Canton Red Light Cameras

It looks like the red light camera kept these motorists safe.

I find it funny that when cities install red light cameras and the rate of accidents increase, we are told that they are “non-significant” rear end collisions.  It looks like this “non-significant” collision happened when the first car, probably in the dilemma zone where a motorist has no good choice as to what action to take, made a panic stop to keep from getting a red light camera ticket.  The second driver, knowing that the first was past the critical point, fully expected the first driver to proceed through the yellow light.  Had the first driver proceeded, he would have received a red light camera ticket.  

My guess is that nobody was hurt in this “non-significant” crash caused by a red light camera.  The reason that I think nobody was hurt is because we are told that red light cameras will keep us safe.  You see, the truth is that these red light cameras will not keep anybody safe.  These red light cameras will not apprehend a bad guy that robs a bank, they will not push a pedestrian out of the way of a speeding car, nor will they render life saving care after the crash that they cause. The only thing that a red light camera can do is take a photo of the crash when it does happen.

On another note, I have received a few emails from another guy in the Canton, Ohio area that is also against the plans to install red light cameras and speed cameras in Canton, Ohio.  Please visit his red light camera blog.  Be sure to read his “about me” page.  I get a kick out of how he chose his domain/username.

The update for today deals with an actual case study from Chillicothe, Ohio. The City of Chillicothe entered into a contract with Redflex to install red light cameras. The City played the same tricks as many other cities to try to increase ticket revenue with their new red light cameras system. The issue we will discuss now is shortened yellow lights at red light camera intersections.

From the Traffic Engineering Manual:

Substitute House Bill Number 30, passed by the 127th General Assembly, took effect September 12, 2008. This law imposes certain responsibilities on local authorities who choose to use traffic law photo monitoring devices. Section 201-14 addresses the local authority’s duties, which include assuring that the yellow change interval exceeds by 1 second the yellow change interval determined in accordance with Section 403-2.

You see that this is a law, not a recommendation or suggestion, or “best practice.”  To know what is required of this law, you need to know what is stated in Section 403-2, but you already know that if an intersection is monitored by a red light camera, it is REQUIRED to have a 1 second longer yellow light than would be required if no red light camera were installed.

Section 403-2 states:

The vehicle change interval (or phase change interval) described in OMUTCD Section 4D.10
consists of the yellow change interval and the all-red clearance interval. The exclusive function of the yellow change interval is to warn traffic of an impending change in the right-of-way assignment. For ODOT-maintained signals, the yellow change interval should be followed by a red clearance interval (all-red phase) of sufficient duration to permit traffic to clear the intersection before conflicting traffic movements are released. For more efficient operations, start-up time for the conflicting movements may be considered when setting the length of the all-red.

The length of the phase change interval can be determined using the following equation, in which
[(W+L)/ V] represents the all-red interval:

Y + AR = t + V/( 2a + 64.4g ) + [( W + L ) / V] (for English units)

Where: Y + AR = Sum of the yellow and all-red,

t = perception/reaction time of driver, ( typically assumed to be 1 second )

V = approach speed, ft/s (m/s)

a = deceleration rate, ft/s2 (m/s2)
(typically assumed to be 10 ft/s2 (3.0 m/s2))

W = width of intersection, ft (m)
(measured from the near side Stop Line to the far edge of the conflicting traffic lane, along the actual vehicular path)

L = length of vehicle, ft (m)
(typically assumed to be 20 feet (6.0 meters))

g = approach grade, percent of grade divided by 100 (plus for upgrade, minus for downgrade)

Yellow change intervals typically are in the range of three to six seconds, and the typical maximum all-red interval is two seconds.

Now, You see that the typical yellow light range is three to six seconds, and they are REQUIRED to add one second if a red light camera is installed at the intersection.  The City of Chillicothe would not respond to Public Information Act requests (made by BigKid of http://www.myrosscounty.com ) for the widths of intersections where they had shortened yellow lights, but you can see that the minimum yellow light duration for a photo enforced intersection should be four seconds.

