Just Like this story, the city of Sioux Falls finds revenue much more important than safety. It is DOCUMENTED that the city has LOWERED yellow times. The reason? Well. Take just one guess. The following from an AOL link I had a hard time linking to this forum so I just did a copy and paste of part of it.
Recent studies of the effects and usage of red light cameras at intersections in Texas brought the website The Newspaper to the same conclusion that many motorists have: it’s about revenue.
First let’s look at some numbers: according to the NHTSA there were 34,017 fatal crashes in 2008, with 11,179 of them – and more than 800,000 injuries – attributed to speeding. Most of those fatalities occurred somewhere other than the Interstate, where the speed limit was under 55 miles per hour. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 260,000 “vehicle incidents” from people running red lights, resulting in almost 900 deaths.
That’s 11,179 deaths vs. 900 deaths. In 2006, when traffic fatalities were higher, speeding was deemed the number one cause of death for people ages four to 34.
Yet the IIHS reports that as of December, 2009 only 52 communities use speed cameras. The number of communities that use red light cameras: 442. Almost nine times as many cities employ red light cameras for the stated goal of increasing safety even though speeding appears to be far more deadly.
The problematic issue with red light cameras brings up the same word that describes the problem with speed cameras: “trap.” In the case of Texas, short yellow light times have been found to make it more likely someone will enter the intersection after the red begins to glow – and therefore make it easier to issue ticket.
In one case the length of a yellow light in El Paso was shortened by just a four-tenths of a second and citations jumped by 132%. In another case, a yellow light at a 45-mph intersection in Houston that lasted 3.6 seconds rang up 341% more tickets than the yellow lights at other, similar 45-mph intersections.
Opponents of the red light cameras point to the fact that the duration of yellow lights in these scenarios is often less than the minimum durations proposed by national and state traffic engineering bodies. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has a formula for determining how long a yellow light should stay illuminated, but intersections boasting red light cameras rarely follow those informal guidelines.
In 2003, a study by two researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute published a study that resulted in these findings: “(1) an increase of 0.5 to 1.5 s in yellow duration (such that it does not exceed 5.5 s) will decrease the frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent; (2) drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration; and (3) increasing a yellow interval that is shorter than that obtained from a proposed recommended practice published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is likely to yield the greatest return (in terms of a reduced number of red-light violations) relative to the cost of retiming a yellow interval in the field.”
In plainer English: increase the time of a yellow light, reduce the number of accidents. A one-second increase in the yellow light time duration resulted in a 40-percent reduction in crashes and a 53% drop in violations.
Never mind the fact that many red light cameras are not installed at the intersections with the highest accident rates. And never mind the fact that while cameras are said to capture up to 90% of their violations in the first second of a light going red, the large majority of accidents due to people running red lights happens five seconds after a light has turned red.
What makes it easy for to ignore that facts is the huge amounts of money involved. In Coppell, one of those Texas towns studied, one red light camera issued $862,275 in tickets during a 1-year span. That’s a healthy addition to the coffers in a town of just 39,000 people. Other, larger cities are known to reap millions from red light camera revenue.
And when it comes to short yellows, statistics and studies will pale in the face of the most important number of all: millions. Given the chance to address a municipal budget – and safety – the length of yellow lights is almost the same as a game of limbo: how low can you go?
l3wis
I suspect the next mayor will not renew the redlight camera’s contract.
Did you take the time to read thru my first post in this entry l3wis? I hope so. It spells out very clearly the dangers of shortened yellow lites. Yet this city chose to lower ALL the yellow times on 41st Street and Louise Avenue by a full half second. Same for ALL 35 mph speed zones as I recall.
The city did this with the full knowledge that doing this more than DOUBLED red light running during a traffic study that was done when they lowered those yellow times. I suspect they did this to have an excuse to install red lite cameras all over town. That pipe dream has since died a slow and painful death.
The next mayor, FOR SAFETIES SAKE, needs to put the yellow times at acceptable levels.
I not only hope they renew it, but add more of them. For me it isn’t just about safety, but about ensuring compliance and ensuring a smooth traffic flow. I cannot begin to count the number of times I have been stuck at a green light because some moron thought he could squeeze in through a yellow and ended up being stopped in the middle of the intersection.
