The red light camera (short for the camera running the red light) is a type of traffic enforcement camera that captures images of vehicles that have entered the intersection even though the traffic signals show red (during red). stage). By automatically photographing a vehicle running a red light, the photograph is evidence that helps the authorities in enforcing their traffic laws. Generally the camera is triggered when the vehicle enters the junction (past stop-bar) after the traffic signal turns red. Typically, law enforcement officers will review photo evidence and determine whether a violation occurs. A quote is then sent to the owner of a vehicle that is found unlawful. These cameras are used worldwide, in countries including: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK, Singapore and the United States. If proper identification can not be done, rather than a ticket, some police departments send a notice of infringement to the owner of the vehicle, requesting identity information so that tickets can be issued later.
There is ongoing debate and research on the use of red light cameras. Authorities call public security the main reason that cameras are installed, while opponents argue their use is more for financial gain. There is concern that red light cameras scare off drivers (who want to avoid tickets) to a more sudden stop, which can increase the risk of back collisions. High incentives to stop can reduce side collisions. Some traffic signals have all red duration, allowing a grace period of a few seconds before the cross direction turns green. Several studies have confirmed more rear collisions in which red light cameras have been used, while side collisions have decreased, but the overall collision rate has been mixed. In some areas, the yellow phase length has been increased to provide longer warning to accompany the camera running in red light. There are also concerns that the international standard formula used to adjust the yellow phase length ignores the laws of physics, which can cause drivers to inadvertently run the red phase.
Video Red light camera
Histori
Red light cameras were first developed in the Netherlands by Gatso. Around the world, red light cameras have been used since the 1960s, and were used for traffic enforcement in Israel in early 1969. The first red light camera system was introduced in 1965, using tubes stretched on the road to detect violations and then trigger the camera. One of the first developers of red light camera system is Gatsometer BV.
The camera first received serious attention in the United States in the 1980s after a massive publicized accident in 1982, involving a red light runner who collided with an 18 month old girl in a stroller (or "pushchair") in New York. York City. Furthermore, community groups work with the city's Department of Transport to examine automated law enforcement systems to identify and ticket drivers who turn on red lights. The New York red light camera program came into force in 1993. From the 1980s onwards, the use of red light cameras expanded worldwide, and one of the early camera system developers, Poltech International, supplied Australia, the UK, South Africa, Taiwan, Netherlands and Hongkong. American Traffic Systems (hereafter American Traffic Solutions) (ATS) and Redflex Traffic Systems emerged as the leading supplier of red light camera systems in the US, while Jenoptik became the leading provider of red light cameras worldwide.
Initially, all red light camera systems use movies, sent to local law enforcement departments for review and approval. The first digital camera system was introduced in Canberra in December 2000, and digital cameras increasingly replaced older film cameras in other locations since then.
Maps Red light camera
Operation
Red light cameras are usually installed in protective metal boxes attached to poles (different from radar guns carried by police officers) at the intersection, which are often specifically chosen because of the high number of collisions and/or fast-running violations. Red light camera systems typically use two inductively spaced loops close together embedded on the sidewalk just before the boundary line, to measure the speed of the vehicle. By using the measured speed, the system predicts whether a particular vehicle will not be able to stop before entering the intersection, and take two photos of the event. The first photo shows the vehicle before entering the intersection, with the light showing the red, and the second photo, taken a second or two later, showing the vehicle while at the intersection.
Details that may be recorded by the camera system (and then presented to the vehicle owner) include: date and time, location, vehicle speed, and amount of time elapsed since the lights turn red and the vehicle passes to the intersection. This event is captured as a series of photos or video clips, or both, depending on the technology used, which indicates the vehicle before entering the intersection of the red light signal and its progress through the intersection. Data and images, whether digitized or developed from film, are sent to the relevant law enforcement agencies. There, this information is usually reviewed by law enforcement officers or police officers, who determines whether a violation occurs and, if so, agrees to issue a quote to the vehicle owner, who may challenge the quote.
Studies have shown that 38% of violations occur within 0.25 seconds of light that is flushed and 79% in one second. Some red light camera systems allow a "grace period" of up to half a second for drivers passing through the intersection just as the light turns red. Ohio and Georgia introduced legislation requiring that one second be added to the standard yellow time of each intersection that has red light cameras, which has caused an 80% reduction on tickets since its introduction. New Jersey has the most stringent yellow time provisions in the country as a result of concerns that cameras will be used to generate revenue; they have a law that stipulates that yellow time for intersections that have red light cameras should be based on the speed at which 85% of road traffic moves rather than based on the actual speed limit of the road.
Usage
The use of red light cameras is widespread in a number of countries around the world. Dutch-based Gatso introduced red light cameras to the market in 1965, and red light cameras were used for traffic enforcement in Israel since 1969. In the early 1970s, red light cameras were used for traffic enforcement in at least one jurisdiction in Europe.. Australia began to use it on a large scale in the 1980s. As of July 21, 2010, the expansion of the use of red light cameras in Australia is underway. In some areas of Australia, where red light cameras are used, there is an online system to check photos taken from your vehicle if you receive a ticket. Singapore also began using red light cameras in the 1980s, and installed the first camera system for five years, beginning in August 1986. In Canada, in 1998, red light cameras were used in British Columbia and scheduled to be implemented in Manitoba. In Alberta, red light cameras were installed in 1999 in Edmonton and in 2001 in Calgary. The first cameras were installed in Britain in the 1990s, with the earliest locations including eight railroad crossings in Scotland where there was greatest demand for traffic signaling due to casualties.
China
The use of red light cameras is very wide in mainland China. In 2007, about 700 intersections in Shenzhen were monitored for red light violations, speeding, or both.
Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, where a red light camera is installed, a sign to alert the driver to the camera is present, in order to educate the driver to stop looking for signals. The number of red light cameras in Hong Kong doubled in May 2004, and digital red light cameras were introduced at the intersection identified by police and transport departments as the most abusive and the greatest risk. The digital cameras were introduced to further prevent the running of red lights. In addition to the driver's assistance, some camera posts are painted orange so the driver can see them more easily. In 2006, Hong Kong had 96 red light cameras operating. By 2016 this number has increased to 195.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, authorities often refer to red light cameras, along with speed cameras, as security cameras . They were first used in the early 1990s, with initial placement by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Region. All fees are paid by the local authorities in which individual cameras are placed, and income earned from fines is paid to the Financial Consolidation Fund. In 1998 the government handed over collecting powers to a local road safety partnership, comprising "... local government, Magistrates Court, Highway Bureau and police."
In a report, published in December 2005, there were a total of 612 red light cameras in the UK alone, of which 225 were in London.
United States
Since the early 1990s, red light cameras have been used in the United States in 26 US states and the District of Columbia. In some states, the camera may only be allowed in certain areas. For example, in New York State, the Law on Vehicles and Traffic allows red light cameras only in cities with populations above 1 million (ie New York City), Rochester, Buffalo, Yonkers, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In Florida, state legislation came into force on July 1, 2010, allowing all cities in the state to use red light cameras in all state-of-the-way and good drivers running red lights, with the aim of enforcing safe driving, according to then-Governor Charlie Crist. The name given to state law is the Traffic Safety Law Mark Wandall, named for a man who was killed in 2003 by a rider who turned on a red light. In addition to enabling the use of cameras, the law also standardizes drivers' penalties. Major cities across the United States that use red light cameras include Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Raleigh, San Francisco , Seattle, Toledo and Washington, DC Albuquerque has cameras, but in October 2011 local voters approved the size of the ballots advising the city council to stop the authorization of red light camera programs. The city of Albuquerque ended its red light program on December 31, 2011.
In March 2017, the city of Chicago changed the time period between when the light turned red and when the red light camera was triggered (and the ticket was removed) from 0.1 second to 0.3 seconds. The "grace period" in Chicago is now in line with other major American cities such as New York City and Philadelphia.
Red light camera suppliers in the US include: Affiliate Computer Services (ACS) State and Local Solutions, a Xerox company, from Dallas, Texas; American Traffic Solutions of Scottsdale, Arizona, 1/3 owned by Goldman Sachs; Brekford International Corp., from Hanover, Maryland; Consulting Services CMA, Inc. from Latham, New York; Gatso USA Beverly, Massachusetts; iTraffic Safety LLC from Ridgeland, South Carolina; Optotraffic, from Lanham, Maryland; Redflex Traffic Systems in Phoenix, Arizona, with its parent company in Australia; RedSpeed-Illinois LLC, from Lombard, Illinois, whose parent company is in Worcestershire, England; SafeSpeed ​​LLC, from Chicago, Illinois, and Sensys America Inc., from Miami, Florida.
Some countries have chosen to ban the use of red light cameras. These include Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
In February 2012, the red light camera setting in St. Louis was officially declared void by Court of Appeal. Louis Mark Neill. On August 9, 2012, the city council of Cary, North Carolina voted to terminate their program. In February 2013, the mayor of San Diego helped remove red light cameras to keep the campaign promises he made during the November 2012 election to eliminate this system. New Jersey must update the Red Light Act by the state legislature in early 2015 and not do this, making the use of illegal red light cameras in the states thereafter.
In the United States, fines are not standardized and vary greatly, ranging from $ 50 in New York City to about $ 500 in California. Costs in California can increase to about $ 600 if motorists choose to attend a traffic school to avoid the added demerit points to the driver's record.
Traffic violation notice
In many California police departments, when positive identification can not be made, the registered vehicle owner will be sent traffic violation notice instead of the actual ticket. Also known as "insulting tickets," this notice is used to request identification information about the driver of the vehicle during the alleged infringement. Because these notices have not been brought to trial, they carry no legal burdens and the registered owners are not obliged to respond. In California, the original ticket will bear the name and address of the local branch of the High Court and direct the recipient to contact the court. Conversely, the traffic violation notice produced by the police will remove court information, using statements such as "This is not a notification to appear" and "Do not forward this information to the Court."
In September 2014, a bill was proposed in New Jersey to ban the state Vehicle Commission from sharing the license plate and driver information needed to cite New Jersey drivers accused of abuses in other countries.
Study and politics
A report in 2003 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) examined studies from 30 years earlier in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the US, and concluded that red light cameras "enhance the overall security crossing in which they are used." it states that the evidence is not conclusive (partly due to the shortcomings in the study), the majority of studies show a reduction in corner congestion, a smaller increase in accidents on the back, with some evidence of "spillage" effects of red light reduction running to other intersections within jurisdictions. The findings are similar to a 2005 meta-analysis, comparing the results of 10 pre-post studies of red light cameras in the US, Australia and Singapore. The analysis states that studies show reduced accidents (up to nearly 30%) where there are injuries; however, the evidence is less conclusive for total collision reduction. Studies of red light cameras around the world show a reduction in accidents involving injuries of about 25% to 30%, taking into account an increase in accidents on the back, according to testimony from the Virginia House of Delegates meeting of the Militia, Police, and Public Security Committee in 2003. Findings is supported by a review of over 45 international studies conducted in 2010, which found that red light cameras reduce the level of red light violations, damage caused by running red lights, and usually reduce right angle collisions.
Among the many safety benefits that were instructed to install the RLC, several studies have examined changes in driver behavior in relation to red light cameras that indicate that at this junction the driver tends to react more quickly to yellow light changes when stopped. The consequence of this change is a slight decrease in intersection capacity. In terms of location-specific studies, in Singapore a study from 2003 found that there was a "substantial decrease" in red light violations at intersections with red light cameras. In particular, the study found that drivers were encouraged to more easily stop in areas with red light cameras used. A report from civil administrators in Saskatchewan in 2001, when considering the use of red light cameras, refers to studies in the Netherlands and Australia that found a 40% reduction in red light violations and a 32% reduction in right angle damage where red light cameras were installed. After the introduction of red light cameras in Western Australia, the amount of serious damage in the right corner declined by 40%, according to an article from the Canberra Times. In an article from the Xinhua General News Service, the Hong Kong transport department reported that in 2006 the average monthly number of accidents due to red light violations decreased by 25% and the number of people injured in this accident decreased by 30%, following an increase in the number of red light cameras used.
