Paul Henry DHSMV 2013 RLC Report Analysis

Paul Henry's Analysis of the 2013 DHSMV “Red Light Camera Summary Report”


PrefaceThe author is a retired Florida law enforcement officer with many years of traffic enforcement, crash investigation, and fatal crash (traffic homicide) investigation experience as well as supervisory experience. He has spent nearly three years researching the use of red light cameras in Florida and elsewhere using government reports and records. Based upon this research, certain terms and abbreviations are used throughout this analysis:

Camera scheme: A scheme as used herein is defined by Webster as “A plan or program of action; especially : a crafty or secret one.” Due to numerous factors involving unethical, illegal, and otherwiseimproper conduct by those involved in the program, the author refers to the red light camera program inFlorida as the camera scheme.

RLC= Red light camera

RLV= Red light violation, i.e. running a red light.

How to use this analysisThe state report is broken down into a cover and six (6) pages for a total of seven (7) pages. An executive summary contains summarized information from the detailed analysis. Each state report pageis referenced here by the page number and the heading of the report. Any errors, factual data, or other items of concern are noted.

The 2013 state report as downloaded on January 10, 2014 is attached at the end of this analysis for reference.

The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.

of 11


Executive SummaryAs with the state report last year, there are a number of serious concerns with the 2013 version or identified by it.

1. The report lacks a proper title based upon it's lack of information. It should be titled a report of a voluntary undocumented survey. Similar reports in other states are in-depth and lengthy, and offer accountability via independent verification of claims.

2. The report was published December 17, 2013 and revised January 8, 2014 and not made available to the public until January 10. In between December 17 and January 10, camera vendor ATS published a media release on January 3 that indicated they had a copy of the report.This gives the perception that a camera vendor that reaps millions of dollars from the camera scheme had input in the revision.

3. The camera vendor is not authorized in the law to receive a copy of the report. Only certain state officials and the public (via the public records law) are authorized.

4. The report's required data is excessively vague, and there exists no documentation to independently verify any of the claims made by local entities. The DHSMV has excessive discretion on required data.

5. The data was collected via an online survey, which yields no accountability or documentation upon individual participants, as they could make up and submit any numbers they pleased. Thispoint alone is enough to invalidate the entire report.

6. Once again, red light violation (RLV) crashes are not considered in any analysis, while “side-impact” crashes that are usually caused by failure to yield are considered. All Florida crash reports are coded for cause, so it is simple to include the proper data.

7. The report includes a new item entitled “Camera footage used to investigate other crimes.” There is no statutory authorization for this in the report, and the inclusion of it appears to be solely to bolster public opinion of the camera scheme.

8. There were 4 local entities that willfully refused to participate in any data reporting. The report does not indicate if any legal action was taken against them for violating Florida law.

9. For the 75 local entities that did respond, none are identified and no data is attributable to them individually.

10. Inconsistent time frames were used for Notice of Violation (NOV) ticket and Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) ticket data that was related to the NOV tickets. This made any comparison between the two impossible.

of 11


11. Using the supplied NOV ticket numbers and cross-referencing them to the Dept. of Revenue report for the identical time frame, there exists a $26 million discrepancy. A $30 million discrepancy was identified after last year's analysis.

12. The report indicates 25 percent of local entities failed to provide any crash data (the actual number is far higher as determined later in the report). This is a significant amount of missing data and would skew any results. This point alone is enough to invalidate the entire report.

13. The report documents local entities all use traffic volume for locating cameras, and only 61 percent use crash data as a primary factor. This is counter-productive for safety, yet productive for revenue.

14. Local entities that failed to submit specific crash data increased from last year, where the range was 19 to 30 percent. This year it is 25 to 41 percent. These numbers when averaged are higher than the 25 percent reported earlier in the report.

15. The report documents what it calls “self-reported trends” that allow free-reign reporting of any number by local entities.

16. The report failed to account for different crash reporting procedures that affected 2012 crash data, even though this factor was known to the DHSMV prior to the earlier release of their 2012“Traffic Crash Facts” publication.

