Ord 50-08ORDINANCE NO. 50-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY ENACTING A
NEW CHAPTER 74, "CIVIL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT", OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, BY ENACTING NEW SECTIONS 74.Q1 THROUGH
74.16, PROVIDING FOR "INTENT", "USE OF IMAGE
CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES", "DEFINITIONS",
"ADHERENCE TO RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNALS", "VIOLATION", "REVIEW OF RECORDED
IMAGES", "NOTICE OF VIOLATIONI INFRACTION",
"VEHICLE OVi'lNER RESPONSIBILITIES", "APPF;AL TO
HEARING OFFICER", "VEHICLE OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF
NON-RESPONSIBILITY", "PENALTY", "ADMINISTRATIVE
CHARGES", "COLLECTION OF FINES", "EXCEPTIONS",
"APPEAL OF ORDER", AND "ENFORCEMENT", TO
PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM FOR INTERSECTION SAFETY; PROVIDING
A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach is located in a high density traffic area and regularly
experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control
devices; and
WHEREAS, the running of red lights causes a safety hazard affecting every citizen and
traveler in the City of Delray Beach; and
WHEREAS, the violation of red light traffic signals is recognized as the number one cause of
urban motor vehicle collisions; and
WHEREAS, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes the act of
violating a red light traffic signal as the most dangerous form of aggressive driving; and
WHEREAS, the National Safety Council has adapted a new public policy supporting the use
of automated enforcement {Red Light Cameras and Speed Cameras} for traffic safety.
WHEREAS, the apprehension of violators of red light traffic signal through means of law
enforcement observance, chase and citation is difficult, dangerous and expensive; and
WHEREAS, the installation and use of traffic control photographic systems permit law
enforcement resources to be efficiently utilized in responding to other serious criminal and traffic
offenses; and,
WHEREAS, red light legislation penalizing or assessing civil fees against the owner of ;
motor vehicle has proven extremely effective at reducing red light viala.tion and traffic accidents; and
WHEREAS, the City finds it to be fair and reasonable to use the same procedure employed
by the state of using unmanned cameras to enforce toll violations on the State's system of toll roads
that has been determined to be fair, reasonable and sufficient by the State in order to effectively
enforce laws regulating the payment of tolls without the need to commit the extreme amount of
personnel that would be necessary without the use of unmanned cameras; and
WHEREAS, similarly, the use of unmanned cameras will be effective in enforcing laws
requiring drivers of motor vehicles to stop for red lights and will have the effect of freeing law
enforcement personnel to respond to other, and sometimes more significant, incidents as well as
serious crime; and
WHEREAS, Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, grants municipalities, with respect to streets
and highways under their jurisdiction and within reasonable exercise of the police power, the
authority to regulate and monitor traffic by means of law enforcement officers and security devices;
and
WHEREAS, the City of .Delray Beach is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article
VII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, to enact
an ordinance making the failure to stop far a red light indication a code violation, and to provide far
enforcement of such violations; and
WHEREAS, Opinion 05-41 of the Attorney General of the State of Florida, dated July 12,
2005, issued to Samuel S. Goren, City Attorney for the City of Pembroke Pines, confirms the
authority of the City to enact an ordinance making the failure to stop far a red light indication a code
violation, to use unmanned cameras to monitor intersections in the City far such code violations, and
to record the license tag numbers of vehicles involved in such violations; and
WHERF,AS, the Attorney General has opined that the cities may not issue uniform traffic
citations under the State law to drivers for violations observed by the use of unmanned cameras and
not otherwise observed by law enforcement officers; and
WHEREAS, in order to be consistent with State law and the referenced Attorney General
Opinion, the City will issue a Notice of Infraction for failure to stop at red lights to a registered
owner of a vehicle for a violation of this ordinance and will not utilize uniform traffic citations
prescribed by Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes for violation of this ordinance and will not
2 ORD. NO. 50-08
prosecute offenses of this Ordinance through the County Court, but, rather, through the City's Cade
enforcement program, procedures and processes; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to reduce the running of red lights by creating an additional
enforcement mechanism to protect the public health, safety and welfare by implementing an
automated photographic red light traffic enforcement system in efforts to reduce violations of steady
red traffic signals at intersections in the City of Delray Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 74, "Civil Traffic Enforcement", of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Delray Beach, is hereby enacted to read as follows:
Cl iA.I'TER 74. CIVIL TRAFFIC ENFC?RCEMENT.
