Steckler defends red light cameras in Fremont
By Matt Artz
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm in Fremont, Red light cameras, Uncategorized.
From my favorite Niles chat group:
Police Chief Craig Steckler joined a discussion about speed bumps and started talking about red light cameras.
In Fremont red light cameras seem to have reduced accidents at intersections equipped with the cameras.
From 7/1/1995 to 6/30/2005 a 5 yr. period before the installation of the first set of cameras we had 734 traffic signal related accidents.
From 7/1/2000 to 6/30/2005 the rate went down to 626 accidents or a 15% decrease. In those five years we also had an overall increase in traffic volume in Fremont.
As to fines from red light violations. By Penal Code statutes the City of Fremont receives between 9% and 11% of each traffic fine with the rest of the money going to the State of California and the County of Alameda.
We would actually make more money if we did red light enforcement only with traffic officers since we have a contract with RedFlex who installs and maintains the systems and they receive a portion of the fines. We truly did install them to reduce accidents and by all accounts they have helped with this problem.
I don’t want to get into the debate of speed bumps, humps. They do slow down traffic, but I have found they simply route the traffic to different streets without speed bumps, humps and so they don’t cure the problem of speeding on residential streets but simply move it to another location.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Put those visors down friends! I’ll bet Chief Steckler would also lead you to believe that DUI Checkpoints are just the best things since peanut-butter and jelly, when in fact, they are totally unconstitutional and violate the 4th Amendment! Notice the metality…
Chief Steckler: “In Fremont red light cameras seem to have reduced accidents at intersections equiped with the cameras.”
734 traffic signal related accidents (before cameras)
626 traffic signal related accidents (after cameras)
Chief Steckler: “I don’t want to get into a debate of speed bumps, humps. They do slow down traffic, BUT I HAVE FOUND THEY SIMPLY ROUTE THE TRAFFIC TO DIFFERENT STREETS WITHOUT SPEED BUMPS, HUMPS AND SO THEY DON’T CURE THE PROBLEM OF SPEEDING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS BUT SIMPLY MOVE IT TO ANOTHER LOCATION.”
Didn’t Chief Steckler stop to consider, that people might just be avoiding the intersections with the cameras, the same way they avoid the streets with the speed bumps, which would, in turn, dilute the traffic signal related accident statistics?
On another note, I’d keep a close eye on a company that has a police-contract, and installs and maintains the cameras, that generate revenues for both parties involved. Where is the accountability? Where are the checks and balances?
Anytime a police department can sit back and collect a percentage of the fines without having to do too much policing/ticketing, they will! Having cameras that bring in funds and an officer out on the beat issuing traffic-tickets, at the same time makes the police department a whole heck of a lot of money!
I’m happy to say that Livermore doesn’t have any red light cameras… yet! However, we do have those intersection cameras all over the light poles. Most have 4 to an intersection! Seems to be too much to me… but I guess, not too much for the taxpayers!
Happy Fourth of July! Enjoy it while we still got it!
DON’T TREAD ON ME! LIBERTY OR DEATH!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Walter does a good job of explaining one possible flaw in the Chief’s obvious rationalization of these cameras. . . . . Just because the number of accidents reported has gone down is not reliable evidence that the total number of accidents actually occurring has been reduced due to the installation of the cameras – and your Chief of Police is smart enough to know that . .. .
Take his explanation on the speed bump issue – if you measured the number of cars “speeding” on a street before speed bumps and then did the same measure afterwards, the Chief explains that there would definately be fewer cars “speeding” – but they would have gone elsewhere. But – conveniently, in his desire to rationalize these revenue-producing cameras – he ignores the prospect that people are simply driving “around” the camera-protected intersections.
Chief Steckler uses the argument when the question of speed bumps comes up – and I’m guessing he does so because speed bumps cost the city money, but, they dont produce revenue for the city . . .
