Studies Show

IIHS Study Actually Found Cities Using Cameras Had Higher Fatality Rates!!!!!

QUOTE FROM REPORT: 

The 2011 IIHS study actually found that cities that used cameras had noticeably higher red light running fatality rates than cities that did not use cameras in both “before” and “after” time periods.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp

Peer Reviewed Study Questions IIHS Red Light Camera Report
Florida Public Health Review finds insurance industry study actually proved increase in fatalities in red light camera cities.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) grabbed headlines last February with a self-published study claiming installation of red light cameras nationwide would have prevented 815 deaths (view study). The Florida Public Health Review, a peer-reviewed journal, published a systematic critique yesterday that found the methods used in the IIHS report were sloppy and inconsistent, reflecting a bias towards the insurance industry that IIHS serves.

University of South Florida Professors Barbara Langland-Orban, Etienne E. Pracht and John T. Large noted that IIHS did not study individual intersections that had cameras but rather used city-wide data that ignored other engineering variables that could have explained increases or decreases in accidents from year to year. Worse, the study did consider variables such as "land area" and "persons per square mile" which have never been shown through scientific research to have any correlation to motor vehicle crashes. The way these unexplained variables were used introduced other difficulties in the IIHS report.

"Assuming that the dependent variable for each model is defined as reported, some variables are included more than one time, making them redundant," the USF researchers wrote. "For example, population is the denominator in both outcome measures reported (e.g., fatalities per 100,000-population), as well as a numerator in the variable 'population per square mile.'"

The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the "before" period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities "before" to improve in the "after" period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.

"The fact that the two groups have a large difference in fatality rates in the 'before' period reflects bias in the selection of the comparison group, which jeopardizes the validity of the findings," the USF researchers noted.

The USF researchers then used the IIHS data in an attempt to replicate the IIHS statistical analysis. The critique concluded that IIHS failed to disclose results that contained negative values for red light cameras.

"Thus, cities using cameras are estimated to have a 25 percent higher red light running fatality rate in the 'after' period relative to cities not using cameras, despite the greater reported percent reduction in the former," the critique found.

To account for the bias, the USF researchers pointed out that in several states, insurance companies make money by charging higher premiums to drivers who get photo tickets. Contrary to the common wisdom, insurance companies do not earn less money when accidents increase.

"Insurance companies are able to gain approval from state regulators to raise insurance premiums to cover higher losses, making them indifferent about loss prevention, since increased losses justify increased premiums, passing higher crash costs on to drivers," the USF report stated. "Second, automobile insurance companies earn more profit from investment income (investing premiums collected from drivers) than from underwriting activities."

A copy of the study is available in a 170k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  IIHS Study Actually Found Cities Using Cameras Had Higher Fatality Rates (Florida Public Health Review, 1/25/2012)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/fphr12.pdf

Attachments:

File	Description
fphr12 peer review of IIHS rlc study.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3684.asp

New Mexico: Report Finds No Proven Red Light Camera Benefit
Study shows red light cameras made no solid, statistically significant difference in crash rates in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The city of Las Cruces, New Mexico commissioned a local university last year to come up with a report justifying the use of red light cameras in the community. After examining city-supplied data New Mexico State University (NMSU) researchers stretched to find something positive to say in a study released Tuesday.

"The trend analysis of the signalized intersections shows a reduction in the crash rates at certain intersections for certain accident types," Professors Hansuk Sohn and Paola Bandini concluded. "Even though the findings from the crash data are encouraging, not all the results from the trend analysis are supported by the statistical analysis."

Las Cruces began using automated ticketing machines at four intersections in 2009, although the state government ordered two of these shut down last March. The study compared the performance of the camera locations with six control intersections selected by the city that had no cameras.

Overall, the study found a decrease in accidents at two camera intersections, an increase at one and no change at the fourth. This compares to the control intersections where there were three decreases, two increases and one without any change. None of these changes, however, were large enough to carry definitive scientific weight. The researchers focused on the single intersection with the most positive result.

"Crash rate reductions at the LOTE intersection [Lohman Avenue and Telshor Boulevard] are statistically almost significant (or marginally significant) after the STOP operation," the report stated. "There are no significant changes in crash rates at all other intersections including control intersections."

The city council has been searching for a justification to continue with the automated ticketing program which was expected to yield $5 million in revenue last year. City leaders showed no concern about early signs that the program failed to live up to its promise of accident reduction. In November 2010, the council voted to continue the program despite overall negative collision data at the time http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3332.asp. NMSU recommended further study be done, taking into account the number of tickets issued using data from Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company in charge of the program.

A copy of the study is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Assessment of Impact of City of Las Cruces Safe Traffic Operations Program (New Mexico State University, 1/3/2012)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/nm-lcstudy.pdf
 

Traffic Cameras Can Be Bad Deals for Local Jurisdictions, Study Says

·         

 
 Posted on December 28, 2011

By Megan Poinski, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(December 28, 2011) -- Cameras that take pictures of motorists running red lights and speeding – currently located in 41 communities statewide – can be bad deals for the cities that install them, according to a report from Maryland Public Interest Research Group (PIRG).

The report goes through many of the issues that states and communities have had with the traffic cameras issuing citations – and costing both motorists and communities dearly.

“It looked at whether or not communities that put up cameras have the public’s interests at heart, or whether they are looking for revenues first and are signing contracts forfeiting decisions about public safety to companies,” said Jenny Levin, a state advocate for PIRG.

In 2009, the General Assembly passed a law (2009 Senate Bill 277 [see who voted for it or against it in theHouse andSenate]) that allows counties and municipalities statewide to install the cameras to catch speeders in school zones and construction areas. A petition effort to bring the bill to referendum was unsuccessful.

Problems with cameras

The cameras, which have cropped up across the state, have been controversial. Grassroots groups, including Stop Big Brother Maryland andMaryland for Responsible Enforcement exist to point out the issues that arise due to use of the cameras. Each jurisdiction that decides to use the cameras is able to decide many of the details, like where the cameras will be placed, how citations will be issued, and which company will provide them.

