[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
=======================================================================
(111-125)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
JUNE 30, 2010
----------
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENTY
UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
=======================================================================
(111-125)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 30, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-250 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
?
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TOM GRAVES, Georgia
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
(ii)
?
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska
BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Carolina
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Virginia
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania CONNIE MACK, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa VACANCY
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. HALL, New York
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan, Vice
Chair
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Danila, Dan, Virginia State Activist, National Motorists
Association.................................................... 3
Geraci, Michael, Director, Office of Safety Programs, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.......................... 3
Hansen, Captain Glenn, Captain, Howard County, Maryland, Police
Department..................................................... 3
Kelly, David, Executive Director, Partnership for Advancing Road
Safety......................................................... 3
Loudermilk, Hon. Barry, Georgia State Representative............. 3
McCartt, Dr. Anne, Senior Vice President for Research, Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety................................... 3
Reagan, Hon. Ron, Florida State Representative................... 3
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon................................ 26
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 27
Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California............................ 31
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Danila, Dan...................................................... 35
Geraci, Michael.................................................. 45
Hansen, Captain Glenn............................................ 60
Kelly, David..................................................... 66
Loudermilk, Hon. Barry........................................... 217
Mccartt, Dr. Anne................................................ 226
Reagan, Hon. Ron................................................. 238
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Danila, Dan, Virginia State Activist, National Motorists
Association, response to request for information from the
Subcommittee................................................... 41
Geraci, Michael, Director, Office of Safety Programs, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, response to request for
information from the Subcommittee.............................. 48
Kelly, David, Executive Director, Partnership for Advancing Road
Safety, response to request for information from the
Subcommittee................................................... 68
Loudermilk, Hon. Barry, Georgia State Representative, response to
request for information from the Subcommittee.................. 223
McCartt, Dr. Anne, Senior Vice President for Research, Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, response to request for
information from the Subcommittee.............................. 233
Reagan, Hon. Ron, Florida State Representative, response to
request for information from the Subcommittee.................. 322
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Governors Highway Safety Association, Vernon F. Betkey Jr.,
Chairman, letter to Chairman DeFazio........................... 325
National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, Leslie Blakey,
Executive Director, written testimony.......................... 328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.009
UTILIZATION AND IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
----------
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter
A. DeFazio [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DeFazio. The Highways and Transit Subcommittee will
come to order.
Today we are engaging in a hearing at the request of the
Ranking Member, to which I am fully in agreement, to take a
good, hard look at what is called automated traffic
enforcement--some of us know it as speed cameras and red light
cameras--and to examine the proper and improper utilization of
such devices; what role the Federal Government should play, if
any, in regulating the use of these devices or the use of
Federal highway safety funds to acquire such devices; and to
better understand how these tools can be utilized and targeted
at what is their legitimate purpose, which is to make our roads
and intersections a safer place for the traveling public.
So I look forward to the testimony. I have read the
testimony, but will look forward to individuals summarizing
their best points and/or responding to other members of the
panel, and we will have an opportunity for questions.
With that, I turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Chairman DeFazio,
for holding this hearing on utilization and impacts of
automated traffic enforcement. Specifically, as you said, we
are talking about the use of red light and speed cameras to
enforce traffic laws.
I can assure you, you can never satisfy a government's
appetite for money or land; they always want more, and the last
decade has seen a technology boom that has awarded government
new ways to take more money from the taxpayer. Already,
government at all levels is taking at least about 40 percent of
the average citizen's income, and government will continue to
look for new ways to nickel-and-dime the taxpayer to death. Red
light and speed cameras are popping up all over the Country.
In 2008, $3.1 million in red light camera violations were
issued in the city of Knoxville. Knoxville received $1.1
million, while the vendor received $2 million. Redflex, the
company that operates the red light cameras in Knoxville, is an
Australian company, so most of this revenue is going to foreign
markets. Three of the largest photo enforcement vendors
declined to testify, but I understand that we have a witness
from the Partnership for Advancing Road Safety, Mr. Kelly; that
is an organization that is funded by the industry, so we will
hear his testimony.
Recently, the State of Florida passed legislation allowing
the use of red light cameras, and they expect annual revenue
generated by these cameras to be $200 million by 2013.
These large dollar amounts tell me that this issue is more
about raising revenue than making our Nation's roads safer.
While there have been a variety of studies that tout photo
enforcement as a cost-effective way of improving safety, there
are other studies that show an increase in vehicle crashes
after red light cameras were installed. The Washington Post
analyzed the District of Columbia database generated from
accident reports filed by police. Since the cameras were
installed, the analysis shows that the number of crashes at
locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions
in 1998 to 755 in 2004. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81
percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262.
Another such study conducted by the Virginia Transportation
Research Council found a reduction in red light running crashes
after red light cameras were installed, but an overall increase
in crashes and injuries due to more rear-end crashes.
Some States and localities may be too quick to install
photo enforcement techniques without first exhausting other
techniques that can reduce red light running and improve
safety. Improving sign visibility, installing advanced warning
flashers, and adjusting yellow light intervals can have a
positive impact. Numerous studies have found that longer yellow
signal timing can reduce the frequency of red light running
violations by as much as 50 percent.
While these solutions may not fill government coffers as
much as photo enforcement could, we owe it to our taxpayers to
explore these engineering improvements that make our roads and
highways safer.
If these cameras were really about safety, then I think we
should donate those fines to private charities. I have never
forgotten a column written by William Raspberry, a columnist
for The Washington Post, a very liberal columnist, who wrote
that private charities, on average, spent 85 percent of their
funds going to the beneficiaries and only 15 percent going to
the cost of administration, while government welfare programs
were exactly opposite, spending 85 percent on their
administrative and salary costs, and only about 15 percent
going to the beneficiaries.
I thank the witnesses for attending this hearing and I look
forward to their testimony and then the opportunity to ask some
questions.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
Are there any Members on my side who wish to have an
opening statement?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. OK, then we will go right to testimony, Mr.
Michael Geraci, Director, Office of Safety Programs, National
Traffic Safety Administration.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GERACI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SAFETY
PROGRAMS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; HON.
BARRY LOUDERMILK, GEORGIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE; HON. RON
REAGAN, FLORIDA STATE REPRESENTATIVE; CAPTAIN GLENN HANSEN,
CAPTAIN, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, POLICE DEPARTMENT; DR. ANNE
MCCARTT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, INSURANCE
INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY; DAVID KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
PARTNERSHIP FOR ADVANCING ROAD SAFETY; AND DAN DANILA, VIRGINIA
STATE ACTIVIST, NATIONAL MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Geraci. Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Duncan and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to
represent the Department of Transportation on the very
important safety issue of automated traffic enforcement.
While the number and rate of traffic deaths have decreased
significantly in recent years, motor vehicle crashes remain a
serious national health problem and a leading cause of death in
particular for young Americans. Under the leadership of
Secretary LaHood, the Department of Transportation is committed
to reducing the motor vehicle crash toll that considers every
available evidence-based strategy for reducing roadway risk.
Automated traffic enforcement technology is one such strategy,
with evidence of effectiveness in reducing risk from speeding
and red light running.
Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing
to traffic crashes. In 2008, NHTSA data showed that speeding
was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes
and was associated with more than 11,000 fatalities. NHTSA
estimates that speeding-related crashes cost more than $40
billion each year.
