Communist
1st March 2010, 06:47
.
Cities Shortening Yellow Traffic Lights for Deadly Profit (http://www.alternet.org/story/145752/)
By Scott Thill
AlterNet
February 2010
Reeling through a 21st century addicted to technology
and surveillance, citizens may be too overwhelmed to
complain of increasing cameras popping up atop red
lights at intersections across the nation, most of
which are designed to catch them breaking traffic laws.
That is, until they're caught in those intersections as
the yellow lights unexpectedly change, and cars in
front and back of them hit the brakes or punch the gas
to avoid tickets. And when they find out those cameras
and lights are being gamed, sometimes lethally, in the
pursuit of quick profit? Then they get mad, and maybe
even, for being used as motorized money pits.
"With all of the stories we hear on a daily basis,
there is little doubt that the desire for ticket
revenue trumps safety concerns," Gary Biller, executive
director of the National Motorists Association told
AlterNet. "A quick current example is California's
governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who a few weeks ago
proposed state budget including a proposal to add speed
sensors to 500 existing red-light cameras. The reason?
Safety wasn't mentioned, but an expected additional
annual revenue of $338 million was."
Roughly multiply that revenue by 50 states, and you
quickly get an idea why red-light cameras designed by
companies like Arizona's Redlfex Group and American
Traffic Solutions (ATS) are an increasingly attractive
crutch for America's cash-strapped cities. But they're
unsafe short-cuts, because they haven't necessarily
proven very effective at anything other than generating
ticket revenue -- and accidents, lots of accidents. In
fact, studies have repeatedly shown that red-light
cameras can cause more accidents, not less.
They're not particularly good at generating legitimate
tickets either: Illegal camera set-ups at intersections
in Seattle are issuing invalid citations, around 80
percent of red-light violations in Los Angeles are
comparatively safe rolling right turns, and so on.
Meanwhile, 15 states have elected to prohibit red-light
cameras, and more are surely to come as motorists learn
that some American cities have been shortening yellow
lights for deadly profit, as countries like Italy
quickly follow suit.
"While several cities have been caught shortening
yellow lights to increase revenue from red-light
tickets," said Biller, "I think the larger issue today
is that the duration of so many yellow lights has never
been adequately set for optimal safety results. An
increase of approximately one second can reduce the
frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent."
The standard definition of a safe yellow light is
arguably hard to nail down, depending on the
intersection. The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies a
wide-ranging duration of three to six seconds. But the
application is more important than the theory, which is
why it should be left to the scientists to decide which
goes where, according to Justin McNaull, director of
state relations for the American Automobile
Association.
"Yellow light intervals should be determined by
engineers," he told AlterNet. "If yellow lights are too
short, motorists can't stop in time. If they're too
long, motorists will continue to accelerate when they
shouldn't. To borrow from 'Goldilocks and the Three
Bears,' yellow lights need to be just right."
If they're not, the statistics get scary. Shortened
yellow lights usually increase accidents by a
significant percentage. In fact, in some cities they
have caused more accidents than they have stopped. But
they have also pulled down millions in fast, easy
money, and that is often evidently worth the cost in
human lives to politicians and industry heavyweights.
"The camera does have a place in the traffic safety
toolbox," said McNaull. "But it's not a cure-all.
There's a temptation for local governments to see it as
a revenue tool. And as a safety tool, but one that
produces revenue."
With profit as the red-light camera's primary motive,
it's hard for an already disenfranchised citizenry to
find friends in those money-hungry local governments.
But it's not impossible: State Representative
Christopher Hurst in Washington is sponsoring a bill to
mandate a four-second duration for yellow lights and
severely downsize violations to $25. Given the
opportunity to decide on the need for such lucrative
surveillance, citizens have always opted to just say
no.
"Red-light cameras have never survived a public up or
down vote," said Biller. "The problem is that many
photo enforcement programs have yet to be put on a
public ballot."
Until they are, dissenters are just going to have to
hammer cities with the ugly details. From letting
corporations like Redflex and ATS decide where the
cameras are installed to shortening yellow lights and
beyond, cities are gambling their citizens' lives in
pursuit of money they might just have to give back
anyway, in the form of lawsuits, illegal tickets and so
on. And given the major cost of the serious collisions
the red-light cameras are supposed to be stopping, the
whole enterprise could turn out to be a high-tech
exercise in cost-inefficient waste.
"The cost of traffic accidents is huge," said McNaull.
"A conservative figure is $200 billion a year, but it
can go beyond half a trillion in the United States
annually. Reducing crashes certainly does produce
significant benefits."
But increasing them produces the opposite: A massive
destruction of taxpayer revenue in the pursuit of
massive taxpayer revenue. Even if motorists could
comprehend that labyrinthine headache, it's not like
they don't have enough to worry about as it is. With
their safety so obviously on the back-burner, some
might decide in defiance the law shouldn't apply to
them. Especially when they're trying to do the right
thing most of the time.
"The vast majority of camera tickets for such
violations is based on vehicles entering the
intersection within 0.2 or 0.3 seconds after the signal
turned from yellow to red," Biller explained. "These
are technical violations by drivers trying to clear the
intersections responsibly. The kind of red-light
running that causes the serious broadside accidents
touted by the camera companies are those where the
vehicles enter the intersection three seconds or more
after red."
"It's not an issue that's black or white," McNaull
said. "We're certainly operating within the gray area."
________________
Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His
writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide,
Wired and others.
c 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights
reserved.