The following figure, shows an intersection that has a properly set yellow light duration.  This diagram was crated by BigKid (W. Loucks).  You can see that a car traveling at the speed limit requires a certain amount of time from the light turning yellow to be able to stop in time for the intersection.  During that time, the car travels a certain distance.  The distance traveled by the car in that time can be measured back from the stop line and is can be called the critical point.  If the car is not yet past this critical point, it stops safely before the light turns yellow.  If the car is past the critical point, it should proceed through the yellow light, safely making it before the red light.

A legally set yellow light time allows for drivers to make a decision whether to proceed through the intersection or stop.

When a city reduces the yellow light time, as Chillicothe did at the red light camera intersection of Paint and Main, they create an artificial “critical point” in addition to the real “critical point.”  The artificially created critical point is closer to the intersection than the real critical point.  If you remember, once a car has passed the “critical point” it needs to proceed through the intersection when the light changes, as it cannot safely stop.  The problem with a shorter yellow light at red light camera intersections is that the light is STILL GREEN when the car passes the true critical point.  Since the car is past that point, it cannot possibly stop safely when the light does change to yellow, but since the yellow light is shorter than the law allows, it cannot proceed through the intersection either.  There is no good choice for a driver that has passed the true critical point, but not yet passed the artificial critical point.  This area between the two critical points has come to be known as the “Dilemma Zone.”  

In the Dilemma Zone, a driver has three choices to make, and none of them are safe.  The driver can proceed through the intersection at the speed limit, but if the driver makes that choice the light will be red prior to the driver’s arrival at the intersection resulting in a red light camera ticket.  The driver could “punch it” or speed up to beat the red light, thereby speeding through the intersection.  In this case the driver would not be running a red light, but would be speeding and also runs the risk of a ticket.  The third choice, and one being made by many people at red light camera intersections, is to make a panic stop.  In the Dilemma Zone, braking has to be far greater than the 10ft/sec² in the Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM).  The Person who decides to stop must do so with the risk of being rear ended, as drivers behind them expect them to proceed through the light as they are past the true critical point.  There is another illustration below to show the Dilemma Zone.

You can see in the illustration that a driver has no good choice to make when short yellow lights are employed to increase violations at red light camera intersections.

As you can see, safety is not the priority in this situation.  The City is thrilled with the end result any way you look at it.  If a driver speeds up, they get a photo speeding ticket.  If the driver stops and gets rear ended, a citation is issued to the driver that rear ends the first car.  If the driver maintains the speed limit, they run the red light and get a red light camera ticket.  The only winner is the city budget.  Drivers lose because they are being set up for failure.  No matter what a driver chooses to do, it will be wrong.

These are not “What if” situations.  I will post video of a 2.8 second yellow light at the intersection discussed above in another post.  The intersection has since been changed to a four second yellow light, because the entire red light program is in trouble, being challenged in court because of tactics like this and violations of constitutional rights.

This update sums up why I am so opposed to the plan by the City of Canton, Ohio to install red light cameras and speed cameras by Redflex.  As was stated at the informational meetings, the face of the driver will not be photographed, as the car owner will be responsible to either pay the ticket or identify who they allowed to drive their car at said date and time.  If the person identified by the driver refuses to take responsibility, the owner must still pay the fine.  What if you do not know who was driving?  What if it wasn’t even your car?  The City will have photographs that show what they presume is your car with what they presume is your license plate.  If the driver is photographed, it is easy to show up at your court date, enter a plea of “not guilty, identity,” and win your case if the driver in the photo is not you.  Without the benefit of a photo of the driver, you may fall victim to the following scenario.

From FreeRepublic.com:

As a prank, students from local high schools have been taking advantage of the county’s Speed Camera Program in order to exact revenge on people who they believe have wronged them in the past, including other students and even teachers.

Students from Richard Montgomery High School dubbed the prank the Speed Camera “Pimping” game, according to a parent of a student enrolled at one of the high schools.

Originating from Wootton High School, the parent said, students duplicate the license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that “mimic” those on Maryland license plates. They tape the duplicate plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera, the parent said. The victim then receives a citation in the mail days later.

Students are even obtaining vehicles from their friends that are similar or identical to the make and model of the car owned by the targeted victim, according to the parent.

