Posted on 02/05/2007 6:19:33 PM PST by JTN
CLEVELAND -- Red-light cameras installed at Cleveland intersections have become controversial.
5 On Your Side chief investigator Duane Pohlman said flashes are oftentimes the only clue the cameras caught cars speeding or running red lights.
Confirmation arrives later as a ticket in the mail, with a $100 fine.
The cameras are triggering key questions before Ohio's highest court.
"We are starting to lose our freedom," one motorist said.
At the very least, motorists said these devices are just plain unfair.
"I think we should get rid of them," another motorist said.
For the past six months, 5 On Your Side has been investigating the red-light cameras and found, from the sophisticated electronics to the system that supports it, the cameras not only can make mistakes -- they do, Pohlman said.
NewsChannel5 spoke with Dave Hatala, a 5 On Your Side videographer.
"Something's wrong with the whole system," Hatala said.
He got a ticket in the mail saying he was speeding on Chester Avenue at East 71st Street. He was cited for going 48 mph in a 35 mph zone.
The only problem is that Hatala insisted he never went that fast
"This was wrong, and I'm willing to fight that," he said.
Along with his ticket, Hatala got pictures showing his van and another car that appeared to be going faster.
"I immediately could see they ticketed the wrong lane," Hatala said. "A car going faster than me that you can clearly see is overtaking me."
Could the ticket be a mistake?
To get answers, Pohlman went to Chris Butler, a math professor at Case Western University.
"If you know the distance and you know the time you can calculate the speed," Butler said.
Hatala brought the measuring device. Butler measured the location using markers from the pictures.
He determined Hatala's real rate of speed.
"Dave Hatala was traveling 40.5 mph," Butler said.
He also found the real speed for that other car, too -- 48 mph.
Hatala brought the findings to court to challenge his ticket.
"Becomes pretty clear that it wasn't your vehicle that was speeding," the judge said.
He didn't have to argue much. Pohlman said the court admitted the ticket was issued to the wrong car, in the wrong lane.
"So based upon the testimony provided we are going to find you not liable for this violation," the judge said.
Pohlman reported a different problem at that same location on Chester Avenue at East 71st Street.
Bill and Sue Faber of Massillon said they haven't been in Cleveland for six months, but the city sent them a ticket.
"No way we could be in Cleveland," Faber said.
"Do you have witnesses for that?" Pohlman asked.
"Yes, we do," Faber said.
Yet Cleveland sent the ticket showing a car speeding, but the plate belongs to the Faber's truck.
Pohlman said you can't read the license in the picture at all. He said it appears Cleveland guessed and sent the ticket anyway.
"I always thought we were always innocent until proven guilty and now I find it's guilty until I can prove I'm innocent," Faber said.
After NewsChannel5 got involved, the city backed off, writing a letter informing the Fabers that the city made a mistake.
"I thought it was ridiculous," Faber said.
NewsChannel5 has received hundreds of e-mails about the red-light cameras and Pohlman continues his investigation at 11 p.m.
I believe many states have a "catchall" for operation of a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. If I were a cop who was interested in improving traffic safety, and were allowed the time to do such things, I would argue in court that it is unsafe for a person to operate a vehicle in such fashion that the motorist would be unable to handle an unexpected but readily foreseeable occurrence. If I had the proper instruments, I could prove that the motorist would not have been capable of reacting suitably if the light failed to change as expected.
Alternatively, if I could, I'd simply tweak the light so that when I saw such a motorist approaching it would delay the green light by an extra few seconds. Running a yellow light that has just turned red is in some cases inevitable and excusable. Running a light that has been red for many seconds is not excusable except in the rare case that the light has been red so long that it appears to be malfunctioning (e.g. because of a broken sensor).
I'll grant you that in the situation you described it was justified to run the light (of course you're making a split second decision and hoping not to t-bone that child in the car seat). That is a one in ten thousand circumstance. No system is perfect.
Yes, but I can't control the motorist behind me.
If someone is following too closely at an intersection and the lead car brakes for an amber light the car behind has 100% of the responsibility to stop. Not the camera, not the timing of the amber, nothing.
