Stephanie Hoback knows first-hand the danger that surrounds signalized intersections. In 1987, the Florida resident was broadsided by a driver who had run a red light.
“The light turned green and the driver in front of me shot right through the intersection,” Hoback remembers. “I followed closely on his tail and was hit by a car that was running the red light going 45 miles per hour. The impact spun me around and then the same car hit me again, sending me into another spin.”
Hoback, a marketing manager in Wavetronix’ Florida office, was just a teenager at the time and suffered life-threatening injuries that could have resulted in total paralysis. Her injuries included a broken neck, which required extensive rehabilitation. “Fortunately, my doctor was one of the leading specialists in spinal cord injuries. I had to learn to walk again,” Hoback says.
Her quick recovery was featured in the New England Journal of Medicine. Despite the miraculous nature of her recovery, it still required nearly 2,000 hours of hospitalization and rehabilitation, at an estimated cost of over $250,000.
But the cost of recovery was more than just financial. The accident also took an emotional toll: the teenager missed a great deal of school and her high school prom; she also developed a fear of intersections, and now, nearly 30 years later, still approaches signalized intersections with uncertainty.
“I had to learn to walk again.” ‑Stephanie Hoback, Marketing Manager Wavetronix Florida Office
“I am overly cautious now at intersections, and I don’t take anything for granted, no matter what color the light is,” says Hoback.
Each year, hundreds of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries are caused by drivers running a red light. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Highway Loss Data, “In 2013, 697 people were killed and an estimated 127,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of those killed were pedestrians, bicyclists and occupants in other vehicles who were hit by the red light runners.”
There are many reasons why drivers run red lights. Perhaps the most common reason is simply driver indecision. When the traffic light turns yellow, it is impossible to predict if a driver traveling at high speeds will hit the brakes (increasing the risk of a rear-end collision with vehicles behind it) or accelerate (increasing the risk of a right-angle crash in the intersection).
This decision is known as the driver’s dilemma, and it is most common when the driver occupies what is known as the dilemma zone, a location, based in time, in which a driver is forced to make this decision. Drivers may not notice the signal change until they enter this zone, and at high speeds, either decision can be risky.
Some red light runners purposefully break the law because they make the decision to go through the light even though they know that clearing the intersection before the light turns red will be impossible. These drivers may have waited at a red light for a long time but then aren’t given a long enough green phase to clear the intersection. Thus the light turns red again before they have had the chance to go through legally.
On the other hand, there is another group of offenders that runs red lights because they didn’t notice the light change, or their timing was off. Distracted driving increases the likelihood of red light running and drivers have a lot to be distracted by: cell phones, quick meals, and passengers make it easy to blow through a red light without even realizing it.
The fact is, intersections can be a dangerous situation, and running the red light has likely happened to the best of us. Even excellent drivers can be in danger of doing it. Misjudging signal change times, inattentiveness and speeding can all be factors that increase the risk of running a red light and, consequently, the likelihood of being involved in a collision.
Further complicating the issue is the need to maintain efficiency. Like the uncertainty Hoback feels when she approaches an intersection, traffic engineers are equally unsure how to balance safety and efficiency. Historically, traffic engineers have felt forced to sacrifice efficiency for safety, and vice versa. But some would argue that a lack of safety has an even greater effect on efficiency. For example, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that 25 percent of all intersections delays are caused by accidents.
The same data reveals that an additional five percent of delays are due to poor signal timing. Industry guidelines typically recommend a three- to six-second yellow time; some agencies argue that a two-second yellow time is sufficient because it helps increase efficiency.
An estimated 25 percent of all intersections delays are caused by accidents. ‑Federal Highway Administration
But research has shown that the resulting increase in traffic collisions actually diminishes overall efficiency. As a result, many believe that significant safety benefits can be achieved by increasing the minimum yellow time to four seconds, without seriously compromising overall efficiency.
“Increasing yellow timing to values associated with guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers can significantly decrease the frequency of red light violations and reduce the risk of total crashes, injury crashes and right-angle crashes,” according to the IIHS.
As a result, agencies that are both safety and efficiency minded are proactively revising their signal timing guidelines.
In addition to proper signal timing, there are technologies designed to help reduce the risk of accidents at the intersection. The two most commonly used innovations are red light running cameras and advance detection, both of which are meant to improve intersection safety.
