A Review of Red Light Camera Programs in New York Statecqrcengage.com/aaanys/file/I67wt7xCVVS/A...

A Review of Red Light Camera Programs in New York State

May 19, 2014

By Christopher McBride and Alec Slatky

Legislative Committee Chair: John A. Corlett

1415 Kellum Place, Garden City, NY 11530

Tel: 516-873-2259

Table of Contents

Overview and Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

Research and Controversies ............................................................................................................................ 2

Pending Legislation......................................................................................................................................... 3

Fulfillment of Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................................... 4

Traffic Safety Statistics ................................................................................................................................... 4

Practical Concerns for Public Officials ........................................................................................................... 5

Lack of Transparency / Flouting of Responsibilities

Right on Red Issues

Video / Amber Duration

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Extend the Pilot Program for Two Years

Disclose Reports to the Public

Penalize Municipalities for Incomplete Reports

Clarify the Requirements for the Report

Create a State Oversight Committee

Educate the Public about Right on Red

Require Video for Red Light Camera Programs

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendices

Appendix A – Legislative History of Red Light Cameras in New York State ........................................... 9

Appendix B – Red Light Camera Program Facts ..................................................................................... 10

Appendix C – Ambiguities in the Vehicle and Traffic Law ..................................................................... 11

Appendix D – Yonkers’ Misleading Graphs ............................................................................................ 15

Appendix E – Sources .............................................................................................................................. 16

1

Overview and Executive Summary

In New York State, five municipalities currently operate red light cameras: New York City, Nassau

County, Suffolk County, Yonkers, and Rochester. These programs will expire on December 1, 2014, if not

reauthorized by the state legislature and the Governor. AAA New York State has conducted a review of

these five red light camera programs to assist policymakers and the public in their debate over the future of

red light cameras.

Automated enforcement can play a role in improving traffic safety. Red light running is dangerous

behavior that merits a significant deterrent. Consequently, AAA supports properly administered red light

camera programs. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency surrounding the programs in New York State

fuels public suspicion that the programs are primarily for revenue generation.

Despite the legislative requirement that each municipality submit an annual report on the impact of red

light cameras, the reports have, to varying degrees, failed to comply with such obligations. The information

provided was insufficient to conduct a rigorous statewide analysis of the traffic safety benefits of red light

camera programs. Accordingly, this review will focus on the quality of these reports and ways to improve

them.

Since New York municipalities have circumvented the mandated assessment provisions, they should not be

permitted to assume full control of red light cameras. AAA New York State strongly opposes any bill that

would remove state oversight, and instead proposes an extension of the pilot programs, with the caveat that

state requirements must be strictly enforced.

In particular, AAA New York State recommends:

Extending the pilot program for two years

Requiring disclosure of reports to the public

Penalizing municipalities for late or low-quality reports

Clarifying the requirements for the report

Creating a photo enforcement oversight committee

The 2014 legislative session is a critical juncture for red light camera programs. Each year, nearly $100

million flows from motorists’ pockets to local budgets and camera vendor profit margins, so it is

imperative that state officials hold municipalities accountable. Eliminating state oversight – or even

maintaining the inadequate status quo – would effectively condone municipalities’ disregard for both the

letter of the law and its intent, and would remove any incentive to perform a thorough evaluation. New

York State must act decisively to fix these programs; otherwise, red light cameras will continue to erode

trust between citizens and their government – perhaps irreparably.

2

Research and Controversies Red light running is a major problem throughout New York State and the nation. In the United States, over

750 fatalities occurred from red light running in 20081 and 165,000 injuries result from red light running

crashes each year.2 To combat this epidemic, federal guidelines recommend a combination of engineering,

education, and enforcement. Over 500 municipalities now include red light camera programs in their

enforcement toolbox.3

Much of the evidence suggests that red light cameras increase safety. Studies from the IIHS,4 Arizona,5

Texas,6 Oxnard (CA),7 and USA/Singapore/Australia8 assert as much. A Federal Highway Administration

review states that cameras “decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones…There was indeed a

modest aggregate crash cost benefit of [red light camera] systems.”9

Studies from Seattle,10 Florida,11 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program12 believe there

are positive but not conclusive signs. A Virginia report states that “cameras are associated with an increase

in rear-end crashes and a decrease in red light running crashes…there is significant variation by

intersection and by jurisdiction…These results cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of

cameras because they are not universally effective. These results also cannot be used to justify the abolition

of cameras, as they have had a positive impact at some intersections and in some jurisdictions.”13

Analyses from Winnipeg,14 Greensboro (NC),15 Florida,16 and Louisiana17 argue that red light cameras do

not increase safety. The latter states that “despite reducing the number of cars entering this intersection

during a red light, [red light cameras] do not seem to prevent traffic collisions at this monitored

intersection. Alternative means of injury prevention must be investigated.”18

Red light camera skeptics can also point to numerous controversies. In Rochester, one intersection was

proven to have insufficient amber signals that unjustly increased the number of violations;19 similar

allegations have surfaced across the country.20 Camera vendor Redflex was dropped from its contract with

Chicago after evidence of bribery came to light,21 and new allegations have tied the company to bribery in

13 other states.22 Additionally, 88% of Clermont’s (FL) violations were for right turns on red, not

especially dangerous behavior.23

The preponderance of the evidence leads to four primary conclusions:

Red light cameras have the potential to reduce the deadliest crashes.