17. Improvements to intersections such as lighting and engineering are wrongly attributed to the camera scheme. These type of improvements are a normal function of local entities and have taken place for years prior to the camera scheme

18. Unqualified personnel are still issuing both NOV and UTC tickets.

19. Right on red enforcement remains inconsistent throughout the state.

20. Use of the camera scheme for criminal investigations is not specified in s. 316.0083, which limits their use to violations of s. 316.075, the red light law.

of 11


Page-by-page analysis of report downloaded on January 10, 2014:Cover-The title has changed from an “analysis” in 2012 to a “summary report” in 2013. While the title is moreindicative of the lack of proper analysis, it should be titled a report of a voluntary undocumented survey, as this more accurately reflects what took place. The author has found that in other states using a camera scheme, reports are far more in-depth and offer accountability via the ability to independently verify claims made. For example, in Virginia in 2007, the report was 149 pages long and documented an increase in crashes after use of a camera scheme as well as listing actual numbers and types of crashes from the several local users of the scheme.

Researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) in 2008 (which was updated in 2013) analyzed five RLC studies and found numerous deficiencies in them. One glaring omission was an increase in fatal RLV crashes at camera locations. A common document utilized by pro-scheme personnel is an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study. This study has been discredited by the USF researchers via logical analysis and use of improper methods, yet it continues to be accepted much like this state-level “analysis” has been despite the numerous issues discovered last year. The author expectsthe 2013 report will likewise be accepted by many in the media that lack the ability to critically think and investigate claims from camera vendors and/or local officials.

The report was shown as being completed December 17, 2013, and revised January 8, 2014. During thefirst week of January 2014, the author and others attempted to locate and download the report after a January 3, 2014 ATS media release citing numbers from the report. We were unable to do so. It was released to the public on January 10, 2014. What revisions were made from December 17 to January 8, and what influence did ATS have upon them?

Page 2-INTRODUCTIONLocal camera scheme users are required by law (s. 316.0083(4)(a)) to do the following (emphasis added):(4)(a) Each county or municipality that operates a traffic infraction detector shall submit a report by October 1, 2012, and annually thereafter, to the department which details the results of using the traffic infraction detector and the procedures for enforcement for the preceding state fiscal year. The information submitted by the counties and municipalities must include statistical data and information required by the department to complete the report required under paragraph (b).

The state is required to do the following under s. 316.0083(4)(b):(b) On or before December 31, 2012, and annually thereafter, the department shall provide a summary report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives regarding the use and operation of traffic infraction detectors under this section, along with the department’s recommendations and any necessary legislation. The summary reportmust include a review of the information submitted to the department by the counties and municipalities and must describe the enhancement of the traffic safety and enforcement programs.

Note that the state is not required to provide this summary report to a camera vendor, yet a vendor

of 11


received the report prior to the public being able to access it.

The law is excessively vague as it does not specify what “information” is to be submitted- the DHSMVhas excessive discretion here, and there is no documentation to independently verify claims made by local entities. While recording red light violation (RLV) crash data would seem to be a natural thing to do for a red light camera enforcement scheme, the state does not require local users to submit this information. An online survey is not conducive to preparing an accountable report where each user can be identified and their performance analyzed. In summary, the method used by the state allows for no local user accountability.

METHODOLOGYAn online survey was the means to collect required information. This allows local users to make up anynumbers they wish and offers no accountability.

The crash comparison section omits any RLV crashes and only collects data for total crashes, side-impact crashes, and rear-end crashes. Again, this is a basic item to utilize for a scheme that is only in place to enforce one law- that of red light violations. This methodology results in what is commonly known as an apples to oranges (or unequal) comparison.

For example, if the devices were installed to measure air pollution, this would be similar to measuring how much sunlight was present each day vs measuring the actual air. Other factors, such as clouds, could distort the data. Similarly, the use of “side-impact” crashes instead of RLV crashes is an inaccurate means to determine scheme effectiveness. In the author's experience, side-impact crashes aremost commonly caused by failure to yield, a conclusion supported by the DHSMV's publication Florida Traffic Crash Facts.

“Angle” and “side-impact” crashes are not primarily caused by a RLV, yet this is the terminology used in analysis reports such as this one- which improperly leads readers to believe they are reducing RLV crashes. In 2010, there were 227 fatal crashes caused by failure to yield. Most if not all of these would be considered a side-impact crash, as failing to yield takes place when a vehicle turns or enters into the path of oncoming traffic. In comparison, there were 53 fatal RLV crashes. There were a minimum of 649 fatal crashes involving either an angle impact or left turn (the actual total cannot be determined dueto a crash report change partway through the year that no longer identified angle or left turn crashes).

