What's wrong with ticket quotas for Highway Patrolmen?

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 09:59:56 -0700, "Gary V" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> >> The reality remains that it's very difficult (if not impossible) to
> >> time lights such that a driver doing the speed limit won't hit red
> >> lights.
> >
> >You've said that several times, but it's really quite simple. Suppose
> >you wish to have traffic flow at about 30 mph = 44 ft/sec. If two
> >lights are 1/4 mile apart, the second light changes 30 seconds after
> >the first. If two lights are 1/8 mile apart, 15 seconds. Adjust
> >timing per desired speed and distance.
> >
> >I will admit it gets more difficult if you are attempting to
> >synchronize the lights in BOTH directions. If a road is used for
> >commuting and has a greater flow in one direction in the morning and
> >the other in the afternoon, you can set the timing according to the
> >commuting pattern.
> >
> >It also gets complicated if the cross streets are also to have their
> >lights timed, especially if it is to be coordinated across an entire
> >grid pattern (an urban downtown). Traffic engineers would have to
> >decide which roads have priority in setting the timing.
> >
> >Two examples:
> >
> >(1) Before the I-196 freeway was opened, the only Holland (MI) bypass
> >was along what is now US-31 between Chicago Drive and I-196. Signs
> >were posted, "Traffic lights set for XX mph" - I don't recall exactly
> >what XX was, but I think it was 5 mph below the speed limit. These
> >were b/w signs, roughly the same size as speed limit signs, perhaps
> >bolted to the same posts as the SL.
> >
> >(2) On Woodward Avenue in metro Detroit, one can travel outbound (N and
> >slightly W angle) in the evening from Ferndale through Royal Oak,
> >Birmingham and Bloomfield at a constant speed without getting stopped
> >at lights. (The system sometimes breaks down around 13 Mile Rd because
> >the intersection for Coolidge Hwy is so close.) This is a distance of
> >about 12 miles. In the morning it works in the opposite direction.
>
> In some specific places, on some specific roads, it works OK.
> In the Phoenix area, where blocks are as a rule (but not universally)
> 1/8 mile, there are 'superblocks' 8 blocks long, and 1 mile long. We
> have namy areas where these streets have lights at the superblock
> corners; these lights can be synched fairly easily (Glendale nas made
> the effort, but I can easily demonstrate they've failed). But when
> some half-way (1/2 mile interval) lights happen, they ruin the synch
> pattern. (The half-superblock lights are not uniformly installed.)
> I doubt many cities have been laid out so that traffic lights can
> easily be synched to a specific speed limit; I haven't seen many
> instances in many cities,and it ceretainly can't be done in all.
> It's all well and good to cite a few instances where it works, but I
> didn't say it can't be done. I pointed out why it usually can't be
> done.
>

Forbes/5th Avenue through Oakland (Pittsburgh) as well as Centre, Baum,
Liberty, etc. have been beautifully synched for at least 15 years, if
not more, so the ability to do this has been around for quite some
time. Quite a few streets in the Detroit area are like this, too.
Now DC... not so much.

nate

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:

> In some specific places, on some specific roads, it works OK.
> In the Phoenix area, where blocks are as a rule (but not universally)
> 1/8 mile, there are 'superblocks' 8 blocks long, and 1 mile long. We
> have namy areas where these streets have lights at the superblock
> corners; these lights can be synched fairly easily (Glendale nas made
> the effort, but I can easily demonstrate they've failed). But when
> some half-way (1/2 mile interval) lights happen, they ruin the synch
> pattern. (The half-superblock lights are not uniformly installed.)
> I doubt many cities have been laid out so that traffic lights can
> easily be synched to a specific speed limit; I haven't seen many
> instances in many cities,and it ceretainly can't be done in all.
> It's all well and good to cite a few instances where it works, but I
> didn't say it can't be done. I pointed out why it usually can't be
> done.


In an era of computer controls and sensors there is no need to limit the
thinking as if all lights had to be controlled independently by
mechanical timers.

sensors in the pavement, even cameras, with the traffic lights networked
together a control system could be developed to sync them to minimize
overall congestion.

As I stated earlier, some cities actually have central control where
humans are changing traffic signal conditions on the fly to accomplish
that goal. They watch video feeds to see where they need to step in and
swith a signal to relieve or prevent congestion.

Programming and electronic controls can probably do a great deal today,
but for those that cannot be handled by machine, human operators can.

For the sniping 'cite' trolls:

http://www.itsworld.com/tme/index.cf...ewsItemID=8885

"The city will implement intelligent traffic systems, using a variety of
technologies to create a more efficient and safe transportation system.
The systems will include smart signal timing, automated and networked
traffic signals and additional variable message boards. They will focus
on major city intersections and consolidate signal-reprogramming
functions in the Operation Center."