So far so good. . . . . Now, ask yourself this question – since the Chief likes revenue-producing opportunities – why did he choose to forgo the obvious opportunity to bill residences for “false alarms” ?
He could have made money on this deal – but still he chose not to. Further, city management and leadership didn’t question that decision . .. . . now the question is “Why ?”
July 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
This is an interesting thread. I used t live in a ‘hood that worked hard to get speed bumps throughout its environs (including the street I lived on)— and I can say that it worked! People slowed down. The logistics of the area didn’t allow for folks to race down another street. Our quality of life improved.
I hate the camera lights,,,well,,because I ran afoul of one of those and paid the steep fine. I am certainly more conscious of all yellows and reds now.
All said, I think there are fair arguments on both sides of this issue, but I would support more bumps, more cameras, more islands, more bike lanes, more public transportation and more innovation to address our concerns with transportation and safe streets!
July 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No one could take exception with WarbleFly. All good points – and let’s add to it . . . . we’d like greater level of scrutiny and frugality amongst our city leaders in spending the limited resources we have today. We’d like less “rationalization” of increased taxation as the “only” solutions to these revenue shortfalls. We’d like greater forsight and openness of revenue projections. We’d like much tougher negotations of public employee pension and benefit expenses.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Steckler doesn’t do his job to make the city some revenue. He works for public safety and does quite a good job, and doubly so considering Fremont’s challenges. With our huge area and relatively small police force, I can live with red light cameras, which I despise, controlling traffic while police bust up gangs and catch crooks. I do take alternate routes to avoid speed bumps and stop signs, but I’ve never considered avoiding a red light because of a camera. Well-placed speed bumps and stop signs that leave no alternate path can make a difference.
If the city truly wanted to indirectly tax us, they’d ticket before street sweeping and install parking meters in busy areas. Now that would get my boxers in a bunch.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Jon, perhaps you are correct. But the question remains, why does Steckler so quickly rationalize the cameras (which generate revenue to the city) and so quickly dismiss speed bumps (which do not generate revenue to the city) ?
The argument he presents against speed bumps is that they simply “redirect” the speeding behavior elsewhere but he fails to use this same anecdote against the cameras he is in favor of. As an anecdote – it is equally true in both cases and in both cases, hard data would be necessary to prove one way or the other – but the Chief uses it in one case and in another chooses not to. Why is that ?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Well, he’s not writing a peer reviewed academic paper. He was responding to a discussion on the Niles egroup and he gave his well informed view, one which makes sense to me. Have you ever avoided an intersection to avoid a red light camera? I never have, and if I did, it would involve huge detours around major intersections. However, I avoid stop signs and speed bumps all the time. I take Hillview to 2nd Street when heading south into Niles so can avoid the stop sign crossing Second at H, as well as waiting for pedestrians and traffic in downtown Niles. For the record, I make it a point to drive ~25mph on 2nd. I rarely take Isherwood because of all the darned stop signs.
I urge you to take the Citizens Academy, given by the Fremont Police. http://www.fremontpolice.org/academy/academy.html It will help you see the police perspective.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:39 am
JON SIMON! I WANT YOU TO… STOP BOOTLICKING!
No, he’s not writing a peer reviewed academic paper… but his comments can and should be criticized by the public.
Once again Jon, you’re on the wrong side of the issue! But hey, look on the brite side of things… even though the school board thing didn’t work out, you could always shine up your Citizen’s Academy Junior-G-Man Badge and hit the beat. Think of how many tickets you could write, how much funds you could generate. You and Steckler could be best buds! Chiefs always like yes-men!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“The argument he presents against speed bumps is that they simply “redirect” the speeding behavior elsewhere but he fails to use this same anecdote against the cameras he is in favor of.”
Does somebody have traffic counts for the intersections before and after cameras were installed? And traffic counts for nearby intersections in the same time period?
