Construction zone? ... or a shorter yellow?

[mxs]

To many, this is not a shocker that police departments try to get creative with revenue generating methods. But the below article talks about ways which take it another notch "higher" in my opinion. What's next? This article refers to only US, but one must wonder when tactics like that will appear up here? Or have they already?

**************

The Sting

On Interstate 5 in Snohomish County, Washington, Lance Ramsay stands behind a surveyor's tripod. He is wearing the typical jeans, hard hat and reflective vest of a highway worker. But all is not as it seems. The device on the tripod is actually a laser speed ranging gun, and Ramsay is a Washington State Trooper, tracking cars as they transit from the legal highway speed limit to the "construction zone" limit. A half-mile behind him, eight more troopers wait. The construction zone is a fake, which begs the question of whether the speed limit is even valid. In just two hours, Trooper Ramsay and his crew write 76 speeding tickets-or more than one every two minutes-for an average take of $210 per ticket. That's approximately $8000 per hour collected from motorists who actually didn't do anything wrong. The Washington State Patrol got this idea from Florida, where similar stings have been used. The only difference seems to be that Washington's was an equal-opportunity sting, whereas several reputable sources have reported that the Florida version is heavily skewed toward targeting out-of-state drivers. As reported by The National Speed Trap Exchange (speedtrap.org), in Denver, Colorado, there was a construction zone set up at the exit from the Denver International Airport. The normal speed limit here is 45 mph, but just around the first curve and difficult to spot is a warning sign dropping the speed to 25 mph, to protect the construction workers. Problem is, no one has ever seen any actual construction going on here, and the only people present are the five or six police officers waiting to nail anyone coming around the curve at over 25 mph. Tickets are an average of $300 each, doubled because this is a "construction zone." Lawmakers in Indiana, seeing the potential budget enhancement of special "work zone enforcement," are considering House Bill 1289, to create the "work zone freeway speed program." The bill's sponsor, Bill Friend (R-Macy), wrote on introducing the bill, "Revenues for the new fiscal year are way down." His answer is to lower speed limits on certain sections of freeways to 45 mph, and then allow private contractors to issue citations of up to $1000 to drivers who miss seeing the speed reduction signs. It is also noted in the bill that no construction need actually be taking place in the "work zone." In Maryland, a similar program generated 8800 tickets within the first six weeks, and is on track to generate 76,000 by the end of the year. In Pennsylvania, the state police are so proud of their construction zone sting that they have given it a cute official name, "Operation Yellow Jacket." That's because they have state troopers dress in the distinctive yellow reflective vests of Pennsylvania DOT employees when they use their radar guns to "sting" unsuspecting drivers. According to the Trucker's Report, similar operations are underway in Arizona and New Mexico, and Alabama is notorious for having literally dozens of bogus construction zones set up where no worker has so much as turned a spade of dirt in the past several years. But the all-time winner always has been Pulaski County, Illinois, where a permanent construction zone is used by the local sheriff's office and city police as a primary funding source. For years this area has been the winner of every discussion on the subject of punitive and illegal speed traps ever undertaken in this country. In fact, Pulaski County may have been the first to stumble onto the concept of the fake or permanent construction zone not only as a way to hand out a lot more speeding tickets but to have the fines doubled in the name of public safety. For years I had a hunch this sort of thing might be going on. How many times have you ridden through a construction zone and seen no sign that any work was being done? Or in an area you pass through often, you find that the construction cones and barrels stay up long after the work was completed? But I never thought it was this widespread or organized until I started doing a little research. Through the National Motorists Association (NMA), a highly-respected consumer advocacy group to which I belong, I stumbled upon another revenue generating scheme, the shortened yellow light scam. I knew from researching this subject about five years ago that there was a virtual epidemic of cities shortening the duration of yellow lights, but at the time there hadn't been any real studies done as to the effects of this practice. Naturally, the municipalities involved either denied the claim or admitted to shortening the lights but claimed that it was in the interest of public safety. Since then, however, a half-dozen independent studies have all shown that shortening the duration of yellow lights drastically increases the rate of intersection accidents, in some cases by as much as 300%. As you might expect, the cities have chosen to completely ignore these results, because the other truth about shortened yellow lights is that the revenue generated from tickets has also increased proportionately. Here are just two examples from Newspaper.com: Dallas, Texas-An investigation by KDFW-TV found that of the 10 traffic cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation. One camera, for example, issued 9407 tickets worth $705,525 between January and August. Union City, California-Union City was caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city was forced to refund more than $1 million in fines. The city's violation came to light after Dave Goodson, an engineer, received a ticket and realized that he did not have sufficient time to stop. As a result of his inquiries, Union City's traffic engineers admitted that they had set the yellow signal time at 3 seconds, despite the state law mandating the time be 4.3 seconds or greater. Those are just two of the more than a dozen instances I found where city governments were purposely fleecing motorists while at the same time knowingly increasing the risk of accidents. The point I would like to make is that all of these practices and others like them not only will continue but will proliferate until common citizens stand up and fight.