_____________________________________________
Cities Shortening Yellow Traffic Lights for Deadly Profit (http://www.alternet.org/story/145752/)
By Scott Thill
AlterNet
February 2010
Reeling through a 21st century addicted to technology
and surveillance, citizens may be too overwhelmed to
complain of increasing cameras popping up atop red
lights at intersections across the nation, most of
which are designed to catch them breaking traffic laws.
That is, until they're caught in those intersections as
the yellow lights unexpectedly change, and cars in
front and back of them hit the brakes or punch the gas
to avoid tickets. And when they find out those cameras
and lights are being gamed, sometimes lethally, in the
pursuit of quick profit? Then they get mad, and maybe
even, for being used as motorized money pits.
"With all of the stories we hear on a daily basis,
there is little doubt that the desire for ticket
revenue trumps safety concerns," Gary Biller, executive
director of the National Motorists Association told
AlterNet. "A quick current example is California's
governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who a few weeks ago
proposed state budget including a proposal to add speed
sensors to 500 existing red-light cameras. The reason?
Safety wasn't mentioned, but an expected additional
annual revenue of $338 million was."
Roughly multiply that revenue by 50 states, and you
quickly get an idea why red-light cameras designed by
companies like Arizona's Redlfex Group and American
Traffic Solutions (ATS) are an increasingly attractive
crutch for America's cash-strapped cities. But they're
unsafe short-cuts, because they haven't necessarily
proven very effective at anything other than generating
ticket revenue -- and accidents, lots of accidents. In
fact, studies have repeatedly shown that red-light
cameras can cause more accidents, not less.
They're not particularly good at generating legitimate
tickets either: Illegal camera set-ups at intersections
in Seattle are issuing invalid citations, around 80
percent of red-light violations in Los Angeles are
comparatively safe rolling right turns, and so on.
Meanwhile, 15 states have elected to prohibit red-light
cameras, and more are surely to come as motorists learn
that some American cities have been shortening yellow
lights for deadly profit, as countries like Italy
quickly follow suit.
"While several cities have been caught shortening
yellow lights to increase revenue from red-light
tickets," said Biller, "I think the larger issue today
is that the duration of so many yellow lights has never
been adequately set for optimal safety results. An
increase of approximately one second can reduce the
frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent."
The standard definition of a safe yellow light is
arguably hard to nail down, depending on the
intersection. The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies a
wide-ranging duration of three to six seconds. But the
application is more important than the theory, which is
why it should be left to the scientists to decide which
goes where, according to Justin McNaull, director of
state relations for the American Automobile
Association.
"Yellow light intervals should be determined by
engineers," he told AlterNet. "If yellow lights are too
short, motorists can't stop in time. If they're too
long, motorists will continue to accelerate when they
shouldn't. To borrow from 'Goldilocks and the Three
Bears,' yellow lights need to be just right."
If they're not, the statistics get scary. Shortened
yellow lights usually increase accidents by a
significant percentage. In fact, in some cities they
have caused more accidents than they have stopped. But
they have also pulled down millions in fast, easy
money, and that is often evidently worth the cost in
human lives to politicians and industry heavyweights.
"The camera does have a place in the traffic safety
toolbox," said McNaull. "But it's not a cure-all.
There's a temptation for local governments to see it as
a revenue tool. And as a safety tool, but one that
produces revenue."
With profit as the red-light camera's primary motive,
it's hard for an already disenfranchised citizenry to
find friends in those money-hungry local governments.
But it's not impossible: State Representative
Christopher Hurst in Washington is sponsoring a bill to
mandate a four-second duration for yellow lights and
severely downsize violations to $25. Given the
opportunity to decide on the need for such lucrative
surveillance, citizens have always opted to just say
no.
"Red-light cameras have never survived a public up or
down vote," said Biller. "The problem is that many
photo enforcement programs have yet to be put on a
public ballot."
Until they are, dissenters are just going to have to
hammer cities with the ugly details. From letting
corporations like Redflex and ATS decide where the
cameras are installed to shortening yellow lights and
beyond, cities are gambling their citizens' lives in
pursuit of money they might just have to give back
anyway, in the form of lawsuits, illegal tickets and so
on. And given the major cost of the serious collisions
the red-light cameras are supposed to be stopping, the
whole enterprise could turn out to be a high-tech
exercise in cost-inefficient waste.
"The cost of traffic accidents is huge," said McNaull.
"A conservative figure is $200 billion a year, but it
can go beyond half a trillion in the United States
annually. Reducing crashes certainly does produce
significant benefits."
But increasing them produces the opposite: A massive
destruction of taxpayer revenue in the pursuit of
massive taxpayer revenue. Even if motorists could
comprehend that labyrinthine headache, it's not like
they don't have enough to worry about as it is. With
their safety so obviously on the back-burner, some
might decide in defiance the law shouldn't apply to
them. Especially when they're trying to do the right
thing most of the time.
"The vast majority of camera tickets for such
violations is based on vehicles entering the
intersection within 0.2 or 0.3 seconds after the signal
turned from yellow to red," Biller explained. "These
are technical violations by drivers trying to clear the
intersections responsibly. The kind of red-light
running that causes the serious broadside accidents
touted by the camera companies are those where the
vehicles enter the intersection three seconds or more
after red."
"It's not an issue that's black or white," McNaull
said. "We're certainly operating within the gray area."
________________
Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His
writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide,
Wired and others.
c 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights
reserved.
_____________________________________________