New Toyota sends data to Police automatically when you speed

[dmcowen674]

Oh the Humanity, think of the Children, we must have these Cameras watch our every move:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is really unfortunate that we need to have these debates on road safety.
Cars do crash, maim and kill, and about half the casualties are completely
innocent. This includes young children.

Funnily enough many people do have strong views about this, especially if
they have actually seen the effects. To impute that these concerns are
nothing more than corporate PR, as your red light camera opponents do, is
obscene.

The nub of this argument is what civilisation is all about. Roads do not
exist soley for Ben Brunk's enjoyment. He has to share them with 250 million
other people. It's called civilisation.

Regards, Tony Healy
Australia


Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:56:11 -0500
From: Ben Brunk <brunkb@ruby.ils.unc.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b)
Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
To: declan@well.com, James W <jsuberw@confounding.org>
Subject: another account of the Chapel Hill stoplight cameras fight

Declan,

Hello from Chapel Hill. I thought your readers might like some of the
inside scoop on what just took place here with regard to the vote to remove
the stoplight cameras. It is true, the Town Council voted 5-4 against
continuing their "Safelight" system. I sent many letters and e-mails in
protest of the cameras and there were several local activists (notably, a
man named Will Raymond) who worked very hard to get this done. The turning
point came with the election of two new council members who campaigned on a
promise to put an end to the system and actually carried through on that
promise.

One thing that really bothered me about this whole process was how sourly
politicized the issue became. The pro-camera people could not win on the
facts so they resorted to the typical forms of misdirection.
One of the Council members as well as the company (ACS) pulled out all the
stops in an attempt to sway the debate away from facts and logic and into
the realm of emotionalism and hand-waving (which is how the cameras came to
be in the first place). The Saturday before the vote, ACS had a "question
and answer" forum at the local library which included a representative from
ACS handing out all kinds of schwag. Also present was a woman named Ann
Sweet from the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running who spoke about
how her daughter, Shawnee who died after being hit by a red light runner
(no one from ACS attempted to explain how a stoplight camera system would
have prevented this tragedy). ACS is a major contributor to the National
Campaign to Stop Red Light Running. No bias there, really--only an entirely
phony grassroots lobby, similar to Americans for Gun Safety. I think that
if an investigative journalist were to peel back the layers some more, they
would uncover a sophisticated public relations and marketing scheme at work
whereby the companies who want to get cameras installed come to a city and
blitz the media with pro-camera propaganda, including editorial page
comments. If one were to believe media reports during the months leading
up to the camera vote, one would conclude that red light running was an
epidemic and people were dying here every day because of it. Of course, no
such epidemic existed. Nothing was any different than before. Before the
cameras were voted on the first time, opposition to the cameras was
virtually shut down. Every television segment and print article was about
how cameras increase safety and save lives, but offered no evidence to back
up those claims. The original council meeting that took place was
ridiculous--the vote was already a done deal and concerns of opponents such
as myself were paid only lip service. The anti-camera editorials I wrote
never saw daylight, yet many "local" residents wrote editorials that were
printed. I was never able to contact any of those "local" writers,
however. I suspect that the council had ACS as a vendor lined up
beforehand, although the council was ostensibly voting to "seek a vendor to
implement the cameras." I wonder how closely the company worked with the
council and other town employees before the original vote? The sell job
was very tightly managed and coordinated.

I find that many of the arguments against the cameras such as privacy,
privatization of law enforcement, and related matters, are valid but easily
shot down by cameras supporters. What camera opponents might better focus
upon is the unassaible fact that stoplight cameras do not create a
measurable improvement in intersection safety. Think about it: If an
intersection is already working so that there is only one accident in ten
thousand crossings (or better), then there is almost no room for
improvement there. 100% safety is a laudable goal, but not an actual
physical possibility. By using that argument, you throw it back to the
camera people to defend their proposal. They will spit out many numbers
and figures, none of which describe exactly how the cameras supply that
extra magical .0001% improvement.
If one bothers to read the NC State study referenced in the articles, the
author states that cameras should be used as a last resort after all other
potential fixes have been exhausted (this was never attempted in Chapel
Hill). The author's eloquent verbiage attempts to conceal the hard facts
but his devotion to the scientific method betrays him in the end. Traffic
safety literature is rife with this subterfuge--for some reason these
researchers are unable to come right out and say things like "this
system does not lead to measurable improvements." Whether their funding
depends on a certain candor, I cannot say, but it is certainly a problem
when policy makers come to rely on these reports.
Anyone with any background in performing cost-benefit analyses would
quickly conclude that there is enormous cost with little to no benefit.