Since every Florida traffic crash report is coded for cause, it is a simple matter to identify those caused by a RLV and tabulate them. This data is available to local entities that utilize their own police force to write crash reports, and it is also available via the DHSMV and the DOT. It is a deceptive practice for local entities to fail to disclose this data and for the state to fail to require it.

A new category this year is “Camera footage used to investigate other crimes.” There is simply no statutory authorization for this to be included in a traffic safety program. The applicable law (s. 316.0083(4)(b)) reads that the state report is required “regarding the use and operation of traffic infraction detectors under this section...” That section is the enforcement of red light violations as identified in s. 316.075. The camera scheme law does not enforce any other infraction or crime- and in fact the cameras are not called cameras in the law. They are called traffic infraction detectors, so the

of 11


state's intent was not for use in detecting crime (an infraction under Florida law in Chapter 316 is non-criminal). This gives the impression of a “reaching for straws” method for justifying the camera scheme and validates claims of an invasion of privacy that is enjoyed by all Floridians as specified in Article 1 Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. While there is no right to privacy in a public area, the fact video data from those vehicles not violating the red light law is collected and stored allows the government to track innocent vehicle owners.

Page 3-DISCUSSIONThe report documents the willful refusal of four local entities to remit required data, and lists these entities by name, yet fails to indicate what if any punishment was imposed upon them for violating Florida law. The report states there were 75 local entities that responded, but does not name them or provide any data for them that could be independently verified.

The report uses inconsistent time frames for ticket comparison. Notice of violation (NOV) tickets are referenced for fiscal year (FY) 2013, which is July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Uniform traffic citations (UTC) for failure to pay NOV tickets are referenced for calendar year 2012, so no direct comparison can be made using the two.

The report identified 1,069,821 NOV tickets issued due to the camera scheme for FY 2013 that were not dismissed. At $83 each, this would amount to $88,795,143 or $88.7 million for the state, as the $83 is the gross amount sent to the state before it is split into several funds. The Dept. of Revenue for FY 2013 recorded $62 million for the state's gross portion from the scheme, a difference of $26 million. In FY 2012, the discrepancy was $30 million. It appears either theft of funds is taking place of the numberof NOV tickets issued is being falsified. A written request to investigate this discrepancy for FY 2012 was rejected by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Governor Rick Scott.

Page 4-DISCUSSION (continued)Intersection SelectionA side note indicates 25 percent of respondents indicated crash data was unavailable. A data shortage ofthis amount significantly undermines the integrity of any conclusions that could be made based upon crash data. As noted later in the number of responses, the lack of crash data far exceeded 25 percent.

Only 61 percent of respondents considered crash data as the most important factor for placing a camera. The 2012 report indicated 56 percent of the entities used crash data as a primary factor in deciding where to place the devices, so while there has been a slight improvement, this remains inconsistent with a device whose purpose is that of safety. The report stated all local users consider traffic volume for camera placement. In the author's research involving camera placement, he has identified several locations where lower RLV crash but high traffic volume intersections have received a camera while high RLV crash and lower traffic volume intersections did not receive one. For example, SR 70 and Tara Bv. In Manatee County only experienced 6 RLV crashes from 2005-2011 (7 years) prior to camera installation in 2013. Yet the intersection at SR 70 and Braden Run on the other side of Interstate 75 with far lower traffic volume experienced 15 RLV crashes for this same time frame

of 11


did not get a camera. Placement based upon traffic volume instead of RLV crash history is indicative ofa concern for revenue and not safety, and is a conclusion noted in this year's state report.

Effect on SafetyThe main area here is that of crash data, so this proves the 61 percent crash data for placement figure above is lower than it should be if safety is the true goal of the camera scheme.

As with the 2012 report, a significant number of local entities failed to submit any crash data. The report shows only 44 of 75 respondents reported side-impact or rear-end crash data, and only 56 reported total crash data. For 2012, this failure to report crash data ranged from 19 to 30 percent. For 2013, this range has increased to 25 to 41 percent. This also conflicts with the side note on Page 4 that claims 25 percent of entities reported crash data was unavailable.

This information gives the impression crash data is being covered up via non-disclosure, and the trend of less crash data when more is needed is disturbing.

In the paragraph under the partially-reported data, the report states the DHSMV has crash data from crash reports, but it cannot break this out as to intersections using the camera scheme. This is a key finding, as it proves there is not any useful data that could have been reported. To perform a proper analysis based upon crashes, a researcher would need to compare at the very minimum equal periods oftime for before and after the use of the scheme at a particular intersection. A more accurate overall analysis would include both camera scheme and non-scheme intersections. See the length and composition of the 2007 Virginia report referenced earlier.

The report then states here “The chart above reflects self-reported trends.” Since there is no means to independently verify any of this data, it is a free pass for local entities to report anything they wish.

The report fails to account for a different crash reporting process that affected 2012 crash data- and caused generally higher numbers. This disclaimer was present on the 2012 DHSMV publication “Traffic Crash Facts”, so it was known or should have been known to the report’s author(s). The disclaimer was worded as follows:Please note while reviewing the 2012 Crash Facts Annual Report, effective 7/1/2012 Florida Statute 316.066 was amended by the Florida Legislature to require all law enforcement agencies to report additional crashes to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles which the agencies were not previously required to submit. This statutory change has resulted in more crash reports being received at the state level for inclusion in this publication. These changes include the following additional requirements:

• Any complaint of pain or discomfort experience by any persons involved• All commercial motor vehicle crashes without regard to any other statutory requirement• A vehicle was rendered inoperable to a degree that required a wrecker to remove it from the

scene of the crash

of 11


Page 5-Effect on Safety (continued)The report states “Some jurisdictions have made improvements to lighting, traffic sign visibility, striping, and engineering as a result of their red light camera programs.” This is not explained as to howthis activity relates to use of the camera scheme, as these changes are normal activity in all locations and have been for many years, to include time well before the camera scheme. As with the use of the cameras for criminal activity, this appears to be included to bolster public opinion of the camera scheme.

PersonnelAs with the 2012 report, only qualified people can issue a NOV ticket, and unqualified people are still issuing tickets, both NOV and UTC. For the NOV tickets, 3 percent of were shown as issued by “other” with no indication that this was a person qualified to do so. In F.S. 316.0083(1)(a), only certain people may issue the NOV ticket. This includes a “traffic infraction enforcement officer” as defined in F.S 316.640. In F.S. 316.640(1)(b)3., this person as a DHSMV employee is defined for requirements: “A traffic infraction enforcement officer must successfully complete instruction in traffic enforcement procedures and court presentation through the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program as approved by the Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training of the Departmentof Law Enforcement, or through a similar program”

In subsection (5)(a), the same standard is imposed upon county and city entities. This subsection also requires “The traffic infraction enforcement officers must be physically located in the county of therespective sheriff’s or police department. “

The report states 12 percent of UTC tickets were issued by someone other than a sworn officer or non-sworn government employee. In F.S. 316.640, issuance of the Florida UTC is limited to the following persons (summarized due to length):Sworn law enforcement officers, parking enforcement specialists, traffic accident investigation officers,toll enforcement officers, and the aforementioned traffic infraction enforcement officers.

As such, each of these NOV and UTC tickets were issued in violation of Florida law, but as was the situation with the failure to report crash data no sanctions are shown as being imposed upon these violators.

Right Turn on RedOut of the 75 respondents, only 15 (or 20 percent) identified having a policy for right on red enforcement. One purpose of state uniform traffic control was to eliminate different treatment in various areas of the state. For example, a motorist in Key West should expect the traffic control and enforcement to be the same as in Pensacola. By utilizing significantly different enforcement for right on red, this creates a situation where the same conduct would result in a ticket in one city and no action in another, despite both using the camera scheme.

of 11


Page 6-Other Use of Red Light Camera ImagesThe report documents that 66 of the 75 or 88 percent of the respondents utilize the camera scheme for criminal investigations. While the report states “Florida law does not address the use of red light camera images for other purposes...”, the law authorizing the camera scheme is very clear on this point (see METHODOLOGY above) in that the data is to be that authorized by that section of law- red lightviolations. It is the author's opinion that most citizens are unaware of the constant video monitoring in use by the camera scheme, and instead think it is only operational upon a “violation.”