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:05:48 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:19:49 -0400, Nate Nagel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>If nothing else, it's inefficient, and not conducive to smooth traffic
>>>>flow. For that reason alone, this practice should never be used unless
>>>>there's some extenuating circumstance. When lights are clearly timed,
>>>>an aware driver will almost always try to hit all the greens if for no
>>>>other reason than not to waste the fuel accelerating from a stop. And
>>>>if they are timed, there's no reason to time them for a speed higher
>>>>than the speed limit, other than to encourage drivers to speed.
>>>
>>>Not so.
>>>If lights are timed, it's not always possible to time them to match a
>>>speed limit of an exact 5 or 10mph interval (30, 35, 40mph), because
>>>of the distances between lights caused by the distance between
>>>signaled intersections.
>>
>>And if the lights are timed to 50mph in a 40mph zone? Besides,
>>there's no reason lights can't be timed to an even interval. To
>>synchronize them, they need to have the same cycle time; the phasing sets the
>>speed, and can do so arbitrarily within a certain range.
>
>No, they can't.
>The spacing between signals is fixed by the location of intersecting
>streets; it's not often that signals can be times to an even-interval
>speed limit (25, 30, 35mph, etc). Remember, the intersecting streets
>need to have their signals timed, too.

No, you don't (and can't) time the signals in both axes. The spacing
between the signals is fixed, but the phase of the signals is not
fixed.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

John Smith wrote:
> "Gary V" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> >
> >> The reality remains that it's very difficult (if not impossible) to
> >> time lights such that a driver doing the speed limit won't hit red
> >> lights.
> >
> > You've said that several times, but it's really quite simple. Suppose
> > you wish to have traffic flow at about 30 mph = 44 ft/sec. If two
> > lights are 1/4 mile apart, the second light changes 30 seconds after
> > the first. If two lights are 1/8 mile apart, 15 seconds. Adjust
> > timing per desired speed and distance.
> >
> > I will admit it gets more difficult if you are attempting to
> > synchronize the lights in BOTH directions. If a road is used for
> > commuting and has a greater flow in one direction in the morning and
> > the other in the afternoon, you can set the timing according to the
> > commuting pattern.
> >
> > It also gets complicated if the cross streets are also to have their
> > lights timed, especially if it is to be coordinated across an entire
> > grid pattern (an urban downtown). Traffic engineers would have to
> > decide which roads have priority in setting the timing.
> >
> > Two examples:
> >
> > (1) Before the I-196 freeway was opened, the only Holland (MI) bypass
> > was along what is now US-31 between Chicago Drive and I-196. Signs
> > were posted, "Traffic lights set for XX mph" - I don't recall exactly
> > what XX was, but I think it was 5 mph below the speed limit. These
> > were b/w signs, roughly the same size as speed limit signs, perhaps
> > bolted to the same posts as the SL.
> >
> > (2) On Woodward Avenue in metro Detroit, one can travel outbound (N and
> > slightly W angle) in the evening from Ferndale through Royal Oak,
> > Birmingham and Bloomfield at a constant speed without getting stopped
> > at lights. (The system sometimes breaks down around 13 Mile Rd because
> > the intersection for Coolidge Hwy is so close.) This is a distance of
> > about 12 miles. In the morning it works in the opposite direction.
>
>
> Are you assuming that all the traffic lights on one street are the same
> distance apart?

Not at all.

> What if you have the first light at 1/4 mile,
Changes 30 seconds later

> second at 1/4
that one changes another 30 seconds later

> mile, third at 1/3 mile,
Another 40 seconds

> and 4th at 1/2 mile, etc.?
It changes a full minute later

> Are you able to set
> each light at a different interval
They change at different times, but the total cycle time for each light
is the same

> and get it correct for not only the main
> street but the intersecting streets?
As I admitted, doing it for a grid is difficult. You have to define a
street with priority, then set the cross streets in relation to the
main street.

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:
>
>Your claim was that the government encourages you to speed.
>That's wrong, and I explained why.

Yes, you "explained" that if speeding causes you to hit far fewer red
lights, that's not "encouragement".

>Let's get back to reality, OK?

Here in reality, if you are rewarded for something, you are (by
definition) being encouraged to do it. Being stopped by fewer red lights is a
reward. In some instances, you are stopped by fewer red lights when
travelling above the speed limit than by travelling at or below it.
This situation is caused by the timing of the lights, and by the value
of the speed limit. Both are set by the government. Therefore, the
government is encouraging you to speed.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:05:48 -0500,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:19:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If nothing else, it's inefficient, and not conducive to smooth
>>>> traffic flow. For that reason alone, this practice should never
>>>> be used unless there's some extenuating circumstance. When
>>>> lights are clearly timed, an aware driver will almost always try
>>>> to hit all the greens if for no other reason than not to waste
>>>> the fuel accelerating from a stop. And if they are timed,
>>>> there's no reason to time them for a speed higher than the speed
>>>> limit, other than to encourage drivers to speed.
>>>
>>> Not so.
>>> If lights are timed, it's not always possible to time them to
>>> match a speed limit of an exact 5 or 10mph interval (30, 35,
>>> 40mph), because of the distances between lights caused by the
>>> distance between signaled intersections.
>>
>> And if the lights are timed to 50mph in a 40mph zone? Besides,
>> there's no reason lights can't be timed to an even interval. To
>> synchronize them, they need to have the same cycle time; the
>> phasing sets the speed, and can do so arbitrarily within a certain
>> range.
>
> No, they can't.
>

Of course they can. They've been doing it for years. 30 years ago
they were doing it on the avenues in NYC. I remember thinking it cool
to be able to watch a couple of green phases moving down the street
away from me as I waited for the next green phase to catch up with me
from behind. They do it today in Portland. In Astoria, OR, there is
a sign on the first light in the string stating that the lights are
timed for 20 mph (and it's pretty faded meaning that it has been that
way for quite some time).

>
> The spacing between signals is fixed by the location of intersecting
> streets; it's not often that signals can be times to an
> even-interval speed limit (25, 30, 35mph, etc).
>

The fixed spacing between signals is what makes this easy. It's
simple d=rt. It takes x number of seconds to cover y feet at z mph.
Offset the signal phase at the next signal by x seconds (all other
timing being the same). Move to the next signal and apply the
appropriate phase offset to that one based on its distance from the
previous signal.

It works even better if the traffic signal controllers are networked.
Signal A sends out a msg each time it changes. Signal B applies the
appropriate phase offset for its change to the same condition and
sends out a change msg to Signal C.

Even better is to work the whole string off one controller. That way
you only need to tell it the distances between signals and the desired
traffic speed. The controller figures out the phase offsets and
changes each signal at appropriate times.

If you want to change the speed of traffic, you simply adjust the
phase offsets to times appropriate to the new speed and reset the
system.

>
> Remember, the
> intersecting streets need to have their signals timed, too.
>

Who said so? I merely said along the main routes. Actually, in
downtown Portland they do have the signals synchronized in all 4
directions in the one-way street grid. I guess they found the perfect
block size and signal timing to allow this to happen. Signal strings
usually break at the east/west MAX line (MAX trains tend to bollix up
the system as they add an occasional 3rd phase), Burnside St and
I-405.

--
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

"Andrew Tompkins" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:05:48 -0500,
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:19:49 -0400, Nate Nagel
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If nothing else, it's inefficient, and not conducive to smooth
>>>>> traffic flow. For that reason alone, this practice should never
>>>>> be used unless there's some extenuating circumstance. When
>>>>> lights are clearly timed, an aware driver will almost always try
>>>>> to hit all the greens if for no other reason than not to waste
>>>>> the fuel accelerating from a stop. And if they are timed,
>>>>> there's no reason to time them for a speed higher than the speed
>>>>> limit, other than to encourage drivers to speed.
>>>>
>>>> Not so.
>>>> If lights are timed, it's not always possible to time them to
>>>> match a speed limit of an exact 5 or 10mph interval (30, 35,
>>>> 40mph), because of the distances between lights caused by the
>>>> distance between signaled intersections.
>>>
>>> And if the lights are timed to 50mph in a 40mph zone? Besides,
>>> there's no reason lights can't be timed to an even interval. To
>>> synchronize them, they need to have the same cycle time; the
>>> phasing sets the speed, and can do so arbitrarily within a certain
>>> range.
>>
>> No, they can't.
>>
>
> Of course they can. They've been doing it for years. 30 years ago
> they were doing it on the avenues in NYC. I remember thinking it cool
> to be able to watch a couple of green phases moving down the street
> away from me as I waited for the next green phase to catch up with me
> from behind. They do it today in Portland. In Astoria, OR, there is
> a sign on the first light in the string stating that the lights are
> timed for 20 mph (and it's pretty faded meaning that it has been that
> way for quite some time).
>
>>
>> The spacing between signals is fixed by the location of intersecting
>> streets; it's not often that signals can be times to an
>> even-interval speed limit (25, 30, 35mph, etc).
>>
>
> The fixed spacing between signals is what makes this easy. It's
> simple d=rt. It takes x number of seconds to cover y feet at z mph.
> Offset the signal phase at the next signal by x seconds (all other
> timing being the same). Move to the next signal and apply the
> appropriate phase offset to that one based on its distance from the
> previous signal.
>
> It works even better if the traffic signal controllers are networked.
> Signal A sends out a msg each time it changes. Signal B applies the
> appropriate phase offset for its change to the same condition and
> sends out a change msg to Signal C.
>
> Even better is to work the whole string off one controller. That way
> you only need to tell it the distances between signals and the desired
> traffic speed. The controller figures out the phase offsets and
> changes each signal at appropriate times.
>
> If you want to change the speed of traffic, you simply adjust the
> phase offsets to times appropriate to the new speed and reset the
> system.
>
>>
>> Remember, the
>> intersecting streets need to have their signals timed, too.
>>
>
> Who said so? I merely said along the main routes. Actually, in
> downtown Portland they do have the signals synchronized in all 4
> directions in the one-way street grid. I guess they found the perfect
> block size and signal timing to allow this to happen. Signal strings
> usually break at the east/west MAX line (MAX trains tend to bollix up
> the system as they add an occasional 3rd phase), Burnside St and
> I-405.
>
> --
> --Andy