Some truly unbelievable rhetoric flew around during that meeting as well as
at the council meeting. Accusations such as "Chapel Hill is now sending
the message that it is okay to break the law" and "it is absolutely
imperative that the town do something to improve intersection safety"
(this, despite there being no evidence of a red light running epidemic or
abnormal number of accidents in Chapel Hill).

Another matter that occurred to me recently is that one reason stoplight
cameras may have become popular in North Carolina is because the state
legislature passed a law requiring all speeding ticket revenues to revert
back to the general fund. That law was highly successful at shutting down
speed traps and the subsequent abuse of motorists by small town cops whose
primary job is to raise revenue. Without the incentive of quick, nearly
unaccountable cash, the speed traps were scaled back.
Stoplight cameras are their direct replacement, unfortunately. The
remnants of the speed trap mentality persist--speed limits in Chapel Hill
appear to be designed around 1940s automobile technology, ensuring that
practically everyone is speeding all the time unless their car is
parked. Ridiculously low speed limits are a national problem, there is
nothing special about Chapel Hill in that regard. One wonders if there is
any reliable, untainted highway research literature at all. I mention this
because low speed limits appear to be a major factor in intersection where
red light running is common. Since the yellow light times are calculated
based on the posted speed limits, their duration is too short for the
intersection to clear when the light changes. Today's posted speed limits
have about as much in common with reality as Lord of the Rings or Star Wars
do. That unreality has not prevented municipalities from taking advantage
of the free money. By now, Americans have been bilked out of trillions of
dollars through unfair traffic enforcement practices. That represents a
whole lot of money flowing into government and a whole lot of financial
choices and personal time taken away from the people. I doubt the current
victims will see a refund from the town.

My take on the whole terrible experience is that once policy is in place,
it is very difficult to roll it back. The underlying reason for the
council canceling the program was because they weren't making enough
money. The negative public reaction is a distant second place after the
revenue aspect (and according to the media, there was *overwhelming* public
support for the cameras). The other concerns got big play in the media,
but only so they could be shot down by camera supporters. As I write this,
neighboring cities such as Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, and now Cary all
have stoplight cameras installed or about to go in.
The cash is rolling in.

And there you have 1100 words on stoplight cameras in Chapel Hill!


Ben Brunk

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sounds like the person who wrote this has a bias.

They must have been issued a ticket for breaking the law.

 

[bozack]

right....

Edit to Eagle,

Bias or not they have a very valid point, these cameras were not put up to prevent killings at red lights but rather to rake in revinue without increasing their police force...in other words cheap - easy money for the town.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: bozack
right....

Edit to Eagle,

Bias or not they have a very valid point, these cameras were not put up to prevent killings at red lights but rather to rake in revinue without increasing their police force...in other words cheap - easy money for the town.

I do not expect that anyone puts up a camera to deter a killing. Someone is trying to tie two problems together.
Yes, Red light runners do kill in an accident.
Yes, cameras will hopefully deter some red light runners.
No, cameras are not put up to prevent killings. If they do so, then it is a bonus.

If the threat of a fine will cause people to slow down and obey the law, then the intent of the camera has succeeded.

The cost of the camera is less than the cost of having a mobile police officer at each intersection.

If there were no people running the red lights, there would be no revenue from the cameras.
Run the red light, pay the fine. The camera does not make you break the law, it just recoreds that fact that you borke it.
If the yellow time is not long enough to stop safely at the posted speed limit, show the judge the numbers. The case will be dropped.

If the yellow time is enough, but the driver is exceeding the speed limit and can not stop, why is the camera at fault for flagging the violation.
A police officer could do the same thing, but is more epxensive.

The camera can act as a deterrent, also dummy cameras can be put up to increase the awareness and reduce the violations.

 

[dualsmp]

Most all the redlight cameras are privately owned by companies such as Lockheed Martin. Fascism at its best! :disgust:

 

[Mill]

I've never run a redlight(except when delivering papers, but the cops told me I could) so it doesn't effect me. They certainly should NOT be used as revenue measures, but I think most of this is people not wanting to get caught.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Mill
I've never run a redlight(except when delivering papers, but the cops told me I could) so it doesn't effect me. They certainly should NOT be used as revenue measures, but I think most of this is people not wanting to get caught.

People with nothing to fear do not worry.
Those who scoff at the law and therefore have a higher chance of getting caught will complain.

