Traffic enforcement camera (also red light camera , road safety camera , camera road rule , photo radar , photo enforcement , speed cameras , Gatso , security cameras , bus lanes camera , flash for cash , Safe-T-Cam , depending on usage) is a camera that can be mounted on or off the road or mounted on a vehicle law enforcement to detect traffic law violations, including speeding, vehicles passing red lights, vehicles passing toll gates without pay, unlicensed bus lane use, or to recording vehicles within the congestion charge area. This may be related to the automated ticketing system.
A review of studies around the world found that speed cameras led to a reduction of "11% to 44% for fatal accidents and injuries". The UK Department of Transport estimates that the camera has caused a 22% reduction in collisions and 42% fewer people killed or seriously injured on camera sites. The British Medical Journal recently reported that speed cameras are effective in reducing accidents and injuries around them and recommend wider dissemination. An LSE study in 2017 found that "adding another 1,000 cameras to UK roads could save up to 190 lives each year, reducing to 1,130 collisions and reducing 330 seriously injured."
The latest automatic license plate recognition system can be used to detect average speeds and raise concerns about loss of privacy and the potential for governments to establish mass monitoring of vehicle movements and therefore also be related to the movement of vehicle owners. Vehicle owners are often required by law to identify drivers of vehicles and a case is brought to the European Court of Human Rights that finds that human rights are not violated. Some groups, such as the National Motorists Association in the US, claim that the system "encourages... revenue-driven enforcement" rather than the stated purpose.
Video Traffic enforcement camera
Type
Bus line assignment
Some bus tracking cameras use sensors on the road, triggering plate number recognition cameras that compare vehicle registration plates with approved vehicle listings and recording images of other vehicles. Other systems use cameras mounted on buses, for example in London where they monitor the Red Route where dismissals are not allowed for any purpose (other than taxis and disabled car parking holders).
On Monday, February 23, 2009, New York City announced the testing of the bus lane bus service at 34th Street in Midtown Manhattan where a New York City taxi that illegally uses the bus line will face a $ 150 fine decided by the New York City Taxi and Limousine. Commission.
In October 2013, in Melbourne (Australia), Melbourne Airport introduced seven Auto Recognition Number Plate (ANPR) cameras on the front of the bus to monitor bus lanes and provide charging points based on vehicle type and residence time of each vehicle. Exit and Exit cameras determine the length of stay and warn not to be listed or vehicles of concern through screen, email or SMS alerts. This system is the first of several ANPR based Sensor Dynamics solutions.
Red light enforcement
Red light cameras are traffic cameras that take pictures of vehicles that pass through an intersection where the light is red. The system continues to monitor traffic signals and cameras triggered by vehicles entering the intersection above the specified minimum speed and following the time specified after the signal turns red.
Red light cameras are also used in catching SMS offenders-while-driving. In many cities, an officer supervised the camera at the command center directly and recorded all violations, including sending an SMS to a red light.
Setting speed limit
Speed ​​enforcement camera is used to monitor compliance with speed limit, which can use Doppler radar, LIDAR or automatic number plate recognition. Other speed enforcement systems are also used which are not camera-based.
A fixed or moving speed camera system that measures the time taken by a vehicle to travel between two or more distant sites (from several hundred meters to several hundred kilometers apart) is called the automatic number plate recognition camera (ANPR). This camera drives the vehicle over a known fixed distance, and then calculates the average speed of the vehicle for travel.
Stop stop
In 2007, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), in California, installed the first stop sign camera in the United States. The five cameras are located in state parks such as Franklin Canyon Park and Temescal Gateway Park. Operator, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., is paid $ 20 per ticket. The fines listed on the quotation are $ 100. In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against MRCA.
Number plate recognition system
The automatic license plate recognition can be used for purposes not related to traffic enforcement. In principle any agent or person with access to data from either a traffic camera or camera mounted for other purposes may track the movement of the vehicle for any purpose.
In Australia's SAFE-T-CAM system, ANPR technology is used to monitor remote truck drivers to detect legally-specified driver's time offs.
The ANPR system of the United Kingdom police recorded all vehicles passing certain points on the national road network, allowing the authorities to track the movement of vehicles and individuals across the country.
