Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California

Retting, Richard A.; Williams, Allan F.; Farmer, Charles M.; Feldman, Amy F.

doi:10.1016/s0001-4575(98)00059-1

Cited by 120 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There also were misperceptions about the safety effects of camera programs. When implementing programs, communities should emphasize the problem of intersection crashes and the demonstrated success of cameras in reducing red light violations and crashes, including fatal crashes (Hu et al, 2011;Retting et al, 1999aRetting et al, , 1999bRetting and Kyrychenko, 2002). Some drivers in the current survey were concerned that rear-end crashes increase with camera enforcement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Red light cameras can supplement traditional methods of enforcement at intersections, where pursuit of violators can endanger motorists and pedestrians as well as officers. Studies have reported reductions in red light violations of 40-96 percent after the introduction of red light cameras (Retting et al, 1999a(Retting et al, , 1999bRetting et al, 2008), and reductions occurred not only at camera-equipped sites but also at signalized intersections without cameras. A study of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California, found a citywide 29 percent reduction in injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals (Retting and Kyrychenko, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attitudes Toward Red Light Camera Enforcement in Cities With Camera Programs

McCartt¹,

Eichelberger²

2012

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To obtain information on attitudes and experiences related to red light camera enforcement in cities with camera programs and in Houston, Texas, where cameras were removed after voters rejected the program in November 2010. Methods:Telephone surveys were conducted with 3,111 drivers in 14 large cities (population greater than 200,000) with long-standing red light camera programs and 300 drivers in Houston, using random samples of landline and cellphone numbers. For analyses combining responses from the 14 cities, cases were weighted to reflect each city's share of the total population for the 14 cities.Results: Among drivers in the 14 cities with red light camera programs, two-thirds favor the use of cameras for red light enforcement, and 42 percent strongly favor it. The chief reasons for opposing cameras were the perceptions that cameras make mistakes and that the motivation for installing them is revenue, not safety. Fortyone percent of drivers favor using cameras to enforce right-turn-on-red violations. Nearly 9 in 10 drivers were aware of the camera enforcement programs in their cities, and 59 percent of these drivers believe the cameras have made intersections safer. Almost half know someone who received a red light camera citation and 17 percent had received at least one ticket themselves. When compared with drivers in the 14 cities with camera programs, the percentage of drivers in Houston who strongly favored enforcement was about the same (45 percent), but strong opposition was higher in Houston than in the other cities (28 percent versus 18 percent). Conclusions:Most drivers in cities with long-standing red light camera programs support cameras and recognize their safety benefits, but communities could do a better job of educating the public about the dangers of right-turn-on-red violations and the need for enforcement. Given that camera opponents frequently said cameras make mistakes, it appears communities also could do a better job of explaining the safeguards that ensure citations are issued only to drivers who clearly run red lights.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes Toward Red Light Camera Enforcement in Cities With Camera Programs

McCartt¹,

Eichelberger²

2012

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies in Oxnard, California, and in Fairfax, Virginia, reported reductions in red light violation rates of about 40% after the introduction of red light cameras [10,11]. In addition to the decrease in red light running at camera-equipped sites, the effect carried over to nearby signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras.…”

Section: Automated Enforcement Does Not Change Driver Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Traffic Enforcement: Responding to the Critics

Farmer¹

2017

JTTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many countries, traffic volumes and the number of drivers are rising faster than the availability of police officers whose routine duties include traffic law enforcement. Automated traffic enforcement, which produces photographic evidence of vehicles detected speeding or running red lights, can be used to supplement traditional enforcement. In the United States and Canada, a number of individuals and organizations have been very vocal in their opposition to automated traffic enforcement. They argue that automated enforcement programs are unnecessary for improving road safety, that they unfairly target relatively good drivers, and that they are motivated by revenue generation rather than safety. These arguments, however, often ignore the numerous peer-reviewed studies that have found real-world benefits in communities that use automated enforcement-cameras deter would-be violators, reduce crashes, and save lives. Solid, published research by a number of experts demonstrates that red light cameras save lives, and speed cameras substantially reduce speeding and speed-related crashes. Surveys of drivers and other road users indicate widespread support for automated enforcement. With regard to fairness, the objective of photo enforcement is to deter violations, not to surreptitiously catch violators. The more public the enforcement is, the better. If anything, automated enforcement programs improve fairness by reducing the potential for prejudicial enforcement. Finally, photo enforcement is intended to improve traffic safety by modifying the driver behaviors that lead to crashes, and it is reasonable to expect that people who break the law should pay for enforcing it. Ticket revenue should decline overtime as the cameras succeed in deterring would-be speeders and red light runners. This paper provides research-based responses to the critics' arguments as well as best practice guidelines for effective automated enforcement programs.

show abstract

“…In another study based upon the Oxnard evaluation, Retting, Williams, Farmer, and Feldman (1999) conducted public opinion surveys at various intervals throughout the study's duration. The initial survey was administered approximately six weeks prior to the installation of photo enforcement, another approximately six weeks after installation, and a third survey was conducted approximately six months following the start of the red light running campaign.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Safety Enforcement on Changing Driver Behavior - Runs on Red (1 of 2 Volumes)

Tarko¹,

Reddy²

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. AbstractRed light running (RLR) is a dangerous act. Approximately 22% of urban crashes at signalized intersections are caused nationwide by RLR. Nearly 1,036 deaths were caused nationwide by RLR in the year 2000. Indiana had no previous research conducted in this area; therefore, this research was aimed at estimating the RLR problem in Indiana. The other objectives of this research included: learning drivers' opinions on the problem, studying the effectiveness of selected countermeasures, and studying the legal issues related to photo-enforcement.A crash statistics study, telephone survey, and extended monitoring of a selected intersection were the three major approaches chosen to estimate the magnitude of the problem. The crash statistics for the 1997-1999 period showed that 22% of signalized intersection crashes were caused in Indiana by RLR. RLR preceded 50% of fatal crashes at these intersections. The telephone survey showed that 67% of Indiana drivers felt that RLR was a problem in the state. Twelve percent of them claimed to have been involved in a RLR crash. The extended monitoring of the through movements at the study intersection also recorded a considerable violation rate. These results indicate that RLR may be considered a problem in Indiana.Traffic at a selected intersection in West Lafayette, Indiana, was videotaped and the video material was used to detect the red light violations. The expected number of drivers arriving at the start of the red signal has been proposed as a true measure of exposure to RLR. We call it an opportunity for RLR. This exposure was used to estimate the RLR rate. The statistical significance of the difference in the RLR rates between different periods was estimated using binomial distribution.Police enforcement was evaluated and found to reduce the violation rate by approximately 75% in the week immediately after the enforcement. A reduction of 37% was observed after another two weeks. The photo-enforcement reduced the violation rate by 62% during the week of enforcement and by 35% during the week immediately following. Young people violated red lights more frequently than other drivers.The legal issues that related to RLR and photo-enforcement were studied. The present state law in Indiana does not support the use of photo-enforcement. . Key Wordsred light running, enforcement, safety, driver behavior.

show abstract

Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California

Cited by 120 publications

References 1 publication

Attitudes Toward Red Light Camera Enforcement in Cities With Camera Programs

Attitudes Toward Red Light Camera Enforcement in Cities With Camera Programs

Automated Traffic Enforcement: Responding to the Critics

Evaluation of Safety Enforcement on Changing Driver Behavior - Runs on Red (1 of 2 Volumes)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About