 

[rbV5]

AFAIC, unless they reduce the timing on the yellow light to trap folks, I would support them installing these cameras in as many intersections as possible. They wouldn't make a penny on them if no one ran the red lights. Ben Brunk sounds like one of those pricks who thinks his time is more valuable than yours and mine, and likely got snapped trying to beat out a red light to get to the office 2 seconds sooner because he left home 5 minutes late.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I think states mandating a standard length for yellow lights would do more for public safety than these cameras. But that's a simple, cheap solution, so it's not going to happen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Federal Highway administration has standards for the length of a yellow light.
Minimum is 4 seconds. Length of time is calculated by the speed limit.
Higher speed limit, more yellow time. This allows a safe distance to stop before entering the intersection.

There is also a minimum 1 second all red condition before any cross light turns green.

 

[glugglug]

Besides the privacy concerns, there is another way in which stoplight cameras can be abused.....

In some areas (more common in the south), you HAVE TO run the lights, because otherwise they will NEVER CHANGE. Worst offender on that that I have seen is Orlando. All of the traffic lights there use sensors under the road to detect when a car is waiting at the light so it knows to change. More than 85% of those sensors are misplaced so that you have to almost stop in the middle of the intersection (blocking at least 1.5 lanes) to trigger them. (Well maybe not quite have to -- the alternative is the old right turn on red->U turn->right turn on red trick which is so common out of necessity that they started putting no U turn signs all over the place and ticketing people for using U-turns as an alternative to running a light.) You can be sure that this problem would become even more common in a municipality that was using the light cameras because forcing people to run the lights then ticketing them for it provides a constant stream of revenue.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Besides the privacy concerns, there is another way in which stoplight cameras can be abused.....

In some areas (more common in the south), you HAVE TO run the lights, because otherwise they will NEVER CHANGE. Worst offender on that that I have seen is Orlando. All of the traffic lights there use sensors under the road to detect when a car is waiting at the light so it knows to change. More than 85% of those sensors are misplaced so that you have to almost stop in the middle of the intersection (blocking at least 1.5 lanes) to trigger them. (Well maybe not quite have to -- the alternative is the old right turn on red->U turn->right turn on red trick which is so common out of necessity that they started putting no U turn signs all over the place and ticketing people for using U-turns as an alternative to running a light.) You can be sure that this problem would become even more common in a municipality that was using the light cameras because forcing people to run the lights then ticketing them for it provides a constant stream of revenue.

This is a huge problem for Motorcyclists. There isn't enough metal to trigger the system since it is capacitance based detection. Anyway Tennessee has recognized the problem and now have a Law on the books that it is OK for Motorcyclists to make a left on Red when conditions are clear.

We need this in Georgia although it is only the State Lights near the Interstate Ramps that have sensor lights, most Municipalities still have timed lights and not synced either.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Besides the privacy concerns, there is another way in which stoplight cameras can be abused.....

In some areas (more common in the south), you HAVE TO run the lights, because otherwise they will NEVER CHANGE. Worst offender on that that I have seen is Orlando. All of the traffic lights there use sensors under the road to detect when a car is waiting at the light so it knows to change. More than 85% of those sensors are misplaced so that you have to almost stop in the middle of the intersection (blocking at least 1.5 lanes) to trigger them. (Well maybe not quite have to -- the alternative is the old right turn on red->U turn->right turn on red trick which is so common out of necessity that they started putting no U turn signs all over the place and ticketing people for using U-turns as an alternative to running a light.) You can be sure that this problem would become even more common in a municipality that was using the light cameras because forcing people to run the lights then ticketing them for it provides a constant stream of revenue.

Look at the position of the sensor loops. they usually start about 2-3 feet in front of the cross walk and run 15-20 feet back into the lane.

Big problem is that cars will stop forward of the crosswalk and then require another vehicle to pull up behind them to trigger the sensor.

As long as the body of your vehicle is over the sensor, a working sensor will trigger the light cycle.

The sensors are validated by a public works traffice tech or engineer before the contractor that put them in is paid for the job.

The positioning of the camera could be adjusted, however, it is not controlling the light. A vehicle crossing the sensor when the light is in the red phase would then trigger the camera.

Again the problem is that people are attempting to run the yellow not triggering the green.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Federal Highway administration has standards for the length of a yellow light.
Minimum is 4 seconds. Length of time is calculated by the speed limit.
Higher speed limit, more yellow time. This allows a safe distance to stop before entering the intersection.

There is also a minimum 1 second all red condition before any cross light turns green.

Right...

