Posted on 07/15/2002 11:23:54 AM PDT by Constitution Day
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:55:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Too many people in Fayetteville tried to race through intersections before the traffic light turned red, so the city installed cameras to nab red light runners. The traffic cameras are coming soon to Raleigh, Cary and Chapel Hill (also in Rocky Mount - CD). But, before some cameras are up, there is a way around them.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
I'll await your retraction. ;-)
The documented cases in which red-light violations were thrown out in court involve cameras that were not coordinated properly with the traffic signal (i.e., the camera was snapping pictures while the light was still yellow). I'll say it again -- no engineer who reduces a yellow interval below its accepted standard (given the speed and design considerations I mentioned) shuldn't even be permitted to practice as a licensed engineer.
If a municipality has reduced the yellow interval at an intersection, you have to show that it is "substandard" before you can claim that it is "unsafe." If an intersection is designed in such a way that the optimal yellow interval is 3.4 seconds, and the existing signal is operating with a 4-second yellow phase, it would be perfectly acceptable for the municipality to reduce the yellow phase to 3.4 seconds.
You have to remember that a traffic signal is a safety device, but it must operate in a manner that maximizes roadway capacity. I could design a signal with 10-second yellow phases at an intersection that only requires 3-second phases, but then we'd be sitting here talking about how idiotic those long yellow phases are.
BTW, my understanding is that Mr. Armey has not been heard from on this topic since his report was released. Anyone who knows him or a member of his staff is welcome to bring my offer to him -- I'd love to have the national exposure, but only if he's got a legitimate gripe.
While I sympathize with your friends accident, having had to argue in court against a fraudulent ticket...the State AUTOMATICALLY assumes the radar is correct and accurate...it is up to you BEFORE arriving at the Court, to have the evidence to disprove the radar...you CANNOT try to get this info at time of hearing, or they toss your a$$ and find against you..
Just another example of how the State has rigged trials against the populace!
But by the late '90s, that standard had been steadily eroded by altogether shaving off clearance time, lowering yellow light intervals by as much as a third, which often leaves the motorist stranded in the dilemma zone.
The article in question had one glaring omission in this discussion of historical changes in the recommended yellow intervals. The reduction of the yellow interval was accompanied by the introduction of a new type of signal phase that had not been used previously: the "all-red" phase in which no traffic is permitted to enter the intersection. You can go to any intersection today and time this yourself -- the length of the yellow interval plus the length of the "all-red" interval falls well within the 3-second to 6-second "yellow" standard that had been used previously. In fact, I don't think I've ever come across a "yellow + all-red" phase that has been less than five seconds in length. The least expensive way to reduce right-angle accidents at signalized intersections is not to extend the yellow phase, but to add an "all-red" phase that will (in theory) provide a brief interval of time between changes in vehicle right-of-way. I use the term "in theory" because motorists eventually get attuned to these signal timing changes and start using the all-red phase as an extension of the yellow phase.
According to Section 4B-15 of the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, "yellow vehicle change intervals should have a range of approximately 3 to 6 seonds." So we know that this hasn't changed.
Statutes governing this must vary from state to state. In PA, the date of last calibration must be included in the citation (I’m pretty sure this is the case in MD and VA too, but I don’t know that for an absolute fact.) Without it, the citizen is considered to be denied the right to prepare a defense and the citation is thrown out. It’s a pretty standard procedure (here in PA).
BTW- for what it’s worth, I’ve racked up a few violations in my younger days (speeding, incomplete stop), and I’ve been guilty every time. As hard as that may have been to admit.
Photo_Radar:
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using *Photo_Radar, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Photo_Radar | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
You are probably 100% correct in this case. Which means that almost any municipality that installs these cameras and insists that it is doing so to "promote safety" is full of crap. But that is different than saying that the engineers got it wrong. The difference between an engineer and a politician is that the engineer pays the price for "getting it wrong."
sundayherald.com | 07/13.02 | By James Hamilton
Posted on 07/13/2002 6:49 PM Pacific by PatriotReporter
Scotland plays host to FBI spy school
Police chiefs from America and Canada gathered in Scotland yesterday for a week-long snooping session run by the FBI.
Overseas delegates to the conference at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan Castle in Kincardine, Fife, said they had 'much to learn' from UK counterparts.
Organisers of the second conference of this year's FBI National Executive Institute (NEI) 25th session, have not released details of the event.
But one of those involved, Sheriff Paul Pastor, from Pierce County Sheriffs' Department in Washington state, said he hoped to discuss the issue of closed circuit television (CCTV) and its use in Britain.
He said: 'One of the reasons for coming here is that we have much to learn from policing in the UK, and especially Scotland.
'You are doing a number of things here, from CCTV to community policing, that I think we would do well to look towards.'
Pastor said the issue of CCTV and privacy was as controversial in the US -- where it is much less common -- as it is in the UK. He said his force was using the technology to identify traffic light offences rather than for general surveillance.
'When you balance the costs and efficiency of this kind of policing with allowing people to be seen on camera just as they would be seen in public I think that you begin to diminish the privacy concerns.'
The NEI was set up under former FBI director Clarence Kelly in 1976, and now meets three times each year.
About 30 police officials, mainly chiefs of forces from the US, Canada, England and Scotland, including Strathclyde Police Chief Constable William Rae, are attending the training programme.
I tend to agree with you, but it's already illegal in certain areas where the Klan used to march with masks on.
. . . red-light-camera intersections tend to see increases in rear-end accidents from people slamming on their brakes to avoid being ticketed.
If you live in a city that uses red-light cameras, you should try to find out from the local transit agency how they deal with their bus drivers. Many of these cities will not ticket bus drivers who run through an intersection just as the light turns from yellow to red. The last thing they need is to have a bus driver standing on the brake pedal to stop at a red light while 40 people come hurtling past him and through the windshield.
Interesting point. Red-light cameras may not even be permitted in New Jersey -- a state Supreme Court ruling from 10-15 years ago outlawed unmanned speed radar traps. I think the rationale was that anyone accused of a criminal or traffic offense has to be cited by a person, not a machine.
We haven't had a problem with it... yet.
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.