The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running has its annual week of Stop On Red. The campaign offers material devoted to pressing the case for red light cameras. As a gesture, American Traffic Solution has put up a video of red light crashes. CameraFraud.com is not impressed and believes this is quite a tasteless move.
A few communities have limited the use of red light cameras. One strategy to removing cameras is to threaten area merchants and businesses that their business will be reduced, because people do not want to visit areas with red light cameras.
This was part of the decisionmaking for Schaumburg, IL, when visitors complained about red light tickets and said they were not going to visit Woodfield Mall. The city then shut down its red light camera program. Check out the work of the local activists for more detail:
“During this period, the Village received about 50 negative phone calls, letters, and e-mails. Many angry out-of-towners threatened to boycott Schaumburg as a shopping, dining, and entertainment destination.” Via Daily Herald.
In Heath, Ohio there are claims that businesses are adversely affected with the new speed camera tickets, via thenewspaper.
Goodwin said Heath had set up traps with the most productive camera placed in such a way as to snare out-of-town visitors as they enter the city on route 79. The camera is difficult to see on a curve where the speed limit suddenly drops from 50 MPH to 35. She believes this has already had a negative impact on the city.
“Many businesses are seeing fewer customers in their stores and less traffic on 79 due to the cameras,” Goodwin said. “Customers have called and told businesses they will not be back unless the cameras come down. We believe the voters will come out and support the issue to ban the cameras.”
So instead arguing over public safety, citizens can point out that they will not patronize businesses near red light cameras. This may push cities to more carefully consider the use of red light cameras.
[From Daily Herald | Studies show cameras reduce crashes, but local data scant]
I am in the process of summarizing the articles ran in the Daily Herald on Red Light cameras, but I wanted to pull this one out (mainly because I was quoted). Here is the link to the complete set of articles from the Daily Herald:
Here is my quote:
“If you look at the data on how these cameras are actually being used, I believe it is largely about revenue and not about safety,” said Rajiv Shah, a faculty member at the University of Illinois at Chicago who studies surveillance and red-light cameras. “We all recognize that one of the big reasons it spreads so quickly is that it makes a lot of money while having a veneer of safety.”
Here is some of the reasoning the article cites for this:
The Daily Herald revealed this week how the majority of red-light camera tickets issued in most suburbs are for right-turn violations, a practice that can target drivers crawling through a turn who think they are driving safely.
At the same time, many cameras are going up at intersections where there are few crashes related to running red lights. In all, state data shows 20 out of 106 intersections for which information was available have fewer than four crashes a year related to running a red light.
[From Tribune Exposes Suburban Red Light Camera Scam - Parking Ticket Geek]
But according to a fantastic piece of investigative journalism by the Chicago Tribune, many suburban towns are seemingly employing red light cameras for the revenue only, with only a wink and a nod toward the safety aspect of that equation.
I will have a more detailed analysis of this article in a bit. But its the start of a tidal wave of data showing red light cameras are more about revenue than safety.
[From Red-light camera loses backer :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Transportation]
Schaumburg is getting rid of its cameras because they do not prevent accidents. Schaumburg is bypassing easy revenue, but doing the right thing by evaluating cameras on the basis of safety and not revenue. Read the full article, but here are some snippets:
Last fall, Schaumburg installed red-light cameras at the busy corner of Woodfield and Meacham, near Woodfield Mall. The camera system quickly recorded 10,000 violations, each resulting in a $100 ticket. But 98 percent of the violations were by motorists who didn’t stop before turning right on a red light, according to Schaumburg Police Chief Brian Howerton.
. . .
Meanwhile, Schaumburg police studied the 10 intersections with the most accidents and found that only about 15 out of 800 collisions were caused by traffic signal violations. The majority were caused by failure to reduce speed, Howerton said.
[From Red-light camera should capture right car with right plate :: Naperville Sun via Instapundit and Gapers Block ]
Consider the plight of this senior citizen who received a red light camera ticket for a car that wasn’t hers.