That is enforced about as well as how cops enforce against red light runners (which is not at all, I saw someone run a light right in front of a cop this morning).
When the city of Beaverton, OR (population 80,000) put up its Lockheed-Martin red light cameras 2 years ago, they also reduced the yellow light time at those intersections with cameras to 1.8 seconds. A local TV station caught them out. To this day, they have not increased the yellow light time at those intersections.

I never run a red light. Ever. I think red light runners are a worse danger on the road than drunk drivers. But I still think red light cameras are not the way to go. Law enforcement should not be done solely for the purpose of generating revenue.

And your "if you don't break the law, you have nothing worry about" logic would have made great sense in Nazi Germany. Just saying that proves you're an idiot about the law.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Federal Highway administration has standards for the length of a yellow light.
Minimum is 4 seconds. Length of time is calculated by the speed limit.
Higher speed limit, more yellow time. This allows a safe distance to stop before entering the intersection.

There is also a minimum 1 second all red condition before any cross light turns green.

Right...

That is enforced about as well as how cops enforce against red light runners (which is not at all, I saw someone run a light right in front of a cop this morning).
When the city of Beaverton, OR (population 80,000) put up its Lockheed-Martin red light cameras 2 years ago, they also reduced the yellow light time at those intersections with cameras to 1.8 seconds. A local TV station caught them out. To this day, they have not increased the yellow light time at those intersections.

I never run a red light. Ever. I think red light runners are a worse danger on the road than drunk drivers. But I still think red light cameras are not the way to go. Law enforcement should not be done solely for the purpose of generating revenue.

And your "if you don't break the law, you have nothing worry about" logic would have made great sense in Nazi Germany. Just saying that proves your idiot about the law.

If the city does not change the light cycle and they are taken to court regarding the length of the yellow by a red light runner, then the ticket can be voided by the judge using the statistics that are provided. The judge would also then have the authority to foce the city to correct the light timing.

All the camera is doing is increase the sense that one will pay a penalty for running the red light.

If you are not running the red, why worry about the camera.
If the camera is used for purposes other than intended, then I can accept the argument that they need to be removed or the original intent be enforced.

 

[dmcowen674]

From: "Tony Healy"?
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com>, <politech@politechbot.com>
Subject: RE: [Politech] Another report from red light cam fight in Chapel
Hill[priv] REMOVEEMAIL
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:49:26 +1100

It is really unfortunate that we need to have these debates on road safety.
Cars do crash, maim and kill, and about half the casualties are completely
innocent. This includes young children.

Funnily enough many people do have strong views about this, especially if
they have actually seen the effects. To impute that these concerns are
nothing more than corporate PR, as your red light camera opponents do, is
obscene.

The nub of this argument is what civilisation is all about. Roads do not
exist soley for Ben Brunk's enjoyment. He has to share them with 250 million
other people. It's called civilisation.

Regards, Tony Healy
Australia
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
From: "Tony Healy"?
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com>, <politech@politechbot.com>
Subject: RE: [Politech] Another report from red light cam fight in Chapel
Hill[priv] REMOVEEMAIL
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:49:26 +1100

It is really unfortunate that we need to have these debates on road safety.
Cars do crash, maim and kill, and about half the casualties are completely
innocent. This includes young children.

Funnily enough many people do have strong views about this, especially if
they have actually seen the effects. To impute that these concerns are
nothing more than corporate PR, as your red light camera opponents do, is
obscene.

The nub of this argument is what civilisation is all about. Roads do not
exist soley for Ben Brunk's enjoyment. He has to share them with 250 million
other people. It's called civilisation.

Regards, Tony Healy
Australia
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

Funnily?
There is no such word in the English language.

And who really cares what an Australian thinks on such a matter? For one thing, there are only 30 million people in Australia, although it is almost as large as the continental US. And for another, they do not have our Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to due process and the right to be able to confront their accusers.
Hell, they don't even have free speech or press in Australia -- book, movie, video game, and magazine censorship by the government is an everyday event.
And as for traffic laws in Australia, they have so many traffic cams that you could get 3 tickets for "1 over" in less than 10 miles and not even know it.

Clearly not a country that places ANY value on the freedom of the individual. If such a country is what you want, then move there -- they have plenty of room.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: glugglug
Besides the privacy concerns, there is another way in which stoplight cameras can be abused.....

