Email Address
Site
Index by Subject (Search)
If you
haven't already done so, please read Section
4 on
the Action page
Industry / Police PR - and Ours
Including
Crash
Photos !
Book cover art by Dan Perkins
1.
Astroturf
Lobbying
In the Summer of 2010 a series of articles
exposed
"Astroturf" lobbying by the Industry.
In the political arena, Astroturf
lobbying is when a PR firm creates an artificial grass roots movement
by setting up a local "citizen sponsored" website, or when the
PR firm's
employees post comments to articles in the local newspapers.
Astroturf lobbying by the camera
Industry became evident when petition drives to ban cameras in
several cities were met by "cookie cutter"
opposition.
From
BanCams.com.
(Sorry,
in
this
image
from
the
article,
the
links
are
not
click-able!)
When the petition sponsors
examined the pro-camera websites, they were found to be owned and
operated by a Texas PR firm employed by ATS. On Aug. 13 and 17,
BanCams.com wrote
about the paid opposition. Links:
http://bancams.com/does-ats-think-we-are-stupid/
http://bancams.com/more-front-groups/
On Aug. 24 the Washington State Wire wrote about Astroturfing:
On Sep. 30, Rynski wrote about it in the Tucson Citizen:
   |
Lest anyone get the impression that ATS is the sole creator
of
"citizen supported" websites, here is one attributed to RedFlex.
An Oct. 2010 Cleveland Plain
Dealer
investigation
revealed that RedFlex helped start Safe Roads Ohio and gave it
$7500. The Plain Dealer also pointed out that RedFlex' support
was not noted
on a mailer Safe Roads sent out. Nor (even as late as Jul. 2011)
was RedFlex mentioned anywhere on the website for Safe Roads.
Safe Roads describes itself as "grassroots."
In Jan. 2011, BanCams did another article.
Sorry, in this image from the article,
the links are not click-able! Original article: http://bancams.com/fake-comments/
In March 2011 an article talked
about ATS' activities in Missouri.
At ATS, Some of the Astroturf was
Manufactured in the
Executive
Suite, by a Ph.D.
In a May 17, 2011 article the Daily Herald of Everett,
Washington (heraldnet.com) exposed extensive Astroturf commenting on
its red light camera articles - 43 pro-camera posts by a person using
the screen
name W Howard. (He also appeared on the bancams.com website - he
is in the example, above.)
The Herald traced the W Howard posts back to the Arizona office of ATS Vice President for Business Development Bill Kroske Ph.D., whose middle initial is "H." The Herald article showed that Dr. Kroske had posed as a concerned resident of Monroe, Lynnwood, and Everett.
William H. Kroske, Ph.D.
A later article in the Spokane
Spokesman-Review revealed
that Kroske
had also posed as a resident of that city, under the screen name Obie1.
On May 18 the stock of ATS competitor
RedFlex jumped 4%.
(ATS is privately held; the stock is not publicly traded, although
Goldman-Sachs is known to own 1/3 of the shares. See FAQ # 34
for further details about ATS' finances.)
RedFlex Stock Price, May 2011,
in Aus$
Then, in a statement given to the Herald on
May 18, ATS
President and CEO James Tuton said:
"Such a lack of disclosure violates not only ATS company policy,
but also our core values. While we share in the
commenter's passion for red light safety cameras, we also recognize the
importance of honest engagement. The employee in
question has
been suspended indefinitely pending further investigation.
Furthermore, we are taking steps
to make
sure all of our employees know that this type of activity is
unacceptable." [The bolding has been added.]
ATS CEO James Tuton
So, now that VP Kroske is suspended, will
Tuton be rooting
out
the other ATS employees or
vendors who may be responsible for the huge number of comments by
"giggley,"
"yogilives," and the like? Or do they expect us to believe that
Kroske was sufficiently prolific to be the source of all of it?
Will ATS also be firing Advarion, Inc.,
the PR firm behind
their cookie cutter "citizen supported" pro-camera websites?
Another ATS' employee was Mark Rosenker.
Mark Rosenker monitoring tapes
and equipment at the CRP (Committee to Re-Elect President Nixon)
headquarters, June 29, 1972.
The Watergate break-in occurred on June 17.
Photo by Fred J. Maroon
Mark Rosenker, Senior Advisor to
NCSR
Starting in Apr. 2011, Rosenker, using his
credential as a
former chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board, published numerous pro-camera "guest
columns" in newspapers around the country. In those
columns Rosenker mentioned his then-current position as Senior Advisor
to
the National Coalition
for Safer Roads but never disclosed that the NCSR is operated
by ATS.
David Kelly, NCSR President, and
Principal, Storm
King Strategies, Washington, DC
On March 31 someone (not me!) started an "Anti-National-Coalition-for-Safer-Roads" page on Facebook!
What about the 1000+ videos ATS began to distribute on May 18? They were attributed to the NCSR, with no mention of ATS, despite Mr. Tuton's pledge, made on the same day, of "honest engagement."
|
About the ATS Video
ATS created a short video* which recounts, in the words of family members, three fatal accidents. It appears ATS bought space and inserted it into at least a thousand websites. The video began showing up on websites on May 18, with more insertions occurring as late as May 30. How to find the videos: Each insertion of the video includes the words "powerful video" in the introduction, so Google ["national coalition for safer roads" powerful video] to find examples of the video. An interesting detail: A large proportion of the websites carrying the video are "Mom Blogs." Per the website mombloggersclub.com, there are at least 13,000 of these. Many will host advertorials without mentioning that it is a paid ad. The closest to a proper disclosure was this, which I found at the bottom of one site:
This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. For questions about this blog, please contact info @ themommaven.com. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation. The owner(s) of this blog is compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though the owner(s) of this blog receives compensation for our posts or advertisements, we always give our honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question. This blog does contain content which might present a conflict of interest. This content will always be identified. To get your own policy, go to http://www.disclosurepolicy.org The Wall Street Journal commented: "Many bloggers are embracing corporate relationships as they seek to turn their Web hobbies into businesses. Mom bloggers have been especially courted because marketers believe they are regarded as more authentic." One of the brokers facilitating the insertion of the ATS video into Mom Blogs was Global Influence ("A resourceful mommy media network"), based in the Washington, DC area. On its site, it says: "Global Influence is a network of nearly 1500 bloggers and social media users who have chosen to receive campaign information tailored specifically to their audience and to Global Influence client needs. Founded by Amy Lupold Bair of Resourceful Mommy Media.... formerly known as Momfluence..." ****
*This discussion is solely about the method used by ATS to distribute their video, and is not intended in any way to make light of, or in any way minimize, the terrible tragedy suffered by the families depicted in the video. |
Another ATS VP Bites the Dust
At the same time ATS was suspending VP
Kroske, it was
firing another another top executive, Senior VP Michael
Lenza. The company also filed suit against him, for (allegedly)
"diverting
opportunities away from ATS."
ATS: "Honest Engagement?
You
Misunderstood Us. We said, 'Oddest Management'"
In May 2011 ATS claimed (see CEO Tuton's statement, above) to have a "Core Value" of "Honest Engagement." But two months later yet another secret ATS lobbyist was exposed, this one in Texas. On July 12 KTRK (ABC) Houston wrote:
| "In the back and forth over red light
cameras in Houston, there is a
question over who you can trust. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the
camera company, was looking to keep the red light cameras on across the
state, so they hired nearly a dozen lobbyists, including a well-known
Houston police officer in a deal we only found out about once it was
over. "[Mark] Clark was paid at least $10,000 by ATS to fight a possible statewide camera ban in Austin. It wasn't for work in Houston, but camera opponents still cried foul.  Mark Clark, Houston Police Officer and ATS Lobbyist " 'People, naturally and rightly so, trust when a police officer tells them something; that they can be trusted and what they're saying is true. When that influence is being bought and paid for, then the public can be deceived,' said [camera opponent Byron] Schirmbeck. "While Clark did disclose his deal to the state, the city and the union, he never said anything publicly. So when he told Eyewitness News viewers last weekend, 'We're glad the cameras are back on. They never should have been turned off to start with;' neither you nor us had any idea he had worked for the company at the same time he worked for the union and the city. " 'I gave viewers what they needed to know. If you're worried about red light cameras, don't run a red light,' Clark said. "Clark and ATS say their work together is now over. However, so is the legislative session which means there is no need for any more lobbying. The legislature, by the way, didn't ban cameras statewide, and ATS won that battle." |
ATS Still Doesn't Get It!
