A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

red light cameras/NY Times



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 05, 01:20 AM
fbloogyudsr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default red light cameras/NY Times

Because NYT requires you be a subscriber, I'll just post the article.

Floyd
----------
With Cameras on the Corner, Your Ticket Is in the Mail
By JONATHAN MILLER

Published: January 6, 2005

On a perfectly clear day in October, Carla Correa, a confessed neurotic when
it comes to getting a ticket, powered her Honda Civic toward an intersection
in Baltimore on her way to visit her boyfriend in Washington. When the light
turned yellow, she did not simply cruise through, but instead slammed on the
brakes.

Seconds later, a truck rammed her from behind, and her car was wrecked.

Why would she do such a thing? The answer could be found in a box mounted on
a nearby post, with a lens pointed at her license plate.

"It's an intersection that I've been through a million times before, and I
knew that it was a quick yellow light," Ms. Correa, 25, said in a telephone
interview. She also knew that the intersection was equipped with a camera.
"And when I saw the yellow, I freaked out."

Though unhurt, Ms. Correa has made a resolution: from now on, if it seems
the light is about to turn red, she is going to run it. "If I hadn't known
there was a red-light camera there, I would have gone through," she said.
"Every time I see the red-light camera, I'm terrified by it. It's a $70
ticket." (Actually, it's $75.)

Her experience is not an anomaly. Cameras like the one she spotted are now
in use in more than 100 American cities. Activated by road sensors when a
car enters an intersection belatedly, the systems provide evidence of a
violation, including photos of the license plate and in some cases, the
driver.

While Baltimore reports that violations for running red lights have gone
down 60 percent at the 47 intersections with such cameras, several studies
in recent years - in places like San Diego, Charlotte, N.C., and Australia -
have offered a fuzzier picture. The studies have shown that the reduction in
side-angle collisions at the intersections has been wholly or largely offset
by an increase in rear-end accidents like Ms. Correa's.

In addition, there has been criticism of the cameras' use to generate
revenue from fines - in some cases exceeding $300 per violation, with points
on a driver's record - and of revenue-sharing arrangements with providers of
the technology. Those arrangements, critics contend, have led to the
placement of cameras not necessarily where they would best promote safety,
but where they will rack up the most violations.

Those questions, along with malfunctions and legal challenges, have led some
local governments to remove the cameras. Virginia's legislature is
considering whether to renew a law, expiring in July, that permits the
cameras, used in six Virginia cities.

Despite the problems, many cities, including Philadelphia and Cincinnati,
are moving forward in installing automated red-light cameras. Many others
couldn't be happier with the technology. "We think it's doing a wonderful
job," said Steve Galgano, executive director for engineering in the traffic
division of the Department of Transportation in New York City, where 50 such
cameras are in operation - along with 200 decoys - at periodically changing
locations.

The story of the red-light camera is one of technology, safety, politics,
behavior modification - and unintended consequences.

And some contend that revenue has trumped safety.

"I disapprove of the privatization of a police function," said Mark
Kleinschmidt, a city councilman in Chapel Hill, N.C., where a private
contractor not only installed the camera system but also carried out the
initial screening of potential violations. Last year Mr. Kleinschmidt
persuaded a slim majority of his colleagues to end the program after four
months.

"I don't think we should bid it out to a corporation; it's strictly a police
function," he said. "Then there's this distaste in the minds of many, that
the whole concept is a corporate moneymaking scheme."

For their part, camera-equipped cities and the private companies that
contract with them dismiss such claims, saying the cameras have reduced
violations. The largest provider in the country, Affiliated Computer
Services, has 55 clients in the United States and Canada, including
Washington and San Diego. It provides camera systems and in some cases
administers the processing of citations. The cameras first made their
appearance in Europe and Australia in the 1970's, but came to the United
States only in 1993, when, with little fanfare or warning, New York City
started installing them.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which
endorses the camera systems' use, 1,000 people are killed each year in
red-light violations. Advocates of the cameras have championed them as
effective tools in reducing accidents and deaths, freeing officers to
perform other crime-fighting duties, and as an efficient way to raise
revenue in the process.

When Mayor Anthony A. Williams of Washington acknowledged that twofold aim
in 2002 ("The cameras are about safety and revenue," he said), his comments
outraged AAA, which withdrew its support for the camera program there. About
120 cities in 18 states and the District of Columbia now use the cameras,
according to statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an
enthusiastic backer of the cameras that receives all of its financing from
insurers.

"We've been able to document clearly that red-light running is a problem,"
said Richard Retting, a senior transportation engineer at the institute and
an author of several studies on the subject. The cameras "are very effective
tools for enhancing safety consistently," he said, adding: "Drivers know
what to expect. They know if they break a law there'll be a consequence."

