Reasons FL RLC "report" (SURVEY) is FLAWED!
Recently Unoffical RLC LOBBYIST WANDALL http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3076.asp did a piece on RLC in Collier County http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/16/guest-column-red-light-safety-cameras-reduce/?comments_id=1439468. Decided to leave my own note (on the comments section, wonder if it still there) on the problems with the WANDALL SCAERMA ACT and the FL "report' which is REALLY A SURVEY DEPENDENT UPON THE HONESTY OF THE TOWNS REPORTING. The HONESTY THAT St. Petersburg, FL couldn't even do TO THEIR OWN COMMISSONERS http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/st-petersburg-staffers-apologize-for-not-telling-city-council-about-crash/1266015 and http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/joe-qisuzuq-of-st-pete-qapologizesq-for-not-providing-rlc-crash-data-showing-increase-in-wrecks.html.
The "report" (SURVEY) has many problems. Some found out by Paul Henry
http://retiredpublicsafety.com/documents/rlc/DHSMV_2012_RLC_Analysis.pdf or http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/paul-henry-an-analysis-of-the-2012-dhsmv-red-light-camera-program-analysis.html.
Here is a exerpt from my Wandall post on some reason of mine why the FL "report" (SURVEY) is HIGHLY DUBIOUS:
- · Given the fact that the FL Report is really a SURVEY,
- · that one town has already been busted lying on safety claims (St. Pete),
- · that other towns have played games to hide data http://www.banthecams.org/1946-six-examples-of-misleading-the-public-safety-claims-by-towns-who-use-ats.html,
- · potential vendor INVOLVEMENT in “helping” some of these towns with their reports in other places http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/kc-police-told-to-qcollaborate-or-at-least-consult-with-ats-before-releasing-more-info-on-rlc.html or http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/24/3389558/kc-police-officials-request-more.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/if-data-doesnt-show-rlc-work-qlet-ats-write-the-executive-summaryq.html,- · the fact that the SURVEY DIDN’T SUPPLY ANY DATA,
- · DIDN’T EVEN BREAK OUT RLR CRASHES,
- · DIDN’T GIVE THE PARAMETERS of what “counted” or didn’t counted. (some towns like Philli used “reportable” accidents to exclude data, other ways include dollar amount games http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/red-light-cameras-effect-on-accidents-is-debatable.html 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”. ).
- · DIDN’T INCLUDE THE DISTANCE on what “counted” as a rear end crash (one MO town used over half the distance as MO Dot to HIDE CRASHES http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/ats-astro-turf-support-american-traffic-solutions-desperate-for-friends/ ).
- · DIDN’T verify that the before period and after period were the same time, and if different make sure that if multiple years were used, that they were average. St. Pete played that game http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3827.asp Quote: In the "before" period, there were a total of 6, 12 and 10 accidents in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively -- for an overall average of 9.3. After the cameras were activated, there were ten crashes total. At five intersections, accidents increased. At four intersections, they decreased. The remaining intersection stayed the same.
"Utilizing the data from the city, there is no way to arrive at a 60 percent reduction in crashes caused by red light running," Henry concluded. "However, the director did not say crashes caused by red light running, he used the term 'red-light related' crashes. "
(If you add up 6+12+10 (3 YEAR PERIOD) that is 28 a 60% “reduction” would be 16.8 (or 17). They had 10 crashes in the (1 YEAR) period of the cameras. Using basic math this was what I got: 28 (3 years) – 17 (60% claim) = 11. Pretty close to 10 don’t ya think?? Of course if you average it the “decrease” would no longer be there. But he using averages is BEYOND the math of the SCAMERA CROWD! )
THIS FL RLC SURVEY IS GARBAGE. NJ DOT did their OWN RLC REPORT. THEY didn't find RLC all rosey (not for lack of trying by NJ DOT EITHER.). http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3960.asp
Traffic accident injuries spiked at the intersections where red light cameras were installed in New Jersey, according to a report released Monday by the state Department of Transportation (NJDOT). Under the state law that authorized photo ticketing program in 2008, NJDOT officials must closely monitor the 25 municipalities and 83 intersections using automated ticketing machines. The department's second annual report found the total number of accidents at these intersections increased a statistically insignificant amount one year after the devices were installed -- from 577 before the devices were installed to 582 collisions with ticketing in place. The number of rear end collisions increased a significant 20 percent.
One of the many reasons I DOUBT the honesty of how the FL towns "reported" in the survey (besides NO data or how they "counted" accidents), is the Rear end claim. They said the rear ends "decreased". Many reports INLCUDING NJ showed INCREASES in REAR ENDS. Even DISHONEST St. Pete who claimed RLC "work" claimed rear ends went "down". One wonders if a DISTANCE GAME http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/ats-astro-turf-support-american-traffic-solutions-desperate-for-friends/ (using shorter distance to count) or Dollar amount game http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-red-light-money-20101219,0,1431518.story (using higher dollar amounts to count) are not being played to HIDE rear ends.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Free shipping, buy generic atarax, the best solution. You can order or, buy generic augmentin, Fast and easy. With us you can, buy generic avodart, or order online.