For a whole year, starting in the Summer of
2010, ATS has been pounded in the press and on the 'Net for
failing to disclose its presence (and supporting money) behind its
front people (like Rosenker, Kroske and Clark) and front organizations
(like
the NCSR and Keep Houston Safe). You'd think that by now (Summer
2011) ATS would have figured out that the bad press is bad for business
- but evidently they have not.
On Aug. 8, 2011, the ATS-operated NCSR distributed a press
release which named six groups participating in the NCSR - but
didn't mention the elephant in the room, ATS, whose corporate officers constitute a majority
on the NCSR Board of Directors.
(This press release also appeared many other places, including
FamilyCarGuide.com, TheCarConnection.com, and the Sacramento
Bee.)
More Police Lining Up to Lobby for ATS
On Aug. 18, 2011 the Everett Daily Herald revealed that in Lynnwood, Washington, the deputy chief responsible for negotiating the City's red light camera contract with ATS was asking the company about employment at the same time she was negotiating the contract, and the sergeant who ran the camera program was offering to assist the company with lobbying and marketing. See their emails to ATS at http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929 .
More Bad Press for the Boys
On Oct. 11, 2011 the Miami New Times ran an article
discussing the pasts of some of ATS' employees in Florida.
2.
Conventional
Lobbying
The Industry also invests heavily in
conventional
lobbying.
An Apr. 2011 article in the Hartford (Connecticut) Courant revealed that the Industry, and two interested cities, had engaged seven lobby firms to push for pro-camera legislation by the Connecticut legislature.
An Aug. 2011 article
in the Orlando (Florida) Sun Sentinel revealed that ATS spent $1.5
million to lobby in that state.
Alternate
Link
Baloney from RedFlex
On Dec. 6, 2011 RedFlex held a press
conference at an intersection in Chandler, Arizona, to try to get
Phoenix-area cities to try its collision avoidance system. During
their interview,
the
reporter
from
the
local
Fox
affiliate
asked
RedFlex'
Tom
Herrmann,
"Have you tried this [collision avoidance] anywhere else?" Herrmann
replied (at 2:57), "We have done a test, in Northern California, and it
was very
successful."
That test is in Marysville, but
that city's Chief of Police
was surprised when I told him that RedFlex had called the Marysville
test
"very successful." The chief noted that
since the Marysville contract was just approved on June 7, it
is too early to tell if the Marysville system is a success.
3.
Their
"Sophisticated
Technology"
Yes, that's a camcorder. (Click image to enlarge.)
4. Studies?
The Industry fails to make the
most important kind of study. For example:
In Sep. 2010 I saw a guest
editorial [City's red-light
cameras are mitigation tools, not 'cash-extracting' machines], where
the
author, a traffic engineer employed by the City of Bakersfield, said
that the
cameras' primary purpose is to gather data so that "mitigation measures
may be devised." In other words, the pictures, etc., of red light
runners
and accidents will tell the City's engineers what to change in order to
cut
accidents. His piece was 604 words long, but he did not tell us
whether mitigation
measures had actually been devised since 2003, the year the cameras
were
installed in Bakersfield.
Now it's 2011, and eight years should
have been long enough to
study the data and install simple/cheap mitigation measures, like
brighter
street light bulbs at camera enforced intersections, more and bigger
warning
signs, better pavement markings, bigger diameter red lights and more of
them,
and longer yellows. We hope the Bakersfield paper will be so kind as to
grant the City engineer a new guest appearance in their columns, so he
can tell
us about the studies they have made and the mitigation measures they
have
installed, to stop the running.
Most cities have failed to study or
install mitigation measures, despite having had cameras for many
years. We should ask them why.
Because of the question posed
above, the Industry doesn't want the public to focus on any particular
city or town. To distract us, the Industry churns out state-wide
or nationwide
studies, often by the authoritative-sounding Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, touting the safety benefits of red light
cameras. These studies are widely available in the popular media,
so will not be listed here.
|
CANDOR BY OFFICIALS
El Monte: "A
comparison of traffic collisions at
Redflex monitored intersections vs. non-Redflex monitored intersections
revealed that there is no statistical difference in the number of
traffic
collisions because of Redflex monitoring." Police Chief Ken
Weldon, in memo presented at 10-21-08 council meeting. "We're spending a lot of staff
time on
this just to
gain $2000 a month." "It
doesn't reduce accidents -- that's what our studies and results have
come back." El Monte City Manager James W. Mussenden
San
Carlos: "The survey revealed that red
light
violations at that location had been eliminated completely after the
installation of the advanced looping system." Chief
Gregory P.
