Fremont to keep red light cameras
By Matt Artz
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 8:40 pm in Uncategorized.
The City Council just voted unanimously to approve a seven year contract with RedFlex, the company that has installed red light cameras at intersections throughout the city.
One gent spoke out against the contract.
Fremont has been making money off the system, but no all cities do. Union City has been losing money, and last I checked was considering dropping its red light program.
Fremont will be able to terminate its agreement with RedFlex whenever it wants, according to the city.
The council is now hearing a wonkish report about how to get developers to produce more affordable housing. Then there promises to be a sharp debate over the Police Department’s proposal for a new tow-truck vendor.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:37 am
A couple of Ca-State bills have potential to begin to turn the economics on these things.
SB1362 just cleared the Senate -
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/160235
You can read the original text of SB1362 here -
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1362_cfa_20100429_155249_sen_comm.html
Not surprisingly, the California League of California Cities is opposed to the common-sense proposed therein.
You’ll find their interesting summary of the bills’ content as well as their official position at the bottom of this page -
http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zone=locc&previewStory=28052
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 am
I am the “gent” who spoke against the redlight cameras. Although my ideas were shot down (and fast!) – I still don’t see the harm in adding 1/2 second to a yellow light at any of the 10 intersections with cameras for a month and checking the results. I contend the results will show a reduction of straight through violations in just one month will more than double any previous reduction in camera activations at the same intersection in the last year.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Independant data seems to support the point that Watchdog makes – that is, that the rate of red light “activation” has a strong relationship to yellow-light timing.
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeysfinalreport.pdf
For this very reason, SB 1362 requires that –
“The yellow light change interval must be established in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices . . . . .”
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“The yellow light change interval must be established in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices . . . . .”
I’m pretty sure the timing is correct in Fremont, but I recall a nearby town (Union City?) had too-short timing and had to throw out a whole bunch of tickets because of it.
June 2nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm
What is “Correct” is always relative to some expectation – - –
If your goal is to maximize the number of tickets you issue for a given intersection – then you set the yellow as short as you can get away with.
If your goal is to make the intersection as safe as possible, e.g., reduce the number of incusions or “activations” – then you increase the yellow duration.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
By “correct” I meant “in accordance with the MUTCD” as SB 1362 requires.
For more safety, what’s needed is not an extra-long yellow, but a longer all-red. That allows more time for the intersection to clear before cross traffic enters.
Traffic engineers are reluctant to set signal times above the MUTCD minimums because that reduces traffic throughput.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:15 am
Fremont has set yellows at MUTCD minimums + 1/10 second at all or most straight thru’s. A bit more on left turns (only 3.0 seconds is required for lefts). I think adding 1/2 second to all red may achieve similar safety results as adding 1/2 second to yellow, but it would not decrease violations.
I would like a city to test to add 1/2 second to an existing yellow which already meets MUTCD minimum. One thing has not been mentioned is that the 85th percentile speed of, say, Decoto Rd may be 43 mph but the yellow is set for speed limit of 40 mph. This small difference may add 20% to number of tickets.
Fremont definitely is not looking to decrease violations by extending yellows.
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:13 am
If setting the yellow time based on the speed limit results in more tickets, does that mean those red light tickets should have been speeding tickets?
It seems like hair splitting to say it’s the wrong kind of ticket since it’s a violation either way. Do we really want to encourage speeding through intersections?
June 4th, 2010 at 6:30 am
The 85th percentile rule is meant to prevent communities from setting arbitrarily low speed limits. If 85% of motorists drive at say 43 miles per hour, the speed limit may be set at 40 but not 35 unless there exists one of a very few number of exceptions. This criterium for setting speed limits, I believe, was enacted to prevent speed traps. It also recognizes that the community can help set the safe speed of a roadway and that most motorists will drive at a speed commensurate with what they perceive as safe.
Cities must show legitimate reasons for posting of speed limits. They cannot unilaterally with no oversight set speed limits. This is a good thing.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:10 am
The thoughts re the extending of yellow were predicated on this data -
“This report suggests there is something that can be done to address this hazard. It cites examples of problem intersections where yellow times have been raised by about 30 percent and the number of people entering on red fell dramatically.
