Six Examples of MISLEADING THE PUBLIC:  "Safety" claims BY TOWNS who USE ATS!

I recently came across a article where the writer received the accident data from three cities that claimed RLC were a "success".  http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/fl-red-light-cameras-mayocol-b103011-20111029,0,3476542.column  All three towns he quoted were ATS towns:  Pembroke Pines, West Palm Beach, Hallandale Beach.  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/davie-may-cancel-red-light-camera-program.html  (about mid way down the article).

As I typically do, I left post of caution.  (I do a lot of these, I don't hide that I do this unlike former ATS VP Bill KROSKE!  http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110517/BLOG48/705179793)

To think that ATS wasn't likely involved in "producing" these statistics is like saying pig farmers don't smell.  OH YES THEY DO!

So I thought I would make a list of some of the Towns, that use ATS, "success" stories of "safety" and the dirty little secrets that were discovered later!  (Note ATS is the same vendor behind multiple front groups like the NCSR   http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp).

Let me list some of the shenanigans that these towns that use ATS have pulled to manipulate "violation" data and accident data in the past.

1.  Changing the definition of a accident by use of "reportable" accidents.  The latest article of this is out of Philadelphia, PA  (VENDOR ATS):  http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/10/another-report-shows-redlight-cameras-increasing-accidents/.  The city used "reportable" accidents, IE they DIDN'T included accidents they viewed a "not reportable!  http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/red-light-cameras-effect-on-accidents-is-debatable.html

The paper found out that:  "The crash data showing an increase in accidents was provided by the police Research and Planning Unit in response to a request by The Inquirer."

The scamera side hides behind the claim of "less" accident by using "reportable accidents"  Quote:  The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation reviewed "reportable" accidents (those involving death, injury, or damage requiring a tow) at 10 intersections in Philadelphia and found those accidents dropped 21 percent, from 157 a year before cameras to 124 a year after cameras.

(Ban the Cams note:  Another way to hide the data is to make accidents "count" only if above $1,500, and not $500.00.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-red-light-money-20101219,0,1431518.story)

2.  Changing the "distance" of what "counts" as a accident.  This happened in Arnold, MO.  (Vendor ATS). http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/ats-astro-turf-support-american-traffic-solutions-desperate-for-friends/   The city used 50 ft to count "accidents" and not 133 feet that MO Dot used! 

Quote:  The City of Arnold is so desperate to show that these cameras work, that they only count accidents as ‘accidents’ within 50 feet of the intersection. By using 50 ft. instead of the transportation standard of 133 ft., they have been able to more than halve their reported accidents at red light camera monitored intersections.”

3.  Don't bring up what the CAUSES of accidents in "success" claims.  IN LA (formerly ATS, contract CANCELLED) the police claimed that "safety" was improved. http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/HOW-ONE-MAN-DID-THE-HEAVY-LIFTING-THAT-KILLED-L-A-s-RED-LIGHT-TICKET-PROGRAM-br-And-what-lessons-may-be-learned-by-Monroe-and-other-cities-750067

Quote:  For example, one LAPD claim was that five fatal accidents occurred at specific intersections before the red-light cameras were installed, and none occurred after.

Reality: two of the five accidents were not red light related, he says, and a third involved a drunken driver who zipped through despite a camera there, mounted by a previous vendor. The fourth, "caused by a young distracted driver," likely would not have been prevented by a camera.)

4.  Use of "rejection" rate to manipulate "violations".  Baytown, TX   (ATS site until VOTERS BANNED RLC).  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3173.asp

Quote:  Statistics show that, in response, city officials and American Traffic Solutions have deliberately issued fewer citations. The program rejected 29 percent of violations in July 2008, but documents show the rate of rejections climbed to 54 percent in December.

5.  Failure to BREAKDOWN KIND OF "VIOLATIONS" in their we have a RLR "problem" in Mukilteo, WA  (Vendor ATS). http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110807/NEWS01/708079938 

Quote:  In an April 2010 email, Waters wrote that state and city reviews of actual accidents "did not reveal anything to provide that installing the (cameras) would improve safety."

He wondered whether Mukilteo could make the case for installing cameras along the speedway. That email went to Kroske, city leaders and state transportation officials.

Kroske forwarded the email to colleagues. "I cannot believe this idiot sent this to WSDOT. (It) may have torpedoed the project," he wrote.

The camera company's own data showed Mukilteo's biggest red-light problem was with drivers not coming to a full stop before making a free right turn. ATS surveyed six Mukilteo intersections for red-light runners on a typical day.

Here's what they found: 16 drivers who blew straight through the light; 13 who turned left after the red and 150 who turned right on a red light at speeds of more than 10 mph.

Ban the Cams Note:  A NUMBER OF FL TOWNS ARE "INTERPETING" the right turn on reds all over the place!  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/os-red-light-cameras-project-20110513,0,4230012,full.story

Quote:  That is happening despite a law saying red-light right turns without a full stop are OK as long as they are done in a "careful and prudent" manner. The provision, however, often is ignored in Apopka and sometimes in Ocoee.

6.  Not breaking out how many Angle wrecks were RLV related.  Baytown, TX.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2971.asp see http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/tx-bayax.pdf  GO LOOK AT THE PDF for one intersection. 

I counted before cameras Angles:  12  (of which 5 were RLV related)
After Cameras Angles:  11 (of which 7 were RLV, A INCREASE).

WITHOUT BREAKING DOWN THESE CRASHES THE SAFETY CLAIMS ARE MEANINGLESS.  What if the reduction HAD NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH A RLC???

(Also see:  Bellingham, WA (Vendor ATS):  http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/NEW-TRAFFIC-STUDY-SHOWS-RED-LIGHT-CAMERA-LIKELY-TO-INCREASE-COLLISIONS-IN-BELLINGHAM-LOCATION-br-Engineer-s-study-does-not-support-installation-of-cameras-804379)

Of course playing the statistics game is not the only way to change "violations":

Two addition ways:

A.  Use of Amber time changes.  IN fact just this year RLV dropped DRAMATICALLY in:

MILTON, FL, http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/longer-yellow-lights-in-milton-fl-causes-78-reduction-in-rlv.html

GLASSBORO, NJ http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3418.asp and

ARNOLD, MO http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3596.asp when AMBER was increased!   

ALL THREE TOWNS ARE ATS SITES!  PROOF THAT LONGER AMBERS WORK!  

B.  Use of Grace periods to MANIPULATE "VIOLATION" numbers.  San Diego, CA  (ATS).  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1088.asp

Quote:  San Diego, California will shorten grace periods to make more money from red light cameras that have increased accidents in the city.