Speed and red light cameras, PIRG’s study states, are often used as ways for areas to get more revenues in bad economic times. They essentially shift enforcement from police officers to automated devices, and are seen by opponents as contracting out traffic cop work to private companies.

According to the report, the cameras don’t always increase safety on dangerous roadways. Ronald Ely, who is the editor and founder of StopBigBrotherMd.org, has been following the issue of traffic cameras since they started being used in Montgomery County three years ago. He said that several counties and municipalities in Maryland have contracts with traffic camera companies that make money based on how many citations are issued. (Ely said that a creative legal interpretation allows this kind of contract, which is technically outlawed in the state.)

“The sole objective of the corporation is to make more money, and that’s purely based on the number of tickets issued,” Ely said. “So it gives them an incentive to encourage the municipality to put the cameras where they would get more tickets, like in a transition zone where the speed limit changes, or create a new school zone and put them there.”

Read more: Another paper points to USPIRG STUDY on SCAMERA PROBLEMS!

Ban the Cams note:  Though this is not scamera related, it show what happens when you "outsource" law enforcement of traffic laws to private "FOR PROFIT" companies.

EVERYONE except the company loses long term!

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2011/12/parking-meter-firm-hits-up-city-for-2-1-million/
 
December 15th, 2011
Parking Meter Firm Bills City Another $2.1 Million
Documents Show Hidden Cost Of Lease Deal To Taxpayers
 

An LAZ employee documents a closure along Irving Park Road at California Ave. for Chicago Parking Meters, LLC

While Chicago’s infamous parking meter lease deal quietly celebrated its third anniversary http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/12/aldermen-deba-1.html the first week of December, the city was releasing documents chronicling more evidence the privatization of the city’s more than 36,000 parking meters turned out to be more costly for taxpayers than originally imagined.
 

Financial statements, released by the Chicago Inspector General’s office http://chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/ via their Open Chicago government transparency initiative http://chicagoinspectorgeneral.org/major-initiatives/open-chicago/, reveals what many critics of the lease deal had feared–the city would end up owing or paying Chicago Parking Meters, LLC millions of dollars in compensation when any sort of change or activity by the city impacts parking meter revenue for the company.
 

Financial statements for the company http://theexpiredmeter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Comp14-32.pdf show that CPM has billed the city an additional $2,191,326 in “True-up Revenue” through the end of 2010.
 

As the notes from the independent auditor’s report by accounting firm KPMG LLP to the financial statements explains:
 

“The Company has an agreement with the City, whereby, the Company receives compensation from the City in accordance with the Agreements in the event that the City implements changes to the System, which reduces the Company’s revenues (True-up Revenue).”
 

These same notes reveal the city owed CPM $533,290 in True-up Revenue for 2009 and $1,658,036 for 2010.
 

After reviewing the documents, Alderman Scott Waguespack (32nd) http://scottforchicago.com/ who had led the fight in the City Council against the meter lease deal, is not surprised by the revelations.
 

“Three years later and we’re still finding costs that were more than we originally realized,” says Waugespack. “Don’t let anyone say it (the meter lease) doesn’t affect them because this (money owed to CPM) becomes part of the budget. We knew it was coming and we knew it was part of the contract but didn’t do anything to prevent it.”
 

Read more: Dangers of PRIVATIZE "Enforcement" of ANY LAW! Chicago Parking Fiasco!

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-155-the-numbers-tell-the-sto

The Numbers Tell The Story... Again

By John Bowman, NMA Communications Director

In last week’s E-newsletter (#154, Will We Never Learn? http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-154-will-we-never-learn ), we dug into the numbers behind the NTSB’s proposed ban on the use of all portable electronic devices while driving. Let’s try the same approach with another issue that’s popping up frequently: the use of so-called stop-arm cameras on school buses.

These systems are designed to photograph drivers who pass by stopped school buses while they load or unload children. Several states, including Virginia, Maryland, New York and Connecticut, have recently passed legislation enabling school districts to pursue stop-arm camera programs.

Montgomery County, Maryland has been testing the cameras for more than a year and is expected to deploy them fleet-wide in January. A recent article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-townsend-ii/school-bus-cameras_b_1132070.html in support of the initiative goes to great lengths to justify the cameras based on these impressive numbers:

• 1,273 schools buses transporting 96,000 students every day
• 100,000 fleet miles traveled per day, the equivalent to four trips around the earth
• 19 million fleet miles traveled per year, nearly the distance to Venus
   

So, how many Montgomery County school children were killed by careless motorists speeding by school buses in 2009? None, according to NHTSA http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. Overall, there were two school bus-related pedestrian fatalities in Maryland in 2009, but those were caused by the bus. The article doesn’t mention that.

Nationally, NHTSA fatality numbers for school bus/pedestrian fatalities exhibit a similar pattern over the last few years:

 Pedestrian Fatalities and Cause

So, from 2006-2009, 83 percent of school bus/pedestrian fatalities were caused by the bus.

Read more: The Numbers Tell The Story... Again (School Bus Scameras)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3668.asp

Colorado: Auditor Blasts Denver Photo Ticketing Program
Denver, Colorado city auditor suggests photo enforcement program may be a cash grab that should be scrapped.

After performing a thorough performance audit, Denver, Colorado's city auditor is no longer convinced of the value of red light cameras and speed cameras. The Denver Police Department (DPD) deputized the Dallas-based firm Affiliated Computer Services (ACS, a division of Xerox) to issue red light tickets at four intersections and speeding tickets throughout the city with five roaming vans. The program has little more to show for itself than a profitable bottom line.

"Unfortunately, DPD has not demonstrated that the photo radar program has a positive impact on public safety," City Auditor Dennis J. Gallagher wrote. "Because these programs were sold as public safety enhancements but are widely viewed as a cash grab, it undermines public trust to maintain photo enforcement programs that are profitable but whose safety impact has not been conclusively shown. If this situation persists, then the photo enforcement programs should be shut down."