A NHTSA study of fatal intersection crashes indicates that
an average of about 38 percent of such events at signal-
controlled intersections involved at least one driver who ran a
red light. On average, intersection crashes involving red light
running result in just about 1,000 deaths per year.
A significant body of evidence that is further discussed in
my written testimony reveals that when appropriately used as
one component of an overall traffic safety and law enforcement
system, automated enforcement programs can be an effective
countermeasure for reducing crashes at high-risk locations.
Automated enforcement systems do not replace the need for
traditional enforcement operations, but provide an effective
supplement when used as part of a comprehensive strategy for
reducing traffic crashes.
NHTSA and the Federal Highway Administration have developed
operational guidelines to assist States and communities in
designing and implementing effective automated speeding and red
light running systems. These guidelines are based on program
evaluations and documented successful practices in communities
all across the Nation. The guidelines stress the importance of
integrating automated enforcement in a comprehensive system
that is based on problem identification.
NHTSA encourages adoption of these automated enforcement
guidelines through speed management workshops. These workshops
suggest a comprehensive approach to community speed management,
including incorporation of automated enforcement where
appropriate. The workshops involve the active participation of
the full range of local partners, including highway engineers,
law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and safety
advocates. The agency has conducted nine of these workshops,
reaching practitioners from 46 States.
Speeding and red light running are serious safety problems,
and NHTSA is committed to identifying and advancing effective
solutions to reduce the tragic toll from these unsafe driving
practices. We will continue to examine the potential safety
benefits of promising countermeasures, including automated
enforcement systems, and work closely with States to encourage
the adoption of effective programs to help improve safety for
all road users.
I thank you for today's invitation and I am pleased to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
The Honorable Barry Loudermilk, State Representative of
Georgia. Representative Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen and
ladies of the Committee.
Georgia, in 2001, passed legislation that allows red light
cameras to be operated by local, municipal, and county
governments. After that legislation passed, the Georgia
legislature had growing concerns over the operation of red
light cameras in the State. Primarily, those concerns were
constitutional; the effectiveness of red light cameras, were
they actually affecting safety, improving safety; concerns also
of abuse of the red light cameras by local governments; and
also a lack of regulation and standardization.
We began looking into the red light camera issue. We don't
have speeding cameras in Georgia, but we do have the red light
cameras. We started realizing that there was questionable
effectiveness on safety, especially numerous media reports
coming out that accident rates had increased at several of the
key intersections within the State. Even more recently, Ross
McLaughlin, an investigative reporter with Channel 11 News,
reported that some of the highest revenue-generating
intersections had actually increased all types of accidents,
including the right-angle or T-bone collisions that the red
light cameras were supposed to eliminate or reduce.
As we started looking at effective ways to improve safety,
we started realizing that there was more than likely a
financial incentive created by the use of red light cameras
that local governments were no longer induced or inspired to
seek out proven engineering methods to improve intersection
safety. As a result, we passed House Bill 77, which the results
of that bill has reduced violations of 50 percent in red light
camera intersections.
The key component of House Bill 77, there were really three
components, but the key was requiring an additional second be
added to the yellow light time of every intersection that
operated photo enforcement. That additional time requirement
was to go to the minimum Federal standard time plus an
additional second. Within 30 days of the additional second
being added, reduction in violations in some cities were
reported as much as 81 percent.
Statewide we have seen a 50 percent reduction in red light
camera running. Along with that is a 50 percent reduction in
revenue. As a result, many of the cities that had installed the
red light cameras as a safety tool have thus removed those
cameras because they were no longer profitable.
The other aspect of House Bill 77 was more State oversight
and standardization. The Department of Transportation is now a
permitting agency for local governments. Before a local
government can get a permit to operate a red light camera,
there are procedures they have to go through which, first of
all, is they have to show that the intersection in question is
a dangerous intersection, that there is a compelling reason to
put a red light camera there. Second, they have to impose and
they have to go through steps to improve the safety of the
intersection through engineering standards.
So the focus of House Bill 77 was to focus the State back
on safety through engineering, and that photo enforcement would
be a means of last resort. The results have been phenomenal.
Georgia's intersections are safer. We have now about 20 percent
less red light cameras, but we have safer intersections
throughout the State of Georgia.
So I think our success in Georgia is a little different
than a lot of others that you will hear is that our success has
been in refocusing on safety through engineering, and that the
red light cameras are going to be a means of last resort.
So I would be glad to answer any questions as we go through
the hearing.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Representative Loudermilk.
With that, we now turn to the Honorable Ron Reagan, State
Representative from Florida. Mr. Reagan.
Mr. Reagan. Good morning. Thank you very much. It is an
honor and a pleasure to be here.
Recently, in the State of Florida, we did pass a bill,
House Bill 325, that allows the use of cameras at
intersections. When we did this, we focused on two things:
number one is public safety and number two is uniformity. State
of Florida cities had already been installing cameras on their
own, using local ordinances to do so. My bill focused at this
point in time for uniform standards throughout the entire
State.
We passed this bill on May 14th. We called it the Mark
Wandall Traffic Safety Act, named after a young man who was
killed about a mile from my house by a vicious red light
runner. It was signed into law. This piece of legislation was
passed overwhelmingly by the Florida House of Representatives
and the Florida Senate.
Thousands of Floridians have been killed by drivers who run
red lights as part of their normal behavior. Since 2001,
Florida has been among the top three States for pedestrian and
bicyclist fatalities, with the latest numbers showing that 502
pedestrians and 118 bicyclists were killed by driving behavior,
primarily people running red lights.
In Florida, a recent public opinion showed that 72 percent
of Floridians support the use of automated traffic enforcement
at intersections. The Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, House
Bill 325, provides critical funding for medical study in the
form of spinal cord research, makes available funding for
Florida trauma centers, and it assists local municipalities
that implement this lifesaving technology.
Intersection camera programs are designed to use technology
as a tool for traffic safety on local roads. Camera programs
can effectively and efficiently modify drivers' behavior by
increasing enforcement. These programs encourage all drivers to
follow Federal, State, and local traffic laws. The cameras are
a proactive solution to reduce preventable deaths, avert
serious injuries, and reduce output of funds to respond to
accident scenes. Automated enforcement programs mitigate a host
of problems that arise on Florida roads when drivers fail to
stop at red lights.
This bill requires signage at intersections using traffic
infraction detectors and provides that traffic infraction
detectors may not be used to enforce violations when the driver
is making a right turn in a careful and prudent manner. We
tried to do our best to address those issues regarding
financial aspects of the bill and the use of these automated
systems. The bill provides processes regarding required
modifications, the issuance of citations to registered owners
of motor vehicles, and defenses available to vehicle owners.
Notifications and citations must include the images
indicating that the motor vehicle violated a traffic control
device and must offer a physical location or an internet
address where images or video may be seen. When a citation is
issued, it may be challenged in a judicial proceeding in the
same manner as other traffic violations. A contested citation
upheld by the court may result in additional costs and fees.
In the State of Florida, one of the things we did was
points may not be assessed against a driver's license for
infractions enforced by the use of traffic infraction
detectors, and violations may not be used for purposes of
setting motor vehicle insurance rates. Each governmental entity
that operates a traffic infraction detector must submit an
annual report to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles which details the results of detectors and the
procedures for enforcement.
I would like to say, in closing, that I believe that
Florida House Bill 325 will keep Florida's first responders
from having to go to accident scenes that never needed to occur
in the first place. This bill will keep Florida's trauma
centers from having to perform lifesaving measures caused by
thoughtless drivers who may run red lights as their normal
driving pattern. The program will prevent habitual and reckless
driving patterns across Florida. This piece of legislation is a
good public policy. It brings consistency, it mandates
uniformity, it encourages public safety, and it is a tool for
over-utilized law enforcement officials.
