The U.S. Census Bureau estimates tallied 36 million trick-or-treaters roaming the streets on All Hallows’ Eve in 2008. Previous years have shown Halloween as one of the heaviest wireless-calling days of the year. Halloween typically ranks among the most popular days for picture or video messaging.  Last year MMS volume spiked 44 percent on Halloween over the previous week!

That is why AT&T has compiled a list of safety tips to keep in mind before your children hit the streets in search of goodies:

1. Go mobile: Whether packing their personal cell or a temporary pre-paid phone, ensure each costumed child parading the streets has a fully-charged communication device in tow.
2. Secure the line of communication: Pre-program contact information of parents, neighbors and emergency services into your and your child’s speed dial, and be sure you know how to access these numbers with ease.
3. Ensure accessibility: Use a belt clip or carrying case to make sure phones do not get tangled in costumes.
4. Establish boundaries: Families should have in place a familiarized route for children to follow while out on the town. Mobile navigation tools can assist parents and kids in creating routes, and goblins on the go can reference maps throughout the evening. Similarly, AT&T’s FamilyMap Viewer allows parents to easily and immediately locate a family member’s whereabouts from their mobile device or PC so they can keep a close watch.
5. Be in touch: Set up periodic alarms with Halloween-themed tones as a reminder for trick-or-treaters to text or call home between candy collecting stops.
6. Keep ears on the ready: As part of a continued effort to remain aware of surroundings and keep smooth the lines of communication, sweet seekers should turn up their phone volume and listen for incoming call and message alerts.
7. Don’t miss a thing: Phones also come installed with photo, video and audio recorders, allowing spur-of-the-moment happenings to be captured and shared among friends and family in real time. AT&T’s Video Share allows you to see live video on your handset while a voice call is taking place.
8. Be a wireless Samaritan: Any suspicious behavior must be immediately reported to the proper authority and shared among neighbors, whose numbers should be on hand and in reach.
9. Drive safely: With pedestrians filling streets and sidewalks, it is more important than ever for drivers to stay alert behind the wheel. If a call needs to be made or a message checked, pull over. And remember, don’t text while driving.

Have fun and Happy Halloween!

The competition started at 0400 at the Sabalauski Air Assault School, it was originally scheduled to begin at 0800, but had been moved forward due to the extreme heat during the day.

Two soldiers just past the first turn around point.

The first event was a Ruck march where the soldier puts on load bearing equipment, a 30-pound rucksack, helmet, gets an M-16 rifle, then moves to the starting point for the 12-mile road march. While the starting point was lighted the rest of the march was in darkness, with a blue light marking the turn around point. From the school, the turn around point was 3 miles away. They had to do this route twice. From the school to the turn around point, back to the school, back to the turn around point, and back to the school to finish. They had three hours to complete this portion of the competition.

Then after removing their Ruck march gear, the soldiers moved on to the obstacle course.

Navigating the Six vaults obstacle

While completing the Ruck march had to be tough, doing this challenging course immediately afterward had to be pure torture. The obstacles included:

• Tough One, in which the soldier climbs a rope, walks across an elevated beam, then climbs up a ladder, over a log, and then down a cargo net.
• Low Belly Crawl, The soldier must crawl on their bellies under strands of barb wire without touching any.
• Confidence Climb, Two 35′ telephones poles are stuck in the ground about ten feet apart and joined by 4×4 posts, forming a ladder with increasing distances that the soldier must climb up, then climb back down.
• Six vaults, using one or two hands the soldier must vault over a series of six parallel waist high beams.
• High step over, a series of thigh high parallel logs which the soldier must step over using alternating legs.
• Swing, stop, and jump; The soldier must grasp a rope and while swinging forward pull themselves up and land standing on a log. They then let go and jump to the ground.

And what must be one of the toughest obstacles…

• The Weaver, which is two inclined ladders joined at an angle end to end forming an inverted V, The soldier facing upright must negotiate the ladder, weaving first under then over, each of the beams.

The weaver tests the abdominal muscles of the contestants

A soldier silhouetted against the sky repels down from the top of the tower at the Toughest Air Assault Soldier Competition

After the obstacle course the soldiers proceeded to the repelling tower. After they donned their equipment, and were inspected by Capt Schuldt, they proceeded to the top of the tower. Then after hooking up and going through another safety inspection, the soldier repelled backwards down the open side of the tower.

After this the intense physical exertion of the morning complete, and it was testing time. The soldier’s knowledge of the procedures and requirements of their job as an Air Assault Soldier were confirmed. Following which the contestants were put through a practical test where they had to prep a package for sling loading.

This contest and its various stages were designed to put the soldier through the various tasks they would be required to fulfill during their time as a member of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), and every one of these soldiers takes that job very seriously.

SPC. Chris Richard

CPL. Rob Shropshire

Spc. Chris Richard and Cpl. Rob Shropshire, both with the 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment proved to be the toughest Air Assault Soldiers this day. It wasn’t easy, “It broke me off,” Shropshire said. “It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do in my life.” Indeed they have a reason to be proud, because they won this competition among the toughest Air Assault soldiers within the Army’s only air assault division, “This doesn’t just make us the toughest Air Assault soldiers in the division,” Shropshire said. “This makes us the toughest Air Assault soldiers in the world.”

Photos from the 2009 Toughest Air Assault Soldier Contest

[Show as slideshow]

1234►

Halloween should be filled with surprise and enjoyment, and following some common sense practices can keep events safer and more fun.

• Walk, slither, and sneak on sidewalks, not in the street.
• Look both ways before crossing the street to check for cars, trucks, and low-flying brooms.
• Cross the street only at corners.
• Don’t hide or cross the street between parked cars.
• Wear light-colored or reflective-type clothing so you are more visible. (And remember to put reflective tape on bikes, skateboards, and brooms, too!)
• Plan your route and share it with your family. If possible, have an adult go with you.
• Carry a flashlight to light your way.
• Keep away from open fires and candles. (Costumes can be extremely flammable.)
• Visit homes that have the porch light on.
• Accept your treats at the door and never go into a stranger’s house.
• Use face paint rather than masks or things that will cover your eyes.
• Be cautious of animals and strangers.
• Have a grown-up inspect your treats before eating. And don’t eat candy if the package is already opened. Small, hard pieces of candy are a choking hazard for young children.