“This game is very disturbing,” the parent said. “Especially since unsuspecting parents will also be victimized through receipt of unwarranted photo speed tickets.

The parent said that “our civil rights are exploited,” and the entire premise behind the Speed Camera Program is called into question as a result of the growing this fad among students.

The Speed Camera Program was implemented in March of this year and used for the purpose of reducing traffic and pedestrian collisions in the county. Cameras are located in residential areas and school zones where the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour or lower. A $40 citation is mailed to the owner of the car for violating the speed limit in these areas.

The Montgomery County Police said they have not seen or heard of this prank occurring but said they will keep an eye out for people committing the crime.

“I hope the public at large will complain loudly enough that local Montgomery County government officials will change their policy of using these cameras for monetary gain,” the parent said. “The practice of sending speeding tickets to faceless recipients without any type of verification is unwarranted and an exploitation of our rights.”

Edward Owusu, Assistant Principal at Wootton High School, said that he heard of local students pulling the prank when the school received a call from a parent informing them of its occurrence. “I have not heard of this happening among students at Wootton,” Osuwu said. “It is unfortunate that kids have a lot of time on their hands that they can think of doing such a thing.”

Montgomery County Council President Phil Andrews said that the issue is troubling in several respects. “I am concerned that someone could get hurt, first of all, because they are speeding in areas where they know speeding is a problem,” he said.

Andrews also said that this could hurt the integrity of the Speed Camera Program. “It will cause potential problems for the Speed Camera Program in terms of the confidence in it,” he said.

He said he is glad someone caught it before it becomes more widespread and he said he hopes that the word get out to the people participating in this that there will be consequences.

If Canton, Ohio’s red light camera system will not photograph the driver, it will be easy for people to pull stunts such as this. Without the driver’s photo, the poor victim of this stunt will suffer financial damage, as red light camera tickets are handled as “guilty until proven innocent.” The photos “prove” that it was your car. The photos “prove” that “your car” had “your” plates on it. I believe that Redflex and City of Canton officials know that if they photograph drivers, a large percentage of tickets can be dismissed in court, and that is why they have chosen to not snap a photo of the driver. This is no different than prosecuting a guy for robbing a bank, when the surveillance video shows it was somebody completely different, then choosing not to use the video to help your chance of convicting the innocent man.

I came across this story today, as I was reading about problems with red light camera systems.  This was pretty funny, as no property was damaged and nobody received any improper fines as a result of this action.  I do not support vandalizing the red light cameras, as some people do.  Some cities have had balloons full of paint, bricks, rocks, and other damaging objects hit their red light and speed cameras.  This video, as I said before, is kind of funny because nothing was damaged.


Four people, dressed in Santa Claus suits covered up Redflex red light cameras in the city of Tempe, AZ. These Santas used large boxes that were gift wrapped and had huge bows on them. Traffic was heavy at the time, and the Santas were waving at passing cars.  Drivers were blowing their horns, waving and pointing.  It looks like they were having a great time doing this.

The more I read about red light cameras, and the shenanigans that cities pull to increase revenue, the more I dislike them.  When, or if, the City of Canton installs their red light cameras and speed cameras, I think we can expect to see more of the same stuff that has been done in other cities.

Last week, I saw on the news that officials from the Ohio Department of Public Safety appeared before the an Ohio House subcommittee and requested authority to install speed cameras in construction zones.  The state says that 13 people died in construction zone accidents in 2008 on Ohio roads.

I wonder if tickets will be issued while workers are not present?  Neighboring states have reduced speed limits in construction zones only while workers are present.  Ohio reduces speed in work zones during then entire construction project, even if workers have not been present for weeks.  

Officials say the the plan is only in beginning stages, and no specifics are available such as how many cameras will be purchased or where they will be deployed.  

