Red Light Cameras (Revisited)

I've addressed the evils of traffic cameras in the past. And there's plenty of information on the issue at theNewspaper.com website which is one of the links in the right hand panel. And I doubt I'll change any minds by posting on the issue again. Still there are three compelling reasons to bring up the subject again.

First, it's gotten a lot of coverage recently because Worcester, the second largest city in the state is considering them. Here are links to recent articles in the T&G.

Red light runners can’t hide behind privacy ‘right’

Council cautious on traffic cams

Red lights, cameras, legal tiffs


Second because it ties in with the speed limit issue discussed today regarding the Rt 20 improvements. It's important to understand that most red light violations are the result of short yellows which are based on underposted speed limits. The remainder of red light violations are just plain old driver errors which redlight cameras can document but cannot correct.

Third because of the implication that the red light camera discussion has on Fitchburg General Ordinance (FGO) 169-11.

From the T&G article Red lights, cameras, legal tiffs

"Some communities that have approved the idea — including Lawrence and Springfield — passed local laws giving them authority to use cameras to catch red-light runners. But the enforcement strategy that cities have adopted — to issue civil violations similar to parking tickets — contradict state laws calling red-light violations a criminal offense that warrants insurance surcharges.

Cities that passed their own laws never intended for violators to be punished with surcharges, increasing the cost of insurance policies, because the identity of the driver running a red light is unknown. The cameras shoot a car’s license plate, and the owner of the car receives a civil violation similar to a parking ticket.

But a state board that falls under the Department of Public Safety has advised the city of Lawrence, the first in the state to adopt its own traffic camera law, that it must enforce the insurance surcharge under state regulations."

Consider this petition from the Fitchburg City Council agenda from 19 October 2004.

58-04. Councillor Joel Kaddy, to request that the Fitchburg Police Dept. update and increase the fines for traffic violations under FGO 169-11.
(In the third and fourth lines of Section A strike “not exceeding twenty dollars ($20)” and replace with “not exceeding one hundred ($100).
Add a final sentence in this section to read “Any monies received under this section shall be returned to the Fitchburg Police Department in a special
account for the purposes of traffic enforcement, traffic equipment and traffic education programs as deemed necessary by the Chief of Police.”

Subsequently the petition appeared on the 7 Dec 2004 agenda.

58-04. Councillor Joel Kaddy, to request that the Fitchburg Police Dept. update and increase the fines for traffic violations under FGO 169-11.
(Be Granted)

And the petition was passed. Notice any similarity to how cities are handling the red light camera ordinances and the section of the petition that I italicized?

Setting proper speed limits

This is old news at this point but it's important enough that I want to post it anyway.

An article written by Brian Lee appeared in the T&G on January 30th 2007. The article addressed speed limits being updated on a section of Rt 20 in Charlton. My condensed version of what the article stated and why what MassHwy did was sooooo wrong follows.

The section of road in question has been reconstructed and it can now clearly handle higher speeds. At the urging of John F. Carr, a Massachusetts resident and member of the National Motorist Association a traffic study was performed. The resulting engineering study "recommended a speed limit of 60 mph or 65 mph on the divided stretch of road, and 55 mph on the undivided stretch in Charlton." However due to political pressure MassHwy rejected the engineering study and approved a increase from 50 MPH to 55 MPH over the entire stretch.

Where did the political pressure come from?

"Memos were received by the Board of Selectmen’s office and Charlton police in August, a town official said". Charlton Police Chief James A. Pervier was quoted saying, "the problem is that motorists tend to drive above posted limits, and since the safety improvement project was finished, there has been an increase in speeding motorists and red-light running."

Of course drivers are driving faster than the under posted speed limits and naturally the speeds increased because the road has been improved. The chiefs statements are misleading and as a public safety official he really should have a better understanding how roads and traffic work.

Accept please, the fact that motorists (at least the vast majority of us) aren't looking to get killed on the road. That's why we drive at speeds that are "reasonable and prudent". And that's why the accepted method of setting speed limits is to set them to the 85th percentile, the speed that 85% of drivers are at or below. The traffic study recommended that the limit to be set to either 60 or 65 MPH indicating that the 85 percentile is between those speeds, and that's what the limit should be set to.

Drivers aren't speeding because they're driving too fast. Rather, they've been turned into speeders because the limit posted is too low. More drivers are now speeding because the difference between the posted limit and what's reasonable and prudent is now even greater.

Oh, by the way, Federal Highway Administration studies show that when speed limits are increased by 15 MPH, (the speed recommended by the study) average speed increases by a modest 1 to 2 MPH. That increase is of course caused by the small percentage of motorists that drive at the speed limit rather than at the speed of traffic. The lame claim frequently cited that we can't post the correct limit because drivers will go that much faster is just so much bs.

What about the chiefs assertion regarding increased red light running?

Well that's a result of under posting limits. Engineers calculate the duration of the yellow light at traffic signals using formulas that include the posted limit. Calculating yellow duration on limits under posted by 10 MPH is a recipe for increased red light running.

MassHwy messed up big time by succumbing to political pressure on this one.

Eminent Domain Scams

Early in February property owners on Rt12 received checks for the fee takings (permanent easements), temporary easements, property taxes paid on the taken land, and interest on the money owed them. Here's how MassHwy and the city of Fitchburg have thusfar scammed the property owners out or proper and full payment for their loss.

1. The proper way to assess damages for a partial taking of property is to make before and after appraisals of the property value. The damages to pay is the difference between the appraisals. (Scam) - For partial takings on Rt 12 MassHwy indicated there was no damages to the property by the taking and instead made payments based on their appraised value only of the land taken.
2. In February 06 MassHwy inspected properties on Rt 12 for purposes of appraising the properties. Their inspections consisted of taking photographs of the front of the properties. (Scam) In fact the appraisals (at least the ones I've seen) were based on the city's tax assessments of the property for fiscal 2005. Data that was two years old at the time of the takings. For example, the 2006 appraisal on my property increased by 81% in fiscal 2006 and again by 73% in fiscal 2007 so MassHwy's appraisal is 69% lower than the tax assessment value at the time of the taking. That method of appraisal would be valid only if #1 above were ignored.
   
3. Payment for land taken must be paid within 60 days. MassHwy calculated interest on the moneys owed for an expected 56 days. (Scam) MassHwy didn't cut checks till 90 days after the takings. They were not only late but didn't recalculate the interest for the additional 34 days.
   
4. Under MGL Chapter 79 Section 44A. The city is entitled to collect for any liens on the property before the owner get payment. (Scam) - Fitchburg reported falsely to MassHwy that property owners had outstanding taxes on their properties equal to or roughly equal to their next quarterly tax payment despite taxes being current. MassHwy dutifully withheld payment and sent the money to the City of Fitchburg. (In my case the city improperly collect $513.31) At this time it appears the only way to recover the funds is to take time off from work to clear the matter with the temporary treasurer.

For the record. Homeowners that had independant appraisals of their property to establish damages have found the damages are higher than the estimates made by MassHwy.

BTW, we also can't cash MassHwy's check because it is made out to me, my wife and the mortgage company. I have to put together documentation for the mortgage company and request they endorse the check and return it to us all by registered mail.