Welcome to Street Management & Safety, Control, Management

Lets talk about Traffic engineering which is a branch of civil engineering that uses engineering techniques to achieve the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. It focuses mainly on research and construction of the immobile infrastructure necessary for this movement, such as roads, railway tracks, bridges, traffic signs and traffic lights.
Increasingly however, instead of building additional infrastructure, dynamic elements are also introduced into road traffic management (they have long been used in rail transport). These use sensors to measure traffic flows and automatic, interconnected guidance systems (for example traffic signs which open a lane in different directions depending on the time of day) to manage traffic especially in peak hours.
The relationship between lane flow (Q) (vehicles per hour) maximum speed (V) (kilometers per hour) and density (K) (vehicles per kilometer) is Q = KV. Observation on limited access facilities suggests that up to a maximum flow, speed does not decline while density increases, but above a critical threshold, increased density reduces speed, and beyond a further threshold, increased density reduces flow as well.
Therefore, managing traffic density by limiting the rate that vehicles enter the highway during peak periods can keep both speeds and lane flows at bottlenecks high. Ramp meters, signals on entrance ramps that control the rate at which vehicles are allowed to enter the mainline facility, provide this function (at the expense of increased delay for those waiting at the ramps).
Traffic engineering is closely associated with other disciplines:

* Transportation engineering
* Traffic congestion
* Highway engineering
* Transportation planning
* Urban planning
* Route assignment
* Fluid Dynamics

Crowd Control
How does it work ?
Crowd control is controlling a crowd who are not a riot and not a demonstration. Examples are at football matches and when a sale of goods has attracted an excess of customers. It calls for gentler tactics than riot control. Materials such as crowd control barriers, fences and decals painted on the ground can be used to direct a crowd. Keeping the crowd comfortable and relaxed is also essential, so things like awnings, cooling fans (in hot weather), and entertainment are sometimes used as well.
A Crowd control barrier is used to direct the flow of large amounts of pedestrian traffic. Crowd control barriers are often erected to ensure the safety of crowds and to ensure an orderly queue is established.
Crowd control barriers are often used at large events such as concerts, movie premieres, and sporting matches.

CCTV
Traffic Monitoring
Many cities and motorway networks have extensive traffic-monitoring systems, using closed-circuit television to detect congestion and notice accidents. The London congestion charge is enforced by cameras positioned at the boundaries of and inside the congestion charge zone, which automatically read the registration plates of cars. If the driver does not pay the charge then a fine will be imposed. Similar systems are being developed as a means of locating cars reported stolen.
Industrial processes which take place under conditions dangerous for humans are today often supervised by CCTV. These are mainly processes in the chemical industry, the interior of reactors or facilities for manufacture of nuclear fuel. Use of thermographic cameras allow operators to measure the temperature of the processes. The usage of CCTV in such processes is sometimes required by law.

Wheel Clamp
Not so un-popular
A wheel clamp (American English: Denver boot, wheel boot, or boot) is a device that is designed to stop vehicles from moving. In its most common form, it consists of a clamp which surrounds a vehicle wheel and is designed to prevent removal of both itself and the wheel. It is often used for security purposes, such as preventing a trailer or caravan from being towed away by a thief, or to stop one's own car from being driven away by a thief.
It is also used to crack down on unauthorized or illegal parking, in lieu of towing the offending vehicle. In these cases, police or property owners who place the clamp may charge a high "release fee" to remove it. In the United States, such a device became known as a "Denver boot" after the city of Denver, Colorado, was the first in the country to employ them, mostly to force the payment of outstanding parking tickets.
The Denver boot was invented and patented in 1953 by Frank Marugg, a musician for the Denver Symphony Orchestra. As a good friend of the Sheriff, he was asked to build a device to immobilize automobiles whose owners didn't pay their parking tickets. For decades, Denverites have simply called the device the "boot" and use the term as a verb ("to boot" a car).
Wheel-clamping is notoriously unpopular in the same way that traffic wardens are. However, whereas a traffic warden or police officer only has jurisdiction over public roads, wheel clampers can prey on vehicles parked on private property.
One British man became so annoyed at having his car clamped, that he removed the clamp with an angle grinder. He is now a self-styled superhero called Angle-Grinder Man, offering to remove clamps for free with his angle grinder.
In Scotland, wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. It was banned by the case of Black v Carmichael 1992 SCCR 709, when wheel-clamping was found to constitute extortion and theft. However, in the boot's native city, Denver, many private parking lots now use the device to immobilize vehicles when payment or other misuse is evident.
In England and Wales, wheel-clampers operating on private land must be individually licensed by the Security Industry Authority. Operating in such circumstances without a valid license, or in breach of its conditions (which include displaying ID at all times), is a criminal offence under the Private Security Industry Act, 2001.
In the animated film Cars, Denver boots are used in a fashion similar to handcuffs, leaving the booted vehicle to hobble along instead of driving normally.

