Not to sound harsh, but at no point does your copy paste material answer any questions for the original poster or have any relevance in a court room.
You're arguing over something that has likely already been voted on and passed by your local municipality. You should probably take it up with them because this is all completely useless for anyone with a ticket in the mail.
Did you happen to read the FULL report?
There is some valuable information within it.
This thread has to do with red-light cameras and timing which is exactly what the report is about.
Also this is the red-light camera forum area of the website.
You call it "copy-paste", I call it citing / quoting relevant information,
from one of the most recent, in-depth reports created specifically about this particular red-light camera subject.
Engineers use established guidelines and existing formulas to set interval timing.
Therefore the report may be relevant in court if a particular system has a set duration which ignores established guidelines and best practice.
At the very least the report provides relevant and interesting information for people.
Many red-light cameras with speed limits in the 60km hr zone are set to 3.7 second yellow light duration.
According to this report and current best practice a 60km zone should be set at least 4.1 seconds.
This may be relevant information in court if presented appropriately.
"not to sound to harsh" however it is up to the Justice of The Peace to weigh the relevancy of evidence provided for the court roomÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â¦
The guidelines are already established in the Canadian Capacity Guide for Signalized Intersections, a publication of the Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers, then issued in the Ontario Traffic Manual.
Your study is irrelevant.
FORtheWIN wrote:" Clearly Red-light cams are a great money generating tool.
The objective is to stop road killers, not generating money.
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest