Email Address
Site Index by Subject

If you haven't already done so, please read Section 3 on the Action page

Industry / Police PR

Crash Photos

Examining Widely-Published Crash Photos

New 11-6-05, more added 8-29-07, 8-3-09, 12-11-09

I have attended over 1000 red light camera ticket trials, and have noticed that the average Late Time on a through (not turning) violation is about 0.4 seconds, with many tickets issued for violations of 0.1 second.  Yet, the crash photos released by the Industry nearly always depict violations that are many seconds longer - unintentional running that is little reduced by the presence of cameras. 
Or, the Industry photos depict crashes where, after a little examination by the reader, it is clear that the running of a red light is not the primary cause. 
I recently did a Google photo search (images.google.com) for "red light camera" and "photo enforcement" and came up with the following.

Photo # 1


Source:  October 2002 issue of ITS International (itsinternational.com)

The photo above has been widely circulated.  It is from Ventura, California (Southbound Mills at Dean), and shows an imminent accident.  Someone quickly reviewing the photo might assume it was caused entirely by the white car.  However, if we look at the small white numbers in the black strip above the image, we can see that the Late Time, the amount of time that the white car's signal had been red, was 0.3 seconds ("TR 0.3"), and that the white car was in Lane 1.  (For more info on how to read Late times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.)  That short Late Time raises the question of how the green car got so far into the intersection so quickly after the onset of his green.  Did he jump the green?
Furthermore, the speed of the white car is indicated as being 51 MPH ("VS 051 MPH") - so in 0.3 second it would cover 22 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal turned red, it would have been 22 feet or less behind the position depicted, probably with its nose well past the limit line - not a violation.
I suggest that responsibility for the accident is shared by:
1.  The City, which presumably knew that the intersection was problematic (that's supposedly why they put the camera there), and should have had an "all red" interval of at least 0.5 second programmed in the signal, and
2.  The driver of the green car, who apparently jumped his green light at high speed (note his skid marks).
On a couple occasions in the past, I have asked the Ventura PD about this photo.  So far, no additional information has been provided.  Maybe, now that I am publishing it with my interpretation, they will respond with their own interpretation.


Photo # 2


Source:  Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2004, Page B2 (washingtonpost.com)

The photo above, from Duke and Walker streets in Alexandria, Virginia, shows an imminent accident (unless everyone is very lucky).  However, it should be noted that the Late Time was 8.1 seconds ("R081"), and that the limit lines have been worn away to the point where they could easily be overlooked, and that the signal lights are on the far side of the intersection..

 
Photo # 3


Source:  www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm

The photo above is from Mesa, Arizona.  It should be noted that the Late Time was 33.4 seconds ("R334").
The next photo, below, is from the same intersection.


Photo # 4


Source:  www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm

This photo above is also from Mesa, the same intersection, one week later.  Note that the Late Time was 45.2 seconds ("R452").  If drivers are totally failing to notice that the light is red, maybe the City needs to put up bigger lights, or more of them.  These pictures were taken in 1997.  It would be interesting to inquire as to what improvements the City has made to the intersection in the years since then.


Photos # 5(a) - (c)






Source:  http://www.mesaaz.gov/POLICE/photo-enforcement/photos.aspx

The three photos above are from a Aug. 17, 2006 crash in Mesa, Arizona and have been used extensively as a red light camera sales tool in other states.  The MPD did not provide a caption or other information about the accident depicted.
Someone quickly reviewing the photos could assume that the red SUV caused the accident, but it's not that simple. 
If we look at the small white numbers in the black strip above the first photo, we can see that the Late Time, the amount of time that the SUV's signal had been red, was 0.2 second ("RTIME 0.2").  (For more info on how to read Late Times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.)  The SUV's speed is indicated as 30 MPH, so in 0.2 sec. it would cover 9 feet.  Thus, at the instant the signal turned red, the SUV was 9 feet or less behind the position depicted in the first photo, which would mean that its front bumper (and probably much more) would be past the first line of the cross walk.  In California and many other states, that would not be a violation.  But in Arizona - it is a violation! 
Why?
Arizona law says:
"...vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection..."
and then goes on to define "intersection" as:
"...the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines...."
So, in Arizona you have to get the front of your car past the "prolongation" - the thinnest white line (I've added a yellow arrow in the second photo above) - before the light goes red, or it is a violation.  And, since you are expected to actually make your stop before the crosswalk (so that you're not blocking pedestrians), the net effect is that you will have 12 - 15 feet less room (crosswalks are 10 -12 feet wide) to stop in Arizona than at a California intersection having the same length of yellow.  That's equivalent to having a yellow that is 0.3 second shorter.

So who is responsible for this accident?

First we look at the sedan's actions.  In the first photo, the light has been red for only 0.2 sec., but the front of the sedan is already well into the SUV's lane. To get there, the sedan traveled about 20 feet beyond its "safe" zone.  If we guess that the sedan moved at an averge of 10 MPH ( = 15 ft./sec.) up to that point, it would have taken 1.3 sec. to move that distance.  Thus, the sedan began its turn approx. 1.1 second before the light turned red.

Next we look at the SUV's actions.  The first picture shows what appears to be a clear violation - the SUV is not yet past the limit line, and is facing a light that had been red for 0.2 second.  But the SUV was braking hard at the time the first photo was taken, in response to the sedan having begun its turn some 1.1 secs. or more before.  (The skid marks are visible in the second photo.)  It's arguable that if the SUV had not been forced to brake, it would have made it to the limit line 0.2 sec. or more sooner, before the light went red.   

I suggest that responsibility for this accident is shared by:
1.  The City, which presumably knew that the unprotected (no arrow) left turning at the intersection was unsafe (they should have installed an arrow, but chose to put in a camera instead), and
2.  The driver of the sedan, who carelessly began his left turn without checking to make sure that opposing traffic - which was not facing a red light at the time he began his turn - would clear the intersection.
 
Arizona's unusual Limit Line location seems to be a trap for visitors from out-of-state - and maybe even some Arizona residents.  (See a further example, in Photos # 6, below.)  In Oct. 2007, I asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) whether there was an effort being made to mandate a nationwide standard for the location of Limit Lines.  They said "no" - that that the Federal government cannot dictate the states' traffic laws*.  They referred me to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, which publishes a voluntary nationwide standard called the Uniform Vehicle Code.   The UVC says:
"Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection..."

*In Nov. 2009 an Arizona resident got the FHWA to rule that these unusual Limit Lines are "non-compliant," but then lost at court when she tried to use the non-compliance as a defense.


Photos # 6(a) - (b)


Source:  Peoria AZ Police Department, Sept. 2008

The photo above is from another "That woulda been legal in California" accident from Arizona.  (See also Photos # 5, above.)  Well OK, it "woulda been legal" here in CA before the ban on hand-held cellphones.  If you play the video a frame at a time,  the you can see that the eastbound SUV was past the first white line before the light turned red.  The actual Limit Line is not visible in the video - in Peoria, it is marked using red "Thermo" tape, and I was told that at this intersection the tape is just beyond the third white line.  It may be the dark area in the video.  Below is an aerial view of the intersection, with yellow lines added to indicate the two possible Limit Line locations - both of which are two car lengths beyond the Stop Line.

I suggest that responsibility for this accident is shared by:
1.  The City, which presumably knew that the unprotected (no arrow) left turning at the intersection was unsafe (they should have installed an arrow, but chose to put in a camera instead), and
2.  The driver of the pickup, who carelessly began his left turn 1.5 secs. before the light turned red and without checking to make sure that opposing traffic - which was not facing a red light at the time he began his turn - would clear the intersection.

 



Photos # 7(a) - (b)

         
Source:  www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm

The photos (above) are from the UK.  The caption for the photos said:
"The first image was taken at 4.5 seconds [Late Time]after the lights turned to red, the second was taken at 5.5 seconds."


Photos # 8(a) - (b)

          
Source:  www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm

The photos (above) are also from the UK.  The caption said:
"The built up traffic suggests that the light has been red for some time and the pedestrian has already crossed half of the road."
However, the caption did not reveal the actual Late Time, and it is hard to read it in the photos.  But, since the cumulative Late Time in the second photo is 10+ seconds ("R10x"), the Late Time in the first photo must be 9+ seconds.


Photos # 9(a) - (b)




Source:  http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,547893,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|31885|.asp

The photos above are from the website of the Washington, DC police department, which added the arrow pointing to the red light.  The caption said:
"These photos were taken recently [June 2000] by the photo enforcement camera at the corner of New York and New Jersey Avenues, NW. They show just how dangerous it is to run red lights for both the offending driver as well as other motorists and pedestrians."
Note that the late time was 9.2 seconds, and that the location has three limit lines in quick succession as well as a lot of signage, which could confuse drivers.  If this location is experiencing a lot of accidents, perhaps the design and marking of the intersection is a contributing factor.


Photos # 10 &  11

 
Source:  http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/images/rlc_1.jpg and http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/images/rlc_2.jpg

The photos above are from the website of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  The IIHS did not provide a caption.
Note that the late times were 6+ and 7+ seconds.



Photos # 12 (a) - (g)

In Aug. 2009 ATS (American Traffic Solutions) published a video "Montage" of seven crashes as part of the annual National Stop on Red Week promotion.

 

(a)  Motorcycle rider missed red by 4 secs. or more.  Probably due to inattention or impairment; not on purpose.  Cameras will not stop such accidents.

(b)  Signals located right after cars emerge from dark underpasses are known hazards and a popular site for red light cameras.  The local traffic engineers need to put in larger diameter signal lights and improve/better maintain the pavement markings.  Cameras can't stop the running.

 (c)  Signal was red 3 secs. or more, so running probably was due to inattention or impairment.  Improve pavement markings and visiblity of the signals.  Arrest impaired drivers.  Cameras can not stop such accidents.

   

(d) & (e)  The drivers made a left turn without checking for oncoming traffic.  Since the same accident is happening repeatedly at the same intersection, maybe it is time for the traffic engineers to install a left turn arrow for the cross traffic.   Cameras cannot stop such accidents.

(f) This crash was probably due to confusion - traffic cones, rainy day.  Some accidents just happen; cameras can't stop them.  And it can be argued that the initial flash of the camera may have added to the driver’s confusion/distraction.

(g)  We can't see the light the white truck was facing, so there is no evidence that he had a red light, or for how long.  He probably is an older driver or one with poor night vision, or otherwise impaired, and even if his signal had been green would have been just as likely to hit the poorly marked traffic island and (overly sturdy) pole.  As in (f) above, the initial flash of the camera may have been a contributing factor.  Proper marking of the "nose" of the island, and pole, is needed. 

 
Overall, ATS' video collection fails to support the use of red light cameras.  The collection actually says: 

"Look at all the accidents our cameras didn't prevent."

Intererestingly, none of the seven accidents was a right turn accident. You'd think that to justify the company's heavy emphasis on right turn enforcement, ATS would have provided footage of a few right turn accidents. 

Despite the fact that the majority of tickets issued nationwide are for a Late Time of less than 1/2 sec., all of the accidents depicted showed cars that were obviously multiple seconds late.  Where's the videos justifying the numerous 1/10th, 2/10th and 3/10th Late Time tickets?

Photos # 13 (a) - (c)

These photos are from the three videos displayed on the City of Glendale red light camera web site in late 2009.

(a)  This is southbound Glendale Ave. at Broadway, in Glendale, California.   The video's title ("A Big Truck at 55 mph") suggests that the truck was doing 55 MPH ( = 81 ft./sec.).  The still image above is the first frame where the light was red. 
The truck, which is just entering the frame, looks to be 60 feet from the limit line.  Per the signal timing chart provided on the City's red light camera website, the yellow for Glendale Avenue is 3.6 secs. long.  (Interestingly, the yellow for Broadway is 3.9 secs.)  3.6 secs is the minimum yellow in a 35 zone.  But  from this video, and from the very high speed in the other nighttime video below, it appears that this wide boulvard is allowed to operate at higher speeds at night.  Were the yellow to be set at 4.3 secs., which is the minimum length required in a 45 zone, this truck would not have violated the red.
Further, this wide intersection needs to have signal lights positioned on the "near side."

(b)  This is eastbound Colorado Blvd. at Pacific Avenue.  The video's title ("A 68 mph violation") suggests that the car was doing 68 MPH ( = 100 ft./sec.).  The still image above is the frame where the light was changing from green to yellow - the yellow is strongly lit, and the green is just a pinpoint of light.
The eastbound violator's car has not yet entered the frame.  Per the City's chart, the yellows in all four directions are 3.9 seconds.  (Unlike Glendale/Broadway, above.) 
In the image above, the light will not be red for another 3.9 seconds but the left-turning truck has already begun his (unprotected) left turn.  The truck driver probably underestimated the speed of the oncoming car - or failed to see it coming.

A longer yellow, or a red light camera, might have kept the car from violating the red, but it would not necessarily have prevented the (near-) accident.  An accident like this could happen any time during the signal cycle.  All that is required is for someone to carelessly begin a left turn without checking oncoming traffic.

 
(c) This is eastbound Colorado/Pacific again.  The video can be viewed at "A Near Collision."
The still frame above was grabbed at the instant the light was changing from yellow to red - as a result, neither the red light nor the yellow light is visible.
The front of the taxi is already well into the sports car's lane. To get there, the taxi traveled about 20 feet beyond its "safe" zone.  If we guess that the taxi moved at an averge of 10 MPH ( = 15 ft./sec.) up to that point, it would have taken 1.3 sec. to move that distance.  Thus, the taxi began its turn at approx. 1.3 second before the light turned red, and with oncoming traffic clearly visible.

As with (b) above, a longer yellow might have kept the sports car from violating the red, but it would not have prevented the (near-) accident.  An accident like this could happen any time during the signal cycle.  All that is required is for someone to carelessly begin a left turn without checking oncoming traffic.

Near-accidents (b) and (c) show that the City needs to protect left-turners by installing a left-arrow.
Further, this wide intersection needs to have signal lights positioned on the "near side."