The audit noted the speed van program has been operating since 2002 without any objective measurement of the impact on safety. Instead, city officials relied on the report of the number of violations generated by ACS as the sole measure of effectiveness.

"A reduction in violations does not necessarily entail a significant reduction in speed, nor does it indicate a decrease in accident rates or pedestrian injuries," the audit report noted. "Further, a 2006 internal DPD assessment suggests that DPD believes driver's habits adjust as citizens become familiar with the locations of the photo radar vans. Therefore, a decrease in violations does not directly correlate to a sustained decrease in speeds after photo radar is deployed to a different location."

Photo radar generated $3.6 million in revenue in 2010 and that amount is expected to top $7 million by the end of 2011 because ticketing operations expanded to seven days a week. With the red light camera program, certain types of accidents did decrease at the camera intersections, but the audit pointed out the city could not legitimately credit the improvement to cameras.

"At three of the four intersections with red light cameras, the number of right angle accidents was decreasing before the red light cameras were installed," the report explained.

The full safety impact is impossible to gauge because city leaders increased the duration of the yellow lights, enlarged signal heads and installed countdown timers at the intersections where cameras were installed. The engineering improvements helped make the intersection safer, but also reduced the number of violations issued. To boost the number of tickets, ACS and Denver began ticketing people who stopped at red lights -- but their car was photographed protruding a few inches beyond the stop bar. No other jurisdiction in the state tickets drivers who fully stop at red lights.

"Program revenues spiked largely due to more precise stop line enforcement," the audit explained, "By April 2011, ACS was able to dramatically increase the number of incidents captured by the red light cameras due to the upgrades."

These extra picky violations are the sole reason Denver's red light cameras are profitable.

"DPD should also be aware that while program revenues recently increased in Denver, if DPD or Denver policymakers change the violation point to better align with practices in other municipalities, program revenues may decline to the point where they do not meet the budget for the program," the audit explained.

In its response to the report, Denver police insisted it was impossible to conduct a study that would satisfy the auditor's concerns. The most the department would do would be to have ACS conduct a study to justify continuing the ACS program by June 30, 2013.

A copy of the audit report is available in a 4mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Denver Photo Enforcement Program (Denver, Colorado City Auditor, 12/15/2011)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/co-denveraudit.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3661.asp

Sluggish Economy Yields Record Traffic Safety Benefit
Fatal accidents drop to a 61-year low, including in states where red light cameras are banned.

Fewer people died on America's roads than at any time in the past sixty-one years, according to an analysis of 2010 accident data by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Some in the transportation industry have cited their own public policies or products as the primary reason for the statistical improvement announced Thursday, but the evidence suggests other factors such as advances in technology and the lingering effects of the past recession are at play.

"It's the result of three important factors," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote in his FastLane blog. "Cars are safer as crash avoidance and crash worthiness technologies continue to improve. Roads are safer with safer intersections, better signs and lighting, improved pavement technologies, and more effective crash barriers. Drivers are safer, buckling their seatbelts at record rates and choosing not to get behind the wheel after drinking."

Crash fatalities dropped 2.9 percent last year to 32,885, a figure only bested by 1949's death toll of 30,246. Sixty-one years ago, there were fewer cars and fewer roads, so the number of vehicle miles traveled that year were one-seventh of what they are today. Last year's fatality rate dropped 4.3 percent to an all-time low of 1.1 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.

According to NHTSA, accidents caused last year by drivers with a blood alcohol level in excess of the .08 legal limit accounted for about a third of the crash fatalities, 10,228. That represents a drop of 4.9 percent. The majority of these incidents were single-vehicle collisions where the driver killed himself.

Traffic camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) issued a press release through its front group, the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR) attempting to claim credit for the good news as if it were due to the benefits of their automated ticketing product.

"This is a tribute to all the dedicated safety advocates and organizations working to implement traffic safety programs and policies on the ground," NCSR spokesman David Kelly wrote in a press release. "We've made great strides in reducing fatalities and injuries, but we must continue to do everything possible to make roads and intersections safe -- including expanding the use of intersection safety cameras -- to drive down the unnecessary deaths and injuries from crashes on our roadways."

The evidence shows no correlation between the presence of automated ticketing and reduced collisions. In Alaska, a referendum and appellate court decision struck down the use of photo radar, but fatalities dropped 13 percent there last year. Minnesota's high court eliminated red light cameras and forced Redflex Traffic Systems to refund every illegally issued citation. Accidents dropped 2.4 percent in the state. Nebraska courts rejected cameras and deadly accidents were down 15 percent.

Many other states with legislative prohibitions on photo enforcement saw safety improve. Fatal collisions in Arkansas declined 5.5 percent; Mississippi dropped 8.4 percent; Montana dropped 14 percent; South Carolina saw a 9.4 percent reduction; Utah fell 3.3 percent; and West Virginia accidents declined 12 percent.

From the Library of UK  anti Camera Site Safe Speed: 

Speed Camera Table of Shame!

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/shametable.html

Speed Cameras promote lawlessness
Make no mistake. The following behaviours are all well known direct and indirect consequences of speed camera proliferation.

• Unlicensed drivers. Why bother to get a licence if the cameras are going to take it away again soon? With fewer police patrols it is estimated that we have more unlicensed drivers than ever before.
• Improperly registered vehicles. In many cases people neglect registration requirements in order to avoid speed camera fines.
• Uninsured vehicles. Once a driver has decided to neglect licence or registration requirements due to speed cameras, it is only one small step further to also neglect insurance. Obviously with reduced Police Patrols, the driver has a pretty good chance of getting away with it. BBC's Top Gear estimated that we have one million uninsured drivers.
• Speed Camera vandalism. You might think that vandals will damage anything. However speed cameras are producing a new type of "white collar" vandal; One who vandalizes as a political statement. These folk are not "yobs", but small business owners, farmers and salesmen. 
• Disqualified drivers. Two effects here: Firstly the cameras create a huge group of disqualified drivers who know damn well that they didn't deserve to be disqualified. Secondly, the reduction in Police Patrols means they might well get away with driving while disqualified.