It happens on 41st and Louise, on 41st and Minnesota, Louise and 49th, and it happens on Louise next to Walmart all the time. Just recently I was the second car at a green arrow at 41st and Louise and neither of us were able to go because at least three cars ignored the yellow and just pushed on into the intersection which was then blocked. Not only did they block us, but they blocked two lanes of traffic that intended to go straight… so we all sat there with nowhere to go.
Had there been a red light camera at that intersection, you can bet your ass those cars wouldn’t have taken the chance – and if they did at least they would have paid for it with a $85 fine.
As far as the article quoted here (and I really don’t know how much of this is the source article versus how much is original content since it isn’t quoted or the source URL identified), it seems to suggest that if anything we simply need to add some speed cameras. That doesn’t diminish the value of red light cameras however.
And regarding the suggestion that these cameras are nothing more than a revenue stream, other posts on this very forum have found the flaw in that argument. After Redflex takes their cut and we pay for lawyers to defend their usage… the city really isn’t bringing in any significant revenue.
So I guess you need to find another angle to work from, because the revenue argument really doesn’t hold up.
I did read the entire post. I’m finding more and more that city departments do whatever they want to with little oversight by city hall and almost zero oversight by our council.
After Redflex takes their cut and we pay for lawyers to defend their usage… the city really isn’t bringing in any significant revenue.
Something tells me that isn’t how redflex sold their camera to the city.
At least one city has already been forced to remove the cameras and refund fines. We’d be smart to do the same before the cost of a settlement becomes much higher.
That, and the fact their is MORE accidents when we shorten yellow times.
Costner.
I hope to put in the entire link here.
http://autos.aol.com/article/short-yellow-lights-revenue
Seems you are missing my point. Like you, I am for SAFETY on our city streets. From that link, this is stated.
“The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has a formula for determining how long a yellow light should stay illuminated, but intersections boasting red light cameras rarely follow those informal guidelines.”
Do you know WHY that is? REVENUE. That’s why.
ITE determines yellow times by speed limits and the physical size of a controlled intersection. If an intersection is six lanes wide, it stands to reason it needs more yellow time to clear that intersection. Our camera at 10th and Minnesota 20 years ago would have required a 4.5 second yellow when factoring speed limit and dimensions of that corner. Do you have any idea what the length of that yellow light is today? And that 4.5 second yellow is for the POSTED speed limit…not the ACCEPTED speed limit, which is EASILY 10 mph HIGHER.
Same formula for 41st Street and the other streets you mentioned. Those 35 mph POSTED intersections and their size call for a yellow time fully a second ABOVE what those intersections USED to be set at. And don’t forget, hardly anyone in this town obeys the posted speed limits. So those short yellows only turn our intersections into demolition derby sites.
You see I said “USED to be set at.” That’s because the city LOWERED those yellow times by a full half second. Partly as fuel for future RLC’s and partly to get commuters from point A to point B faster on our overcrowded main arterial streets. You can drive ALL DAY LONG on 41st Street at 45 mph and never get a second glance from our police force. Ever wonder WHY?
You want more RLC’s? Fine. Just do it with safe yellow times as recommended by the ITE. Have 50 of em for all I care…just do it right. Fact is, IF the city did it right to begin with, this RLC concept would be as big a black hole on tax dollars as the Washington Pavillion.
Recall this line from that link….then think about it.
In plainer English: increase the time of a yellow light, reduce the number of accidents. A one-second increase in the yellow light time duration resulted in a 40-percent reduction in crashes and a 53% drop in violations.
One other thing. The numbers you see above are dwarfed by our own traffic study. Yet this city chose to LOWER yellow times????
There’s a class action here regarding 9,000 camera tickets. After wrangling and obstruction, the mayor was forced to give a video deposition. When the city takes someone into small claims court, this case is cited. You do not have to pay a fine pending a future decision and the city must again take you into court (city litigation cost, no revenue). They should never have entered into the Reflex contract and continue to exhaust taxpayor resources covering it up. There’s another (same issue) class action in progress. It should be in court several years. In the end (both suits), city litigation will be triple the cost of the hardware and full fine refunds. Here’s 5+ million that disappears before it can be spent on an unnecesasary consultant. Still, they continue to operate the red light camera. Hopefully, a new mayor will put an end to this money drain. Citizens are weary and broke from: I’m right because I’m the strong mayor king. You’re always wrong.
