You’re a mother rushing to drop your child off at school. Running late, you take a quick right turn at Millbrae and Rollins — too fast, perhaps, but nothing dangerous. Out of the corner of your eye, you notice a camera flash, but in the chaos of the morning, you think nothing more of it.
A week later, a letter arrives in the mail from the city of Millbrae, demanding $490 for what it calls a violation. Your stomach drops. Nearly half of Americans can’t afford an unexpected $400 charge, and your family is no exception. You wonder how this minor infraction could cost so much.
If you’ve run afoul of one of Millbrae’s seven red light cameras, odds are you see echoes of your own story in this anecdote. The system was supposed to make streets safer, but for many, it feels more like an expensive punishment. Even worse, this type of scenario plays out thousands of times every month and shows no signs of abating.
Millbrae’s seven red light cameras have drawn the repeated ire of local drivers since the first was installed in September of 2006. It might seem intuitive that cameras designed to keep drivers from speeding through red lights will make the city safer. However, highwayrobbery.net found that over 80% of citations issued for these red light cameras are for rolling right turns — a comparatively minor infraction. With a hefty $490 fine per ticket, one might reasonably expect the city to produce a single shred of evidence that this program works. Yet, despite the unpopularity of cameras, city officials keep renewing the contract and the effectiveness of these cameras has never been rigorously publicly evaluated. A similar red light camera system was shut down in the city of San Mateo owing to difficulties overseeing the program and its generally lack of effectiveness. Are Millbrae’s red light cameras really keeping us safe and at what cost to local drivers? I decided to look through the data myself to answer these questions.
I reviewed data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System focusing on accidents around Millbrae Avenue between El Camino Real and Highway 101. The cameras are located at the intersections of Millbrae Avenue and El Camino Real, Millbrae Avenue and Highway 101 southbound, and Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road, which means this stretch of road should provide a comprehensive view of the cameras’ performance. I focus on the years 2004 to 2014 to capture the years the cameras were installed and the years immediately before and after their installation.
Strikingly, accidents increased for the better part of a year after the first cameras were installed at the intersection of Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road in September 2006 after hitting a low in the summer of 2006 — from four accidents in August 2006 to 14 by February 2007.
A similar story occurs after the installation of the cameras at the intersections of Millbrae Avenue/El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue/Highway 101 southbound in late fall 2009. While accidents initially decreased from around eight to three to four per month, they soon exceeded precamera levels — spiking at 15 in October 2010 — and fluctuated without a consistent trend, offering no clear evidence of the cameras’ effectiveness.
While accidents per month appear to increase or decrease roughly at random before and after the cameras were installed, the number of citations over this same time period increased precipitously. Total citations jumped dramatically in the fall of 2009 from less than 500 to over 1,000 and have continued increasing. It is difficult to see such a dramatic rise in citations coinciding with no consistent change in accidents and come to a conclusion other than the most cynical: Millbrae’s red light cameras are designed to make the city money, not to protect its citizens.
Even if you come to a different conclusion than I have, this exercise gives you some questions to ponder. Why is the onus on citizens to argue against such a widely despised government program? If the city truly does not run these cameras for profit — as they have repeatedly claimed — then why not produce a rigorous and objective analysis demonstrating the impact these cameras have on the safety of drivers and pedestrians? And if the city is in the business of introducing programs that cost citizens thousands of dollars and do nothing to keep them safer, then who serves whom?
Robert Schell is a health care consultant based in Burlingame who recently graduated from UC Berkeley with his Ph.D. in health policy.
(16) comments
The worst is the camera coming off SB 101. No pedestrian sidewalk. NO pedestrians whatsoever. There is even an open lane if you stay to the right. ABSOLUTELY NO safety risk to the public. Plate readers that identify stolen vehicles coming into the city would be much more useful...but there is no revenue generation doing that.
" A week later, a letter arrives in the mail from the city of Millbrae, demanding $490 for what it calls a violation. Your stomach drops. "
The call it a violation, because it is an act of car-violence.
The lesson from that dropping stomach is hopefully to put down that phone and drive the rest of your life paying better attention. Also let your parents have it for apparently teaching you driving the wrong way.
Traffic-Education at its best. Life-Lesson learned. Red Light cameras seem to be doing a great job.
The author simply glosses right over the part of the story where his victim commits a crime by not stopping. If she stopped, there could not be an infraction, and hence, no fine. Big omission for a guy with a newly minted PhD.
You’re a mother walking to drop your child off at school. You aren't running late; you left on time so you don't need to cut any corners. You see the Walk sign and try to cross Rollins. WHAM! You are hit by a driver who was running late and decided a few seconds of their time was more important than your safety.