Sec. "74.01. INTENT.
The purpose of this chapter is to authorize the use of an unmanned cameraslmonitoring
stem to promote compliance with red light signal indicators as described by this chapter, and to
adapt a civil enforcement system for red light signal violations. Failing to stop at steady red light
signal places the offending vehicle in violation of the city intersection safety ordinance. This
ordinance prohibits vehicles from obstructing occupying ar passing into an intersection when a
steady red light is projected from a traffic control device. This ordinance will also supplement law
enforcement personnel in the enforcement of red light signal violations and shall not prohibit county.
state or local law enforcement officers from issuing a citation for a red light signal violation in
accordance with normal statutory traffic enforcement techniques.
Sec. 74.02, USE C?F IMAGE CAPTURE TECHNQLQGIES,
The City shall utilize unage capture technologies as a supplemental means of monitoring
compliance with laws related to traffic control signals, while assisting law enforcement personnel in
the enforcement of such laws, which are designated to protect and improve public health, safety and
welfare. This section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon state or county laws
related to red light signal violations or conflict with such laws. This ordinance shall serve to enable
the City to provide enhanced enforcement and res~aect for autharize~ traffic signal devices. The Cif
may utilize image capture technologies as an ancillary deterrent to traffic control signal violations and
to thereby redlzce accidents and injuries associated with such violations. Notices of infractions issued
pursuant to the ordinance shall be addressed using the City's awn Cody Enforcement Hearing
Officer pursuant to Section 37.45 of the Cade of Ordinances of the City o~ Beach and not
through the uniform traffic citations or county courts. "I"lus shall not bar the use of uniform traffic
3 ORD. NO.50-08
citations and the county courts when Citespolice personnel decide not to rely on this ordinance as the
enforcement mechanism for a specific violation.
Sec. 74.03. DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions shall agt~ly to this ordinance:
Intersection shall mean the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral
curb line: or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two roads which join
or intersect one another at, or approximately at, right angles; or the area within which vehicles
traveling ut~on different roads joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
Motor vehicle shall mean any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guide way, but
not including any bicycle or electric personal assisted mobility device, moped or motorized
scooter.
Notice of Infraction shall mean a City of Delray Beach citation issued for a Red Zone Infraction.
0lvner or vehicle olvner shall mean the person or entity identified by the state department of
motor vehicles, or other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle.
Such term shall also mean a lessee of a motor vehicle pursuant to a lease of six months or
more.
Kecorded imager shall mean images recorded by a traffic control signal monitoring
system/device on:
Two or more photographs;
Two or more electronic images;
Two or more digital images:
Digital or video movies; or
Any other medium that can display a violation; and
that shows the rear of a motor vehicle and on at least one image, clearly identifying
the license plate number of the vehicle.
Ked done infraction shall mean a traffic offense whereby a traffic control signal monitoring
stem established that a vehicle entered an intersection controlled by a duly erected traffic
ORD. NO. 50-08
control device at a time when the traffic control signal for such vehicle's direction of travel
was emitting a steady red signal.
Hearing O,~zcer shall mean the City's Code Enforcement Hearing Officer, as described in
Chapter 37, Section 37.45 ~~-ual of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Dekay Beach.
Tragic control infraction review officer shall mean the City Police Department employee designated
by the City Police Chief to review recorded images and issue Red. Zone Infractions based
upon those images.
Traf~ic control rignal shall mean a device exhibiting different colored lights or colored lighted
arrows, successively one at a time or in combination, using only the colors green,~yellow, and
red which indicate and apply to drivers of motor vehicles as provided in F.S. 31
Tra c contrnl.ri~nal monitoring .ryftem/device shall mean an electronic system consisting of one or
more vehicle sensors, working in conjunction with a traffic control signal, still camera and
video recording device, to capture and produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering
an intersection against a stead red light signal indication.
Sec. 74.04. ADHERENCE TO RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS.
Motor vehicle traffic facing a traffic control signal's steady red light indication shall stop
before entering the crosswalk on the rear side of an intersection or, if none, then before entering the
intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown on the traffic control signal;
however, the driver of a motor vehicle which is stopped at a clearly marked stop line, but if none,
before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the point
nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the
intersecting roadway before entering the intersection in obedience of a steady red traffic control
signal, may make a right turn (unless such turn is otherwise prohibited by posted sign or other traffic
control device but shall yield right-of--way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed bX
the traffic control signal at the intersection.
