BY ALEX CANTATORE
I have fond memories of growing up in Stanislaus County, paying countless visits to the old Modesto Roller King for one grade school birthday or another. Without fail, the Roller King staff would strike up a game of “Red Light, Green Light” at some point during the proceedings.
If you’ve never had the chance to play, it’s a rather simple and straightforward game.
When the referee says “Green light,” you skate. When he says “Red light,” you stop. If you don’t stop and the referee catches you, you’re out of the game.
Now, I’m not trying to brag here, but I was always pretty awesome at “Red Light, Green Light.” By the age of 8 I was well versed in the subtle bit of information that “Red light” means stop and “Green light” means go.
And yet, on the streets of Turlock, an increasing number of residents seem to have missed this simple lesson. The scourge of red light running adult drivers has simply become too much to bear - if you believe last week’s city council packet.
On Tuesday, the council will consider an agreement that could install red light cameras at the intersections of Geer Road and West Hawkeye Avenue and at West Monte Vista Avenue and North Golden State Boulevard in a move said to improve driver safety.
I believe that the city’s heart is in the right place here; safety is a key concern of government. But if Turlock is serious about reducing accidents, red light cameras are not the answer.
While it may seem silly to say, I think that most adults are well aware of the lesson I learned by age 8 - red lights mean stop. And, of course, being “out” in a game is far less punishment than the death or disfigurement that likely await rule breakers in the real-life version of “Red Light, Green Light.”
Red light cameras will simply not stop the drunks, those distracted by children or cell phones, or out-of-towners who get confused by new intersections - they never see the red light in the first place.
A 2005 Washington Post review of the Washington, D.C., red light camera system found that, in six years of service, red light cameras had made no difference in preventing injuries or collisions. Other sources, including a 1995 Australian Road Research Board report, a 2007 Virginia Transportation Research Council paper, and a 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study all found that the number and severity of accidents increased dramatically at intersections monitored by red light cameras - mostly due to motorists slamming on the brakes to avoid getting tickets and, instead, getting rear-ended.
The research simply isn’t there to support any notion of red light cameras improving safety. A 2001 U.S. House of Representatives Office of the Majority Leader report found that every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man - an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety researcher who represents insurance firms with much to gain from those pesky points on licenses for nuisance infractions.
So, if no reputable scientist has found any benefit to red light cameras, then why are they in use?
“In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue,” reads the aforementioned Office of the Majority Leader report.
In six years, Washington, D.C., generated $32 million in revenue on more than 500,000 citations. Not wanting to be left without a major source of income, the Billings, Mont., city council voted to install red light cameras just last week, days before the devices are due to be banned by the Montana government for their inefficiency.
The contract up for review by the Turlock City Council calls for up to 10 intersection approaches to be monitored by camera, at a cost of $6,000 per month, per intersection approach. A cost neutrality clause ensures that the City of Turlock will never pay a dime for the red light camera system, as all the costs will be subtracted from program revenue; if the cameras fail to generate $6,000 per month per intersection approach, the city owes nothing and gains nothing.
With a full 10-camera system costing Turlock $60,000 per year, more than 170 motorists would need to be ticketed $350 a month before the city even starts to receive revenue. Stated differently, 3 percent of Turlock’s population would need to be cited each year just to cover the cost of the system.
That’s a heck of a lot of citations, and a massive burden put on the shoulders of Turlockers to support an ineffective safety measure. Fortunately, there is a proven, simple, and easy to implement approach to reducing both red light infractions and accidents.
And it has nothing to do with red lights, green lights, or cameras.
It all comes down to the yellow lights. By lengthening the period that intersections remain yellow, fewer infractions occur because motorists have more time to react and stop. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, an increase of just 1 second of yellow light time can reduce infractions by 50 percent.
Other cities are well aware that short yellow lights lead to more red light runners. They’re just using that knowledge for their own benefit, rather than that of their citizens.
At least eight cities with red light cameras installed, including three just in California - San Bernardino, San Carlos, and Union City - have been found guilty of lowering yellow light times below state recommended lengths, just to get more revenue from their red light cameras. And, of course, increasing the danger at the intersections they monitor - the exact opposite of what red light cameras are meant to do.
If Turlock really wants to improve driver safety at these dangerous intersections, I urge our elected officials to consider reexamining the yellow light timing. It may not be a flashy solution, and it may not generate revenue, but it improves the city’s safety - and isn’t that what it’s all about?
To contact Alex Cantatore, e-mail acantatore@turlockjournal.com or call 634-9141 ext. 2005.
Originally published in the Turlock Journal 4/22/2009.
Retrieved from the Turlock Journal Web site.