Management systems for road safety
Programs and Systems
Progress in the area of prevention is formulated in an environment of beliefs, called paradigms as can be seen in the next table. Some of them can be refereed as professional folklore, i.e. a widely supported set of beliefs with no real basis. For example, the “accident-prone driver” was a belief that was supported by the data in the sense that a small number of drivers do participate in a disproportionate number of accidents, it follows that the identification and removal of this drivers will reduce crashes. A more scientific analysis of the data indicate that this phenomenon can be explained simply by the random nature of the accidents, and not for a specific error-prone attitude of such drivers.
National Programs
A prerequisite for progress in this area is to introduce national programs with clear and quantifiable objectives, some examples are :
* Chile 0% growth in fatalities, (down from historical 5-7% annual growth), (CONASET, 1993)
* EU, 40% reduction in fatalities for 2010
* Denmark 40% reduction for 2000
* Finland 65% reduction for 2005
* United Kingdom 33% reduction for 2000
* USA No more than 1.0 fatality for every 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2008
Sweden has developed a new concept to improve road safety called "Vision Zero" Vision Zero is conceived from the ethical base that it can never be acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system. It centres around an explicit goal, and develops into a highly pragmatic and scientifically-based strategy which challenges the traditional approach to road safety.
Vision Zero: strategic principles
* The traffic system has to adapt to take better account of the needs, mistakes and vulnerabilities of road users.
* The level of violence that the human body can tolerate without being killed or seriously injured forms the basic parameter in the design of the road transport system.
* Vehicle speed is the most important regulating factor for a safe road traffic. It should be determined by the technical standard of both roads and vehicle so as not to exceed the level of violence that the human body can tolerate. While the concept envisages responsibility for safety amongst the designers and users of the system, the designer has the final responsibility for "fail-safe" measures. Vision Zero: system designer has primary responsibility
* System designers are responsible for the design, operation and the use of the road transport system and are thereby responsible for the level of safety within the entire system.
* Road users are responsible for following the rules for using the road transport system set by the system designers.
* If the users fail to comply with these rules due to a lack of knowledge, acceptance or ability, the system designers are required to take the necessary further steps to counteract people being killed or injured.
Modern Road Safety makes a distinction between the situation and the management systems necessary to control it, with prevention activities that largely exceeds the self-evident fields of the traditional 3’E (Engineering, Enforcement, Education) approach, first introduced in 1925. Modern Management systems have the aims of be inclusive, i.e. to include explicitly all activities part of such system.
The more extensive effort to obtain a comprehensive, holistic design of a road safety system, with the direct participation of 123 persons, representatives of different areas of activities, was done in Chile, (CONASET, 1993), utilizing the methodology for the design of social systems developed by Del Valle (1992). The result was the design of the control apparatus for this situation, called “Road Safety System”, defined by its components. An informal test of his completeness can be done simply by consider this management systems without any of his components, for example if we remove rescue we simply lose opportunities to save human life coming from activities in this area. It can be used as an outline to assess the completeness of national road safety programs.

Road Safety Management System
A Drivers, Training & Licensing
A-1 Training of professional drivers
A-2 Training of car drivers
A-3 Driver’s testing
A-4 Training of driving instructors
A-5 Licensing of instructors
A-6 Licensing of practical examiners
A-7 Driving schools supervision
A-8 Permanent grading of drivers
B Management Of Vehicle Quality
B-1 Technical specifications
B-2 Safety equipment
B-3 New vehicle’s certification
B-4 Technical inspection
B-5 Supervision of vehicle inspection shops
B-6 Supervision of maintenance shops
B-7 Mechanics Training
C Management Of Roads And Public Space
C1 Traffic management
C2 Signs & markings
C3 Safety audit
C4 Black spots
C5 Maintenance
C6 Road safety elements
C7 Rest areas for drivers and bus stops
C8 Pedestrian facilities
C9 Bicycle facilities
C10 Land use planning
D Management Of Transport Services
D1 Remuneration systems
D2 Work conditions
D3 Permanent grading of personnel
D4 Dangerous loads and stowing
D5 School children’s transport
E Enforcement
E-1 Drivers enforcement
E-2 Technical conditions of vehicles
E-3 Technical conditions of roads
E-4 Inspection of transport services
E-5 Pedestrian enforcement
F Judicial Action
F-1 Prosecution of infractions
F-2 Efficient infraction systems
F-3 Law modification
F-4 Accident investigation
F-5 Civil responsibility of the state
G Accident Control And Insurance
G1 Comprehensive rescue system
G2 Comprehensive rehabilitation system
G3 Insurance coverage
H Research & Information
H1 Integrated information systems
H2 Drivers and infractions register
H3 Vehicles register
H4 Accident register
H5 Preventive indicators register
H6 Register of instructors and examiners
H7 Accidents studies
H8 Users information
I Education And Communications
I1 Curricula
I2 Teachers training
I3 Didactical materiel
I4 Students protection
I5 Campaigns