I wonder if these cameras will photograph the driver’s face, or if they will take the Canton red light camera model and illegally prosecute the vehicle owner no matter who is driving.  Hopefully the same legislators that passed a statewide ban on red light and speed cameras will stand up to this request for more money from the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

Link to Fox 8 Story on Work Zone Speed Cameras

While surfing the web today, I came across this “open letter” to the people of Canton.  The author “Quarterwave” of Chillicothe, Ohio has asked for this letter to be posted everywhere that concerned citizens can see it.  He lives in Chillicothe, where Redflex and City officials have been stealing money from citizens with their red light cameras.  It appears that the usual games were played in Chillicothe, such as shorter yellow lights as a condition of the contract, fixed traffic studies, ticketing LEGAL right turns on red lights, and REQUIRING THOSE TICKETED TO PAY A FINE BEFORE HAVING THE RIGHT TO APPEAL!  They even had to go back to the contract and exempt volunteer firefighters who are operating lights and sirens from red light camera tickets.  Common sense would say that a public safety vehicle (these volunteer firefighter vehicles are registered as such with the State of Ohio) while responding to an emergency would not get a ticket, but if Redflex can make more money, they will try anything.
 
Here is the text of the open letter.

People of Canton:

I live in Chillicothe, Ohio, and I wanted to share with you something you should be very concerned with today, you need to take action immediately.

First let me say that the opposition to this issue in Chillicothe does not advocate breaking the law, we feel that if you legitimately did something wrong, you deserve what the law provides.

However, reading that your city is in the decision stage of acquiring Redflex red-light camera systems, I must urge you to take action, research, ask questions and do anything your or your organizational power can muster to defeat and bar these device from your community.

In Chillicothe, the mayor and/or council were wooed by a Redflex salesman at a convention or seminar, and then the salesman came calling, and relentlessly inflicted their hardcore sales tactics to convince the city it had major traffic problems, obviously for the purpose of selling their profit-generating solution. Was there a problem? Not any worse that any other city in our state, and probably better, we do however; have our fair share of idiots on the road, including out of towners who are discourteous.

After presenting “facts” that were generated by Redflex, or provided as an (obviously not)“unbiased” outside study (which was funded by, or provided to Redflex, and weighed in their favor), the city council was lobbied to buy into this fiasco. Yes, I said lobbied. Redflex is so intent on placing their product it employs high level professional lobbyists to use any means necessary to strong arm municipalities into buying in.

The council quickly swept the measure through in record pace, unlike legislation we really need. This sparked much rumor that council and mayor were somehow incented to do this, or in other words, there was something in it for them. That remains to be proven, however the revenue generation alone, if kept under that table could make semi-heroes out of a mayor in short order for filling the piggy bank, but at taxpayer’s expense.

The cameras were installed and instantly there were many problems, for instance:
Although the city will refute it, there have has been an increase in the number of collisions at red light camera intersections, due to people short stopping at yellow lights, which are set short so the trigger happy cameras can produce more violations. The city has no data to prove the collisions went down, but says they did not increase, but again, no data.

Traffic is erratic, because folks are scared of the lights. And local businesses are losing money due to folks shopping elsewhere to avoid this trap.

Elderly drivers have been confused, distracted, and temporarily blinded by the massive and intense burst of strobe light from the opposite facing camera flash if a driver coming the other way triggers a right on red, speed, or light violation.

The system tickets for LEGAL right on red turns, the council, under intense pressure, just this week agreed to throw out pending, and not ticket future, right on red turns, unless the speed was excessive or there was a pedestrian involved. They also agreed to not ticket volunteer fire, and EMS personnel using sirens and lights through the city to respond to emergency calls, and not ticket funeral processions. Those last two just amaze me.

It was found that a police officer from the city was not reviewing tickets, contrary to what was agreed upon by council. Tickets were just being mailed out without approval, or any logical and legal review.

This system is highly unconstitutional; you are guilty until proven innocent and must pay the fine, as well as an appeal fee before you can even argue your case. The court here refused to handle the cases or ticketing, so the tickets are not even legal violations, if you don’t pay they have to sue you in civil court. They cannot prove who was driving so the owner gets the ticket. It is more or less a forced “donation” to the city.

The council originally approved Red Light running tickets only, which in itself was probably a good measure. However the mayor was seemingly coerced into signing an amended contract to add speed traps, and right on red later on.