The report correctly notes there is no limit on the length of time images may be retained. One point of opposition to the camera scheme is one of privacy. In the Florida Constitution, Article 1 Section 23 gives all Floridians a right to privacy that is spelled out as follows:Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein.

The constant monitoring of all traffic and persons, to include those that have not violated FS 316.075 (the red light law the cameras were installed to enforce) creates a tremendous amount of tracking information that is ripe for abuse. For example, a vehicle owner that fell into disfavor with their local government could have their movements tracked without their knowledge and without cause.

CONCLUSIONSThe report states that at least one-fourth (or 25 percent) of local entities are not tracking crash data at camera scheme intersections and 15 percent are not tracking overall crash data. As the report noted earlier, there were a total of 75 respondents, of which only 44 supplied either side-impact or rear-end crash data. 44 as a percent of 75 is 58.6 percent. This means 41.4 percent failed to report this data, not one-fourth or 25 percent. As to overall crashes, the report shows 56 of the 75 respondents supplied this data. 56 as a percentage of 75 is 74.6. This means 25.4 percent failed to report this data, not 15 percent.

The report talks about DHSMV crash data showing an increase, yet there is no mention of the change to the law that affected the 2012 crash data. This change was highlighted in the 2012 DHSMV publication “Traffic Crash Facts”, so the DHSMV knew or should have known about this increase and explained it in the report.

The report documents a concern mentioned above: “Some agencies indicated that traffic volume at an intersection is a primary factor in the decision to install a red light camera.” Traffic volume is necessaryto achieve a profit at an intersection. The author has documented several locations using the camera scheme where this has taken place. The report also documents concerns over privacy for the voluminous data collected from non-violators that could be used at a later time. Legislation should address these concerns.

of 11


About the author-Paul Henry served as a Florida Deputy Sheriff and State Trooper for over 25 years. During his employment with the Florida Highway Patrol, he investigated numerous traffic crashes and worked as atraffic homicide investigator. He later promoted to the rank of Sergeant and supervised traffic homicide investigators and at the same time a squad of troopers. His final five years with the FHP prior to retirement were in the Bureau of Investigations at the rank of Lieutenant, where in 2003 he located one of Florida's most wanted fugitives that had been involved in the 1976 murder of a Florida Trooper and a Canadian Constable riding with the Trooper.

After retirement from law enforcement, Paul currently lobbies for pro-liberty political issues in the Tallahassee area, to include the repeal of driver license (REAL ID) and red light camera laws. He was the author of the Florida Motorist Rights Restoration Act, which if enacted would have affected how red light camera cases were handled in court. He has researched the use of red light cameras in Florida since 2011 and performed numerous analysis work based upon crash data, operational, legal, and other concerns. He has spoken to citizen groups and elected officials on the issue, and was instrumental in getting Collier County, Florida to reconsider their use of the camera scheme and ultimately discontinue it. He has authored a web page entitled “Red Light Camera Reference Page” that contains his analysis work and other relevant information. Paul is an advocate of constitutional law enforcement. He does not advocate running red lights and has never been ticketed by a red light camera.

of 11

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

RED LIGHT

CAMERA

SUMMARY REPORT

December 17, 2013

(Revised January 8, 2014)

Red Light Camera Summary Report 2 December 17, 2013 (rev. January 8, 2014)

INTRODUCTION Section 316.0083(4)(b), Florida Statutes, directs the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to provide a summary report on the use of traffic infraction enforcement detectors (red light cameras).

METHODOLOGY The Department created an on-line survey to gather data for this report from local agencies responsible for the administration of red light camera programs. The survey consisted of 11 multiple choice and 17 free form questions related to activities from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. The Department contacted 79 counties and municipalities (jurisdictions) with active red light camera programs. These jurisdictions were identified from uniform traffic citation data and red light camera monies remitted to the Department of Revenue. In addition, the Florida Sheriff’s Association, the Florida Police Chiefs Association and red light camera vendors distributed the survey information to their members. The information requested specific to red light camera implementation and program operations included:

