Camera Enforcement of Crossing Volations

[Grinandbearit]

Use of camera enforcement being tested at an Alberta railway crossing. An article in "Branchline" tells about the installation, the first of its kind in Canada to be part of a pilot project to determine whether automated enforcement cameras have the potential to improve safety at railway crossings. It's being initiated by the Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada and Alberta Transportation. The CN grade crossing was chosen because of the previously recorded high rate of vehicle volations.

[UPTRAIN]

Maybe the railroads could hire that guy from Oxnard, CA to investigate dangerous crossings...

[Anonymous]

Not sure where the lawyers would go if we wrote tickets off of camera photos.
I saw the very first radar/photo speed trap get set up in Paradise Valley, Arizona. It was challenged by a lawyer who felt that tickets had to be issued by a live, certified police officer who could respond to questions. For obvious reasons, the camera can't do that and so a defendants rights are trampled on.

Don't know about Canadian law...
Erik

[Puckdropper]

erikthered, I heard of a case where a camera issued ticket was overturned because the camera did not show the car actually running the red light.

I know cameras are much cheaper, but some of the problems with the still cameras can be solved with video. Railroad crossings please! Red lights no! I don't want a ticket because I misjudged the length of the yellow and entered the interesection 0.2 seconds after the light turned red.

[chad thomas]

I for one think this is a great idea.
In addition to video cameras at select locations, fake cameras could be set up in visible locations so john Q public does not know the differance.

My first location is the San Yesidro trolly station. Here is why:

I had a situation happen to me that blew me away. It happened at the San Yesidro trolly station. I was at an intersection just like the one in the Oxnard Wreck the other day, only smaller. The station is to the right of me about 100 ft. I was facing a red light, stopped behind the tracks. So I would cross the double track, then immediatly turn right. When the light turned green I started to pull forward to where pedestrians were crossing at the street I was turning on to. There was pleanty of room to clear the tracks then stop. Then at the very moment I started moving the bells started ringing. It was too late to stop short of the tracks. Just then a pedestrian stepped off the curb to cross in front of me on the crosswalk on the street I was on, AGAINST the DON'T WALK light. This would not have been a problem if it was just him, I would have had time before the gates came down. But then a whole crowd of people started crossing in front of me. I guess they figured that because I stopped they could cross too. The gates started to come down and would have hit my truck (my new company owned truck, explain that to my boss two weeks into a new job). These people were oblivious to my situation. I honked the horn but got no response. Just before the gate would have landed on the truck I held the horn on and pulled forward right into them. THEY MOVED THEN. But I got a VERY NEGATIVE response, when THEY WERE IN THE WRONG. I'm glad there wasn't a cop around because I am shure I would have been the one that got the short end of the stick. It just blows me away how stupid people can be.

[kenneo]

Or just how easy it is to get trapped on a crossing and it not be a Darwin incident on your part.

[MP57313]

There is a camera-enforced rail crossing in Compton, CA, a suburb of Los Angeles. Greenleaf Blvd. crosses the MTA Blue Line (double track light rail) and parallel single track UP freight line. There is also a side street, Willowbrook Ave, that intersects with Greenleaf. There are flashers (pole and overhead) and gates. No traffic light; Willowbrook has a Stop sign.

The intersection is an upside-down "T", with the long stem as Willowbrook with the MTA and UP lines running in the median.

This has been the site of several fatal accidents over the years, including one where a "bandit (unlicensed) taxi" drove in front of a Blue Line train. The driver and the 5 passengers were killed.

<<Tangent explanation>> Cameras are also used in several busy intersections in congested areas, where rush hour commuters were running the red light too often. Though some of the photo tickets were challenged in court, the local cities have now set up some intersections where more than one camera takes a picture simultaneously. That way there is a picture of the driver and front of the vehicle, with another picture showing the position of the car in the intersection and the color of the traffic light.

[Grinandbearit]

Here in Ontario we had photo-radar (nixed by a change in government) and serious talk of red light cameras. I'm kind of iffy on those but as far as railroad crossing cameras are concerned, I'm all for them. It's a matter of saving lives even those who seem to be trying for a Darwin award.

[tree68]

Any enforcement tool has its limits. What's needed is a very public implementation and plenty of reporting of tickets issued. If the media will downplay the naysayers (put them on page 5) then the message the public will get is that they will be cited for the infraction.