Red light running cameras approach the safety concern from the perspective of enforcement. RLR cameras automatically photograph any vehicles that run a red light; the photographs are reviewed by the camera companies and law enforcement, and if a violation is verified, a ticket is issued and sent by mail to the address associated with the license plate on the vehicle.
At least nine states have laws that prohibit or significantly restrict the use of RLR cameras. ‑USA Today
Once drivers are aware that RLR cameras have been installed at an intersection, the theory is that they will improve overall safety through enforcement — the system punishes violators and reduces repeat offenders because motorists are incentivized to stop at the intersection rather than incur a hefty fine. Studies have shown that RLR cameras can reduce T-bone, or right-angle collisions, but it is still unclear whether or not they have any effect on rear-end crashes.
According to the IIHS, 459 communities throughout the US currently use RLR cameras. But the use of RLR cameras has proven to be incredibly controversial, with many communities refusing outright to allow them. USA Today reports at least nine states have laws that prohibit or significantly restrict the use of RLR cameras by law enforcement agencies.
While some of the controversy stems from privacy concerns, a more serious debate pits the validity of RLR cameras as safety devices against the public perception that they are little more than revenue generating traps that pad city budgets. The dichotomy is fascinating: RLR cameras are marketed as safety devices intended to stop red light running; yet, they accrue millions of dollars from fines issued to red light runners. The Governors Highway Safety Association reports that typical fines for red light running are $100, and they estimate that cameras are generating millions of dollars each year in extra revenue.
Municipalities have come to rely on this revenue, which leads critics to accuse cities of not really wanting to stop red light running at all — if no one runs red lights, they argue, then cities lose all of this additional funding. The fact is, the enforcement nature of RLR cameras isn’t doing anything to stop red light running. According to the National Coalition for Safer Roads, over 3.7 million drivers ran a red light in 2014. This data is incomplete because it only reflects the data available from intersections with RLR cameras, but the coalition says the numbers clearly show that red light running continues to be a major problem.
View red-light running fatalities that occured in cities throughout the United States from 2004-2013
Wavetronix has taken a much different approach, choosing instead to focus on one of the leading causes of red light running — the dilemma zone. The company’s SmartSensor Advance product was released in 2004 with the goal of mitigating the risks associated with the dilemma zone. The idea is to significantly reduce red light running by helping drivers avoid the split second decision to stop or go when the light turns yellow.
Essentially, Hoback says, SmartSensor Advance handles the problem of red light running before it has a chance to occur. “The severity of my accident was life changing,” Hoback says. “Now I work for a company that is dedicated to creating solutions to real problems — products like Advance that help prevent accidents like mine from ever happening.”
SmartSensor Advance works by detecting vehicles up to 600 feet in advance of the intersection stop bar (an Extended Range version can begin detecting semi-trucks and other large profile vehicles as far away as 900 feet). It then continuously tracks each detected vehicle, calculating its estimated time of arrival at the stop bar based on its speed and distance; this ETA allows Advance to dynamically assign a unique dilemma zone to each vehicle.
Advance extends green passage times by only the time needed to ensure that vehicles in a dilemma zone can safely clear the intersection. In many instances, this additional passage time can be as little as one second, which means Advance can look for more gap opportunities than is possible with static detection devices like loops. Advance not only protects vehicles from running the red light, it also allows the light to changer faster if it is safe to do so. In this way, Advance not only makes intersections safer, it does it without compromising efficiency.
“Advance bridges the gap between safety and efficiency in a way that no other detection device does,” Hoback says. “The technology unique to Advance allows it to safely clear the dilemma zone, but it also allows the light to change safely without continuous max-outs. That’s quite revolutionary.”
“Advance bridges the gap between safety and efficiency in a way that no other detection device does.” ‑Stephanie Hoback, Marketing Manager Wavetronix Florida Office
Hoback is on a mission to get the word out to traffic engineers that there is a better way to effectively address the dilemma zone. Through her efforts, Wavetronix has launched a Dilemma Zone Safety Campaign in Florida that is designed to help traffic engineers and public officials know that SmartSensor Advance is a proven alternative to red light running cameras and a viable replacement for intersection loops.
“I am proud to work for a company that is committed to making traffic systems safer and more efficient,” Hoback says. “My accident was an eye-opening experience, and I’m pleased that SmartSensor Advance is making a real difference. I want people in this industry to know that an innovative alternative exists that has the power to truly save lives.”■