The Clothesline Project is an international event that bears witness to the effects of sexual violence in the community. The project gives its participants the opportunity to print T-shirts in honor of men and women who are survivors of sexual and domestic violence. These shirts will be displayed on a clothesline to raise awareness of the impact violence has on the community.

The Clothesline Project (CLP) originated on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in 1990, and was designed to address the issue of violence against women. Women affected by violence express their emotions by decorating a shirt. They then hang the shirt on a clothesline to be viewed by others as testimony to the problem of violence against women. Locally the Clothesline Project has also been displayed at the Clarksville-Montgomery County Library.

APSU has been hanging the Clothesline Project since 1997. Since its inception, the project has amassed more than 400 T-shirts. For more information, contact Dr. Jill Eichhorn, coordinator of APSU’s Women’s Studies Program, (931) 221-6314. The national project website is http://www.clotheslineproject.org/

Complimentary food and drinks will be offered while supplies last, and the event will feature children’s activities, finger printing, games, air evac helicopter, fire trucks, law enforcement vehicles, ambulance, crime scene unit, bomb squad, K-9 team, tactical team, explorers, Clothes Line Project, wood work shop, handprint project and the Charter Internet trailer.

Door Prizes will be given out at the event and you must be present to win. Grand Prize giveaway will be two sets of Suite Tickets to the December 7th Carrie Underwood Concert. Many other terrific prizes will be given out during the Even

DUI package delayed by committee

The Criminal Practice and Procedure Subcommittee considered DUI bills this week, many of which were proposals rolled out by Republicans at the beginning of session as part of a comprehensive package to discourage drunk driving in Tennessee. Although they were pleased that some elements of the package received the committee’s approval, GOP leaders were disappointed as some of the proposals were delayed or effectively killed. Some of these elements may have hope with other sponsors, but the Republicans stressed that each portion of the comprehensive package is crucial to solving the problem and saving lives.

Among the proposals that were granted approval by the subcommittee were versions of the automatic license revocation and use of the ignition interlock devices. A Republican sponsored version of a bill that would increase the penalty for vehicular homicide as a result of the driver’s intoxication also cleared the subcommittee and will next be heard in the full Judiciary Committee. The GOP is hopeful that the package will not be passed piecemeal but instead will pass as a comprehensive effort—something they argue is vital to the safety of Tennessee’s roads.

Republican leaders announced in January that they would sponsor a comprehensive approach to combat drunk driving in the state of Tennessee. Among the proposals in the multi-faceted approach were automatic license revocation, a greater use of ignition interlock devices, a ban on open containers, and tougher penalties against repeat offenders and for those who refuse to take the BAC test.

Election bills move forward

Several election bills saw passage this week that will improve and ensure the quality and integrity of elections.

House Bill 3115 passed the House floor on Monday with a unanimous vote and would place safeguards around citizens’ sensitive voter information held by state and local governments. The sponsor touted the bill as a measure that would create safeguards and procedures for ensuring that confidential information regarding citizens is securely protected on all laptop computers and other removable storage devices. The bill has already passed the Senate, and will now face the Governor for a signature to become law.

The sponsor assured House members that the proposal’s costs were insignificant, and could even save money in the future. Passing the measure was particularly timely. Over the Christmas holiday in 2007, a laptop was stolen from the Davidson County Election Commission’s offices in Nashville. The missing laptop contained names, addresses, phone numbers and about 337,000 voters’ Social Security numbers. In the wake of the theft, questions were raised as to the strength of the security of the sensitive information.

Another election bill that saw passage this week was one that will prohibit a member of a county election commission or the state election commission from participating in the management or leadership of a political party or a candidate’s campaign. The Republican sponsor said the bill would ensure that the process was fair and would re-establish voter confidence in the election process. The bill, House Bill 1442, passed out of the State and Local Government Committee this week.

In the same vein, House Bill 1279 would require the state coordinator of elections to enter into agreements with other states for the purpose of comparing voter data to identify duplicate voter registrations. The bill passed out of a subcommittee this week, with the Republican sponsor informing the committee that when Kentucky compared their voter rolls with neighboring states, 8,000 duplicates were discovered.

Lastly, a bill that would require voting systems to produce paper versions of any ballot cast passed out of Elections subcommittee as well. House Bill 1282 would require the paper ballot in order to ensure the integrity of recounts, contests or random samplings to reduce voter fraud. The Republican sponsor stated that the measure would further guarantee voter confidence in the system if a voter knew their vote could not be manipulated. The bill will next face the State and Local Government Committee.

Republicans sponsor open government proposals

This week Republican leaders demonstrated the Taxpayer Transparency in Government Act, a measure that would make the state’s budget more open and accessible to the general public. Republican members gathered to discuss the possibility of Tennessee developing a  website similar to one run by the federal government and other states including Kansas, Texas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.  The Taxpayer Transparency in Government Act would establish a free, easy-to-use, searchable website that allows users to instantly explore state government revenue and expenditures.

The best sites allow taxpayers to search revenue and expenditures by agency, fund, program, object (such as grants or contracts), and vendor.  Details on payees include the name, address, document, number, processing date, and the amount. The majority of these states were able to produce their sites at little or no extra cost to the state.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Republican leaders explored Kansas’s website to help demonstrate how effective the site can be for citizens.  The bill’s sponsors believe that Tennessee taxpayers deserve to know where their tax dollars are going.  The Taxpayer Transparency in Government Act is a major step toward fulfilling this belief.

In the same spirit, a bill that proposes to harness technology for the purpose of opening the government process to the public successfully passed out of committee this week.  The bill would allow elected bodies to set up websites where they can instant message one another.  The “conversations” would be available for the public and the media’s viewing.  House Bill 2750 moves to the Finance, Ways and Means Committee next week.

