In almost every case, longer yellow intervals on the traffic lights will reduce red light violations by MORE than ticket cameras. So, if you see Norfolk install the cameras, you will know that greed won out over greater safety with longer yellow intervals and fewer violations than camera will provide. Red light cameras require improper engineering with less safety in order for the cameras to be profitable for the predatory camera vendors and their business partner cities. MANY cities installing red light cameras have seen the accident rates go UP a the camera sites. This is immoral, but very profitable and money wins out over fairness and safety in far too many cities. See our website for the science and research. if it makes any sense to you, contact your city officials and demand that cameras not be installed, but safer longer yellows be used instead. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

With luck, other cities will see the predatory nature of ATS and the danger of dealing with that company, so the negative publicity may seriously damage their future sales results. In almost every case, red light violation rates can be reduced by MORE than ticket cameras by simply adding more time to the yellow intervals. Houston citizens came to realize that revenue was the true purpose and nature of the program and voted it out. Red light cameras have never survived a public vote and a list of those votes is at www.thenewspaper.com. Cities should be VERY careful with ticket camera contracts to be sure they can cancel them when their citizens realize the actual results of the programs. The science and research is on our website. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI (frequent visitor to Texas)

It is good the council voted no on installing the red light camera revenue machines. IF the city has a genuine issue with too many red light violations, the far more effective solution is to lengthen the yellow intervals on the lights. In virtually every case this simple no-cost method will reduce violations by MORE than a ticket camera. Some cities have yellow intervals timed with a mathematical formula based on the posted speed limit. But, if the posted limit is set below the safety-optimum 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions (typically most limits are set too low on main roads), then the yellow will be too short for the actual approach speeds. Even if political realities prevent the engineer from posting the safest 85th percentile speed limit, they CAN set the yellows for the actual 85th percentile approach speeds. If the city does not want to do speed studies, then simply adding 1.0 seconds to the yellows (up to the federal maximum of 6.0 seconds) will almost always drastically lower any too-high violation rates. The science is on our website. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

Great Britain uses a LOT more of the GIVE WAY (YIELD) protocol and it makes driving there more pleasant, less frustrating, etc.

This is good news. Posting realistic speed limits at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions usually produces the smoothest and safest traffic flow with the fewest accidents. This allows officers to concentrate enforcement versus the small percentage of drivers who are way above the normal traffic flow speeds and thus causing conflicts with other drivers. The science is on our website. Maybe you will join us to help influence every city to set realistic speed limits based on the reality of safe traffic flow speeds. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

If an inappropriate relationship is found between the camera company and the police department, all the police officers involved should be dismissed for cause. A similar conflict of interest was found in Houston, but the authorities let the guilty parties escape sanctions. This sort of conflict of interest is totally unacceptable.
Note that Houston has now dumped the cameras, as did LA. Several more cities will have voters decide at the next election cycle. The public is becoming aware that red light cameras are ONLY about money and that correct engineering with longer yellow intervals will almost always reduce violations by MORE than ticket cameras. With luck and more citizen objections, cameras should be on the way out in the USA.
Cities should be aware of how aggressively ATS has gone after Houston when they wanted to end the contract and should rate ATS as an unacceptable contractor and business partner.
The science and many unbiased studies are on our website. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

In almost every case, longer yellow intervals on the lights and 85th percentile posted speed limit will produce fewer violations and more safety than ticket cameras. Cities that use cameras are after the money, above safety. The science and a lot of unbiased research on both issues is on our website. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI (frequent visitor to Toledo)

Mayor Anagnostou says he is against the cameras personally. It is very likely that the citizens will vote against the cameras as well. If the Mayor and Council do the honorable thing and accept the probable "Advisory Vote" against the cameras, they will then remove them, no later than the contract expiration in May 2012 and sooner if possible. Note that the cameras have never survived a public vote - see the list at www.thenewspaper.com where voters said "NO".
Red light cameras are just a cynical means to make money with improper and/or unethical traffic management policies, some of which can actually raise accident risks. In virtually every case, simply adding 1.0 seconds to the yellow intervals will reduce the red light violation rate by MORE than a ticket camera program. Will the camera vendors point this out? Do elephants fly at the speed of sound? Didn't think so. Camera vendors depend upon bad and often less-safe engineering to make their products profitable, and make no mistake - profits are the ONLY interest for the scamera vendors. The science is on our website. Please read it and maybe you will join us to help rid the country of the scourge of red light cameras which exist almost entirely for revenue purposes, not safety. James. C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

The judge is right, excessive fines for minor offenses have a severe unintended consequence on those that cannot pay the very high fees. A collection rate of only 50% to 65% is clear evidence that the fee schedule is WAY too high for far too many people. In these times of great unemployment and under-employment, a very large proportion of people simply cannot pay. When faced with huge fees, they often have to decide between paying the fines or feeding their kids. Which would YOU choose? Rational traffic laws enforced fairly for SAFETY only is our goal. Read our website and maybe you will join us to end the war on drivers. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI (and a frequent visitor to the great state of Texas)

It has been known for at least 70 years with many unbiased research reports that you achieve the smoothest traffic flow and the greatest safety when posted speed limits are set at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions. THIS is the number you paint on the signs, if safety and smooth traffic flow are the true goals. It is NOT always the safest speed of travel, as Eric Peters points out clearly. He is one of the most knowledgeable journalists on this subject. Other traffic, weather conditions, road conditions and other influences often dictate that a prudent driver will go slower for various reasons. EVERY state has what most call their Basic Speed Law, that is you are legally required to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions involved, regardless of what the signs say. That might be 30 mph on a road posted at 55 mph, if that is what it takes to have your car fully under control in bad conditions.

BUT, the principle of posting most main roads at or near the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions to maximize safety died in most states in 1974 with the inappropriate and counter-productive National Maximum Speed Limit. The NMSL was VERY BRIEFLY effective to save gas during the first Arab Oil Embargo, but speeds soon returned to normal as gas became available again. However, cities and states found the under posted limits to be outrageously profitable and the insurance companies did as well with surcharges to ticket recipients that often are higher than the court fines.

So, today we have a system in many or most venues where the posted limit bears almost no relationship to the normal travel speeds and many or most tickets given are given to some of the safest drivers on the road -- the ones going along with the normal flow of traffic in the safest possible way. When safe drivers receive tickets in this terrible system, it undermines their respect for the officers involved and for traffic laws in general. They get cynical about it, and their cynicism is justified. It is NOT the fault of the officers, they are forced to enforce improper limits that actually degrade safety. The fault lies with the politicians who set, or force their engineers to set, arbitrarily low posted limits that define 70% or 80% or 90% of the drivers as violators or criminals.

Regards, Jim Walker, NMA, Ann Arbor, MI