The success of red light cameras varies significantly across jurisdictions and intersections.

The most effective red light camera programs are accompanied by education (i.e. photo-enforced

signs) and engineering (i.e. lengthening amber times or using an “all-red” phase).

Red light cameras are susceptible to misuse and abuse.

These four conclusions form the basis of AAA New York State’s position on red light cameras:

AAA New York State supports red light camera programs that are supplemented with engineering

measures, educational campaigns, and traditional law enforcement, provided that a thorough

evaluation of such programs is regularly conducted and disclosed to the public.

3

Pending Legislation

In 1993, New York City became the first city in the United States to operate red light cameras. Nassau

County (2009), Suffolk County, Yonkers, and Rochester (2010) later followed suit (see Appendix A for a

more detailed legislative history). All current red light camera programs will expire on December 1, 2014,

without passage of legislation. Numerous bills are pending in the Transportation Committees that would

extend, expand, and/or modify the programs:

Increase the number of cameras in New York City

o 150 22524

o 150 25025

o No maximum26

Remove the requirement that New York City submit an annual report to Albany27

Make New York City’s program permanent28

Extend Rochester’s program for five years29

Expand the demonstration program to new municipalities

o Albany30

o Mount Vernon31

o New Rochelle32

o Kingston33

o Hempstead34

o Freeport35

o Any county36

Modify existing programs

o Provide additional privacy protections37

o Require all amber signals to have a uniform duration38

o Require countdown clocks for amber signals39

o Require signage notifying drivers of a photo enforcement intersection40

o Create a Nassau County red light camera audit committee41

AAA New York State strongly opposes any bill that would remove state oversight or the requirement

to complete reports, and also currently opposes any bills that would make the programs permanent,

increase the maximum number of intersections, or allow red light cameras in other municipalities.

4

Fulfillment of Reporting Requirements

State law mandates what must be included in annual reports, but many municipalities have shirked these

responsibilities. Since some municipalities have not released reports that were due in 2013, this analysis

will focus on the reports that were due in 2012. In those reports, Nassau and Suffolk performed

satisfactorily, though their 2013 reports have been nearly a year late. New York City omitted crash data

and intersection-specific violation data. Rochester omitted violation, financial, and adjudication statistics.

Yonkers’ report did not include crash data, financial statistics, or adjudication results, and incorporated

misleading graphs (see Appendix D).

Traffic Safety Statistics

The reports have provided some good signs. At Nassau’s red light camera intersections, total crashes were

reduced by over 40%.47 Suffolk reported a 28% reduction in side impact crashes48 and a 20% increase in

rear-end crashes,49 echoing the findings of most studies. Rochester’s initial small sample found a 46%

overall crash reduction.50 (See Appendix B for more details).

These results are promising, but should be considered strictly preliminary, especially for municipalities like

New York City and Yonkers that do not include intersection-specific crash data. In addition, no reports

included a control group for comparison. This data justifies reauthorization of the programs, but not

permanence and certainly not removal of oversight.

Municipality NYC42 Nassau43 Suffolk44 Yonkers45 Rochester46

Description of the locations

Accidents

Aggregate number

Type of accidents

Severity of accidents

Number of violations

Daily (aggregate)

Weekly (aggregate)

Monthly (aggregate)

Yearly (each intersection)

Number of notices of liability

After first notice of liability

Number of fines

Total $ amount of fines

Adjudications

# violations adjudicated

Results of adjudications

Disposition breakdown

Finances

Revenue

Expenses

Adjudication process quality

5

Practical Concerns for Public Officials

AAA New York State has identified the following concerns with red light camera programs. It is vital that

state and local officials address these concerns if municipalities are to administer fair and effective

programs.

Lack of Transparency / Flouting of Responsibilities

Municipalities’ reports have been either extremely late or have omitted important, state-mandated data.

This behavior has made it nearly impossible for legislators, advocacy organizations, and the public to

conduct a rigorous statewide assessment of red light programs. There has been no pattern of timely,

thorough reporting. Allowing the programs to be expanded or made permanent would effectively condone

the blatant disregard for the law and the wishes of the legislature.

Additionally, most municipalities have made it difficult to obtain information, and some have outright

ignored correspondence. Nassau County is a notable exception: its program’s administrators have been

exceedingly willing to discuss the program and provide information, even granting the authors access to

tour the facility where violations are screened and adjudicated. For other locations, AAA New York State

has been forced to submit FOIL requests and endure bureaucratic runarounds just to see reports that were

already completed. Moreover, for no compelling reason, reports are not disclosed to the public. This lack

of transparency justifiably feeds public distrust of the programs, whereas timely release of information

could provide persuasive evidence of their effectiveness.

Right on Red Issues

A substantial number of violations in non-NYC municipalities are for turning right on red without coming

to a complete stop. Some of these violations are egregious – drivers do not slow down at all, endangering

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists. Such behavior clearly merits a notice of liability. Other

violations are for “California stops,” where drivers slow down significantly but not completely as they scan

the road to see if a right turn is safe. While such behavior is technically unlawful, it is not the dangerous

red light running behavior that the programs aim to eliminate. Because many drivers are not aware of the

rule, they are surprised to receive a notice of liability for what is, in many cases, not risky behavior.