In brief…

• House Bill 4066 cleared a House subcommittee this week. The bill, a long-time Republican Caucus initiative, would increase the maximum number of employees allowed under the Tennessee Small Employer Group Health Coverage Reform Act. The act provides a mechanism to make accident and health insurance available to small employers. Currently, only small businesses with 25 employees or less are eligible for the program. House Bill 4066 would increase that number to 50.
• House Bill 3891 successfully cleared the State and Local Government Committee on Tuesday. The bill, which was filed before the devastating tornados that swept though Tennessee, would allow TEMA to establish and administer a grant program to assist in the partial reimbursement of installation costs for safe rooms and in-ground shelters.
• A proposal that would have protected the right of business owners to require English on the job failed this week in the Employee Affairs Subcommittee, despite having passed on the Senate floor unanimously. The English in the Workplace Act, similar to that of Senator Lamar Alexander’s on the federal level, would simply have clarified that it is not against the law for businesses to require that English be spoken on the job.
• House Bill 1993 passed out of the committee system this week and will now be heard on the House floor. The bill changes the term for medical malpractice lawsuits to “health care liability action.” A health care liability action would include any lawsuit alleging injury related to the provision or failure to provide health care services, which names as a defendant a health care provider, health care facility, or employee of a health care provider.

The Week Ahead…

• House Bill 3661 creates within the TBI a “Repeat DUI Offender” registry of persons who have two or more DUI convictions and whose license is currently suspended or revoked. (Judiciary)
• House Bill 0852 rewrites the offense of leaving the scene of an accident to increase penalties depending upon culpability of driver, degree of harm, and the location of the accident. (Judiciary)
• House Bill 3069 provides that no penalty may be imposed for non-payment of traffic citation, based solely upon a violation recorded by surveillance camera, unless the citation is sent by certified mail. (Transportation)
• House Bill 4029 creates a pilot program to make laptops available to juniors in high school. (Education)
• House Bill 3059 creates a Class B misdemeanor offense of consuming alcoholic beverages while driving a motor vehicle on a public highway and a Class C misdemeanor offense of possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage within the passenger area of a motor vehicle on a public highway. (State & Local)
• House Bill 3774 removes the prohibition on authorizing cyber-based public charter schools. (Education)

Two people will be testifying before the committee on Lundberg’s behalf. Laura Dial, Executive Director of the Tennessee Chapter of MADD, and Lt. David Corman of the Traffic Section of the Metro Nashville-Davidson County Police Department will be on hand to discuss the legislation’s many benefits.

The bill experienced some resistance in subcommittee last week, when members expressed concern over the ability of sober drivers to take friends home who are drinking, and also regarding sporting events, such as University of Tennessee football games.

Lundberg responded that he was from East Tennessee and understood the concerns, but that safety had to come first. “The bottom line is that this state must reform our drunk driving laws. There must be consequences for irresponsible actions—actions that kill and that put other law abiding citizens in grave danger,” he added.

In 2006, there were 1,287 fatalities on Tennessee roads with 509 due to alcohol-related crashes, a 7.6 percent increase from the previous year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among persons between the ages of 3 and 33, with 50% of the victims being in alcohol-related crashes. In addition, fifty-two percent of drivers that were involved in alcohol-related fatalities had BAC levels at or above .16.

“Our national highway experts have rightfully pointed out the flaws in our DUI laws. We fall short of half of their recommendations. That is unacceptable. We will work hard to make sure our roads are safer than this,” concluded Rep. Lundberg.

Detective Michael Patterson is presently investigating three robberies that have occurred in the St. Bethlehem area. All three robbery attempts involved women who were alone at the time of the incidents. The suspect’s car (shown at left) was caught on security camera and released by police.

On Friday, December 7, 2007, in the parking lot of Kohl’s, 2840 Wilma Rudolph Blvd, a female that was at her vehicle was approached by a black male, wearing a thick nylon jacket, with fur around the neck area. This male attempted to enter her vehicle; however, she had her doors locked and drove off.
Approximately three hours later in the parking lot of Kroger’s, 2100 Lowe’s Drive, while a female was entering her vehicle, she was approached by five males that demanded money. All suspects left in a maroon four door Dodge Neon or Chevy Malibu.

On December 9, 2007, a female was entering her vehicle in the parking lot of Circuit City, by Governor Square Mall, when she was approached by a black male wearing a black jacket with fur around the neck. The suspect demanded money and left in a dark red four door Dodge Neon.

Based on the descriptions provided, the vehicle is possibly a four door maroon or dark red Dodge Neon or Chevy Malibu. A surveillance photo has been released and if anyone can identify this suspect, they are asked to contact Detective Michael Patterson, District 3 Criminal Investigations at 931-648-0656 ext 3006.

All shoppers are caution to be alert and aware as they continue holiday shopping, and to report any suspicious activity immediately.

Is this really as serious of a problem as they make it out to be, serious enough to warrant the public accepting the intrusion of traffic enforcement cameras into their daily lives? During the last year in the entire city of Clarksville there were 1,470 accidents at intersections throughout the city, there were an additional 1,274 citations issued for either running a red light or stop sign. There are over 85 intersections in Clarksville which have traffic signals.  The entire city averages averages approximately 4 accidents at intersections per day. At Riverside Drive alone, during the last year over 39 million vehicles passed through that intersection. 

Studies have shown that these red-light cameras actually increase, not decrease accidents, and that the accidents caused by people panic breaking to avoid a citations are more serious injury accidents. While most intersection accidents are property damage rather than injury.

Why is Clarksville interested in making the same mistakes? It’s about finding new ways to take your money. They will make protestations that they are doing this for safety, but studies have proven that these cameras increase accidents rather than decrease them.  Indeed when spoken to by telephone City Councilman Geno Grubbs was dismissive of the safety concerns regarding these cameras. So they must have other motivations.

Ward 8 City Councilman Jim Doyle, chairman of the Public Safety Committee and sponsor of the failed cell-phone ban, said most vendors also offer equipment to ticket drivers who speed through intersections.

“I would like the whole package,” Doyle said. “Something has to slow the folks down.”

Ward 7 Councilman Geno Grubbs, a Public Safety Committee member who did not support the cell-phone ban, also would like to see cameras ticketing light-runners and speeders.

“It’s like having an officer there 24-7,” said Grubbs, himself a retired officer. – The Leaf Chronicle

A North Carolina A&T State University’s Transportation Institute, concluded after extensive analysis, that the 18 red light cameras in use on Greensboro thoroughfares may very well cause more accidents rather than fewer. According to the study, while wrecks overall were found to be decreasing, their incidence at intersections with surveillance cameras was increasing…

The other recent study analyzed the impact of speed cameras in London, England, and found that over hundreds of locations at which the surveillance devices were employed, the number of accidents had increased rather than decreased. At many other sites studied, accident rates remained the same.

As with their U.S. counterparts, London officials reap huge financial rewards from utilizing the cameras — a 20 percent annual profit after deducting installation and processing costs.

The London study found the prevalence of the traffic surveillance cameras was actually deadly, with nearly 400 of the camera sites registering an increase in people killed or seriously injured after the cameras were installed. – Bobb Barr on Rethinking red-light cameras

Fraud and manipulation of yellow light durations for profit have been common where these types of cameras are in use.  The National Motorists Association recommends that payments to subcontractor should be based on a reductions in violations and accidents and should not be based on the number of citations issued. On this I strongly agree.

Read on for a very detailed report: The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it intentional?

The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?

Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives

May 2001

There’s a hidden tax being levied on motorists today. In theory, this tax is only levied on those who violate the law and putothers in danger. But the reality is that the game has been rigged. 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 endanger themselves 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 

 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 suggests there is something that can be done to address this hazard. It cites examples of problem intersections where yellow times have been raised by about 30 percent and the number of people entering on red fell dramatically. It cites, in addition, controlled scientific studies that confirm the hypothesis that longer yellows are better. The following reductions in red light entries are documented:

•  
  • Mesa, Arizona 73%
  • Georgia 75%
  • Virginia site 1 79%
  • Virginia site 2 77%
  • Virginia site 3 Problem “virtually eliminated”
  • Maryland Problem “virtually eliminated”

It is no coincidence that each of the “problem” intersections mentioned above happened to have yellow times that fell short by about 30 percent. Today’s formula for calculating yellow times yields yellow times that can in some cases be about 30 percent shorter than the older formula.

And one should ask the question, if there’s a problem with an intersection, why don’t safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?

In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that’s exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to “use enforcement” instead.

Indeed, according to the Federal Highway Administration, these problem intersections serve as a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation of additional red light cameras and tout their safety benefits.

But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.

Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he 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.

I. Something Funny is Going On

A local television station in Beaverton, Oregon (KOIN-TV) discovered the effects of inadequate yellow light times when investigating the red light camera controversy in its area. The following is excerpted from a newscast broadcast February 14, 2001:

ELAINE MURPHY (reporting): So it got us to wondering just how this program is working. About how many people are getting tickets and, most importantly, is there something funny about how this is set up?
…

MURPHY: So we took out the stopwatch. The yellow here [where there is a red light camera] is three seconds and a fraction. It’s a big intersection—we measured 111 feet across. Yet a few blocks away at 107th and Beaverton-Hillsdale at an intersection measuring a mere 75 feet, the yellow lasts almost a second longer. Why?

LINDA ADLARD (Beaverton City Official): I really don’t know why that would have a different timing.

MURPHY: We kept checking. The intersection with a camera, a little over three seconds for yellow. The next intersection to the east, four seconds. The one after that, four seconds. And the one after that, and the one after that.

ADLARD: I think probably this is timed this way because of the volume of traffic.

MURPHY: By the way another red light running camera goes into service next Tuesday at Lombard and Allen. The length of yellow? Three seconds. Just thought you’d like to know.

It is clear from this example that there is something funny going on. This jurisdiction has been caught red-handed playing with signal timing on lights that have red light cameras. But that’s just the beginning of the story.

To understand why a jurisdiction would do something like this, one needs to know a little more about the incentives behind red light cameras.

II. Red Light Cameras and Revenue

Red light cameras raise a tremendous amount of money for the jurisdictions that use them. It is easier to set up a camera than it is to employ a human being to enforce the law. Consequently, about 50 cities across the country in ten states issue tickets to motorists with red light cameras. And the number of cameras continues to grow.

It’s not surprising that local and state governments are jumping at the opportunity to collect revenue from motorists with these devices. Consider the examples below:

• Washington, D.C. A single camera collected $1 million in revenue. A line item in the city’s FY2001 budget assumed there would be $16 million in fines collected from the 37 cameras deployed throughout the city. The Washington Post, May 19, 2000.
• San Diego, CA. A single camera collected $6.8 million in revenue in 18 months. The 19 camera program as a whole has brought in nearly $30 million in the same period. San Diego Union Tribune, May 5, 2001.
• Sacramento, CA. The program collects an estimated $800,000 a year. Sacramento Bee, April 16, 2001.
• Ventura, CA. The program will collect an estimated $3.2 million during its first 12 months. Ventura County Star, March 29, 2001.
• West Hollywood, CA. The program collects an estimated $4.9 million a year. Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2001
• Baltimore County, MD. The program has collected $6 million as of January 2001. Baltimore Sun, January 28, 2001.
• Howard County, MD. The program has collected $4 million from more than 70,000 tickets issued between 1998 to 2000. Baltimore Sun, January 28, 2001.
• Charlotte, NC. The program will collect over $1 million. Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 4, 2001.
• New York, NY. In its first full year of operation, the 15 red-light cameras racked up 168,471 tickets, collecting $5,435,815 in fines. Car & Driver, May 1999. “The city last year sent out more than 400,000 tickets to drivers caught on camera running red lights and collected $9 million in revenue, said city Department of Transportation spokesman Thomas Cocola.” New York Post, May 9, 2001. The fines are trending upward

Consider how fee structures are changing:

• California. The highest in the nation fine of $271 is collected from motorists and one point is assessed against the driver’s license.
• Montgomery County, MD. “Local officials have asked the state Legislature to approve a fine increase to $250. Current fines in the county are $75 if caught on camera.” USA Today, February 6, 2001.
• Arizona. The legislature is considering a bill to raise the fine statewide to $250. Phoenix raised a $125 fine to $175, plus two points against the driver’s license. Arizona Republic, January 16, 2001.
• Delaware. The fine was raised from $25 to $75 in July 2000. USA Today, February 6, 2001.