Reflex is in bankruptcy. Cameras are unconstitutional in 13 states and legally contested in 9 others. Cities can’t ticket the vehicle. They must properly stop and serve the driver if there is an offense at the time of the offense. It’s fundamental constitutional right to due process.
Poly43: Do you know WHY that is? REVENUE. That’s why.
That is your opinion, and again we have discussed previously that the city is not bringing in huge sums of money from these cameras. If it was truly all about revenue, I can promise you there would be more than just one camera, and there most certainly would be one at 41st and Louise considering the number of red light violations that occur there. Not to mention any camera by the mall would catch a lot of out-of-towners who are unaware of the cameras which equals more revenue.
Don’t let logic get in the way of your conspiracy theory though.
Poly43: ITE determines yellow times by speed limits and the physical size of a controlled intersection. If an intersection is six lanes wide, it stands to reason it needs more yellow time to clear that intersection. Our camera at 10th and Minnesota 20 years ago would have required a 4.5 second yellow when factoring speed limit and dimensions of that corner. Do you have any idea what the length of that yellow light is today? And that 4.5 second yellow is for the POSTED speed limit…not the ACCEPTED speed limit, which is EASILY 10 mph HIGHER.
So you have all the answers – but they sound more like your opinion. The ITE is merely a guide however – so unless there is a law that dictates what the timing should be I don’t think you have much of an argument here. I have never had a problem with the yellow light timing anywhere in Sioux Falls – and I suspect if you do it is because you aren’t paying attention.
And don’t give me that bs line about “accepted” speed limit versus posted speed limit. You seem to complain a lot about people speeding, but the speed limit is the speed limit and yellow light timing needs to be based upon the actual value. You can never base timing upon what someone will do when they are breaking the law… that is idiotic logic.
Poly43: And don’t forget, hardly anyone in this town obeys the posted speed limits. So those short yellows only turn our intersections into demolition derby sites.
So you have some hard facts that show accident rates at those intersections have risen since the timing was changed then?
Or are you just blowing more smoke?
Poly43: You can drive ALL DAY LONG on 41st Street at 45 mph and never get a second glance from our police force. Ever wonder WHY?
That isn’t the point – and I don’t find it to be true in either case since I personally have been pulled over on 41st for doing 6mph over the posted limit.
Poly43: In plainer English: increase the time of a yellow light, reduce the number of accidents. A one-second increase in the yellow light time duration resulted in a 40-percent reduction in crashes and a 53% drop in violations.
Do you understand the law of diminished returns? The logic in that statement is flawed because it doesn’t indicate the base number they are going from. Sure you might decrease accidents 40% by increasing yellow light times from 2.5 to 3.5 seconds, but what about if you move them from 3.5 to 4.5 seconds? I can promise you that crashes will not be reduced by another 40%.
So at what point do you stop? If one second longer is good… surely three seconds is better right? What about adding 10 seconds to every yellow light in the name of safety? Surely that would help reduce violations and accidents right poly?
Wrong – because people can and do adapt. Once people realize there is a 10 second yellow, they will proceed to drive through it on a regular basis. That is why studies like the one you refer to pull their figures from the initial reaction to the change in order to get the most impact when people like you read the findings. Come back a year later and you would find those figures are far from reality.
Not to mention the fact that you start to have a huge negative impact upon traffic flow by increasing timing. Add one or two seconds to each light it doesn’t sound so bad – but add two seconds to each light and due to timing issues it now takes eight minutes longer to drive down 41st on the typical day. How many people are impacted by that?
Cleary there is a lot more to the issue than your one sided viewpoint.
PG: Cameras are unconstitutional in 13 states and legally contested in 9 others. Cities can’t ticket the vehicle. They must properly stop and serve the driver if there is an offense at the time of the offense. It’s fundamental constitutional right to due process.
Cities can’t ticket the vehicle? That seems odd since parking tickets are legal in all 50 states.
And before you try to state that red light camera violations are different, keep in mind the violation sent to the owner is a civil penalty – not a traffic violation. Thus, they are the same (legally speaking) as a parking ticket. It doesn’t matter who was driving, just as it doesn’t matter who is driving when it is discovered your car is parked illegally, or when you don’t have insurance on it, or when your tags are expired.
The reason why cameras were found unconstitutional in other states is because in those states they were sending the vehicle owners traffic violations – meaning it would go on their license and they would receive “points”. In some cases it could even result in a driver losing his or her license – and that driver never had a chance to prove it wasn’t him or her… thus the unconstitutionality.
That isn’t the case here in Sioux Falls. But you know this because we have discussed it, and you also know if it was the case here – the red light camera case would have easily been settled a long, long time ago.
You guys keep making the same invalid arguments and you conveniently forget all the facts, but it won’t help. Like them or not, the cameras are 100% legal in our city and in our state.
Camera light tickets are a moving violation while parking tickets are not. A moving violation involves a driver who is unknown unless he/she is identified and cited at the time of the offense. A moving violation involves a vehicle but the offense is the drivers actions. Cameras are legal to collect evidence or monitor public areas. Pictures are evidentiary if they are time stamped and proven not to be altered. The best evidence is a witness. Add more police but do not spend millions on hardware and litigation.
City code 2-66 states ‘subject to judicial review’. A judge can only review city civil procedures as a qualified consultant. Per city Home-Rule charter they can fine up to $600. They have no way to collect it because there is no appeals process. Previously (2006) 2-66 stated ‘either party can appeal into circuit court’. Appeal was available and no longer applies. A citizen or defendant should not pay fines or fees. Developers should be refunded their 303K platting fees and be excluded from all fees. You say, a fine or fee remains on city records affecting your credit. Guess what, the city can’t get a judgement and has no records. Not maintaining a file violates a principle part of the SD civil procedures act (case evidence, recording).
Here’s what I do. Ignore them, they are disfunctional. Buy from adjoining communities, the internet, or Minnesota to prevent taxes going into city revenue. Contest your property taxes to the extent that the county does not suffer. Electing a new mayor and replacing much of the council could provoke change. Sooner or later, city politicians should realize constitutional democracy works better than their system.
PG: Camera light tickets are a moving violation while parking tickets are not.
The tickets produced by the cameras in Sioux Falls are NOT moving violations. They are civil penalties just as a parking ticket would be. They are not tied to a specific driver but rather to the vehicle itself. I don’t know how to make this any more clear.
The people who designed the system did their homework which is why the cameras are still in operation to this day.
The company who makes the cameras is in bankruptcy. Their homework sucked.
If a vehicle is moving the offense is created by the driver.
If you are driving and run over your ex-wife, the vehicle should get the death penalty and you go free. Wait a minute, maybe this should be SD law.
I have no idea why they are in bankruptcy – poor management? Maybe they aren’t charging enough for the tickets? Perhaps red light camerss aren’t nearly as lucrative as some on this board would suggest?
Either way, I don’t see them going away from Sioux Falls unless there is a policy change… but it won’t be due to their legality.
No matter what your interpretation of traffic violation vs. civil penalty, the end result is the same. If South Dakota had any toll roads and if that car drove through a toll booth without paying… guess where the fine would be sent to?
You guessed it – the registered owner.
If a car is witnessed backing into a fire hydrant and then leaving the scene – and then the police find the vehicle and fill out an accident report only to find the owner has no insurance on the vehicle – guess who gets the fine for no insurance?
You guessed it – the registered owner.
The burden of proof isn’t nearly as high as some people suggest. It is actually quite common that registered owners are fined for actions that occurred in their vehicles regardless of if they were the ones who were driving or in possession of the vehicle at the time.
That is the one thing that sets our red light camera apart from so many others, and the one reason it is still flashing and snapping photos each and every day.
