Safety studies have consistently shown a net safety benefit for photo-red enforcement. Net means that there are fewer serious injuries and fatalities. A few studies have shown an increase in the number of collisions accompanying the safety gains. See, e.g. the IIHS study, Red Light Running Kills, linked at trafficsafetycoalition.com. Or more locally, also see Scottsdale-based redmeansstop.org.

Here is a list of items in the current session (spring 2012) of the Arizona Legislature, assembled by the Traffic Safety Coalition:

• SB1315 - mandate personal service or certified mail for photo enforcement tickets
• SB1316 - mandate that photo enforcement cameras cannot take pictures of red light running violations unless the light has been red for at least one second
• SB1317 - mandate a study of intersections with red light cameras
• SB1318 - force photo enforcement companies to obtain a PI License for each worker
• SCR 1029 - put photo enforcement ban to the voters for approval

As noted above Senate Concurrent Resolution 1029 is for the time-being anyway dead… The first thing I noticed that was odd is that they are all in the senate. Upon closer inspection all four of the the senate bills have only one sponsor, and all four are the same guy; a Frank Antenori (R-30, Tucson). He clearly doesn’t like photo-enforcement, and is apparently making it his life’s work to defeat it’s effectiveness; if not ban it outright.

Aside from safety issues, the cameras can, and do, provide evidence that has been used to solve crimes; including (that I know of) catching a hit-and-run driver who seriously injured a cyclist in Tucson, a hit-and-run-driver who killed a cyclist in Tempe, and a assault-robbery-murderer in Tempe.

Stats?

Arizona has a particular problem with red-light running; despite improvement over the years, Arizona continues to be over-represented. For example in 2009 Arizona had 37 red light running (RLR) fatalities while New York had only 29…. Arizona being three times as dangerous as New York on a per capita basis.

The words below, written over 10 years ago continue to ring true today, from a 07/13/00 article in USA Today, Ariz. has deadliest red-light runners in USA:

Arizona has the nation’s deadliest red-light runners, with three of the country’s worst cities for fatal intersection crashes, according to a study of federal transportation data obtained by USA TODAY….  Arizona had by far the worst death rate among states, with 6.5 fatalities for every 100,000 people… Arizona also had three of the four most dangerous cities. for red-light fatalities. Phoenix topped all urban areas, followed by Memphis, Mesa and Tucson

In addition, cities with speed limits of 45 mph and higher on surface streets faced more serious red-light -running accidents… The Phoenix police officer says said that with an average of 330 days of sunshine a year, it’s typically usually perfect driving weather. That doesn’t mean motorists drive perfectly, however. Just the opposite. “If we got more rain or inclement weather, maybe it would slow people down some, particularly at the intersections,” Halstead said says. “As it is, they zip around the city at a pretty good clip.” And, according to the institute’s study, Phoenix drivers run red lights at an unrivaled pace. The city has by far the nation’s deadliest rate of fatal red- light running crashes, nearly five times the national average. Arizona and other fast-growing Western states have been particularly stung by red light crashes “because their wide open roads are suddenly seeing schools, businesses, and busy intersections crop up,” says said Phoenix traffic engineer Paul Wellstone. “The West has a reputation for being a drivers’ paradise; a place you can lay on the accelerator and not worry about the traffic and dangers. That’s changing now. Cities are struggling with getting their citizens to slow down.”

 The FHWA has a page on red light running.

Story mentions the Sean Casey fatality from 2005 where a junior high school student was killed while walking his bike through a crosswalk with a green light when he got whacked by a motorist who ran a red light. This whole story seems to have been a huge miscarriage of justice. A judge dismissed neg hom charges against the driver. And to add insult to injury, according to news reports the driver did not even pay her fine, or attend traffic school as ordered.

In any event the gist of the story is camera enforcement (among other factors) is credited with reducing crashes, according to Mesa Police commander Bill Peters: ”Crashes at intersections now monitored by cameras dropped from 694 in 2005 to 370 in 2010, Peters said.”

]]> http://azbikelaw.org/blog/mesa-traffic-cameras-to-stay-2-more-years/feed/ 0 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/arrest-made-in-hit-and-run-of-tucson-cyclist/ http://azbikelaw.org/blog/arrest-made-in-hit-and-run-of-tucson-cyclist/#comments Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:32:15 +0000 azbikelaw http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=1917 Hit and runs are always awful. This one from Tucson May 20, 2011 seems especially so. Police arrested a young woman four days after the crash, Abigail A. Allin, 21. There is a lot more info supplied by Sam Abate’s father over on tucsonvelo.com.