III. The Theory: If There’s a Problem, Lengthen the Yellow

There is no doubt that red light cameras present an attractive option for those interested in collecting additional revenue. But there may be another way to solve the red light running “crisis”—lengthening yellow times.

A little yellow makes a lot of difference

A case study of two intersections entitled “The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response” (1980), reported that a 30 percent increase in yellow time yielded substantial safety benefits. “The Results in Table 3 show that the extension of yellow duration reduced the frequency of potential conflicts in all cases studied,” (page 27).

The first site studied found an extra second and a fraction of yellow had an immediate and definitive safety pay-off:

“An increase of 1.4 seconds or about 30 percent in yellow duration virtually eliminated all potential conflicts at the Maryland site,” (page 27, emphasis added).

Similarly, the second site in Georgia realized a 75 percent reduction in potential conflicts following a 32 percent increase in yellow time. These figures agree with those found in Section 4 of this report, below.

The yellow light’s purpose

To understand why an increase in yellow has such a significant safety impact, one must consider the traditional purpose of the yellow traffic light. The yellow indication is designed to warn a motorist approaching an intersection that the signal is about to turn red. The yellow light should be long enough for the approaching motorist to either, (a) come to a safe stop before the intersection, or (b) continue clear through the intersection before the red light appears. An inadequate yellow time will either prevent motorists from coming to a safe stop or force them to enter the intersection on a red light. Neither option should be considered acceptable.

The diagram above illustrates what happens when an automobile approaching an intersection sees the yellow light. Drivers who are in the “Can’t Go” zone as the light turns yellow know they are too far back and won’t be able to reach the intersection before the light turns red—they must stop. Drivers who are in the “Can’t Stop” zone know they’re too close to the intersection to stop safely—they must proceed. But when the yellow time is inadequate, there is place in between both zones where the driver can neither proceed safely, nor stop safely. Engineers call this the “Dilemma Zone.”

A properly timed signal will have enough yellow time that driver’s will never be faced with the impossible choice presented by the dilemma zone. By determining the stopping and clearing distances for a given approach speed, one can always calculate a safe yellow time that offers drivers a safe option, by design, every time.

What if there’s a problem?

Still, an engineering formula may not perfectly account for all the variables that might exist at an intersection. In such cases, the engineer has a tool, known as a countermeasure, that he must employ to remedy the situation. Namely, the engineer must lengthen the amount of yellow time. Even the 1985 ITE proposed recommended practice provides for this yellow time “measure of effectiveness”:

When the percent of vehicles that are last through the intersection which enter on red exceeds that which is locally acceptable (many agencies use a value of one to three percent), the yellow interval should be lengthened until the percentage conforms to local standards. (Page 6.)

It is the duty of an engineer to double-check his work and make sure that there is not a problem with red- light entries at each intersection.

Red Light Camera proponents agree

This truth is not disputed. Even in literature intended to promote the use of red light one finds the inescapable truth that lengthening the yellow can be the appropriate thing to do if there’s a problem. In the study “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures”, author Richard Retting agrees that longer yellow times can often substantially reduce accidents and redlight running:

Signals that provide insufficient yellow intervals cause some drivers to run red lights inadvertently. However, many drivers who run red lights are provided adequate opportunity to stop safely but choose instead to proceed through a red light signal…. (Page 1.)

Increases in the length of the yellow signal toward values associated with the ITE proposed recommended practice significantly decreased the chance of red-light running. (Page 2.)

What is surprising is that the author, despite acknowledging that insufficient yellow causes red light running, considers red light cameras as the only solution. In the first citation given above, he makes an effort to blame motorists for running lights, even when the yellow time is inadequate. Furthermore, in the report’s “summary and conclusion” (page 4), “signal modification” rates only a passing mention in half of a sentence—he devotes the rest of the discussion to the virtues of red light cameras. Note that the signal modification he refers to is the already shortened ITE practice, not the longer yellow times a properly timed intersection would use (see Section 5, below).

‘Longer yellow signals reduce red light running, there is no question about it,’ said Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. ‘I can’t say with any certainty if that has any effect on crashes, but there is some evidence that longer yellows can cut down on crashes.’ (Las Vegas Review Journal, October 20, 2000.)

Eighty percent of entries occur during the first second of red

The relation between yellow time and red light running is most clearly found in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s study of red light running entitled “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures” (1998). Although the report’s intention is to prove the need for red light camera enforcement, the data in the report provides additional insight into the red light running question. A chart found on page 2 of the report (summarized below) indicates quite clearly that almost 80 percent of red light entries occur within the first second of the red light indication.

This strongly suggests that inadequate yellow time is the major cause of red-light entries. If the vast majority of red light entries occur in the first second after the yellow light expires, it is reasonable to assume an additional second of yellow time on that light will yield a nearly 80 percent decrease in red light entries.

IV. The Fact: Longer Yellow Reduces Red Entry

Mesa, Arizona

When yellow times are lengthened at intersections, red light entries plunge. Mesa, Arizona found a 73 percent drop in citations after the yellow light was extended.

Mesa increased the left-turn yellow arrow duration to four seconds, from three seconds, on Nov. 14, after complaints from drivers who felt the time was too short to safely complete their turns. The change was made at 30 intersections with dual left-turn lanes and left-turn arrows. In November, the city issued 1,639 left-turn arrow citations at the six intersections patrolled by cameras. In December, the month after the change, the number fell to 716. In October, the month prior to the change, Mesa issued 2,645 citations. (Arizona Republic, February 6, 2001.)

