[Publisher’s Note: We are pleased to feature this column from Steven Foley of the Minority Report website. I would remind you that the opinions expressed are those of the author only, not necessarily mine – Flash]
Steve Foley
Legislation To Alter Traffic Signals: Dubious And Dangerous
By Steven Foley
How do traffic lights best keep the greatest number of people from having the least number of accidents?
This is the question at the heart of the current debate over AB 612 (Nazarian). The bill is expected to be heard in the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing next week, Tuesday, June 18th.
AB 612 aims to lengthen a yellow signal by approximately one second. It assumes that giving motorists a greater amount of time to slow the speed of their vehicle and come to a stop would prevent more accidents. And yet, oddly, the change is only called for at intersections at which a red-light camera is already in place. Why target only intersections where safety measures have already been implemented? Why not other intersections or all intersections?
I am no particular fan of cameras at intersections. Especially in light of recent revelations on the amount of surveillance to which Americans are already subjected, it’s difficult to argue the merits of unblinking eyes that could be used to violate even further the constitutional and civil rights of Californians. However, the fact is that California already uses these cameras at targeted intersections, and they appear to be having the desired effect; accidents have been reduced.
At least two additional questions thus arise.
First, is it in fact accurate to claim that lengthening a yellow light by the amount of time proposed would reduce accidents? Second, is it really the goal of AB 612 to decrease traffic accidents — or is something else going on here?
Let’s start with the second question.
The sponsor of AB 612 — a friend of the bill’s author Assemblyman Nazarian — is Jay Beeber who founded and runs Safer Streets LA.
Beeber, a New Jersey native, came to California to pursue a career in the film industry.
A prolific blogger, Beeber’s anti-tax, anti-government and anti-union commentary belie the curious fact that support for this legislation comes from the Teamsters and Transit workers unions.
Beeber’s film credits include the low budget slasher film “Claustrophobia” AKA “Serial Slayer” and “Kisses and Caroms” available for download on Amazon.com, featuring a former adult film star. Mr. Beeber apparently needed another line of work.
One thing Beeber is not is a traffic safety engineer, nor does he have any apparent expertise at all in complex traffic system design and operation. Yet, according to those I interviewed, he seems to be everywhere in the capitol these days, forcefully advocating his point of view as he did at City Hall in Los Angeles.
With the recent reports of the FBI in the State Capitol investigating unreported lobbying activity, one has to look no further than recent political headlines to understand why following the reporting rules ensures transparency and accountability.
Curiously, I couldn’t find a single record of any lobbyist registration in Sacramento or the City of Los Angeles, or any type of business license, corporate or non-profit registration under his name, Safer Streets LA, or the California Motorists Association – groups he’s claimed to represent in various forums identified online.
Calls and emails to Mr. Beeber seeking a response to these and other questions were unreturned as of press time.
Fundamentally, I have no problem with the elimination of red-light cameras. It’s how AB 612 aims to go about this mission that must be questioned. Unfortunately, I’ve so far found it difficult to verify the arguments he makes online about the merits of lengthened yellow signals. In some cases the studies he cites are difficult to locate. Overall, however, the preponderance of viable evidence appears to contradict Mr. Beeber’s assertions.
That brings us to the second question, one which, in fact, must be answered before additional California traffic policy is set: Is there significant, reliable evidence to suggest that lengthening a yellow signal by approximately one second beyond the current timing interval would reduce traffic accidents at the intersections in question — or at any intersection, for that matter?
The answer is a resounding no.
In addition to my own research, I reached out to Richard Retting, a bona fide traffic engineer and traffic engineering expert says the cameras are effective, and the legislation is not necessary. He has studied AB 612, and says that it will adversely impact traffic safety and result in more vehicle collisions.
Interesting.
Retting cited two key investigations in his reply to me, both of which suggest that extended yellow signals are actually more dangerous, not less.
As Retting further explained: “Existing engineering procedures that set the duration of yellow intervals already provide adequate warning to drivers of an imminent change in the signal indication from green to red. Adding one second goes beyond the “need.” The longer yellow merely encourages drivers to enter the intersection rather than to prepare to stop on red. The result is a higher number of traffic accidents.
While few motorists who’ve ever received a ticket would profess to support these cameras, available evidence suggests they continue to be an effective deterrent and preventative measure that save lives.
Beeber’s website, SAFERSTREETSLA.org says “Safer Streets LA is a grassroots organization dedicated to furthering the interests of the motoring public through the adoption of scientifically sound and sensible transportation and traffic laws …“We believe that accurate information and critical thinking are crucial to implementing sound public policy.”
If Beeber and Safer Streets LA are serious about wanting to “implement scientifically sound and sensible transportation policy,” AB 612 is an abysmal route by which to achieve that end.
For now, the simple answer is to scrap what amounts to a dangerous bill, and go back to the drawing board.