Hit and run can sometimes be hard to prove, but fortuitously a driver matching the description triggered a red light camera nearby before striking Abate: ”"The woman driving, talking on her cell phone, weaving in and out of traffic, and caught moments earlier by the red-light camera”. I am a big fan of photo-red enforcement. (see this murder case that was solved in part with photo-red evidence. Photo evidence was also instrumental in arresting a suspect in this cyclist hit-and-run killing)

One hopes the prosecutor will be seeking the bad driving involved — and not just the hit-and-run. The hit and run came after the collision; the bad driving before certainly seems like reckless driving, or some sort of assault.

Abigail Allins has a traffic case TR-10037413 from April 2010 for running a red light and no insurance for which she did not appear — which is probably where the “driving on a suspended license” is coiming from.

Plea Deal Pulled

fox11az.com reported on July 27th that the prosecutor has withdrawn an unspecified plea deal for unspecified reasons. The defendant is scheduled to enter a plea on July 29th — I’m not sure exactly what charges have been filed because it’s not up on caselookup and strangely I don’t see anything at Pima County Superior Court (or its search page). It was reported earlier charges would be felony hit/run, endangerment, and tampering with evidence.

No news as of Aug 3…

Inmate lookup results:

NAME: ALLIN, ABIGAIL ALETA DOB: 10/24/1989 AGENCY HOLDS: NO

LOCATION: JAIL-EAST-1Q BOOKING#: 110525005 CHARGES: 3

COURT: JUSTICE COURT #1 CASE#: CR11107610A <--- 1

BOND AMT: $ 75000.00 TYPE: Secured

UPDATE: Police arrest suspect 7/17/2010 [abc15] “Tempe police say Cody Ryan Davis has been charged with leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death of Bradley Jason Scott, 32, who was struck and killed at Southern Avenue and Rural Road around midnight last Saturday. Police say video shows Scott was legally riding a bicycle with the flow of traffic at the time he was struck and killed… police say he made admissions related to the incident”

Over on the TBAG blog, the question was raised about lights.  I am *guessing* that since police went out of their way to say things like “Police say video shows Scott was LEGALLY riding a bicycle… “, that the cyclist had a light.
There was also some discussion of motorized bikes in general; for a lot of minutia about motorized bicycles; see this entry.  The short answer is that the motorized bicycle law wasn’t really thought through, and has a bunch of holes and gray areas.

…

Police are seeking the driver who killed a motorized bicyclist around 11:45pm Saturday, July 10, 2010.

The cyclist was killed as he rode eastbound on Southern Avenue near the intersection of Rural Road. The vehicle was described as newer model gold or champagne-colored Ford Taurus or Mercury Sable.

Police released traffic camera footage in the hopes that will lead to locating the driver, you can view the footage at [fox10news][abc15]. The driver made a bad left and really plowed into the cyclist who was proceeding straight ahead.

[evtrib]

Arizona legislators are seeking to prohibit cities and localities from running any sort of photo enforcement, including both speeding and red light cameras. Here is why I like red-light cameras: red light runners compilation and if you don’t like that one there are dozens more like it.

SB1352 (or SCR1029, which would become  yet another ballot initiative, is also in play). As of this minute the senate bill has been narrowly voted down. You can follow the SB1352 here (select the 50th, 1st regular session; if need be)

Republican Sen. Frank Antenori brings up the well-worn chestnut that the only problem at signal-controlled intersections is too-short yellow lights (and this despite the already-statutory requirement to set yellow lights per MUTCD, see last year’s HB2238 discussion ) . Just  watch the video.

Arizona continues to have relatively poor overall traffic safety. Arizona’s fatality rates are around 20% worse than average. Arizona’s rates are well over twice as dangerous as the safest states. Legislators, to the extent they feel any responsibility for this continued poor performance seek to help the situation by trying to remove all photo enforcement because…. oh yeah, I forgot, cameras cause collisions, remember?

Here is an arizona group that appears like it doesn’t dabble in politics: www.redmeansstop.org

Here is what  Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa said:

… the cameras, particularly those designed to catch speeders, are built on a misunderstanding of Arizona law. He pointed out that, in most cases, the statute makes it illegal to go faster than “reasonable and prudent.” That, Pearce said, requires a police officer to consider all the factors like weather, time of day and level of traffic, and not just the posted limit. “It is a suggestion, whether we like it or not,” Pearce said. A camera set at a specific trigger point, he said, cannot compensate for those factors

No word on what he thinks about the law requiring stopping at red lights — perhaps he thinks it should be up to the driver to decide? Or maybe there’s a misunderstanding there too?

And switching to speeding for a moment, you should also not take his suggestion lightly (the bit about reasonable and prudent); Exceeding the posted speed limit is in all cases prima facia evidence of violating 28-701 (Arizona’s speeding statute). And his “in most cases” weasel words have some major exceptions, spelled out in 28-701B where the maximum speed limit is absolute; school zones (15mph), residential (25mph), commercial (25 mph).