Sec. 74.05. VIOLATION.
A violation of this ordinance known as a Red Zone Infraction shall occur when a motor
vehicle does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 74. Violations shall be enforced pursuant
to Chapter 74. This ordinance shall not prohibit law enforcement personnel from issuing a citation
for a red light signal violation in accordance with standard statutory enforcement techniques. This
section shall not supersede, infringe, curtail or impinge upon state laws related to red light signal
violations or conflict with such laws. Notices of infractions issued pursuant to this ordinance shall
not be by the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation and shall not be subject to prosecution or appeal in
the County courts.
ORD. NO. 50-08
Sec. ?4.06. REVIEW OF Il;ECORI3EI} IMAGES,
~A) The owner of the vehicle which is observed b~ recorded images committing a
Red Zone Infraction shall be issued a Notice of Infraction. The recorded
image shall be sufficient grounds to issue a city Notice of Infraction.
fB) The City shall designate a Traffic Control Infraction Review Officers} who
shall meet the qualifications set forth in F.S. X943.13 or F.S. §316.640t5)~A),
or any ather relevant statute. The Traffic Control Infraction Review Officer
shall review recorded images Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Infraction to
ensure accuracy and the integ_rit~ of the recorded images. The Traffic Control
Infraction Officer shall also verify that the traffic control monitaring
s~stemldevices which caFtured the retarded images was functioning FroFerly
at the time the recorded images were captured. Once the Traffic Cantrol
Infraction Review Officer has verified the accuracy of the recorded images
and functionality of the traffic control monitoring systemldevices, he or she
shall comFlete a reFort, and a Notice of Infraction shall be sent to the vehicle
owner at the address on record with the Florida De,~artment of Highwa~r
Safety and Motor Vehicles or the address on record with the ap~roFriate
as~ent~ having such information in another state.
Sec, 74,07, NOTICE OF VIOLATIONIINFRACTION.
The notice of violationlinfraction shall include:
~A) The name and address of the vehicle owner:
,(B) The license Plate number and registration number of the vehicle:
.(C) The make, model, and near of the vehicle:
jD~ Notice that the violation charged is Pursuant to this ordinance:
~E~ The location of the intersection where the vialation occurred:
~F} The date and time of the Red Zone Infraction:
fG~ Notice that the recorded images relating to the vehicle and a statement that
the recorded images are evidence of a Red Zone Infraction:
ORD. N0.50-OS
~Hl The civil laenalty im~ased;
(I~ Images depicting violation;
~,~ A signed statement by the Trafhc Control Infraction Offieer that, based on
ins,~ection of recorded images, the vehicle was involved in a Red Zone Infraction;
Infraction.
~~ The procedures for ~ayrnent of the civil penalty and .contesting the Notice of
Sec. 74A8. ti~EHICLE C}~~NER FEPONSIBILTIES.
~A~ A vehicle owner receiving a Notice of Infraction may„ within ~34~-t3urty days of the
date of the Notice of Infraction:
Infraction; or
~1} Pay the assessed civil penalty pursuant to instructions on the Notice of
(2, Request an a~~eal before the Code Enforcement Hearing Officer to contest
the Notice of Infraction pursuant with procedures as outlined in this
ordinance.
The failure to comply with the provisions of this section within (30~ thirty davs from
the date of the Notice of Infraction shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest
the Notice of Infraction and will be considered an admission of liability and in such
case an order may be entered against the violator for an amount u~ to the maximum
civil penalty, play administrative costs.
ORD. NO. 54-08
Sec, 74.09. APPEAL TO HF;ARING OFFICER
The City's Hearing C-fficer is authorized to consider meals under this ordinance, Within
thirty ~30Lys of the date of the Notice of Infraction, the vehicle owner may file an a~~eal with the
City Code Enforcement Hearing Officer pursuant to the directions on the Notice of Infraction, A
hearing on the a~~eal shall be scheduled for all meals in which the vehicle owner requests such a
hearing within thirt~T~ dais, except those in which the vehicle owner submits an affidavit pursuant
to Section 74.1 Q in which the vehicle owner affirms under ~enalt;~f~erjury that the vehicle was not
under his or her care. custody, or control or that of someone with the vehicle owner's consent.