Which is better: to undertake a course of action which has a 1% chance of resulting an accident which the government will consider to be entirely someone else's fault, or taking a different course of action which will not result in an accident?
Yes, if I get whiplash because I stop and the car behind does not, insurance will cover my medical expenses, but still I'd rather avoid the injury if possible.
There was no approaching cross traffic; all lanes had cars waiting at the light. Given that I would have almost a two-second head start on any cross-traffic motorist, and that I was flooring the accellerator, the risk of anyone actually managing to get in my path was pretty slim.
Besides, there would have been more danger to cross-traffic motorists if I'd waited at the line for an extra second or so before I got pushed.
That will be something that will be tragically in-operative in any vehicle I buy that may have one of those devices...
Remember...
There is always a work around in anything mechanical...And computers can be fooled...
Then let's see it.
Study: Cameras Increase Fatal Rear End Accidents (Ontario)That's one example. Another interesting link is this one from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, which supports the cameras:Although three studies have shown a significant increase in rear-end collisions where red light cameras are used, cities using the devices are quick to dismiss such findings. Camera proponents maintain that such collisions are far less severe than angle collisions. This December 2003 study commissioned by Ontario, Canada's Ministry of Transportation shows that those rear-end collisions can be fatal. (Other studies drawing similar conclusions: Virginia, North Carolina, Australia.)
After evaluating the performance of red light cameras at 68 sites over two years, the report concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage accidents of 18.5 percent coupled with a 4.9 percent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions involving property damage alone jumped 49.9 percent.
...the FHWA study found that the average number of rear-end crashes went up 15 percent...
I do know that in some communities like mine, the feel good town managers have instituted pedestrian crosswalks on major city streets. That's all well and good but there have been several accidents because a nice little old lady would stop her car in the right lane and motion a kid to cross only to have the kid slammed by a car that didn't stop in the left lane (he survived). My son has been in the same dilemma and was smart enough to refuse the insistant lady because he saw the oncoming traffic.
Point being, these idiot town managers who like walking better than driving have caused at least three kids to be injured. When I was a kid we knew getting across the road was dangerous and entirely up to our own devices. Thus we never got hurt.
The two studies contradict each other. If the NC study is accurate I'll take a few rear ends rather than t-bones.
There's nothing contradictory about it. They both claim that rear-end collisions increase when red light cameras go up. The only difference is in the authors' attitudes towards the cameras. As for the choice you present, we can reduce both without the red light cameras. You can have your cake and eat it too. I refer you to posts #6 and 48 in this thread.
I beg to disagree. They contradict in that the Canadian study shows that collisions of all types increase whereas the NC study shows that only rear collisions increase and that injuries decrease.
The only way someone is going to get T-boned is if either:
I would argue that optimal safety and traffic efficiency will be achieved if yellow times are fairly long, motorists proceed through intersections if they expect to beat the light, and if all drivers expect that motorists may misjudge the light slightly.
For optimal traffic flow, a waiting motorist should able to proceed safely as soon as the last cross-traffic vehicle that will go through has passed. If yellow light times are long, but motorists proceed through intersections they expect to reach before the red, these conditions may be optimized. A motorist who is going to stop at a light that has turned yellow will typically slow down well sooner than is strictly necessary. Doing so provides a generous safety margin in case traction is less than ideal, and also makes his intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists. Sometimes motorists may misjudge the yellow might be a small fraction of a second, but so what? There's more than enough safety margin and redundancy to allow for that.
I would regard those who push yellow lights excessively as being discourteous, but there's a big difference in my mind between a courtesy violation and a safety one. Entering an intersection in such a fashion as to risk a collision with even an alert driver is a safety violation. Entering an intersection in such a way as to unfairly delay the flow of other motorists is a courtesy violation. I see no reason to assign even remotely similar punishments to the two actions.
Out of curiosity, if one of the cameras snaps a motorist entering an intersection after his light has turned red, but before the opposing signal has turned green, does it delay the opposing signal? If not, I'd say that's a clear sign the cameras are more about revenue than safety.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.