IIHS

The IIHS has put up a collection of studies, facts & figures, Q&A’s here. It was also the subject of their Feb monthly status report. Interesting breakdown of who is the victim:

• 36% The red-light running driver
• 12% passengers in red light running vehicle
• 6% pedestrian, bicyclist, other
• 46% occupants of vehicles that didn’t run light

They didn’t mention red light running bicyclists; they may have been excluded from the sample of 676 red-light-running fatalities in 2009.

Police reported Wednesday that they have solved two savage and infamous Valley crimes: one a 21-year-old Arizona State University student dragged to death in May…

Sifting through 500 leads, using photo enforcement, advanced computers and the U.S. Marshals Service, Tempe police Tuesday booked Joseluis Marquez, 20, on first-degree murder in the death of Kyleigh Sousa, 21.

A photo-enforcement picture of Marquez driving a golden 2008 Dodge Charger, snapped May 8 in Tempe, was key to the arrest, said Tempe Police Cmdr. Kim Hale. The car, a rental, was traced to the Los Angeles area.

Finding the car, detectives worked backward to identify the driver, who traveled between California and Arizona, police said.

It was 18 days after the photo was snapped that Sousa was fatally dragged outside an International House of Pancakes at 225 E. Apache Blvd. Marquez, driving the Dodge, snatched her purse and drove off, police say. Sousa, her hands entangled in the purse straps, was dragged 30 feet before falling to the asphalt parking lot, suffering a skull fracture and detached artery.

…more

I don’t quite follow the timeline, or the exact role the picture played.

Photo speed-enforcement may not be gone for good.

Gov. Jan Brewer doesn’t like photo enforcement; she put in her guy to direct DPS, Robert Halliday.

a “top commander” (number 2?), Lt. Col. Jack Hegarty seems to sort of like it. In any event he lobbied for a law (bill number? “The DPS bill passed and was signed into law on May 7″ ) that that give DPS control of any future program. This is probably a good idea, as it at least theoretically removes some of the opportunities for political meddling.

Bill s from the 49th 2nd Regular session relating to photo enforcement:

• SB1018 (Chapter 266): Photo enforcement procedures. apparently this it the bill referred to in the article, but i don’t really see how this gives DPS control(?)
• HB2338 (Chapter 213): the yellow light business.

“When Redflex alerted the media that DPS was canceling the contract, speculation was rampant that Gov. Jan Brewer made the decision to dismantle the controversial system to score political points. But Brewer’s nominee to run DPS, Robert Halliday, insisted the decision was his”

The law on red lights

In brief, the law says a driver must not enter the intersection when the light is red.

As usual, the first stop is a review of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Arizona law does not follow the UVC with regard to where a red violation occurs. Here are the relevant Arizona statutes:

• §28-645 Traffic Control Signal Legend: “3. Red indication…traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection“
• §28-601 “8. ‘Intersection’ means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines” — this is called the “enforcement line”

So, the enforcement line is well forward of what many people perceive as the start of the intersection.

Curiosly (well, curious to me anyway) is that unlike at stop sign intersections, drivers are under no obligation to stop before entering the crosswalk at a signalized intersection.

Oh, and by the way; irrespective of signal timing, drivers must not enter an intersection even if the light is green, until the intersection has cleared of any/all traffic from a previous cycle: “Vehicular traffic facing a green…  shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians…”

Tucson problems: as usual, there are special problems in Tuscon. Sigh. Apparently they use trailing green arrows. So, i guess this precipitates a need for a yellow arrow; this apparently leads to a lot of consternation with photo-enforced intersection with arrows; see e.g. this news item. This coupled with some oddly-shaped intersections causes much grief, e.g. River and Oracle.

Photo enforcement and the new law

Now, a sidenote; It’s sad, but true that something like traffic signal timing becomes a political football, particularly with respect to the duration of the yellow phase.

This tidbit from Phoenix will keep using traffic camera, The Arizona Republic, May 14, 2010: “(Phoenix police officer Bill) Fisher and others at the Phoenix Police Department said the city’s yellow-light timing is set at four seconds or longer, one second longer than the federal standard of three seconds, to provide motorists with additional time to stop on red” — is incorrect; there are definitely 3-second yellows in Phoenix. See, for example 44th and Chandler Blvd, or 46th and Ray Road.

In any event, our legislators (who consistently maintain that we already have enough laws) enacted a law that mandates that the engineering standard be modified to include a provision that the minimum yellow cycle be 3 seconds. Having legislation dictate engineering standards seems like a bad idea — but there you have it. The engineering standard is (already) specified by §28-641 is the MUTCD with Arizona supplements, and is maintained by ADOT.