Upon receipt of the request far an a~t~ea~ty shall schedule a hearing before the
hearing officer to occur not later than sixty (60Lys after the City's receipt of the
Notice of A~~eal. A Notice of Hearing_ shall be provided to the vehicle owner no
less than ten (10~ys prior to the hearing and shall be Isrovided by certified and U.S.
mail to the same address to which the Native of Infraction was sent.
~~ The following shall be bern~issible grounds for an alp
j1~ At the time of the infraction, the vehicle was not under the care, custody, or
contro of the vehicle owner or an individual with vehicle owner's consent,
established pursuant to affidavit as provided in Sec. 74.10.
The motor vehicle driver was issued a citation by a law enforcement officer,
which was selaarate and distinct from the citation issued under this section.
for violating the steady red traffic control signal:
(3) The motor vehicle driver was required to violate the stem red traffic control
signal in order to comply with other~averning laws:
(4~ The motor vehicle driver was required to violate the steady red traffic control
signal in order to reasonably~ratect the,~ro~erty or laerson of another;
~5) The steady red traffic control signal was ina~erable or malfunctioning; ar
,~6~ Any other reason the Hearing Officer deems a~~ro~riate.
,~C) All testimony before a Hearing Officer shall be under oath and shall be recorded,
OTtD. N0.50-08
~) The traffic control infraction officer may testify at the hearing. The vehicle owner
ma~then Present testimony and evidence.
~E1 The formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due Process shall be
observed and shall,govern the Proceedings.
~~ Recorded images indicating a Red Zone Infraction, verified by the traffic control
infraction review officer, are admissible in any_,proceeding before the City's Hearing
Officer to enforce the Provisions of this Chapter, and shall constitute prima facie
evidence of the violation.
f G~Pon deternunarian of the Hearing Officer irrelevant immaterial and unduly
repetitious evidence may be excluded but, all other evidence of a type commonly
relied upon by reasonable prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be
admissible.
~,~ Unless an affidavit is Provided Pursuant to Sec. 74,10, it is Presumed the Person
registered as the vehicle owner with the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles or any
other state vehicle registration office. or an individual having the owner's consent was
operating the vehicle at the rime of a Red Zone Infraction.
Sec. 74,10. VEHICLE OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF NON-RESPONSIBILITY,
In order for the vehicle owner to establish that the motor vehicle was. at the time of the Red
Zane Infraction either: ~ in the care, custody. or control of another Person without the consent of
the registered owner: or ~b,~ was subject to a short term ~ess than six months car rental agreement
entered into between a car rental agency, which is licensed as required by applicable law and is
authorized to conduct business in the state, and the operator of the vehicle. The vehicle owner is
required within twenty-one X21) days from the date fisted on the Notice, to furnish to the City, an
affidavit setting forth the circumstances demonstrating, either: (a) that the motor vehicle was not in
the vehicle owner's care, customs. or control, and was not in the care, custody or control of another
Person with the vehicle owner's consent, or ~bl that the motor vehicle was subject to a short term
Mess than six months) rental agreement between the car rental agency receiving_the notice and the
vehicle operator and Provide a true and correct coPv of the short term car rental agreement, as
applicable, T'he affidavit must be executed in the Presence of a notary, and include:
~A) If known to the vehicle owner, the name, address. and driver's license number of the
Person who had care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle, without the vehicle
owner's consent, at the rime of the alleged Red Zone Infraction: or
ORD. NO.50-08
tB,} The name, address and driver's license number of the person who rented the motor
vehicle from the car rental agency which has received the Notice, at the time of the
alleged Red Zone Infraction; or
,~C} If the vehicle was stolen. the police report indicating the vehicle was stolen at the time
of the alleged Red Zone Infraction; and
jD} The following Language immediately above the signature line: "Under ,penalties of
perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and the facts stated in it are
true".
Upon timely receipt of a sufficient affidavit pursuant to this section, an~,prosecutian of the
notice issued to the vehicle owner shall be terminated. I'roeeedings may be commenced_y the City
against the responsible person identified in the affidavit, and in such event, the responsible person
shall be subject to the same process and procedures which are afs~licable to vehicle owners.
Sec. 74.11 PENALTY.