Number of approaches to intersections utilizing red light cameras

Number of Notices of Violation issued

Number of Notices of Violation contested

Number of Notices of Violation dismissed after contested

Percentage of Notices of Violation issued to a single license plate

Rating factors used to select red light camera locations

Comparison of intersection data before and after red light camera installation for: Total crashes Side-impact crashes Rear-end crashes

Personnel responsible for Notices of Violation

Personnel responsible for reviewing Notices of Violation contested

Personnel responsible for issuing Uniform Traffic Citations

Policies regarding enforcement of red light violations while making right-hand-turns

Definition of “careful and prudent manner”

Camera footage usage to investigate other crimes

Consideration of repealing the red light camera ordinance


DISCUSSION In total, 75 agencies (respondents) responded to the online survey in accordance with reporting requirements set forth in Florida Statutes. Representatives of Campbellton, Florida City, Hialeah Gardens, and Opa-Locka were contacted but did not complete the survey. Last year, 73 agencies responded to the survey. As of June 30, 2013, red light cameras were installed at 922 approaches to intersections. Notices of Violation and Uniform Traffic Citations

During the reporting period, 1,094,106 Notices of Violation were issued, with 36,063 (three percent) contested by the vehicle owner. Upon review, 24,285 (67 percent) of the violations contested were dismissed by the issuing agency. Five percent of the Notices of Violation were issued to repeat offenders. In calendar year 2012, 342,308 uniform traffic citations were issued to owners who failed to pay the red light camera fine or contest the Notice of Violation within 60 days. Interestingly, although one-third of the total drivers cited fail to pay the fine timely, almost half of these drivers pay the fine once a uniform traffic citation is

issued. It is important to note that court costs and fees are assessed on top of the base $158 fine when the citation is paid.

By comparison, Florida law enforcement officers issued 72,465 citations to drivers who ran red lights in calendar year 2012.

2%

49%

15% 4%

14%

16%

Red Light Camera Uniform Traffic Citations Calendar Year 2012

Guilty

Paid Fine

Adjudication Withheld

Not Guilty

Dismissed

Pending

One-third of

offenders fail

to pay the

traffic fine

timely


Intersection Selection The respondents were asked to rate the factors used in selecting an intersection for red light camera installation from most to least important. The most important factor is traffic crash data (61 percent), with law enforcement officer observations as the second most important factor (32 percent). Video survey of violations was the least important factor of the five choices provided in the survey. In addition to the choices provided, the counties and municipalities responded that they consider overall traffic volume. Effect on Safety Survey respondents were asked to indicate if crashes at intersections with red light cameras had increased, decreased or remained the same. Although section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, requires jurisdictions to report the details of the results of using red light cameras to the Department annually, one-fourth of respondents indicated that crash data at these intersections is unavailable. Further, 31 of the 75 agencies reported no data specific to side-impact and rear-end crashes.

Number of Respondents Reporting Crash Trends at Red Light Camera Intersections Fiscal Year 2012-13

Total Crashes Side-Impact Rear-End

Increased 17 7 14

Decreased 33 27 19

Remained the same 6 10 11

Total Respondents 56 44 44

Florida law requires law enforcement agencies to submit traffic crash reports to the Department, from which the data is extracted and stored in a database. The Department used the crash database to analyze crashes at all traffic control signal intersections for the surveyed jurisdictions. At this time, the Department cannot isolate crash data from the Department’s crash database for specific red light camera intersections. The chart below reflects the change in traffic control signal intersection crashes jurisdiction-wide (i.e., at all traffic control signal intersections within the applicable county or municipality) from 2011 to 2012, based on data from the Department’s crash report repository. The chart above reflects self-reported trends. Some areas experienced significant increases in crashes. For example, law enforcement agencies serving the city of Jacksonville reported 1,653 total crashes at traffic control signal intersections in 2011 and 2,887 in 2012, for an overall increase of 75 percent. Side impact crashes increased 81 percent and rear-end collisions increased 85 percent. All of the jurisdictions showing a decrease in crashes had fewer than 600 crashes a year. Statewide, crashes at traffic control signal intersections increased 21 percent from 2011 to 2012. Although most jurisdictions reported a decrease in crashes at intersections with red light cameras, the crash data maintained by the Department indicates that crashes at traffic control signal intersections typically increased, both statewide and in the surveyed jurisdictions.