In Britain, an 80-year-old retiree, John Catt and his daughter, Linda, were stopped by the London City Police while driving in London, England in 2005. Their vehicle was ransacked under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and threatened to be arrested if they refused to answer questions. After they officially complained, it was discovered that they were stopped when their car was picked up by an ANPRING CCTV camera by the side of the road; it has been flagged in the National Computer Police database when they were seen near the MBM EDO demonstration in Brighton. Critics point out that Catt has been suspected of not committing a crime, but the ANPR police system caused them to be targeted because of their relationship.
More
- Congestion loads the camera to detect vehicles inside a paid area that have not paid the appropriate fees
- High-density vehicle track cameras to identify vehicles that violate residential requirements.
- Upgrade your crossing camera to identify vehicles crossing the rail in class
- Camera noise pollution that records heavy vehicle evidence that violates noise regulations by using brake compression release engine
- Parking cameras that issued quotes for vehicles parked illegally or those not being moved off the street at the time posted.
- Camera substation guard to identify vehicles moving through toll gates without paying
- Change the camera at the intersection where a special bend is banned in red. This type of camera is widely used in cities or densely populated areas.
- The automatic license plate recognition system can be used for a variety of purposes, including identifying unpaid and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars, and potential rider mob controls.
- Bus line cameras that detect vehicles that should not be on the bus line. It can be installed on the bus itself or on the roadside.
The camera system can still be placed in a box, or mounted on a pole beside the road, or attached to gantries on the road, or to pass or bridge. The camera can be hidden, for example in the trash.
The speed camera moves can be held by hand, mounted on a tripod, or installed in a vehicle. In vehicle-mounted systems, detection equipment and cameras can be mounted to the vehicle itself, or only a tripod mounted inside the vehicle and propagated out of a window or door. If the camera is mounted to the vehicle, the enforcement vehicle does not have to be stationary, and can be moved with or against the traffic flow. In the latter case, depending on the direction of travel, the relative speed of the target vehicle is added or subtracted from the speed of the enforcement vehicle itself to gain actual speed. The speedometer of the camera vehicle needs to be accurately calibrated.
Various legal issues arise from the camera and the laws involved in how the cameras can be placed and what evidence is required to prosecute drivers vary greatly in different legal systems.
One problem is potential conflicts of interest when private contractors are paid commissions based on the number of tickets they can spend. The images of the San Diego red light camera system were ruled unacceptable as court evidence in September 2001. The judge said that the "lack of total oversight" and "compensation methods" made the evidence of the camera "so unreliable and unreliable that it was not acceptable ".
Some US states and Canadian provinces, such as Alberta, operate "owner liabilities", where it is the owner of a registered vehicle that must pay all the fines, regardless of who drives the vehicle at the time of the violation, even though they do so. release the owner of the responsibility if he identifies the actual driver and the person pays the fine.
In some U.S. states (including California), the camera is installed to get a "face photo" of the driver. This has been done because in those countries, red light camera ticketing is a criminal offense, and criminal charges must always mention the name of the real offender. In California, which needs to identify actual offenders has led to the creation of a unique investigation tool, fake "tickets". In Arizona and Virginia, tickets issued by the camera do not have the force of law because there is no punishment for ignoring it. However, acknowledging the receipt of the ticket makes it legitimate and enforceable. Many countries have banned the use of traffic enforcement cameras.
In April 2000, two motorists caught in Britain challenged the Road Traffic Act 1988, which required carers to identify drivers at any given time as a contradiction to Humans. The Rights Act of 1998 on the grounds that it amounts to 'compulsory recognition', also that since the camera partnership included police, local authorities, Magistrates Courts Service (MCS) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who have a financial interest in fines income that they will not get a fair trial. Their appeal was initially granted by the judge then canceled but later heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the European Court (ECJ). In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights found no violation of article 6 requiring carers who were caught racing in front of the camera to name the driver.
Accuracy
In December 2012, the Speed ​​Camera Camera Xerox Corporation acknowledged that the cameras they used in the city of Baltimore resulted in false speed readings, and that 1 out of every 20 quotes issued in some locations was caused by mistakes. Incorrect citations include at least one issued to a completely silent car, a fact expressed by a videotape of alleged infringement.
In the city of Fort Dodge, Iowa, Redspeed speed camera contractors found locations where school bus drivers, large panel trucks and similar vehicles had accelerated the clock by city speed camera and radar unit even though they obeyed the speed of 25 mph. limit. The error was caused by what was described as "electromagnetic anomaly".