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate the honor to be
here.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Representative.
With that, we turn to Captain Glenn Hansen, a captain with
the Howard County, Maryland Police Department. Captain?
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak to
you today.
Howard County, Maryland is midway between Baltimore and
Washington. We have had our share of safety concerns, just as
you have seen nationally. In 2008, 102 people died every day on
our streets, and that is really not acceptable. Transportation
is a wonderful thing, it gets you from A to B, but we need to
find ways to do it in a safer manner.
We talk a lot about a comprehensive approach. We call it a
4E approach: engineering, enforcement, education, and EMS, all
working together comprehensively to make it safer for our
community. That is something that we instituted in Howard
County, where we were experiencing problems with intersection
crashes. We looked at it holistically: we did traditional
enforcement; we expanded that to team enforcement; we did a lot
of public relations; we tried to get the community with us in
understanding that there was a problem; and eventually we were
able to get U.S. Department of Transportation grants to do a
pilot study to test red light camera technology in the United
States.
Starting in the late 1990's, we were able to test that
technology. The community was very supportive. We issued
warnings. We were eventually able to get legislation passed.
That legislation passed in Maryland. It has been extremely
successful. We have had crash reductions. We have had several
studies showing that the socioeconomic cost of crashes in
Maryland have gone down where we put cameras in place.
Since that time, the system in the United States has
matured a great deal. The U.S. Department of Transportation has
issued data-driven guidance on best practices; what works well
from problem identification to defining how best to address the
solution; looking at engineering countermeasures and deciding
when and if automated enforcement is successful and can help
you with your issue.
Automated enforcement is a tool; it is not a silver bullet,
it is not a solution to all your problems. Automated
enforcement makes enforcement much more efficient, much more
rapid. But if you do it in a noncomprehensive way, it doesn't
necessarily make traffic any safer. We recommend doing it in a
comprehensive way with a safety focus. That is what the USDOT
guidance is pointing out. We believe strongly that as long as
people stick to modern programs that are being instituted
today, stick to the guidance and best practices, use automated
enforcement as one part of a holistic traffic safety solution,
that it will continue to be successful in reducing crashes and
injuries.
With that, I thank you for your time, and I would be happy
to answer questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Captain.
With that, we would turn to Dr. Anne McCartt, Senior Vice
President for Research, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Doctor.
Ms. McCartt. Thank you for the opportunity to share
research findings about automated traffic enforcement. It is a
special honor to testify today before Ranking Member Duncan. My
parents were among the first settlers of East Tennessee. I
graduated from Fulton High School when your father was mayor.
My parents now live in Kingsport.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit
research and communications organization that identifies ways
to reduce deaths, injuries, and property damage on our Nation's
highways. We are funded by auto insurers.
Running red lights and speeding may be common in some
communities, but they are illegal and dangerous behaviors. In
debates about automated enforcement, traffic law violators are
often portrayed as victims, but the true victims are the people
injured and killed in crashes. Each year, about 800 people die
in crashes caused by red light runners, and another 137,000 are
injured. Speeding was a factor in about 12,000 crash deaths in
2008, a third of all deaths.
A high likelihood of apprehension is what convinces
motorists to obey traffic laws, and automated enforcement
achieves this. Studies have found that red light cameras reduce
red light running violations 40 to 50 percent, and these
reductions in a community spill over to intersections without
cameras.
Institute research in three communities with speed cameras
found dramatic declines in the proportions of drivers traveling
more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. In Montgomery
County, Maryland, where cameras are used on residential streets
and in school zones, reductions were 70 percent. On a high
speed freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona, the odds of speeding fell
95 percent.
The key question is whether automated enforcement improves
safety, and it does. Reviews of the international literature
show that red light camera enforcement reduces injury crashes
25 to 30 percent. Speed camera enforcement reduces crashes with
deaths and serious injuries 40 to 45 percent. Surveys of the
public have consistently shown acceptance of red light cameras
and speed cameras.
Although automated traffic enforcement is not a panacea, it
is a proven way to reduce traffic violations and prevent
crashes, especially serious crashes that result in injury or
death.
Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. David Kelly, Executive Director, Partnership for
Advancing Road Safety.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
PARS represents communities, safety organizations, and law
enforcement agencies that use automated road enforcement to
calm traffic and make their community safer. There will be a
healthy debate this morning about the role that automated
enforcement plays in a traffic safety community.
We know that research tells us that safety cameras work.
You have heard the statistics, and communities across the
Country are affirming these successes. From Aurora to Pensacola
to New Orleans to the District of Columbia to Arizona and
Maryland, just to cite a few, cameras are keeping the public
safe.
We also know that automated enforcement is constitutional.
Several cases throughout the Country have gone to court and
been appealed, including many favorable decisions in various
U.S. circuit courts across the Country. Many of these cases are
dismissed at the summary judgment level and the programs are
consistently held constitutionally valid. Not once, when faced
with the constitutionality of cameras, has photo enforcement
been found unconstitutional.
There are those that will debate the merits of the
technology. However, we should all agree that it is not
appropriate to speed, run red lights, drive while distracted or
impaired, or in any other way endanger the lives of others on
the road. Why should the time of an offender be more valuable
than that of their victim?
Photo enforcement saves lives. We have seen it in cities,
towns, and States across the Country. Independent third-party
organizations have confirmed that.
I appreciate your time and interest in this lifesaving
technology and welcome any questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for your succinct testimony.
Mr. Dan Danila, you are listed as a Virginia State Activist
with the National Motorists Association.
Mr. Danila. That is correct.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Danila. Thank you for inviting me here to provide
testimony on this very important topic for our Nation's
motorists.
The National Motorists Association basically is a driver's
rights organization with members in all 50 States and also in
Canada. The NMA is opposed to the use of automatic traffic
enforcement. Our objections to such programs can be categorized
into three major points, and all based on objective data, over
which I am going to go briefly: one, ticket cameras are usually
about revenue generation, not about improving safety; number
two, an individual's right to due process is subverted; three,
there are less expensive and more effective ways of enhancing
safety for motorists.
In the written testimony that you guys have in front of
you, you will see examples of investigative reports that
document an increase in accident rates after red light cameras
have been installed. Typically what happens is the instinctive
reaction of the drivers when they see a red light camera is to
hit their brakes, which increases the risk of rear-end
collisions. Also, on page 7 of my testimony you will see
examples of counties and cities which have shut down their
automatic enforcement programs when those programs seemed to be
profitable money-wise.
In regards to the individual's rights to due process,
usually the registered owner of the vehicle is notified by
regular mail about the alleged violation. First of all, there
is no proof that he actually got the violation in the mail.
Second, the owner is presumed guilty until proven otherwise,
even if he was not driving the vehicle.
On the third point, there are less expensive and more
effective ways to increase safety; as an example, I want to
cite the studies on pages 5 and 6 of my testimony from Loma
Linda and San Carlos, California, and also a 2003 Texas
Transportation Institute study which basically concluded, after
extensive research, that just by increasing yellow lights from
.5 to 1.5 seconds, it decreases the frequency of red light
running by at least 50 percent.