It cites, in addition, controlled scientific studies that confirm the hypothesis that longer yellows are better. The following reductions in red light entries are documented:
Mesa, Arizona 73%
Georgia 75%
Virginia site 1 79%
Virginia site 2 77%
Virginia site 3 Problem “virtually eliminated”
Maryland Problem “virtually eliminated”
It is no coincidence that each of the “problem” intersections mentioned above happened to have yellow times that fell short by about 30 percent. Today’s formula for calculating yellow times yields yellow times that can in some cases be about 30 percent shorter than the older formula.”
See page 2 here –
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeysfinalreport.pdf
June 7th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Does anyone know of a study or real life documented experience of effects of extending yellow light times beyond MUTCD or CalTrans minimum times….besides Loma Linda (2009/10) and San Diego (2001/2002)?? Bbox231… Can you provide any detail on Mesa/GA/Virginia/MD…thanks.
June 7th, 2010 at 10:44 am
This red light camera is a way of highway robbery from the city and state. I am one of the victims of the so called red light violation (right turn). They took $465 from me, but I am fighting it. Now I dont generate any tax revenue for Fremont city other than property tax. I bought my car in Milpitas, I buy groceries from Newark or Milpitas(only emergency groceries from Fremont), I dont put gas in Fremont and so on.. If they want to loot from its citizens, the city will pay big price in tax revenues..
June 7th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Here’s the first one I stumbled into after spending 2 minutes surfing around -
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/29/city-may-yield-to-longer-yellow-lights/
Quote from the above -
“In August 2005, traffic engineers bumped the yellow light from four seconds to five.
“Within a week, the police called us,” said Ward Stanford, acting traffic engineer. “They knew pretty quick we had done something because the infractions went down significantly.”
There’s a comparative challenge here when you try to contrast yellow light durations on an absolute basis. The legal “minimums” vary considerably for a given set of conditions (e.g., vehicle speed, grade, camera controlled or not) – so, what the mandated minimum WOULD be if CA laws were applied is unknown.
What *is* clear (at least from those data sources who are economically divorced from a particular result) is that increased yellow light duration reduces red light violations.
June 7th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Attached is the original ITE study and print article which used data from a couple of studies, one in MD and one in GA –
This is the original study to conclude that -
“..extension of yellow duration reduced the frequency of conflict in ALL cases”
“An increase of about 1.4 seconds….. in yellow duration virtually eliminated ALL potential conflicts”
IT also debunks the common response that drivers “acclimate” or get used to yellow light durations. It states that the – -
“..percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection …was not appreciably changed bye the extension of the yellow phase.”
What engineers are toying with in setting yellow duration is, in part, a change to a theoretical section of roadway entering any given intersection controlled by an autmoated red light. This theoretical area was first characterized by Gazis, et al and described as a “dilemma zone”.. It is that distance of roadway in which, most drivers – if confronted with a yellow light – will conclude they cannot safely stop but nor can they safely traverse the intersection. Thus – there is a dilemma created for many drivers – the resolution of which has potentially negative consequences.
Here is a great discussion on this topic -
http://urbanik.org/The%20Dilemma%20with%20Dilemma%20Zonesl.pdf
The idea that appears to be pretty well accepted is that proper light timing eliminates this “dilemma zone” and elimination of the “dilemma zone” dramatically increases the safety of a given intersection by drastically reducing the number of red-light runners.
Once again – the original premise that I believe was stated early on in this topic -
You manage light timing if you want to improve safety, or, you install cameras if you want to generate revenue.
June 7th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Sorry – here’s the original ITE print article -
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/80duration.pdf
July 5th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“…red light cameras reduced right-angle crashes by 25 percent and increased rear-end crashes by 15 percent, according to the Federal Highway Administration.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Congress-questions-red-light-cameras-97503754.html
July 5th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“The report found that although cities claimed their sole interest was safety, officials failed to furnish reliable evidence to back up the assertion.”
“Recently, the City of San Carlos extended the yellow light time to comply with state standards and found that the number of citations fell dramatically,” the report explained. “As a result the revenue from red light citations could no longer cover the associated costs.”
“The primary emphasis appears to be on the number of citations issued. Based on the data provided by the cities, there was no overall trend indicating a noticeable change in accident rates before and after installation of red light cameras.”
“..the appellate division in Orange County issued a decision coming to the same conclusion as the San Mateo court.”
“It looks like the whole system may be on the verge of tumbling down.”
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-court-grand-jury-bash-san-mateo-red-light-cameras/
July 26th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“Motorists who get tickets under the city’s controversial red-light camera program can shrug them off, Los Angeles officials agreed Monday.”
“An audit by City Controller Wendy Greuel last year found that the cameras cost the city more than it receives in revenue, and that the program has not “conclusively shown to have increased public safety.” ”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-red-light-cameras-20110727,0,6729565.story?track=rss
July 31st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“Fremont to keep red light cameras”
“Los Angeles ends red light cam ticketing program”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/28/earlyshow/main20084633.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
March 4th, 2012 at 8:18 am
So far, none of our current Council members have done anything about Fremont’s investing in red-light cameras except to support them.
No one has asked any of the difficult questions.
Everyone, including Harrisson, Natarajan and Chan have gone along with the plan to renew contracts for these systems, despite overwhelming evidence that –
1.) Extending yellow-light duration is a sure-fire solution to reducing red-light infractions, and, now;
2.) These things are of legally dubious integrity.
http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/why-napa-needs-to-dump-its-red-light-cameras-now/article_c28f8624-642a-11e1-96b5-0019bb2963f4.html
March 4th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Here’s a *difficult question* for candidate Bacon. Would Fremont be better off today if a major league franchise were to build a state of the art stadium and commit long to term to Fremont?
March 5th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
#21 – Charlie you mean, hypothetically, like, IF – for example – Catellus and or NUMMI and or other business interests in the area had not opposed the stadium plan – right?
March 6th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
#22…Commissioner Bacon is for less *common sense* and for more Tapioca. Commissioner Bacon is a fool!
March 9th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
As for incendiary speakers, we cannot as a society allow what we regard as vile speech to lead us to abandon the cherished value of free speech. But the same Constitution that permits some public figures to engage in hateful commentary also protects my right and duty – and your right and duty – to condemn these merchants of hatred when they come into our community. The best remedy for bad speech is to surround it with good speech.
March 9th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Would you say these *incendiary speakers* like these are going to make Fremont a better place?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKd1pE4FYeg
March 10th, 2012 at 7:13 am
WHy is it that the pro-stadium, pro-incumbancy crowd is so reliant on anecdote? They broadly generalize while painting pretty pictures of what *could* be. IN their defense, they draw ugly and highly personalized portraiture of those who criticize.
THese same mouthpieces remain steadfastly ignorant of facts and data, are never willing to ask the pointed questions of their own, and are completely willing to sweep even the most blatant of their own misdirection under the proverbial carpet.
Such are the attitudes and tactics of those who support your current Council members. The acorn falls not far . . ..
October 7th, 2012 at 9:10 am
Artz does a nice job of documenting the City of Oakland’s slip-up on the red-light camera gambit . .. .
http://www.insidebayarea.com/my-town/ci_21711099/ticket-revenue-factored-heavily-oakland-red-light-cameras
“Most cities are smart enough not to make it so blatant what there motivations are,” Beeber said. “But in this case, it was pretty blatant.”
Everything you need to now makes its way into this article EXCEPT one finaly detail which is a notion that traffic engineers refer to as the “dilemna zone”.
You’ll find this “dilemna zone” described on page 8 – here –
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeysfinalreport.pdf
It is this “dilemna zone” that states attempt to manage with a one-size-fits all approach of state mandated “minimimum” yellow times. Which all PD love to sit on when the issue of yellow duration arises. But what is frequently unspoken is that this “dilemna zone” varies from intersection to intersection based on a drivers sight lines and prevailing traffic speeds. State minimums are just that, something we cannot go below. However, proper evaluation of the characteristics of a given intersection can also argue for an even GREATER minimum – - – IF, that is, your interest is safety first.
March 4th, 2013 at 7:30 pm
So embarassing when the facts begin to find their way into the light of day. When other cities begin to substantiate the original data, it’s just a matter of time.
Now the question is how long will Fremont leaders continue to ignore data which was presented in this venue 2 or 3 years ago – and which Hayward is now confirming as reality in their practical use???
At some point, the issue of doing the right thing vis a vis these money-makers-masquerading-as-safety-devices becomes subordinate to the damage inflicted on the reputations of our leaders as they continue to deny increasingly weighty evidence and facts. . . .
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22716880/hayward-considers-getting-rid-red-light-cameras
March 5th, 2013 at 8:24 am
I question the City leaders Integrity, when red light camera’s are set with extremly short yellow caution light. Then it becomes a trap.