Video / Amber Duration

New York City does not use video. Video captures the context of any violation, which can help bolster an

innocent defendant’s argument or convince a guilty defendant of the veracity of the violation. AAA New

York State has confirmed cases of human error where unwarranted violations have slipped through the

screening process; video is the best way to dismiss such notices of liability and is vital in any modern red

light camera program.

Some motorists have concerns that mistimed amber signals lead to unjust violations. Except in Rochester,

such evidence is anecdotal – but all municipalities should include the amber duration in the notice of

liability. Video would likewise assuage concerns.

6

Recommendations

Extend the Pilot Program for Two Years

AAA New York State believes that the lack of transparency and the failure to produce a pattern of timely

and high-quality reports indicate a need for caution in allowing municipalities to operate their red light

camera programs without state oversight. However, there are some encouraging signs. Nassau and Suffolk

demonstrated a reduction in crashes, and other reports have shown a reduction in violations. Timely

disclosure of complete violation and crash data by intersection is required to conclusively prove that the

programs are effective. Accordingly, the state legislature and the Governor should grant municipalities

two extra years to organize data and complete the required reports.

Disclose Reports to the Public

Currently, the statute only mandates that the reports be submitted to the Governor, the Speaker of the

Assembly, and the Temporary President of the Senate, hindering the public and watchdog groups such as

AAA New York State from accessing the data or evaluating the programs. If the reports are already

completed, there is no reason to conceal them from the public eye. In the interest of transparency and full

disclosure, the state legislature and the Governor should mandate that reports be publicly available

and displayed on the website of each municipality.

Penalize Municipalities for Incomplete Reports

Municipalities have not taken the state law’s reporting provisions seriously because they have not been

held accountable. Without consequences for submitting late or incomplete reports, municipalities will

continue to flout these responsibilities. The state legislature and the Governor should institute a

penalty system for failing to submit complete reports in a timely fashion. Such penalty system could

include (but not be limited to):

A provision that the municipality may not issue any notices of liability when the report is late or

incomplete, and that it shall be an affirmative defense to any such notice of liability that it was

unlawfully issued and therefore invalid.

A monetary penalty for lateness or incompleteness imposed by the state that would be dedicated

to the expenses of the oversight committee (see below), traffic safety education, and transportation

infrastructure.

Either or both of the above penalties, or more severe ones, if a municipality is determined to have

submitted an incomplete report more than once.

Create a State Oversight Committee

Because the municipalities have not submitted complete reports, state oversight is needed in the forms of

stricter reporting requirements and penalties. However, without any particular official(s) dedicated to

enforcing these requirements, they are unlikely to be followed. The state legislature and the Governor

should explore the formation of a committee to monitor each red light camera program in New York

State and enforce penalties if necessary.

7

Clarify the Requirements for the Report

Municipalities have clearly not followed the reporting regulations, but the ambiguous text of the statute has

compounded this problem. State legislators wisely aimed to standardize the report, but certain requirements

have been interpreted in different and occasionally insufficient ways, showing a need for clarification. The

state legislature and the Governor should amend the text of the statute to resolve ambiguities and

require additional information as described in Appendix C.

Educate the Public about Right on Red

Perhaps the most common reason that some motorists distrust red light camera programs is the frequency

of violations involving failure to come to a complete stop before turning right on red. Violations for drivers

who do not slow down at all are clearly warranted. However, some notices of liability are given to drivers

who slow down significantly but not completely before proceeding to make an appropriate right turn.

Many argue that, though such behavior is technically unlawful, it is generally not risky and thus may not be

ticketed by a police officer. To avoid this discrepancy between cameras and traditional law enforcement,

and to raise awareness of the rule, the state legislature and the Governor should require that all

municipalities, except New York City, conduct a public relations campaign educating the public

about the need to come to a full stop before making a right turn at a red signal. This education could

take many forms, including mailers, public service announcements, or signs at each intersection saying

“right on red after full stop.”

Require Video

New York City does not allow right on red, and therefore argues that video is not necessary to record red

light violations because video is typically used to determine whether a car came to a complete stop before

turning right. However, video can confirm amber signal lengths and provide the context of a violation.

Motorists and prosecutors alike would benefit from the opportunity to review video footage, and motorists

skeptical of the validity of their violation would be convinced of its truth, helping to restore trust in the

programs. Therefore, the state legislature and the Governor should require that New York City and

other municipalities with red light camera programs include video evidence in any notices of

liability.

8

Conclusion

AAA supports properly managed red light camera programs, which have the potential to enhance traffic

safety. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency pervading the programs in New York State has reinforced

the public suspicion that the programs are solely for fiscal purposes. Many municipalities have paid mere

lip service to safety and instead emphasized the budgetary benefits of the cameras, thereby missing an

opportunity to remind the public of the importance of safe driving and trivializing their legitimate traffic

safety goals. Moreover, the traffic safety benefits of the cameras vary by intersection. Without the

collection and reporting of crash data, it is impossible to determine red light cameras’ effectiveness at a

given intersection or whether additional measures are needed.

The 2014 legislative session is a critical juncture for red light camera programs. The state legislature and

the Governor have a chance to reaffirm the traffic safety rationale for red light cameras by extending the

pilot program for two years, strictly enforcing reporting requirements, and ensuring that reports are

publicly available. This may be New York’s one shot at promoting safety and accountability in red light

camera programs. Let’s get it right.