Therefore, the NMA is strongly opposed to the use of
automatic traffic enforcement. We understand the counties and
cities may have financial difficulties with their revenues, but
I think they should use alternative means to raise their
revenues, and not at the expense of the safety of the
motorists. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, sir.
We will now go to questions.
First, Mr. Geraci, we had several people mention the
Federal guidelines. A two-part question. We had one reference,
I believe it was from Howard County, to having begun the
program with some Federal funds. If people are going to utilize
Federal funds to establish these programs, should there just be
guidelines or should there be standards that they have to meet
in order to use Federal highway safety funds?
Mr. Geraci. The funding actually goes through the States
through highway safety grants, various sections of the highway
safety grants. So, really, it is the States that look at what
those requests come in from their local communities and make a
decision based on need.
Our guidelines are best practices from around the Country
where we have assembled really what we think is the appropriate
measures to look at; number one: problem identification, before
you put any of these systems in place.
So while there may be funding available, again, it is not
directly from USDOT, but, rather, to the States, and it is for
the States to make some rational decisions on what those needs
are in local communities.
Mr. DeFazio. If you have been following our attempts, thus
far thwarted by the Obama Administration, to rewrite Federal
surface transportation policy and implement an overdue
reauthorization, you might have noted that we are proposing to
require more accountability by the States, in exchange for
flexibility.
Now, what you are describing gives flexibility; the States
have the Federal funds. But the question would be about
accountability; that is, did the State require local
jurisdictions to have a comprehensive plan to look at all of
the solutions that might mitigate the problems? Did they
appropriately choose intersections that have problems, that are
dangerous, with these comprehensive plans, or are the cameras
revenue-generating?
Did they meet the Federal guidelines in terms of the period
of the yellow light? I think that is pretty compelling
testimony we heard from Representative Loudermilk about the
impacts of the yellow period, the impacts when it was adjusted
upward as opposed to having been adjusted downward, which seems
to maximize revenues.
Wouldn't these be concerns that you would have?
Mr. Geraci. Well, they are concerns. We have actually
implemented some performance measures for various forms of
highway safety funding that is in place right now, so I think
these are discussions, certainly, that we will have in the
future as more of these systems become in place, as more States
become involved in their interest in them.
Mr. DeFazio. Do you think there would be an appropriate
role for the Federal Government to require these sorts of best
practices by the State, the State then having flexibility with
the funds within its own jurisdiction?
Mr. Geraci. I am not sure where the requirement sits right
now, but certainly those exact discussions are taking place,
and I would expect them to become more advanced as we move
forward with more States interested.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Representative Loudermilk, I thought, in particular, the
discussion of the rear-end accidents and yellow lights was
fairly extraordinary. You talked very specifically about the
reduction in violations. I didn't find in the testimony a
specific discussion of comparative accident results at those
intersections. Do you have that or does that exist? You know, I
mean, if violations were down 70 percent, what was the before
and after in terms of accidents at that intersection?
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, it varies. We are still compiling the
data. One of the problems we have had in Georgia is there was
lack of enforcement or penalty, I should say, for local
governments who didn't follow the State law regarding red light
cameras, so a great instance was we required annual reporting
that went to the legislature prior to House Bill 77. Reports
were due by the end of February. Half the reports wouldn't show
up; those that did come were late. So there is a lot of data
that we are missing in the past.
House Bill 77 does put penalties into place now. Basically,
the penalty is if there is any violation of the State law
regarding red light cameras, then all the revenue generated
from the red light camera during that time period goes to the
State. So we are seeing a lot more compliance.
And, again, a lot of the data that we are getting is coming
from the local media, whose opinion on red light cameras have
changed significantly in the last two years. Two years ago,
there were proponents of red light cameras, but as more data is
coming out and abuses by local government, we are seeing a lot
of change. So a lot of the data that we are getting is done
through investigative reporting.
So through the House Transportation Committee that I serve
on, we are starting to compile a lot of that data from the
cities so that we can analyze why are we seeing an increase in
accidents at certain intersections. Half of the intersections
we are seeing an increase in accidents; not just rear-end, but
also angle collisions. Is it because of the location? There was
no constraints, prior to House Bill 77, on where a red light
camera could go, and we saw a lot of cameras going into low
speed, high congestion intersections that weren't accident
prone, but they were high revenue generators.
So we are trying to find that correlation right now. What
we are finding is that there has been a financial incentive to
not do the engineering aspect for safety.
So that is a long way of answering that a lot of that data
we are still compiling.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Just one other quick question. If they are
out of compliance, you require them to remit all the fines to
the State. I guess I am wondering, if they are out of
compliance, whether that would raise questions about the guilt
or not of the violators, and I wonder why the money wouldn't go
back to the persons who received the citations when that
jurisdiction was out of compliance.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, that was, you may say, an unintended
consequence of the legislation, because, as we were drafting
the legislation, we never envisioned that local governments
would just blatantly be not in compliance with State law.
Something we are looking at changing is the City of Atlanta
recently had to give $35,000 to the State because they operated
one red light camera; their permit was denied by the State
Department of Transportation because, over the period of having
the red light camera there, there was either no reduction or,
in this case, there was an increase in accidents. So the DOT
saw that the red light camera was not being effective, denied
the permit. The City of Atlanta continued to operate the
camera.
So during that time period, by law, they have to give that
money to the State. We are looking at--that should have gone
back to the violators, especially that same intersection. A
year ago the City failed to add the additional second to the
yellow light time until CNN came up to do an interview and the
time got added at that point.
Judges in the past have ruled that monies had to be
refunded back to the citizens in situations like that, so that
is something that we are going to be looking in this coming
legislative session to change the existing law.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Now, Mr. Kelly, hearing the testimony from Representative
Loudermilk, where they find that there had not been adequate
yellow light timing, and a questionable choice of
intersections. You seem to broadly endorse this technology and
don't acknowledge that these problems exist and/or there should
be some sort of either State or Federal mandatory guidelines.
Do you want to address those concerns?
Mr. Kelly. Mr. DeFazio, let me say this--
Mr. DeFazio. And I would reiterate what the Ranking Member
said, which is we did invite vendors, and they refused. I
thought of subpoenaing them, but we have a lot of other things
to do. But I find it disturbing that none of them wanted to
come and talk about what a great thing they are doing for
America here.
Mr. Kelly. Well, I thank you for having me as the second
choice.
Let me say this, Mr. DeFazio. We wholly would support
working with State and Federal authorities to develop programs
and standards and outline an effective program. When you are
talking about an issue of amber light timing, the amber light
timing is something that is set by professional traffic
engineers. That is something that they have a very specific
formula for. I am not an engineer, I don't talk engineer talk,
but they have a very specific traffic formula whereby they set
those amber light times, and we think that they are the
professionals and they are the ones that should be setting
amber light times.
Mr. DeFazio. But all they do is set, as I understand it,
Mr. Geraci, a minimum standard, which perhaps it has a
parameter, upper/lower, I don't know.
Mr. Geraci. That is correct. But again, as Mr. Kelly said,
it is up to those local engineers to establish what that timing
is.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Geraci. The recommendations are----
Mr. DeFazio. And apparently at some of these jurisdictions
in Georgia, and perhaps elsewhere, they decided to either not
increase it or to minimize it in order to maximize infractions
and cause more accidents. That is kind of a problem.
Mr. Kelly. Well, if those decisions are being made at the
local level, they are being made by the local authorities, they
are not being made by the vendors of the machines. We have no
access to that information.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I guess the question is: there is an
issue of local control, State control, and Federal, and I guess
the position I am headed toward here is for any Federal money
that is invested, it must comply with comprehensive assessment
of the problems and/or intersections, and a comprehensive
approach must be taken, which might or might not include the
automated enforcement; and, if it does, that the automated
enforcement would not be to generate revenues, but to be put
back into more safety improvements, which would probably
preclude some of the contracts your companies have here.
OK, with that, I have exceeded my time and I will turn to
the Republican side. I will have another round of questions.
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan.
Good to have you all with us today.
Mr. Geraci, what were some of the negative effects from the
automated red light camera systems that you detected in your
review of the seven international evaluations?
Mr. Geraci. Really, the----
Mr. Coble. Or were there any?
Mr. Geraci. If any, there may have been some rear-end
collisions. There were significant improvements in right-angle
collisions, which are typically higher speed, more severe in
terms of property damage and injury. But there was some slight
indication of increases of rear-end collisions because of
following too close or stopping suddenly, but that is really
the only indication that might be there.
Mr. Coble. Thank you.
Mr. Loudermilk, did you find that once engineering
solutions were implemented at intersections with photo
enforcement, that violations dropped dramatically to the extent
that localities canceled their photo enforcement contracts
because insufficient revenue was being generated?
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, sir, we did. Specifically, in 12
cities, within three months of House Bill 77 going into effect,
at least the additional one second to the amber time going into
effect, we had 12 cities to remove some or all of the red light
cameras because the revenues dropped below the cost to operate
the cameras. I guess the most compelling was the City of
Dalton, Georgia, the carpet capital of the world. The mayor not
only removed his red light cameras, made the statement that
they did not see any significant improvement or any improvement
at all in safety until they added the one second. Not only did
they remove the camera, but they went and added one second to
all the major intersections in the city because they saw that
the timing of the yellow light significantly reduced red light
running and improved safety much more than they ever saw from
red light cameras.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Reagan, you alluded to House Bill 325. Has
that bill been enacted or is it awaiting enactment?
Mr. Reagan. Actually, it goes into effect July 1st. So this
week it will actually go into effect.
Mr. Coble. Well, who is responsible for reviewing the tapes
and issuing subsequent citations?
Mr. Reagan. What we did in the State of Florida, we put
that back on every local law enforcement official. No citation
can be issued in the State of Florida, regardless of what
camera company the individual city is using, unless a local law
enforcement official reviews the tape, issues a citation using
basically whatever language that they would have for their
current issuance of a citation.
Mr. Coble. And how does the bill, Mr. Reagan, provide for
distribution of revenue?
Mr. Reagan. Primarily what we did was split the revenue
basically in half, between the local municipality, the other
half going to the State of Florida. The money that goes to the
State of Florida does go to our general revenue fund. Of the
balance that stays in the local community, they have to operate
their camera costs out of that.
Now, a portion of the money that goes to the State of
Florida is directed to trauma centers and brain and spinal
institute studies.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Dr. McCartt, in your testimony you mentioned that the
installation of roundabouts at intersections can reduce
accidents by 40 percent. What other engineering modifications
can result in a reduction of speeding and red light running
crashes, A; and, B, how do these other improvements compare to
photo enforcement?
Ms. McCartt. Well, I think the main thing that would come
to mind, as others have mentioned, lengthening the yellow
signal. And we have done research that shows that the proper
yellow signal time does reduce red light running violations.
But we did a study in Philadelphia a couple years ago where we
actually worked with the city and they first made the yellow
timing meet the engineering requirements and actually even go
beyond that, and that did reduce red light running violations
by about a third.
But then they added red light camera enforcement and there
was a further reduction of 96 percent in violations beyond the
reductions achieved with yellow timing. So we concluded from
that study that at some intersections better yellow timing
won't fully address the problem of red light running.
Mr. Coble. I thank you.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. My red light is about to
illuminate, so I will yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. We don't want to hit you with a violation,
Howard.
With that, I would turn to Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank our witnesses. A couple of quick things. First
of all, as a behavioral scientist, I just have to say the mere
possibility that accident rates go up following installation of
red light cameras does not necessarily mean they are
ineffective. The research design might suggest that maybe there
are just a lot more people on that road. So you just have to
watch that reporting conclusion.
Secondly, what is the average cost to install and maintain
one of these? Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Baird. The average cost to
install a red light pole is around $100,000. That cost is borne
by the manufacturer, and those costs get recouped back through
monthly leases with the locality.
Mr. Baird. OK. One of the things that puzzles me about this
is, my experience with this, it seems like it is a little bit
like invisible fencing for your dog, but the shock doesn't come
for about three weeks, in the mail, and then you wonder why
your dog is not stopping at the invisible fence. How do I know
that there is a red light camera or a speeding camera present,
other than this little obscure sign that I drive by a week
after I got the red light ticket and realize I should have
slowed down?
Mr. Reagan. If I may, in the State of Florida, part of our
legislation requires basically I call it a massive sign, it is
almost like a billboard type sign at every intersection where a
camera is being used. In addition to that, on the right turn on
red there is an additional sign that is going to be located
right there.
So, in my opinion, if someone violates that law with
signage there, I hate to say it, but they deserve the ticket.
Mr. Baird. Yes, I think that makes sense. I mean, to me,
behaviorally, I would say that if I look at that red light and
there is a flag on it and I say,``Ah!'', then you are more
likely to get people to stop running red lights. So too with
speeding; if you have some type of marking on the pavement or
something that says you have a speeding camera here, then, you
know--people slow down when they see the police car.
Mr. Reagan. Absolutely.
Mr. Baird. They drive faster when there is not a police car
present. Well, if you have an invisible police car, you have a
good revenue generator, but you don't have a public safety
generator here, would be my perspective.
What do we know about the use of these things in school
zones? I have twin five-year-olds, and people drive like crazy
past their school, and it is quite frustrating. What do we know
about their effective use in school zones?
Mr. Kelly. We do know, Mr. Baird, that school zones are a
popular place for mainly speed cameras, as opposed to red light
cameras, to be implemented, and we do need some more data about
the effectiveness in school zones. We need more data generally
on the effectiveness of speed cameras. There are studies out
there that do show that speeds are reduced, but we don't have
nearly the quantitative number of studies on speed camera
enforcement effectiveness as we do on red light effectiveness.
Mr. Baird. I am intrigued by this yellow light issue. Every
now and then you visit another community, and you are driving,
and suddenly the yellow is a lot quicker than in your own
community. What do we know, in the absence of punitive-like
cameras, about safety in general as it pertains to the length
of the yellow light signal?
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you for the question; I think
it is very good and it is very relevant. A lot of the
information that we have derived actually goes back to a
testimony to this body by the former majority leader, Dick
Armey, in studies that he had done that showed that an increase
in just one second of a yellow light time can decrease
accidents 30 to 40 percent. However, a decrease in the yellow
light time has the opposite effect, but even greater, in that
it increases the number of red light running.
One thing to keep in mind is the majority of injury
accidents or the majority of accidents that happen in these
intersections is not by the intentional red light runner, the
person who is turning left and gets caught by a short yellow.
The majority of these accidents are caused by the unintentional
runner; the person who is texting, who----
Mr. Baird. That is very helpful. Some of us will not allow
Dick Armey to be cited as a predominant expert.
Dr. McCartt, do you have any response to that?
Sorry, but I am suspect of Dick Armey.
Ms. McCartt. Our research does show that yellow signal
timings that meet the engineering guidelines do reduce
violations. But as I said earlier, we also showed that red
light cameras further reduce violations. So it is sometimes not
enough to change the yellow signal.
Mr. Baird. Great. I thank you.
No disrespect to our witness here, or to Mr. Armey, I just
want a second opinion on that.
Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman and turn now to
Representative Buchanan. This will be the last round of
questions. We have votes. I assume Members do have questions,
so we will recess for those votes. Hopefully you can all stay.
The votes, by the time we leave, should be concluded in about
25 or 30 minutes. OK?
Go ahead.
Mr. Buchanan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Reagan, it is great to see you here today.
He has been a great leader in our community and in Florida, and
obviously this is an issue that has been very important to you
and been passed into law. Let me ask you. In your testimony,
you said there have been probably about 5600 injuries
prevented. What do you base that on? I mean, how did you come
up with that number?
Mr. Reagan. By the way, Representative Buchanan, it is good
to see you. Thanks for being here and thanks for inviting me,
as well.
What we looked at was statistical data that was provided by
the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and we had
to make a conclusion based on the parameters and data that they
gave us, and what we did is we said if these violations had not
occurred, what injuries would not have occurred. And that is
where we extrapolated that data for the State of Florida.
Mr. Buchanan. And how many accidents will this prevent in
the years to come? Do you have any sense of that going forward
once this gets fully implemented in Florida?
Mr. Reagan. Well, number one, I think it is really going to
depend on how many of these cameras are installed, what cities,
what intersections. As we speak, the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles, as well as the Department of
Transportation, are working to come up with standardized data
that other States have used for the conditions to use these
cameras and at what intersections.
All the statistical data that I have seen throughout the
Nation, T-bone type accidents generally drop anywhere from 50
to 70 percent when these cameras are installed. While I have
heard testimony that rear-end collisions have gone up, in some
communities they have. In our test data in Sarasota and Manatee
Counties, we had three intersections with these cameras for 90
days and we did not have one single rear-end collision.
So I do believe, number one, if we educate the motoring
public, number two, if we engineer correctly the standards and
the intersections where these cameras are used, I believe we
are going to see a dramatic reduction in accidents.
Mr. Buchanan. Why did you initially get involved in this
proposed bill? What happened in your area? I don't know if I
have ever heard that story. Because you have spent a lot of
energy and time and been a major leader in Florida on it, and I
know it is your bill in the new law, but what was the
motivation initially?
Mr. Reagan. Thank you, Representative. Actually, a
constituent of yours and mine that was killed about a mile from
my house, on State Road 70. He and his brother-in-law had gone
out for dinner, were returning. His wife was nine months
pregnant. He had a green arrow, made the turn, and a woman, at
about 50 miles an hour, slammed into the side, killing him
instantly. Two weeks after she buried her husband, she
delivered her only child.
She actually contacted me after that, looking for some
situation, some help as to what can we do for habitual drivers,
number one, and people who do violate the law, primarily red
light camera running. By the way, her husband's name was Mark
Wandall; her name is Melissa Wandall, and she has been a very
great advocate in the State of Florida, as you well know.
I worked with her for about a year looking at what could we
do legally to try to prevent red light running. The cameras, we
found they work. We have studied other States and, as you well
know, I spent five years in the State of Florida trying to get
this legislation passed. I do believe they are going to work. I
do believe it is going to make our roads safer in the State of
Florida, as well as the rest of the Country, when these things
are implemented. But, realistically, I got involved because one
of my constituents was killed.
Mr. Buchanan. Well, thanks for your leadership. I know that
you just term limited out. We are going to miss you, but,
again, thanks for your leadership.
And I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
We will recess until 11:30. And if any of you have other
commitments, I understand, but if you can be here at 11:30, it
would be appreciated for additional questions.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. DeFazio. The Committee will return to order and I would
recognize the Ranking Member, Representative Duncan, for
questions.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me tell the witnesses how sorry I am that we
have had these votes to interrupt this hearing, but this
sometimes happens. So we are going to make this quick. I have a
luncheon appointment at 11:45, so, really, I am just going to
ask one question that I am curious about. Can anybody tell me
what percentage of these red light violations are for turning
right, as opposed to actually running the red light?
Mr. Reagan. Mr. Duncan, I will tell you one of the studies
we did in the State of Florida was that very issue, and that is
right turn on red, and what is the revenue generated from that
versus people that blow right through the intersection. In some
cities it was as high at 60 percent; in some cities it was as
low as 35 percent. So I would say, realistically, what we found
was probably in the neighborhood of 50 to 55 percent of
violations were for right turn on red.
What we did in the State of Florida, though, we said since,
number one, no citation can be issued in the State of Florida
unless the local law enforcement official reviews the tape,
certifies basically using the standard if you were there and
could write a ticket, would you. I mean, while we didn't write
that in the bill, that is kind of the explanation we gave and
asked them to do.
But what they did was simply this. We also put in our
language if you make that right turn on red, even though it is
a violation of the law, in a careful and prudent manner, then
no citation should be issued. So we left it up to local law
enforcement officials, whether it is in Pensacola, Tampa, or
Miami. Since they know their own rules, they know their own
roads, they know their own intersections, we think it makes
sense to do it that way.
But basically, to get back to your question, it is over 50
percent on average.
Mr. Duncan. Well, the reason I asked that is this. I am
really skeptical about these polls that say most people support
these things, because I have noticed, in Mr. Danila's form
here, that 15 States and 11 cities have now banned the use of
these cameras. And I guess the reason that I got so interested
in it was not only because I was having a lot of people talk to
me about it but, in addition, it was a real controversial thing
in the last session of the Tennessee legislature.
I mean, they really got into this in a big, big way, and I
guess they did in Georgia too, Representative Loudermilk. And
it wouldn't have been such a big issue in the Tennessee
legislature if a lot of people weren't talking about it, and
some of the legislators told me that they were hearing from a
lot of people. And the ones I was hearing from were all these
people upset about this turning right on the red lights,
because we have been doing that for years. Now, just flat out
running a red light, not too many people are concerned about
that.
But I am impressed, though, by the fact that this increased
use of the yellow light can make such a difference and going to
more roundabouts and increased signage and these other things,
and I think these cities should try all these other things
first.
And I will always be convinced. You know, we have created
so many parks in this Country now we can't even take care of
all of them, and we can't get the use out of them unless people
just somehow find the way to go on permanent vacations. And we
keep taking all this land off the tax rolls at the same time
that the police and the schools and everybody is coming to us
wanting more money.
So the States have tried to come up with every way they
possibly could to raise money, and all the States have gone
most heavily into gambling--lotteries and other forms of
gambling--and I understand that. And I think these red light
cameras are a whole lot more about money than they are about
safety. I know people say it is about safety, but you will
never convince me, because I think, as I said in my opening
statement, you can never satisfy government's appetite for
money or land; they always want more. And they are going to get
it one way or the other, I assume, but I don't think it is
good.
So I was impressed and appreciated all of your testimonies.
I have learned from it and I think it has been a good hearing.
I am sorry that we were interrupted by the votes, but thank you
very much for being here.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman both for raising the
subject and for his participation, and recognize that we ran
over, so he has another commitment, but I have a few additional
questions.
Captain Hansen, in your testimony you said the
International Association of Chiefs of Police and NHTSA are
working together to establish technical standards for red light
and speed cameras. Can you give us a little bit more
elaboration on that? Because we had some discussion about
guidelines earlier. Is this different? What are we talking
about here?
Mr. Hansen. It is different. Thank you, sir. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police and NHTSA have
formed a subcommittee called ETATS, and that committee is
setting up technical standards. So the guidelines on red light
running camera systems operational guidelines, speed
enforcement systems operational guidelines, they look at the
policy issues, look at how a program should be established,
from problem identification to pulling your stakeholders
together, to making sure you look at engineering alternatives
before you go to enforcement, all of that, which I support 100
percent, I think is critical.
Once you get to you are going to do automated enforcement
and what steps do you take from there, ETATS is picking up with
technical standards to make sure that when a local government
entity or a local law enforcement agency selects a piece of
technology, that that technology does accurately reflect the
car that is running the red light, it does capture an image
when the light turns red, doesn't make any mistaken images, and
does it in a reliable manner.
So where the operational guidelines are very important for
what they do, these technical standards are also important for
what they do.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Mr. Kelly, you talked earlier about the average $100,000
installation cost, and a couple of the Members that were here
at that point sort of raised their eyebrows. I guess we are
talking a very tall standard and a large boom that has to
exceed truck height, so basically that is generally how they
are suspended and that is where most of the cost comes in?
Mr. Kelly. The cost comes in from not only the pole and the
camera on top of the pole, but also there are sensors that are
built into the intersection that can judge the speed of the
oncoming vehicle, keep that in mind with the light that is
about to turn or has turned; it can judge the speed and make a
pretty good assessment of whether or not that vehicle is going
to go through the intersection----
Mr. DeFazio. Meaning if they say it was a yellow light and
I couldn't stop safely.
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And at that point, that is when the camera
will get triggered to take a picture of that vehicle going
through the intersection. So it is not a situation where the
cameras are taking pictures of every single vehicle that goes
through the intersection, it is just the ones that are most
likely or highly likely to run the red light in the first
place.
So the cost comes from the equipment and also from the
construction of putting the sensors and the coils in the
intersection.
Mr. DeFazio. We had some other testimony about some of
these devices being removed. Mr. Danila spoke to this. He said
there are many examples of automated enforcement programs being
shut down because they are not profitable. I guess first I
would ask Mr. Danila to sort of expand or comment on what is
many. Give us a number.
Mr. Danila. Well, basically, what they looked at in certain
situations, some of those examples that are listed in my
written testimony, is the yellow lights at certain
intersections have been increased to the point--normally they
are supposed to be increased based on engineering studies, and
then they noticed that basically the traffic cameras were not
profitable anymore because nobody--I shouldn't say nobody, but
there is a huge decrease in the incidents of people running the
red light. And basically what happened was the cost of
operating these cameras, as Mr. Kelly said is pretty
significant, didn't make the revenue they were supposed to
generate, and then certain counties and cities eventually have
given up using them because they were not profitable.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But I asked the question about the word
many. Do you have a list? Can you quantify?
Mr. Danila. Yes, there is a list, actually on page 7 of my
testimony.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right.
Mr. Danila. Basically there is a list of States and then
particular cities which have banned these programs.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Kelly, I understand the installation cost;
you explained that. But it doesn't seem to me that there would
be a particularly substantial ongoing operating cost, so I am a
bit puzzled here as to why so many places would be removing the
cameras. I mean, in particular, if it isn't that you have to
parse through all the traffic, as you explained, you don't, it
is people approaching too quickly, knowing the cycle of the
light, and then they are likely and then they are videoed, and
then that is reviewed.
And there is obviously a cost to the public agency in
Florida to review, but that is not your cost or your vendor's
cost. So I am curious what is the substantial operating cost
and why would there be so many withdrawn? Because it doesn't
seem to me there would be a very large monthly operating cost.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have really two
issues at play here. As Mr. Danila points out, there have been
some localities that have withdrawn the cameras, and his
contention would be it is because they are not making the
revenue that they thought they would make. Another way to look
at that would be that the cameras were there to address a
safety issue, and when you have the violations going down and
when you have crashes going down, the safety issue has been
addressed; and there may not be a safety need for the camera at
that particular intersection anymore, and that could be one of
the considerations that localities are taking when they are
withdrawing the cameras from an intersection.
Mr. DeFazio. But that would imply a permanent change,
withdrawing the enforcement mechanism. I would argue that there
may have been a decrease in violations, but it may increase if
you remove--
Mr. Kelly. And it may, but there are some instances in
traffic safety enforcement programs that you see the deterrence
effect and the halo effect of that happening continuing out.
You see the same sort of thing with drunk driving enforcement
when you know checkpoints are at a particular intersection.
Even if they are not there every time you drive through that
intersection, the perception of enforcement is out there and it
changes your behavior.
On your other question about the monthly fees and the
associated costs, one of the things that the vendors do, it is
not just sort of put in the equipment and walk away. The
vendors do monthly services, and it is negotiated, it is
different with every locality; it is sort of a negotiated
contract, where they are taking the cameras and processing it--
--
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But again, it seems to me there is a
big investment up front, it is amortized or not amortized, and
it just seems that a monthly maintenance fee in comparison to
that would be quite small. Can you give me a number of what
monthly maintenance fees run? Or is this an issue where you
expect a minimum return, and if the jurisdiction or the
intersection doesn't meet that, then the jurisdiction has to
make up the difference and, therefore, they have a motivation
to remove the light because they are now not getting revenue
from it, but have to pay for it? Is that the problem?
Mr. Kelly. To the contrary, sir. What we are seeing now
with a lot of the contracts that municipalities and localities
are entering into is that they are holding themselves harmless.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Kelly. Whereas, if you are not receiving enough revenue
to pay for the equipment for their monthly fee or whatever it
is, they are holding themselves harmless and they are saying--
and I will make a number up here--if we are going to charge you
$5,000 a month, but we only have $4,000 a month in revenues, we
are not responsible for the other $1,000; those costs have to
be borne by the vendor.
So those types of contracts are becoming more popular and
increasingly in use in various localities. So the cities are
really putting the onus back on the vendors for their----
Mr. DeFazio. So who, then, controls the decision to remove
the device if it is a money-losing proposition; is it up to the
vendor, is it joint? What do the contracts normally say there?
Mr. Kelly. The city has the ultimate decision on whether or
not a device is to be removed.
Mr. DeFazio. So if it has been installed, it is there, and
even if it is losing money, the city can say ``we want to keep
it there''?
Mr. Kelly. Depending on the various contracts with the
locality, there are escape clauses that are there. But the
reason that the cameras are there and the reason that the
cameras are effective is because people are running red lights
and people are speeding.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. OK, but I am just trying----
Mr. Kelly. There is a need there to address this issue, and
photo enforcement is one of the tools, as others have talked
about, one of the tools of enforcement that go along with
traditional enforcement.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure. OK, I got that. What about what Mr.
Baird said, which I think makes a tremendous amount of sense,
which is: require prominent posting of these intersections
which would give people--I think he is spot on in terms of
saying that would bring about compliance at sort of the after-
the-fact, oh gosh, I didn't know there was a camera there, I go
through that intersection every day; now I won't do it again.
Or maybe you just went through that intersection once and
it is not going to make any difference in your behavior because
you are not going through it again; maybe you will be careful
somewhere else, maybe you won't. What about prominent posting?
What is the position of your association on prominent posting?
Mr. Kelly. Signage is in use in many different programs
across the Country and is something that is an integral part to
an effective program. Remember, the goal of the program is to
reduce the incidence in the first place. So we do support in
various States and localities, wherever working with the
vendor, prominent signage to let people know this is an issue;
this is an area where there is photo enforcement.