Job loss and personal hardship.
These days it is completely possible for a responsible driver to lose driving licence, job and home as a direct consequence of a single journey at safe speeds. Some will claim "he's only got himself to blame" or "the law is the law". But don't judge too quickly. Surveys have shown that more than 90% of drivers exceed the speed limit on occasion, and the latest government figures show that 65% of cars at sample sites were exceeding the 30 mph speed limit. It's entirely likely that at the next sample site a different grouping of drivers would make the 65%, and so on. In this way it is clear that the 90%+ figure and the 65% figure are both likely to be true.

The reason for this apparent "madness" is crystal clear. Many responsible drivers on many occasions exceed a speed limit which simply is too low for the prevailing conditions. Make no mistake. The vast majority of drivers are responsible members of society behaving with reasonable standards of safety. 90% exceed speed limits, and in literally tens of millions of cases each day it is reasonable, safe and prudent to do so.

In the old days of intelligent Police enforcement of speed limits it was recognized that an officer at the time could make a clear judgement about the safety of someone's driving in the prevailing conditions. Speed cameras make no such judgement and it's completely obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of pointless prosecutions each year of responsible drivers behaving responsibly.

Why do we put up with it?
 
Speed Cameras replace Police Patrols
It's been widely reported that speed camera are "replacing" Traffic Police Patrols. I feel confident that even the most extreme anti car types will immediately notice the folly in such a move. In some forces Traffic Police numbers have been cut by 66% in the last decade.

Installing speed cameras was stupid enough. Compounding the error with the reduction in Traffic Police patrols is almost unbelievable.

In the latest Home Office figures (from Home office publication: "Motoring Offences and breath test statistics, England and Wales - 2000") All motoring offences except speeding show a fall in offences between 1999 and 2000. Don't let anyone tell you that this is because fewer offences were committed. It's clearly because fewer offences were detected by fewer police patrols. In just this one year, speeding offences are up by 18%, while all other groups of offences were down by between 2 and 19%.
 
Respect for the law
There are a couple of big problems here.

The legislators, the enforcers and the court officials all exceed the speed limits. They are virtually all hypocrites. How can the public possibly take them seriously?
Modern speed limit enforcement frequently penalizes safe driving and ignores dangerous driving. One day in fog on a motorway, a lethal 69 mph is legal. The next day in light traffic and good visibility a safe 101 mph can get you banned for a single offence. 101 mph? Isn't that suicidal? Ask a German!
They always said "The law is an ass". But this is getting ridiculous.

Conclusions
Speed cameras are an abomination. Far from the filthy government lies about improved road safety, they have a whole series of clear consequences that are now undoubtedly killing people.

We need to reverse out of this road safety system failure as soon as possible. We need more police patrols and all the speed cameras need to be torn down and scrapped. We need to create better drivers who take pride in their skills.

Comments
If you have any comments on the content of this page, we would like to hear from you. Send us email.    This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  We will create a comments page to display suitable emails if the demand for one exists. We will be happy to publish alternative views on the comments page.

Attachments:

File	Description
UK Safe Speeds shametable.pdf

(Thanks the www.motorists.org for the link).

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/11/red-light-algorithm-mit.html

MIT says algorithm can predict red light runners
November 30, 2011 |  4:55 pm    623

Can math tell you who is a bad driver? Researchers at MIT say it can.

In a paper that will appear in the journal IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Jonathan How, professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, and three of his colleagues say they have come up with an algorithm that can predict whether an oncoming car is about to run a red light one or two seconds before a possible collision.

Read more: MIT says algorithm can predict red light runners

(Special Thanks to Greg Mauz for providing this copy to Ban the Cams.org)

H.F. Van Der Grinten

September 14,2011

Critique of Troy D. Walden's EVALUATION OF
PHOTOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS IN TEXAS

Page 2, paragraph 3:

“ A total of 4,022 crash records were identified by the investigator as not being intersection related. These records were removed from the sample which left a total of 11,122 crash records that were used in this investigation."

This removal is for rear end collisions which occurred more than 150 feet from the intersection but were within the decision zone of the traffic light. This removal improperly discounts the increase in rear end collisions which is known to be associated with red light cameras.

Page 10, paragraph 1

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that a total of 102 people die each day in motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. These figures equate to one death every 14 minutes.1"

Two people not 102 die each day from red light violations according to the
NHTSA 2008 figures.

Page 10, paragraph 2

"Red light running causes more than 100,000 crashes and 1,000 fatalities annually which results in an economic loss of over $14 billion in the United States (US) each year.2  Additionally there were more than 2.3 million reported intersection-related crashes, resulting in approximately 7,770 fatalities and 733,000 injuries. Right angle intersection crashes accounted for 46% of the tota1.2"

The data presented is for intersection-related crashes which is a broad category and is not the subject of this study. Red light running crashes are not the largest part of this category.

"••• red-light running crashes alone caused 762 deaths in 2008 ... "

Page 1 of 6

In 2009 statewide "DISREGARD STOP SIGN OR LIGHT" was listed as a cause of
15,660 crashes (2.57% of the total crashes). This cause ranked 13th out of 75 listed causes. It was the cause of 89 fatalities.

Page 10, paragraph 3

"Clearly, red light running poses a significant traffic safety problem for communities across the US."

"Significant" is overstating the problem.

Page 10, paragraph 5

"Enforcement of red light signal violations is a proactive activity intended to increase traffic safety by reducing the overall number of crashes and vehicle conflicts."

The stated purpose is a cover for revenue inspired law enforcement. 