Does somebody have a list of the intersections with cameras, and suggested bypasses?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I’m attaching a story I wrote last year about red light cameras in Fremont and Union City. Fremont info is toward the bottom. It doesn’t give every intersection. Also Fremont has moved the camers to different intersections but kept their casings in place, so some intersections like Stevenson and Fremont boulevards looks like there’s a camera, but doesn’t actually have cameras. At least it didn’t last year. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070607/ai_n19295576
July 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I think red light camera’s are a good thing if used in a ethical manner.
Fremonts red light vendor is not a ethical vendor.
A example is the entersection of Fremont Blvd and Automall. Three of the right turns are yield signs, the 4th has no stop sign, but you are suppose to stop if not, you get your picture took. Yes, I have recieved a ticket there. I was going 16 miles per hour as I made the right turn.
I am also disapointed in our politicians and city manager for not monitering the vendor more closely. They are probably to busy counting there money from unethical use of traffic camera’a resulting in tickets at about $400.00 dollars.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Gosh, I’m with Jon Simon on this one. Don’t want to get a ticket? Obey the law. I don’t care if they have them at each and every intersection, and the mafia is getting rich off of it. My only complaint is that there isn’t enough money available for more traffic enforcement (rolling stops, for one). And I’m not being self righteous – I got caught on a rt-hand turn (going 13 miles an hour – big whoop – I could’ve killed a pedestrian). Way to turn lack of personal responsibility into paranoid diatribe.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Be glad you don’t live in France – on the freeways outside of Paris they have speed sensors and cameras that take your picture and send you a ticket if you are exceeding the speed limit.
Obey the traffic laws and you won’t get in trouble.
And Coyote Bill – was the light red? If so, I think making a right turn is legal in CA AFTER you come to a complete stop (unless of course there is a sign saying “no right on red”).
As Queenbee said, not being self righteous – I’ve received my share of tickets – and they were all valid (as much as I protested that they weren’t at the time
July 8th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I want Amnesty for all red-light runners in America! Those hardworking people are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families by getting to work on time! Who cares if they break the law in the process?
Comprehensive Traffic Reform is my #1 issue in 2008!
McCain, Obama, are you listening? You’re both big Amnesty advocates!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vIuNNXcnnD70&feature=related
July 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Here is the link again, sorry!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNNXcnnD70&feature=related
Viva Reconquesta! Viva NAU!
July 12th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Wow, Jon Simon – I’m sorry that you feel that expecting our city leaders to drive decisions from fact-based information as opposed to anecdote-based opinions is such a lofty expectation . . . . If you truly held the experiences and knowledge of these individuals in high esteem, I think you would see my request as a minor hurdle – not a lofty “peer review”.
Mine is not an opinion that is made from (as you suggest) an uninformed position. Like you I have conducted P.D. ride-alongs in at least two Bay Area cities and have participated in a month long leadership program sponsored by our local Chamber of Commerce. I had great respect for many of the tasks that all of the public offices had to perform. I also found that there were instances where improvement was possible – if matters could be brought into the light of day.
That said – I think that speed bumps and red light cameras may be a good thing. However, a proper response to the question of effectiveness of either mechanism will include data or information – it will NOT be relegated to opinion.
That tax-paying constituency expects this kind of discipline from its leaders is hardly the equivalent of “peer review” and your sarcasm adds little in the way of constructive comment to this topic.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 am
Anyway, they are now ticketing people for rolling right turns even when there’s no traffic at all. I have to say that it is really scary to hear that our chief of police believes that machines can do a better job than our police force in preventing traffic accidents.
I haven’t received a single traffic ticket in the past 12 years. The only time in my life I was involved in an accident was 1996 and it wasn’t my fault. So please don’t tell me that I am endangering the people of Fremont.
The difference between a red light camera and a police officer is that the second have judgment. An officer can decide to give you a warning if he sees that a violation is minor and didn’t put anyone at risk. So save your excuses and tell the truth, Chief Steckler… THIS IS ABOUT REVENUE!