A week later, you are still in the hospital after multiple surgeries for you and your children after being hit by a 6,000 pound SUV (which wasn't going that quickly). You lose your job because you can't work. You will need to declare bankruptcy after $500,000 in medical bills.
Meanwhile, the driver sped off. They never get caught because the three traffic officers on duty are busy dealing with a crash elsewhere in town. The red light cameras are gone because of some quasi-analytical op-ed from a libertarian who was pissed he just got a fine for breaking the law.
Joe bobbing, perhaps the mother or whoever is crossing a sidewalk should look both ways? Certainly there are idiot, drivers, but one must take care when crossing busy intersections.
Excuse me, my face is glued to my phone. I have no time to look both ways before I cross a busy intersection. I might miss an important text from my ex-boyfriend (that scum) or the latest trending news about tattoos and nose piercings.
Why is the kneejerk reaction to blame the pedestrian? I walk to downtown with my kids many times every week and we’ve had several close calls crossing Delaware at 5th Ave with a walk signal. The reason - drivers turning right only look left for oncoming vehicle traffic and not to the right for pedestrians - even during the walk signal! One driver didn’t even stop at the red light before turning.
Pedestrians have the right of way at intersections and marked crosswalks, especially during the walk signal. It doesn’t matter if I’m looking at my phone (or at my child), I have the right of way. Drivers who run a red light and/or speed while turning should be prepared to pay a hefty fine in the best case scenario, or face bankruptcy after severely injuring or killing someone in the worst case scenario.
Let me share with you the language baked into 21950 CVC. “(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.” You see both the pedestrian and motorist are “expected” to exercise “due caution” toward one another. Each side shares guilt in this on-going street battle.
Many bad drivers cite vehicle code 21950 CVC (b) which says "This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety."
... but interestingly always overlook a few more sections of 21950 CVC:
- subdivision (d) is giving the responsibility clearly to the driver: "(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."
- and it goes on: "(e) A peace officer ... shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of this section."
- (e) (3) repeats: "(3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway."
In fact the remark "This subdivision does not relieve a bicyclist from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway." shows up 5-10 times in this part of the code alone.
So while a pedestrian is in charge of their own safety, the driver is clearly put in charge of all pedestrians and at all times.
In your review of the SITRS data, you left out a crucial and relevant element to support your theory. Of the accidents reported, what was the “Primary Collision Factor?” Were the accidents caused by; Running a red light? Speeding? Unsafe lane change? Distracted driving? Tailgating? A drunk driver?
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Schell, along with statistics on your research supporting your assertions. I think many folks knew these red light cameras were a cash grab from the start. But they’re definitely not useless to the contractor who administers the red light camera program. One has to wonder how much the red light cameras cost for installation and ongoing maintenance and whether Millbrae has seen any net proceeds from the fines. Perhaps the “profit” has all gone into reimbursing the contractor? I’m surprised folks in Millbrae haven’t gone to court against these cameras, especially if they’re ineffective in making streets safer, as you’ve asserted.
Red light camera programs in 79 large U.S. cities saved nearly 1,300 lives through 2014, researchers from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have found. Shutting down such programs costs lives, with the rate of fatal red-light-running crashes shooting up 30 percent in cities that have turned off cameras.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/turning-off-red-light-cameras-costs-lives-new-research-shows
Thanks for your response, joebob91, and the link. However, it must be noted that the link is from 2016 and their results may no longer hold true. I’m not sure it’d be worth my while to peruse the underlying study but I’d question their methods to arrive at their conclusions. For instance, was there a control group of folks who ran red lights on purpose (doubtful) to obtain results? How many cars are running through their various red light camera intersections? And so on. Perhaps, instead, you can provide information, and links, to answer my and Mr. Schell’s questions.
What ever happened to law and order and paying your debt to society? These socialist snow flakes in Millbrae want to do the crime, but not do the time and not pay the dime. You don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
This is really just a simple question of Law-and-Order. Red light cameras are part of a modern police force - making them more efficient and leaving them to do more important stuff than holding criminally bad drivers accountable.
I guess we will agree to disagree. I believe that enforcing laws discourages bad behavior.
joebob91, I agree that enforcing laws discourages bad behavior. But it seems to me that laws are enforced when the government has a chance to make money. Speed traps – enforced, speed cameras – enforced, over limit paid parking – enforced. Parking on the streets – enforced. And it’s likely they’re all enforced by third parties. Now let’s flip the coin… invaders from the south and the north and everywhere else – not enforced. And not only that, our so-called officials aid and abet these criminals. Take $950 worth of items – not enforced. Arrested for criminal acts – no bail.
If others do the crime but don’t do the time, do you think some folks will think twice about running red lights, running stop signs, hitting and running after an accident? I would hope they would but with selective enforcement, many may opt to take the risk. Look at the bright side… We haven’t reverted to frontier justice yet, have we?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.