A violation of this ordinance shall be deemed anon-criminal. non-moving violation for
which a civil penalty in the amount $125.00 shall be assessed. As the violation relates to this
ordinance and not to the state statutes no aints as otherwise rovided in F.S. 322.27 shalt be
recorded on the driving record of the vehicle owner ar responsible pT
Sec. 74.12. ADMINISTRATPir:E CHARGES,
In addition to the penalty pursuant to Sec. 74.11, there shalt be imposed and assessed against
the violator an administrative cost of $25.00 in the event of an unsuccessful appeal of the Notice of
Infraction.
Sec. 74.13. CC}LLECTI(}N C}F FINES.
The Cit; may establish procedures far the collection of a penalty imposed herein and may
enforce such penalty by civil action in the nature of debt collection.
Sec. 74.14. EXCEPTIC}NS,
'I"his ordinance shall not any to Red Zone Infractions involving vehicle collisions or to any
authorized emergency vehicle responding_ to a bona fide emergency; nor shall a notice be issued in
any case where the operator of the vehicle was issued a citation for violating the state statute
regarding the failure to stop at a red light indication for the same event or incident.
Sec. 74.15. APPEAL OF C}RDER,
10 gRD. NC?. 50-08
An aggrieved party, including the City, may appeal an Order of a hearing officer to the
appellate division of the Circuit Court by Writ of Certiorari as stated in Sec. 37.45(M) of the City of
Delray Beach Cade of Ordinances.
Sec.74.1G. ENFORCEMENT.
This ordinance may be enforced by any other means available to the City.
Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof,
any paragraph, sentence, ar word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other
than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 3. That ali ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the
same are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That tltis ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage an
sec~~ond and final reading.
<~~`' PASS D AND DOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the
day of , 200E.
/'~ ,
` ~C~ ~
' \
MAYOR
ATTEST
CITY CLER,.K
First Reading, ~~
Second Readin ~~ ~ ~+ °
11 ORD. NO. 50-0$
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager
DATE: November 10, 2008
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2008
ORDINANCE NO.50-08
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
This ordinance is before Commission for second reading by enacting a new Chapter 74, "Civil Traffic
Enforcement", of the Code of Ordinances, by enacting new Sections 74.01 through 74.16, providing for
"Intent", "Use of Image Capture Technologies", "Definitions", "Adherence to Red Light Traffic
Control Signals", "Violation", "Review of Recorded Images", "Notice of Violation/ Infraction",
"Vehicle Owner Responsibilities", "Appeal to Hearing Officer", "Vehicle Owner Affidavit of Non-
responsibility", "Penalty", "Administrative Charges", "Collection of Fines", "Exceptions", "Appeal of
Order", and "Enforcement", to provide for the use of a code enforcement mechanism for intersection
safety.
BACKGROLTND
At the first reading on November 3, 2008, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 50-08.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 50-08 on second and final reading.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Catherine Kozal, Police Legal Advisor
THROUGH: City Attorney
DATE: October 29, 2448
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 12 A -REGULAR CtJMMISSION MEETING C1F NQVEMBER 3, 2008
C}RDINANCE 54-08
ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION
Ordinance 54-48 will allow the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by issuing an
Ordinance Violation for vehicles that are observed running red lights by a traffic control monitoring
system/device.
BACKGROUND
Numerous studies have shown that the running of red lights are a major cause of motor vehicle
collisions and are a safety hazard affecting other drivers as well as pedestrians. (See #7 in the attached
Q&As: Red Light Cameras.} Various National organizations, including the Governors Highway Safety
Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, have supported the use of traffic control monitoring devices for more effective and efficient
traffic law enforcement. Just recently on October 2, 2448 the National Safety Council adopted a new
public policy supporting the use of automated enforcement (red light cameras and speed cameras} for
traffic safety.
While there have been some concerns raised regarding the installation of red light cameras, such as
individuals braking suddenly to avoid running a red light and possibly causing a rear end collision, and
the passibility of challenges to the system and ordinance, the positive reasons far installation greatly
outweigh them. Not only has it been shown that these cameras have become deterrents for people
running red lights, but this system will allow law enforcement to focus more of their time on criminal
activity in the area resulting in a better use of personnel and resources. Moreover, these cameras can be
a valuable device to aid law enforcement in determining perpetrators of crime if they travel through a
monitored intersection as well as assist traffic accident investigators in their investigations.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Commission approve the ordinance on first reading.