Semantics
The field of Road safety is handicapped by the terminology. Words have power to them that conveys impressions as well as meanings, phenomena that in this case results in sub-optimal approaches to prevention, as follows:

* Road safety
The name “Road safety” have convey that in this field the activities needs to concentrate on items that properly belong to roads and, by extension, to the roads authorities, keeping a reduced scope of activities in a number of different areas, in spite of their potentially significant contributions. For example, in the UK, Burrough, (1991) indicates that only one-third of the target reduction will be delivered by road safety engineering measures while Koornstra ( 2002) indicates “The contribution of local road engineering to the fatality reductions between 1980 and 2000 are estimated to be 4% for Sweden, 10% for Britain, and 5% for the Netherlands”. Whereas TEC (2003), quotes a research from the imperial college, London that indicates than the progress in medical technology and care made a significant contribution to the 45% fall of fatalities during the last 20 years, and account for 700 lives saved annually, and further puts forward that the lack of consideration of the benefits coming from the medical area, suggests that road safety is probably less effective that thought. It is remarkable that implicitly the author of the research doesn’t consider medicals activities as a component of a road safety management system.
It reflects confusion between the space where this phenomenon occurs (mainly roads) and the design of the Management systems to control it, in what “Roads” is only a 11% of the activities (one area out of nine in previus table).

* Accident
the use of the word “accident” with his connotations of it being and unavoidable event, weaken the resolve to intervene in order to reduce crashes and his harm. Evans (1991) argues that the word “crash” indicates in a simple factual way what is observed, while “Accident” seems to suggest in addition a general explanation of why it occurred.

* Cause of accidents
Moder Road safety recognize that crashes, and his consequences, are multifactor events, Ogden (1996) indicates: “An approach based in notions of cause and blame is simplistic in the extreme”. In short, crashes have factors not causes .

* Problem-solving
Old approaches emphasize the concept of problem-solving in Road safety, but it is more correct to recognize that Road safety activities doesn’t solve problems. For instance, when a safer road design is implemented, hopefully the number of crashes, or their seriousness, will go down, but they will not disappear. It is more correct to see crashes as an area where the implementation of correct policies, programs and measures will reduce his numbers or consequences, but they will no be ´´solved´´.
This realization is important, because it changes the focus from a problem that will go away if we devote enough resources to it, to a situation requiring on-going management. This management in turn requires the development of scientifically-based techniques, witch will enable us to predict with confidence that safety resources are well-spent and likely to be effective.

Parking
Parking is the act of stopping a vehicle and leaving it unoccupied for more than a brief time. It is against the law virtually everywhere to park a vehicle in the middle of a highway or road. In all countries where motor vehicles are in common use, specialized parking facilities are routinely constructed in combination with most buildings to facilitate the coming and going of the buildings' users.
Parking facilities include indoor and outdoor private property belonging to a house, the side of the road, a parking lot or car park, and indoor and outdoor multi-level structures.
The following terms exemplify regional variations in language. All except carport refer to outdoor multi-level parking facilities. In some regional dialects, some of these phrases refer also to indoor or single-level facilities.
* Parking ramp. Elsewhere, the term "ramp" would apply to the inclines between floors of a parking garage, but not to the entire structure itself.
* Multi-storey car park
* Car park (UK, Hong Kong)
* Parkade (Canada, South Africa)
* Parking structure (Western U.S.)
* Parking garage (USA, where this term does not always distinguish between outdoor above-ground multi-level parking and indoor underground parking.
* Parking deck (Eastern USA, an outdoor above-ground multi-level parking facility)
* Carport (open-air single-level covered parking)

