afc50a90521634146a883ed577c798a7.ppt
- Количество слайдов: 16
Automated Traffic Enforcement in the United States Dr. Anthony Kane (AKane@aashto. org) Director of Engineering and Technical Services American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials at IBEC, ITS World Congress London, England October 8, 2006
Overview Safety “Progress” in the United States n Range of Automated Driver Enforcement/ Behavior Tools n Common Success Factors n Issues n References n
About one-third of all fatalities occur in speeding-related crashes in the USA
Automated Enforcement in Use n Red l l Light Running In use Statewide Authorized STATES 23 14 n Speed Freeway Work Zones IL l School Zones/ Residential 10 l Intersections ? l Freeways (AZ, DC) l
Illinois Photo Enforcement n Work Zone Fines Apply n Workers Present n No Restriction on Time of Day n WZ Must be Signed
I L L I N O I S
Automated Enforcement in Use (Cont’d) n Rail-Grade Crossing STATES 3 (authorized, but not in use) Toll Booths n Truck Safety/ Size and Weight n Many
U. S. Cities Using Speed Cameras n n n Arizona: Mesa, Paradise Valley, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe California: San Jose Colorado: Boulder, Denver, Ft. Collins Iowa: Davenport Maryland: Montgomery County New Mexico: Albuquerque North Carolina: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Ohio: Northwood, Toledo Oregon: Beaverton, Medford, Portland Tennessee: Jackson, Red Bank Washington DC Source: IIHS
Evaluation of speed cameras in Washington, D. C. Percent change at camera sites relative to control 6 months after enforcement average speed proportion exceeding speed limit by 11+ mph Source: IIHS
Other Automated Driver Behavior Tools n n n STATES Speed Warning (mainline) Many Speed/ Truck Warning (curves) Many Dynamic Speed (DMS Signs) Few Alcohol Interlock for Convicted 21 Offenders (43 states allow) HOV Lane Use None
Common Success Factors with Automated Speed Enforcement Use where Safety Problems Exist n “Correct” Engineered Speed Limit n Top Level Support (Police, Politicians, Transport, Businesses) n Technology “Correct” n “Police” Somewhere in Ticket Chain n
Common Success Factors with Automated Speed Enforcement (cont’d) n n “Fair” Return for Vendors Safety/ Traffic Use of “Profit” Advance Warning Signs Used Metrics Used l l n n Before/ After Site/ Area-wide Tell the Story Start Small – Build Public Support
Issues in the United States n Slow Penetration l “Federal” System of Government – 52 “Countries” n “ Individual Rights” l n Attitude in State Legislatures Poor Public Sector B/C l Analyses/ “Stories”
Beware of Hostile Reactions n Manchester, England: Driver blows up “fake” camera -- gets caught n n Canada: Photo radar vandalized Hong Kong: Automated license plate covers n Australia: False and defaced license plates
U. S. Federal Government References n Guides developed by Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration l Red Light Camera Systems: Operational Guidelines, January 2005 l Automated Speed Enforcement System Operational Guidelines, January 2007
Other Example References n n n Insurance Institute for Highway Safety http: //www. iihs. org/ The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running www. stopredlightrunning. com/ “Speed Cameras: An Effectiveness and Policy Review” David K. Willis, Center for Transportation Safety, Texas A&M, May 2006 (d-willis@tamu. edu)