Local opinion: Red-light running and public safety
With the election finally over, and the story of the fiery right-angle crash of a red-light runner still fresh, I would like to add to a few letters that recently appeared in the Star Opinion section.
One or more writers decried the city's abandonment of red-light cameras that were up and working a decade or more back. Why did the city abandon red-light cameras in high-risk intersection? I don't know, but if I recall correctly, the objections at the time were about abrupt stopping increasing rear-end crashes (true) and drivers wanting to be free to make a turn late in the light cycle (ridiculous). I've never understood why the city capitulated to those arguments.
The research on this is clear. Yes, abrupt stopping at red lights does slightly increase rear-end crashes — the fault lies with the speeding, or too close following, driver behind the car that stopped. But more important than rear end collisions, side-angle (T-bone) crashes are increased when the red-light runner plows into an oncoming car in the intersection. The driver and passenger risks of rear-end crashes pale in comparison to death and injury risks of side-angle crashes. The odds ratio of severe or fatal injuries is 10.8 for side angle; it is 2.5 for rear-end crashes.
Many of us have read with horror the recent story of a driver speeding through a red light a few weeks ago. This choice led to the fiery death of 5 innocent members of one family. Their car was not even moving, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. A new red-light camera at that intersection may not have deterred that one driver's decision, but we have all seen the growing willingness of drivers to blast through intersections well after a light goes red, even before entering an intersection. Red light cameras trigger the issuance of citations for violations to these offenders. Police cannot be at every intersection, so cameras are enforcement extenders. Without an enforcement function, rules are powerless to change behavior, especially in the current climate of extreme entitlement.
Highways are the global commons of every nation in the world. We all depend on each other's adherence to safety standards. Red light runners, like alcohol-impaired drivers, endanger all of us who want no more than to arrive safely at our destinations. Technological fixes can help with these problems, but they need to be used. For example, alcohol ignition interlock devices are often used as a condition of probation or licensure for high-risk DWI offenders.
They require a driver to pass a low BAC (breath alcohol test) before a car can be started. They are used in every state, including Arizona. Alcohol interlock devices, like red-light cameras, are enforcement extenders. They are far from foolproof, but at least in the case of interlocks, drivers who intend to be law-abiding, they help with driving decisions. Alcohol interlocks were designed to allow a DWI offender to continue driving and living a life and/or holding a job, with the trade-off that the general driving public must be protected from his/her proven bad decisions about drinking and driving.
At its core, this is a public safety intervention making the rest of us less endangered by a driver's bad decisions. Red light cameras impose (re-impose) a similar enforcement benefit. In the case of red-light cameras, we would all have to recognize that the cameras function to protect the general driving public. Minor inconveniences – like actually stopping at a red light – are part of the trade-off. Technology interventions are all around us and we need to use them to reduce the road toll.
In 2013, Paul Marques retired back to Tucson after a career in public health and safety in the DC area. Prior to retiring, he served on the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board, and the Executive Board of the International Council on Alcohol Drug and Traffic Safety.
Subscribe to stay connected to Tucson. A subscription helps you access more of the local stories that keep you connected to the community.
