goldiron

North Carolina: Another City Dumps Red Light Cameras
Rocky Mount, North Carolina decides to stop its red light camera program after court ruling sends profit to school system.

Add Rocky Mount to the growing list of North Carolina cities that have dumped red light cameras after the state’s highest court insisted that profit from the devices must be given to the public schools. The city last week decided to allow its contract with Traffipax, a German ticket camera operator, to expire without renewal.

Like most North Carolina cities, Rocky Mount was eager to install cameras in September 2002, adding a total of five intersections to the program to ensure a steady stream of revenue. By 2005, The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, the red light camera industry trade group run by the public relations firm Blakey and Agnew, created data designed to show incredible accident reductions at intersections within the state that used red light cameras. The programs were all declared a success.

“North Carolina ranks third in the nation for the number of communities using this technology,” the industry group boasted in a press release.

This excitement ended in 2007 when the state supreme court upheld a ruling that found Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution applied to red light camera tickets. The provision states that “the clear proceeds of all penalties… shall be… used exclusively for maintaining free public schools” (read final opinion). This meant that local governments had to turn over photo ticketing revenue to the schools and not the general municipal operating budget. Any city wishing to continue its photo ticketing program would have to pay for it.

In addition to Rocky Mount, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, High Point and Raleigh shut down their red light camera programs after the court ruling.

Source: City ends red light camera contract (Rocky Mount Telegram, 1/21/2009)

Canada: Privacy Commissioner Orders Release of Camera Manuals
Edmonton, Canada police lose a near three-year battle to conceal red light camera manuals from the public.

Manuals governing the operation and calibration of red light camera systems must be released to the public following a ruling issued earlier this month by Alberta, Canada’s Office of The Information and Privacy Commissioner. The decision handed down by Adjudicator Teresa Cunningham put an end to a nearly three-year attempt by the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) to conceal the documents from a resident who used freedom of information laws to request records “relating to the operation of red light cameras.”

Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), the private company that operated the cameras for Edmonton in return for a share of the profits, specifically refused to allow police to hand over Instruction Manuals IM-E0207 and IM-E0306, claiming these documents were protected by a confidentiality and copyright agreement with Gatsometer BV, the Dutch manufacturer of the automated ticketing hardware.

“To my knowledge any information provided by ACS or Gatsometer BV to the EPS would have been done pursuant to a contractual relationship and provided in confidence,” an EPS affidavit explained.

The adjudicator seized on the phrase “would have been” to conclude that the department was speculating and did not have a concrete contractual provision stating the document must be kept confidential. Because ACS failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the company took the confidentiality requirement seriously, it was not exempt from the freedom of information law.

“I am not satisfied that there was ever an explicit agreement between ACS and EPS to maintain confidentiality of the manual,” the adjudicator wrote. “The technical information in the manual is about installing, setting up, calibrating, and using equipment — information one would also expect to find in a user’s manual that is not intended to be confidential.”

ACS also argued that disclosure of the manuals would reveal important trade secrets, including allowing competitors to determine its current pricing structure. The adjudicator rejected this argument as implausible because the red light cameras in question were developed in 1996 and the manual itself dated 2002. The commissioner suggested a competitor in 2009 was unlikely to improve its technology by looking at the operations manual for a thirteen-year-old machine. The adjudicator cited a UK ruling to dispense with the argument that placing a copyright notice on the manuals prohibited public access to the information.

“The fact that information may be someone’s intellectual property does not of itself preclude its legitimate availability to others,” the Information Commissioner of the United Kingdom ruled. “Just as library books may be protected by copyright, their public availability is not restricted because of that status.”

The resident who made the original request for the manuals sought information that could have been useful in fighting red light camera tickets. EPS did not argue that its true motivation was to thwart challenges to its ticketing program.

“For the reasons above, I find that disclosure of the manual could not reasonably be expected to result in significant harm to the competitive position of ACS or Gatsometer,” the adjudicator ruled. “I order the public body to disclose the records at issue to the applicant.”

EPS must immediately hand over the manuals to requesting parties and must give evidence to the privacy commissioner by March 3, 2009 that it has complied with the directive. A copy of the ruling is available in a 110k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Order F2008-018 (Alberta, Canada Information and Privacy Commissioner, 1/12/2009)

Air Force seeks airborne tagging technology

By Doug Beizer

Jan 26, 2009 Read the rest of this entry »

                

Motorcycle Industry Council Urges New Hampshire
To Postpone Motorcycle Sound Level Legislation

IRVINE, Calif., Jan. 26, 2009 - The Motorcycle Industry Council has urged the New Hampshire House Transportation Committee to postpone pending loud pipe legislation until early spring when a new stationary sound test is available. The MIC and the Society of Automotive Engineers are finalizing this test, SAE J2825, which will provide a quick, easy, economical, and science-based tool for accurately identifying motorcycles with excessively noisy exhaust systems.

The House Transportation Committee held a hearing yesterday on the proposed legislation, HB 95. The bill would prohibit modification of exhaust systems in any manner, prohibit operation of motorcycles without stock mufflers, require that every bike has a functioning tachometer, and also lower the allowable sound limit.

“Our goal is to provide a consistent tool nationwide for identifying excessively loud exhaust systems without failing those that pass the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency federal sound limit,” said Pamela Amette, vice president of the MIC. “This sound test will effectively achieve the sound control goals of New Hampshire, and other states and municipalities, and more so than some of the proposed legislation currently being considered. On a national level, it will eliminate a lot of the confusion and frustration for motorcyclists when they ride through different jurisdictions.”

Amette said that California, numerous local jurisdictions, and Canada have expressed interest in the new test that was developed through extensive sound testing during 2007.

The MIC’s comments, submitted to the House Transportation Committee in advance of the hearing on January 21, requested the following: that action on the legislation be postponed, that the legislation be amended to permit aftermarket systems, that there be no requirement for functioning tachometers, and that the sound test limits and procedures specified in the bill be revised.

The committee took no action on the legislation at the hearing on January 21, but did create a subcommittee to study the issues more closely and make recommendations.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Volume 22: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles
PDF 178 pages:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v22.pdf

C O N T E N T S
ix Acknowledgments
I-1 Section I Summary
I-1 Introduction
I-2 Objectives of the Emphasis Area
I-2 Explanation of Objectives
I-4 Target of the Objectives
II-1 Section II Introduction
III-1 Section III Type of Problem Being Addressed
III-1 General Description of the Problem
III-3 Specific Attributes of the Problem
IV-1 Section IV Index of Strategies by Implementation Timeframe and
Relative Cost
V-1 Section V Description of Strategies
V-1 Objectives of the Emphasis Area
V-1 Explanation of Objectives
V-4 Classification of Strategies
V-5 Related Strategies for Creating a Truly Comprehensive Approach
V-7 Objective 11.1 A—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by
Incorporating
Motorcycle-Friendly Roadway Design, Traffic Control, Construction, and
Maintenance Policies and Practices
V-35 Objective 11.1 B—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes
Due to Rider Impairment
V-50 Objective 11.1 C—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes
Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders
V-68 Objective 11.1 D—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by
Increasing
the Visibility of Motorcyclists
V-74 Objective 11.1 E—Reduce the Severity of Motorcycle Crashes
V-93 Objective 11.1 F—Increase Motorcycle Rider Safety Awareness
V-107 Objective 11.1 G—Increase Safety Enhancements for Motorcyclists
V-109 Objective 11.1 H—Improve Motorcycle Safety Research, Data, and
Analysis
VI-1 Section VI Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
VI-1 Outline for a Model Implementation Process
VI-2 Purpose of the Model Process
VI-2 Overview of the Model Process
VI-5 Implementation Step 1: Identify and Define the Problem
VI-9 Implementation Step 2: Recruit Appropriate Participants for the
Program
VI-11 Implementation Step 3: Establish Crash Reduction Goals
VI-12 Implementation Step 4: Develop Program Policies, Guidelines,
and Specifications
VI-13 Implementation Step 5: Develop Alternative Approaches to
Addressing
the Problem
VI-15 Implementation Step 6: Evaluate Alternatives and Select a Plan
VI-17 Implementation Step 7: Submit Recommendations for Action
by Top Management
VI-18 Implementation Step 8: Develop a Plan of Action
VI-20 Implementation Step 9: Establish Foundations for Implementing the
Program
VI-21 Implementation Step 10: Carry Out the Action Plan
VI-22 Implementation Step 11: Assess and Transition the Program
VII-1 Section VII Key References
A-1 Appendixes