52.8 Percent Running At Least ] Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Lower Level Managers 4.7 19.0 Some College 12.6 23.8 Associates Degree 4.4 22.0 New Jersey versus the Comparison 40. Category New Jersey Percent Running Red Lights Blue Collar Workers 79.3 Comparison 40 56.3 Percent Running A t Least 1 Red Light in Last 10 Intersections No Differences New York versus the Comparison 40. Category New York Comparison 40 Percent Running Red Lights No Differences Percent Running At Least 1 Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Homemakers 32.3 14.1 38 South Carolina versus the Comparison 40. Category South Carolina Comparison 40 Percent Running Red Lights No Differences Percent Running At Least 1 Red Light in Last 10 Intersections High School Degree 32.5 18.2 Homemakers 27.9 14.1 Texas versus the Comparison 40. Category Texas Comparison 40 Percent Running Red Lights Associates Degree 53.6 76.3 Percent Running At Least I Red Light in Last 10 Intersections Females 29.7 t9.6 Ages 18-25 46.9 29.7 Clerical/Sales 42.1 20.3 Vo-Tech/Vocational 50.0 22.9 Parents (all) 25.1 18.8 Non-parents 40.0 26.9 39 40 zl zl 0 © Zl oo Zl -- ':- "~ o o .o_ o o o o Zl 0 zl Zl O0 0 ITEM NO. 5 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT Ynez/Rancho Calif. (M1) Jefferson/Rancho Ca~i~ (M2) Pala/SR 79 (M3) Rancho Cali£/Margarita (M4) Rainbow Cyn./Clubhouse (M5) S.R. 79/B utterlie Id (M6) Winches te r/Nicolas (M7) Jefferson/NCL (M8) Margarita/NCL (M9) Ill[ la.Hit, II lllll lll S/O North Cit Limit S/O Winchester S/OO~erland S/O Via Montezuma N/O Rancho Calif. S/O Rancho Calif. S/O Main N/O S.R. 79 llll mm ]lll mm il il, S/O N/O Winchester S/O Winchester N/O Overland N/O Solana W/O Morga btw. Moraga/La Serena N/O Rancho Calif. S/O Rancho Calif. at Pauba S/O Jed Smith N/O S.R. 79 W/O Jefferson E/O Jefferson E/O Ynez S/O S.R. 79 S/O Rainbow C anyo n N/O Via Gilberto S/O Wolf Valle y N/O South City Limit W/O Business Park(W) W/O Business Park(E) E/O Diaz E/O Je ffe rson W/O Ynez F20 Ynez E/O Moraga W/O Margarita W/O Meadows W/O Butterfield E/O Diaz W/O Jefferson E/O Jefferson E/O 1-15 ..... E/O Nicolas N/O Winchester S/O Winchester S/O Overland S/O Solana N/O Rancho Calif. S/O Rancho Calif. S/O Rancho Vista S/O Flores W/O Jed Smith lll llll II