After many phone calls, insisting this was not her vehicle, nor was she anywhere near the location indicated, she was instructed to protest the ticket at the Daley Center.A protest filing fee was paid. Three appearances were required in traffic court. Each one became more frustrating than the one before. It seemed the protester was not innocent before being proved guilty but quite the contrary. It became obvious that no representative of the court believed the story.The third appearance finally got the court’s attention because the license plate was produced as evidence, and although it did match the numbers on the plate, it was not identical to the plate on the photo.After all the dust had cleared and the expenses were paid by this tenacious senior citizen, including time, parking fees, tolls as well as anguish and distress, the case was dismissed.It was dismissed simply because, after investigation by this lady, it was discovered that two vehicles registered in the state of Illinois can have the same identical plate number. The only difference is that one is a vanity plate.
This story is a marked contrast to the piece on RedFlex in the Tribune a few weeks ago. It described the process for ticketing cars:
Once through the lobby, visitors come upon a half-dozen or so violation reviewers, who watch every single 12-second video clip and still image that comes to RedSpeed showing a possible violation. Because drivers regularly trigger the cameras without a violation occurring—often by stopping just past the stop line or stopping abruptly after speeding—it’s up to the reviewers to determine whether they think there’s a violation.If they think not, the file gets purged; but if they believe a citation should be issued, the reviewers send the information to a senior reviewer. If that person agrees, the file gets forwarded to the respective law-enforcement agency, which decides whether to issue a citation.
This story points out a disconnect between the process of identifying a license plate and confirming that it matches the vehicle description associated with the license plate. Part of this is a technical problem. It was reported last year that the tollway Ipass cameras couldn’t detect vanity plates properly. Apparently, this is also a problem for red light cameras. The second is a bureaucratic issue. It is well known there is a problem with vanity plates. 25% of the plates in Illinois are non-standard. Why aren’t there measures in place to prevent this from occurring? Here is a graphic from the Daily Herald on vanity plates.
[From 10 facts about red-light cameras -- chicagotribune.com]
Here is a summary of how the red light cameras operate in Chicago. This material was compiled from a number of sources. The vendors for Chicago’s cameras are RedSpeed Illinois and Redflex Traffic Systems.
The system operates by using “magnetic sensors installed at various points leading up to the stop line to determine whether the camera should begin taking pictures and video. (Video clips are about 12 seconds.) There are no sensors past the stop line, meaning if you’re in the middle of the intersection—waiting to turn left—and the light turns red, the camera should not record the incident. The average intersection has two cameras, although the number ranges from one to four.” (from Tribune).
This technology is also known as loop detectors. Once triggered the cameras take 3 images and 12 seconds of video of each violation. A violation occurs when a vehicle enters an intersection 1/10 of a second after the light has changed to red. The only two legitimate reasons for disobeying a red light are participating in a funeral precession or yielding to an emergency vehicle.
Loop detection technology was chosen, even though its more expensive, because the city felt video detection is not yet mature and has a high failure rate. The cameras are are fixed so they cannot be remotely maneuvered.
A bit more detail can be found at the web site for RedSpeed Illinois. Their explanation is:
The state of traffic signals is continuously monitored and their ‘on’ time recorded by the system. When the red aspect is detected, a timer is started. When this timer exceeds the programmed ‘time into red’, the two road loops are monitored for detection of a moving vehicle. If a vehicle is detected, the program proceeds to violation capture, then two wide-angle images and one zoom image of the vehicle are recorded.
However, the next generation system is known as RedSpeed. Here is what it can do:
The system detects speed violations during the green and amber phases, and also detects red light violations. Three images and a 12 second video clip are captured. The first is a zoom shot showing the vehicle number plate. The second is a wide angle image including the make, model, and colour of car and the offence data. The system then delays, for a period related to the vehicle’s speed, and captures a third frame, also a wide angle image showing the time delay between frames. The two wide-angle images can be used as evidence to show that the vehicle was moving at the time of the recording. (My emphasis)
I would not be surprised to see the RedSpeed cameras deployed next. We will hear how speeding through intersections causes many accidents and how it is necessary to use cameras to deter this behavior. This new technology can save lives and raise money for cities. (They can also be used to gather lots of data on us, see here and here.)
