Removal of Camera Warning Signs on Medians

8/3/2019 Removal of Camera Warning Signs on Medians

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/removal-of-camera-warning-signs-on-medians 1/8

Intersection Camera Warning Signs

By: Chris Sweryda

Signs Referenced

Intersection warning signs are placed on the approaches to intersections that have photo

enforcement. They are used to give advance warning to drivers that the intersection they areapproaching is monitored by photo enforcement for red light and speeding offences.

Outline

Section 1 – Why Sign?1A – Purpose of Signs

1B – Requirement to Sign

1C – Signs of Safety

Section 2 – Proper Signing2A – Sign Tabs2B - Dual Signing

Section 3 - Removal3A – Disappearance

3B – City Response3C – Internal Communication3D – Police Involvement

3E – Conclusions

Section 4 – Location List

ID33/MR124 - Base Sign MR124TB - Tab

Photo

Enforced



Section 1 – Why Sign?

1A – Purpose of SignsMany people will argue that red light runners and speeders should not be given warning of

camera enforcement. In reality, these signs serve a much larger role than to simply warn

lawbreakers. Photo cameras are installed to increase safety at dangerous intersections bymodifying driver behavior. A major shortcoming of cameras is that, unlike police officers, theydo not stop the offending vehicle and therefore make no safety change at the time of the offence.

Due to this key difference, the cameras are ineffectual without the driver being aware of their

presence. Safety can only be hoped for in the long term as tickets are issued, creating driver

awareness. Through ticketing, local traffic becomes accustomed to the camera’s presence withor without signing leaving tourists and other non-local traffic representing an inflated proportion

of violators. Since these drivers do not frequent the camera, a ticket will not adjust their

behavior which is where the advantage of signing comes in. Signs will warn unfamiliar driversof the camera and adjust their behavior before they receive their first ticket. Also, they are

posted on all approaches to an enforced intersection even though only one direction is enforced

to create safety from all sides. This will reflect the true safety intentions of using photoenforcement as a deterrent. Even local drivers who may not realize they are speeding or simply

forget about the camera will adjust their driving when the signs are observed. To adjust their

behavior due to a camera, a driver does not simply go from speeding to not speeding or decide

not to run a red light. The driver will become more conscious of their speed, possibly evendriving below the speed limit and will pay closer attention to the light anticipating and reacting

sooner to a signal change thus improving safety at these dangerous locations. These photo

enforcement benefits can only be achieved through camera awareness with proper signing andnot solely from issuing tickets. Cameras are rotated between housings so that motorists will

never know which cameras are active and which aren’t. The purpose of this is to deter violatorseven without enforcement which can only be effective with awareness brought from signing.

The absence of any of these signs would go against the intended safety claims of photoenforcement.

1B – Requirement to SignThe document known as the ‘Conditions of Authority’ is the provincial document that outlines

the obligations of the City of Winnipeg in order to maintain provincial authorization to run the

photo enforcement program. With safety in mind, and to be consistent with other jurisdictions,the conditions of authority mandates the use of photo enforcement warning signs. Section 3 of

the Conditions of Authority states, “The city shall…erect permanent signs on approaches to

intersections monitored by intersection safety cameras.”

1C – Signs of SafetyAs proof of the benefits of signing before intersection cameras, the city showcased these signs ina 2005 public awareness campaign referring to them as, “Signs of Safety.” To show the greateffects these signs have, the city stated that since signs were installed on the approaches to the

intersection of Kenaston and Corydon near Carpathia School, speeding offences were reduced by

84%. Carpathia School principal, Marcia Dveris, did a radio commercial for the WinnipegPolice thanking Winnipeg drivers for the, “…r ecess on speeding, for seeing the signs and driving

more safely.” Another similar commercial featured a construction worker stating, “Where photo



safety enforcement signs have gone up, speeding offences have gone down, by 66%. So thank

you for seeing the signs of safety and slowing down.” The City of Winnipeg has certainlyreinforced the fact that true safety is achieved with proper signing.

Section 2 – Proper Signing

2A – Sign TabsThe ID33/MR124 base sign can be used for two separate applications; the approaches to

intersection cameras and on major roads throughout the city. For these two applications, thereare two separate sign tabs. Signs on the approaches to cameras have tabs that state “PhotoEnforced” to indicate the presence of a photo camera at the next intersection. Other signs

contain a tab that states “Photo Enforced Community” which indicates that the city as a whole

has the presence of mobile photo enforcement and intersection cameras. Some of the signs onintersection camera approaches improperly use the “Photo Enforced Community” tab. This isimproper signing and creates confusion over the meaning of these two tabs.

Most approaches to camera intersections such as Grant EB approaching Charleswood Pkwy (left) consist of

signs that properly display the “Photo Enforced” tab. Some locations such as Grant EB approaching Pembina

(right) improperly display the “Photo Enforced Community” tab.

Above screenshot is from the Winnipeg Police website showcasing the

billboards displayed throughout Winnipeg in 2005 that portrayed

intersection camera warning signs as, “Signs of Safety.”



2B – Dual SigningDuring initial installation in 2003, all 87 divided or one-way approaches to intersection cameras

received dual signing. This is the practice of placing a second sign on the median of a divided or

the left side of a one-way street across from the sign placed on the right. It can be interpreted by

the Conditions of Authority that dual signing is required when possible since it requires “signs”

on the approaches to cameras. Due to larger/slower traffic keeping right, the faster movingmedian lane has an impaired view of the right side sign. Overall, this practice greatly increases

sign visibility and reinforces the deterrent safety nature of intersection camera enforcement.

Section 3 – Removal

3A – DisappearanceDuring the summer of 2009, 79 out of 87 left side signs on divided or one-way streets

disappeared. This was too great a number simply to be a theft or a lack of maintenance issue.

There appeared to be a conscious effort by some party to remove these signs and reduce driverawareness at these intersections.

Cavalier SB north of Portage (above) was one of 87 divided or one-way approaches to an intersection enforced

with an intersection camera. All 87 received dual signing intersection camera warning signs to act as a

deterrent and increase safety.

Google street-view from early 2009 (left) shows a left side camera warning sign on Portage EB approaching

Cavalier. Picture from 2011 (right) shows the sign pole remaining to support another sign but the camera

warning sign has been removed.



3B – City ResponseWhen the story hit the media in the early spring of 2011, initial statements by the city in theWinnipeg Sun were that the left side signs “…are not being re-installed or maintained because

the signs in the median are not considered essential.” It seemed peculiar that 79 out of 87 or91% of median signs would disappear over the course of one summer due to a lack of

maintenance. Signs are known to last in the neighborhood of 15-20 years. It would beimpossible to have to maintain 91% of road signs on an annual basis. Sign removal was

deliberate.

3C – Internal CommunicationIn early 2011, a request was made under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act for all

documents related to the sign removal. When copies of the e-mails were supplied, all earlycommunication was blanked out on the basis that it was “Non-responsive.” Only the lastparagraph of the last e-mail was supplied which stated that the median signs would not be

installed “in an effort to eliminate clutter.” Contrary to the city’s implications of just notmaintaining these signs, the last sentence of this e-mail stated, “We will endeavor over the next

few months to clean up centre median signs at existing locations.” This last line stated it all;signs were deliberately removed and did not disappear from disrepair. Public Works also

appears only to be cleaning up ‘median clutter’ when it applies to camera warning signs. Centremedians in Winnipeg have 1000’s of signs placed on them and yet only the warning signs beforecameras, which represent a very minuscule number of the signs, were removed during this clean-

up effort. Other remaining median signs are often as unimportant as city route markers which

cause no safety gains by their presence. Not only were other signs not removed, but contrary tothis clean-up effort, more median signs have been added and continue to appear around the city.

Clean-up does not appear to be the motive for this removal.

Google street-view from early 2009 (left) shows a left side camera warning sign on a median light standard on

Corydon EB approaching Kenaston. Picture from 2011 (right) shows the light standard still holding sign

brackets after the sign had been removed.



3D – Police InvolvementOn many occasions, the Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) has been contacted in regards to safety

issues regarding signs. In most cases this contact consisted of pleas for the police’s “Just Slow

Down” safety campaign to request more or improved speed limit signing. In all cases, the WPS

have claimed that signing is strictly a Public Works issue. One direct response to a request to

have signs fixed was, “Traffic Services City of Winnipeg is responsible for signage.” Even theWPS website states, “The City of Winnipeg Public Works Department, Transportation Division

is responsible for posting signage.” The message from the WPS is clear. They do not involve

themselves with signing issues even when related to safety nor will they pass on requests to

Public Works on behalf of citizens. From this message, the last party that would be expected tohave involvement in the removal of these median warning signs would be WPS. In reality, the

only two recipients of the final e-mail from the superintendent of Public Works stating that thesigns will be removed, were WPS Photo Enforcement officers. Why are two officers of the WPSPhoto Enforcement Division being contacted personally in regards to median sign removal if

they have no involvement with signage?

3E – Conclusions1-If safety is truly the goal of intersection cameras, than signage should be the most important

means of reinforcing these cameras as a deterrent.

2-A flashing photo enforcement camera may make money for the city, but does nothing toimprove the safety of the road.

3-Such effective signs of safety should not have been removed and goes against any claims by

the city to be using photo enforcement as a safety tool.4-The removal of such signs goes against the provincial conditions of authority for the program

which stated that these signs were, “permanent.”

5-The TIRF report published for the City of Winnipeg recommended improving signage at

camera locations, but yet the City of Winnipeg is removing signing.6-Since median clean-up is not the motive, there appears to be a connection between photo

enforcement revenue and median sign removal even though it has been denied.

Google street-view from early 2009 (left) shows unnecessary RB62 not a truck route sign on the right side only

on School Road NB at north side of Portage. Between 2009 and summer 2011 (right) a second sign was added

to the median for only two lanes of traffic which is adding to “median clutter.”



Section 4 – Location List

This list below gives all locations of cameras with one or more divided/one way approaches.

Bold text indicates the enforced direction. All locations originally had dual signing and currentstatus indicates if the left sign is still present or has been removed.

Camera Location Approaches Type Current

StatusArchibald SB at Elizabeth Archibald NB

Archibald SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Bishop Grandin WB at River Bishop Grandin EB

Bishop Grandin WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Century NB at Silver Century NB

Century SB

Silver EB

Silver WB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Present

Removed

Disraeli Freeway NB at Lily Disraeli NB

Disraeli SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Donald SB at Broadway Donald SB Broadway EB

Broadway WB

One-Way

Divided

Divided

Present

Removed

Removed

Dunkirk NB at St. Vital Road Dunkirk NB

Dunkirk SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Fermor WB at St. Mary’s Road St. Mary’s NB

St. Mary’s SB

Fermor EB

Fermor WB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Removed

Removed

Grant EB at Charleswood Pkwy Charleswood Pkwy SB

Grant EB Grant WB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Removed

Grant WB at Wilton Grant EB

Grant WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Henderson Hwy SB at Kimberly Henderson Hwy NB

Henderson Hwy SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Henderson Hwy NB at Gilmore Henderson Hwy NB

Henderson Hwy SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Inkster WB at Airlies Inkster EB

Inkster WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Isabel NB at William Isabel SB Divided Removed

Kenaston SB at Corydon Kenaston NB

Kenaston SB Corydon EB

Corydon WB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Removed

Removed

Keewatin NB at Selkirk Keewatin NB

Keewatin SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Lagimodiere SB at Grassie Lagimodiere NB

Lagimodiere SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Leila WB at Sinclair Leila EB

Leila WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Main NB at Inkster Main NB Main SB

Inkster EB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Removed



Main SB at Redwood Main NB

Main SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Main NB at Logan Main NB Main SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

McPhillips SB at Jefferson McPhillips NB

McPhillips SB

Jefferson EB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

RemovedMcPhillips SB at Redwood McPhillips NB

McPhillips SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Moray NB at Lodge Moray NB Moray SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Notre Dame WB at Sherbrook Sherbrook NB

Notre Dame WB

One-Way

One-Way

Present

Present

Panet SB at Munroe Panet NB

Panet SB

Divided

Divided

Present

Present

Pembina Hwy NB at Grant Pembina NB

Pembina SB

Grant EB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Removed

Pembina Hwy NB at Dalhousie N. Leg Pembina NB

Pembina SBDalhousie EB

Dalhousie WB

Divided

DividedDivided

Divided

Removed

RemovedRemoved

Removed

Portage EB at Cavalier Cavalier SB

Portage EB

Portage WB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Present

Removed

Removed

Portage EB at Dominion Portage EB Portage WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Portage WB at Mount Royal Portage WB

Portage EB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Provencher EB at Alneau Provencher EB

Provencher WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Regent WB at Owen Regent EB

Regent WB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Sherbrook NB at Broadway Sherbrook NB One-Way Removed

St. Anne’s NB at Meadowood St. Anne’s NB St. Anne’s SB

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

St. James SB at Ness Ness EB Divided Removed

St. Mary’s NB at Warde St. Mary’s NB St. Mary’s SB

Warde EB

Van Hull Way WB

Divided

Divided

Divided

Divided

Removed

Removed

Removed

Removed

York EB at Fort Fort NB

York EB

One-Way

One-Way

Present

Present

Documents

Removal of Camera Warning Signs on Medians