Appendices

9

Appendix A – Legislative History of Red Light Cameras in New York State

Red light camera programs in New York State have undergone many extensions and expansions, as seen in

the following table (bold = legislative change or activation of program):

Red light camera programs have undergone additional amendments:

In 1994, the maximum fine was set at $50, and the maximum late penalty was set at $25.78

In 2006, crash data and expense figures were added to the mandatory reports and photo

enforcement systems were required to attempt to conceal the driver’s identity.79

In 2009, Syracuse80 and Buffalo81 were authorized to install red light cameras. Both cities opted to

forgo the programs.82 83

Year Report due date

(all sites)

Sunset date

(all sites)

Max # intersections (shaded: cameras not activated)

NYC Nassau Suffolk Yonkers Rochester

1988 Mar. 1, 199151 Dec. 26, 199152 2553

1989 Mar. 1, 1991 Dec. 26, 1991 25

1990 Mar. 1, 1991 Dec. 26, 1991 25

1991 Mar. 1, 199354 Dec. 26, 199355 25

1992 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 26, 1993 25

1993 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 1. 199656 2557

1994 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 1. 1996 25

1995 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 1, 199958 5059

1996 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 1, 1999 50

1997 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 1, 1999 50

1998 Mar. 1, 1993 Dec. 1, 1999 50

1999 Mar. 1, 200460 Dec. 1, 200461 50

2000 Mar. 1, 2004 Dec. 1, 2004 50

2001 Mar. 1, 2004 Dec. 1, 2004 50

2002 Mar. 1, 2004 Dec. 1, 2004 50

2003 Mar. 1, 2004 Dec. 1, 2004 50

2004 Mar. 1, 200962 Dec. 1, 200963 50

2005 Mar. 1, 2009 Dec. 1, 2009 50

2006 Jun. 1, annually64 Dec. 1, 2009 10065

2007 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2009 100

2008 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2009 100

2009 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 201466 15067 5068 69 5070 2571 5072

2010 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2014 150 50 5073 2574 5075

2011 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2014 150 50 50 25 50

2012 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2014 150 10076 10077 25 50

2013 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2014 150 100 100 25 50

2014 Jun. 1, annually Dec. 1, 2014 150 100 100 25 50

10

Appendix B – Red Light Camera Program Facts

The following table includes traffic safety statistics and other facts from the 2012 reports (except Suffolk,

which first included a year of data in its 2013 report). Some of these figures provide evidence that the

programs may be working as intended. These are good signs, particularly in Nassau and Suffolk; however,

all results should be considered strictly preliminary, especially for municipalities that have not provided

intersection-specific crash data. AAA New York State wants these programs to succeed, but at present the

facts provide evidence for neither a wholehearted endorsement nor a conclusive rejection but rather

cautious optimism.

NYC Nassau Suffolk Yonkers Rochester

Year

Implemented

199384 200985 201086 201087 201088

Number of

Intersections

Authorized

15089 10090 10091 2592 5093

Video No94 Yes95 Yes96 Yes97 Yes98

Fine $5099 $50100 $50101 $50102 $50103

Administrative

Fee

$0 $30104 $30105 $0 $0

Vendor American

Traffic

Solutions106

American

Traffic

Solutions107

Affiliated

Computer

Services108

American

Traffic

Solutions109

Redflex110

Notices of

Liability issued

821,483

(2011)111

459,769

(2011)112

278,332

(2011)113

73,348

(11/10-8/11)114

91,250

(estimate)115

Events Captured 1,167,969

(2011)116

712,626

(2011)117

335,198

(2011)118

Unknown Unknown

Revenue

Generated

$47.2

million119

$26.1

million120

$9.8 million121 $7.8 million122 $3.6 million

(estimate)123

% going to

Vendor

39%124 36%125 54%126 38%127 40%128

Overall Crashes Not in 2012

report

-41%129 -2%130 Not in 2012

report

-46%131

Side Impact

Crashes

Not in 2012

report

-54%132 -28%133 Not in 2012

report

Not in 2012

report

Head-on Crashes Not in 2012

report

-43%134 Unknown Not in 2012

report

Not in 2012

report

Rear-end

Crashes

Not in 2012

report

-32%135 +20%136 Not in 2012

report

Not in 2012

report

Injuries -16%137 Not in 2012

report

-11%138 Not in 2012

report

-50%139

11

Appendix C – Ambiguities in the Vehicle and Traffic Law

State legislators wisely required that municipalities with automated enforcement programs submit reports

to Albany. However, the subdivision describing the data that must be included contains ambiguities that

may have contributed to the differences in what are designed to be standardized reports. 140 This appendix

will list such inconsistencies and offer suggestions to improve clarity.

Subdivision (m): In any city which adopts a demonstration program pursuant to subdivision (a) of this

section, such city shall submit an annual report on the results of the use of a traffic-control signal photo

violation-monitoring system to the governor, the temporary president of the senate and the speaker of the

assembly on or before June first, two thousand seven and on the same date in each succeeding year in

which the demonstration program is operable. Such report shall include, but not be limited to:

The text requires submission to legislative and executive leaders, but not public disclosure. This is

not an ambiguity, but should be changed.

Additionally, the “annual” quality of the report is confusing. Ostensibly, it would seem to mean

that the report due on June 1, 2014 must contain data from the 2013 calendar year. However, later

subsections measure data based on the date of installation of each camera, not from January 1-

December 31. This inconsistency should be clarified in each particular subsection.

Proposed text:

o (m): In any city which adopts a demonstration program pursuant to subdivision (a) of this

section, such city shall submit an annual report on the results of the use of a traffic-control

signal photo violation-monitoring system to the governor, the temporary president of the

senate and the speaker of the assembly, and make such report publicly available on the

website of such city, on or before June first, two thousand seven and on the same date in

each succeeding year in which the demonstration program is operable. Such report shall

include, but not be limited to:

1. a description of the locations where traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring systems were used;

The word “description” either means “list” or something else. If it means “list,” then the text

should say so. If it means something else, then it would seem to be a useless clause.

o New York City exploited this ambiguity and did not include a list of locations, perhaps

because over 200 locations are instrumented for cameras but only 150 are operational at

one time. The only section of New York City’s report that could be construed to satisfy

this clause included a typical breakdown of the number of operational cameras by

borough. A list of all the locations where cameras are installed should be explicitly

mandated.

Proposed text:

o 1. a description list of the locations intersections and approaches to such intersections

where traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring systems were used;

2. (within each borough of such city,) the aggregate number, type and severity of accidents reported at

intersections where a traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring system is used for the year

preceding the installation of such system, to the extent the information is maintained by the department of

motor vehicles of this state. (In parentheses = only NYC)

12

3. (within each borough of such city,) the aggregate number, type, and severity of accidents reported at

intersections where a traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring system is used, to the extent the

information is maintained by the department of motor vehicles of this state. (In parentheses = only NYC)

The meaning of “type” and “severity” is unclear, as evidenced by the variety in definitions used by

reports. “Type” should, at a minimum, refer to rear-end, side, head-on, pedestrian, and bicycle

crashes, and “severity” should, at a minimum, refer to whether a collision produced injury.

o Suffolk separated crashes into “right angle,” “rear end,” “left turn,” “right turn,” “head

on,” “fixed object,” “ped/bicycle,” “over-taking,” “backing,” and “other/unknown”

categories. Additionally, it separated crashes into those where injury occurred and where

only property damage occurred. Though the report’s format was not especially conducive

to before-and-after comparison of crash data, the report was the only one that satisfies state

requirements.

o Nassau separated crashes into “rear end,” “side,” and “head on” categories.

o New York City did not include crash data in 2012 – a clear violation of the requirement –

but did include injury data separated by pedestrian/bicyclist/motorist and severity of

injury.

o Rochester separated crashes into those where injury occurred and where only property

damage occurred – which could reasonably be interpreted to satisfy either “type” or

“severity,” but not both.

o Yonkers did not include crash data.

The current text does not require a control sample, which is a prerequisite for any serious academic

analysis. Nassau and Suffolk, the two municipalities who have best satisfied requirements, do not

include control data, which is no fault of their own – it was not mandated by the state. This

oversight should be remedied.

The timeframe for the data in subsection 3 is not specified as in subsection 2. It may refer to the

most recent calendar year, the most recent non-calendar year (year measured from date of

installation), or something else. It should refer to the three most recent calendar years, to allow for

an easier comparison with the control data and with previous years.

The June 1 deadline may present problems with retrieval of state data, which may lead to late

reports. For this reason, the inability to obtain a particular year of data should not classify the

report as “incomplete.” However, available years of data should still be included.

Lastly, due to their largely preventable nature, “accidents” are now usually referred to as “crashes”

or “collisions” in traffic safety literature. The text of the statute should reflect this change.

Proposed text

o 2. (within each borough of such city) the aggregate number, type, and severity of accidents

collisions reported at each intersections where a traffic-control signal photo violation-

monitoring system is used and in the aggregate (within each borough of such city) for all

such intersections for the year preceding the installation of such system, to the extent the

information is maintained by the department of motor vehicles of this state;

o 2-a. for subsections 2, 3, and 4 of this subdivision, “type” shall refer to the geometric

relationship between parties in the collision, including but not limited to rear-end, side,

head-on, pedestrian, and bicyclist. “Severity” shall refer to the extent of injury and/or

property damage in each accident;

13

o 3. for each of the three calendar years preceding the due date of such report as specified in

the heading of subdivision (m), (within each borough of such city) the aggregate number,

type, and severity of accidents collisions reported at intersections where a traffic-control

signal photo violation-monitoring system is used, and the number, type, and severity of

collisions reported at each such intersection, to the extent the information is maintained by

the department of motor vehicles of this state, provided that if an intersection has not used

such system for such three calendar years only the calendar years after such system was

installed shall be required, and further provided that the inability to obtain one calendar

year of data shall not be cause for exemption from the requirements for other calendar

years;

o 4. for each of the three calendar years preceding the due date of such report as specified in

the heading of subdivision (m), the number, type, and severity of collisions reported at

twenty of the most dangerous intersections where a traffic-control signal photo violation-

monitoring system is not used, to the extent the information is maintained by the

department of motor vehicles of this state;

4. the number of violations recorded at each intersection where a traffic-control signal photo violation-

monitoring system is used and in the aggregate on a daily, weekly and monthly basis;

It is unclear whether the text refers to a calendar year or a year measured from the date of

installation. It should refer to every calendar year since the program’s inception (for aggregate

numbers) and the three most recent calendar years (for each intersection) to facilitate comparison.