Modes of Parking
Regardless of the parking location (parking lot, parking structure, etc.), there are three basic modes of parking, based on the arrangement of vehicles — parallel parking, perpendicular parking, and angle parking. These are self-park configurations where the vehicle driver is able to access the parking independently.
Besides these basic modes of parking, there are instances where a more ad hoc approach to arranging vehicles is more appropriate. For example, in parts of some large cities, where land is expensive and therefore parking space is at a premium, there are parking lots where the driver leaves the keys to the vehicle with an attendant who arranges vehicles so as to maximize the number of vehicles that can be parked in the lot. Vehicles may be stacked 2, 3, 4 and 5 vehicles deep in combinations of perpendicular and/or parallel parking with limited circulation aisles for the parking attendant. This is known as attendant parking. When the vehicle is taken on to a public road, it is considered valet parking.
Another ad hoc approach to arranging vehicles is tandem parking. This is sometimes done with residential parking where two vehicles park nose-to-end in tandem. The first vehicle does not have independently access and requires the second vehicle to move for access. As with attendant parking, this is done to maximize the number of vehicles that can park in a limited space.
Parking Enforcement
With increasing problems of town centre congestion, and demand for on-street parking, coupled with the pressures on police resources, and the low priority given by some police forces to the enforcement of parking regulations, the Road Traffic Act 1991 permitted local authorities to apply for the legal powers to take over the enforcement of, on-street, as well as off-street, car parking regulations from the police, in return they would be allowed to keep the proceeds. Thus in areas where DPE has been granted, parking offences cease to be criminal offences.
Without DPE the money collected by the police, from the issue of parking tickets is passed directly to central government. With DPE in place, the local authority retains the income generated from parking penalties to finance parking enforcement and certain other activities such as local transport measures. Local authorities have been able to charge for on-street parking since 1958, but without the effective enforcement provided by DPE, such charging was of limited effect. Local authorities adopting DPE generally employ contractors to run their scheme.
The powers granted by DPE to deal with parking offences include:
* The issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) - a parking fine
* The immobilisation of the vehicle - usually by clamping - until a release fee is paid
* The removal of the vehicle from the street
Appeals against council decisions on PCNs can be made to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) in London, and to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) in the rest of the UK. These bodies are tribunals established under DPE; appeals against their decisions can generally be made only on points of law, through judicial review. They are not independent of the councils, being funded solely by a fee of 60p per PCN, and being scrutinised by representatives from DPE councils.
Local authorities raise more than £1 billion a year from parking fines. Some of the money raised goes in the costs of operating the system. Local authorities must report their income from parking fines and charges and must also state what any surplus is spent on. From one road in London, £3.2 million was raised in the year 2005-06
Claimed benefits for DPE include:
* Less congestion due to lack of obstruction
* Higher turnover of parking spaces - thus easier to park
* Reduced pollution and fuel use due to less circulating traffic and less congestion
* Safer streets due to less circulating traffic
* Improved emergency service access due to less obstructed streets
Controversies associated with DPE are largely concentrated in the following areas:
* Over zealous enforcement of trivial infringements with no discretion exercised, or even the use of corrupt enforcement practices, often arising from the pressures of revenue targets set by enforcement contractors.
* Representations to the Local Authorities, or their contractor, are routinely rejected with no attempt to address specific points raised.
* Appeals to the relevant parking appeals body are often not contested by Local Authorities.
* Conflict of interest issues arise because of the mechanism which allows the local authorities to both make the rules and profit from their enforcement.
* Under the 1991 Act vehicles automatically become liable for clamping and towing without any application of discretion or consideration of proportionality. These penalties are higher than those levied for many criminal offences and are enforced without trial, with presumption of guilt, and effectively with no right of appeal. (Only the PCN may be appealed, on technical issues of whether the law has been properly applied. Citizens have no additional rights against clamping and towing.)
* Specific regulations at specific locations are not made clear enough to drivers.
* The methods of fining, particularly with civilian wardens, were claimed to infringe the English Bill of Rights, which prohibits "fining or forgeiture without conviction", a 2006 court ruling declared parking fines not to be fines, however. The situation is further complicated by the fact that this latest ruling superficially conflicted with the Metric Martyrs case ruling on the status of the Bill of Rights, but no further appeals are pending.
* It has been widely claimed that if parking fines are no longer fines, they are inadvertently eligible for tax deductibility, which experts have estimated could cost the Inland Revenue significantly.