For the first time ever, a national study has been conducted on fatal red light running crash rates and the role red light cameras play in reducing these numbers. Its findings are dramatic.
The study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found fatal crash rates involving red light running were reduced by 24 percent in the 14 largest U.S. cities using cameras from 2004-2008, including Washington D.C., Chicago, Phoenix and San Diego.
Here in the East Valley, Chandler saw a 79 percent decrease in its fatal crash rate - the highest reduction in the cities studied.
During that same time, lives were saved in these cities because of cameras while more lives could have been saved had red light cameras been used in every large city in the United States.
A vocal minority believe it's their right to break the law and run red lights without the risk of accountability. They think red light cameras are somehow a violation of their personal rights and an intrusion of "Big Brother." They portray red light runners as victims, when in fact the real victims are those injured or killed because someone selfishly or carelessly chooses to run through a red light instead of stopping. Family members and friends also suffer.
Traffic safety laws are not optional. They exist to protect the health and safety of all of us and keep our roads safe for drivers, passengers, pedestrians and others. Cities should be taking advantage of red light cameras and every other technology available to ensure these laws are followed and enforced.
Gov. Jan Brewer and the Red Means Stop Traffic Safety Alliance have proclaimed the month of March as "Red Light Running Awareness Month" in Arizona.
Red light running continues to be an uncontrolled epidemic, and one way or another, adults need to understand a simple rule that children know by heart: "Red means stop." Since the death of my daughter, Jennifer, 14 years ago by a red light runner, I have been an advocate for tougher laws dealing with this issue, as well as providing law enforcement with all the tools available to prevent red light running crashes. In my opinion, that means stiffer fines and more cameras on our roadways.
The decision to utilize photo enforcement technology is one that is best left to those local city government officials who directly represent our interests, along with input from citizens like you and me. Let's make sure our interests are represented, and decisions on this critical matter - literally one of life and death - are kept close to home.
• Frank Hinds is co-founder of Red Means Stop. After his daughter, Jennifer, was killed on March 16, 1997, Hinds became an advocate for tougher laws, and in March 1999, "Jennifer's Law" was passed which now charges red-light runners who maim or kill as criminals in Arizona; levies fines of up to $1,000; requires community service, suspension of driver's license, and sometimes jail time; and can require restitution to victims' families of up to $10,000.
Accuracy posted at 11:37 am on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.
The East Valley Tribune’s title for this column by Frank Hinds (co-founder of Red Means Stop) is “Obama administration's claims on gas prices don't hold up to facts”.
Even though there is nothing about soaring price of gasoline or Obama administration’s claims on gas prices.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:33 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.
Yes, the editors messed up once again. So let's ignor the title they gave to this piece and talk about the piece instead.
There are unaddressed problems with the otherwise excellent program designed to reduce red light running accidents. Those intent on running red lights can be seen joining in with others in speeding up when the green light turns amber. That is risky behavior. Why do they engage in it? There are no standards between communities and occasionally no individual community wide standard on 1) how long before the light turns red will the amber light shine or 2) how long if at all will the red lights in all directions remain red before the lights in the new direction turn green. Get distracted by some goof ball doing something idiotic and before you realize it, you've entered the intersection a fraction of a second after the light turned red. So speeding up seems to make sense.
We need a standard minimum 5 second amber light followed by a 2 second four way red light. And that standard needs to be state wide. Where the speed limit is above 45 mph, the amber light can run longer. Where the cross street is wider than five lanes, the four way red light can be longer, too. And where us cautious folk heading up the line approaching an amber would start breaking, citations ought to be issued to any behind us who would change lanes to get around, honk the horn or otherwise show contempt for prudent driving practices.
Otherwise let's drop all speeds to 35 mph and have those impatient drivers be late to their morning coffee stop.
EmperorSmith posted at 1:12 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.
There are many factors some witch are forgivable. Not to recently I was driving back from the store with 2 friends in the truck. They where talking away and I found the topic interesting so was lessening to them but I also was watching my speed and keeping a safe following distance. Well the guy I was keying went through a yellow and for me it was red. I looked as I did it and saw the red.
Luckily no one traffic accident or ticket but I did I learn a lesson.
I did not intentional run that light.
Rich posted at 2:38 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.
Studies have also proven the most effective strategy to lower red light fatalities is to lengthen the amber light by a second, but no one gets rich from that. But then studies only prove what the people who commission them want them to. The problem with the cameras is the potential for fraud if they are accepted. The photo is a digital photo submitted as proof by a third party who is paid by the accusation or the conviction, and an eight year old can convict anyone with photoshop or the cloud, whether or not they ran a red light. It is much more dangerous to society to accept such proof, of anything, than red light running is. We always have a 'problem' that has become 'epidemic' and we need to circumvent proof, raise fines and take action because of it. With red light cameras it's a con job. No photo should ever be accepted in a court without the testimony of the person behind the camera, ever, for any reason. Photos that are more than a memory aid for a cameramen are an invitation to widespread fraud.
samkat posted at 7:02 pm on Sat, Mar 19, 2011.
I didn't see any mention of left turn on green but again, we need some standardization. Mesa has leading left turn green signals and Gilbert has lagging left turn green signals. I first encountered the lagging left turn signals in Tucson and prefer them.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:43 pm on Sun, Mar 20, 2011.
Frank,
Judging from the responses we have given to your article, you have a heck of a lot of explaining to do. Care to step up to the plate and take a few pitches?