To most, this decrease in red-light running violations would be most welcome news. But it was not welcome news to the city of Mesa. That’s because once yellow signal timing changes were made, the camera went from a money-maker to a $10,000 money- loser. The response of the local bureaucracy was typical:

Meanwhile, the department will propose eliminating the three-tenths of a second grace period that [the camera] allows from the time a light turns red to the time the camera flashes. ‘We want to establish a zero tolerance policy for red light running in Mesa,’” [Mesa police Commander Richard] Clore said. (Arizona Republic, February 6, 2001.)

Some of Mesa’s red-light cameras are working so well that police are talking about disconnecting them… In some cases, it’s only catching one person a day. [Mesa police Commander Richard] Clore said that may be because the city recently lengthened its yellow lights by a second. (Arizona Republic, May 22, 2001.)

Fairfax County, Virginia.

Like Arizona, Virginia, has also seen outstanding results from increased yellow times. In testimony before the Kentucky State Senate, IIHS study author Richard Retting reported that, on average, someone runs the red light at US50 in Arlington, Virginia every 12 minutes.

Yet just a few miles down the road at the intersection of westbound US50 and Fair Ridge, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) raised the yellow to 5.5 seconds from 4.0 seconds last summer. Since the change, red light running has almost disappeared at the location.

This is very significant and substantial evidence to show that increased yellow times reduce entries on red at problem intersections.

V. Changes in the Safety Codes

Where do the problem intersections come from? We’ve seen that experience tells us that if there’s a red light running problem, yellow light times should be increased. And the theory tells us the same. So why have yellow signal times decreased? The answer is that the organizations responsible for maintaining our intersection safety codes have altered the regulations specifically to accommodate camera enforcement and decrease yellow times.

The chart below provides the theoretical minimum yellow clearance signal times based on speed and intersection width from the 1976 edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) handbook. Note that the 100-foot intersection in Beaverton, Oregon had a 3.1 second yellow signal time in a 30MPH zone, as mentioned in Chapter 1 above. As one can see from the chart, that time would be inadequate for any condition. But it’s quite profitable for the red light camera installed at that location.

To understand more fully the extent of changes to the signal timing codes, one must first examine the prior formula used for calculating yellow times.

The 1976 ITE Handbook

In 1976, yellow time was known as the “yellow clearance interval.” This was the theoretical minimum amount of time needed for an automobile to clear the far side of the intersection from a given distance away, or come to a safe stop. This was calculated by adding three variables:

1. Reaction time: How long it takes, on average, to recognize the situation and decide whether to stop or continue through the intersection. Usually this is 1.0 seconds.
2. Stopping time: This figure is calculated based upon the length of the intersection and the average deceleration rate for automobiles.
3. Time needed to clear the intersection: Based on the approach speed, how long it would take an automobile to traverse the length of the intersection.

The 1985 ITE Proposed Recommended Practice

By 1985, ITE had begun to change the way signal times were calculated in the past. The first modifications were published in their “Proposed Recommended Practice” a mere three years after New York City began researching how it would implement the first red light cameras in the United States.

These changes were further explained in the 1989 ITE Journal article, “Determining Vehicle Signal Change Intervals.” This report begins by clearly stating that the ITE’s intent is to change laws across the country because, “adopting a uniform method cannot precede adoption of uniform laws” (page 27). In other words, for red light cameras to be adopted nationwide, the laws must change nationwide. And they provide at least three methods that have as their result a reduction, in most cases, of yellow signal time as well as easy adoption of camera enforcement.

1. Their goals are not entirely safety related

The goals and objectives of the 1985 and 1989 documents are clearly related to red light camera enforcement. Consider:

Goal: Recommend legal definitions for the various aspects of the change interval and a defensible methodology for calculating and evaluating change intervals. (1985, page 5; 1989 page 27.)

And the second signal timing objective listed:

Allow easy identification of violators by law enforcement agents. (1985, page 5; 1989, page 28.)

This is a strange goal for someone who wants to design safer intersections. Yet it is a perfect goal for one whose true intent is not safety but rather the convenient installation of a red light camera.

2. Reduced Yellow I: Ignore the Actual Speed of Traffic

The first method for reducing yellow time is found on page 29 (1989) where the document states, “It may be possible to use the posted speed as the approach speed.”

What that means is that signal times would be determined by the speed limit rather than the actual speed 85 percent of traffic is traveling, known as the “85th percentile speed.” The result of this change in practice would be an underestimate of the actual speed of vehicles at the intersection. And this factor alone can result in yellow time shortfalls of 20 percent or more.

The laws of physics dictate that the distance required to stop your car is based entirely on the speed at which you are traveling, not what is printed on a sign on the side of the road. No rational safety consideration would lead one to choose posted speed over actual speed. But it does allow for a reduction in yellow light time.

3. Reduced Yellow II: Replace yellow time with “all-red clearance”

Take the traditional definition and formula for calculating the duration of the yellow light signal. You might need three seconds of yellow to warn approaching motorists that they need to stop, and two more seconds of yellow on top of that to allow vehicles enough time to clear before opposing traffic is given the green light. The total yellow time for such an intersection would be five seconds.

On page 30 of the 1989 report, the ITE proposes to take that five seconds of yellow in the hypothetical intersection above and reduce it to three seconds of yellow, and two seconds in which all sides of the intersection are given the red light (this is known as the “all-red period”). Eliminating that much yellow time, again, is of questionable safety value. But there is no question that in practice this method would yield an increase in the number of vehicles that enter the intersection on red, given the two second reduction in the amount of time one would have to clear the intersection legally. Again, it is unlikely that a rational safety consideration would lead you to choose this method. But it does allow for a reduction in yellow light time. And it will increase red light running. Why? Because the light turns red faster.

Changes were made to the code specifically for camera enforcement

These changes are significant. But if it was not clear enough in the above documents that ITE had cameras in mind in 1985, they make it explicit a few years later. The 1994 ITE “Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Interval” states:

When the percentage of vehicles that entered on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead. (Page 5, emphasis added).

In other words, if too many people are running red lights, jurisdictions need not address deficiencies in intersection design or signal timing. Instead, they can simply “use enforcement” by putting up a red light camera. They are suggesting creation of an intersection that will have a perpetually high level of red light runners by design. Since enforcement by police officers wouldn’t be 24-hours a day, it is hard to conceive that they had anything other than 24-hour red light cameras in mind.

Changes in the yellow light formula linked to red light running

The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times. And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries, as discussed above.

If we look closely at one of the intersections Retting studied, the signal at Columbia Pike at Greenbrier in Arlington, Virginia, we find that it has a measured yellow time of 4.0 seconds. This location was the second site studied in his “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures.” Using the 1999 formula results in a one second (20 percent) decrease in the yellow time compared to the 1976 formula. And, as mentioned above, according to Retting’s study, 77 percent of red light entries happened in that first second the light was red instead of yellow.

Thus, if the old formula had been employed, the red light entry problem Retting studied would have been substantially reduced.

Elimination of the vehicle change interval, a chronology

It may be useful to consider the following excerpts from signal timing regulations that, when presented in chronological order, show a clear progression toward lowering yellow times to accommodate red light cameras:

• 1985—ITE, “Determining Vehicle Change Intervals: A Proposed Recommended Practice,” states, “When the percent of vehicles that are last through the intersection which enter on red exceeds that which is locally acceptable (many agencies use a value of one to three percent), the yellow interval should be lengthened until the percentage conforms to local standards.”
• 1988—Federal Highway Administration, “Manual on Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) states, “Signal Operation Must Relate To Traffic Flow” (Section 4B-20). Note that red light camera promoters use the opposite principle: they wish to use signals to modify traffic flow.
• 1994—ITE, “Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals” states, “When the percentage of vehicles that enter on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead.”
• 1999—ITE, “Traffic Engineering Handbook: Fifth Edition” states, “The red clearance interval is an optional interval that follows a Yellow Change Interval and precedes the next conflicting green interval. The red clearance interval is used to provide additional time following the Yellow Change Interval before conflicting traffic is released” (page 482).
• 2000/2001—Federal Highway Administration, “Manual on Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD) states, “47. Red Clearance Interval: an optional interval that follows a yellow change interval and precedes the next conflicting green interval” (page 4A-5, Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals). Yellow time is calculated from “E. The posted speed or statutory speed limit or the 85th percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the intersection” (page 4C-3).

In all the above citations, emphasis is added to the key changes. The words in italics mark the differences between the old and new codes. Namely:

1. The “should” in 1985 was changed to “may” in 1994.
2. “Or shortened” was added to the formulation in 1994.
3. “Or enforcement can be used instead” was added in 1994.
4. “Optional” was added to the definition of red clearance interval in 1999.
5. Finally, the Federal Highway Administration endorses all these changes in the December 2000 edition of the MUTCD.

VI. Why Have Reports Shown Cameras to be Effective?

Overview of U.S. Red Light Camera Studies

Jurisdictions that wish to claim safety as their motive for installing red light cameras will invariably cite studies that show the devices reduce red light running and the intersection collisions it causes. To date, the only case studies of red light running and camera use in the United States have taken place in Arlington, Virginia, City of Fairfax, Virginia and Oxnard, California.

The studies performed at these locations share a lot in common, mostly because they were all performed by the same researcher. Consequently, they also share many of the same flaws in methodology.

How to do a proper study: Australia

One can see the flaws more clearly when they are contrasted with the 1995 Australian Road Research Board report, one of the most comprehensive looks at the effect of red light cameras to date.

The report’s conclusion is the most striking, particularly considering the American coverage of this issue: “There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure” (page 1). And when one considers the study’s methodology, one must also wonder why the same thoroughness is not found in Retting’s American studies:

• Comprehensive, ten-year study. The report examined accidents five years before and five years after the installation of red light cameras.
• Objective. On pages 2-3, the report points out how prior Australian studies conveniently omitted crucial data that might have undermined any pro-red light camera conclusions.
• Uses actual accident reports. Prior Australian studies merely used accident databases to generate results and statistics. All accidents in the database marked with certain codes were deemed to relate to red light running. Unfortunately, that method assumed the accidents were always properly coded. Of the 6,200 accident report forms examined, 960 (15 percent) were found to be unrelated to the intersections studied, despite their coding. For example, accidents at an adjacent McDonalds parking lot were coded as if they took place in the nearby intersection. This shows that conclusions based merely on accident codes can be significantly misleading.
• Signal Timing Considered. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the study at least attempted to document any changes in signal timing that may have occurred during the study period:Inquiries were made of VicRoads traffic signals group about the changes at signals and it seems that the historical records have been archived. From the data that was obtained for three intersections… it was apparent that a number of changes had taken place. These changes included… changes in phases as well as phase and cycle times and provisions for green arrows. The changes to the intersections were apparent, but the dates these changes took effect was not. For this reason the changes could not be related back to subsequent changes in accident frequency. Further investigation into signal changes would be worthwhile to explain some of the abrupt changes at individual RLC sites. (Page 9)

Red Light Cameras and Rear-end Accidents

The Australian study goes on to conclude that red light cameras tend to cause rear-end accidents. “This study suggests that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there have been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis…” (Page 20).

This should come as no surprise. The goal of a red light camera is to make people fear being ticketed if they enter a camera-controlled intersection on red. Common sense dictates that if the desired effect of red light cameras is achieved, there will be an increase in rear-end accidents. This is because motorists fearing a ticket will panic and slam on their brakes to avoid entering an intersection. This sudden maneuver can surprise cars and trucks behind, causing a collision.

The 2001 IIHS Oxnard accident study admits a connection between red light cameras and rear end accidents:

Some additional rear-end crashes might result from non-uniform changes in driver behavior. For example, if drivers stop more often for red lights, they may be struck from behind by drivers not intending to stop. (2001 Oxnard study, page 2.)

One wonders if Retting considers perhaps that those same individuals are unable to stop, because of inadequate yellow time. The increase in rear-end accidents in this report are passed off as insignificant.

But are they?

These photos, found on the Oxnard, California police department website, were taken by red light cameras. They illustrate rear end collisions apparently caused by motorists panic-stopping.