Page 11, Figure 1.

"Traffic Conflict Points in a Typical Intersection"

Figure 1 was reproduced without attribution. This figure was previously
published here:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04091/04091.pdf August 2004 PDF Page 240.

Page 11, paragraph 1

"Research has shown that the more traffic conflicts occur the greater the probability for a higher number of crash events to exist."

This assertion is undocumented and documents the bias of the investigator.

Page 2 of 6

Page 11, paragraph 2

"Since people's decisions to disobey traffic laws are largely self-motivated and often linked to personal choices ... "

These assertions are unsupported personal opinions. They document the bias of the investigator. 

Page 11, paragraph 3 & 4

"Unfortunately, Texas is not unfamiliar with fatal and injury intersection crashes. In 2008, TxDOT reported that 829 people were fatally injured in crashes that occurred at intersections.3  This represents approximately 24% of the 3,468 fatal injury crashes that occurred within that year. Additionally it is estimated that red light running cost the State

of Texas over $2 billion annually.8"

"Over a five year period (2004-2008), intersection-related crashes claimed approximately 3,400 lives in Texas.4 The total number of fatal crashes as well as those attributed to intersections remained relatively consistent across that five-year period. The frequency of these crashes is illustrated in Figure 2."

These numbers are related to intersections. This evaluation is supposed to be about signal-related crashes.

Attachments:

File	Description
Helwig_F._Van_Der_Grinten_Critique_of_Troy_D._Walden's_Evaluation_of_RLC.pdf

Read more: Critique of Troy D. Walden's EVALUATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS IN TEXAS

RED LIGHT CAMERA ANALYSIS:  94% OF TICKETS ARE VEHICLES IN RIGHT LANE

http://completecolorado.com/stories/rightonred.html

36th AND QUEBEC
RED LIGHT CAMERA ANALYSIS:
94% OF TICKETS ARE VEHICLES IN RIGHT LANE 
 
Nov 8, 2011

by Todd Shepherd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver's red light cameras are coming under increased scrutiny after two news reports have raised questions about the veracity and fairness of the system.

CompleteColorado.com purchased a full day's worth of tickets produced from the red light camera at 36th and Quebec, and found that of the 51 tickets issued, 48 were written to vehicles in the right lane. Many, if not most, were turning or preparing to turn right on red.

This finding lends statistical strength to the original report http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-east-denver-red-light-camera-ticketing-innocent-drivers-20110920,0,4675780.story by Fox 31's Heidi Hemmat showing anectdotal instances of vehicles being ticketed when turning right on red.

A 1994 study http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/rtor.pdf by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration noted that data was lacking on RTOR (Right Turn on Red). But with the data that was available, the study still concluded, "there are a relatively small number of deaths and injuries each year caused by RTOR crashes. These represent a very small percentage of all crashes, deaths and injuries. Because the number of crashes due to RTOR is small, the impact on traffic safety, therefore, has also been small."

Not long after Hemmat's report, CBS 4's Rick Sallinger produced a report http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/11/03/denver-collects-fines-on-drivers-who-stop-at-red-lights/ showing Denver's red light cameras were ticketing drivers who stopped at red lights, but might have edged over the white "stop" line painted on the street. (Video of this report embedded at the end of this story.)

Below are the 51 tickets obtained by CompleteColorado.com. Markings in red on the tickets are editorial remarks by this website.

36th Quebec Red Light Cam http://www.scribd.com/doc/71605063/36th-Quebec-Red-Light-Cam
 

Daelene Mix, with the Denver Manager of Safety's office, says "borderline" cases are dismissed. "DPD reviewers regularly dismiss captured incidents where it is unclear if the vehicle's wheel is actually on the stop line or over the stop line. The thought process is that if the violation is so close that is has a chance to be dismissed in court, it's better to choose non-issuance."

CompleteColorado.com showed the tickets to Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz http://www.denvergov.org/CouncilDistrict2/ContactUs/tabid/383117/Default.aspx, also featured in the CBS 4 report by Sallinger.

"It disturbs me that a significant number of the tickets appear to be related to right-on-red turns, where no one's safety is in question," Faatz said. "I have always believed photo red light tickets shouldn't be issued if an on-site officer, exercising his lawful discretion, wouldn't have written a ticket. Citations like this cause citizens to question whether government programs have any correlation with common sense."

Mix provided statistics showing that of the universe of incidents captured on cameras in Denver, roughly 60% or more are thrown out. That means just because a driver sees the camera flash, it doesn't necessarily mean a ticket was issued.

"The system is set up to detect incidents that may be a violation; however, we do not rely solely on the equipment to issue the violation," Mix said in an email. "The system is simply a means of capturing incidents for further review. It is ultimately up to DPD personnel to review all incidents that are captured and determine if it truly is a violation. Just because the camera flashes does not mean a violation will be issued. In fact, [our statistics show] that 62% of the incidents captured by the program did not result in a violation being issued. This is a strong indicator of the thoroughness and fairness of the review process, and why we do not rely solely on the equipment."

Another recent local report http://www.9news.com/dontmiss/222817/630/The-reason-you-can-dispute-tickets-from-cameras by KUSA's Anastaysia Bolton also indicated that red light tickets issued by Aurora PD have to go through a "two person" verification process.

When asked if rolling rights on red posed a public safety risk or hazard, Mix answered, "A 1994 study by the National Highway Safety Administration concluded that 22% of all right turn on red crashes (in the four states that were included in the study) involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. Additionally, the study determined 93% of right turn on red pedestrian or bicyclist accidents resulted in injury. Traffic volumes have only increased since them, and some areas have also seen increased speed volumes. Denver is a multi-modal city and pedestrians and bicyclists have a legitimate right to operate safely within our transportation system."

While this is true, the same study cited by Mix notes http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/rtor.pdf, "RTOR (right turn on red) crashes represent a very small proportion of signalized intersection crashes (0.4 percent)." And the study goes on to note, "...less than one percent (0.2 percent) of all fatal pedestrian and bicyclist crashes result from a RTOR vehicle maneuver."