It is also unclear whether the “daily, weekly, and monthly basis” refers to the number of violations

in each specific day, week, and month or the average number of violations per day, week, and

month. It would be helpful to give specific numbers for each month to see if certain months

produce more violations. Providing specific numbers for each day and week seems unnecessary

and unwieldy. The average number of violations per day and the average number of violations per

intersection per day are more effective statistics.

o New York City provided two effective measures: specific numbers for each month since

the program’s inception and the average number of violations per camera per day for each

year.

o Nassau included the number of violations for each intersection in the calendar year.

o Suffolk included the number of violations for each intersection in the calendar year, and

included the average number of violations per day, week, and month.

o Yonkers visually displayed the number of violations for each intersection in each month.

o Rochester did not include violation data.

Proposed text

o 45. for each of the three calendar years preceding the due date of such report as specified

in the heading of subdivision (m), the number of violations recorded at each intersection

where a traffic-control signal photo violation-monitoring system is used and the average

number of violations per day at each such intersection and in the aggregate on a daily,

weekly, and monthly basis;

o 56. for every calendar year preceding the due date of such report as specified in the

heading of subdivision (m), the number of violations recorded in that calendar year, the

14

number of violations recorded in each month of such calendar year, the average number of

violations per day, and the average number of violations per intersection per day;

5. the total number of notices of liability issued for violations recorded by such systems;

6. the number of fines and total amount of fines paid after first notice of liability issued for violations

recorded by such systems;

7. the number of violations adjudicated and results of such adjudications including breakdowns of

dispositions made for violations recorded by such systems;

8. the total amount of revenue realized by such city from such adjudications;

9. expenses incurred by such city in connection with the program; and

These sections are fairly straightforward, but do not specify a timeframe.

Additionally, the expense report should include the amount paid to the vendor associated with the

program.

Proposed text:


heading of subdivision (m), the total number of notices of liability issued for violations

recorded by such systems;


heading of subdivision (m), the number of fines and total amount of fines paid after first

notice of liability issued for violations recorded by such systems;


heading of subdivision (m), the number of violations adjudicated and results of such

adjudications including breakdowns of dispositions made for violations recorded by such

systems.


heading of subdivision (m), the total amount of revenue realized by such city from such

adjudications.


heading of subdivision (m), expenses incurred by such city in connection with the

program, including the amount paid to the vendor associated with the program; and

10. quality of the adjudication process and its results.

Nobody seems to know what this means, since the results of adjudications were already mentioned.

Legislators should clarify what information they are seeking from this clause.

Proposed text:

o 1012. quality a description of the adjudication and appeals process and its results.

15

Appendix D – Yonkers’ Misleading Graphs

Yonkers’ 2012 report stands out as particularly lacking by omitting crash data, financial figures, and

adjudication results. The report claims that 12 out of 16 intersections have seen a reduction in violations,

erroneously counting the intersections shown below, which are neither clearly reductions nor increases.

(The first month given is the first full month of operation):

Intersection #2 is deemed a 1%

reduction in crashes due to the

arbitrary selection of endpoints.

March-August is a reduction, but

May-August would be an increase.

It is self-evident that no clear

pattern has emerged at this

intersection. “No clear pattern”

would be a far more appropriate

classification than “reduction.”

Intersections #6 and #12 produced

a large increase in violations from

April to May, followed by a steady

decrease until August. Had

Yonkers measured from April to

May, June, or July, it would have

found an increase in violations.

Perhaps the increase from April to

May was a result of drivers

adjusting to the cameras, or driving

more in summer – but that increase

does not happen at all intersections.

Again, the best classification is “no

clear pattern”, not “reduction.”

These intersections provide

persuasive reasons to postpone a

conclusion until multiple years of

data have been thoroughly

analyzed.

The classification of these three intersections as “reductions” is unwarranted, and misleads readers into

believing that 75% of intersections reduced violations, when the true proportion is just over half.

16

Appendix E – Sources

1 Federal Highway Administration, “Red-Light Running,” http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/. 2 Ibid. 3 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, “Red light running,” (April 2014),

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/automated_enforcement/enforcementtable?topicName=red-light-

running#tableData. 4 Hu, Wen, Anne T. McCartt, and Eric R. Teoh, "Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large

US Cities," Journal of Safety Research 42 (2011): 277-282,

http://www.northfieldil.org/documents/police/iihs_study_2-1-11.pdf 5 Shin, Kangwon and Simon Washington, “The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Automated Enforcement) on Safety in

Arizona,” (June 2005): http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25000/25016/AZ550.pdf. 6 Bochner, Brian and Troy Walden, “Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras,” (July 2010):

http://tti.tamu.edu/group/stsc/files/2011/03/Red-light-camera-effectiveness-070610-w-Garland-correction.pdf. 7 Kyrychenko, Sergey Y. and Richard A. Retting, “Reductions in Injury Crashes Associated with Red Light Camera

Enforcement in Oxnard, California,” American Journal of Public Health (2002):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447335/. 8 Aeron-Thomas, A.S. and S. Hess, “Red-light cameras for the prevention of road traffic crashes,” The Cochrane

Database of Systematic Reviews (2005): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15846684. 9 Federal Highway Administration, “Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras,” (2005):

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/05049.pdf. 10 City of Seattle, Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Project: Final Evaluation Report, December 2007,

http://www.seattle.gov/police/publications/special/Red_Light_Study_07.pdf. 11 Novey, Larry, The Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability,

“Florida Red Light Camera Programs: A presentation to the Senate Transportation Committee,” (2014):

http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/monitordocs/Presentations/P14-12.pdf. 12 Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience, NCHRP Synthesis 310, Transportation Research

Board, Washington, DC, (2003): http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_310.pdf 13 Garber, Nicholas J. et al., “The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-red enforcement on Crashes in Virginia,”

(2007). 14 Brodbeck, Tom, “Red light cam disgrace: crashes increase 18% at intersections where devices installed,” Winnipeg

Sun (September 22, 2010). 15 Burkey, Mark and Kofi Obeng, “A Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red Light

Cameras in Small Urban Areas,” Urban Transit Institute (2004). 16 Langland-Orban, Barbara, Etienne E. Pracht, and John T. Large, “Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes,

Injuries, and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?” Florida Public Health Review 5

(2008): 1-7. 17 Wahl, G.M. et al., “Red light cameras: do they change driver behavior and reduce accidents?” Journal of Trauma

68 (2010): 515-518. 18 Ibid. 19 Sharp, Brian, “City will halt, cancel red light tickets over software glitch,” Democrat and Chronicle (Mar. 4, 2013). 20 Pransky, Noah, “Florida’s red-light camera intersections issuing more tickets after yellow light times quietly

reduced,” WTSP (May 19, 2013): http://archive.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418. 21 Kidwell, David, “Red light camera firm admits it likely bribed Chicago official,” Chicago Tribune (Mar. 2, 2013). 22 Frassinelli, Mike, “Fired red-light camera executive: Company bribed officials in 13 states, including NJ,” The Star

Ledger (Feb. 8, 2014). 23 Fox, Greg, “Majority of Clermont red-light-camera tickets issued to drivers turning right on red,” WESH (Feb. 14,

2014): http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/orange-county/majority-of-clermont-redlightcamera-tickets-issued-

to-drivers-turning-right-on-red/24494012. 24 A.1037 (Heastie). 25 S.459-A (Avella). 26 A.8386/S.6115 (Rosa/Espaillat). 27 Ibid. 28 S.459-A (Avella) and A.8386/S.6115 (Rosa/Espaillat).

17

29 A.9498 (Gantt). 30 A.9583/S.7295 (Fahy/Breslin). 31 A.8368/S.7236 (Pretlow/Hassell-Thompson) and A.7319/S.5010 (Pretlow/Hassell-Thompson). 32 A.8250/S.6389 (Paulin/Stewart-Cousins). 33 S.6652 (Tkaczyk). 34 A.1902 (Hooper). 35 Ibid. 36 A.1432 (Gantt). 37 A.290/S.211 (Kavanagh/Squadron). 38 A.3862 (Pretlow). 39 A.8738 (Lupinacci). 40 A.4102-A (Weisenberg). 41 A.1897 (Hooper). 42 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review

1994-2011, 2012 Report.” 43 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report.” 44 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, “Suffolk County Red Light Safety Program 2011 Calendar Year

Annual Report.” 45 City of Yonkers, “Yonkers Intersection Safety Program.” 46 Delaney, Chris, “Red Light Cameras.” 47 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 12 48 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 49 Ibid. 50 Delaney, Chris, “Red Light Cameras,” page 2. 51 McKinney’s 1988 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 746, Pages 2141-2142 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 McKinney’s 1991 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 212, pages 485-486. 55 Ibid. 56 McKinney’s 1993 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 582. 57 New York City Department of Transportation, “Traffic Signals,”

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/signals.shtml. 58 McKinney’s 1995 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 651, pages 1678-1679. 59 Ibid. 60 McKinney’s 1999 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 503, pages 1115-1116. 61 Ibid. 62 McKinney’s 2004 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 667, pages 1380-1381. 63 Ibid. 64 McKinney’s 2006 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 658, pages 1324-1327. 65 Ibid. 66 McKinney’s 2009 Session Laws of New York, Chapters 18-23, pages 21-69. 67 Ibid., Chapter 18, pages 21-22. 68 Ibid., Chapter 19, pages 22-28. 69 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 2. 70 McKinney’s 2009 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 23, pages 64-69. 71 Ibid., Chapter 20, pages 28-40. 72 Ibid., Chapter 22, pages 52-64. 73 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, “Suffolk County Red Light Safety Program 2011 Calendar Year

Annual Report,” page 4. 74 City of Yonkers, “Yonkers Intersection Safety Program,” page 4. 75 Delaney, Chris, “Red Light Cameras,” page 1. 76 McKinney’s 2012 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 57 part R, page 534. 77 Ibid. 78 McKinney’s 1994 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 479, pages 1161-1162. 79 McKinney’s 2006 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 658, pages 1324-1327.