In some areas (more common in the south), you HAVE TO run the lights, because otherwise they will NEVER CHANGE. Worst offender on that that I have seen is Orlando. All of the traffic lights there use sensors under the road to detect when a car is waiting at the light so it knows to change. More than 85% of those sensors are misplaced so that you have to almost stop in the middle of the intersection (blocking at least 1.5 lanes) to trigger them. (Well maybe not quite have to -- the alternative is the old right turn on red->U turn->right turn on red trick which is so common out of necessity that they started putting no U turn signs all over the place and ticketing people for using U-turns as an alternative to running a light.) You can be sure that this problem would become even more common in a municipality that was using the light cameras because forcing people to run the lights then ticketing them for it provides a constant stream of revenue.

Look at the position of the sensor loops. they usually start about 2-3 feet in front of the cross walk and run 15-20 feet back into the lane.

Big problem is that cars will stop forward of the crosswalk and then require another vehicle to pull up behind them to trigger the sensor.

As long as the body of your vehicle is over the sensor, a working sensor will trigger the light cycle.

The sensors are validated by a public works traffice tech or engineer before the contractor that put them in is paid for the job.

The positioning of the camera could be adjusted, however, it is not controlling the light. A vehicle crossing the sensor when the light is in the red phase would then trigger the camera.

Again the problem is that people are attempting to run the yellow not triggering the green.

THat might be where the sensor loops should be, but it is not where they are. The majority of the sensor loops in Orlando are forward of the crosswalk.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: glugglug

THat might be where the sensor loops should be, but it is not where they are. The majority of the sensor loops in Orlando are forward of the crosswalk.

I still have some contacts in the FDOT and with Orlando public works.
Please provide a couple of examples (do not have to be extreme) that I can pass on to try and get some feedback on what is happening.

I will not be visiting in the Orlando area for about 4-6 months, but can try to get some clues.

 

[Ultima]

traffic enforcement cameras are disgusting. Red light cameras make sense at first but when you think about it.. the appalling greed of the city causes them to shorten yellows, INCREASING accidents. What if you have to run the red light cause it's the middle of the night and some bum is running after your car? Ah, too bad, ticket.

Speed cameras are even worse. The only place I would *ever* support those is directly in front of an elementary school. Nowhere else should they ever be placed.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Mill
I've never run a redlight(except when delivering papers, but the cops told me I could) so it doesn't effect me. They certainly should NOT be used as revenue measures, but I think most of this is people not wanting to get caught.

Hah.. just yesterday I saw a grey impala turn left on a red light. There was a pubic security van behind him and I thought "WTF? Why is he just sitting there?" when it was obvious.. the grey impala was a cop and it was "ok" because cops can do anything they want to.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Federal Highway administration has standards for the length of a yellow light.
Minimum is 4 seconds. Length of time is calculated by the speed limit.
Higher speed limit, more yellow time. This allows a safe distance to stop before entering the intersection.

There is also a minimum 1 second all red condition before any cross light turns green.

In downtown Montreal and many of the neigbourhoods around, the light turns green the INSTANT the cross street turns red, sometimes even .1 second before. It means you have to actually look for runners, but in a way I think it's safer (on streets, not boulevards and highways obviously) since you're checking the intersection and more efficient.

 

[ReiAyanami]

red light cameras may not stop someone from running the red, but it'll catch the fvcker who did it. u really think after running over a child, a person who already ran a red light is going to stop and help? or flee the scene and let somebody die.

red light cameras should give some leeway, like a fraction of a second that someone is trying to beat a yellow, but if they see red and they gun right thru it, then they deserve to be caught. so in the future they won't smash their car into yours and kill you (running a red light into your car means they hit the driver's side), unless they're driving drunk backwards

 

[CaptnKirk]

AND THEN THERE'S THIS

Look at the light.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
red light cameras may not stop someone from running the red, but it'll catch the fvcker who did it. u really think after running over a child, a person who already ran a red light is going to stop and help? or flee the scene and let somebody die.

red light cameras should give some leeway, like a fraction of a second that someone is trying to beat a yellow, but if they see red and they gun right thru it, then they deserve to be caught. so in the future they won't smash their car into yours and kill you (running a red light into your car means they hit the driver's side), unless they're driving drunk backwards

Well that makes perfect sense. And I don't think even I would object to that. But that is not what has occurred. Instead, yellow lights have been shortened and leeway to drivers trying to (otherwise) lawfully clear the intersection has been eliminated, all in the name of revenue generation.
I know someone who got a red light camera ticket because, while they were lawfully inside the intersection on a green light at an unprotected left turn, other cars in the intersection prevented them from clearing the intersection before the light turned red, even though the law permits that.