And the definition of prominent signage is mostly regulated
on a State level, so what might be prominent in one district
could be different than what is prominent in another district,
but prominent signage so people understand this is an
intersection where there is photo enforcement, this is a
freeway where there is speed enforcement. And how that is
signed and people understand that there is a problem is
something that we would support.
Mr. DeFazio. All right.
Mr. Danila, would your organization oppose any use of
automated technology, even if we have taken a comprehensive
approach, we are meeting best practices in terms of length of
yellow light, we have prominent signage and we have looked at
design parameters, we have looked at other factors and we still
have a problem? Are you opposed then to the use of automated
technology even then?
Mr. Danila. I think yes, and the reason probably in that
case would be, one, would be the way the drivers are actually
being notified about these alleged violations. First of all,
the camera is very unpopular to the public. Every time they
appear on ballots, they get voted down. And the way the drivers
get notified, first of all, nobody knows who the driver was,
you know, there is just a vehicle who is getting----
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but I think you have a responsibility to
control the use of your vehicle and be certain the person using
your vehicle uses the vehicle responsibly. So you can't just
say, oh, I have a friend who has a drunk driving problem, I am
going to lend him my car and I am not going to worry about it.
Mr. Danila. That is correct. However, the notification
process, the way it is currently in place, I think has some
flaws in terms of the driver, the owner of the vehicle, is
notified by regular mail, and I know this for a fact, from a
personal situation when it happened to a friend of mine who
actually did not get the actual so-called first notification.
However, he got the second one with a double fine. And when
he called in to contest it, he was told he has to pay what the
double fine is or otherwise his fine would be reported to the
credit collectors and stuff. So that is one of the main
problems I think that this program is facing, about notifying
properly the drivers about the situation.
The other thing, the second problem is there is no human
factor involved in it. If, let's say, a driver contests it in
court, there is nobody there from the State who would actually
say, yes, this was the driver who committed this violation.
There is hearsay, basically; there is a camera on the road that
took a picture.
And that leads to the third problem, which is how well
these cameras are actually maintained, because I know for a
fact in some places they had problems with weather
interference, whether two vehicles were photographed in the
same picture. So there were other problems with the maintenance
of the cameras themselves which at times may not function
properly; however, they still issued a citation.
So I think on these three levels the NMA would definitely
still oppose the cameras.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Would either Representative Loudermilk or
Representative Reagan want to address those issues or that
issue?
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. The
question that you posed to the gentleman, from a personal
standpoint, I would still be opposed to the red light cameras
from a constitutional standpoint. The statement was made
earlier that there have been no court cases ruling them
unconstitutional, but just this year the State of Minnesota, in
Minnesota v. Coleman, the Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that
placing the burden of proof upon the accused is a violation of
the Fifth Amendment by due process.
And currently in California the Supreme Court is hearing a
case from a lower appellate court, interestingly enough,
dealing with the Sixth Amendment, the right to confront your
accuser, and stating that a camera is so focused on an
intersection that it can't testify to other aspects of what was
going on.
And a perfect illustration we have had of that in Georgia
that we are trying to address in the legislature now is the
legal running of red lights, such as a funeral procession. We
have had instances where funeral parlors have contacted me and
said we have a problem; every time the procession goes through
an intersection, every car in the procession receives a red
light camera ticket. There is no provision in the law for them
to get out of it because they can't sign off saying that they
weren't the driver because they were.
And we had an incident where a citizen from Alabama was
required by the City of Rome in Georgia to drive back into
Georgia--they were there out of State for a funeral--get a copy
of the obituary that ran in the local paper, and take it to the
local court before they would allow them out of paying the
fine.
So there is this continual concern that although House Bill
77 has been very effective in Georgia in reducing red light
running, it still has not addressed the constitutional concerns
of the Fifth, the Sixth, now what we are seeing with the Sixth
Amendment--in fact, the State of South Dakota, the Supreme
Court is dealing with a Fifth Amendment case right now dealing
with due process.
But also the Fourteenth Amendment we are looking at in
Georgia that states that no State shall deprive any citizen of
life, liberty, or property without due process to law. Without
taking a picture of the driver, it is very difficult to not put
the burden of proof upon the accused, especially.
And there are many instances where they didn't necessarily
loan the car to someone; we have had many instances where the
tag was misread, a G was read as a C. We have also had
instances where a maintenance shop had the vehicle and was test
driving the vehicle and ran through the intersection. So now
the accused is having to prove that--in fact, we have had
instances where they were out of State, and they have had to go
and show airline tickets and hotel tickets, taking time off
work.
So there are still going to remain the constitutional
concerns, but if we are going to have the red light cameras,
then we have to focus on the safety.
Mr. DeFazio. Representative Reagan?
Mr. Reagan. If I might. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, I
appreciate that. I would like to address two things. One is the
notification. In the State of Florida, we have toll booths at
expressways, just like many other States do, and if you violate
that under State statute today, we send the owner of the
vehicle a picture of the automobile violating the law and a
$100 fine. We don't take a picture of the driver because we
ask, just as you said, Mr. DeFazio, we ask that you, as the
owner of the vehicle, be responsible for your vehicle.
Also, parking tickets. Virtually every State sends a ticket
to the owner of the vehicle, not the driver of the vehicle.
So I think notification is fine; I don't think there is a
problem with that whatsoever, and I think those standards
should be followed properly.
Now, my colleague brought up something regarding funeral
processions. In the bill in the State of Florida, we actually
addressed that very specifically. If you are in a funeral
procession, then all you have to do is basically make a
statement to that effect and you are off the hook. Also, if you
are at the direction of a law enforcement official violating a
red light via getting out of the way of an ambulance or
anything of that nature, also you have the opportunity to do
that.
And one other thing we did in the State of Florida, when
you receive the citation, is simply this: If you were not the
driver and you do know who that driver is, you can sign an
affidavit to that effect, and we transfer the ticket away from
you to that individual.
So I think we are trying, in the State of Florida, to
address all the concerns that we have heard throughout the
Nation.
I might also mention one other thing. We have heard
testimony today about the extension of the amber light by one
additional second. We ran tests in Florida regarding that very
thing and, yes, it does initially stop people from running red
lights by 50 percent. I have heard the testimony and I will buy
that, with the exception of two things. Number one is once you
have changed somebody's driving habit and behaviors, we did a
test study, and five days after we added the additional second
to the amber light, the same people were violating that red
light again.
The other concern about that is what about the next
intersection down the road that doesn't have the extension on
their amber light? We found that people actually exceed the
speed limit running that next red light because of the fact
they believe, mentally, they have gotten in the habit of they
have that extra time.
So I don't necessarily believe that adding the one
additional second, unless you are going to do it across your
entire State or across the entire Nation, then you are going to
have, I think, tremendous additional traffic problems if you do
that. So proper engineering probably is the thing to do
overall.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, may I just address the court cases
for a second?
Mr. DeFazio. Briefly, yes. Go ahead.
Mr. Kelly. I would say the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
agrees with you about responsibility for the ticket, and they
have issued such an opinion, and I would be happy to provide
that to the Committee for the record.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure. OK, thank you.
OK, anybody have anything they wanted to add, contest, or
otherwise augment the record with?
[No response.]
Mr. DeFazio. OK, seeing no volunteers, then, I would thank
you all for your time and your testimony on this issue, and the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.278
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7250.313