18

80 Ibid., Chapter 383, pages 1095-1107. 81 Ibid., Chapter 21, pages 41-52. 82 Eisenstadt, Marnie, “Syracuse puts the brakes on plans for red light cameras,” Syracuse.com (Nov. 27, 2011):

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/syracuse_puts_the_brakes_on_pl.html. 83 Asztalos, Jaclyn, “The City of Buffalo Puts the Brakes on Red Light Cameras,” WKBW (Jul. 28, 2011):

http://www.wkbw.com/video/The-City-of-Buffalo-Puts-the-Brakes-on-Red-Light-Cameras-126338998.html. 84 New York City Department of Transportation, “Traffic Signals,”

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/signals.shtml. 85 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 2. 86 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, “Suffolk County Red Light Safety Program 2011 Calendar Year

Annual Report,” page 4. 87 City of Yonkers, “Yonkers Intersection Safety Program,” page 4. 88 City of Rochester, “Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program,”

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589944563. 89 McKinney’s 2009 Session Laws of New York, Chapters 18, pages 21-22. 90 McKinney’s 2012 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 57 part R, page 534. 91 Ibid. 92 McKinney’s 2009 Session Laws of New York, Chapter 20, pages 28-40. 93 Ibid., Chapter 22, pages 52-64. 94 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review

1994-2011, 2012 Report,” page 3. 95 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 2. 96 Suffolk County Department of Public Works, “Suffolk County Red Light Safety Program 2011 Calendar Year

Annual Report,” page 8. 97 City of Yonkers, “Red Light Cameras – How it Works/Locations,”

http://www.cityofyonkers.com/play/departments-g-w/parking-violations-bureau/red-light-cameras-how-it-works-

locations. 98 City of Rochester, “Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program,”

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589944563. 99 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review


Annual Report,” page 10. 102 Jaccarino, Mike, “New red-light cameras just the ticket, city of Yonkers says,” New York Daily News (Sept. 27,

2010): http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-red-light-cameras-ticket-city-yonkers-article-1.441446. 103 City of Rochester, “Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program,”

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589944563. 104 Nassau County Traffic & Parking Violations Agency, http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/tpva/. 105 Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violation Agency, “Red Light Camera,”

http://suffolkcountyny.gov/tpva/rlt.aspx. 106 American Traffic Solutions, “About Our Company,” (2014): http://www.atsol.com/our-company/. 107 Ibid. 108 Feuer Domash, Shelly, “Seeing Red: Long Island’s Controversial Red Light Cameras,” Long Island Press (Oct. 6,

2011): http://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/10/06/seeing-red-long-islands-controversial-red-light-cameras/2/. 109 Jaccarino, Mike, “New red-light cameras just the ticket, city of Yonkers says,” New York Daily News (Sept. 27,

2010): http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-red-light-cameras-ticket-city-yonkers-article-1.441446. 110 City of Rochester, “Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program,”

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589944563. 111 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review


Annual Report,” page 10. 114 City of Yonkers, “Yonkers Intersection Safety Program,” page 1.

19

115 Sharp, Brian, “Watchdog report: where are the most red light tickets issued?,” Democrat and Chronicle (Dec. 9,

2012): http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20121209/NEWS01/312090026/. 116 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review


Annual Report,” page 10. 119 Margolin, Josh, “City’s ‘gotcha’ traffic cameras use short yellow lights to increase ticket revenue: study,” The New

York Post (Oct. 8, 2012): http://nypost.com/2012/10/08/citys-gotcha-traffic-cameras-use-short-yellow-lights-to-

increase-ticket-revenue-study/. 120 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 3. 121 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 122 Wade, Christian, “Yonkers rakes in big bucks from red light cameras,” Newsday (Dec. 20, 2012): http://long-

island.newsday.com/search/yonkers-rakes-in-big-bucks-from-red-light-cameras-1.4361625. 123 Sharp, Brian, “Watchdog report: where are the most red light tickets issued?,” Democrat and Chronicle (Dec. 9,

2012): http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20121209/NEWS01/312090026/. 124 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review

1994-2011, 2012 Report,” page 17. 125 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 4. 126 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 127 Wade, Christian, “Yonkers rakes in big bucks from red light cameras,” Newsday (Dec. 20, 2012): http://long-

island.newsday.com/search/yonkers-rakes-in-big-bucks-from-red-light-cameras-1.4361625. 128 Sharp, Brian, “Watchdog report: where are the most red light tickets issued?,” Democrat and Chronicle (Dec. 9,

2012): http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20121209/NEWS01/312090026/ and accompanying document

http://roc.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A2197910128.PDF. 129 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 12 130 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 131 Delaney, Chris, “Red Light Cameras,” page 2. 132 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 12. 133 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 134 Nassau County Traffic Safety Board, “Nassau County Red Light Camera Program 2011 Review Report,” page 12. 135 Ibid. 136 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 137 New York City Department of Transportation, “New York City Red Light Camera Program: Program Review

1994-2011, 2012 Report,” page 16. 138 Schwartz, David, “2012 red-light rickets pull in 24% less in Suffolk,” Newsday (Apr. 27, 2014). 139 Delaney, Chris, “Red Light Cameras,” page 2. 140 The text of the statute, with a couple technical differences, is the same for all municipalities. The sections of the

Vehicle and Traffic Law that authorize red light camera programs are:

New York: 1111-a

Nassau: 1111-b

Yonkers: 1111-b*2

Rochester: 1111-b*4

Suffolk: 1111-b*5

A Review of Red Light Camera Programs in New York Statecqrcengage.com/aaanys/file/I67wt7xCVVS/A...

Documents

Transcript of A Review of Red Light Camera Programs in New York Statecqrcengage.com/aaanys/file/I67wt7xCVVS/A...