Yellow Light Timing

As we have seen, yellow signal timing is fundamentally linked to red light entries. The 1999 Oxnard study concludes that since red light cameras were installed that there was a 40 percent reduction in red light violations at intersections with cameras, and a 50 percent reduction at intersections without cameras. But the study did nothing to document whether signal times, including yellow light times, were held constant throughout the duration of the research. There is reason to believe, based on the Australian findings, that the signal timings did in fact change during the study. Despite this, the author merely says that the times were “checked” and “deemed adequate”:

The duration of yellow traffic signal timing has been found to influence red light running at urban intersections (Retting and Greene, 1997). Therefore, yellow signal times at the camera sites were checked against an Institute of Transportation Engineers (1985) proposed recommended practice and were found to be adequate. (1999 Oxnard study.)

The same language is used in the 1999 Fairfax and 2001 Oxnard studies. But, as discussed in Chapter 5 above, the 1985 proposed ITE yellow times can often be inadequate. It is reasonable to suspect they played a significant role in the red light entries that are documented in the report.

But the 1985 proposed recommended practice was not followed. The proscribed countermeasure for excessive red light entries is an increase in the yellow signal time (page 6 of the 1985 ITE guidelines). This was not performed. And if it had been implemented, it is likely that the pro-camera conclusion of the reports would have been undermined.

Moreover, if indeed the yellow time in the three studies was set to the numeric amounts resulting from the 1985 ITE practice, the excessive red light running that resulted tends to confirm the inadequacy of the yellow time from the practice itself.

Actual red light accidents not studied in 2001 Oxnard report

Incredibly, the 2001 IIHS Oxnard study did not actually study any accidents caused by red light running. “…the crash data did not contain sufficient detail to identify crashes that were specifically red light running events…” (2001 Oxnard report, page 1). Nor did it even study accidents at intersections that have red light cameras.

Instead, the study’s author, Retting, merely looked at accident codes from a database over a 2 and a half- year period to claim that accidents throughout the Oxnard area dropped by about 30 percent as a result of the red light cameras. The connection between area accidents and red light cameras is only an implied connection. There is no scientific evidence in the report showing any demonstrable connection between the two.

That is why the 2001 report is entitled “Crash Reductions Associated With Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California.” Notice that it does not say, ‘caused by.’ But, nonetheless, the report is still used as a marketing tool to sell red light cameras.

Drops in “violations” are no measure of success

At times, jurisdictions that IIHS did not study will find other ways to “prove” the success of their red light camera program, particularly when they wish to order additional camera units. They simply cite the number of “citations” or “violations” at intersections. And they claim red light cameras are a success if there are any reductions. Of course, they fail to note that the number of both citations and violations given is entirely within the control of the camera operators.

It’s easy, for example, to turn off the camera for a period of time to achieve the desired number. The camera can be loaded with half a roll of film. Shifting the cameras around will alter the data. Cameras malfunction and are taken out of service for repairs. Signal timings, including lengthening the yellow, can happen without being reported. These are just a few of the many “tricks” or potential oversights available.

It is clear, then, that the justifications given for red light camera installations are questionable.

VII. Conclusion

The subject of signal timing can be difficult and obscure. And for that reason, the proponents of red light cameras have been able to escape close scrutiny.

Transportation officials and engineers know that the yellow signal timing is essential to safety. The data showing this to be the case are found in their studies. Nonetheless, some have systematically and intentionally ignored the inescapable engineering fact that longer yellows would solve the so-called crisis caused by shortened yellows.

Red light cameras present a perverse disincentive for local jurisdictions to fix intersections with excessive red light entries. It’s hard to fix a “problem” that brings in millions in revenue.

In other words, red light cameras aren’t fixing a safety problem, they’re creating one. And, with the federal government’s assistance, state and local governments are undermining the vital constitutional protections our Founders put in place. The right to face one’s accuser in court and the presumption of innocence form the bedrock of our judicial system.

Camera-based law enforcement can only work when these principles are ignored.

We should never have allowed the personal privacy of our citizens to be undermined by these Big Brother devices. In the name of safety, we sacrificed our privacy. But now it is clear that we have been asked to relinquish our cherished freedoms for an entirely empty promise.

VIII. References

Signal Timing Documents

Institute of Traffic Engineers, “Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1965.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Prentice-Hall, 1976.

William A. Stimpson, Paul L. Zador, and Philip J. Tarnoff, “The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response,” ITE Journal, November 1980.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Prentice-Hall, 1982.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Determining Vehicle Change Intervals: A Proposed Recommended Practice,” Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1985.

ITE Technical Committee 4A-16, “Proposed Recommended Practice: Determining Vehicle Signal Change Intervals,” ITE Journal, July 1989.

ITE Technical Council Task Force 4TF-1, “Determining Vehicle Signal Change Intervals,” Institute of Transportation Engineers, August 1994.

Richard A. Retting, Allan F. Williams, Michael A. Greene, “Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures,” Transportation Research Record, 1998.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook,” Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.

“Manual on Traffic Control Devices”, Federal Highway Administration, 2000.

Accident Studies

David Andreassen, “A Long Term Study of Red Light Cameras and Accidents,” Australian Road Research Board, February, 1995.

Richard A. Retting, Allan F. Williams, Charles M. Farmer, Amy F. Feldman, “Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California,” Accident Analysis and Prevention 31, 1999.

Richard A. Retting, Allan F. Williams, Charles M. Farmer, Amy F. Feldman, “Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Fairfax, Va., USA,” ITE Journal, August 1999.

Richard A. Retting, Sergey Y. Kyrychenko, “Crash Reductions Associated with Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California,” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, April 2001.

General Articles

International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Selective Traffic Enforcement Manual,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 1972.

Rudolph E. Popolizio, “New York City’s Red Light Camera Demonstration Program,” Compendium of Technical Papers, 1995.

Brian S. Bochner, “Automated Enforcement Reduces Crashes,” ITE Journal, August, 1998

Richard Retting, “Statement Before the Kentucky Senate Transportation Committee on Red Light Violations and Red Light Cameras,” March 9, 2000.

The report The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional? was by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives in May 2001