A new provision of the law adds that any photo-red enforcement must meet engineering standard for yellow duration at that signal. So, if you get an officer-issued ticket at an out-of-spec signal, I guess you are out of luck.

A provision that would have provided a mandatory 1-second “grace period” to phot0-red was dropped.

[news item about new law] [another news item about new law]

HB2338 (select 49th Legislature, 2nd Regular session), here is the enacted law, chapter 213.

I don’t know of any intersection that doesn’t already meet the requirements of the new law — therefore I would tend to believe that the new law was more a statement by anti-photo-enforcement partisans than about improving safety.

The Engineering Story

Here is the section of the ADOT manual with calculations; section 621 Signal Phase Change Intervals.

There is a calculated minimum green time; but that’s based on how many cars are expected to be waiting to go. In effect, the minimum is practically zero.

The main attraction is calculation of yellow. Note that the formula takes into account the approach speed of traffic, and that figures for deceleration and reaction-time are taken to be conservative constants.

The design of the formula gives legally operating (e.g. not speeding, not so impaired their reaction time is longer than normal) time to stop during the yellow interval, thus avoiding a violation of 28-655.

I would point out, that the “approach speed” is a huge bone of contention with certain groups. The speed variable is supposed to be the 85th percentile speed, however “The posted speed limit may be assumed to be the approach speed when an engineering study or 85th percentile speed data is not available.”

Calculation of the all-red phase is discussed below.

Impact of timing on cyclists

Cyclists will often complain that, at the minimums, there isn’t enough time to cross before the light changes to red; or worse still, before the conflicting traffic gets a green.

To deal with this, the yellow phase should not be lengthened, “Excessively long yellow vehicle change intervals may encourage driver disrespect and unsafe operating practices”. It also doesn’t fix anything, cyclists will just enter the intersection later.

Rather the only guaranteed-safe thing to do is to lengthen the all-red phase.

The calculation of the all-red phase depends on the width of the intersection (plus 20 feet as a safety margin), and the posted speed limit. So for crossing an typical wide-ish arterial road (80 feet), at 40mph posted it comes out to be, say, 2 seconds. However for a cyclist traveling at, say, 15mph, it would almost 4 seconds without any margin of safety added.

[more goes here]

Also no word yet from the many legislators who have vowed to increase DPS patrols on highways, claiming that will enhance safety. Arizona faces record budget shortfalls, and it isn’t clear where money for increasing patrols would come from. The budge shortfall just got a little bigger, now that the Redflex contract has be canceled (well, not renewed) — because as the critics like to point out; the program made money for the state.

Unaffected are city-run programs, which are used for both speed and red-light running enforcement on surface streets (not on limited-access highways).

Arizona to eliminate speed-enforcement cameras on freeways, The Arizona Republic, 5/06/2010

Despite the camera-foes’ protestations to the contrary, the FHWA has no legal standing, can not make laws, and is not a legislative body (For Arizona, the Arizona state legislature is); the only tie to the law is through the MUTCD; and “violations” of the MUTCD are common. In any event the FHWA interpretation letter refers to the extra ground markings in use being dis-allowed, and not cameras.

An image of the FHWA letter is linked at that article, above (here is the letter). I don’t know who this guy, Paul Pisano, from the FHWA is, or what axes he may have to grind but he does make some loaded statements, e.g. “under the provisions of the Uniform Vehicle Code, which is the basis of the motor vehicle laws of most states, the stop line, or crosswalk if there is no stop line, defines the point beyond which a red light violation has occurred”. Again, the Arizona state legislature exclusively makes the laws in Arizona. Sometimes they adopt things that are in the UVC, other times not.

At issue is an odd-ball intersection somewhere in or near Tucson (something about River and Oracle Roads), where there is unusually large (reported to be 43 foot) distance from the stop line to the intersection’s violation line. the city(?) placed an additional line and the word “WAIT”. This all does sound confusing, and it probably means this particular intersection should be looked at. [this intersection appears to be a complete car-sewer; many many many lanes wide, along with humongous curb radii leads to a disgusting mess see google maps aerial]

Arizona law does not follow the UVC with regard to where a red violation occurs. Here are the relevant Arizona statutes:

§28-655 Traffic Control Signal Legend: “3. Red indication…traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection“

§28-601 “8. ‘Intersection’ means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines”

Curiosly (well, curious to me anyway) is that unlike at stop sign intersections, drivers are under no obligation to stop before entering the crosswalk at a signalized intersection.

…

Here is a pretty reasonable discussion thread about the topic.