Q&AS: Red light Cameres
l~,~Uli~lfti~;Cs 1N~]°Td'I.I'1'I ~ ',#.. t~`'~':~
p"~a``y~ ~,, w I"~Zii~ 1f`~ f 19 l f d l
Vehicle ratings ~ News ~ Consumer brochures & videos ~ Research & stats ~ Laws & regs ', Status Report newsletter
QL~~;As: Iced light cameras
February 2008
Show all answers
Video: automated traffic law enforcement
1 ~ What is red light running?
A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection same time after the signal light has turned red. Motorists inadvertently in
an intersection when the signal changes to red (waiting to turn left, for example) are not red light runners.
2 ~ Is red light running a big problem?
A nationwide study of fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1989 and 20{}0 estimated that 20 percent of the drivers involved failed to
obey the signals. In 2006, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red
light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants In other vehicles who are hit by
the red light runners.
Motorists are mare likely to be injured in urban crashes involving red light running than in other types of urban crashes.
Institute researchers studied police reports of crashes an public roads in four urban areas during 1990-91, occupant injuries
occurred in 45 percent of red light running crashes, compared with 30 percent of other crash types.2
Red light running crash
4 ~ Wha runs red lights?
The Institute created a profile of red light runners by studying driver behavior at an Arlington, Virginia, intersection equipped with a
http:(jwww.iihs.org/reSearChjganda/rlr.html {1 of 6} [lOJ3Q12008 11:51:4? AM]
+,+ r.~ v+v+tat+uiia v~t.,ut+cu trvtrt i7+Yt ttvu+a, +Ut ct v1U+tit1UII IQtC UI J.G FJCI IIUUI r..7G( i(I[G(`sC[:[IU(7.-`
Q&As: Red fight cameras
red light camera. The 19J6 study compared red light runners with motorists who had an opportunity to run a red light but did not. As
a group, red light runners were younger, less likely to use safety belts, had poorer driving records, and drove smaller and
older vehicles than drivers who stopped for red lights. Red light runners were more than three times as likely to have multiple
speeding convictions on their driver retards. No gender differences were found between violators and drivers who did not run
red lights.5 A 2007 study in Sacramento, California, found about 30 percent of red light runners were under 30 years of age.6
5 ~ What are red light Cameras?
Red light cameras can help communities enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights.
A red light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow at the crosswalk or stop line.
The system continuously monitors the traffic signal, and the Camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a
preset minimum speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red, Violations occurring within 2/10ths of a
second after the signal Changes to red generally aren't recorded because of technical limitations of the recording equipment.
In addition, many red light Camera programs provide motorists with grate periods of up to 1/2 second. Depending on the
particular technology, a series of photographs and/or video images show the red light violator prior to entering the intersection on a
red signai, as well as the vehicle's progression through the intersection. Cameras retard the date, time of day, time elapsed since
the beginning of the red signal, vehicle speed, and license plate. Tickets typically are mailed to owners of violating vehicles, based
on review of photographic evidence.
Red light camera violation photo
6 ~ Isn't conventional police enforcement sufficient?
Enforcing traffic laws in dense urban areas by traditional means poses special difficulties for polite, who in most rases must foNow
a violating vehicle through a red light to stop it. -Phis can endanger motorists and pedestrians as well as officers, and police Cannot
be everywhere at once, Traffic stops in urban areas can exacerbate traffic congestion. Communities do not have the resources to
allow police to patrol intersections as often as would be needed to ticket all motorists who run red lights. Red light Cameras allow
polite to focus on other enforcement needs,
7 ~ What safety benefits do red light Cameras provide?
Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Qxnard,
California, showed that Camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3~7 In addition to reducing
red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities tarried over to signalized intersections
not equipped with red light Cameras, indicating community-wide Changes in driver behavior, An Institute evaluation of red light
Cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased
yellow signal timing, the addition of red light Cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.$
In addition to reducing' red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection trashes. In Qxnard, California,
significant citywide trash reductions followed the introduction of red Gght Cameras, and injury trashes at intersections with
traffic signals were reduced by 29 percents Front-into-side collisions--the Crash type most Closely associated with red light
running -were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side Crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An
http:Jjwww.Iihs.orgjresearchjgandalrlr.htmt {2 of 6} [loj3oj2oos 11:51:47 AM]
Q&As: Red light Cameras
Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent
and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.1a
Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can
increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be mare severe than rear-
end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A recent study sponsored by the Federal
Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities. 1 The study found that, overall, right-angle
crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate
economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of
approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were
mare than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies
have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration {an international organization that conducts
systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues} reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light
camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a
16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find
a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes.
