International Engineering Exhibits
From California, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, these graphs show how changing the yellow light duration changes the number of red light runners. These graphs were plotted from raw red light camera data. As you can see, once an engineer lengthens the yellow light duration, the number of red light runners decreases--overnight. In the Cary, NC graphs, you see how both the lengthening and shortening of yellow light durations result in decreases and increases, respectively, in red light running.
Not once in the history of traffic engineering has lengthening the yellow light increased red light running. Instead we always see drivers cut short by the federal yellow standard, a standard that opposes physics. It is the traffic engineers' errors and omissions in physics which cause the vast majority of red light running and crashes. The red light data shows that over 90% of red light running and crashes originates from these errors and omissions.
|Aug 27, 2015|
Every State and Canadian Province imposes a legal requirement on the engineer to "possess the knowledge of the physical and mathematical sciences, and apply that knowledge to their creative work in order to protect the life, health and welfare of the public." This paper shows how traffic engineers misapply the physical and mathematical sciences to the duration of the yellow light thus putting the life, health and welfare of the public in harm's way.
|June 30, 2016|
How well does the traffic engineer understand the ITE formula? Ask a traffic engineer to take the test. Ask a city council to administer this test to its traffic engineering staff. Ask the news media to incorporate these questions into an interview with a traffic engineer. These questions are fundamental to the cause of red light running, and reveal the credibility of the traffic engineer.
Here is the key.
|Nov 7, 2015|
Traffic engineers are licensed professional engineers and as such must meet legal requirements. You will find the statutes of your State require the engineer to "possess the knowledge of the mathematical and physical sciences in order to safeguard life, health and property." This is the statute the engineers break. Your Board of Engineers can discern it and has the authority to discipline traffic engineers so that they do not do it again. If engineers complied with this statute, then the red light camera industry would not exist.
A policeman, lawyer, judge or politician may be able to discern some of these problems, but from experience he will not speak out against an engineering problem regardless how obvious. He will not speak out for reasons financial, political or because he feels unworthy of making a decision outside his expertise. For this reason the Board of Engineers become essential. The Board should be a person's first stop to seek relief.
We have posted the complaint and cover letter in PDF and Word forms. This is an example of a North Carolina complaint. The checked items in the complaint are the ethics, mathematical and physical sciences violations committed collectively by North Carolina traffic engineers. (The proof for all these violations are at this web site.) Engineers of other states and provinces commit roughly the same mistakes.
A complaint to a Board of Engineers is not like a complaint you file with the Court. A complaint to the Board is easier to do and anyone can do it. It is free. The Board works for you, not the engineer. The Board's mandate is to serve the public--that's you and I. The Board does not expect you to understand engineering or physics. That's their job. Our complaint is rather unusual because we do understand.
You must direct the complaint against a specific engineer. Do not direct the complaint against a methodology. Do not complain, "You must do something about the yellow durations". The Board does not have authority over methodologies. It only has the authority over the engineer's license. That is as it should be. The Board holds engineers personally responsible for their practice. The Board judges the engineer's competence based on the mathematical and physical sciences. The engineer's methodologies better follow suit.
The Board has the authority to discipline the engineer. Disciplinary actions go on the engineer's permanent record. The Board can fine the engineer thousands of dollars. The Board can charge him with a criminal misdemeanor even for a math mistake. Repeating the math mistake is considered a felony.
|Nov 8, 2015|
|E||Sep 22, 2014|
This exhibit is not the FE Reference Handbook. This exhibits shows what should appear on page 164 of v9.2 of the FE Reference Handbook.
|Jul 11, 2015|
|G||Jan 14, 2012|
|H||Apr 13, 2013|
|I||Sep 28, 2012|
|J||Sep 18, 2012|
|K||Feb 13, 2013|
|L||Oct 23, 2012|
|M||Apr 29, 2012|
|N||Sep 12, 2012|
|O||Jan 16, 2012|
|P||Mar 1, 2012|
|Q||Feb 1, 2011|
|R||Oct 13, 2012|
|S||Sep 12, 2012|
|T||Feb 4, 2017|
|U||Aug 6, 2013|
|V||Apr 19, 2013|
|W||Jan 6, 2016|
|X||May 24, 2015|
|P1||Dec 9, 2012|
|P2||Dec 9, 2012|
Right-click, "Save Target As . . ."
|Dec 9, 2012|
|P4||Sep 8, 2012|
|PA||Aug 7, 2012|
|PB||Oct 20, 2015|
|PC||Sep 12, 2011|
|PD||Jan 13, 2013|
|PE||Jul 23, 2013, 2002|
|PF||Jun 30, 2013, 2002|
|PG||Jan 26, 2013|
|PH||Feb 4, 2010|
|PI||Oct 17, 2012|
|PJ||Dec 2, 2009|
|PK||Sep 13, 2010|
|PL||May 26, 2016|
|PM||Sep 18, 2012|
49 CFR III Sec 393.82 allows a speedometer to have an accuracy to +/- 5 mph. If a vehicle is travelling down a road with a posted speed limit of 50 mph but the speedometer reads 55 mph, this opens a 24 foot type I dilemma zone for the driver for straight-through unimpeded movement. The driver can unintentionally run the red light by 0.3 seconds--time enough to trip the red light camera.
|Sep 5, 2014|
|PO||Sep 13, 2010|
|PP||Sep 13, 2010|
|PQ||Sep 13, 2010|
|PR||Sep 13, 2010|
|PS||Sep 15, 2011|
Written by world's premier red light camera proponents (except for Timothy Gates who did not know his name was going on this report), this report is the embodiment of incompetence and corruption. The science does not get any worse.
Within this document one finds 1) misapplication of a physics equation, 2) misapplication of stochastic methods to perception-reaction and vehicle deceleration, omission of the computation of engineering tolerances, the supposition that analytic solutions are physical solutions, and the purposeful intent to make drivers run red lights by assuming drivers are travelling less than the legal speed limit.
For an explanation of how NCHRP 731 is the embodiment of pseudo-science and engineering malpractice, compare with Yellow Change and All-Red Clearance Equations of Physics.
|Oct 15, 2015|
This recent study by Timothy Gates is a one-stop shopping resource for perception-reaction times and vehicle decelerations. The conclusions in this paper are consistent with decades of previous studies. The thing to learn is that perception-reaction time and deceleration are ranges of equally valid values. There are not single value which can be reduced to an average.
Just as it is improper for a bridge engineer to design a bridge to only withstand a vehicle of average weight, it is improper for a traffic engineer to plug into the yellow change interval formula averages for perception-reaction time and deceleration.
|Oct 13, 2015|
In the last paragraph on page 5, ITE tells the engineer to set his yellow change intervals so that an acceptable percentage of drivers will run red lights. Local standards define acceptable. To our dismay, traffic engineers actually believe that there such a thing as an acceptable. In previous versions of this paper, 1 to 3% is acceptable. In all versions of this paper, ITE acknowledges that engineers are in control of the percentage of drivers running red lights and so instructs engineers to lengthen the yellow change interval to decrease the percentage. Yet ITE closes its eyes to the legal consequences of the implied reverse: shorting the yellow knowingly producing a high-though-acceptable rate of red light runners.
This version of the paper suggests to the engineer to use law enforcement as a substitute for engineering. This suggestion violates every State law for professional engineers. States mandate professional engineers to safeguard life, health and property, not to knowingly put them at risk.
This version of the paper omits the statement that the ITE yellow change interval may not be appropriate for left turn lanes. The more current the paper, the more inaccurate the statements regarding the meaning of the formula.
On the top of page 30, ITE tells the engineer to set his yellow change intervals so that an acceptable percentage of drivers will run red lights. In this version of the paper, 1% to 3% defines acceptable as if there is such a thing as acceptable. ITE acknowledges that engineers are in control of the percentage of drivers running red lights and so instructs engineers to decrease the percentage by lengthening the yellow change interval. But ITE closes its eyes to the legal consequences of the implied reverse: shorting the yellow knowingly producing a high percentage of red light runners.
In this version of the paper, ITE does not suggest to use law enforcement. ITE just does not care what happens.
In the middle of page 29, this paper correctly acknowledges that the ITE formula may be inappropriate for protected left turn yellows.
At the end of page 29, this version correctly defines the appropriate yellow change interval as the time it takes the vehicle to traverse the stopping distance required by the reasonable driver.
|Feb 26, 2014|
This is the original Determining paper. The farther back in time one gets, the more accurate the understand of the ITE yellow change interval formula.
At the top of page 6, this paper correctly acknowledges that the ITE formula may be inappropriate for protected left turn yellows.
In the middle of page 6, this version correctly defines the appropriate yellow change interval as the time it takes the vehicle to traverse the stopping distance required by the reasonable driver.
But in the middle of page 6, ITE also tells the engineer to set his yellow change intervals so that an acceptable percentage of drivers will run red lights. In this version of the paper, 1% to 3% defines acceptable as if there is such a thing as acceptable.ITE acknowledges that engineers are in control of the percentage of drivers running red lights and so instructs engineers to decrease the percentage by lengthening the yellow change interval. But ITE closes its eyes to the legal consequences of the implied reverse: shorting the yellow knowingly producing a high percentage of red light runners.
In this version of the paper, ITE does not suggest to use law enforcement. ITE just does not care what happens.
|Feb 26, 2014|
|PY||Jun 20, 2015|
|PZ||Nov 5, 2012|
|PAA||Apr 9, 2014|
|PAB||Sep 14, 2012|
|PAC||Nov 23, 2014|
|PAD||Sep 14, 2012|
|PAE||Jun 4, 2013|
|PAF||Nov 23, 2014|
|PAG||Sep 25, 2012|
|PAH||Apr 9, 2014|
|PAI||Oct 2, 2012|
|PAJ||Oct 23, 2012|
|PAK||Aug 27, 2014|
|PAL||Aug 27, 2014|
|PAM||Feb 4, 2017|
|PAN||Feb 4, 2017|
|PAO||Aug 7, 2016|
In 9.2.3, Ireland sets all yellow durations to 3.0 seconds. The error is based on using emergency stopping distances instead of safe and comfortable stopping distances.
|Oct 13, 2014|
Panelists in the Traffic Signals Timing discussion were Richard Retting, Beverly Kuhn and Brian Ceccarelli.
Kuhn spoke about the history of the recommended practice document but did not say anything about signal timings.
Retting pushed his NCHRP 731 report which does everything an engineer should not. NCHRP 731 applies physics equations to traffic movements the equations contradict, misapplies stochastic methods to non-random events (taking averages of p-r time and deceleration), sets stopping distances so that legally-moving traffic does not have the distance to stop, and omits engineering tolerances inherant in the computation of the yellow change interval.
Ceccarelli read a letter by the inventor of ITE's yellow change interval equation, Dr. Alexei Maraudin. Maradudin condemned ITE's misquoting of him in its proposed Traffic Signal Timings Guide and every one of Retting's points in NCHRP 731. Ceccarelli followed up the reading with an explanation of the physics behind the equation, the proper application of stochastic techniques and the concept of engineering tolerances, which traffic engineers did not know applied.
At the convention it appeared that Retting is ITE's choosen traffic signal timing spokesman. Retting's appearance in such a panel is problematic. Retting 1) does not understand basic physics, 2) calls himself an engineer, is not an engineer by license or education, and offers his engineering directly to the public, and 3) is the father of the red light camera industry in America--a lobbyist for Redflex--a conflict of interest.
|Jan 12, 2016|
ITE International Convention, Florida 2015
|Nov 13, 2015|
|PAS||June 10, 2016|
Autonomous Vehicles Symposium; Stuttart, Germany 2016
|May 28, 2016|
|PAU||Aug 3, 2016|
|PAV||Oct 18, 2015|
|PAW||Aug 1, 2016|