That consequence is a ticket in the mail. Here is the chain of events before
that happens: In most cases, a magnetic coil is embedded in the pavement
just before an intersection. When the light turns red, this activates the
coil, which helps the system record any vehicle that rolls over the coil,
and its speed. A photo is snapped of the license plate, sometimes from both
the front and the back (in California the driver's face is photographed),
and the company or local officials, or both, review the image, and the
ticket is sent out.

Officials at Affiliated Computer Services say they are developing laser
technology that would be aimed at cars. If effective, it could replace the
coil system. A pilot program in several cities will be introduced in the
next few months, but officials declined to name the cities.

Some drivers have escalated the technological arms race by using simple
sprays and shields that they believe obscure the license plates when
photographed. The sprays, called PhotoBlocker and Photo Fog, cost $20 to
$30. The drivers who swear by them claim that they have run red lights and
not received tickets. Officials at Affiliated say that studies conducted by
the company show the sprays to be ineffective. Nonetheless, many states,
like Maryland, now specifically outlaw the use of them.

The resistance to the cameras is not just at the individual level, however.

Organizations like the National Motorists Association, a drivers' advocacy
group based in Wisconsin, denounce the use of cameras. "It violates due
process," said Greg Mauz, a truck driver from Florida and researcher for the
association, "because it assumes you're guilty until proven innocent." Roger
Hedgecock, a former mayor of San Diego who is now a radio talk show host
there, called the cameras an old-fashioned shakedown.

In a court case that resulted in the dismissal of nearly 300 tickets in
2001, a former employee testified that Lockheed Martin IMS, which operated
the San Diego system, regularly scouted intersections in some cities based
on high traffic volume, not locations that were most accident-prone.
Documents revealed that officials sought locations with steep gradients and
short yellow-light times.

A California Department of Transportation auditor's report in 2002 concluded
that the yellow-light duration at two camera-equipped intersections in San
Diego had been shortened, but said this had been a mistake. Thousands of
drivers were ticketed, though a handful won dismissals. The city's camera
program was suspended in 2001, but has since resumed.

Today, officials at Affiliated Computer Services, which purchased Lockheed
Martin IMS in August 2001 for $825 million, acknowledge the past troubles in
San Diego. "It was a breakdown in communication with us - the vendor - and
the department of transportation," said Maurice J. Hannigan, a vice
president at the company.

To reverse some of the ill will, the company says it has restructured its
contracts with cities to avoid any perception that it would benefit from
maximizing the number of citations. Instead of receiving a share of the
fines, Mr. Hannigan said, the company is now typically paid a flat monthly
fee.

Even when the fines go solely to the public coffers, the tickets can be
costly. In Sacramento, the maximum penalty for running a red light is $351.
Those numbers add up. Even in Washington, where the fine is $75, the city
has collected $28.9 million since installing the cameras in 1999, according
to the city's Web site. (In some jurisdictions, violators also have points
added to their record, which can increase their insurance rates.)

Until recently, findings on the effectiveness of cameras have been mixed at
best. One of the most-cited studies, performed by Mr. Retting of the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found that crashes decreased at all
intersections in Oxnard, Calif., by 5.4 percent after cameras were installed
at some locations. Mr. Retting did not look specifically at intersections
with the cameras, arguing that a spillover effect from the camera
intersections would affect the data at all intersections.

Studies elsewhere, however, made a striking finding: rear-end accidents have
shot up at intersections with cameras. In 2002 a consultant's study in San
Diego reported that the number of crashes at camera intersections had
increased by 3 percent after the cameras were installed, almost all of it a
result of a 37 percent increase in rear-endings. "This finding is not
consistent with the program's overall objective of improving traffic
safety," the report's authors concluded.

But studies to be presented at a transportation conference next week in
Washington by two researchers, Forrest M. Council and Bhagwant Persaud,
reach a more nuanced conclusion. They found that rear-endings had gone up
nearly 15 percent after cameras were installed in seven cities, with
injuries from such accidents up 24 percent. Right-angle crashes declined by
24 percent, with injuries down nearly 16 percent. Weighing the economic
impact and severity of injuries, they found the overall effect positive.

Or as Mr. Hannigan of Affiliated put it: "Would you rather have someone
coming at you at 40 miles an hour, going through your window, or rear-ending
you at 10?"


Ads
  #2  
Old January 11th 05, 01:42 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> With Cameras on the Corner, Your Ticket Is in the Mail
> By JONATHAN MILLER
>
> Published: January 6, 2005
> On a perfectly clear day in October, Carla Correa, a confessed neurotic when
> it comes to getting a ticket, powered her Honda Civic toward an intersection
> in Baltimore on her way to visit her boyfriend in Washington. When the light
> turned yellow, she did not simply cruise through, but instead slammed on the
> brakes.
> Seconds later, a truck rammed her from behind, and her car was wrecked.
> Why would she do such a thing? The answer could be found in a box mounted on
> a nearby post, with a lens pointed at her license plate.


