Red-light traffic cameras have drivers seeing red

By John R. Quain

Personal Tech

Published December 05, 2012

FoxNews.com

• 
  A red light camera setup in Los Angeles, where a 2010 audit blamed police for not adequately compiling statistics at the 32 intersections where red light cameras are installed, making it difficult to conclude whether they are effective. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

The application of technology without sufficient discipline is usually a bad thing. Witness the latest problems with red light cameras. 

Depending on how you read the latest studies, cameras are either a  Big Brother danger to the public or the latest in life-saving technology. Either way, some drivers are seeing red -- and turning to other technologies to help.

Last month, the New Jersey Department of Transportation released report on 24 red-light camera intersections in the state and found that rather than preventing accidents, the cameras seemed to increase accident rates. In the year before the cameras were installed there were 577 accidents at those locations, versus 582 accidents in the 12 months after the cameras were installed, thanks in large part to an increase in rear-end collisions.

Almost simultaneously, American Traffic Solutions (one of the private companies supplying the systems in New Jersey) issued a press release stating that the DOT report actually supported the idea that red-light cameras prevent accidents. However, ATS was focusing only on one particular -- albeit particularly dangerous -- type of crash, so-called T-bone or right angle crashes. When considered separately, these types of accidents were actually down 15 percent from the previous year.

On the face of it, it deterring drivers from running red lights would seem to be uncontroversial. No one wants to run a red light and everyone wants to prevent accidents and road fatalities. I witness buses and trucks running red lights every day in New York City; curbing those dangerous drivers would be a good thing.

The problem with red-light cameras, however, is with their implementation, and this may account for discrepancies in how effective or ineffective they are in reducing accidents.

One thing some drivers have pointed to is the seeming shortness of yellow lights at intersections outfitted with cameras. In some instances, such as in June in New Jersey, subsequent examination by local DOTs found that indeed some yellow lights were dangerously short. Now a class action lawsuit in New York is claiming that lights in the city are rigged with short yellows in order to hand out $50 tickets. The New York DOT says it has looked at cameras after previous reports of problems and found them to be in compliance.

However, the actual problem is what counts as "compliance." States are required to adhere to the Federal DOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, which states that yellow-light timing should meet engineering standards. Most take that to mean a minimum of 3 seconds or longer according to a formula based on posted speed limit, reaction times, and stopping distances.

The yellow timing formula actually recommends a 4.3-second yellow for a intersection on a road with posted 45 mph speed limit. Practically speaking, if the purpose is safety, then many intersections need longer yellows since drivers don't travel at exactly the speed limit (say 40 mph in a 35 mph zone). 

Furthermore, many intersections are located in less than ideal locations, on hills or curves and set up decades before red light cameras were conceived. So a 3-second yellow may not be sufficient to prevent accidents where panicked drivers are trying to avoid tickets. In fact, in New Jersey the DOT sets such lights on 45-mph roads at 5 seconds (6 seconds is the recommended maximum).

There's also considerable disagreement -- and no national standard -- on whether or not to inform drivers of the locations of red-light cameras. Most municipalities treat them like speed limits and post signs noting a camera's position. Some departments even make the information available online.

Other places such as New York City attempt to hide the cameras and even set up dummy cameras to fool drivers. This approach is supposed to underscore deterrence, but it tends to undermine the idea that the cameras are there to increase safety. Without warning signs drivers have no idea they are approaching a particularly dangerous intersection, which is where cameras are supposed to be deployed.

Of course, there is no way to truly hide a red-light camera. Portable navigation devices, radar detectors and crowdsourced apps for smartphones like Trapster all report the location of such cameras within minutes of their installation. In a test, I found that a TomTom navigation device and an Escort radar detector correctly identified several red-light cameras in New York City. The only hiccups occurred on elevated highways where the devices beeped photo enforcement warnings about cameras that were actually below me on a secondary road.

So should red-light cameras be banished?

Not just yet. Like any technology, without intelligent guidance, they are bound to be misused and abused. What is needed are established standards concerning more cautious yellow-light timings and red-light holds (so-called wait times). Higher resolution video camera could also improve accuracy, and there should be rules about notifying drivers of camera locations. 

Not every intersection needs a camera, but if installed and used properly, they could save lives instead of creating more fender benders (and revenue).

Follow John R. Quain on Twitter @jqontech or find more tech coverage at J-Q.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/05/red-light-traffic-cameras-have-drivers-seeing-red/#ixzz2EClulxHq

Better than GPS? BAE navigator uses Wi-Fi, radio signal

By Allison Barrie

War Games

Published November 30, 2012

FoxNews.com

• 
  BAE Systems

The next-generation of deep-space GPS satellites has just reached a milestone -- but an even better, unjammable system is already available here on earth.

Last week Lockheed Martin crossed a milestone, finishing "thermal vacuum" tests for GPS III, a new class of satellites that will replace the aging craft in orbit around Earth. GPS III will introduce anti-jamming tech to address a serious threat to troops, drones and ships that rely on GPS for navigation and targeting.

The first satellite could launch in 2014, but a better option may already exist: BAE's Navigation via Signals of Opportunity (NAVSOP) doesn’t depend on satellite signals, instead using a wide range of common signals readily available to sidestep jammers.

It can even use the GPS jammer signal itself. And it’s just as accurate, BAE says.

In BAE’s system, everyday signals like TV, Wi-Fi, radio or cell phone are used to triangulate the location of a person or vehicle. NAVSOP gets the position exact within several feet with this signal-scavenging approach.

It uses all sorts of other signals as well, from GPS satellite to air traffic control. The system can even learn and evolve by taking signals that were originally unidentified and using them to build increasingly reliable and more exact fixes on location.

Shifting to the cheap and nimble NAVSOP would not require infrastructure investments in transmitter towers and the like, because it takes advantage of whatever is already in place. 

Larger models are in development, but NAVSOP chips are approximately the size of a coin and work with a tiny radio receiver.

From the Arctic to the Jungle

Harvesting signals from the air allows NAVSOP to work in places where GPS has traditionally failed, because receivers struggle to pick up the weak, long-range satellite signals.

GPS signals travel over approximately 12,000 miles, so by exploiting stronger signals transmitted from Earth, NAVSOP will work deep underground, underwater, in tunnels or inside buildings. For warfighters, NAVSOP can also work in remote locations such as the deep jungle or the Arctic.

Military applications for NAVSOP are wide. Take Iran’s recent claim that the country took control of a U.S. Sentinel drone. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) face the threat of disruption to their guidance systems; NAVSOP would greatly improve their security.

But this technology could do much more than just harden military weapons and vehicles against enemy jamming or hacking attempts. It could also protect trucks, ships and airplanes by ensuring they have reliable navigation.

On the home front, NAVSOP could lead to the equivalent of indoor GPS for firefighters trying to rescue people inside smoke-filled buildings or miners underground -- or even spelunkers who don't want to fall off the grid.

Risks of GPS Dependence                                                    

Overreliance on GPS signals is rampant in day-to -day life from data networks, financial systems, health networks, rail, road, aviation and marine transport, to shipping and agriculture. And military platforms commonly use GPS to find their position, navigate and execute missions.

With different systems sharing GPS dependency, a loss of signal could cause the simultaneous failure of many things people rely on daily.

Last year, the European Commission estimated that six to seven percent of its countries' GDP, representing a whopping $1 trillion, is already dependent on satellite radio navigation in Europe alone.

BAE and Lockheed aren’t the only ones working on a better more robust system. Other countries are developing their own systems, including the Russian GLONASS, Galileo for the European Union set to be completed in 2020 and COMPASS in China.

China began launching satellites last year, with its ultimate goal global navigation via 35 satellites by 2020.

Perhaps a better solution is already here on the ground?

Ballet dancer turned defense specialist Allison Barrie has traveled around the world covering the military, terrorism, weapons advancements and life on the front line. You can reach her at wargames@foxnews.com or follow her on Twitter @Allison_Barrie.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/30/better-than-gps-bae-navsop/#ixzz2DtWdzSut