(Thanks to Camerafraud on Facebook for the link).

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/opn/2010/12/27-04/Guest-Column-Split-second-indecision-can-cost-you-75-in-Annapolis.html?ne=1

Opinion

Guest Column: Split-second indecision can cost you $75 in Annapolis
By TOBIAS SULLIVAN, For The Capital

Capital Gazette Communications
Published 12/27/10

Every motorist has experienced that split-second moment of indecision - the light ahead of you turns yellow so what should I do? Within fractions of a second (hopefully) the brain begins to process the situation - speed, road conditions, nearby motorists. The brain's decision is transmitted to the right leg which either stays the course or hits the brakes. Every fraction of a second counts and indecision is perhaps the worst option at this juncture. At the intersection of Forest Drive and Chinquapin Round Road, indecision will also cost you $75.

Like a lot of Annapolitans, I recently received a ticket courtesy of a red light camera at said intersection. My ticket arrived the day before I was leaving for a week to take care of some important family business. I didn't want it hanging over me while I was away so I pulled out my checkbook and wrote out a check to the city. Plus, who wants to spend half your day in court to probably loose trying to fight a $75 ticket, right? Check written, done, out of mind.

That is, until I got back. I just couldn't shake the feeling of having been swindled, hoodwinked. I felt the camera had pulled me over, then broken my tail-light with a nightstick in B-movie fashion. I usually drive like a grandma (in the best sense of the term). When I received the citation in the mail, there was web address that one can view photos of your violation. Just go to the website, enter your violation number and the pin number to see the mountain of evidence against you. The only problem was that the box labeled pin number was left blank. Conspiracy theory anyone?

There was something else, too. The yellow light just seemed too fast. Rather than rant, I researched what standards the state uses to design and operate traffic signals, which brought me to the Maryland Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 edition, Section 4D.10. (available online at www.marylandroads.com/MMUTCD/4d.pdf) I was surprised by what I found.

Non-Dilemma Change Period is the term traffic engineers use to describe the balance of providing enough time for an intersection to be cleared safely at a light change, but not so much that motorists are encouraged to run the light. This makes logical sense, you don't want people having to stomp on the brakes and cause rear end collisions. Conversely, you don't want people lead-footing through intersections and possibly T-boning someone.

Maryland's standard timing for a yellow light is based on a formula which accounts for reaction time (1 second!), approach speed, grade and deceleration rate. The minimum amount of time is 3.5 seconds for 30 mph or less and the most is 6 seconds. Math geeks can plug these factors into a formula or you can just use their ready-made table, which states that for a 50 mph stretch of road, you're supposed to have 5 seconds of yellow light. Hoping to battle technology with technology, I timed the light at Forest and Chinquapin with a stopwatch and later with a camera phone at 4 seconds. A full second short and a lifetime in yellow light years. (FYI, the 40 mph section of Forrest Drive isn't posted until over 150 feet after this intersection.)

If you do the crime, you do the time (or maybe pay the fine) but let's level the playing field and catch the egregious violators. I regret not fighting this ticket in court, but maybe everyone should take a second look at this. If my numbers are right (and this letter is to encourage others to confirm or deny my findings), this junction doesn't appear to meet the state's own guidelines of a safely timed intersection - the fine simply adds insult to the genuine possibility of injury. There is a lot of internet activism that claim red-light cameras actually increase accident rates and generate small fortunes for both municipalities and the private companies which operate the camera systems.

A story in The Capital on Sept. 14, 2009, states that since 2007, almost $860,000 gross in fines has been generated by the city's two cameras. If this revenue stream is coming at the price of an intersection made or kept deliberately less safe for profit, this is a Faustian bargain and a poor way to make a buck. And yes, I'd like my money back.

Tobias Sullivan has lived in the city since 2002

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview