[Colorado-Talk] Kevin Flynn: Fines don’t stop red-light runners, but fixing engineering flaws does

[Gary Van Dorn]

Kevin Flynn: Fines don’t stop red-light runners, but fixing engineering flaws does
by NerdWalletDecember 31, 2019 at 3:51
Joe Amon, Denver Post file
A red-light camera monitors traffic at the intersection of 6th Avenue and Lincoln Street in Denver.
Suppose for a moment the city found a dangerous pothole in the roadway and instead of fixing it, merely installed a camera nearby to photograph you slamming into it.

Would you find that disturbing?

Now suppose the city identified an intersection with a high number of red-light runners, and instead of fixing it by applying proven engineering countermeasures we know substantially reduce red-light running, the city simply installed a camera to take your picture and sent you a $75 ticket?

I find that equally disturbing. Whether we find a pothole or an engineering flaw, we should fix it. But the financial feasibility of red-light cameras literally depends on identifying an intersection with a high number of violators, and not fixing the flawed timing that produces it.

Me? I would rather prevent accidents than photograph them.

When the city first installed these cameras in 2008, and I was a journalist reporting on it, the company hired for the job warned Denver in a letter that if it adjusted the yellow timing to synchronize with actual traffic conditions, the city wouldn’t get the revenue it anticipated because red-light running would be reduced.

Wait a minute, isn’t that what we want?

Apparently not everyone, according to a recent commentary in The Denver Postby an advocacy journalist who criticized this common-sense approach. Instead, he called for massive expansion of needless red-light cameras throughout the city, ignoring the scientifically proven method of achieving compliance.

Oddly enough, camera advocates find themselves in the position of arguing against the laws of physics. It would seem that climate change deniers aren’t the only ones who reject science. Traffic laws cannot override the laws of physics
Back in February, when I was faced with voting on a contract to expand red-light camera locations, my unusually understanding wife went along with my date-night suggestion that we grab some hot dogs and time a few yellow lights. We took videos of the yellow-change intervals and found that at two of the proposed new camera locations, the yellow-light times were wholly inadequate to allow typical drivers to safely come to a stop. Worse, the yellow-signals upstream of them were longer, essentially setting a trap for drivers when they reached the shorter one where the cameras would be.

This is a real phenomenon traffic engineers call the “dilemma zone” — a measurable area within which when a yellow light is too short, a driver is both too close to come to a safe stop and too far away to safely proceed through the intersection before the light turns red. You either brake too sharply, risking a rear-end collision, or violate the red, risking a T-bone collision.

Properly timed yellow lights that account for braking deceleration at a reasonable eight- to 10-feet-per-second-squared separate those overlapping areas, eliminating the dilemma zone and significantly reducing red-light running.

As a result of my date-night adventure, police and traffic engineers agreed and asked City Council to reject the pending contract for new cameras while the city adjusted yellow times to measure the results.

I can hear the standard response from camera defenders: “Well, if they just stop before red, they won’t get a ticket.” Fine. Then let’s keep our part of the deal by giving drivers the properly engineered timing to do so. For many years, Denver set all yellow lights at three seconds, the legal minimum. But engineers can easily calculate the time and distance it takes to stop a two-and-a-half ton vehicle from any approaching speed. Three seconds is the appropriate timing for 25-mph traffic on a level street. Each intersection should have its own calculated yellow time, neither too short nor too long.

For some time now, the city has been adjusting yellows to account for real-world conditions. I applaud that wholeheartedly because I would rather have safe intersections than your $75. But with thousands of signals to adjust, the job’s not yet finished.

Cities that have adopted a modified formula for yellow-light timing from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which is now required in California, have found red-light running virtually eliminated to the point they’ve taken out their red-light cameras.

Case in point: In the mid-2000s, a red-light camera at an intersection in Loma Linda, Calif., was reliably spitting out an average of 249 tickets every month, with no downward trend in violations. When traffic engineers added a mere three-tenths of a second, violations immediately dropped by 68%, to just 79 per month.

Then, three years later, Loma Linda engineers added another single second to the yellow light. Guess what happened?

Yep, red-light running virtually ended. The camera found fewer than six violations per month on a busy California divided arterial roadway — only one every five days, a 98% reduction. How many intersections in Denver can you stand next to and see only one red light runner every five days?

I’m thankful to Denver’s police and traffic engineers for moving in this direction, achieving safety without $75 fines. I believe that choosing red-light cameras over fixing known engineering flaws is negligence.

Kevin Flynn is a Denver City Council member representing southwest Denver’s District 2.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.