## Red Light Cameras

Red light cameras exist to exploit math errors traffic engineers make when calculating the duration of the yellow signal light. The errors create red-light runners. Because all traffic engineers more or less follow the same yellow light practice, engineers introduce these math errors into every signalized intersection. The errors are systematic such that anyone who has taken a high school physics class can predict where the most red-light runners are going to be. The red-light camera companies know that bad engineering, not bad driving, is responsbile for the vast majority of red-light runners. But in order to make money, the companies conceal the errors of engineers and shift the blame to drivers. The collective set of drivers have deep pockets.

Dilemma zone. The engineer's calculation for the duration of the yellow light always produces a defect called a dilemma zone. A dilemma zone is a segment of roadway upstream from the intersection where if a driver is in it when the signal light turns yellow, the driver will neither have the distance to comfortably stop nor the time to reach the intersection before the light turns red. The driver must run a red light. Video 4, below, describes dilemma zones.

Where the math errors most oppose the physics of traffic motion, the most red-light running and crashes occur. To learn the math and the physics, watch the first 3 videos.

Video 5 shows what a "red-light violator" usually looks like in the eyes of a red-light camera firm. In their marketting campaigns, red-light camera firms only show camera clips of nasty T-bone collisions in order to scare the city council into buying their product. As you will see in video 5, those clips are false-advertising. Had the camera companies shown who is their usual red-light violator, the city council would kick the companies out the door.

For those who want to laugh, watch video 6. Video 6 was produced by Blame Society--a Wisconsin comedy company. Blame Society's video tells the story of Cary, North Carolina's red-light camera program. It is funny and yet true.

 1. Yellow Light History and Math 2. Errors and Omissions 3. Legal Problems > 4. Yellows Explained w/o Math 5. Red-Light Cameras Clips 6. Funny yet True

## Fearrington, Malmrose vs City of Greenville

 North Carolina Appellate Court Decision - March 15, 2022 Greenville loses. Do you still have to pay your tickets? No. You never had to. Paying red light camera tickets has always been voluntary in North Carolina. NOTICE: Seeking Plaintiffs for Wilmington and Fayetteville We are starting a lawsuit against Wilmington and Fayetteville. We need plaintiffs who received a red light camera ticket. To be a plaintiff, you must have legal standing. To have legal standing, you must appeal your ticket and lose the appeal: sign up for an administrative hearing. At the hearing, claim 1) that 90% of gross penal fines are not going to the public schools, 2) that in North Carolina, the city cannot enact a local health law. (Red-light cameras affect public safety; therefore, they affect health), 3) that the yellow light is too short, and 4) that the red-light cameras are not allowed to be present because they have been installed by a company not licensed to practice engineering. After the hearing is over, the city must find you guilty. Guilty is good in this case. You must pay \$50 (Wilmington) or \$100 (Fayetteville). Do these things and you have legal standing. Call 919-815-0126 for more info.

## ITE Corrects Yellow Change Interval

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is a private organization that establishes the practices Departments of Transportation use to set the length of the yellow light. Since 1965, ITE has been publishing a practice that causes every driver in common scenarios to inadvertently run red lights. Over 90% of red-light running is caused by ITE's errors and omissions. About 9.99% of the remaining 10% are caused by traffic engineering errors other than the yellow light.

After 20 years of confrontation, on March 1, 2020, my colleagues and I led ITE to confess that its practice has been wrong. It is a practice that has killed or injured millions of drivers. As the first step, ITE chose to correctly apply the mathematical works of Dr. Alexei Maradudin (1960-2018), and to newly adopt the mathematical works of Dr. Chiu Liu (2002), Brian Ceccarelli (2010), Jay Beeber (2012) and Mats Järlström (2013).

Jay Beeber, Alexei Maradudin and Mats Järlström

The ITE Journal contains an article by Jay Beeber. Beeber correctly explains Järlström's extended kinematic equation. Beeber's explanation is 100% correct not only about Järlström's equation, but also about the underlying physics principles of what a yellow light is supposed to be. Beeber also includes brief treatises on the requirements for engineering tolerances for law enforcement and the correct application of physics dynamics for the road-grade adjustment.

You may download the Excel spreadsheet to compute the new official yellow change intervals. I included the yellow change intervals for commercial vehicles so that one can see the range of valid yellow change intervals which accommodate all allowed drivers on the road. ITE now officially acknowledges a valid range of perception-reaction time and deceleration values, not just the one average value for passenger sedans on dry pavement. ITE does make a strong statement that zero-tolerance by red-light camera firms is bad.

The Guidelines document, though it gets the formula right, leaves 4 other errors in tact. (Watch video 2 above.) Also one can read the ITE Guidelines and construe use-cases that undermine the physics.

It is important to know that traffic engineers are not legally bound to use the Guidelines. ITE has no legal authority. ITE is a private firm, like Walmart. However there is one exception. The State of Virginia has a statute requiring traffic engineers to use the ITE practice. This exception is actually illegal itself. An attorney can argue that the statute conflicts with the State's Engineering Practice Act. Engineering is supposed to be determined by engineers, not legislators.

Traffic engineers have been using the bad ITE formula since 1965. Even though ITE has corrected its formula, States' traffic engineers will not implement the correction. Implementation means confession. Confession means liability for having killed hundreds of thousands of people, physically injured millions and financially ripped-off hundreds of millions via photo-enforcement. The engineers rather harm others than humble themselves. Astonishing as this sounds, as recorded in depositions on this web site, most traffic engineers neither know basic physics nor believe in physics. Those few that understand physics are gaslighted by their ignorant peers. Such ignorance, beliefs and unwillingness to safeguard the public's life, health and property, are all criminal acts for licensed professional engineers according to the engineering practice statutes.