Protests

INGLE: Red-light camera poll seems more like sales pitch

BOB INGLE

Jul 15 |05:14

http://www.app.com/article/20110713/NJOPINION03/307130012/INGLE-Red-light-camera-poll-seems-more-like-sales-pitch

(Ban the Cams note: If the Public really "supports" traffic cameras, THAN WHY ARE THE VENDORS Denying Democracy (like in Houston)???? Why do they have in some of their RLC contracts provisions allowing them to SUE VOTERS (like in Bellingham, WA)????? Why are the VENDORS TRYING TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM VOTING (Towns in WA, TX)?????????)

INGLE: Red-light camera poll seems more like sales pitch
8:03 AM, Jul. 13, 2011 |

Written by
BOB INGLE | STATEHOUSE BUREAU Filed Under
Opinion
Commentary

TRENTON — Polls are given way too much attention by media and the public, but they can be fun to read and even enlightening if done well and objectively. Too often they are neither.

The National Coalition for Safer Roads (ATS FRONT GROUP http://againstallclods.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-missouri-red-light-camera-scam-part-4/) tells us that New Jersey’s registered voters overwhelmingly support the use of red-light cameras — the ones that snap a picture at intersections, and if so much as an inch of tailpipe is in the road when the light turns red, a ticket is sent to the car’s registered owner. They’re controversial because unlike a police officer, cameras can’t make judgment calls, and some cop looking at a picture days later in a room far away doesn’t know the whole situation, either. The cameras have been banned in some states but not here, where the auto is a cash cow.

You have to ask, why would anyone poll likely voters on this? Questioning likely voters makes sense if you’re looking at an election or testing message or strategy, but not when studying a topic or policy issue that should include a wider base. It’s not like the cameras are running for office. Why not poll pedestrians or registered drivers, people who actually use intersections?

David Kelly, president of the outfit paying for the research, said, “Drivers, pedestrians, cyclists have made it clear they want cameras in their communities.” An accompanying press release notes the poll was done by a guy who polls for Gov. Chris Christie.

Let’s dispense with the notion this is about safety. It is not. It is about collecting as much money as municipalities can get.

The Daily Record looked at some of the state’s red-light camera installations and found no proof they make intersections any safer. In Brick Township in Ocean County, reporters found that the number of accidents went up the first year. But the private companies that run the cameras — and keep part of the fines collected — and the towns where they’re located did all right. Brick got $500,000 out of it. Statistics from towns with cameras running the longest did not show a significant decline in accidents with cameras.

Steve Carrellas of the National Motorists Association points out the obvious — cameras don’t contribute to safety. They just provide a means for government to collect more revenue. In Michigan, AAA worked with Detroit city engineers to make changes that reduced accidents at troublesome intersections. That’s what you do if safety really is your focus.

Getting back to the poll, as important as the right base being polled is how the questions are worded. An introductory question to gauge awareness describes the intersections as “dangerous.” That can create a mind-set for the remainder of the questions. The poll describes the role of the cameras as a “monitor” of people who run red lights, which sounds innocuous.

The poll seems to do everything in its power to increase support for the cameras with every sentence. It looks more like a strategy or messaging poll rather than an attempt to gauge support. That said, I think most people would support the cameras, just not at the level this poll tries to show. Handled as it was, it makes camera supporters look desperate.

Protests

Articles Menu

Find Info

Latest Comments

Member Login