RED LIGHT CAMERAS
This page is being built to become a complete resource on the setting of traffic signals. Until that time because of the extreme interest in signal timing and red light cameras, we hope the information below will be of assistance.
Camera Enforcement v. Sound Engineering Practices
A Clash of Diametrically Opposed Forces!
July 15, 2002 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) District Six Annual Meeting: Red Light Running Panel by Chad Dornsife, “This analysis will shed light on the governing traffic control law, the underlying cause, the myths and the solution. To wit, that only verified sound engineering practices need be applied. ” Power Point Presentation from Paper Html, Download
Why the Nevada Legislature Rejected Automated Enforcement. The Corruption of Public Policy on this one goes all the way to the White House, while "We the People" are left with dealing with this franchise to steal for public entities.
March 21, 2007 Best Highway Safety Practices Institute Testimony. The remedy to red light running: Once you determine the level of non compliance the prescribed remedy is to adjust the yellow and to look at other engineering factors etc to meet the needs of the traffic’s safety, and adjust as necessary to remedy the problem. Whereas, the cameras companies find a problem, and then turn it into a profit center rather than correct it. Of course the the police support cameras, because under the law the Police are the primary beneficiary, and for a system to be viable it requires high levels of non compliance to be sustained. Moreover, police have no training whatsoever in traffic engineering or hazard mitigation but are routinely looked to as the experts??
In short, for photo enforcement to be viable they must quantify an unsafe condition and maintain it, rather than fix it. The why is never safety.
Here is what the BHSPI sent the legislature and why they voted it down again. If you read the attached it will at a minimum give you a very different point of reference as to enforcement cameras.
Even though every law enforcement and public entity (room full of badges and braid) testified in favor, the BHSPI was able to get the senate on a 2 to 1 vote to vote SB61 down.
Part of what the BHPSI supplied to their staff, along with the PDF attached.
Dear Senate:
The Senate Transportation Committee by sending SB 61 to the floor, just proved that no matter how repugnant a bill is to the rule of law and due process, it simple doesn't matter. The evidence against this bill is overwhelming and conclusive. How did we get to such a wide gulf between representing the people and doing the right thing, as opposed to serving special interest?
Thank you Senators Mark E Amodei and Maggie Carlton for having the courage to vote on the facts and for the people of the state of Nevada.
SB 61 translated, let’s pass a bad law to allow public entities to steal from the public at the expense of safety, and we'll see if we can perfect this crime and make it acceptable during a 2 year trial. FOR WHOM? Surely not public safety or the good of the people.
Time and time again egregious practices in the name of law enforcement is expanded in Nevada while due process to the citizen’s of Nevada has become non existent and our politically driven (not sound engineering) practices killÊmore and more of us daily.
Please vote no on the floor. What perplexes us is one of those that voted yes knows full well this not about safety!
San Diego's Red Light Camera Program
Another Scarlet Letter for the FHWA
October 14, 2002 San Diego's Red Light Camera Reactivation Plan: Red Light Camera Hearings by Chad Dornsife, Its no longer case where they allow people to die or have their lives irreparably altered because they have a policy of looking the other way ... they are now actively altering our Nation's Safety Standard to facilitate unsafe practices. What's worse is they know this too. Some of the latest changes in practices and guidelines should be titled "How to Kill More People, Degrade Our Quality of Life and Profit from it too" not the MUTCD.
YOU BE THE JUDGE: The evidence is here, this is not safety!
July 10, 2002 “Red Light Camera Timeline ” by Chad Dornsife, National Motorists Association:“ Before Red Light Cameras, November 1980 – "The results in Table 3 show that the extension of yellow duration reduced the frequency of potential conflicts in all cases studied." ["The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response", Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, November 1980, page 27] (NOTE: "Zador is senior statistician for Insurance Institute For Highway Safety (an independent scientific organization devoted to the cause of highway loss reduction)." Page 29)
"It has frequency been claimed that if the yellow is "too long", more drivers will use part of the yellow as green. More drivers - it was argued - would cross after the yellow onset with long [RATHER] than with short yellow."........"The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." ["The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response", Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, November 1980, page 27]
"The percentages of these vehicles, that is of vehicles that could have been involved in a conflict with cross-street traffic, were substantially smaller at both sites and under all conditions after the yellow duration was extended. No evidence was found at either site, under any of the conditions, that the vehicles that were in potential conflict with cross-street traffic with the extended yellow would have cleared the intersection earlier in the cycle if the yellow had not been extended. Thus, the extensions of yellow duration employed in this study substantially reduced the frequency of potential intersection conflicts." ["The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response", Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, November 1980, page 28]
PHOTO ENFORCEMENT: A City’s Guide to Profiting from Poor and Unsafe Engineering Practices!
