Why you should stop in the name of Stop on Red Week!

light-427961_1280August 7-13 is National Stop on Red Week, the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is sending California drivers an important reminder to slow down, stay alert and stop for all red lights and stop signs. More than 700 people were killed and an estimated 126,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running in 2014. By practicing safe driving, which includes stopping on red, these careless and often deadly mistakes can be avoided.

“Red light running causes countless injuries and fatalities every year, with a large number of those deaths being innocent pedestrians, cyclists and passengers in vehicles hit by the red light runner,” said OTS Director Rhonda Craft. “No family should have to suffer the loss of a loved one because of someone’s desire to beat the light.”

According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety’s annual survey, more than 36 percent of drivers continue to run red lights and take risks, despite the fact that 55 percent of the participants said it is a very serious threat. Even if it is legal to make a right hand turn on a red light, extra precautions should be taken to ensure it is clear and safe before making a turn.

IIHS recently reported that cities with red light cameras saved more lives.

A Liberty Mutual study found that almost all teens acknowledge app usage as a danger behind the wheel (95 percent). However, when presented with a visual of an app notification appearing on a smartphone during implicit association testing, it was revealed that approximately 80 percent of teens fundamentally view app use while driving as “not distracting.”

OTS recently introduced the DDVIP App, featuring exclusive offers and discounts to sober Designated Drivers at bars and restaurants throughout California.


3 thoughts on “Why you should stop in the name of Stop on Red Week!”

  1. Also note that there are already CRACKS in the claim of IIHS!

    Below the city of St. Pete DUMPED RLC and HAD NO INCREASE IN CRASHES! (Tampa which has RLC had a INCREASE!)

    http://www.wtsp.com/mb/news/investigations/study-suggests-red-light-camers-save-livesbut/283440987 “Last year, 10Investigates found there was no increase in crashes in St. Petersburg a year after it removed its red light cameras.” (There is another link

    Yet Tampa had an increase! http://www.wtsp.com/news/investigations/red-light-camera-crashes-still-not-dropping/60508826 “The city’s report showed crash reports at 23 RLC intersections – the most in all of West Florida – climbed by 40% since 2010, which was less than the city’s 47% overall increase in reported crashes during that time. Tampa did not include “fender bender” types of crashes, as the state did, only “crash reports where there were reported injuries or a vehicle was damaged to the extent that it had to be towed from the scene.”
    Those findings seem to conflict with the state’s findings, which indicated crashes jumped by 50% at eight intersections in Tampa after cameras were installed. Tampa’s report also didn’t indicate what radius was used for defining an “intersection,” a controversial variable that, in 2014, 10Investigates WTSP exposed as a way to eliminate certain crashes from a statistical analysis”

    To add to this here are 3 other towns IIHS “omitted” from their report too!


    • “Smaller cities like Daytona Beach, Palm Bay and Cocoa Beach were not analyzed, even though the cameras were turned off.
    An officer with the Palm Bay police traffic division told Channel 9 the city hasn’t seen an increase in any crashes at former red-light camera intersections since the cameras were taken down nearly two years ago.
    “It makes you wonder why they included some cities and excluded some other cities. Is it because they included what was most favorable?” red-light camera opponent David Shaw said.”

    WHY WHOULD YOU “trust” a IIHS ‘report’ that is OMMITTING THOSE TOWNS???

  2. Here is that 2011 report (that IIHS brings Up) that was exposed CHERRY PICKING TOWNS! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp “The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the “before” period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities “before” to improve in the “after” period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.”

    Also see: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3393.asp

    “IIHS did not bother gathering data regarding any of the factors FHWA considered essential, aside from looking up 1990 and 2000 population figures. In fact, the insurance industry relied upon the eight-year gap between the “before” and “after” periods to obtain the desired result. In locations like Chandler, Arizona the community went through significant changes — including the building of the Loop 101 and Loop 202 freeways — during this time. These new routes drew traffic away from intersections during the “after” period despite the increase in population. Without accounting for the change in traffic volumes, the figures would be misleading. Chandler accounted for the greatest decrease in citywide accidents in the IIHS report. IIHS not knowing which locations in the city had cameras could not check whether there was a difference between camera and non-camera locations.

    A professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago did check and determined last year that there was no statistical difference before and after the cameras were installed in the Windy City. The data refuted the IIHS assumption that there is a so-called “spillover” or “halo” effect that spreads good driving habits throughout the photo-enforced jurisdiction. Between 2001 and 2008, use of cameras had no effect on the percentage of accidents that took place at intersections — the figure remained steady at about 25 percent (view report). IIHS claimed big accident reductions in Chicago and in Washington, DC. A 2005 investigation by The Washington Post found accidents doubled in the nation’s capital (view report). Likewise, despite IIHS claims, Baltimore, Maryland last month reported inconclusive results from its photo ticketing program.”

  3. THAT IIHS “report” is seriously FLAWED. Besides the fact that the “researcher” Wen HU was on a 2011 “report” busted manipulating data. Looks like IIHS was manipulating this “study” too!


    “The most troubling aspect of the IIHS study is that it did not actually analyze the question that it claimed to examine. Insurance industry researchers did not compare before and after accident rates at photo enforced intersections in cities that terminated red light camera programs. Instead, they compared the citywide number of fatal accidents in 57 large jurisdictions with red light camera programs to 33 cities without them. They then compared fatal accidents in 19 cities that deactivated cameras to 31 that kept their cameras rolling.

    Fatal intersection accidents are relatively rare. In Texas, for instance, intersection fatalities (not necessarily caused by red light running) accounted for 6 percent of all serious accidents last year. Under the IIHS methodology, a camera city could perform a significant engineering upgrade at a camera-free intersection, but the resulting safety benefit would be credited to the red light cameras. Nonetheless, safety continuously improved in the cities that did not use red light cameras.

    “The rate of fatal red light running crashes significantly decreased by 1.9 percent per year since 1992 in cities with no cameras,” the IIHS study admitted.

    So to claim the reduction in accidents was an “increase,” IIHS applied an undisclosed formula to “interpret” the result of turning the cameras off in light of factors such as unemployment rates and land use patterns. The conclusion was that terminating camera programs resulted in a citywide fatal intersection accident rate that was 16.1 percent “higher than what would have been expected with cameras on.” IIHS does not provide the underlying data that would allow the IIHS expectation to be replicated or otherwise verified.

    IIHS produced the very first study that asserted red light cameras were associated with safety benefits. This document was authored by Richard Retting, the man who brought red light camera in the United States and is now a paid “partner” of red light camera vendor Brekford. The Florida Public Health Association journal reviewed Retting’s IIHS work and found major statistical flaws. Numerous studies performed by organizations without a financial stake in the photo enforcement questions have concluded the use of cameras produce mixed or negative results (view independent studies).”

Comments are closed.