I also go along with dummy cameras. They've had some reasonable results on school buses, especially after the real ones bring down a few pests.

[Anonymous]

I have no problems with Intersection Camera's issuing tickets to idiots who think Yellow means "Go faster", far to many people are killed yearly from idiots running red lights, so if it saves lives by making Idiots safer drivers, i have no quarms with it.

Same goes for crossings, if cameras can slow the number of idiots from driving around the gates or bolting in front of trains, then again I have no quarms with cameras.

99% of our laws are common sense laws because idiots have no common sense.

[jchnhtfd]

I personally think that both red light and crossing cameras -- and, for that matter, camera/radar speed traps -- are a good idea. But then, I also believe that if I screw up, I'd better 'fess up. However, I have to admit that I'm not at all sure how much help they'll be, or are. Erik and other law enforcement folks on the forum can probably expand on this, but... some of the problem at least lies in the attitude of the prosecution. While it is against the law to speed, or run red lights, or cross in front of a train, what good is this if one is not prosecuted for it, and knows that the odds of being prosecuted are pretty close to zilch? Around here, at least, the police have a hard time getting a conviction on a stumbling drunk DUI, never mind something as 'trivial' as running a red light...

[Glen Ellyn]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grinandbearit

Use of camera enforcement being tested at an Alberta railway crossing. An article in "Branchline" tells about the installation, the first of its kind in Canada to be part of a pilot project to determine whether automated enforcement cameras have the potential to improve safety at railway crossings. It's being initiated by the Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada and Alberta Transportation. The CN grade crossing was chosen because of the previously recorded high rate of vehicle volations.

This has already happened everywhere in Downers Grove Illinois.

[dekemd]

A single camera system that only takes a picture of the rear of the car is easily beat in court. Most people don't fight camera tickets because of money. It's easier and cheaper to pay the $50 fine than to hire a lawyer and take a day off work to go to court. Charlotte, NC installed redlight cameras at several intersections a few years ago. The number of people running redlights at those intersections has dropped considerably. What they don't tell you is that the number of rear-end collisions at those same intersections has increased by about the same margin.

A two camera system (one that takes a picture of the driver and the rear of the car) at a grade crossing would probably be a good idea. It should not take too long for it to cut down on gate runners. The one problem I see is what to do about malfunctions. If a traffic light malfunctions, it either goes dark all the way around which is treated as a four-way stop, or it goes to flashing red one direction, and yellow for the other. My understanding is that is either condition occurs the cameras are disabled. When a crossing gate malfuntions, it usually activates just like it would for a train. I can't see expecting people to sit at a crossing for however long it takes for a signalman to get there, when no train is in sight. That is one of the problems with the current crossing gate system, it can't be made 100% reliable, but there's no backup either.

Derrick

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dekemd

If a traffic light malfunctions, it either goes dark all the way around which is treated as a four-way stop, ...Derrick

Or in the case of some idiots - No Red Light, No Stop.

[jeaton]

I saw a Columbia, MD ticket issued to my stepdaughter. Save for any positive proof that she was the driver, it was certainly her car and there was clear evidence that she ran the light. It was kind of a fast yellow, but that is beside the point. Looks like the could be made to work, but there the usual question. Who would pay for the installation?

Jay

[Paul Milenkovic]

I read that there is one small legal problem with a "photo-radar" ticket. Suppose you get pulled over for speeding. "How are you doing sir, may I see your driver's license? Do you know how fast you were going? . . . I am going to have to give you a ticket -- please sign here."

Why do you have to "sign" the ticket and what happens when you don't "sign here"? I suppose it varies with the office and the jurisdiction, but were you to refuse to sign the ticket, the officer would ask you to step outside the vehicle, put on the handcuffs, and take you to jail. The reason the officer doesn't have to take you to jail of speeding is that you issue a "signature bond" on the ticket, which is a committment to pay the fine or show up in court and explain yourself to the judge. If you sign the ticket and don't pay up or show up, the powers that be can take out a warrant and put you in cuffs and take you to jail if they see you on the street.

OK, suppose you get a photo in the mail along with a summons. The story I hear is that unless the powers that be get your signature or get you to post bond, they don't have much to stand on if you just plain ignore the whole thing. Maybe they could impound your car, but they don't have a basis to take you into custody.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

OK, suppose you get a photo in the mail along with a summons. The story I hear is that unless the powers that be get your signature or get you to post bond, they don't have much to stand on if you just plain ignore the whole thing. Maybe they could impound your car, but they don't have a basis to take you into custody.