North America
In the US and Canada, a number of studies have examined whether red light cameras produce security benefits. A 2005 study by the US Federal Street Administration (FHWA) suggested red light cameras reduce the danger of right-angle disturbances. The FHWA study has been criticized for its critical analytical and methodological weaknesses and fails to explain the increase in casualties associated with red light camera use:
(...) the author highlights the difficulty of statistics including the cost of death, while ignoring the practical implications of the event (...) assuming that any angular injury accident has a social cost of $ 64,468, when in fact it costs $ 82,816 before the use of the camera and $ 100,176 after camera use (...)
The IIHS research on the red light camera security effects has also been criticized as bias and methodologically defective.
Not all research benefits the use of red light cameras. A 2004 study of 17,271 crashes from North Carolina A & amp; T University shows that the presence of red light cameras increases the overall number of crashes by up to 40%. This study did not accept peer review and was deemed flawed by IIHS. The Virginia Department of Transportation's 2005 study on the long-term effects of camera enforcement in the state found a decrease in the number of right angle damage with injuries, but an increase in the rear of the crash and an overall increase in the number of accidents causing injuries. In 2007, the department issued a recent report showing that the overall number of collisions at intersections with red light cameras increased. The report concludes that the decision to install red light cameras should be made at intersection by intersection because some intersections see declines in crashes and injuries justifying the use of red light cameras, while others see a collision increase, suggesting that the camera does not fit in that location. This study is also deemed flawed by IIHS. Aurora, Colorado experienced mixed results with red light cameras; after starting camera enforcement at 4 intersections, crashes decreased by 60% on one, increased 100% on two, and increased 175% in the fourth. According to IIHS, most studies show a rear-end collision decrease after drivers become accustomed to new dynamics of intersections. Some locations have decreased rear-end collisions at intersections with red light cameras from time to time, for example, in Los Angeles the collision was down 4.7% from 2008 to 2009. However, a 2010 analysis by Los Angeles City Controller found the LA red light camera did not show increased security, in particular from 32 junctions equipped with cameras, 12 saw more accidents than before the camera was installed, 4 had the same number, and 16 had fewer crashes; also that factors other than the camera may be responsible for the reduction of collisions at 16 intersections. And in Winnipeg, Manitoba, crashes have been found to increase significantly in the years following the red light camera deployment. In 2010, Arizona completed a photo-enforcement camera study across their state of 76 and decided they would not update the program in 2011; lower than expected earnings, mixed public receipts and mixed accident data cited.
Nevertheless, FHWA has concluded that the camera produces a positive overall cost benefit because of the more costly reduction of right angle injury collisions. Other studies have found a larger reduction of collisions. For example, a 2005 study from Raleigh, North Carolina, red light camera program conducted by the Institute of Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University found a decrease in the right angle decreased by 42%, crashes on the back decreased by 25% and total crashes dropped 17%. In 2010, IIHS looked at the results of a number of studies and found that red light cameras reduced the total collision and especially reduced the types of accidents that are likely to cause injury. The IIHS 2011 report concludes that a fatal collision rate involving red light operations in cities with populations of 200,000 or greater is 24% lower with cameras than it should be without cameras.
Opinion
United States
The 2009 Public Opinion Strategy poll that asked, "Do you support or oppose the use of red light cameras to detect red light runners and enforce traffic laws at the country's most dangerous intersections?" found 69% support and 29% opposed. A telephone survey in 2012 of the District of Columbia residents published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention found that 87% liked red light cameras.
The National Motorists Association opposes red light cameras on the grounds that the use of these devices poses legal problems and violates the privacy of citizens. They also argue that the use of red light cameras does not improve security. In the US, AAA Auto Club South is arguing against the passage of Florida state law to allow red light cameras, stating that the use of red light cameras is primarily to raise money for state coffers and local government coffers and will not improve road safety. Worse, there are allegations of corruption in shortening amber to increase the number of tickets. Speed-breaking or mound road construction is a conventional method that forces motorists to lower speed, but is dropped in places that support the camera due to lobbying efforts.
Canada and Europe
In Norway, Spain, and the Netherlands, a post survey in 2003 showed acceptance of red light camera use for traffic enforcement. For some groups, traffic law enforcement is considered the main reason for using red light cameras. For example, a report from civil administrators in Saskatoon Canada in 2001 described the camera as "the only enforcement tool used to punish failed riders for red traffic signals."