Rothaus' report to council for 4-12-10
council meeting.
Upland: "The
system appears to have
little influence on the number of red light related collisions at
monitored
intersections. At
times, rear end collisions have
actually increased." Chief Steve
Adams, in memo presented at 3-9-09 council meeting.
Whittier: "Initially,
the red-light program did
change behaviors because it did lessen the number of red-light
violations but
over the long term it didn't appear to lessen the number of injury
accidents." Nancy Mendez, Assistant
City Manager.
Loma Linda: "I
believe
these red light cameras are ways for city governments to legally extort
money from their citizens." "The month
after we lengthened the yellow light by
one second, the
number of violations that we have seen dropped by 90 percent."
Mayor Rhodes Rigsby, M.D.
Bell Gardens: "To date, 95% of the
funds collected from verifiable violations have been paid to RedFlex
Traffic Systems for operating the cameras. The remaining 5% of
funds collected have been utilized to partially offset costs of
personnel to manage the system. The red light camera program has
contributed to a moderate decrease in the overall number of accidents;
however, no change in the overall number of injury accidents.
Furthermore, the police department has recognized unanticipated
personnel costs to manage the program. Based on this analysis,
the red light camera program is not significant enough of a community
safety benefit to justify the continuation of the program beyond the
existing three (3) year agreement term that expires on March 29,
2012." Staff report presented at 9-26-11 council meeting. http://www.bellgardens.org/pdf/agendas/council/9_22_2011110312.pdf
|
5.
Crash
Photos
Examining the Crash Photos the Industry
Publishes
New
11-6-05, more
added 8-29-07, 8-3-09, 12-11-09
Or, the Industry photos depict crashes where, after a little examination, it is clear that the running of a red light is not the primary cause.
I did a Google photo search (images.google.com) for "red light camera" and "photo enforcement" and came up with the following.
Photo # 1
Source: October 2002 issue of ITS International (itsinternational.com)
The photo above has been widely circulated. It is from Ventura, California (Southbound Mills at Dean), and shows an imminent accident. Someone quickly reviewing the photo might assume it was caused entirely by the white car. However, if we look at the small white numbers in the black strip above the image, we can see that the Late Time, the amount of time that the white car's signal had been red, was 0.3 seconds ("TR 0.3"), and that the white car was in Lane 1. (For more info on how to read Late times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.) That short Late Time raises the question of how the green car got so far into the intersection so quickly after the onset of his green. Did he jump the green?
Furthermore, the speed of the white car is indicated as being 51 MPH ("VS 051 MPH") - so in 0.3 second it would cover 22 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal turned red, it would have been 22 feet or less behind the position depicted, probably with its nose well past the limit line - not a violation.
I suggest that responsibility for the accident is shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the intersection was problematic (that's supposedly why they put the camera there), and should have had an "all red" interval of at least 0.5 second programmed in the signal, and
2. The driver of the green car, who apparently jumped his green light at high speed (note his skid marks).
On a couple occasions in the past, I have asked the Ventura PD about this photo. So far, no additional information has been provided. Maybe, now that I am publishing it with my interpretation, they will respond with their own interpretation.
Photo # 2
Source: Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2004, Page B2 (washingtonpost.com)
The photo above, from Duke and Walker streets in Alexandria, Virginia, shows an imminent accident (unless everyone is very lucky). However, it should be noted that the Late Time was 8.1 seconds ("R081"), and that the limit lines have been worn away to the point where they could easily be overlooked, and that the signal lights are on the far side of the intersection.
Photo # 3
Source: www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm
The photo above is from Mesa, Arizona. It should be noted that the Late Time was 33.4 seconds ("R334").
The next photo, below, is from the same intersection.
Photo # 4
Source: www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60/episode31.htm
This photo above is also from Mesa, the same intersection, one week later. Note that the Late Time was 45.2 seconds ("R452"). If drivers are totally failing to notice that the light is red, maybe the City needs to put up bigger lights, or more of them. These pictures were taken in 1997. It would be interesting to inquire as to what improvements the City has made to the intersection in the years since then.
Photos # 5(a) - (c)
Source: http://www.mesaaz.gov/POLICE/photo-enforcement/photos.aspx
The three photos above are from a Aug. 17, 2006 crash in Mesa, Arizona and have been used extensively as a red light camera sales tool in other states. The MPD did not provide a caption or other information about the accident depicted.
Someone quickly reviewing the photos could assume that the red SUV caused the accident, but it's not that simple.
If we look at the small white numbers in the black strip above the first photo, we can see that the Late Time, the amount of time that the SUV's signal had been red, was 0.2 second ("RTIME 0.2"). (For more info on how to read Late Times, see the purple box in Defect # 7 on the Home page.) The SUV's speed is indicated as 30 MPH, so in 0.2 sec. it would cover 9 feet. Thus, at the instant the signal turned red, the SUV was 9 feet or less behind the position depicted in the first photo, which would mean that its front bumper (and probably much more) would be past the first line of the cross walk. In California and many other states, that would not be a violation. But in Arizona - it is a violation!
Why?
Arizona law says:
...vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection...">
and then goes on to define "intersection" as:
"...the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines...."
So, in Arizona you have to get the front of your car past the "prolongation" - the thinnest white line (I've added a yellow arrow in the second photo above) - before the light goes red, or it is a violation. And, since you are expected to actually make your stop before the crosswalk (so that you're not blocking pedestrians), the net effect is that you will have 12 - 15 feet less room (crosswalks are 10 -12 feet wide) to stop in Arizona than at a California intersection having the same length of yellow. That's equivalent to having a yellow that is 0.3 second shorter.
So who is responsible for this accident?
First we look at the sedan's actions. In the first photo, the light has been red for only 0.2 sec., but the front of the sedan is already well into the SUV's lane. To get there, the sedan traveled about 20 feet beyond its "safe" zone. If we guess that the sedan moved at an averge of 10 MPH ( = 15 ft./sec.) up to that point, it would have taken 1.3 sec. to move that distance. Thus, the sedan began its turn approx. 1.1 second before the light turned red.
Next we look at the SUV's actions. The first picture shows what appears to be a clear violation - the SUV is not yet past the limit line, and is facing a light that had been red for 0.2 second. But the SUV was braking hard at the time the first photo was taken, in response to the sedan having begun its turn some 1.1 secs. or more before. (The skid marks are visible in the second photo.) It's arguable that if the SUV had not been forced to brake, it would have made it to the limit line 0.2 sec. or more sooner, before the light went red.
I suggest that responsibility for this accident is shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the unprotected (no arrow) left turning at the intersection was unsafe (they should have installed an arrow, but chose to put in a camera instead), and
2. The driver of the sedan, who carelessly began his left turn without checking to make sure that opposing traffic - which was not facing a red light at the time he began his turn - would clear the intersection.
Arizona's unusual Limit Line location seems to be a trap for visitors from out-of-state - and maybe even some Arizona residents. (See a further example, in Photos # 6, below.) In Oct. 2007, I asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) whether there was an effort being made to mandate a nationwide standard for the location of Limit Lines. They said "no" - that that the Federal government cannot dictate the states' traffic laws*. They referred me to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, which publishes a voluntary nationwide standard called the Uniform Vehicle Code. The UVC says:
"Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection..."
*In Nov. 2009 an Arizona resident got the FHWA to rule that these unusual Limit Lines are "non-compliant," but then lost at court when she tried to use the non-compliance as a defense.
Photos # 6(a) - (b)
Source: Peoria AZ Police Department video, Sept. 2008
The photo above is from another "That woulda been legal in California" accident from Arizona. (See also Photos # 5, above.) Well OK, it "woulda been legal" here in CA before the ban on hand-held cellphones. If you play the video a frame at a time, the you can see that the eastbound SUV was past the first white line before the light turned red. The actual Limit Line is not visible in the video - in Peoria, it is marked using red "Thermo" tape, and I was told that at this intersection the tape is just beyond the third white line. It may be the dark area in the video. Below is an aerial view of the intersection, with yellow lines added to indicate the two possible Limit Line locations - both of which are two car lengths beyond the Stop Line.
I suggest that responsibility for this accident is shared by:
1. The City, which presumably knew that the unprotected (no arrow) left turning at the intersection was unsafe (they should have installed an arrow, but chose to put in a camera instead), and
2. The driver of the pickup, who carelessly began his left turn 1.5 secs. before the light turned red and without checking to make sure that opposing traffic - which was not facing a red light at the time he began his turn - would clear the intersection.
Photos # 7(a) - (b)
Source: www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm
The photos (above) are from the UK. The caption for the photos said:
"The first image was taken at 4.5 seconds [Late Time]after the lights turned to red, the second was taken at 5.5 seconds."
Photos # 8(a) - (b)
Source: www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/redlight.htm
The photos (above) are also from the UK. The caption said:
"The built up traffic suggests that the light has been red for some time and the pedestrian has already crossed half of the road."
However, the caption did not reveal the actual Late Time, and it is hard to read it in the photos. But, since the cumulative Late Time in the second photo is 10+ seconds ("R10x"), the Late Time in the first photo must be 9+ seconds.
Photos # 9(a) - (b)
Source: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,547893,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|31885|.asp
The photos above are from the website of the Washington, DC police department, which added the arrow pointing to the red light. The caption said:
"These photos were taken recently [June 2000] by the photo enforcement camera at the corner of New York and New Jersey Avenues, NW. They show just how dangerous it is to run red lights for both the offending driver as well as other motorists and pedestrians."
Note that the late time was 9.2 seconds, and that the location has three limit lines in quick succession as well as a lot of signage, which could confuse drivers. If this location is experiencing a lot of accidents, perhaps the design and marking of the intersection is a contributing factor.
Photos # 10 & 11
Source: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/images/rlc_1.jpg and http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/images/rlc_2.jpg
The photos above are from the website of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS did not provide a caption.
Note that the late times were 6+ and 7+ seconds.
Photos # 12 (a) - (g)
In Aug. 2009 ATS (American Traffic Solutions) published a video "Montage" of seven crashes as part of the annual National Stop on Red Week promotion.
(a)
Motorcycle
rider
missed
red
by
4
secs.
or
more. Probably
due
to
inattention
or
impairment;
not
on
purpose.
Cameras
will
not
stop
such
accidents.
(b)
Signals
located
right
after
cars
emerge
from
dark
underpasses
are
known
hazards
and
a
popular
site
for
red
light
cameras. The local
traffic engineers need to put in larger diameter signal lights and
improve/better maintain the pavement markings. Cameras can't stop
the running.
(c) Signal
was
red
3
secs.
or
more,
so
running
probably
was
due
to
inattention
or
impairment. Improve
pavement
markings
and visiblity of
the signals. Arrest impaired
drivers. Cameras cannot stop such accidents.
(d)
&
(e) The
drivers
made
a
left
turn
without
checking
for
oncoming
traffic.
Since
the
same
accident is happening repeatedly at the same intersection, maybe it is
time for the traffic engineers to install a left turn arrow for the
cross traffic. Cameras cannot stop such accidents.
(f)
This
crash
was
probably due
to confusion - traffic cones, rainy day. Some
accidents
just happen; cameras can't stop them.
And it can be argued that the initial flash
of the camera may have added to the driver’s confusion/distraction.
(g)
We
can't see
the light the white truck was facing,
so there is no evidence that he had a red light, or for how long.
He
probably
is
an
older
driver
or
one
with
poor
night
vision,
or
otherwise
impaired,
and
even
if
his
signal
had
been
green
would
have
been
just
as
likely
to
hit
the
poorly
marked
traffic
island
and
(overly
sturdy)
pole. As in (f) above, the initial
flash of the camera may have
been a contributing factor. Proper marking of the "nose" of the
island,
and pole, is needed.
Overall, ATS' video collection fails to support the use
of red light cameras. A critic suggested that ATS'
pictures actually
say:
"Look
at
all
the
accidents
our
cameras
didn't
prevent."
Intererestingly,
none
of
the
seven
accidents
was
a
right
turn
accident.
You'd
think
that
to
justify
the
company's
heavy
emphasis
on
right
turn
enforcement,
ATS
would
have
provided
footage
of
a
few
right
turn
accidents.
Despite
the
fact
that
the
majority
of
tickets
issued
nationwide
are
for
a
Late
Time
of
less
than
1/2
sec.,
all
of
the
accidents
depicted
showed
cars
that
were
obviously
multiple
seconds
late. Where's the
videos justifying the numerous 1/10th, 2/10th and 3/10th Late Time
tickets?