> "It's an intersection that I've been through a million times before, and I
> knew that it was a quick yellow light," Ms. Correa, 25, said in a telephone
> interview. She also knew that the intersection was equipped with a camera.
> "And when I saw the yellow, I freaked out."


Red light camera and a shorter than normal yellow signal length. Can
anyone say revenue generator? Safety negative revenue generator.

<...>

> Or as Mr. Hannigan of Affiliated put it: "Would you rather have someone
> coming at you at 40 miles an hour, going through your window, or rear-ending
> you at 10?"


Or no collision at all if the intersection was properly engineered
instead of it's flaws being used for revenue generation.


  #3  
Old January 11th 05, 01:42 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> With Cameras on the Corner, Your Ticket Is in the Mail
> By JONATHAN MILLER
>
> Published: January 6, 2005
> On a perfectly clear day in October, Carla Correa, a confessed neurotic when
> it comes to getting a ticket, powered her Honda Civic toward an intersection
> in Baltimore on her way to visit her boyfriend in Washington. When the light
> turned yellow, she did not simply cruise through, but instead slammed on the
> brakes.
> Seconds later, a truck rammed her from behind, and her car was wrecked.
> Why would she do such a thing? The answer could be found in a box mounted on
> a nearby post, with a lens pointed at her license plate.


> "It's an intersection that I've been through a million times before, and I
> knew that it was a quick yellow light," Ms. Correa, 25, said in a telephone
> interview. She also knew that the intersection was equipped with a camera.
> "And when I saw the yellow, I freaked out."


Red light camera and a shorter than normal yellow signal length. Can
anyone say revenue generator? Safety negative revenue generator.

<...>

> Or as Mr. Hannigan of Affiliated put it: "Would you rather have someone
> coming at you at 40 miles an hour, going through your window, or rear-ending
> you at 10?"


Or no collision at all if the intersection was properly engineered
instead of it's flaws being used for revenue generation.


  #4  
Old January 11th 05, 05:37 AM
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The problem is the damn truck driver. The light turned yellow before
she hit the intersection, so there was no excuse for the guy BEHIND her
to try to run the light. Truckdriver should have been locked up for
years - could have easily killed or maimed someone.

  #5  
Old January 11th 05, 05:37 AM
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The problem is the damn truck driver. The light turned yellow before
she hit the intersection, so there was no excuse for the guy BEHIND her
to try to run the light. Truckdriver should have been locked up for
years - could have easily killed or maimed someone.

  #6  
Old January 11th 05, 05:53 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Too bad it wasn't you that was killed, although it's easily arguable
that you're brain dead.

How ya doin', loser?

  #7  
Old January 11th 05, 05:53 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Too bad it wasn't you that was killed, although it's easily arguable
that you're brain dead.

How ya doin', loser?

  #8  
Old January 11th 05, 07:17 AM
¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...

>>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which
>>endorses the camera systems' use, 1,000 people are killed each year in
>>red-light violations. Advocates of the cameras have championed them as
>>effective tools in reducing accidents and deaths, freeing officers to
>>perform other crime-fighting duties

>
> You mean like running radar guns


I wouldn't worry; if it goes like the UK they'll be replaced by fixed GATSO
and Truvelo speed camera installations and SPECS speed averaging cameras.
The cops (or private contractors) will sit in the back of mobile speed
camera vans eating donuts, wanking, reading the newspaper or whatever else
they get up to in there...


  #9  
Old January 11th 05, 07:17 AM
¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...

>>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which
>>endorses the camera systems' use, 1,000 people are killed each year in
>>red-light violations. Advocates of the cameras have championed them as
>>effective tools in reducing accidents and deaths, freeing officers to
>>perform other crime-fighting duties

>
> You mean like running radar guns


I wouldn't worry; if it goes like the UK they'll be replaced by fixed GATSO
and Truvelo speed camera installations and SPECS speed averaging cameras.
The cops (or private contractors) will sit in the back of mobile speed
camera vans eating donuts, wanking, reading the newspaper or whatever else
they get up to in there...


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EM Warning Light A Lurker Audi 3 December 19th 04 12:16 AM
A6 (1996) brake pad thickness warning light? John Prendergast Audi 3 November 18th 04 01:22 PM
'88 Audi Coupe, Hazard light problem Slimbo Audi 3 October 13th 04 06:41 PM
78 Audi 5000 Cruise Control Warning Light Problem TurboBanana Audi 2 May 25th 04 03:40 PM
Newbie question. A4 warning light. Moike Audi 1 May 20th 04 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.