[From Traffic cameras could help wipe out city's projected deficit :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: City Hall]
Insurenet proposes that Chicago could make “well in excess of $100 million. We think at least $200 million.” All they would have to do is use traffic cameras to collect license plate numbers and then match the numbers with those of uninsured motorists. A traffic camera would then read a license plate, if it was uninsured, it would then send a ticket in the mail. To accomplish this, Chicago would also need to compel insurance companies to report the names and license plates of insured motorists into the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), the information-sharing network that links federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
Does anybody see any problems in this scheme? The readers of the Sun-Times offered quite a few.
1. The numbers don’t seem to add up. Frankly, I couldn’t understand the figures from the newspaper article. But basically, the city would need on the order of 700,000 tickets per year to generate this revenue. Thats a lot of tickets.
2. The levied fines seem disproportional. Fining someone that doesn’t have insurance on the car a $1000? What are the odds that they could either afford to pay or be willing to pay the fine?
This brings me to something called unintended consequences.
People without insurance (they know who they are) will now have a bullseye on their car (aka the license plate). They will have a $1000 incentive to make sure they do not receive a fine. They may try to disguise their plate or avoid traffic cameras. Or they might be willing to go down the slippery slope of illegality by telling the city an incorrect address for their car registration or making sure the license plate on their car isn’t theirs. This is a slope the city doesn’t want people to venture. Once citizens muck with the connection between license plates and their registration, it throws the whole enforcement mechanism for many sorts of issues awry.
I think fines for uninsured motorists are a good use of traffic cameras. But lets use it as a tool to push people to buy insurance and not as a way to unfairly punish people, who will likely become even harder to catch.
[From Pedestrian deaths in Chicago are up despite safety measures -- chicagotribune.com]
Pedestrian deaths are on the rise in Chicago, despite increased safety measures such as red-light cameras, countdown signals and crosswalk awareness initiatives.
The article provides some details on the the role of red light cameras and pedestrian deaths. However, the article is light on facts. It would be useful to show some data on the locations of red light cameras and the fatalities. Instead, there is just some background information on red light cameras.
A red-light camera costs $24,500. The city's new contract with Redflex called for more installations, which lowered the unit price of the camera from $100,000, Martinez said.
There are 133 red-light cameras across Chicago, and the city plans to install about 50 more this year, Martinez said
We do feel like it's creating safer intersections," she said. "We've seen a 59 percent average reduction in red-light running. That means safer motorists and safer residents."
[From theexpiredmeter.com » Red Light Cameras Help With Amber Alerts In Oak Forest]
When red light cameras arrived, many of us recognized it was only a matter of time before they would be used for other purposes. Recently, Gatso USA tested red light cameras that can read license plates in Oak Forest. It uses an 11 megapixel to capture enough detail for license plate recognition. The technology is ostensibly for identifying cars during an Amber Alert. Here is a clip from their press release.
Gatso USA, a leading photo enforcement systems provider, announced today that after one year of development, testing and customer evaluation, its flagship GS11 red light and speed camera now carries an AMBER Alert feature that can help ensure the safety of abducted children by decreasing law enforcement’s response time in locating suspected criminals. . . . The camera’s AMBER Alert feature enables police departments to search in real time for wanted or suspect vehicles at intersections or locations within a city’s network of compatible red light or speed photo enforcement cameras. When a suspect vehicle passes a camera location, the camera immediately reports the information back to the police department.
In a recent evaluation of Gatso USA’s GS11 AMBER Alert capability conducted in a south suburb of Chicago, Deputy Chief David DeMarco of the Oak Forest Police Department, the chief coordinator of the evaluation, stated, “I was amazed. Within 20 seconds of passing a camera location, we were notified in the field with a message and a photo that my car was detected at the camera location when the AMBER Alert feature was activated. It’s a priceless tool for law enforcement when looking for a suspect vehicle involved in an abduction or serious crime. We consider the evaluation to be highly successful.”
The evaluation was coordinated after the city of Oak Forest installed several of Gatso’s GS11 red light photo enforcement solutions for designated intersections within the city. The city of Oak Forest conducted an extensive evaluation of five red light camera photo enforcement solutions and selected Gatso based on product performance as well as the beneficial cost structure provided, which does not require any capital expenditure from the City or the police department.
Recent Comments