Okay, first off a hat tip to Sgt. Jason Bailey of the Council Bluffs Police. I had a response from him first thing this morning. In the interests of full disclosure, here is what I wrote to him:
Dear Sgt. Bailey,
I wanted to write you to inquire about the Council Bluffs, IA Stop on Red program. I'm a member of an internet forum for vintage Mopar enthusiasts called forbbodiesonly.com, and a resident of Orange Park, FL, which recently began installing red light cameras. There's nothing I've seen lead to the destruction of more collector cars than drivers running red lights and stop signs, and I have nothing but enthusiasm for any effort to curb this irresponsible behavior. I recently posted information on the red light camera effort in Orange Park, and I was recently contacted by a Mopar owner in Omaha, NE, who informed me of your program and informed me of the following: "In Council Bluffs, Iowa rear end collisions went up 85% where there is a camera. As stated by the Police." Based on the reports I was able to find, accidents declined at these intersections. He also makes the claim that all of the official reports are incorrect and that "any cop that complained or contradicted the official stance was disciplined."
I know that you're very busy, and I hate to make an additional demand on your time, but I was wondering if you could offer some insight into this discussion, specifically did rear-end accidents increase 85% or at all, and if officers actually were disciplined for contradicting the reports from the media, Council Bluffs, or the University of Iowa?
Thank you very much in advance for you assistance with this. I am so tired of all the misinformation that's out there regarding these cameras an I appreciate any help you can give me separating facts from fiction.
Warmest regards and stay safe
Bruce Reynolds
Orange Park, FL
And this is the reply I received:
Bruce,
Both of the facts given to you by the individual in Omaha are incorrect. Though I don’t have exact stats for rear end collisions, overall our accident numbers have decreased. When we are dealing with a low number of collisions in the first place, one or more accidents per year may cause what some consider a dramatic increase in the number of collisions. Off the top of my head I do think one of our intersections did have an increase in rear end collisions. We feel this is a result of people not paying attention to what is going on in front of them. But again overall, since 2005 when we started the program, our numbers have decreased.
As far as the officers being disciplined, that is absolutely not the case. The person in Omaha is more than welcome to contact me regarding this. I would be curious to see where is information came from. That has NEVER happened at this department. The fact is that our City Engineer keeps track of those numbers. He forwards the numbers to me about once a year. Other than me and our chief, nobody else on the department even see the numbers.
We feel very strongly that our red light program works and we see a residual effect throughout the city. If you have any other questions feel free to contact me.
Sgt. Jason Bailey
Council Bluffs Police
Special Operation Traffic Unit
[email protected]
So, according to Sgt. Bailey, the number of rear-end accidents did increase at one intersection, which is what I suspect formed the nucleus of the lie that they increased at all intersections. And just as I wrote previously, he points out that when you're dealing with small numbers of accidents, even one accident can change the numbers, on a percentage basis, dramatically, which is why when you hear all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about increases in accidents you only hear about increases as a percentage and not actual numbers. The problem for the red light haters is that fluctuations in small numbers are not significant as there are so many reasons aside from the cameras that these accidents can occur (drivers texting, yelling at kids, looking at the dude twirling the "We Buy Gold" sign, etc.), so they always resort to reporting percentages because that gives them a more impressive number to use. So yes, Sgt. Bailey confirms there was an increase at one intersection (out of eight I believe), but nothing like the massive increases the haters are always predicting.
- - - Updated - - -
For the record, only a small percentage of intersections have countdown timers...and they are for the crosswalk, so the pedestrians know how much time they have to cross.
There may or may not be a correlation to the yellow trigger, depending on how the other lights, including turn arrows are timed.
I think one of the camera monitored intersections around here has timers, the other dozen do not.
Stopping "at" the line is also part of the problem.
There's no definition of "at".
I think we can probably all agree that 3 feet into the crosswalk is not good, but the issue is that the interpretation of "at" tends to get resolved on the side of the money.
I find it interesting that the state house speaker is against the cameras.
Usually republicans don't go against anything that puts tax dollars into the hands of big business.
We have timers at every light-controlled intersection up here, and they are timed to the yellow lights. One second after the timer reaches zero, the light goes yellow. The only exception to this are intersections with weight pads that can detect when a vehicle is stopped on a cross road and waiting for the green. At these intersections, the timer will go to zero and then go dark if there is no cross traffic detected, and the through green light stays green until the regular cycle time occurs or a car moves over one of the cross street sensors, at which time the light immediately turns yellow without a countdown for pedestrians.
While it can be used by pedestrians, it is for warning drivers. The City of Jacksonville, like where you are, has timers on some light-controlled intersections but not all of them, but they are at all photo-controlled intersections.
As for the lines, there can be up to three white lines at a signalized intersection, and these markings are controlled by the Federal Highway Administration, and must be IAW the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Here is the diagram from the MUTCD:
As you can see, the initial line at any signalized intersection is referred to specifically as a Stop line. Here is the guidance for these lines as stated in the MUTCD:
Section 7C.04 Stop and Yield Lines
Standard:
If used, stop lines shall consist of solid white lines extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the stop is intended or required to be made.
If used, yield lines (see Figure 3B-14) shall consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or required to be made.
Guidance:
Stop lines should be 300 to 600 mm (12 to 24 in) wide.
Stop lines should be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop, in compliance with a STOP (R1-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1), traffic control signal, or some other traffic control device.
The individual triangles comprising the yield line should have a base of 300 to 600 mm (12 to 24 in) wide and a height equal to 1.5 times the base. The space between the triangles should be 75 to 300 mm (3 to 12 in).
Option:
Yield lines may be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield in compliance with a YIELD (R1-2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) or a Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) sign (see Figure 2B-2).
Guidance:
If used, stop and yield lines should be placed a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) in advance of and parallel to the nearest crosswalk line at controlled intersections, except for yield lines at roundabout intersections as provided for in Section 3B.24 and at midblock crosswalks. In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the stop line or yield line should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point, but should be placed no more than 9 m (30 ft) nor less than 1.2 m (4 ft) from the nearest edge of the intersecting traveled way. Stop lines should be placed to allow sufficient sight distance to all other approaches to an intersection.
Stop lines at midblock signalized locations should be placed at least 12 m (40 ft) in advance of the nearest signal indication (see Section 4D.15).
Seems to me the definition of "at" is pretty clear.
Drivers are required to stop before the line, not over it or beyond it.
As for Republicans and money, I could care less about that topic. All that concerns me is not losing my Road Runner to a red light runner just because they thought waiting 30 seconds for the next green just puts such a burden on them that they are entitled to run the red.