****************

If the above is old news to you, sorry, just move on.

[FiReSTaRT]

Nothing new here.. We've had a few of those permanent construction zones and "community safety zones" are all the rage. South of the border it got so bad (especially since they're not allowed to tax people or hell breaks loose with the voters) that their "trained visual speed estimator" officers are only allowed to contribute up to 30% to the municipal budget by state law.

[EngineerJoe]

Sacrificing public safety for increased revenue? Now I know why Americans can sue for hundreds of millions. I hope this turns ugly real fast.

[Brian P]

Crap like this causes normal citizens to lose respect for all aspects of government, policing, and the legal system.

Municipalities play games with yellow light durations to maximize revenue, when it has been proven time and time again that lengthening yellow light durations by even a fraction of a second dramatically reduces the incidence of red-light runners. Speed limits are set artificially low in order to entice people into speeding so as to maximize revenue. Artificial construction zones are set up, with the same objective, or real construction zones are extended unnecessarily beyond the actual end of construction. School zones have low speed limits that are in effect at all hours, instead of only at those hours where one would expect a lot of children to be entering or leaving school.

The yellow light duration is a function of the speed in the approaches to the intersection, but here's the kicker, it's based on the speed limit and not what people are actually doing. So the speed limit gets reduced so that the municipality can shorten the yellow, and trap people on both counts!

Many places in the USA have a guideline for setting speed limits based on the 85th-percentile actual measured speed with the speed limit signs removed or covered up and with no visible enforcement, and some places have that codified into law (a speed limit is not valid until that speed study has been done). I wish that were the case here ... too many speed limits are set based on the whim of local residents, or are set so as to discourage traffic from using a certain road (and this runs counter to the objective of reducing congestion - to do that, you want to distribute the traffic over all available roads rather than concentrating it on one).

The yellow duration should be a set number that is the same everywhere, and if municipalities play games, remove the speed limit function: yellow duration has to be 4 seconds, PERIOD, no matter the speed or speed limits, and if it's 0.001 seconds faster than that then drivers have to be off the hook. That's the only way it can work to avoid playing games.

Another thing that has becoming a real bugger is enforcement of the stop line at red-light-camera-enforced intersections. Normally when turning right on a red, one has to pull slightly ahead of the "official" stop line in order to see past stopped traffic in the adjacent lane. This is not a real "safety" problem at all, and no real, human police officer would enforce it (they all do the same thing - everyone does). But it's a "fail to stop" according to the automated system ...

The yellow-light issue came up when red-light cameras started spreading through the USA like wildfire. Most, if not all, of those red-light programs are run by private contractors (Redflex or ATS), and guess what, those contractors are only interested in one thing ... money. Fix the real problem (yellow light durations that are too short) to improve safety, and the money is not there. No amount of traffic-light enforcement will fix the drunk stoned out of his mind barreling towards that intersection at 90 mph without regards for what colour the light is. Actually, there's an argument that this can only be addressed by having police officers on the street, as opposed to automated enforcement. But officers on the street cost money as opposed to making money.

Unreasonable laws and unreasonable enforcement breeds contempt for the system ... and that is never a good thing.

[Rob MacLennan]

Brian, pulling ahead of the stop line is actually a fail to stop, whether it's by automated system or police enforcement, and it has become one of my pet peeves. I got hit from behind when a driver thought that I was going to blow the light, because I had to pull forward in order to see past a driver who had stopped in the crosswalk, instead of before the stop line. I routinely have to put myself at the same risk, because people refuse to obey the law.

The point about light durations is a valid one but people tend to ignore ambers, and even reds these days. It used to be one, maybe two cars that would sneak through on the amber. Now it's three, four, or even five that are going through, with most of them having to ACCELERATE into the intersection. If laws aren't enforced, they aren't obeyed, and I don't mean enforced by cameras.

[Brian P]

That's all well and good when the stop line is correctly placed. Certainly people shouldn't be stopping in the crosswalk (and I realize that a lot of people do it). But many intersections have the stop line way too far back from the intersection. It's more of an issue when there is a stop sign involved and there are visual obstructions preventing drivers from seeing cross traffic unless they are well ahead of that stop line. That's not where the red-light cameras are, though.

I have no problem with nailing people who stop and block a crosswalk. But the yellow light duration has to be sufficient so that ALL vehicles, including dump trucks and tractor-trailer units, can either come to a stop before the intersection (and the pedestrian crosswalk) in a controlled manner even under dubious traction conditions, or carry on driving and go through the intersection and completely clear the intersection before the light turns red. That number needs to be around 4 seconds. It should not be forcing people to slam on the brakes (and get hit from behind by that dump truck) for fear of getting tagged by the automated enforcement. There is ample and ever-building evidence that installing red-light cameras, and shortening yellow light durations in the interest of making money, increases the amount of rear-end collisions.

"But drivers should slow down in dubious traction conditions" ... Yep ... and then it takes them longer to clear the intersection on the way through, if the light turns yellow when it's too late for them to stop. STILL need around 4 seconds. Very wide multi-lane intersections may need even more. 6 lanes x 3.65 m per lane + another lane for the pedestrian crosswalk on both sides = 25.6 m, at 60 km/h that's 1.54 seconds JUST to clear the intersection not counting the stopping time. It takes around 3 seconds to stop safely from 60 km/h including something for reaction time, any closer than that is beyond the point of no return, add that to the time taken to clear the intersection and it is more than 4 seconds ... Cut speed in half because of snowstorm conditions, the stopping time will still be about the same, but now it takes 3.1 seconds alone just to clear the intersection. This doesn't include the length of the vehicle, either, although most cross traffic won't start moving if the back end of a transport truck is still in front of them.

[OpenGambit]

I didn't do traffic as I was at the Federal Crown, but stuff like this is why I left... Hell, I left litigation all together.

[nobbie48]

The point about light durations is a valid one but people tend to ignore ambers, and even reds these days. It used to be one, maybe two cars that would sneak through on the amber. Now it's three, four, or even five that are going through, with most of them having to ACCELERATE into the intersection. If laws aren't enforced, they aren't obeyed, and I don't mean enforced by cameras.

I recall squeezing the orange once and thinking "I could have stopped". Then I looked in my rearview mirror and five cars came through after me. I was driving my brand new 1980 Buick.

[Rob MacLennan]

I didn't do traffic as I was at the Federal Crown, but stuff like this is why I left... Hell, I left litigation all together.

That's a damned shame because you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and we can use more of the sort, and not less, in our courtrooms.

I recall squeezing the orange once and thinking "I could have stopped". Then I looked in my rearview mirror and five cars came through after me. I was driving my brand new 1980 Buick.

That may well be the case, in that situation, but it was the exception and not the rule. These days you can barely make an advanced green, for waiting for all the left turning vehicles.I've had to blow through cold ambers, on many MANY occasions, to avoid being rear ended by people going straight through reds.

[nobbie48]

That may well be the case, in that situation, but it was the exception and not the rule. These days you can barely make an advanced green, for waiting for all the left turning vehicles.I've had to blow through cold ambers, on many MANY occasions, to avoid being rear ended by people going straight through reds.

And who gets the ticket if one doesn't make a full stop hoping to avoid getting rear ended?

[Rob MacLennan]

And who gets the ticket if one doesn't make a full stop hoping to avoid getting rear ended?

Depends on whether the fear was obviously justified.

[OpenGambit]

That's a damned shame because you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and we can use more of the sort, and not less, in our courtrooms.

I appreciate that.

I actually went to law school thinking I would be a prosecutor. I ended up at the Federal Crown in my 2nd year of school, and they asked if I would consider doing tax prosecution since it would get me into court. I said sure I'll try it.

Now the Department of Justice and the CRA actually have a solicitor client relationship, we take instructions from them theoritically, and bill them, this is unlike almost all other government departments. But we are legislatively able to ignore them if we want to, a power that is used sparingly.


The first case that landed on my desk was a real estate agent. the CRA denied all of her business expenses for year. Looking at the expenses she claimed, I could see that some of them did look like a stretch, like pizza on friday nights and a single Mcdonalds combo. But it was heavy handed to deny it all. She objected of couse ( which is why its on my desk.)

At this time, I had a mentor, and we got along well because we adhere to a basic philsophy. the Crown has more resources than the indivdual. This is not like 2 litigants who are theoritically equal in power. The Crown is obviously and in all cases, more powerful than the individual. That means that Crown attorneys have a duty to not only advocate for our client, the government, but we also have a duty to be fair.

We invited our agent to an interview and she showed up with a box of reciepts, they were all sorted by month in different envelopes, and the receipts had names of supposed clients on them. She seemed nice, and would clearly present well as a witness. she explained almost every one of her expense claims. While we remained unconvinced at the legitimacy of a few expenses, we got the overall impression that she was being honest and that a majority of the expenses claimed were legitimate.