Well, good judgment is what we expect from our elected officials as well. When they start to pick our pockets just to increase the city revenue, it is time to make some changes. I entirely trust the men and women of our police department and I seriously doubt and distrust someone who says that machines can do a better job.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
You nailed it, John – it is about revenue. If you’re looking for good judgment in our local officials, I’d advise looking forward to the next election. The fields have been bare in that respect for quite some time now. They say we get the representation that we deserve; if we don’t find out who the candidates are, ask them about the issues that are important to us, and VOTE, I guess that will continue to be true.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
John: I’m embarrassed to say that my last two tickets were for right turn on red without stopping: at Grimmer & Paseo, where the police officer was parked in the dirt patch just flagging people down as fast as he could write tickets… and at Fremont and Auto Mall, courtesy of the camera.
So I’d not count on the friendly judgement of the police officer, just stop at the darn red light
January 27th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
My Word: Red-light cameras work in Fremont
By Frank Noey
Guest commentary
Appeared in Fremont Argus Opinion 27 January 2010
ROGER JONES, in a Jan. 13 My Word, asked if Fremont’s automated traffic camera system has reduced accidents or red light violations.
I would have to say it has worked. Collisions caused by red-light violators are down. Red-light citations issued by patrol personnel also are down.
Revenue generated by the fines is a given and established by state legislators. Any violation incurred by a driver, be it speed or red lights, comes with consequences — a fine, license suspension or jail.
One sees the total number of citations issued, but that does not reflect an accurate documentation of money received by the city, the Superior Court of Alameda County or the state. Some drivers are given community service, while others have their respective citation amended, where applicable, or dismissed.
If one looks at the cited drivers noted by Jones, 16,328 seems a large number.
If one breaks down the daily average, that amounts to 46 violations, which does not seem so high. With the large number of major intersections in the city, there are only 10 intersections that have camera activation ability.
Additionally, one should examine the population of the city, more than 210,000 people, in addition to the amount of commute traffic using the Mission Boulevard corridor between Interstates 680 and 880. Couple this with Dumbarton Bridge and Decoto Road, and 46 violations seem small.
If we look at the population of the city alone, and conservatively estimate the number of drivers at 120,000, that means on a daily basis a very small percent, less than one-tenth of 1 percent, fail to comply with the law. This number does not reflect the commuter.
Additionally, I tracked two days of camera activations. The number of activations were 62. Of those activations, eight were for right turns, two were for left turns, 32 were for straight through violations, 12 were not valid, six were emergency vehicles and two were drivers not identifiable.
With regard to the violator, and the degree of the violation, I do not know how you would treat one different from another. There are violators who fail to stop at the red light while driving through the intersection at 75 mph. There are others who are talking on their cellular phones, others are talking with other occupants in the car, while others roll through the intersection well below the speed limit.
All of the aforementioned have one thing in common: They failed to stop for the red light, showing a total disregard for the law, but most of all, showing a total disregard for the remaining 99.5 percent of drivers who comply with the law and respect their privilege to drive.
Having viewed most of activations of the camera system for the city, I have yet to see a rear end accident caused by the yellow light timing.
Rear end accidents are caused by drivers not paying attention, or those hoping to make the light. Note, the yellow light timing has minimum recommendations from the California Department of Transportation. The intersections equipped the camera system have yellow timing that exceeds the state minimum.
It is true that Alameda County courts have laid off employees. To blame the red-light tickets is absurd.
Jones referred to all the revenue coming in from these tickets. It seems the revenue on its face would supplement many court employees. The layoffs have nothing to do with tickets. To the more than 99.5 percent of the drivers who comply with the law, I thank you.
To those folks who are waiting outside the courthouse, I know you have better things to do, but it is no one’s fault but your own that you are there. I’m sure that the vast majority of you will have learned a lesson and will be better drivers for it.