By contract agreement, the city was required to SHORTEN some yellow lights to allow for a QUOTA of tickets to be induced at these intersections, those light times being far under the national standard for same type intersections. If the city lengthens them now, they have to pay Reflex a penalty. That says a lot about their concern, they are only interested in revenue generation, and this is not about safety. Ohio law says the yellow lights must be LONGER than normal at these intersections, yet Chillicothe ignores the Ohio Revised Code. They also have refused to erect the proper signage. Again, proving that it is not about safety.

The measures of collusion, violation of public trust, conflict of interest and fraud go on and on; I encourage you to read on the internet about the cities that have to spend millions to get rid of these things after they took them. Redflex has thousands of lawsuits against it as a company.

Pure and simple – although cloaked nicely, these devices are NOT about safety, they are about revenue generation. Chillicothe’s cameras are producing an average of 300 tickets a day, in a year that adds up to $10.4 Million in fines, most are bogus and from entrapment, not from an actual, logical, and unlawful act. Half of the money goes to the Redflex people as their “tidy sum” to operate the cameras on behalf of the city; the city’s general fund gets the rest, NOT the safety services fund, where it belongs. So even in small Chillicothe, over $5 Million dollars are being sent overseas to Australian Redflex Traffic Systems.

People of Canton, don’t let yourselves be entrapped like this and have your money going out the window. Take action now and contact your city Council. Stop this mess before it starts. Chillicothe will now likely spend Millions of dollars to undo the bad decision it made. Redflex will vigorously defend it’s ironclad contract, but in just 30 days already over 3,000 citizens, standing up for their rights, have organized to put the issue on the ballot. They have also vowed to end the political careers of the Council and Mayor, in their next respective elections. Even if Canton officials tell you they won’t have these issues, you should not believe it. That’s what Chillicothe’s said too.

Please, show your elected officials who is in charge, and do not let them cast this net upon your city too. The smell of money entices officials in time of economic need, but this places tremendous burden on the tax payers, who are simply treated as subjects. No part of this charade is about public safety, so don’t let them tell you it is.

I had not really had strong feelings one way or another on the plan by Canton, Ohio to install red light and speed cameras until the recent meetings. At the meetings, it was revealed that the red light and speed cameras are all about money, not safety. The politicians will not say this, they stand by the safety argument, but their approach to violations shows otherwise.

Here is why I think that the red light and speed cameras are about money and not traffic safety. At the meetings it was revealed that any vehicle crossing the sensor would activate the camera system. This seems pretty straightforward so far. The representative then stated that still photos would be taken of the infraction and the license plate of the vehicle. This too seems to be legitimate. Here is the part that proves these red light and speed traffic cameras are only about money; THE FACE OF THE DRIVER WILL NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED! What??? This is simply to make prosecution much easier and you cannot argue that the driver pictured is not you. The City of Canton is not really interested in prosecuting the right person, or changing the driving habits of the offender. The City of Canton will simply mail a camera ticket to the owner of the car. They do not care who will get a red light camera ticket, they just want somebody to pay to bolster the budget of Canton.

If City officials want to argue that these new red light and speed cameras are about safety, then they need to photograph the driver and be sure to prosecute the right person. Their argument is that no points will be assessed to the license of the car owner, and that it is a civil penalty. My argument is that this is being done so that the wrong person can be prosecuted, which I thought was illegal with my limited understanding of law.

I said when I started this site, that I would reserve judgement until I knew more facts, including how Canton was planning on operating their new red light and speed cameras. The information provided at the meeting has turned me against the system, based simply on how Canton officials are choosing to prosecute a car owner, no matter who is driving. Oh, there is an “appeal” process whereby a person can say “Joe was driving, not me,” but it is up to the owner to prove. Last time I checked, the burden of proof was supposed to rest on the prosecution (City of Canton) not the defense (car owner).

Canton City residents should try to get a ballot initiative to outlaw these red light and traffic cameras. Let the residents of Canton decide at the November election whether these red light and speed cameras should be installed or remain in operation. I think that these cameras COULD be beneficial IF City officials operate them properly. Prosecuting a car owner no matter who was driving is not the right way of doing it.