Modular Traffic Light Systems

4. Current Traffic Light Systems: • Expensive outlay / high replacement costs • High maintenance • Long “down time” for repairs after accidents • High impact resistant poles causes injury to motorists and damage to pavements & vehicles • Energy in-efficient incandescent lighting • Limited lamp lifetime Current Traffic Light Systems

5. *The Extent of Crashes Involving Poles A study by Pilkington in 1988, found that 14.4 percent of roadside crashes in the US involved traffic light poles and street light poles, it was added that this number would serve as an underestimate of the true extent of such crashes due to a sizeable percentage of pole accidents not being reported. This number of pole crashes equates to a rate of 0.12 pole crashes per mile of roadway per year. It was found that rural and urban pole crash rates were the same, with these crashes involving 34 per 100 million vehicles passing in both settings. Pole crashes were 6 times more likely than other crashes to lead to a fatality and 3 times more likely to sustain fatal injuries. 80 percent were frontal impacts and the remaining 20 percent were side impacts, with the latter more commonly producing a fatality. Jones and Baum also conducted a study into pole crashes in the US, focusing on urban settings. Police reports nationwide for 1975 included 8000 pole crashes. Poles were the most frequently struck roadside object (21.1%), comprising 2.2% of all crashes. These crashes, more importantly, featured the highest injury rate (50.5%) for all crashes, excepting rollovers (52.6%). Another study was conducted by Mak and Mason (1981), looking at both urban and rural crashes. Poles were among the most frequently struck roadside objects, accounting for 28.4% of roadside crashes and 3.3% of all crashes. These authors also reported a high rate of injuries and fatalities for pole crashes with 1.2% causing a fatality (6.2 times more likely than the average crash) and 43.4% causing injuries (3 times more likely) *From an international report to the Motor Accident Commission from the University of Adelaide Austarlia May 1999.

6. Author(s) Location Extent of Roadside Crashes Lawson West Midlands, UK, 1980-1982 32% of fatal Lawson Birmingham, 1980-1982 7% of injury crashes Proctor Great Britain, 1994 18 585 casualty Nilsson & Wenall Sweden 25% of fatal de Leur et al British Columbia, Canada 1991 16.9% of highway crashes Tignor et al (1982) USA 1980 20 000 fatalities (40%) Mak & Mason USA 1976 11.7% of all crashes Kedjidjian USA 1991 30% fatal Ray, Troxel & Carney USA 1980-1985 33% of all crashes Corben et al Victoria, Australia 1994 23% of casualty Sanderson & Fildes Victoria, Australia 1978-1982 22% of casualty The extent of Roadside Crashes as reported in the entire report

7. Impact damage - current system

8. Residual damage - current system

9. Advantages of the MTLS: • Zero impact resistance causes no injury to motorists and minimal damage to pavements and vehicles • Economic outlay / low replacement costs • Zero maintenance • Rapid repairs after accidents • Energy efficient LED lighting • Extended lamp lifetime (up to 100,000 hrs) Modular Traffic Light Systems

10. Cable is tensioned to 3500kg to keep structure rigid Cable runs up the center of the whole structure, anchored to the foundation Modular Traffic Light Systems Exploded View

11. Assembled View with Backing Board Exploded View without Backing Board Hanging Overhead Signal Head

12. Boom Supported Signal Head

13. Multiple head construction

14. Sandton City Intersection

15. JRA Approval

16. Current signal heads on test Dubai Road &Transport Authority

17. Dubai RTA approval setup

18. Dubai RTA approval setup (Total time for erection : 18 minutes)

19. MTLS collapses on impact

20. COST SAVINGS - REPAIRS • No need for 5 ton truck • No need for large work crews • No need to re-throw concrete foundation • Repair time reduced • Reduced insurance premiums Cost Savings with MTLS

21. MTLS maintenance requires: • NO galvanizing • NO painting • NO cutting • NO large work-trucks • NO large work crews Ultra Low Maintenance

22. Phase 1 Presented solution with No power cables – 24 Volt LED Phase 2 Solar Powered signals and wireless comm. Phase 3 Single light system The MTLS is a work in process

23. Community Safety & Security Due to its modular format and open architecture MTLS can accommodate a wide variety of electronic, monitoring and surveillance equipment. Open Architecture (Camera)

24. MTLS system can accommodate LPR and general surveillance cameras. These cameras feed live video footage to a Central Surveillance Destination of choice. As stolen or suspicious vehicles are detected through database interrogation, local law enforcement will be notified immediately. Proactive community policing! Before After

25. General surveillance cameras inside the MTLS

26. LPR cameras inside the MTLS for real time videoidentification and red flagging of stolen or suspicious vehicles Day Night

30. Current Street Light Systems: • High impact resistant poles causes injury to motorists and damage to pavements & vehicles • Expensive outlay / high replacement costs • High maintenance • Long “down time” for repairs after accidents Current Street Light Systems

31. MTLS segments

32. MTLS segments

33. From the above MTLS segments any of these configurations can be built

34. Traditional main road streetlight. Parking lot with no lighting or adverts

35. Main road street light & camera. Parking lot lights with advertising boards.

36. Traditional highway lighting

37. Highway lighting with traffic monitoring and security camera

38. Traditional highway off-ramp lighting poles.

39. Highway off ramp lighting

40. Pedestrian walkway with no lighting

41. Street lighting with pedestrian light and traffic info sign

42. BECOME RESPONSIBLE, MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND MAKE A CHANGE TO YOUR COMMUNITY SAFETY! WINNER OF A