Jones answered his own question, “Is this the best solution?,” when he wrote, “Let’s ease off the gas and start braking.”
Frank Noey has lived in Fremont for 46 years. He was with the Fremont Police Department 34 years, retired and now works part-time with the Fremont Police Department Automated Red Light Traffic Program.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:15 am
Fremont has issued 10,516 camera violations in 2009; 13,491 in 2008; 9,863 in 2007; 13,132 in 2006. I don’t see a trend downward. Totals go up and down. If safety is key, then extending the “all-red” phase from 1.0 seconds to 1.4 seconds and increasing the yellow phase .4 seconds from the state minimums will have an immediate impact on reducing red light running. I say these 2 things will reduce straight-through violations by 25% but may result in not enough revenue to pay the fees owing to the camera company. Accidents should go down also. Isn’t that what we are trying to do?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Supporters of the red light cameras declare unanimously that they must be working based on fewer collisions and fewer violations.
Frank Noey at least gives a partial nod to the need for some other data. Curiously he supplies myriad random facts unrelated to that which we REALLY need to understand the situation. For whatever reasons – Steckler only speaks to the number of collisions and violations and completely avoids the other half of the calculation.
The red-light-camera-101 question is “How many collisions and violations PER “X” number of vehicles USING THAT INTERSECTION occur ?” If the number of vehicles USING the intersection has fallen by half because of a bad economy and fewer people traveling, then to declare that the red-light cameras are working because collisions are down (only) 10% would be a seriously flawed conclusion. Moving on to a second semester of traffic studies, we’d really want to understand traffic through these intersections BUT also understand other routes which MAY be being used, in an attempt to avoid camera-supervised intersections – but this latter point gets pretty complicated.
The numbers of violations and collisions is a result – - – of enforcement – - – - and of TRAFFIC. Frank Noey knows that and suggests the population of Fremont be used as one indicator . . . . but, I speculate he also knows that this is only a proxy for the variable that (I also speculate) is actually WAY WAY reduced from what it has been e.g., – the number of vehicles moving through ANY intersection in Fremont is most likely WAY down from what it was a year or two or three ago – - – - owing to a tanked economy; fewer commute and business-related trips by residents AND by commuters and delivery vehicles . . . .
So, if the denominator is down and if the numerator is down but, perhaps by a lesser percentage – - then it is quite concievable that, as a percentage, collisions and red light violations have actually INCREASED – but, we’ll never know what is or is not occurring in the absence of COMPLETE data.
Maybe it’s working – maybe it’s not – who knows ?
February 8th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Have you ever chosen another route to avoid a red light camera? I can’t imagine somebody doing that unless, for some strange reason, they made a habit of running red lights.
Do you make every or even many decisions based upon statistical analysis, or are experience and observation usually good enough? Do statistics usually tell enough of the story to make a wise decision? I’ve seen far too many bad educational decisions made upon statistical evidence.
For what it’s worth, I haven’t noticed any drop in traffic around town. Freeway traffic is easier, though. Oh, and I do hate traffic cameras of all kinds, especially speed cameras.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Having been caught doing a careless right-turn-on-red by both a camera and another time by a live police officer, I’ve decided to modify my behavior before my insurance rates go sky high. I think the cameras do have an effect on behavior, even at intersections where they are not deployed. Once you have a ticket on your record, you don’t want another one from any source.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Jon Simon says – “Have you ever chosen another route to avoid a red light camera? I can’t imagine somebody doing that unless, for some strange reason, they made a habit of running red lights.”
Ummm, no – I wouldn’t – but I’m a god-fearing individual who pays taxes on time and has been gainfully employed since I was in Junior High School. I don’t profess (unlike Jon) to know what the . . . . heck . . . . . . goes on in other peoples minds. Much more importantly I am also aware that there is well documented UNINTENDED responses to just about any action – - – see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
for further clarification on this point.