Recently, the city of Los Angeles completely disbanded http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/03/blinding-red-lights its red light camera operations after "right on red" turns became more of an issue.

According to Jay Beeber http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/03/blinding-red-lights, who conducted the California investigation, "The rolling right turn accounts for 75 percent of the tickets and the citations issued. We looked at the California Highway Patrol's database, and looked at Los Angeles specifically, and we found that it's extremely rare for an accident to occur from a rolling right turn. So 75 percent of this multimillion-dollar program is going to try to change a behavior that doesn't actually cause accidents."

Read more: RED LIGHT CAMERA ANALYSIS: 94% OF TICKETS ARE VEHICLES IN RIGHT LANE

TX Dot:  Port Lavaca, TX crashes go up despite RLC!

http://crossroadstoday.com/Red-Light-Camera-Accident-Numbers/11406117
 

Red Light Camera Accident Numbers

http://crossroadstoday.com/pages/11406117.php?collectionId=919&videoEpisodeId=34389

    Red Light Cameras were intended to reduce the number of accidents at major intersections, but the controversial cameras may be doing the opposite. A new report from the Texas Department of Transportation and what it shows may be shocking and scathing for red light camera supporters.
    Red light cameras are supposed to make the streets safer and cut down on the most dangerous right angle accidents at stop lights according to the Texas Department of Transportation. But the numbers in the report show that this is simply not happening in Port Lavaca.
    The City of Port Lavaca is required by law to submit an annual report on red light accidents at intersections with cameras and the numbers the City submitted to TX-DOT show there has actually been an increase in red light accidents since the cameras were installed.
 

(thank to www.stpetecameras.org for the link!)

http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/10/another-report-shows-redlight-cameras-increasing-accidents/

Another Report Shows Redlight Cameras Increasing Accidents
Posted on October 28, 2011 by News
 

weneedhelp http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=weneedhelp points us to yet another report suggesting that red light cameras quite frequently appear to increase the number of car accidents http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-25/news/30320420_1_red-light-cameras-automated-red-light-enforcement-red-light-intersections, even as they’re pitched to the public as a way to decrease accidents. In this case, police data from Philly showed that aggregate accidents apparently increased 12% at the locations where cameras have been installed for at least a year. What’s odd, however, is that the local Parking Authority, who runs the red light camera program, insists that the police data is inaccurate, and that its own data shows a decrease in accidents. Of course, it’s not clear why or how the Parking Authority would have crash data. The police seem much more likely to have such data, so it seems like that’s a lot more trustworthy. As we’ve noted in the past, if municipalities really wanted to decrease accidents, they’d do two things: (1) increase the length of yellow lights and (2) add a delay after lights in one direction turn red before the lights in the other direction turn green (and, yes, many places do this already — but lots of them do not, including most lights near where I live).
 

Of course, it’s not difficult to see that local governments have no desire to actually stop violations at all, because things like red light cameras have never been about safety on the roads, and have always been about money:

• Motorists have paid $45.3 million in fines since 2005, of which $21.1 million has gone to PennDot.
• The rest of the money – $24.2 million – has gone to pay the expenses for operating the program, mainly to American Traffic Solutions Inc., the Scottsdale, Ariz., company that installs and maintains the cameras, and to the Parking Authority.
• PennDot distributes its revenue from the camera program for transportation projects: half to Philadelphia and half to the rest of the state.
• So far, Philadelphia has received $8.4 million; another $8.4 million has gone to 116 other municipalities in the state. Philadelphia is to get $1.5 million more, and a like amount will go to the rest of the state.

Apparently, the amount being made today absolutely dwarfs what was made in tickets before the cameras were installed. And, so, rather than actually making the roads safer, they’re being made less safe in order to beef up government revenue.

Privatized Traffic Enforcement = Bad Idea

Highlights From

“Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead

The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law

Enforcement and How to Protect the Public”

Full report http://banthecams.org/attachments/1926_Caution%20Red%20Light%20Camera%20Ahead.pdf

·         Some contracts, including those in the California cities of Bell Gardens, Citrus Heights, Corona and Hawthorne, potentially impose financial penalties on the city if traffic engineers extend the length of the yellow light at intersections with red-light cameras.

·         Some contracts require municipalities to strictly issue tickets on all right turns that do not first come to a complete stop, or enable vendors to impose financial penalties on cities that choose to alter their enforcement standards—including the contracts that Ventura and Napa Valley, California have with camera vendor Redflex.

·         Walnut, California signed a contract with Redflex that raises the possibility of a financial penalty if the city waives more than 10 percent of the potential violations identified by the private camera system.

·         Contracts between camera vendors and cities can include penalties for early termination—or fail to provide provisions for early termination—leaving taxpayers on the hook even if the camera program fails to meet its objectives.

·         In 2011, camera vendors employed nearly 40 lobbyists in Florida, whose agenda included killing a bill that would have required municipalities to adopt longer yellow light times to increase intersection safety, and killing a separate bill that would have banned red-light camera systems.

·         This focus on profit can be clearly seen in Redflex’s annual report to shareholders, where executives describe how “tighter contract language” and “more aggressive collection efforts in key markets” are important tactics the company will deploy to increase return for its investors in the coming year. It also appears prominently in the contract that Tallahassee, Florida, originally negotiated with Affiliated Computer Services in 2009, which states: “Only sites [for camera system placement] that validate out to a mutually agreed number of violations per day to meet the required financial obligations to pay the capitalized investment of the Vendor will be selected unless otherwise mutually agreed by the City and Vendor.”

“Cameras should be considered/installed only after engineering solutions have been proven ineffective where there is a red-light-running problem.” – Federal Highway Administration Guidance for Implementing Red-Light Camera Systems
 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3623.asp

Study Questions Wisdom of Privatized Law Enforcement
Public interest think tank issues report critical of existing practices for red light camera use.