8 ~ Isn't longer yellow signal timing mare effective than using red light cameras to reduce red light running?
While the provision of adequate yellow signal timing is important and can reduce red Eight running, longer yellow timing alone does
not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras. Studies have shown that increasing yellow timing to values
associated with guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers1s can significantly decrease the frequency of red
light violations.1~~1s~1s In addition, a 2002 Institute study of modified yellow and all-red traffic signal timing at urban
intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to comparison sites,17
An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated incremental effects on red light running of first
lengthening yellow signal timing, followed by introduction of red light camera enforcement.s Yellow signal timing was increased
by about one second at two intersections where red light cameras were installed. Results show that while increased yellow
signal timing reduced red light violations by 36 percent, the addition of red light camera enforcement further reduced red light
violations at these sites by 96 percent beyond levels achieved by the longer yelow signal timing.
9 ~ Da the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection?
No. Cameras are set so that only those vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red are photographed.
Vehicles that enter on yellow and are still in an intersection when the light changes to red are not photographed. This technology
is intended to identify vehicles driven by motorists who enter an intersection after the signal has turned red.
10 ~ Does someone review the photographs before motorists are ticketed?
Yes. Trained police officers or other officials review every picture to verify vehicle information and ensure the vehicle is in
violation. Tickets are mailed to vehicle owners only in cases where it is clear the vehicle ran a red light.
11 ~ Do red light cameras violate motorists" privacy?
No. l;}riving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules, such as to
obey traffic signals. Neither the law nor common sense suggests drivers should not be observed on the road or have their
violations documented. Red light camera systems can be designed to photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate, not
vehicle occupants, depending on local law. C?nly vehicles driven by motorists who violate the law are photographed.
More information on legal issues
hltp:JJwww.iihs.org/research/gandajrlr.html (3 of 6) [1oJ3ojzoo8 12:51;47 RM]
Q&As: Red light cameras
i 2 ~ Are special laws needed to allow lacali#ies to use red light cameras to cite violators?
Before cameras may be used for law enforcement, laws must authorize en#oreement agencies to cite red light violators by mail.
The legislation must make the vehicle owner responsible far the ticket, establishing a presumption that the registered owner is
the vehicle driver at the time of the offense. This can be accomplished either by state statutes or in some states by local
legislation. Red light cameras currently are authorized in about half of US states. Depending an state law, violations photographed
by red light cameras are commonly treated in one of two ways - as traffic violations or as the equivalent of parking tickets. If, as
in New York, red light camera violations are treated like parking citations, the law can make registered vehicle owners
responsible without regard to who was driving at the time of the offense.
13 (Are red light camera programs expensive?
Camera equipment costs vary based on the type of camera, complexity of the intersection, and technical requirements. A red
light camera system with installation costs approximately $100,000. A single red light camera can be used at several locations
once the sites are equipped to work with the camera, allowing communities to move cameras among sites without drivers
knowing which ones are active at any given time. Startup costs can be offset by fines, savings from crashes prevented, and by
freeing police to focus an other enforcement efforts.
14 ~ lsn't the main purpose of red light cameras #o make money?
No. The objective of photo enforcement is to deter violators, not to catch them. Signs and publicity campaigns typically warn
drivers that photo enforcement is in use. Revenue is generated from fines paid by drivers who continue to run red lights, but this is
a fundamental component of all traffic enforcement programs. Independent audits of red light camera enforcement have found
that these programs generally da not generate excess revenue. For example, the California state auditor reported in 2082 that red
light cameras were not generating large amounts of revenue.18 The financial status of only two of the state's seuen camera
programs was break-even or better. The lJS General Accounting Office reported in 2003 on the contribution of federal funds to
local use of photo enforcement technology and the amount of revenue generated by these programs.ig The report found that
photo enforcement program revenues were lower than program costs in three jurisdictions, while the revenues in two other
jurisdictions exceeded program costs.
15 (Does the American public support the use of red light cameras?
The large majority of the US public supports red light cameras. A 2000 Institute survey in ten cities -five with cameras and
five without -reported that more than 75 percent of drivers supported camera enforcement.~c A 2002 nationwide survey
sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 75 percent
of drivers favored the use of red light cameras.21 A 1996 survey by the Insurance Research Council found that the highest support
far red light cameras was in large cities, where 83 percent of respondents supported their use, compared with 52 percent
of respondents in suburbs.~~
16 ~ Da major t1S cities use red light cameras?
Cameras are used for law enforcement in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York
City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC, plus many smaller communities.
US cities with red light cameras
17 ~ What other countries use red light cameras?
I Red light cameras have been used in at least 33 foreign countries since the 1970s.zs Countries that use red light cameras
http: jJwww.iihs.orgJresearchjgandalrlr.html {4 of 6) [li}J30J2048 11:51:4? AM]
PCL xL error
Subsystem. VECTOR
Error: Insufficienthlemory
Operator: SetCursor
Position: b9734
................._
~.c rr ~~ ,
Boca RatonJDelray Beach News -Friday & Saturday, November 7-8, 2008 • www.bacanews.com l0A
'\'flTIC'£5
I
104
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CITY OF DEERAY $EACH,FLORIDA '~,
NOTICE OF PU$UC HEARING '
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held o* ~'~
iha follcwing proposed ordinances at
7;40 p.m. on TUESDAY, NOVEM~
$ER 18, 2000 (oc at any continuation
01. scch meeting which is set by the
Commission}, in iha Chy GOmmi$si0n
Chambers, 740 N.W. tst Avenge; Del-
ray Beach, Figrida, ai which tima Iha
C+ty Commission will ccnsidar their
adoption. The prgpased ordinances
may be Inspected ai the Ottrge ai the
City Clerk ~ City Nast ltYt N.W. tst
Avenr Gesrav $each, Florida, be-
Iw~een he of B:C4 a.m, and 5:04
p.m., 1 fay ihrqugh Friday, except
holidays. All inieresled parL~ are in-
vited to allend and be heard with r<
sped to the proposed orGinarues.
ORDINANCE N0.50-OB
AN__ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COM~
t' CN 4F THE CITY OF DELRAY
- i, ELORIOA, ENACTING A
N_ a CHAPTEfl 74, "CfVIL TRAFFIC
t ~ FORGEMENT", OF THE CODE OF
ORCINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, $Y ENACTING
NEW SECTIONS 74.01 THROUGH
T4.i9, PflOVIOtNG FOR "INTENT".
"USE OF IMAGE CAPTURE TECN~
NOLOGIES", "DEFINITIONS",
"ADHERENCE TO RED LIGHT TRAF~
RC CONTROL SIGNALS',
"VIOLATION', °REVIEW OF RE-
'CORDED IMAGES', 'NOTICE 6F Vb
OLATION7 INFRACTION`, 'VEHICLE
DWNER RESPONStBIL[TIES",
'APPEAL TO HEARING OFFICER`,
`VEHICLE OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF
NON-flESPONSIBIUTY",
"PENALTY", "ADMtNiSTRATiVE
CHARGES'. "COLLECTsON OF
FINES", "EXCEPTIONS', `APPEAL
OF ORDER°, AND "ENFORCEMENT°,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF A
CODE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
FOR iNTERSECT;ON SAFETY; PRO-
VIDING ASAVING CLAUSE, A GEN-
ERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, ANC AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ORDINANC€ N0.93.09
AN OHDINANCE OF THE CITY COtA-
tAISSiON OF THE CITY OF DELRAY
BEACH, FLORIDA, h400IFYiNG THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DELRAY
$EACH; FINDING THAT THE MOD-
IFICATIONS CONFORM TO THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 1599, AS AMENDED; FIND-
ING THAT THE MODIFICATIONS
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY
OF DELRAY $EACH'S COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN, ANC MAKING FUR-
THER FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
4F FLORIDA STATUTE i&3.350;
PROVIDING A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE, A SAVING CLAUSE ANC
AN EFFF-'IVE GATE.
Please ho ac:ised Thai II a Gerson de-
ck^• ,r lecision made by
the a. nsign witty ICSpecl 19
IDaidgr¢d al IheS¢ hed(-
irrgs, person may need Io ensure
Ina! ~ ::.6alim record irtetodaS the'
teslim Ony anq evidence upon which
the appea!is to tre based. The City
does not provide nor prepare Such
record nursgant to F.0.295.0+.95.
CITY OF DELR AY $EACH
Chwella 6. Nabin, GMC
City Clerk
Pubikh: Friday, November 7, 2009
Boca Raton+Dalray $eadt Naws