At this point we knew a few things.
1. if we went to trial, we would lose
2. she was a good witness and if we felt she was being honest, the judge probably would too
3. her expenses were well organized and her record keeping was beyond the requirements of the income tax act.
4. The judge is going to look negatively on the Department and possibily us personally for pursuing such a case. ( we show up in front of the same judges over and over, it damages our professional credibilty to bring bad cases )
5. Chances are, our client will get more if we settle because a judge is probably goign to allow all expenses.

So we asked the CRA for instructions to settle.
The immediate person handling the case said that she was under strict instructions not to settle, so we pushed it to her manager, now this person was a person who had the mentailty that everyone is out to cheat the government, So she refused to settle the case.
This is where it goes from being fair to being wrong, we spent more time talking with the CRA about how ridiculous it is to proceed than actually working on the merits ( but well there wasn't much in the way of merits)

Eventually we end up going to court, the real estate agent was there along with the 2 CRA people that worked on the case.
Now, my mentor decided he would take one last shot at settling it so we got them all in a room and hashed out a deal. ( bascially she got expenses if she got the reciept, it was a pretty fair deal, she ended up with 70 % of what she wanted and we got 30 % more than if we went to trial)

Later, we get a call from the manager at the CRA accusing us of strong arming the adjuster. We had to type a ton of reports about what happened, the whole thing got escalated to a general counsel level and I was just ****ing sick of how hard it was to just do the right thing.

Then the next case I got was a guy who couldn't find any work so they wouldn't let him take deductions on his equipment cause he wasn't a "business" (cause he had no jobs).

I left, I went to the private sector, not only do I get paid twice as much, I am not frustrated by moral dilemmas every single day.

Now you can understand my general view that the prosecutor is your friend. Because they are
a. the most knowledgeable
b. have a good idea of what cases are deserving and which are not
c. have the most to lose if they have to stand in front of a judge and say something stupid.

[Rob MacLennan]

I never considered the position The Crown would be in, where the CRA was concerned. That was quite enlightening. It's like being in private practice, with a client who doesn't care about reality and "just wants his day in court"; you know it's wrong, and your oath tells you that you shouldn't go forward, but you have to balance that against your ultimate duty to your client. I can't imagine being placed in that situation, on a daily basis.

[FiReSTaRT]

There are "Crowns" and there are "Crowns".. AFIK the ones doing minor traffic cases don't have law degrees and most likely got their jobs the same way JP's did, which has very little to do with merits for the job. Some are good public servants, respectful of the law and others are just looking to pad their numbers.

[OpenGambit]

There are "Crowns" and there are "Crowns".. AFIK the ones doing minor traffic cases don't have law degrees and most likely got their jobs the same way JP's did, which has very little to do with merits for the job. Some are good public servants, respectful of the law and others are just looking to pad their numbers.

I have nothing nice to say toward such blind bias.

[nobbie48]

A very interesting POV from OpenGambit. The trouble begins when things get adversarial.
"If I'm not screwing you then you must be screwing me." I think the insurance industry is worse though.

[mxs]

Crap like this causes normal citizens to lose respect for all aspects of government, policing, and the legal system.

++1

This was the first thing I had on my mind after I finished reading the article.

I was shaking my head, not really understanding (until the moment I read the article) how far the officials (cities and police who are employed by the cities) are willing to go to collect their cash. This stuff is really pissing people off, not just some youngsters who want to avoid paying red light ticket, but rather people who normally respect officials, but have hard time doing so after stuff like that hits the surface.

It's disgusting how far these "money making" schemes go. Is really everything about money? (this is not some private business, this is our cities who do this .... how about some fiscal responsibility instead of shortening yellow lights).

I am starting to believe that (yes perhaps I have been naive that it has taken me so long time).

[FiReSTaRT]

I have nothing nice to say toward such blind bias.

So correct me if you please. What sort of an educational or work background would a person prosecuting an HTA S128 violation have? Full bull Bar membership or something else? I know JP's are purely political appointments with no specific educational or work experience requirements, so I can't imagine having tighter requirements in hiring prosecutors.

[Rob MacLennan]

So correct me if you please. What sort of an educational or work background would a person prosecuting an HTA S128 violation have? Full bull Bar membership or something else? I know JP's are purely political appointments with no specific educational or work experience requirements, so I can't imagine having tighter requirements in hiring prosecutors.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta...990-c-c49.html

Qualification
4. No person shall be appointed a Crown Attorney or assistant Crown Attorney or act in either of such capacities who is not a member of the bar of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49, s. 4.

[FiReSTaRT]

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta...990-c-c49.html

Qualification
4. No person shall be appointed a Crown Attorney or assistant Crown Attorney or act in either of such capacities who is not a member of the bar of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49, s. 4.

I thought that they had a different category of employee for minor traffic issues. I can't believe that they'd actually make them better-qualified than the JP's lol