One in five Americans live in a jurisdiction monitored by an automated ticketing machine. According to a report released today by the left-leaning US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), the trend of privatizing law enforcement raises a number of issues that put the public in those areas at risk.

"Pitfalls can arise when contracts encourage vendors to treat automated traffic enforcement systems as a profit center: by maximizing the number of tickets written, regardless of the impact on public safety; by limiting the ability of governments to set traffic safety policies according to community needs; or by constraining the ability of cities to terminate contracts early in the event that automated enforcement systems are rejected by the electorate or fail to meet safety goals," the study explained.

Under severe budgetary pressures, local jurisdictions often sign contracts with vendors that were presented with a slick marketing campaign. Such deals often contain extremely unfavorable terms. The public is hurt by per-ticket payment systems -- often disguised with "cost neutral" contract language -- that ensure that the system is designed to maximize revenue, not safety. Such provisions provide a monetary incentive to increase the number of tickets issued. That leads to other provisions prohibiting cities from lengthening yellow light duration to improve safety and requiring right on red ticketing and ticket approval quotas.

"Many automated traffic law enforcement contracts create risk by penalizing municipalities or leaving them exposed to costly and disruptive lawsuits in the case of early termination of the contract, leaving taxpayers on the hook even if the camera system fails to meet community objectives," the study noted. "Contract terms that keep municipalities locked in with heavy cancellation fees or threaten them with expensive litigation if they change their minds are not in the best interests of the public."

The report's authors suggested the privatized law enforcement arrangement creates a dynamic where the companies end up lobbying for the creation of more violations. In Florida, for example, red light camera companies employed forty lobbyists at a cost of over $2 million to kill legislation that would have mandated longer yellow signal times and that would have otherwise limited the use of photo ticketing. Both Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) have created front groups to create the appearance that these corporate efforts have "grassroots" support.

The study concluded with recommendations about the way to structure a red light camera program "free from potential conflicts of interest." No such principles are adhered to by any existing photo ticketing program.

A copy of the study is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead (US Public Interest Research Group, 10/27/2011)  

Attachments:

File	Description
Caution Red Light Camera Ahead	Caution Red Light Camera Ahead Report

Ban the Cams comment. This is a classic case of the Scamera side using their "definition" of a accident to make it seem that accidents went "down". The reality is wrecks went up!

You see Pennsylvania Department of Transportation uses "reportable" accidents while "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."

What we have here is the scamera side MANIPULATING THE NUMBERS BY TRYING TO HIDE ACCIDENTS! (Not the first time we have seen this either. It happened in Winnipeg a few years back too: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3278.asp where Quote: "Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck obtained data from Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI), the monopoly provider of cover in the province, revealing collision figures far more negative than those published by the Winnipeg Police Service."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/132503968.html

Posted on Tue, Oct. 25, 2011

Red-light cameras' effect on accidents is debatable
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer
 

The number of auto accidents has increased at many Philadelphia intersections since the installation of 90 red-light cameras over the last six years, according to police data.
 

The total number of accidents was up 12 percent for the 15 intersections that have had cameras for at least a year, the police data show.
 

The cameras were intended to reduce accidents and save lives, and officials at the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which runs the red-light camera program, say that goal has been met.
They dispute the police numbers, citing their own analysis showing accidents down at most red-light intersections.
 

According to police data, there were 1,982 accidents in the periods measured after the cameras were installed, compared with 1,765 during the same-length periods before cameras.
The number of fatal accidents decreased by one, from nine to eight, with the cameras, the data show.
 

Read more: Red-light cameras' effect on accidents is debatable

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

October 18, 2011

Contact: Randy Elmore, Transportation Safety Coalition: 360-303-1876

Bellingham red light camera likely to increase collisions on SR 539 Engineers find collision data does not support installation of camera

BELLINGHAM  - A collision research report released today shows that the red-light camera proposed for the northbound State Route 539 and Telegraph Road intersection will not significantly reduce collisions, and that it would potentially increase collisions and injuries on the Guide Meridian. 

The report, prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc. of Everett, concludes, “the collision data does not support the introduction of red-light cameras”. Specifically, the study determined that photo enforcement has the potential to reduce right angle red-light running collisions by a less than one per year, while increasing rear end collisions by an average of nearly five per year for this particular intersection.

“We are not surprised by the results, and have serious concerns with the safety risks moving forward with this project,” said Randy Elmore, Bellingham resident and Transportation Safety Coalition spokesperson. “We believe the results at the Guide are consistent with what we would see throughout the city, had we the funds to look at the rest of the intersections and the school zones.”

Gibson produced the report using collision data provided through public disclosure by both the City of Bellingham and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Their review of the data showed that in the most recent five years for which data was available, only one collision was caused by red light running and that none of the right-angle or stop light collisions resulted in any injuries.

Read more: Press Release by TSC: Bellingham RLC study shows RLC likely to increase accidents.

Ban the Cams note:  See Tabel 1 on page 2.  OUT OF 117 Total Collisions over 5 years. ONLY 1 WAS DISREGARD STOP LIGHT (RLV RELATED)!  

Quote:  Based on the 5-years of collision data obtained from WSDOT and the City of Bellingham; the collision data does not support the introduction of red-light cameras. Per the ITE collected statistics it only has the potential to reduce at angle red-light running collisions by a less than 1 per year but increase rear ends by an average of nearly 5 per year for this particular intersection.

With no fatalities or injuries related to the at angle collisions but 30 injuries related to rear end collisions it is anticipated that the proposed red-light camera would not reduce the collision/injury potential of the intersection and potentially increase the collision/injury potential at this particular location.

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

NEW TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWS RED LIGHT CAMERA LIKELY TO INCREASE COLLISIONS IN BELLINGHAM LOCATION
Engineer’s study does not support installation of cameras
October 23, 2011 
 
 
 

(BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON) -- One of the many complaints about cities such as Monroe, Bellingham, Los Angeles and others about city councils that jump into bed with out of state red light ticket camera operators is that city officials almost always, and exclusively, rely on traffic “data” and statements about safety supplied by parties with a clear conflict of interest in the matter.

Parties such as the red light camera outfit that stands to make money, sometimes very big money, if it seals the deal and gets a signed contract.

That is what the man who almost single handedly killed the Los Angeles red light camera ticket program found out when he began sniffing around that city’s red light camera program.

Sometime TV writer/producer Jay Beeber, found the official L.A. city government claims for the cameras and facts of the camera matter were often two different things.

Beeber did a lot of research and peppered the L.A. Police Commission and City Council with studies showing that, despite repeated claims by the Los Angeles Police Department brass, red-light cameras were not a major factor in improving safety.

He found the police department was making highly questionable claims about the safety effectiveness of the cameras based on flimsy (some would say lousy) data.

Beeber discovered that, "Most of the studies that show the cameras were effective were put out by groups with a financial interest in keeping the cameras, like the Insurance Group for Highway Safety."

And that has been the big take away lesson for local groups around the country fighting the camera companies and the city councils in their own communities.

BELLINGHAM GROUP FINDS CLAIMS DO NOT MATCH REALITY

Now a group in Bellingham says a new engineering collision study released Saturday shows that the red-light camera proposed for the northbound State Route 539 and Telegraph Road intersection in Bellingham will not significantly reduce collisions, and moreover that it would potentially increase collisions and injuries on the Guide Meridian.

The report, prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc. of Everett, concludes, “the collision data does not support the introduction of red-light cameras”.

Attachments:

File	Description
BELLINGHAM%20COLLISION%20DATA%20RE.pdf

Read more: BREAKING NEWS: RLC STUDY SHOWS DEVICES LIKELY TO INCREASE COLLISIONS IN BELLINGHAM LOCATION

Special thanks to Jim for sharing this link with us!

http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/index.html

Thames Valley Speed Cameras, An Independent Report

http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/01_speeding.htm

SPEEDING AND ROAD SAFETY.                                                                    

Last update: 29/Sept/2011

We hear a lot of claims about speeding (exceeding the speed limit) and accidents, so what are the facts?

In order to prevent collisions, we need to know why they occur. When a collision results in someone being killed or injured, the Police investigate and fill in a report form accompanied by a contributory factors form. The officers select from the supplied list of possible contributory factors those that may have contributed to each collision they investigate. The DfT collects these forms, adds up the factors and publishes the results online. Police don't investigate all collisions, and they don't always find suitable factors to assign when they do, so the following information contains only those collisions where the Police attended the scene, recorded the collision, investigated and assigned at least one contributory factor.

Despite the speed camera programme starting in 1993 and building to over 4,000 cameras by 2004, exceeding the speed limit was not investigated as a contributory factor by Police nationally until 2005. Also, just because a factor occurred, does not mean it caused the collision nor does it mean the information could be used to prevent other collisions. The real causes of a collision are not simply what happened, they are what went wrong ie what was different to normal in any particular circumstance. On it's own, exceeding the speed limit may only be of limited use for collision prevention because we would also need to know what speed other motorists were doing that didn't crash. The contributory factors do not contain any speed survey data that may have been taken at collision locations.

Results of police investigations can be downloaded from the DfT website: Road casualties in Great Britain.  http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/

2005 contributory factors: Road Casualties GB: 2005:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2005

download "Contributory factors to road accidents (Excel 113 kb)" http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors2005.xls

2006 contributory factors: Road Casualties GB: 2006 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2006

and download "Article 4 - Contributory factor statistics (Excel 229 kb)" http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors2006.xls

2007 contributory factors: Road Casualties GB: 2007 http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071.html

and download "Article 4 - Contributory factor statistics (Excel 243 kb)" http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors2007.xls

2008 contributory factors: Road Casualties GB: 2008 http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2008.html

and download "Article 4 - Contributory factors (Excel 378 kb)" http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors2008.xls

2009 contributory factors: Road Casualties GB: 2009 http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009.html

and download "Article 4 - Contributory factors (Excel 378 kb)" http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors2009.xls

2010 contributory factors: Road Casualties GB: 2010 http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics?orderby=title&post_type=table&s=ras50 and download "RAS50001" http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors2010.xls

Contributory factors for collisions from each year here contributoryfactors.xls (includes factors listed for PIA, FSC and fatal). http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/contributoryfactors.xls

Here is the puzzle:

If the police conclude that fewer than 8% of KSI collisions involved a vehicle exceeding a speed limit .....

..... how can speed cameras reduce the number of those KSI collisions by 42% (national average http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/03_government_reports.htm at camera sites)?

Clearly something is wrong so there are 2 possibilities:

1) cameras are not causing those reductions.

2) the police are under-reporting "exceeding the speed limit" as a contributory factor.

The governments 4-year evaluation report does show http://www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/03_government_reports.htm (if read VERY carefully) that the cameras did NOT cause the 42% reduction but do Police under-report?

Read more: Thames Valley Speed Cameras, An Independent Report

CameraFraud National
 

Road fatalities generally trend downward because cars technology improves, and advances in medical treatment keep people alive. Look at page 41 of the "crash facts report" PDF -- "exceeded lawful speed" accounted for 2.9% of fatal crashes. That's the only thing that a speed camera targets.

More crashes caused by driving in the wrong lane, failing to yield, etc. The blind focus on speed ignores the things that matter more.

ADOT Blog: Arizona roadway fatalities dropped again in 2010
adotblog.blogspot.com  http://adotblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/arizona-roadway-fatalities-dropped.html

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/statistics/crash/PDF/10crashfacts.pdf

Table 5-11 on page 41 of the Adobe.  (page 31 of the report if you print it out).

Attachments:

File	Description
AZ 2010crashfacts.pdf