Actually they do, the Ticket you get in the mail is actually a Court summonings, "You are hear-by Ordered to appear in court on X Day in reguards to your vehicle, license Number YYY involved in a moving violation. failure to appear and defend this charge will be interpretted that you do not dispute these charges and will result in a warrent being issued for your arrest and/or a leavy being applied to youir vehicle title."

This is basically what the letter you recieve states, the vehicles owner is ordered to show up in court and defend the charge against him, failure to show means he accepts the ticket as truthful and depending on how many violations the person has, may result in a variety of actions based on the state laws in place. Some states will arrest you for it, others will charge you the ammount of the ticket plus court costs, still others will apply a lean against your vehicles title, and soem use a combination of solutions. Now you could send the ammount of the traffic fine before the court date and not have any hassle, or waste a day in court arguing against a pretty good witness that you didn't run a red light. Most states hold the vehicle owner responsible for camera tickets, but soem do take the driver into consideration as well, thus the reason for the front and rear camera shots.

[dekemd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by dekemd

If a traffic light malfunctions, it either goes dark all the way around which is treated as a four-way stop, ...Derrick

Or in the case of some idiots - No Red Light, No Stop.

It's real hard to get the NO lights means stop through some people's thick skulls isn't it. "But officer, it wasn't red...."

[Anonymous]

Here in Ontario, we had "photo-radar" for a few years with a previous provincial government. A van sat on the side of the expressway and flashed a picture of your plate if you sped past. The law said that the driver could not be ticketed since he couldn't be identified, but that the owner of the car could be (the laws were modified to allow that much) and the owner was responsible for anyone borrowing his car. We all hated it and it became a political hot potato in the following election, so it was cancelled. Now, seven years later, it is being reconsidered. Also, here in Toronto, red-light camers have just gone into action (BTW, as far as that increasing rear-enders: our yellows are a full 7 seconds - at 30 MPH, that means you get 308 feet warning - if you can't stop graciously by then, then we have a bigger problem!) and we're waiting to see the results.

[Anonymous]

Here in Cleveland, OH the city is planning on installing , I think, 29 red light cameras to enhance downtown safety, The mayor also explained that @ $150 per ticket the city can expect $6,000,000 in new revenue. I call that a hypocritical revenue producing scheme. That's the way almost any camera scheme for any reason will end up. So, clever idea, nifty technology, but with civic malice aforethought. Hugh M. Windsor

[pwoody]

Works Ok Down Under. Here in Melbourne Victoria ( Australia) we've got red light and speed cameras all in one. We used to just have red light cameras at busy intersections. And the laws were made to fit. Your car runs the red light - youre booked! Now they've added the speed camera to the red light camera and if you speed up on the yellow you can also get nabbed. Seems to be working fine at the bigger intersections. Most of our busy rail intersections have boom gates. They make a mess of your car if you tangle with them!

[Anonymous]

It does and it doesn't work. It works if the person believes in the actions that can be and will be taken against them happens. Here in Illinois, if you refuse to show up in court, or pay the taick, your drivers license will be suspended until paid. The longer you take to pay, the larger the fine.
Then there is also the people who figure, They can beat the light; or the red lights on a railroad crossing don't matter, because they don't have the same meaning of a city light! I have watched idiots try to beat a train to a crossing and lose. I have seen a railroad worker, try to beat a switch engine out of the yard, only to have his car "stall" on the yard track, then get hit, and shoved into the switchtenders' shack. People today don't care about anything except getting to and from where ever thay are going.
Then there are the "new people" to this country, who think they are never going to have this happen to them, then it does. They are the biggest problems for everyone. They dart out across a tack in front of a train, and think they will make it...and don't!
The other problem too, is after an accident, even if it is not the trains fault, the railroads, instead of fighting the people whose vehicles have been hit, wind up paying them off. The railroads are partly at fault, for not fighting back.
No matter where you go, there are cameras to watch over crossings, and city streets, but they still are not enough!
ralph zimmer [e-mail]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Why do you have to "sign" the ticket and what happens when you don't "sign here"?

I've always understood it that the signature was simply acknowledging receipt of the citation. Maybe one of our law enforcement types can expand.