I, for one, think you make a great point.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:20:49 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>
>>Your claim was that the government encourages you to speed.
>>That's wrong, and I explained why.
>
>Yes, you "explained" that if speeding causes you to hit far fewer red
>lights, that's not "encouragement".

Are you saying it is?
>
>>Let's get back to reality, OK?
>
>Here in reality, if you are rewarded for something, you are (by
>definition) being encouraged to do it. Being stopped by fewer red lights is a
>reward. In some instances, you are stopped by fewer red lights when
>travelling above the speed limit than by travelling at or below it.
>This situation is caused by the timing of the lights, and by the value
>of the speed limit. Both are set by the government. Therefore, the
>government is encouraging you to speed.

Are you familiar with the term "unintended consequences"?
As I've pointed out (and despite the cites of places where this has
happened, since they remain well with the definition of "rare"), it's
very hard to synch the lights to a standard speed limit.
That you will get fewer red lights by speeding can't be considered
encouragemt to speed any more than getting food stamps can be an
encouragement to lie on the application for them.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"DYM" > wrote in message
...
> necromancer > wrote in
> th.net:
>
>> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), John Smith said
>> in rec.autos.driving:
>>> That is what gives us all a bad name. We can't do a lot to help (I'm
>>> a motor unit so I don't have any tools etc.).
>>> We usually block traffic until a tow truck arrives, or try and move
>>> the vehicle so that it doesn't block traffic. At one time we carried
>>> "slim jims" in the cars, and would use our "push bumper" to push a
>>> vehicle out of the roadway, but people started suing the PD saying we
>>> scratched their vehicle - so all that stopped. Now about all we are
>>> allowed to do is call for a tow truck, or if possible, we just help
>>> push the vehicle by hand.
>>
>> Used to be that way where I am also. The police would open a car for
>> you if you had a brain fart and locked your keys in the car. Then one
>> tourist too many sued the County Police for damaging the vehicle and
>> the Chief said no more unlocking car doors unless a life is in danger.
>> Oh well, you try to do something for some people and then all have to
>> suffer because of a prick or two...
>>
>>
>
> Had one do it for me last spring.
>
> Officer: Where's you car?
> Me: See that sad looking girl standing over there, next to her. She's sad
> because her dad's an idiot that locked his keys in a running car.
> Officer: Ok, need you to sign this form releasing us from liability.
>
> Thirty seconds later, I'm in my car.
>
> I've found that when you approach cops as you would any other human
> being, with common curitsy, you get it in return.
>
> Doug

Thanks, we appreciate that now and then. I'll never forget one Christmas
when I came upon a lady that had locked her keys in her car at a shopping
mall. It was freezing and she was trying to find someone to help her,
because she couldn't afford to call a lock smith. I got out the slim jim
and opened the door. She gave me a big hug - it was well worth it. I wish
we had some release forms so we could start opening doors again, it was good
PR if nothing else. I think the wrecker and/or lock smiths don't want us to
open doors though. Around here they get a minimum of $45 just to unlock a
door - nice easy money.

--
"Ambition is the last refuge of failure." -- Oscar Wilde



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able
to deliver any clue to the following address: Speeders & Drunk Drivers
are MURDERERS >
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


>Off hand i'd say there are a
>million TIMES as many speeding crimes a day as shootings.!!

Big deal.


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.