Legal questions and restrictions
United States
In December 2016 Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin have imposed restrictions on red lights, speed or use of other photo-enforcement cameras. Restrictions or conditions exist in additional states; The New Mexico Department of Transportation, for example, has asserted the right to restrict or ban red light cameras on state highways. While red light cameras may not be banned in other areas, they may have some restrictions on their use. In some jurisdictions, the law says that the camera needs to get a photograph of the driver's face in order for the excerpt issued to run a red light to be valid. This is the case in California and Colorado where red light cameras are set to take a series of photos, including one driver's face. In California, state law sees crime points against drivers running red lights, and the need to identify actual offenders has led to the creation of unique investigative tools, fake "tickets". Groups opposed to the use of red light cameras argue that where the camera is not set to identify the driver of the vehicle, the issue of owner responsibility will appear. It is felt by some that vehicle owners are unjustly punished for being held responsible for red light violations even though they may not be the driver at the time of the offense. In most areas of responsibility for red light infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal quote, issued to vehicle owners - similar to a parking ticket. The ownership liability issue was discussed in US courts, with a decision in the District Court of Appeal of Columbia in 2007, agreed with a lower court when it found that the perceived liability of vehicle owners issuing citations did not violate the legal process right. This ruling is supported by the decision of the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeal in 2009 where it was held that issuing quotations for vehicle owners (or lessees) is constitutional. The court stated that it also encourages drivers to be cautious in lending their vehicles to others.
The argument that red light cameras violate the privacy of citizens, has also been discussed in US courts. According to a 2009 decision by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, "nobody has the fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by cameras on public roads." In addition, the camera only takes photos or video when the vehicle has been running a red light and, in most states, the camera does not photograph the driver or passenger of the vehicle.
In most areas, red light enforcement cameras are installed and maintained by private companies. A lawsuit has been filed challenging the right of private companies to distribute quotes, such as a lawsuit in December 2008 against the Dallas red light camera program, dismissed in March 2009. In most cases, citations issued by law enforcement officials use evidence provided by the company.
There are many instances where US cities have been found to have too short a yellow light interval at some intersections where red light cameras have been installed. In Tennessee, 176 drivers were returned for a paid fine after it was found that the yellow length was too short for that location, and the rider was caught running the lamp in the first seconds of the red phase. In California, a total of 7603 tickets were returned or dismissed by Bakersfield, Costa Mesa, East LA, San Carlos and Union City cities, due to the shortness of yellow. Although national guidelines governing the length of traffic signals are available, traffic signal phase times are determined by city, county or state government employees for the marked locations. While some countries set a period of constant jurisdiction-wide for yellow light intervals, the new standard holds. States are required to adopt the 2009 National Guidelines on Uniform Traffic Control Equipment (MUTCD) as their legal status standard for traffic control devices since 2011. These standards require engineering practices to be used to establish the yellow- light at individual intersections and or corridors. For guidance to state authorities, the MUTCD states a yellow light must have a minimum duration of 3 seconds and a maximum duration of 6 seconds. The deadline for compliance is 2014. In the US, if any part of the driver's vehicle has crossed the intersection when the signal turns red, no offense is made. Tickets are only issued if the vehicle enters the junction when the light is red.
In 2014, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives seeking to ban red light cameras on federal government-funded highways and the District of Columbia.
Italy
In 2010, it was revealed that the city government of Segrate, Italy, two nearby traffic lights had been synchronized in such a way that the driver was forced to break the speed limit or bypass the red lights. This was investigated as a deliberate fraud to increase revenue from tickets. It took months before the machine was finally dismantled by Guardia in Finanza.
Alternative
Red light cameras are not the only countermeasures against red light operations. Others include increasing the distance of sight and traffic lightness so it is more likely to draw the driver's attention in time for him to stop, rekindle the light so the driver will find fewer red lights, increase the duration of the yellow light between green and red, add the "permit" phase to the intersection traffic signal, where all directions have a red light. It has been argued that the minimum yellow duration rule has declined over the years, that this is the cause of the escalation of the red light, and that the latest countermeasures amount to a previous return, longer yellow-light duration set.
See also
- Speed ​​lump (Police bed)
- Highway is divided
- Red light cameras in Spain and Europe
- Map of United States and Canada red light camera locations
References
External links
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments