|
Abstract
|
The Problem, Condition or Issue
Road traffic crashes are a major and increasing cause of injury and death around the world, with about 1.25 million people dying annually and between 20 and 50 million more suffering non-fatal injuries, including permanent disabilities. Road traffic injury and death rates are highest in African nations. Overall, low and middle-income nations are most at risk; over 90 percent of deaths due to road traffic crashes occur in these countries, although they only have about 54 percent of the world's vehicles (World Health Organization, 2017). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission (2015), there were almost 5.7 million vehicular crashes in the U.S. in 2013. Of these, approximately 1.6 million (28 percent) involved some form of injury and 30,057 (0.5 percent) resulted in one or more fatalities; the remainder involved only property damage. These crashes resulted in 32,719 traffic fatalities (a fatality rate of 10.35 per 100,000 population). Only about 50 percent of traffic crash fatalities were drivers; the remainder were primarily vehicle passengers (approximately 18 percent), motorcyclists (approximately 14 percent) and nonoccupants (approximately 17 percent; these included both pedestrians and bicyclists). The annual economic cost of reported and unreported traffic crashes has been estimated at $242 billion.
Traffic data from the United States show that in the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2009), almost 9,000 people were killed as a result of red-light crashes (Federal Highway Administration, 2014a). During 2013, 697 people were killed and approximately 127,000 were injured in traffic crashes involving red light running. Only about half of the fatalities were the drivers who ran the red lights; the other half included pedestrians, bicyclists, and the occupants of vehicles struck by red-light runners (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2015).
Intersections are locations on roads that have the potential to create conflict for drivers and pedestrians. These conflicts increase the risk of crashes; a considerable proportion of crashes occur at intersections, although they make up only a small proportion of the roadway system in the United States (Choi, 2010). One way to reduce this conflict is through the use of a traffic control device such as a traffic signal. Traffic signals are designed to identify which vehicles and/or pedestrians approaching an intersection have the right of way to pass through the intersection at any given time, as a way of ensuring orderly movement of traffic, reducing delays for waiting vehicles, and reducing the frequency of vehicular crashes (Federal Highway Administration, 2004a). The Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012) specifically identifies situations where traffic conditions require the installation of traffic signals; generally these relate to situations where conflicting traffic movements that create crash potential could exist (Bochner & Walden, 2010).
A driver runs a red light when he or she enters an intersection after the traffic light has turned red. While most drivers do obey traffic signals, the possibility for violations does exist, either due to driver distraction, aggressive driving behaviors, or a deliberate decision to ignore the signal. Traffic light violations appear to be fairly common. A recent national telephone survey found that while the vast majority of drivers (94 percent) consider red light running to be unacceptable, over 35 percent admitted to having driven through a red traffic light in the past month and over 22 percent had done this more than once, although very few (2 percent) reported running red lights regularly or fairly often (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Culture, 2015).
A telephone survey conducted for national “Stop Red Light Running Week” identified some general characteristics of the typical red light runner. Red light runners tend to be younger drivers; to have no children or to have children under the age of 20; to be travelling alone; to be unemployed or working at a job that requires less education; to be driving more than two miles from home; to be in a rush to get to work or school (during weekday morning hours); and to have received a ticket for red light running. Although frustration is considered to be a key component of aggressive driving in general, the typical red light runner is not necessarily frustrated. The vast majority of drivers reported that if they were frustrated, they were more likely to engage in other types of aggressive driving behavior, such as weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, speeding, or gesturing angrily, rather than running red lights. This does suggest that red light running may not actually be a form of aggressive driving or may not be a function of those factors that tend to explain other types of aggressive driving (Porter and Berry, 1999). Instead, it appears that drivers consider red light running to frequently be an intentional act that has few legal consequences (Federal Highway Administration, 2004b)
There are a number of engineering countermeasures which focus on engineering design to reduce red light running. These generally involve changes to the intersection and/or the signal which (1) increase the visibility of traffic signals (e.g., through the use of overhead traffic signal displays rather than pole-mounted signals); (2) increase the likelihood that drivers will stop at red lights (e.g., by installing advance warning flashers to warn drivers when traffic signals are about to change to yellow); (3) reduce intentional violations (e.g., by careful timing of signal cycle lengths to ensure yellow intervals are long enough and that red cycles are not so long that drivers become frustrated and unwilling to wait for the next green interval); or (4) eliminate the need to stop (e.g., by removing traffic signals and replacing them with an alternative traffic control device, such as a stop sign or roundabout) (Federal Highway Administration, 2004c).
The traditional method of enforcing traffic signal violations generally requires the presence of an individual (usually a police officer) to monitor driver behavior and apprehend violators. This is extremely expensive, is a drain on scarce agency resources, and may create risk due to the possibility of high-speed pursuits. However, an increasingly popular alternative is automated enforcement through the use of red light cameras (RLCs). RLCs permit police to remotely enforce traffic signals without the need for an officer to be present at the scene of the violation. They operate continually without human intervention and do not result in potentially dangerous high-speed pursuits. Their mechanical nature also reduces the possibility of accusations of human bias, discrimination, or selective enforcement (Aeron-Thomas and Hess, 2005). As a result, the use of RLCs to increase compliance with traffic signals and facilitate the enforcement of relevant traffic laws is increasing (Bochner and Walden, 2010). RLCs are not a new technology; they have been used for almost 50 years. Israel first used RLCs for traffic enforcement as early as 1969, they were used in Europe by the early 1970s, and RLCs were adopted on a wide scale in Australia in the 1980s. In the United States, RLCs were first used in New York City in 1993 and their use has spread around the country.
RLCs are somewhat controversial and a number of states have passed laws prohibiting the use of RLCs to issue citations or are considering bills that would eliminate automated red light enforcement. Meanwhile, other states have enacted legislation permitting RLCs (see Teigen, Shinkle, and Essex, 2015 for a discussion of state legislation regarding RLCs)...
Language: en |