August 28, 2001 “California Senate Hearing Testimony ” by Chad Dornsife, National Motorists Association:“ What has been lost in the public uproar and debate is the basic fact that for a red light camera or a photo radar speed enforcement system to be viable, there must be an underlying traffic safety engineering deficiency. In every case to date, that we have examined, without exception, this has been the case.”
Orwell’s Cash Machine Out of Service in San Diego
June 25, 2001 “New Documents Reveal Profit Motive Behind Red Light Cameras” Dick Armey’s Office Press Release “A report released today by lawyers in San Diego uses documents obtained under court order to prove that the city and its contractors used high–tech privacy invading cameras purely for profit, with almost no consideration given to their stated goal of “safety”. Below you'll find our news release and a copy of the report. Scans of all documents referenced are available at www.freedom.gov/auto”
There’s a contract clause preventing cities from extending yellow times!
June 1, 2001 “Congressman signals need for light change” BY RAY STERN, TRIBUNE; “ A U.S. congressman’s staff report states the best way to reduce red–light running is to boost the duration of yellow signal lights, an idea that is working at six Mesa intersections. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R–Texas, noted the dramatic drop in Mesa's red–light camera citations since the city changed some yellow light times in November. Mesa has one of the worst red–light running accident records in the country.”
The Red Light Running Crisis – Is it Intentional?
May 2001 report by Dick Armey, R, TX – US Congress VERY COMPREHENSIVE: ACTUAL EXAMPLES, WHO’S RESPONSIBLE and WHAT WENT WRONG AND HOW 9–10 web pages –– “There's a hidden tax being levied on motorists today. In theory, this tax is only levied on those who violate the law and put others in danger. But the reality is that the game has been rigged. And we're all at risk.”
Dear Patrick Hasson at the Federal Highway Administration,
June 18, 2001 Gene Quinn, NMA engineer. Correspondence to Administrator of FHWA Red Light Running program, asking why the FHWA refuses to respond or take action, and why is it National Standards facilitate and promote unsafe practices, and ask how did this become law.
ITE Key Contributor to Problem!
May 29, 2001 ITE correspondence in response to report by Dick Armey, R, TX – Email from hwysafety.com “ This left the country with this legacy and crisis of 950 fatalities a year attributed to this cause according to your numbers. A number that would be half that if we hadn't lost engineering based and verified only ITE or FHWA (MUTCD) guidance and practice standards.”
Follow up – ITE Key Contributor to Problem!
June 19, 2001 ITE, correspondence in response to report by Dick Armey, R, TX – Email from hwysafety.com “ Just reread your latest news release... you just don’t get it. The ITE is an engineering organization. Your job is to get the engineering part right. Not make excuses or not directly answer a single question. Quoting NHTSA or IIHS or AHS is folly. The only ITE position support or links shown on your website... is these sources? None of these organizations you circled around in your defense solves the engineering problem at hand; a clear degradation of sound engineering practices in regards to intersection safety – that needs immediate attention!”
MICHIGAN AAA – RED LIGHT STUDY
12/1999 PDF, AAA sponsored program prevents crashes, one intersection at a time. “To Feder's surprise, redesigning the intersections also reduced red light running.”
FHWA – Millennium Edition of the MUTCD
12/2000 LETTER, Re: Statutory Speed Limit Definition – inclusion in MUTCD illegal act. There are links within to 3 letters written in regards to this problem, including cites to where they violated the law. The inclusion is catastrophic for signalized intersections.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS – THEN AND NOW – OH HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED
2/01/2001 Email by, Gene Quinn, Re: Traffic Signals, Then and Now “ Traffic lights that turn red prematurely because of inadequate yellow time duration, especially when cameras are used, create a host of safety and equity problems.”
SAN DIEGO, CA – RED LIGHT CAMERA AND SAFETY MYTH
2/10/2001 Email by, Chad Dornsife, “How do we get ourselves in these situations? Our government is schizophrenic, on one side we have sound engineering practices that few know is the law of the land - FHWA and its MUTCD. A national press that has little time in today’s world to check the veracity of public press releases in its quest to provide massive amounts of daily content. Then we have the Federal Agency of Urban Myth called the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), whose entire existence is based on like misinformation campaigns.”
FHWA – FEDERAL RED LIGHT CAMPAIGN
2/15/2001 Quotable Truisms, email by, B. Michel, Re: Red Light Cameras and Safety, “If you are at all familiar with industrial practices you will recognize the truism that “You can’t inspect quality into your product. It must be designed in.” If safe streets are your product, then enforcement is your inspection. I maintain that properly designed and engineered speed limits and signal timings are the right long term solution.”
|
