Longer yellow lights key to traffic safety

In response to the July 26 letter "Red-light cameras are increasing safety," I do not believe automated enforcement is the best way to reduce accidents; I believe that the length of the yellow signal should be increased instead.

Clearly, the real motive for red-light cameras is profit. External contractors install the red-light cameras, and participating municipalities receive a share of the drivers' fines. The contractor's business motive for installing cameras is profit. Safety is a facade, especially when considering that most violations caught by cameras have very little impact on safety.

Rolling right turns on red are technical violations with little impact on the accident rate. Most red-light runnings actually occur within the first second after the light turns red, where usually everyone has a red light, again making the safety impact minimal. While safety is the purported aim of cameras, the evidence from Schaumburg and other cities indicates a different motive: revenue. Increasing the length of yellow lights should decrease the number of accidents. Drivers seeing a yellow have more time to react and either accelerate safely through the intersection or safely come to a stop.

Evidence supports this: In Georgia, House Bill 77 in 2008 required intersections with cameras to have yellows with an additional second over national standards. After the bill, citations decreased by 80 percent in Norcross and Lilburn due to this increase, which caused those cities to suspend their automated enforcement programs. While the benefits of cameras are inconclusive at best, the benefits of lengthened yellows are clear.

If municipalities are truly interested in safety, why would they spring for an inconclusive enforcement system fining drivers for minor violations when that system prevents more effective safety measures like lengthened yellows from being implemented? Simple: follow the money.

Gregory Gauthier

Wheaton