Photos
#
13
(a)
-
(c)
These
photos
are
from
the
three
videos
displayed
on
the
City
of
Glendale,
California
red
light
camera
web
site
in
late
2009.
(a)
This
is
southbound
Glendale
Ave.
at
Broadway,
in
Glendale.
The
video's
title
("A
Big Truck
at 55 mph") suggests that the truck was doing 55 MPH ( = 81
ft./sec.). The still image above is the first frame where the
light was red.
The truck, which is just entering the frame, looks to be 60 feet from
the limit line. Per the signal timing chart provided on the
City's red light camera website, the yellow for Glendale Avenue is 3.6
secs. long. (Interestingly, the yellow for Broadway is 3.9
secs.) 3.6 secs is the minimum yellow in a 35 zone.
But from this video, and from the very high speed in the other
nighttime video below, it appears that this wide boulvard is allowed to
operate at higher speeds at night. Were the yellow to be set at
4.3 secs., which is the minimum length required in a 45 zone, this
truck would not have violated the red.
Further, this wide intersection needs to have signal lights
positioned on the "near" side.
(b)
This
is
eastbound
Colorado
Blvd.
at
Pacific
Avenue.
The
video's
title
("A
68 mph
violation") suggests that the car was doing 68 MPH ( = 100
ft./sec.). The still image above is the frame where the light was
changing from green to yellow - the yellow is strongly lit, and the
green is just a pinpoint of light.
The eastbound violator's car has not yet entered the frame. Per
the City's
chart, the yellows in all four directions are 3.9 seconds.
(Unlike Glendale/Broadway, above.)
In the image above, the light will not be red for another 3.9 seconds
but the left-turning truck has already begun his (unprotected) left
turn. The truck driver probably underestimated the speed of the
oncoming car - or failed to see it coming.
A
longer yellow, or a red light camera,
might have kept the car from
violating the red, but it would not necessarily have prevented the
(near-) accident. An accident like this could happen any time
during
the signal cycle. All that is required is for someone to
carelessly begin a left turn without checking oncoming traffic.
(c) This is eastbound Colorado/Pacific again. The video can be
viewed at "A
Near
Collision."
The still frame above was grabbed at the instant the light was changing
from yellow to red - as a result, neither the red light nor the yellow
light is visible.
The front of the taxi is
already well into the sports car's lane. To get there, the taxi
traveled
about 20 feet beyond its "safe" zone. If we guess that the taxi
moved at an averge of 10 MPH ( = 15 ft./sec.) up to that point, it
would have taken 1.3 sec. to
move that distance. Thus, the taxi began its turn at approx. 1.3
second
before the light turned red, and with oncoming traffic clearly visible.
As
with
(b)
above,
a
longer
yellow
might
have
kept
the
sports
car
from
violating
the
red,
but
it
would
not
have
prevented
the
(near-)
accident.
An
accident
like
this
could
happen
any
time
during the signal cycle. All that is
required is
for someone to carelessly begin a left turn without checking oncoming
traffic.
Near-accidents
(b)and(c)show that the City needs to protect left-turners by installing
a left-arrow.
Further, this wide intersection needs to have signal lights positioned
on the "near" side.
Intererestingly, none of the three
near-accidents involved a right
turn accident. You'd think that to justify the City's heavy emphasis on
right turn enforcement, Glendale would have
provided
footage of a few right turn accidents.
Photo # 14
In
Dec. 2011 ATS (American Traffic Solutions) published a number of video
compilations of crashes supposedly caused by red light running,
including one compilation of crashes in
New Jersey cities.
NE bound St. Georges Ave. (Route 27) at Stiles Road,
in Linden, NJ (click photo to enlarge)
The
Linden left-turn accident shown above (begins at 0:58 on
the YouTube
video alternate
copy) was
not caused by a red light runner. The lights
were yellow (follow the
white arrows added by highwayrobbery.net). The
left turner carelessly started his left turn too soon, several seconds
before
the light went red.
I wonder if ATS failed to notice that the Linden segment was not an example of red light running, or if they liked the violence in the video so much that they decided to put it up anyway, hoping the public would not catch the lie.
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net