Red Light Camera News Red in black: Rio-Seminole cams generate cash, controversy
(Camerafraud had this great comment: "Scameras are new to this central Virginia county. This reporter catches the Redflex-County bureaucrat-IIHS axis in a lie")
Red in black: Rio-Seminole cams generate cash, controversy
by Dave McNair
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (434) 295-8700 x239
published 5:23am Friday Jan 14, 2011
While Albemarle County officials have insisted that the new red light cameras are safety tools, not money generators, the first 26 days of active enforcement seem to show a tidy profit.
Between December 12 and January 7, according to figures released earlier this week, 412 tickets were mailed to offenders. At $50 a ticket, that’s represents potential revenue of $20,600.
In a release, County Police Captain John Parrent said he was pleased by “what appears to be a positive impact” on the intersection of Rio Road and Seminole Trail; and that, he said, “translated into improved traffic safety.”
However, the County offered no data on the number of intersection accidents, if any, since the cameras went live, how any new accident rate might compare to a pre-camera time period, nor any data on how many tickets were for “rolling stops,” a relatively benign infraction when making a right turn on red. A reporter’s request for the information was not fulfilled by posting time.
Under the County’s agreement with Australia-based camera vendor Redflex, the company gets to keep the first $10,000 of monthly ticket revenue, while the County keeps any overage for its general fund, an arrangement that’s received fire from the Rutherford Institute. In a report, the civil rights organization slams such systems as “revenue-raising devices” that create an improper financial incentive.
Specifically, the Institute contends that the arrangement violates a Virginia law prohibiting municipalities making corporate deals in which compensation rises with the penalties. During a County budget meeting in April 2009, County Supervisor Dennis Rooker appeared to confirm such suspicions when he lauded the system not only for safety but also as a “revenue enhancer.”
County data indicate that the system itself has some problems. It seems that 998 drivers triggered a camera, which is activated when a vehicle enters the intersection at least a half-second after a light has turned red, but more than half of the 998 of potential tickets were tossed. Issues include glare, blur, obstructions, and incomplete information at the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Therefore, it appears that drivers cruising through a red light at the intersection of Rio and 29, despite the presence of the cameras, have a greater than 50 percent chance of not getting ticketed. County spokesperson Lee Catlin cites the the 586 toss-outs as evidence that “clear and compelling” standards of proof outweighs any alleged desire to generate revenue.
“It makes sense from a safety standpoint,” said County Supe Dennis Rooker of installing the camera system at Rio and 29 North during a 2009 budget meeting, “and it should be a revenue enhancer for law enforcement.”
Still, the Rutherford Institute has decried the “Big Brother” aspects and questioned the effectiveness of the cameras, pointing to studies suggesting they don’t prevent red light-running and that can actually increase the frequency of accidents.
In response, the County released a December 16 letter from a top research executive for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The executive, Joseph Nolan, accuses Rutherford Institute president John Whitehead of relying on “flawed research.”
Accident rates at intersections with cameras is a touchy subject for the pro-camera crowd, as most of the data seems to indicate that overall accidents tend to increase, a conclusion that Nolan attempted to discredit.
“The researchers failed to incorporate comparison sites,” wrote Nolan, referring to other intersections were red light cameras are located. “The result is that the expected number of crashes at intersections where cameras were installed could not be properly estimated, so the effects of the enforcement on crashes could not be determined.”
Whitehead shot back with his own letter, calling the County’s decision not to respond directly to his Institute’s report a “sad reflection on the Board of Supervisors,” and he described Nolan’s letter as “little more than a rehashing of various justifications for the program that have been trotted out in the past.”
“It’s not true that we failed to use comparison sites,” says John Miller. A research scientist with the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, part of VDOT, Miller co-wrote the 2007 study on the effectiveness of red light cameras in Virginia. Miller even directs a reporter to the study’s Appendix A, which shows how comparison sites were used.
“That report also details how we obtained data and conducted the analysis,” says Miller. “Subsequent experimentation with site selection did not show an increase in camera effectiveness.”
According the Center for Transportation, the effectiveness of the red-light camera systems lies somewhere between the assertions of organizations like the Insurance-company backed Insurance Institute, which has enthusiastically endorsed these systems for decades, and Libertarian-leaning groups like the Rutherford Institute, which have demonized them for just as long.
As Miller points out, there have been other studies on the effectiveness of red-light camera systems at preventing crashes, and they all tend to agree on the same thing: that dangerous side-angle and t-bone crashes generally decrease, that less deadly rear-end crashes generally increase, and that overall crashes increase (because rear-end crashes happen more frequently). In addition, the findings are often turned on their heads by specific intersections that see a general increase in all types of crashes regardless of the cameras.
Basically, the study concluded that red-light cameras are “associated with some benefits,” but shouldn’t be “implemented on a widespread basis” without first studying the particular intersection.
“Every intersection is different,” says Miller.
Indeed, The Tampa Tribune reports that at $125 a ticket, over $1 million in revenue has been generated in a year of cameras at four intersections in Hillsborough County, Florida. Four of of the intersections saw fewer injurious crashes compared to the previous year, but two of the intersections saw more of them.
“It’s not increasing any problems, but right now it’s too early to say this is a cure for anything,” said sheriff’s corporal Troy Morgan.
Ban the Cams note: See http://banthecams.org/20110101755/Is-Hillsborough-County-engaged-in-selective-reporting-of-accidents.html
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