And don’t give me that bs line about “accepted†speed limit versus posted speed limit. You seem to complain a lot about people speeding, but the speed limit is the speed limit and yellow light timing needs to be based upon the actual value. You can never base timing upon what someone will do when they are breaking the law…
~costner/cosm
wrong again cos. I can and will talk about posted limits versus accepted limits. You and me, and anyone else can drive MIDDAY along Minnesota Avenue from about 6th street to I229 eight to ten miles ABOVE the posted limit. WHY? Because that is the normal flow of traffic speed. Of course all bets are off after about 8PM in the evening. That’s when “rigid” posted limits are again the “law”. Same with 41st Street or any other major arterial route. Eight to ten mph above DURING THE DAY.
Check it out yourself cos. You and anyone else line up side by side on Minnesota Avenue at about 6th Street and drive the posted limit at 2 PM on a workday afternoon. At that point YOU are the hazard to normal traffic flow because YOU are driving too slow.
So you have some hard facts that show accident rates at those intersections have risen since the timing was changed then?
~costner/cosm
Do red lite runners cause accidents cos? If you answer yes, then…of course…YES I DO.
Not to mention the fact that you start to have a huge negative impact upon traffic flow by increasing timing. Add one or two seconds to each light it doesn’t sound so bad – but add two seconds to each light and due to timing issues it now takes eight minutes longer to drive down 41st on the typical day. How many people are impacted by that?
~costner/cosm
You can’t have it both ways cos. You bitch about drivers breaking the law by driving too fast in their race across town during commuter hours and then bitch about your precious eight minutes. Get a clue cos. Put the yellow times where they belong and get your lazy ass out of bed eight minutes earlier.
Our own traffic study conducted in 2002 says it all about our red light camera situation…on just three pages. Here they are.
pg. 29
One of the classic elements that have been discussed by traffic engineers for many years is the creation of a dilemma zone for motorists approaching a traffic signal. A motorist on the approach to an intersection is shown a yellow indication and needs to make an immediate decision whether to approach the intersection and continue through or whether to apply the brakes and try to stop in time. The dilemma zone answer has often been to provide traffic signal detectors at a far enough spacing so when motorists cross the detector, they will have adequate time to continue through the intersection or, if the light turns yellow just before they reach the detector, they will have adequate distance to comfortably stop. In heavy traffic conditions where the traffic signal runs to maximum time or where traffic signals are coordinated and will be terminated without attempting to find a gap in traffic, motorists often find themselves in the dilemma zone where they can stop by braking hard or can continue through. The yellow signal clearance interval should be long enough to provide an opportunity for motorists who are too close to comfortably stop to enter the intersection. A following all red clearance is generally utilized to provide an opportunity for vehicles that have entered the intersection before the end of the yellow clearance to have an opportunity to clear the intersection before any conflicting traffic is given a green indication. For each of the intersections being studied, traffic signal timing information was obtained and analyzed.
pg. 40
10th Street and Minnesota Avenue
The number of noted violations of red lights at the intersection of 10th Street and Minnesota Avenue in the before study was amazing. Two hundred forty-seven observations were made in a 4½ hour period. One hundred sixteen occurred in the mid-day count and One hundred six in the PM Peak Hour. They were equally spread amongst the movements with 24 northbound, 68 southbound, and 48 westbound. Additionally, 59 northbound left turns and 41 westbound left turn motorists made red light violation moves. There are almost 50 noted “speeding up†by motorists to enter the intersection at the beginning of the red light. Amazingly, there were also a number of individuals who deliberately ran the red light. Most of those were left turn motorists who simply waited until the light was red and then proceeded through the intersection. The major change in the signal timing was to increase the yellow clearance time from 3.0 to 3.5 seconds for all phases. The red clearance times were reduced from 2.0 to 1.7 for the through movements for northbound and southbound. Red clearance time was added to the northbound left turn. The theory behind the changes was to extend the yellow clearance to reflect the higher ACTUAL travel speeds in the off peak periods and for some of the peak periods. The changes to the yellow clearance for the left turns was to reflect the longer time left turning traffic would take to get to and through the intersection. The red clearance added to the left turns would reflect the need for clearance after vehicles could legally enter the intersection. The reduction in red clearance was to balance the total clearance for through traffic. The after study results were so dramatically reduced that it is almost desirable to recount to make certain there was not an anomaly occurring on the day the count was made. Total number of after red light violations was 57, which is approximately 1/5 the number in the before study. Most of the after study violations occurred during mid-day with 36 noted violations. The westbound accounted for 17 of the total violations and the rest were spread throughout the northbound and southbound and the turning movements.
pg. 47
At the very busy and large 41st Street and Louise Avenue intersection, the yellow clearance interval was reduced to 3.6 seconds from previously set 4.0 seconds. The total number of violations in the intersection increased from 100 to 178 with the through traffic violations increasing from 23 to 47. This would also indicate that a reduction in yellow clearance interval would result in more violations.
So what did the city do with these study results cos? Why of course. LOWER the yellow times on 41st Street from 4 to 3.5 seconds. You got a stop watch cos. Check it out for yourself.
Poly43, you’ll have to start posting under the name “Tolstoy” from now on.
Dude, just responding in kind to costners novel post #9. BTW, you still owe me two drinks. Same with you Sy. Well maybe just one for you Sy.
Too bad about them thar cowboys. What is it about the Big 12 teams outside their own conference?
We need an OC. Gundy’s tying to do it all himself and can only devote half his ass to the OC job.
Defensively, we’re on the right track. Maybe we’ll hire Mike Leach as the OC… probably not.
The B12 is doing pretty decently in bowls this year.
So you have some hard facts that show accident rates at those intersections have risen since the timing was changed then?
~costner/cosm
poly: Do red lite runners cause accidents cos? If you answer yes, then…of course…YES I DO.
So you answer a question with a question? If you don’t have the figures then by all means just admit it. Otherwise it seems you just proved my point – you’re making assumptions without the supporting data to back them up.
As to the study you cite, I guess you missed the part of my post where I spoke of diminished returns and how drivers can and do adapt to adjusted timings.
If driver X has been traveling through intersection Y for the past five years on his daily commute, he is well aware of how long the yellow light is. You change that one day – you can bet your ass people are going to be running it… right up until the point they adapt and recognize the difference.
This is why a true study on the issue would revisit those intersections six months or a year later and see if the higher number of violations still holds true.
Go ahead and let me know when you have some numbers for that. Otherwise it is a moot point, and the cameras will keep on catching those who break the law…excuses or not.
The camera case will soon be decided. I/we must accept the judges ruling. Meanwhile, do not pay camera tickets. If the case is appealed, continue not paying camera tickets. Let 5 people stand in the back of a pickup, deliberately turn right on red, and moon with middle fingers pointed at the camera. Maybe wait till spring.
Myself, I’ll not pay any city fine or fee until the city provides for constitutional appeals. They have no enforcement authority before then. This is a good time to make noncompliant improvements.
Moot point my ass costner. You’re awfully fuckin stupid if you believe for one minute that MAJOR increased incidents of red lite running does not contribute to an increase in accidents.
What part of our own traffic study did you not comprehend cos? Read it. More slowly this time. Til then STFU.
The major change in the signal timing was to increase the yellow clearance time from 3.0 to 3.5 seconds for all phases…
…The after study results were so dramatically reduced that it is almost desirable to recount to make certain there was not an anomaly occurring on the day the count was made. Total number of after red light violations was 57, which is approximately 1/5 the number in the before study…
…At the very busy and large 41st Street and Louise Avenue intersection, the yellow clearance interval was reduced to 3.6 seconds from previously set 4.0 seconds. The total number of violations in the intersection increased from 100 to 178 with the through traffic violations increasing from 23 to 47. This would also indicate that a reduction in yellow clearance interval would result in more violations.
Again you have no facts to support your opinion and then you tell me to STFU? Seems someone is getting a little testy when others question their “facts” now doesn’t it.
I suppose I should have expected as much from you considering you like to make claims about “studies” that you are never able to produce.
Remember those “studies” about the assault weapons ban you were so fond of talking about but that never existed? Seems like this is another case of you being unable to provide the evidence you claim exists.
So until you are able to produce a report or study which shows that accidents at any of the intersections that had their yellow light times adjusted, I guess you really don’t have a valid point.
Thats what I thought.