Check all the skid marks and pieces of glass from minor rear ended accidents at the Camera Lights. Most go unreported!
March 5th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Be careful with the “exteremely short yellow” argument as the excuse will quickly follow that the yellow light times do not fall below the state-mandated minimums.
“Short” is relative . . . .
And, what it’s REALLY relative to is the given intersection in question. . . . . and approach speeds and driver sight lines, amongst other things. Any traffic engineer that isn’t just mouthing the company line will be glad to explain.
Read up on the “dilemna zone”
Add to the above the results realized ANY TIME yellow duration is extended ( a few tenths of a second makes huge swings in the results) and you start coming to the same conclusion Hayward is arriving at.
Or, you continue to hide behind the pretense that these things are about safety.
March 23rd, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Jasper – I would have responded to your original post in the original thread you posted to but, TCB admin has decided it’s time to censor for reasons which are completely arbitrary and unrelated to any issue of morality or decorum – - –
Ourgas says : Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 23rd, 2013 at 3:45 pm
#3 (Jasper Stein) – Fremont’s continued relationship with RedFlex is curious given the very compelling data that has been presented over and over and over and which makes for a clear case that these things are NOT about safety.
Our staunch allegiance to these gadgets and the company we pay to manage them is even more curious given the obvious “U” turn that other responsible communities are making as their own experiences validate the data that has been staring our City Council members in the face for YEARS.
If that wasn’t enough – some communities are even beginning to question whether or not RedFlex is “.. a fit company to do business here or anywhere else in the country,” – as a result of their business practices.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/news/chi-ald-burke-calls-of-hearings-on-redflex-bribery-questions-20130313_1_red-light-camera-contract-million-bribery-scheme-camera-program
Meanwhile, in Fremont, Harrison, Chan and Natarajan all voted to EXTEND their contract with RedFlex for another seven years.
Go figure.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/06/01/fremont-to-keep-red-light-cameras/
March 24th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Jasper – I attempted to responded to your original post in the original thread you posted to but, TCB admin has decided it’s time once again to censor for reasons which are completely arbitrary and unrelated to any issue of morality or decorum – – –
Argus says : Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 23rd, 2013 at 3:45 pm
#3 (Jasper Stein) – Fremont’s continued relationship with RedFlex is curious given the very compelling data that has been presented over and over and over and which makes for a clear case that red light cameras are NOT about safety.
Fremonts staunch allegiance to these gadgets and the company we pay to manage them is even more curious given the obvious “U” turn that other responsible communities are making as their own experiences validate the data that has been staring our City Council members in the face for YEARS.
If that wasn’t enough – some communities are even beginning to question whether or not RedFlex is “.. a fit company to do business here or anywhere else in the country,” – as a result of their business practices.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/news/chi-ald-burke-calls-of-hearings-on-redflex-bribery-questions-20130313_1_red-light-camera-contract-million-bribery-scheme-camera-program
Meanwhile, in Fremont, Harrison, Chan and Natarajan all voted to EXTEND their contract with RedFlex for another seven years. (see article above)
Go figure.
March 25th, 2013 at 7:44 am
Looks like Redflex has met Bob Wieckowski’s bribery threshold. Wieckowski introduced AB666, that will eliminate the court process and put judgement in the hands of companies like Redflex. Also the registered owner would be liable for the fine regardless if they were driving the car, among other mods that make it impossible to contest the ticket.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/03/ab666_red_light_camera_bill.php
I must say, Wieckowski is one of the most criminal politicians this state has ever seen. I am ashamed that this tool came from Fremont.
March 25th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Marty and Bbox ..turning up thee HEEATT..
Maybe we can start burning off some a the crap in our pot that’s fouling up even our best recipes, no matter how much of the good stuff we put in.
#32 Do you mean FINAL judgement Marty? NO local court process? !!
Nice Job guys.
and NOTHING should be censored, except comments that are clearly repetitive and coming from one source.
Once, twice, whatever, but after that you might as well call it spam, because it is.
March 25th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
TONi… Part one, fix youself up a big spamwitch. Part two, demonize a developer…then my brother, all your troubles will be gone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKd1pE4FYeg
March 26th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
For two people who say they don’t work for a machine, they’re awfully synchronized.
And now, about that itemized inventory of $50,000 dollars worth of guns the – F.P.D., the City of Fremont, We, (just Who exactly?)- bought Saturday…
How’s that coming along Chris?