25% reported

that crash data

is not available


Number of Jurisdictions – Change from Calendar Year 2011 to 2012 Traffic Control Signal Intersection Crashes Jurisdiction-wide

Total Crashes Side-Impact Rear-End

Increased 47 40 47

Decreased 12 20 13

Remained the same 10 9 9

Total Respondents 69 69 69 Source: DHSMV Crash Database. Note: we could not definitely match respondents to crash data agencies in some cases, accounting for the difference between 69 agencies and the total 75 respondents.

Agencies surveyed were also asked to provide information regarding additional improvements in traffic safety stemming from the implementation of red light cameras. The most common improvements cited were:

reductions in drivers running red lights at intersections using cameras; driver and public awareness; and an increase in cautious driving, jurisdiction-wide.

Some jurisdictions have made improvements to lighting, traffic sign visibility, striping, and engineering as a result of their red light camera programs. Personnel Jurisdictions were asked to provide a breakdown of all personnel involved in issuing Notices of Violation, reviewing contested Notices of Violation, and issuing uniform traffic citations. Sworn officers, non-sworn government employees, and contractors may be involved in different steps of the same process.

Personnel

Notice of Violation Uniform Traffic

Citation

Issuing Reviewing Issuing

Sworn Police Officer/Deputy 85% 79% 84%

Non-Sworn Government Employee

41% 44% 40%

Other 3% 12% 12%

Right-Turn on Red Pursuant to section 316.0083, Florida Statutes,

“A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right-hand turns are permissible.” Of the 75 survey respondents, 44 (59 percent) indicated that they issue Notices of Violation for right turns. However, only 15 agencies have policies

44 of 75 respondents

issue Notices of

Violation for right-

hand turns


defining ‘careful and prudent’. Definitions range from mirroring the Careless Driving law, section 316.1925, Florida Statutes, to drivers proceeding in a careful manner, not violating the right of way of other vehicles or pedestrian traffic. Section 316.1925, Florida Statutes, uses the term ‘careful and prudent manner’ to define careless driving, but further includes “regard for width, grade, curves, corners, traffic and all other attendant circumstances, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.” In 2013, the Legislature attempted to clarify its intent by further modifying section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, to state: “A notice of violation and uniform traffic citation may not be issued under this section if the driver of the vehicle came to a complete stop after crossing the stop line and before turning right if permissible at a red light, but failed to stop before crossing over the stop line or other point at which a stop is required.” This change was effective July 1, 2013 and is not reflected in the responses mentioned above. Other Use of Red Light Camera Images Of the 75 survey respondents, 66 (88 percent) reported that they use their red light cameras to investigate other crimes, such as aid in traffic crash investigations, thefts, robbery, shootings and tracking stolen vehicles. Florida law does not address the use of red light camera images for other purposes, nor does it exclude red light camera images from public record. Additionally, Florida law does not specify how long images may be retained. Consideration for Ordinance Repeal Ten of the survey respondents indicated that their jurisdictions have considered repealing their ordinance. Although Hialeah Gardens did not complete the survey, the agency did state that all red light cameras in its jurisdiction were removed in the spring of 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

At least one-fourth of the agencies are not tracking crash data at red light camera intersections and an additional 15 percent that do track overall crash data are not collecting data related to specific collision types (side impact, front to rear impact, etc.).

Although most agencies reported a decrease in crashes at intersections with red light cameras, the crash data maintained by the Department indicates that crashes at traffic control signal intersections typically increased, both statewide and in the surveyed jurisdictions.

88% use red light

cameras to

investigate other

crimes


Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, states that “a notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right-hand turns are permissible.” Of the 75 agencies that submitted data, 44 actively issue Notices of Violation and citations for right-hand turns on red signals. However, only 15 agencies reported having a policy defining “a careful and prudent manner.”

Florida law does not require counties and municipalities to report to the Department or any other state agency when red light cameras are installed or removed, or at which intersections they are installed.

Some agencies indicated that traffic volume at an intersection is a primary factor in the decision to install a red light camera.

Florida law does not prohibit the use of red light camera data for other purposes, exclude it from public record, or establish retention periods.

Paul Henry DHSMV 2013 RLC Report Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Paul Henry DHSMV 2013 RLC Report Analysis