Jon Simon says – “Do you make every or even many decisions based upon statistical analysis, or are experience and observation usually good enough? Do statistics usually tell enough of the story to make a wise decision? I’ve seen far too many bad educational decisions made upon statistical evidence.”
As a rational individual, I try to gather any information I can that is relevant and meaningful with which to substantiate my personal opinions, beliefs, tribal lore or other anecdotal nonsense. . . . . Jon is correct that some decisions cannot wait for data or there is no reliable data available, but that’s not the case in this situation as evidenced by Frank’s lengthy reference to multiple influencing datums. . . .
And Jon, we’re talking about folks who make their living in this field , the word “professional” comes to mind here – - – and folks who are “professionals” use information.
I fully concede that interpretation of the data may be tempered with experience for which I hold high regard – - – but an absence of proper data is, a problem.
Jon – this cannot be a debate about whether or not data is important – unless you want to argue with the guy that “works with the Fremont Automated Red Light Program.” – - – - In his own defense of the red light cameras Mr. Simon appears to be enamoured with, Mr. Noey has made considerable reference to a variety of data.
THE POINT IS – *WHICH* data is significant enough to substantiate effectiveness of this mechanism AND why aren’t our leaders including THAT data in their assessments of this system ?
P.S. – I find it quite startling that someone involved in our educational system is seemingly incapable of grasping these most basic essentials of the analytical process.
February 12th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Surprise, another insulting post from Bbox. What’s most frustrating is that with one breath you’ll project your thick headed and asinine viewpoints while insulting others, and with another breath you berate others for not meeting your standards of “civil debate”, often accusing other posters of being insulting.
Well, Bbox, just like Fremont Lifer, you are an absolute hypocrite.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Hey Bbox,
Why get personal?
Data gathering and analysis are expensive and take time, all for a questionable product. I’m reminded of the recent scandal in NYC, where officers under pressure to improve crime statistics supposedly played with numbers to give the appearance of crime reductions.
Then I look at Fremont USD, which has implemented massive amounts of data gathering in elementary school, essentially turning them into state test prep centers. Yep, it’s like those crazy teachers warned; school is now about teaching to the test, and little more.
What you see as the most basic essentials of the analytical process, I call the flaws of data-driven management. Often the answer is obvious for any professional to see.
And while I greatly dislike red-light cameras, I’m definitely more aware and careful around them, which likely most people are. That reduces deadly accidents, their primary purpose.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Wow Jon –
I’m only suggesting that folks involved simply get good data as a starting place upon which to make a judgement. I am *indeed* surprised if you are unfamilar with “scientific method” – my apology if my statment called into question your personal character.
But, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that it is possible that the character of the people involved in reporting traffic data may be so dubious that they might “play” with those numbers – so you use this that possible character flaw as a rationalization to make the pursuit of hard data a waste of time.
Of course, if you are correct in that assumption, those same folks would be willing to “play” with their opinions for the sake of expediancy and all of this is for not.
I see your point of view.
Thanks.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Box, you used to have some level of measure. When did you decide to turn into a complete ass?
December 5th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Newark has extended yellow light times by 7/10′s of a second above the minimum required at camera intersections; Fremont has added 1/10 or 2/10′s. Newark’s 5 cameras captured fewer than 800 straight through violations in 12 months; Fremont about 6-7,000 straight-throughs(10 cameras). This indicates that if Fremont added 1/2 second to yellow lights the instances of red light running would be reduced by 3-4,000; a number enforcement does not achieve. The reduction would be immediate.
December 5th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Red light cameras don’t make intersections safer they make them more dangerous and in fact they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. Police Chief Steckler needs to do his job like catch the bad guys that robbed Chris’s Jewelry the way way back on November 16th. Justifing red light cameras is not what we pay him for. Hasn’t Union City gotten rid of these Red light cameras? Sad to say giving soccer Moms radar gun speeding tickets is a lot easier and more profitable than catching the bad guys.