|
|
| |
|
BY
CSABA CSERE
September 2001
|
Loot and the law. You'd think governing officials
could tell them apart. But when the 37 red-light
cameras in Washington, D.C., are budgeted to
collect $16 million in fines this year, and
a single red-light camera in San Diego harvested
$6.8 million over an 18-month period, I can
understand how some confusion might occur.
 With
red-light cameras raking in loot in at least
50 cities in 10 states and their numbers growing
every day, a question arises: Are their installations
motivated by considerations of traffic safety
or by the potential revenue they can generate?
The concept of red-light cameras is simple.
Through the miracle of modern electronics, a
few companies have developed camera devices
that monitor intersections, automatically identify
cars that run red lights, and take their pictures.
Traffic citations follow quickly in the mail.
Proponents claim red-light cameras discourage
law breaking and reduce the number of accidents
caused by red-light runners. According to a
study sponsored by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, "Red-light camera enforcement
in conjunction with public awareness can modify
driving behavior and has been shown to reduce
red-light violations and intersection crashes."
Who would argue with that?
Oddly enough, however, red-light running doesn't
appear to be a major issue except in places
where these cameras are already in operation
and where jurisdictions are cashing in on the
resulting revenue. When I last wrote about these
traffic
cameras (May 1999), the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration didn't even bother
to track the number of fatalities caused by
red-light accidents. And I've never seen a public
campaign against running red lights similar
to those demonizing speeding, drunk driving,
and road rage. Communities genuinely concerned
with enforcing compliance at traffic lights
could easily assign police to problem intersections,
just as they periodically launch speeding crackdowns
and drunk-driving checkpoints.
One reason for the lack of red-light jihads
is that there's an easier way to reduce red-light
running. Turns out that the duration of the
yellow light has a huge effect on the number
of red-light infractions.
The mechanics are simple. When a driver
sees a yellow light, there are three options:
(1) You are far from the intersection,
so you bring the car to a comfortable,
safe stop. |
| (2)
You are too near the intersection to stop
safely, so you drive through while the
light remains yellow. |
| (3)
You are between these two situations,
in the "zone of dilemma." In
this third case, there is not enough space
to stop calmly and safely before the intersection,
but you are too far from the intersection
to get through it before the light turns
red. |
|
A traffic engineer can eliminate this "zone
of dilemma" by setting an adequate amount
of time for the yellow light. This interval
can be calculated using an equation that incorporates
vehicle speed (based on traffic surveys),
stopping ability, reaction time, vehicle length,
and intersection width. In most cases, the
yellow-light time ranges from four to five
seconds.
Traffic engineers can also simply increase
the yellow-light time at problem intersections
until red-light running is reduced. "An
increase of 1.4 seconds or about 30 percent
in yellow duration virtually eliminated all
potential conflicts at the Maryland site,"
according to a 1980 study in the Institute
of Transportation Engineers journal.
Wouldn't extending the yellow by a second
be simpler than installing expensive camera
devices? Perhaps, but there's no money in
adjusting the duration of a yellow light.
In fact, not only can the authorities collect
revenue by installing red-light cameras, but
they can really get the cash register ringing
if they reduce the yellow-light duration at
intersections fitted with the ticket-dispensing
cameras. \
Last
February in Beaverton, Oregon, Elaine Murphy,
a reporter for KOIN-TV, discovered that intersections
fitted with red-light cameras had three-second
yellow lights and adjacent intersections without
the cameras had four-second yellows. In response,
city officials suggested that the discrepancy
was due to differing traffic volumes at the
two intersections.
In Mesa, Arizona, a story in the Arizona Tribune
reported that after motorists complained yellow
lights were too short at double left-turn lanes,
the city increased their duration. Some of these
intersections were fitted with red-light cameras,
and camera citations dropped from 1640 in November,
when the yellow light was three seconds in duration,
to 716 in December, when it was lengthened to
four seconds. Citations then remained at lower
levels, numbering 734 in March.
The installer of the cameras, Lockheed Martin,
then got into the act. The contract the city
of Mesa had signed with Lockheed Martin, which
gave the contractor $48 for every red-light
ticket issued, contained a clause prohibiting
the city from altering the duration of yellow-light
times after the cameras were installed.
With the Arizona Tribune shining the spotlight
on Lockheed Martin, the company chose not to
enforce this clause. But the company did negotiate
a new contract increasing Lockheed Martin's
cut from the camera citations from $48 to $75
if a certain quota of tickets was not reached.
Much of this information about red-light cameras,
and more, can be found at www.freedom.gov, the
Web site of Congressman Dick Armey of Texas,
the Republican House Majority leader. Armey
is keen on this issue because the federal Department
of Transportation is promoting red-light cameras
and, in some cases, offering funding to local
jurisdictions to install them. The National
Motorists Association, particularly researcher
Greg Mauz, has also been actively scrutinizing
these devices.
Not only are these cameras a solution to a problem
that should first be addressed by retiming yellow
lights where necessary, but they also raise
privacy and safety concerns. An exhaustive Australian
study of red-light cameras, published in 1995
after 10 years of examining accident data, suggests
that rear-end collisions increase at camera
locations when drivers, hoping to avoid tickets,
slam on the brakes in an erratic manner. But
who cares about privacy and rear-end collisions
when there is money to be made?
|
Thunderstorm Drives Bakersfield
Red Light Camera Haywire |
Thunderstorm
causes red light camera to flash everyone driving
past.  The
accuracy of Bakersfield, California's red light
camera system is in question after an overnight
thunderstorm Monday. The storm apparently caused
a camera located at White Lane and Wible Road
to wildly flash every passing motorist and "probably
startled a lot of people," Bakersfield
Police Detective Mary DeGeare told the Bakersfield
Californian. Because they are acknowledging
this malfunction, police claim that nobody will
be mailed the pricey citations which range from
$381 to $906 per ticket.
Last year the city was caught trying to collect
over $500,000 from motorists who were ticketed
by a camera at Ming Avenue and South Real Road
which had a yellow signal time that was so short
it violated California law.
Article
Excerpt:
In
fact, the new red-light camera system at White
Lane and Wible Road was reportedly popping off
like a strobe light gone mad.
Source:
Thunderstorms
may not be done with Kern yet
(Bakersfield Californian, 8/16/2005
|
| |
|
|
Track
your orders Online through UPS
