 Custom Search  How Many Photo Tickets Will It Take Before You Fight Back? GPS is 100% Legal and Pays For Itself. Click Here To Learn More. Free DownloadsThis section contains various free downloads that will help you in your traffic ticket defense. Content is going to be added on a regular basis. To keep updated just subscribe to our site. It's a FREE service, choose your method of notification along the left side of this page. To learn more just click on the question mark.
Reports and Studies.
The problem of red-light-running is widespread and growing; its cost to society is significant. However, the literature is void of quantitative guidelines that can be used to identify and treat problem locations. Moreover, there has been concern voiced over the validity of various methods used to identify problem locations, especially when automated enforcement is being considered. The objectives of this research project were to:
Red light running is a significant public health concern, killing more than 800 people and injuring 200,000 in the United States per year (Retting et al., 1999a; Retting and Kyrychenko, 2002). To reduce red light running in Virginia, six jurisdictions(Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church, Vienna) deployed red light cameras at some point during the 10-year period when they were permitted under Virginia law. This report documents the safety impacts of those cameras based on 7 years of crash data for the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Consistent with the findings of a previous Virginia study (Garber et al., 2005), this study finds that cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H1) and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H2). This report also shows that there is significant variation by intersection and by jurisdiction: onejurisdiction (Arlington) suggests that cameras are associated with an increase in all six crash types that were explicitly studied (rear-end, angle, red light running, injury red light running, total injury, and total) whereas two other jurisdictions saw decreases in most of these crash types.
This paper analyzes the impact of red light cameras (RLCs) on crashes at signalized intersections. It examines total crashes and also breaks crashes into categories based on both severity (e.g., causing severe injuries or only property damage) and by type (e.g., angle, rear end). Prompted by criticism of the simplistic methods and small data sets used in many studies of red light cameras, we relate the occurrence of these crashes to the characteristics of signalizedintersections, presence or absence of RLC, traffic, weather and other variables. Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidentsoccurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that: The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.
Running a red light can cause severe traffic crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side of another. Red light cameras photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by mail. Intuitively, cameras appear to be a good idea. However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.
Executive SummaryThere’s a hidden tax being levied on motorists today. In theory, this tax is only levied on those who violate the law and put others in danger. But the reality is that the game has beenrigged. And we’re all at risk. We are told to accept the idea that our laws should be administered by machines—not human beings—because it is a matter of safety. We must accept this expansion of government and this Orwellian threat to our privacy because cameras are the solution to the so-called red light running crisis. This is a federal issue, not just a local one. The federal government is promoting and offering funding for this “solution”, because the safety benefits are supposed to be indisputable.After all, who’s going to object? Nobody likes a red light runner. They endangerthemselves and others. They must be penalized. But why have so many people become wanton red light runners all of a sudden? The answer seems to be that changes made to accommodate camera enforcement have produced yellow light times that, in many cases, are shortened to the point that they are inadequate. And when people come upon an intersection with inadequate yellow time, they are faced with the choice either of stopping abruptly on yellow (risking a rear end accident) or accelerating. The options for those confronting such circumstances are limited and unsafe. But each time a driver faces this dilemma, government increases its odds for hitting the jackpot.
This report has been used to sell red light cameras across North America. It has since been disputed by other reports and shown to be vague in it's research as well as critizied by the above report from the House of Representatives because one of the Authors, (Retting) is in a position of conflict of interest. ("Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he (Retting) was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective. A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license. In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue. We traded away our privacy for this. We gave up our constitutional protections for this. In return, we are less safe. That is the red light camera scam, and it has gone on for far too long." Excerpted from the House of Representatives Report.)
Executive Summary The Photo Enforcement Program resulted in a net benefit to the City of $1,802,266 for 2003/2004. At the same time, the programhas not achieved the financial results anticipated at inception. While the expenditure side has remained relatively static, revenues have failed to meet both original and revised projections. By the end of 2004, gross revenues fell short of initial projections by over $18 million: the gap wasapproximately $6 million in 2003 and $12 million in 2004. Based on experience to date, the shortfall in anticipated revenue might reach $49 million dollars over five years. This audit continues to criticize the way the contract was handled by the two man WPS team headed by Sgt. Jon Butcher which helped the camera company ACS to be awarded the five year $30 million dollar NO BID contract with the City. Butcher later went on to become the Head of Sales in Canada for ACS.
|
