View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

Officials tout red-light cameras

Contract for traffic cameras is up in April, but there are those who think there is a large benefit

Posted: February 15, 2014 10:35 p.m.
Updated: February 15, 2014 10:35 p.m.
 

With Santa Clarita’s current contract for red light cameras up for review this year, city officials say the program has had a marked effect on roadway safety.

Santa Clarita’s red light cameras have been in place since 2004, and in that time the city has seen a decline in traffic collisions at monitored intersections, according to data compiled by the city.

“For us this is a tool in the toolbox to help improve traffic safety,” said city spokeswoman Gail Morgan.

There are cameras set up at seven intersections throughout Santa Clarita — Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, McBean Parkway and Magic Mountain Parkway, McBean Parkway and Newhall Ranch Road, Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, Bouquet Canyon Road and Seco Canyon Road, Whites Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road, and Lyons Avenue and Orchard Village Road.

Andrew Yi, city traffic engineer, said the number of certain types of collisions at monitored intersections has fallen notably since the cameras were installed — namely the broadside collisions that he said are oftentimes the most dangerous.

“Those are the high-impact collisions that cause serious injuries or, a lot of times, are fatal,” Yi said.

Traffic officials studied the number of such collisions before and after the cameras were installed and found the average number of yearly broadside collisions decreased 61 percent at intersections with red-light cameras.

The average number of yearly injury collisions dropped about 8 percent, while total yearly collisions dropped roughly 18 percent at those intersections, Yi said.

Rear-end collisions at those intersections did show a 12-percent increase from before the cameras were installed to after, Yi said.

Despite the city-cited safety benefits, the cameras are not without controversy.

Valencia resident Jim Farley said at a recent City Council meeting he doesn’t think the city’s yellow left-turn arrows are long enough to always make it completely through intersections, meaning some people could get undeserved tickets.

“The tickets and fines are going to the folks that are not causing the traffic accidents,” he said.

Some have also bemoaned the high cost of tickets, which run nearly $500 a pop.

Mark Hunter, an administrative analyst with the city’s Traffic Division, said the number of red light camera tickets issued fell during the second year of the program and has remained relatively stable since then.

“On average we give out about 6,600 violations a year,” Hunter said.

That averages out to about 18 violations per day.

The city of Santa Clarita receives about 30 percent of the revenue from each ticket, adding up to an average of $667,000 a year.

Average annual expenditures for the program are roughly $569,000, according to figures from the city.

Any revenues exceeding the cost of the program are put toward programs and projects geared at traffic safety, according to Morgan.

The company contracted to provide the city’s red light cameras is Redflex Traffic Systems, which runs similar red light camera programs nationally.

Redflex has come under fire in recent months after a fired executive claimed the company bribed and provided gifts to officials to secure contracts, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Redflex also lost its contract with the city of Chicago amid allegations of bribery.

Morgan said Redflex has worked well in the city of Santa Clarita.

“When all of this was coming out they came and met with us personally to explain that whatever was going on in other municipalities was not going on here,” Morgan said. “And we’ve been pleased with our relationship.”


Comments

BBennetts: Posted: February 16, 2014 11:09 p.m.

In typical city fashion, nothing the city does is bad. I wonder why other municipalities have abandoned the red light cameras and Santa Clarita says that everything is great. True fact, the tickets are unenforceable. Payment is voluntary. They can send you all the threatening letters they want, if you never respond, nothing ever happens. No points, no DMV holds, nothing.


lars2: Posted: February 16, 2014 11:29 p.m.

True fact, the broadside collisions are down. Have not heard of a fatality in quite some time due to these accidents. The increase in rear end collisions is caused by the same idiots who run the red lights and take the risk of not keeping a safe speed and distance from the driver in front of them. These tickets are the easiest to avoid. Don't go on a red light.


ricketzz: Posted: February 16, 2014 6:43 a.m.

Doesn't the Los Angeles District Attorney refuse to prosecute these tickets due to the fact that the identity of the driver is not known when the "citation" is issued?


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:53 a.m.

I guess somehow somebody is making money from this. Just about everyone knows that when you get one of those camera tickets in the mail you just toss it, as nothing whatsoever will happen as a result, except perhaps a letter from a collection agency that you can also toss, as nothing will appear on your credit report. Still, the city insists that the cameras work "just great". Remember, this is the same city that routinely ties up police officers for hours at a time nearly every weekend for "DUI Checkpoints" that yield at best 1 or 2 arrests in a complete waste of police resources. Again, somebody has to be making money from this but it's difficult to tell who it is.


OldReliable: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:53 a.m.

If these cameras have reduced traffic accidents what's the problem folks?


lars1: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:57 a.m.

The fines are outrageous, and nobody in Los Angeles could afford to pay. In addition, although they are not illegal, they are also not legal. When you get a ticket from an officer of the courts, you sign the ticket implying proof of service. When you get a red light ticket in the mail, there is no proof of service. There is no officer of the court who identified you.

The money is the reason why the City keeps advocating these tickets. Mr. Yi comments make no sense without the results from all intersections. Just a fake justification to ripoff the public.

The city will also get a lot of money from the HUGE ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS.

The Public has no say in the Red Light Cameras or the Billboards.


DMeyer: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:01 a.m.

Reducing certain type of accidents while increasing other types of accidents can hardly be touted as a successful program to 'reduce' accidents, other municipalities have already came to that conclusion. This city council has an arrogance about them that somehow prevents them from admitting that they were wrong. Please vote out these clowns.


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:38 a.m.

The cameras are an unnecessary addition to already very complicated intersections with long, complex light sequences. I think they work fairly well given the traffic volume and the number of lanes that need to be managed. The cameras are distracting and provide no additional safety, and should be removed. Apparently the city believes in rhetoric more than it does in numbers, because when you you do the math, the city makes very little on this program. The cameras need to be removed.


UsualSuspect: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:22 a.m.

I have received a 2 of the by mail tickets, one in downtown LA a few years ago, one about a year ago at Bouquet and Seco. I ignore them, and eventually a Deputy showed up at the door and asked for me. My kid has the same name, he just tells them it is not him in the picture, then the Deputy threatens him if he does not tell who it is. My kid stands his ground and the Deputy leaves empty handed. When you get these in LA City they don't send anyone, why do they here? If I had to appear I would fight it, get an Attorney and make sure the Company has to send someone out, make it cost more than the ticket is. This is nothing more than a revenue stream, and they don't stop the folks from running the red lights, if they did there would be zero issued. I am also guessing the City does not consider whiplash as being a injury that is painful. This is as bad as speed humps, the State does not recognize them as an official traffic control device, and if you drive over one and it damages your vehicle the taxpayers are on the hook to fix it. They also slow down fire trucks and ambulances, so they also need to go.


lars1: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:27 a.m.

The numbers the city states are deceitful.
They make more money off these cameras than they state.
UnusualSuspect, I doubt that a Deputy came knocking at your door,
threating you to TELL HIM WHO IT IS. That is illegal.
But the city needs revenue and they will do illegal things to obtain money. That is why they are going to approve the UGLY ILLEGAL ELECTONIC BILLBOARDS.


Before87: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:52 a.m.

Keep the cameras. Just hold up a picture of frank ferry when you blow the light. --edited.


SCVdaPlaceToBe: Posted: February 16, 2014 10:17 a.m.

Interesting that the article doesn't site HARD NUMBERS but rather "percentages" of supposedly lower accidents...think about that. Interesting that supporting comments site "facts" such as "I have not HEARD of any broadside collisions happening". Very scientific. Interesting that the city claims that the cameras are stopping the red light runners. Gee, then why are they still issuing so many tickets? The entire thing is a money making scam.


jvfarley: Posted: February 16, 2014 11:14 a.m.

Thanks to The Signal and Luke Money for putting as their lead story the fact that the red light camera contract is up for renewal in April. Thanks to Council Members TimBen Boydston, Bob Kellar, and Marsha McLean for taking the decision back from the city manager to renew for two more years. A full discussion needs to be had and the citizens need to be knowledgeable about the facts of this issue.

There are some important things missing from the article.

- The article states that "some" could get undeserved tickets. The fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of those ticketed ARE getting ticketed unfairly. The vast majority of tickets are issued for left turns. Our left turn yellow arrow duration is 3.5 seconds, .5 second above the State required minimum of 3.0. The problem is that these numbers are arbitrary and not based on science. The timing is based on the false assumption that all vehicles turning left do so from a stop and does not take into account the relatively high speed limits at our intersections. Newtons Laws completely argue against 3.5 seconds as being fair.
- The above applies to all intersections but I will use just the Eastbound Magic Mountain at McBean as a prime example. In the third quarter of 2013 there were zero straight thru offenders while there were 157 left turn "offenders." Of the 157, 124 were into the red period for one second or less. At $490 per fine that adds up to $60,760 in total fines. While not all "offenders" will necessarily get ticket it stands to reason most will.
- The city could correct this by simply adding 1 second to the yellow time. That combined with the "all-red" time after the yellow will make sure our intersections are clear before the opposite direction gets it's green. We will be safer as a result.
- There are issues with the contract as well. We pay far more than other cities at $4000 per intersection per month. We do not have an adequate clause to terminate the contract if an administrative change is made at the State level to increase the yellow time. That may be pending.

Everyone wants safe street, including myself. I want serious red light runners ticketed and fined severely. Our current red light camera system is not fair and is saddling folks who do not deserve it with a steep $490 fine. Our city loses much credibility by maintaining an unreasonable enforcement policy.

I believe when the facts are reviewed the city will make the right choice and increase the left turn yellow time. Doing that however, will drastically reduce the revenue generated and make the cameras a losing proposition. Removing the cameras outright may be the best solution unless the city can renegotiate the fee structure. --edited.


LuLu: Posted: February 16, 2014 11:15 a.m.

My son received a red light ticket,totally deserved,it's not only a pix it's also a video of you going thru it,mind you he just missed the yellow,which is what most of these are, which is why the decline in actual accidents,he paid his 500.00,took traffic school & learned a valuable lesson which most parents these days try to protect their kids from. If it reduces one fatal accident it's worth it.


Henry5: Posted: February 16, 2014 12:52 p.m.

Here's two ways many California red light cam tickets can be beat:

1. A red light camera ticket from ANY city in LA County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored camera tickets to the DMV. (This includes tickets from the SC sheriff, and tickets from the cameras along the MTA busway, as they are in LA County.) This was revealed in LA Times and LA Weekly articles in 2011. Skeptical? Do a search on: Red light camera no consequence.

2. Check to see if it is a Snitch Ticket, the fake/phishing camera tickets California police - including the SC sheriff - send out to bluff car owners into ID'ing the actual driver. Snitch Tickets say, at the top, "Courtesy Notice-This is not a ticket," and you can ignore them! Skeptical? Search on: Snitch Ticket.



MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 1:24 p.m.

As far as I know, you are under no obligation to tell the police or anyone else who was driving the car, or even talk to them at all. Ask if you are free to leave, and if they say no, ask for a lawyer, as you have just been arrested. DO NOT let these people intimidate you and take your money.


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 1:27 p.m.

Look at:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20130723/ask-the-lawyer-whats-a-snitch-ticket-anyway


jvfarley: Posted: February 16, 2014 1:27 p.m.

Some good links for those who want to learn more. The graphs show just how many tickets are issued in the first second of left turn reds. The second discusses Isaac Newton vs Red Light Cameras (explains why 3.5 seconds is too short for left turns). The last is the Chicago Tribune article Mr. Money refers to. Do we really want to be in bed with this company? The graphs are from a website highwayrobbery.net, a great place to learn lots about red light cameras in general, and Santa Clarita specifically.
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TrcDocsSantaClarLateTimes2013qtr3.pdf

http://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Dilemma-Zone.pdf

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-23/news/ct-redflex-red-light-bribery-20140123_1_redflex-holdings-ltd-company-policy-camera-company


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 1:34 p.m.

This is funny in a weird way:

"“When all of this was coming out they came and met with us personally to explain that whatever was going on in other municipalities was not going on here,” Morgan said. “And we’ve been pleased with our relationship.”"

So this means that Redflex people met with the city and assured them that they weren't bribing them ? are you kidding me ?


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 2:00 p.m.

Also, Aaron Rosenberg was an executive of Redflex:

"Rosenberg said that during his tenure Redflex "bestowed gifts and bribes on company officials in dozens of municipalities within, but not limited to the following states: California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia."

He claims in a lawsuit that the company fired him as a result of this whistleblowing. Of course, SC is not mentioned by name - yet. --edited.


scvpctech: Posted: February 16, 2014 2:47 p.m.

Los Angeles took down their cameras in 2011 most due to a grassroots campaign and that fact that the City Of Los Angeles was losing approx. $1 million a year.
Great info from private citizen at http://saferstreetsla.org/.
Henry5 is correct: http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/01/21/yes-you-can-still-ignore-that-red-light-camera-ticket
Other cities that have removed or banned the cameras: Houston, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Compton, Whittier and Loma Linda.
Before Loma Linda removed the lights they lengthened yellow lights by one second and red-light violations dropped 92 percent.
The Signal reported a 12% increase in rear-end crashes. That seems like a lot.


chefgirl358: Posted: February 16, 2014 4:41 p.m.

The reasons they are not enforceable, and truly they are NOT legally enforceable, is because you as the accused have a constitutional right to confront your accuser in a court of law, tickets must be issued by an actual police officer who actually witnesses the violation with his eyes firsthand, and the ticket needs to be given to you in person. These three things are what make a misdemeanor traffic violation possible. Because none of these criteria are met with traffic cam tickets, they can only encourage you to pay them. No violation goes on your DMV or insurance record, nothing can happen to you. Just ignore them. Better yet, don't even put license plates on your car at all. As long as you keep the temporary registration in the window when you buy a car, it's only a fix it ticket (infraction) and not a misdemeanor. That solves all the problems entirely. But the temp reg is key, without proof of reg the car can be towed.


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 5:24 p.m.

"As long as you keep the temporary registration in the window when you buy a car, it's only a fix it ticket (infraction) and not a misdemeanor. That solves all the problems entirely. But the temp reg is key, without proof of reg the car can be towed."

I'm not sure this is correct. I once got a ticket for not having a front license plate (made the car look bad so I didn't put it on) but I had a rear one...


MSC: Posted: February 16, 2014 5:26 p.m.

So then the question is, how can we get Santa Clarita to remove the cameras and lengthen the yellow lights. A 12% increase in rear end crashes in order to make the city and some sleazy camera company a few dollars is totally unacceptable. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:56 p.m.

"As far as I know, you are under no obligation to tell the police or anyone else who was driving the car, or even talk to them at all. Ask if you are free to leave, and if they say no, ask for a lawyer, as you have just been arrested."

You don't have to even answer the door if you see there's a cop outside. You can just ignore them and go about your business.


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:00 p.m.

"I have received a 2 of the by mail tickets, one in downtown LA a few years ago, one about a year ago at Bouquet and Seco. I ignore them, and eventually a Deputy showed up at the door and asked for me. My kid has the same name, he just tells them it is not him in the picture, then the Deputy threatens him if he does not tell who it is. My kid stands his ground and the Deputy leaves empty handed."

Kudos to your kid for knowing his rights. And if it was a Deputy, I'd be interested in knowing what sort of threats he used (even if it was just a process server, he was out of line for threatening anyone with anything).


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:37 p.m.

"As long as you keep the temporary registration in the window when you buy a car, it's only a fix it ticket (infraction) and not a misdemeanor. That solves all the problems entirely. But the temp reg is key, without proof of reg the car can be towed."

Temporary registration for a new car is good for 6 months *or until the plates or stickers are received*, whichever comes first.

If you're transferring personalized plates, new stickers only take about a week to show up. Plates are a little longer, but either way, once they've been issued, I doubt that the little temporary paper in the window corner would be any defense against any sort of ticket (and might cause a lot more problems if you're caught driving without the assigned plates).

Bad advice to not comply with vehicle licensing requirements.


MSC: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:04 p.m.

I think not putting the plates on the car is a really bad (and possibly illegal) idea. Not answering the door, however, is probably a good idea, along with keeping your lawyer's telephone number handy.

I seriously doubt that the police (or anyone else) will come to your door over a camera ticket; it simply makes no sense economically or otherwise.

However, that said, it is important to remember that the place to assert your rights is in court, NOT with the police who in almost all cases don't give a damn about your rights and will certainly be happy to physically remind you of that should you try to assert them. A good rule of survival is never argue with the police, and never talk to them without a lawyer present. Arguing will get you injured or worse, and talking will put you in jail or worse. --edited.


chefgirl358: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:26 p.m.

User deleted comment --edited.


chefgirl358: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:29 p.m.

Deleted


missyJk: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:41 p.m.

The cameras need to go. add an extra few seconds to yellow lights and a few second pause on the opposing lights turning green. Thats how you cut down on accidents not price gouging people on red light cameras and causing by their own admission rear end collisions..


Vtown123: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:10 a.m.

I think the cameras are awesome. How could you not like people getting tickets for running red light...unless it's you running the light?


Shannons69: Posted: February 17, 2014 12:41 a.m.

Since the cameras were installed I have had it happen several times that the driver in front of me come to a sudden stop at the start of the yellow light. It makes some drivers paranoid of getting a ticket and therefore I can definitely see the increase of rear end accidents due to the cameras.

I also think the cameras should go.


ricketzz: Posted: February 17, 2014 6:23 a.m.

The cameras are an insult by the government. If you are really worried about safety you'd build more roundabouts. The red light wait times in Valencia make this city despised by professional drivers. Red light cameras are a hillbilly trick to capitalize on people being efficient.


chefgirl358: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:05 a.m.

I think they should go but since the tickets are unenforceable I guess it doesn't really matter.


lars1: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:08 a.m.

The City has enough money! It does not have to rob its citizens to get more.
Please do not renew the red lights! As the posters have said, increasing the yellow light time will provide the same result without ripping us off.


Unreal: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:39 a.m.

If you get one of these you need to make sure you do not respond.You will get letters telling you "this MIGHT" happen or "This Could happen".Finally a letter offering you to close it out for less than the original amount. 2 of my coworkers and my son got one in the past 3 years. Nothing happens. No Sheriff at the door for any of them. I have never heard of a Sheriff at the door either. Maybe that was before the red cameras were found to be unconstitutional in many states? Los Angeles courts will not enforce them due to this issue. If you walk in there with money in hand and confess it was you, you now have caught yourself and lose.If you ignore the ticket. it cannot go on your DMV. It cannot go on your credit report. They have no power to do anything.I find it appalling that the city of SCV wants to harass their citizens with something that has been found to be unconstitutional. For our own good? This sounds like Obama thinking.Why did the Signal completely ignore the debate on this? --edited.


SaugusSplasher: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:16 a.m.

So they made the yellow signal 16% longer (from 3 to 3.5 seconds) than the state law requires but people defending speeders rushing to cut a fast left turn want to double it to 33% longer (4 seconds)? Ridiculous. That will just encourage more people to gun it to make the yellow and cause more accidents! People just need to slow down. Drop it down to 3 seconds!


TheVoid: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:31 a.m.

Two questions about the money involved:
1) Do the operating expenses come out of the 30% revenue? If so, that would be about $98,000/year net revenue. Not a lot.
2) If $667,00 is 30% of total revenue, then the total is around $2.2 million, correct? But, 6,600 citations at $490 each is over $3.2 million. Is the other $1 million the unpaid fines?
It looks to me like we get a 5% return, at best, on the over $2 M paid out to get less than $100 K in "programs and projects geared at traffic safety".


timothymyers02: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:33 a.m.

MSC:

That is funny! I feel so much better that they were assured by RedFlex that they weren't being bribed.


timothymyers02: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:36 a.m.

Everything that everyone has said about ignoring the tickets is true, but this is apparently not common knowledge. The numbers provided in the article by the City imply a compliance/conviction rate of 75%, which seems extremely excessive.

If someone is willing to invest 50 cents for a fun joke, I would suggest mailing any red light camera tickets received to Gail Morgan at the City Hall.


timothymyers02: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:41 a.m.

Jim Farley:

I think you have put together a plan that ingeniously puts you on several paths to victory. I think there is momentum to either reduce the fines or lengthen the yellow. both of which would have RedFlex coming back to ask for more dough so the cameras would be dead in a year. However, I think you are a vote away from full elimination. As long as TBB is willing to make a motion to not renew the contract, I really think Bob Kellar is itching to throw them out (Bob knows a lot of people and I am sure he knows a lot of folks that have gotten tickets). I don't see Marsha McLean voting to keep the red light cameras with an election looming.


rayra: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:50 a.m.

The only 'tool in the toolbox' is Gail Morgan and anyone else in government that sings the praises of the security state. These cameras ought to be chopped down a la 'Cool Hand Luke'.


TheVoid: Posted: February 17, 2014 11:53 a.m.

I need more data. What is the signal timing and accident rate at other (non-camera) major intersections? It seems like if the cameras work, they should be everywhere.


jvfarley: Posted: February 17, 2014 6:45 p.m.

Thanks for the kudos Tim! I've still got some other arrows in my quill as well. I'm confident that at the very least the city will restructure the contract (and get a lower price in line with other cities). Lengthening the yellow and/or getting rid of them altogether I would haves said was almost impossible three weeks ago. I've learned a ton in that time. This is a very real possibility now. At least the decision is in the council's hands. Before last Tuesday's meeting the city manager had the full authority to renew the contract for two more years and nobody would have known the better. --edited.


MSC: Posted: February 18, 2014 10:19 p.m.

Nobody has mentioned it, but at least in my opinion the cameras are also UGLY - not that much of anything in SC isn't ugly, but the cameras are especially bad. they look like alien battle robots from a bad Sci-FI film...

Yet another reason to eliminate them.


MSC: Posted: February 18, 2014 10:21 p.m.

And, uh, Luke, whats it like to shill for cameras sold by a sleazy company that actually cause accidents and issue unenforceable tickets ?


jvfarley: Posted: February 18, 2014 10:02 a.m.

SaugusSplasher. How does being 16 or 33 percent over the arbitrary state minimum of 3 seconds have any meaning. It is not relevant. The question is, is 3.5 seconds reasonable? The answer is - it is not. There is no reason to believe increasing the time will encourage those turning to do so unsafely. The straight through time at 5.0 seconds is not doing that. A reasoned analysis needs to be done here. This is not about telling folks "just don't run the red light." These are law abiding drivers caught by a trap in the "dilema-zone" that exists because the yellow arrow is too short. --edited.


Unreal: Posted: February 20, 2014 11:17 a.m.

Maybe more people would know about not having to pay these tickets if the Signal really informed the public.


kevitivity: Posted: March 3, 2014 3:45 p.m.

These Redflex "notices" can be ignored without consequence. You don't have to pay anything - just trash them. Warondriving has all the details. You're welcome.


technologist: Posted: April 2, 2014 11:39 a.m.

Case Studies: Longer Yellow Light Times Improve Safety
Posted on May 16, 2013 by Jay

The safety benefit of longer yellow signal times has been proven in a number of studies. In a 2004 Texas DOT study, traffic engineers Bonneson and Zimmerman noted that when the yellow interval duration is set one second longer than the “minimum time” based on the 85th percentile speed, violations decreased by 53% and crashes decreased by 40%.

Fremont, CA

Fremont, CA has been using photo enforcement since the early 2000′s. In November of 2010, CalTrans officials examined the intersection of Mission Blvd. and Mohave Drive and increased the yellow signal time for the straight through movement by 0.7 second above the minimum time required by state law to a full 5.0 seconds. The intersection experienced a significant reduction in straight through violations and the lower violation rate has not returned to earlier levels. As can be seen in the chart below, the positive safety results achieved by lengthening the yellow signal time have now remained in place for more than 24 months. Overall, there has been an average 76% decrease in citations during the study period and we have yet to observe any rebound to previous violations levels.

http://saferstreetsla.org/tag/red-light-cameras/



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...