Where the verification photo is recorded at the time sequence, allowing the actual speed calculation, this has been used to challenge the accuracy of speed cameras in court. Motorists in Prince George's County, Maryland, have managed to challenge tickets from Optotraffic speed cameras where they mis-ticketed at over 15 mph above the limit. However, Prince George County no longer allows the calculation of time spacing as a defense in cases where "equipment is calibrated and validated, or self calibrating". The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standard for "at all road radar" states that "If the ATR device is considered for unattended operation, the manufacturer shall provide a secondary method to verify that the recorded evidence images accurately identify the target vehicle and reflect the true speed of this vehicle , as described in Ã,§5.18.2 This can be achieved by using a precise and delayed second image showing the target vehicle crossing a particular reference line. "
In January 2011 Edmonton, Alberta canceled all 100,000 "On Green" Speed ​​tickets published in the previous 14 months due to concerns about camera reliability.
Supervision
- Police and government have been accused of "Big Brother tactics" of over-monitoring public roads, and "increased revenue" in applying cameras by cheating to increase government revenue rather than improving road safety.
Revenue, not safety
- In 2010, the campaign was made against speed cameras in a dual traffic lane in Poole, Dorset in a 30 mph area in the United Kingdom, which has produced Ã, Â £ 1.3m fines each year since 1999. Freedom of information request first denied and information only released after appeals to the Information Commissioner.
- In May 2010, the new Coalition government said that "The 13-year War of Labor on motorists is over" and that the new government 'pledged to freeze public funding for speed cameras' In July Mike Penning, the Minister's road safety reduces Road Safety Grant for this year to the Local Authority of Ã, £ 95 million to Ã, Â £ 57 million, saying that the local government relies too heavily on security cameras for too long and that he is happy that some councils are now focusing on other road safety measures. It is estimated that the Ministry of Finance is now distributing Ã, Â £ 40 million less in the Road Safety Grant than it raised from fines within the year. Dorset and Essex announced plans to review the provision of cameras with a view to ending the scheme in their country, but Dorset strongly affirmed its support for the scheme, albeit reducing its financial contribution in keeping with the reduction of government grants. Seven districts also announced plans to shut down some or all of their cameras, amid warnings from the country's most senior traffic police that this would result in an increase in deaths and injuries. Gloucestershire canceled plans to update the camera and has reduced or canceled the maintenance contract.
- In August 2010, Oxfordshire, UK speed cameras have been shut down due to a lack of funding due to changes in government funding policies. The camera was turned on again in April 2011 after new funding sources were found for them. Following the change of rules on the threshold to offer a "Speed ​​Awareness Program" as an alternative to penalties and license points for drivers, and considering that the mandatory fees charged for the course go directly to partnerships rather than directly to the central government as it did for a good income, can finance its operations from course fees. Compared to the same period of the previous year with the camera still on, the number of serious injuries that occurred during the same period with the camera was turned off exactly - at 13 - and the number of minor injuries was 15 more in 70, resulting from 62 crashes - 2 over the time the camera is still operating. There were no fatalities during that period.
Unpopular
People's support claims are debated by elections in the US, where camera companies often demand not to vote, and camera enforcement is often outclassed by wide margins. Automated enforcement is opposed by some motorists and automotive organizations as solely to generate revenue. They have also been rejected in some places by referendum.
- In 1992, the camera was turned down by voters in a referendum in Batavia, Illinois.
- In 2002, the state of Hawaii experimented with van speed limit vehicles but they were withdrawn a few months later due to public outrage.
- The 2002 Australian Survey found that "People generally believe that the intensity of enforcement should remain the same or increase", with 40% of those surveyed saying they think the number of speed cameras on the road should be increased, 43% say they think the number it must remain the same, and 13% say they think that the amount should be reduced.
- In 2005, Virginia's legislature refused to re-enforce red-light law enforcement laws after a study questioned their effectiveness, only to reverse itself in 2007 and allow the camera to return to any city with a population of over 10,000. By 2018, he chooses to allow cameras on state highways.
- A 2007 literature review of the benefits and obstacles to the implementation of automated speed enforcement in the US states that "In general, the results of public opinion surveys show that the majority of respondents support automatic enforcement, but the margins of support vary widely, from the lowest 51 percent in Washington , DC to 77 percent in Scottsdale, Arizona. "
- In 2009, a petition began in the city of College Station, Texas, which requested that all red light cameras be dismantled and removed from all city junctions. Sufficient signatures have been taken to place the size at the November 2009 election ballot. After extensive fighting between the College Station council and the rival parties, both for and against red light cameras, voters chose to eliminate red light cameras at the whole city. At the end of November, the red light camera was lowered.
- On May 4, 2010, a regulation authorizing the use of speed cameras in the city of Sykesville, Maryland was put in a referendum, in which 321 of 529 voters (60.4%) voted against the camera. The number of voters for this vote is greater than the number of voters in the previous local Sykesville election for the mayor in which 523 voted.
- Arizona decided not to renew their contract with Redflex in 2011 after studying their state-of-the-art photo enforcement camera 76. Reasons given include less than expected revenue due to increased compliance, mixed public acceptance and mixed accident data.
Respons kritis
Online websites, such as Photo Radar Scam and BantheCams.org, have been created in response to the increasing use of traffic cameras. Their main goal, as stated by BantheCams.org, is to "educate and equip local citizens with a means to combat the abuse of power currently being exercised by local and state governments regarding the use of electronic surveillance devices."
Groups such as NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) have encouraged the use of automated speed enforcement to help improve public road safety and to reduce accident rates.
Maps Traffic enforcement camera
Avoidance/avoidance
To avoid detection or prosecution, drivers may:
- Drive at or below legal speed.
- Brake right before the camera to travel past the sensor below the speed limit. This, however, causes the collision. Or brake suddenly, which causes a crash in the back.
- Use GPS navigation devices, such as Waze, which contain known camera location database to alert them before. This database may, in some cases, be updated in the near-real time. The use of GPS devices to find speed cameras is illegal in some jurisdictions, such as France. In Australia, the use of GPS devices in the intelligent speed adaptation category is being pushed.
- Install an active laser jammer or radar jammer device that actively sends signals that interfere with the measuring device. This device is illegal in many jurisdictions.
- Remove, falsify, obscure or modify the license plate of the vehicle. Destroying the number plate or misrepresenting it is illegal in most jurisdictions.
In August 2010, the fast-driving Swiss driver reportedly avoided some of the older speed camera models, but was detected by the new model, while traveling at 300 km/h (186 mph), generating the world's largest acceleration to date. In the past, it was possible to avoid detection by changing the path when the average SPECS speed of the camera was being used because they measured the speed of the remote vehicle in only one lane. Since 2007, steps have been taken to reduce this limitation. Although the cameras operate in pairs on a single track (it is a technology limitation not a limitation in type approval) the authorities are now installing the cameras in such a way that the length of the monitored path overlaps between multiple camera pairs. The driver can not tell which camera is 'in' and where 'out' so it is difficult to know when to change lanes.
History
The concept of speed cameras can be recalculated to at least 1905; Popular Mechanics reports a patent for "Time Recording Camera for Rider Trap" which allows the operator to capture stamp-time images of vehicles moving across the starting point and end points of the measured road sections. Timestamp allows speed to be calculated, and photos enable driver identification.
The Dutch company Gatsometer BV , founded in 1958 by Maurice Gatsonides rally driver, produces 'Gatsometer'. Gatsonides wants to better monitor his average speed on the race track and find the device to increase the lap time. The company then began supplying this device as a speed police enforcement tool. The first system was introduced in the late 1960s using a film camera to take their pictures. The Gatsometer introduced the first red light camera in 1965, the first radar to be used with road traffic in 1971 and the first moving-speed traffic camera in 1982;
From the late 1990s, digital cameras began to be introduced. Digital cameras can be equipped with a network connection to transfer images to a central processing location automatically, so they have advantages over film cameras in the speed of issuing fines, maintenance and operational monitoring. However, film-based systems can provide superior image quality in a variety of lighting conditions encountered on the road, and are required by courts in some jurisdictions. New movie-based systems are still on sale, but digital images provide greater versatility and lower maintenance and are now more popular with law enforcement agencies.
Gallery
See also
- TEDES (traffic enforcement system) in Turkey
References
External links
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments