Studies Show

Red Light Cameras KILL!
IIHS “Lives Saved” Study is a FRAUD!
Spring 2011
Summary
By Greg Mauz

More people everyday are learning that camera enforcement (for red lights and speed limits) is a total fraud.  Courts, legislators and voter referendums have banned cameras in 15 states and 39 cities, with more pending.

Camera promoters desperately need some good P.R.  Along comes the Insurance Institute for “Highway Safety”, the lobbyist for 95 auto insurers that usurp $billions from traffic enforcement, including cameras.

Despite the serious conflict of interest, the national media presented – without even seeing it – the IIHS’s new study “results” on February 1, 2011.   Red light cameras “saved 83 Lives” (“159 with spillover effect “ – a lie)  along with a “-35% reduction in red light running fatal crash rates.”  Biased speculation ludicrously claimed 815 lives would be saved with cameras everywhere.

The study is a FRAUD.  IIHS authors carefully cherry picked camera sites (only 14 of 175 choices in 2004) and years of statistics.  The before camera period, 1992-1996, starts with a record safe [recession] year.  The after period, 2004-2008, ends with the next record safe [Great Recession] year, while skipping valid comparison years 1997 – 2003.  Years are NOT listed individually and city camera sites are NOT analyzed separately from the more numerous [safer] non-camera signal intersections.

Of the 14 cities chosen to politically endorse the $8 billion camera industry, three incurred huge increases of red light violation and all signal-related fatal crashes.  Two had way less than average improvements and seven contained serious integrity problems.  For example, IIHS alleges that Washington, D.C. scored an -11% improvement in signal-related fatal crash rates.  However, D.C.’s own study (2005) reported an +81% increase of injury/fatal crashes (+118).

Attachments:

File	Description
Red Light Cameras KILL Summary 3 1 2011.pdf

Read more: Red Light Cameras KILL! Summary

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/rolling-right-turn-accidents-los-angeles-drivers-33501.html

Rolling-Right-Turn Accidents Rarer Than Lightning Strikes, Yet Los Angeles Drivers Rack Up Tickets

Los Angeles, CA (MMD Newswire)

March 24, 2011

Safer Streets L.A., a motorist safety advocacy group headed by Executive Director Jay Beeber, released a study that disproves the contention that rolling right turns are a traffic safety concern. "How Dangerous Is A Rolling Right Turn?", using accident statistics compiled from the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, notes that the mathematical odds of a rolling right turn being the cause of a collision are only 1 in 345,345. According to the National Lightning Safety Institute, the chance that a person will be struck by lightning is 1 in 280,000.
Safer Streets L.A.also reviewed violation rates at the 32 Los Angeles intersections equipped with red-light cameras. The group found rolling-right-turn violation rates at the top ten of those intersections ranged from 88 to 97 percent, while only 3 to 12 percent of the violations were for the running of red lights.

Gary Biller, Executive Director of the National Motorists Association (www.motorists.org), commented after reviewing the study that, "Tens of thousands of Los Angeles commuters are being tagged with rolling-right-turn tickets annually at $466 per citation. Based on this research by Safer Streets L.A., it is clear that the L.A. red-light camera program exists only to generate traffic fines, not to improve intersection safety."

TheNewspaper.com put the odds of an accident caused by a rolling right turn in even more dramatic terms: "A review of US Department of Transportation statistics shows that an average motorist could drive a billion miles -- the distance from Earth to Jupiter and back -- before being involved in an accident that resulted from a motorist making a rolling stop on a right-hand turn."

At a time when the City of Los Angeles is considering a multi-year, multi-million dollar taxpayer obligation to extend its red-light camera program, the Safer Streets L.A. study raises the pertinent question of whether that is a legitimate use of city and law enforcement resources.

"How Dangerous Is A Rolling Right Turn?" can be viewed and downloaded for free at www.saferstreetsla.org.

Contact:
Jay Beeber
Executive Director
Safer Streets L.A.
Email:  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone:  (505) 500-4790Website: www.saferstreetsla.org

(Ban the CAMS recommends you check this site out!)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/cameras-are-just-revenue-raisers/story-fn6bqphm-1226020692021

Cameras ARE just revenue raisers Greg Kelton, State Editor From: AdelaideNow March 14, 2011 11:07AM

SPEED cameras are nothing more than revenue raisers, a university study shows.

It also says they are not used in notorious black spots, and it is being used to bolster moves for a parliamentary inquiry into their effectiveness.

The report, prepared at no cost as part of the parliamentary intern scheme at the University of Adelaide for Liberal MP Ivan Venning, calls for greater police presence on the roads and for the police to take over management and placement of speed cameras.

Mr Venning has moved in the House of Assembly for a parliamentary select committee to investigate the use of speed cameras and other devices used South Australian police.

Mr Venning said the state's resources needed to be targeted at the most effective safety measures and that "motorists do not become victims of the tax collector".

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Results: Safe, or a solid income?

What do you think is the main purpose of speed cameras?
To get speeders off the road 3.52% (44 votes)
To warn drivers against speeding 5.2% (65 votes)
To boost the Government's bottom line 91.27% (1140 votes)
Total votes: 1249

"It can be decisively concluded that 37 per cent of the cameras in the study were placed directly inside a rural town on a rural street even though it is demonstrated only 4.2 per cent of accidents occur in these areas," the report says.

"Statistic released under FoI laws in 2009 further reveal that only two of the top 10 revenue-raising speed camera sites were located in SA's worst black spots.

"Police data found that black spots in Adelaide were on main arterial roads but major revenue-raising roads were in the Adelaide CBD and eastern suburbs.

Read more: SPEED cameras are nothing more than revenue raisers, a university study shows.

http://www.bhspi.org/BPpapers/files/ite6_signaltiming_ppt.pdf
 
Ban the Cams wanted to share with you this report that was updated in 2009:
 
ITE District 6 - Signal Timing - Camera Enforcement vs Best Engineering Practices 
 
Clash of Diametrically Opposed Forces: 
 
A camera system’s vetting process by definition requires that a quantified engineering defect be identified and then, by design, remain uncorrected.

The larger the identified engineering defect, the more the system operators are financially rewarded for unsafe practices and negligence.

Cameras do not reduce accidents caused by engineering defects and at most locations their presence has actually caused accident rates to increase. 
 

Ban the Cams note:  It was recently updated with additional data including the changed "definitions" of what is the trigger line in AZ.  See page 26

Attachments:

File	Description
Camera Enforcement vs Best Engineering Practices

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3413.asp

Report Critiques Red Light Camera Research Methods
University of South Florida analysis elaborates on conclusion that red light cameras are associated with increased injury accidents.

A peer-reviewed article published Wednesday in the Florida Public Health Review elaborated on a previous analysis of methods used in certain red light camera studies. University of South Florida (USF) researchers Barbara Langland-Orban, Etienne E. Pracht and John T. Large returned to clarify certain points raised in response to their 2008 report that concluded red light cameras tended to increase injury accidents (view study).  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2267.asp

"In our original critique, we faulted the research methods used in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) analysis titled Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras," the USF report stated. "One FHWA official subsequently contacted us to point out that we overlooked an important finding: fatal crashes at red light camera sites had increased, yet were ignored in the related economic analysis."

Earlier this month, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) generated a significant amount of positive publicity for red light cameras by claiming red light cameras caused a reduction in fatal accidents (view report). http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3393.asp  The more rigorous FHWA study found that 0.5 percent of angle crashes were fatal in the "before" period without red light cameras. After cameras were installed, the figure grew to 0.8 percent. The FHWA study concluded there was a financial benefit from crash reductions due to the use of cameras, but only because the FHWA chose to exclude fatal accidents from their estimates. USF re-calculated the FHWA numbers including fatalities to find that red light camera use resulted in a net loss of $17,360 per intersection in estimated accident costs, according to the FHWA methodology.

The USF researchers took issue with the design of the FHWA study, but the greatest criticism was reserved for the "unscientific" studies performed by the IIHS and the Cochrane Collaboration. Both of these works drew sweeping conclusions from a simple before and after comparison that did not control for variables such as traffic volume, long-term accident trends and intersection geometry that could affect the results.

"The studies that integrated relevant independent variables in the analysis found red light cameras were associated with increases in crashes and injuries," the report stated (view rigorous studies). http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp  "This reveals the complexity of conducting public health research because an outcome can be incorrectly attributed to an intervention if variables necessary to explain the outcome are excluded."

The USF researchers explained that red light cameras may increase injury accidents because most red light running accidents are the result of unintentional mistakes. For example, a driver is distracted and did not notice that the light was red, causing a collision. The presence of a camera would not have altered the outcome because if the signal itself was missed, it is not likely the camera would be noticed.

"Understanding root causes of red light running crashes (e.g., intentional versus unintentional infractions, driving under the influence, or traffic signal or intersection defects) is necessary to advance remedies that are specific to the problem," the report stated. "In contrast, red light camera advocates presume red light running crashes occur from willful red light running."

The report concluded that federal standards should be established to require engineering analysis before the installation of red light cameras. It also recommends full transparency in the reporting of accident data at red light camera locations.

A copy of the analysis is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Update on Red Light Camera Research (Florida Public Health Review, 2/23/2011)

Attachments:

File	Description
orban2.pdf

http://www.georgeannascabana.com/vehicle-ownership/roundabouts-increase-safety/
 

Roundabouts Increase Safety!
Feb 20th, 2011
by Sarah.
 

You probably already know that if you want one of the safest vehicles on the roads that you should plan on buying from Volvo Dealership Irvine.  Volvo has been a leader in safety for several decades now, and their new improved technological systems make it appear that their leadership won’t be challenged.  Just like drivers know that sporty cars can be found at Porsche Ontario, drivers nowadays want their vehicles to provide the most safety possible.  One possible reason for this might be that there are so many problems with our roadways anymore.  There have been increasing amounts of roundabouts being constructed throughout the United States and that can make it confusing when you are leaving from Volvo Portland for the first time after new construction.
 

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the first roundabouts were constructed in Nevada sometime around 1990.  While there is no good way to accurately determine how many roundabouts are in existence throughout the United States right now, it is estimated that there are at least 2,000 or so.  For foreign drivers and new drivers, approaching a roundabout is a pleasurable experience.  However, older drivers are intimated and unsure of the entire process.  This confusion is likely to persist when you take into consideration that only thirty out of our great fifty states have actually constructed these traffic jam eliminators.  Roundabouts are common fare in Australia, France, and the United Kingdom.
 

The primary reason for a roundabout is to increase safety at an intersection.  When you have a traditional four way stop at a cross street, there are common occurrences of head-on collisions as well as side-impact crashes from people turning out of turn.  A roundabout eliminates these problems and drivers all travel in the same direction at a safe, slow speed.  The IIHS conducted a study back in 2001 and took statistics of accidents at 23 intersections that had recently been converted to a roundabout from a traditional four way intersection.  The amounts of injury were reduced by 80% and the amount of accidents decreased by 40%.

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/735.htm  (press release from the ABD).

 http://www.abd.org.uk/topics/speed_cameras/SpeedCamerasDoNotSaveLives.htm

Speed Cameras Do Not Save Lives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RAC Foundation recently published a report on the “Effectiveness of Speed Cameras”, and widely promoted it under the headline “Cameras Save Lives”.

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) has reviewed the evidence in that report, and has come to exactly the opposite conclusion. Our analysis of the RAC report (which was authored by Professor Richard Allsop), shows that much of the information presented is misleading, that there is no certainty at all about the impact of speed cameras, and that much of the contrary evidence has simply been ignored.

Read our full analysis here: Effective of Speed Cameras Review [pdf 213k]   http://www.abd.org.uk/downloads/EffSpeedCamReview.pdf
 

Attachments:

File	Description
EffSpeedCamReview.pdf

From the Library:  The Armey Report.

If you want to read more on the Dilemma Zone and why it was INTENTIONALLY CREATED to make RLC profitable.  Read this REPORT!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport.asp

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pdf

Quote:

The diagram above illustrates what happens when an automobile approaching an
intersection sees the yellow light. Drivers who are in the “Can’t Go” zone as the light turns
yellow know they are too far back and won’t be able to reach the intersection before the light
turns red—they must stop. Drivers who are in the “Can’t Stop” zone know they’re too close to
the intersection to stop safely—they must proceed. But when the yellow time is inadequate,
there is place in between both zones where the driver can neither proceed safely, nor stop safely.
Engineers call this the “Dilemma Zone.”

A properly timed signal will have enough yellow time that driver’s will never be faced
with the impossible choice presented by the dilemma zone. By determining the stopping and
clearing distances for a given approach speed, one can always calculate a safe yellow time that
offers drivers a safe option, by design, every time.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3343.asp

Virginia: Rutherford Institute Takes on Red Light Cameras

Civil rights group Rutherford Institute challenges legality and propriety of Albemarle County, Virginia photo ticketing program.

A civil rights think tank on Friday urged Albemarle County, Virginia to cancel its red light program. In a letter to county supervisors, the Rutherford Institute made the case that the contract the county entered into with Australian vendor Redflex Traffic Systems violates the law and will likely not achieve the stated goal of reducing accidents.

"The Redflex contract incorporates a so-called 'cost-neutrality' provision whereby the company's compensation, up to the amount of the contractual monthly fee, hinges on the number of violations or monetary penalties imposed," the group's president, John W. Whitehead, wrote. "Regardless of how the fee arrangement is worded or structured, it is likely to be found in violation of Virginia law where the vendor has a financial incentive to ensure that a high number of citations are issued."

Virginia Code section 15.2-968 specifically bans compensation based on the number of violations issued. The Rutherford Institute provides free legal representation to individuals as a conservative alternative to the American Civil Liberties Union. The group also cited safety concerns raised by a number of independent studies of photo enforcement's effectiveness (view studies).  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

"The red light cameras are not proven to increase safety, and multiple studies indicate that they actually increase the number of crashes," Whitehead wrote. "The hard evidence thus casts doubt on the claims that the purpose of the PhotoSafe program is to enhance traffic safety."

In particular, the Virginia Department of Transportation concluded that accidents increased 29 percent in the Northern Virginia jurisdictions that used photo enforcement between 1995 and 2005 (view study). http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp It is impossible for Albemarle to have an accident reduction at one of the two intersections selected for camera use because it has never had a single "red light running" related crash (view report). http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3306.asp The institute suggested engineering alternatives would do more to increase safety.

"According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, intersection safety would be increased by simply lengthening the yellow light time or adding an all-red light interval," Whitehead wrote. "Rather than trading one type of crash for another as red light cameras do, increasing the duration of the yellow light is proven to be effective in actually enhancing intersection safety. Moreover, this cost-free means of achieving the county's stated goal carries none of the costs to motorists' privacy or community morale."

The group concluded by pointing out that the Redflex marketing material highlights the expertise of the company in "generating more revenue" for local government, providing the strongest "return on investment" in the industry.

"It is clear that the 'return on investment' Redflex references is not an increase in traffic safety, but rather an increase in revenue generated by traffic offenses at the monitored intersections," Whitehead wrote. "Whatever Albemarle County's actual intentions are in this matter, Redflex's stated goals for its system make the county's business relationship with the company unseemly."

The group asked county supervisors to re-evaluate the evidence and consider ending the red light camera program. A copy of the Rutherford Institute letter is available in a 275k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Albemarle County PhotoSafe Program Involving Red Light Cameras (Rutherford Institute, 12/3/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/va-rutherford.pdf

Attachments:

File	Description
va-rutherford.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3320.asp

Road Fatality Rate Continues Historic Decline

The fatal accident rate on US roads continued to hit another all-time low in the first half of 2010.

American roads have never been safer according to statistics released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the first half of 2010. Already in 2009, the number of people killed per 100 million vehicle miles traveled had dropped to 1.13 from 1.26 in 2008. This 5.3 percent drop in accidents already represented the lowest rate on record.

Statistics for the first half of the year are even better. Deadly collisions have dropped another 9.2 percent for an accident rate of just 1.02. In total, 1513 fewer people died on the roads by the end of June as compared to the same period last year. The safety improvement streak that has lasted unbroken for seventeen consecutive quarters. Shorter safety streaks last happened around 1981 and 1990 -- corresponding to the last major economic recessions.

Local officials frequently credit their own policies for reductions that might happen in a given city, especially in areas where red light cameras or speed cameras are used. The benefit, however, extends nationwide and throughout jurisdictions where photo enforcement is illegal. As a result of the current sluggish economic situation, vehicle travel has remained relatively stagnant, increasing only by one-tenth of a percent compared to the first half of 2009. Compared to 2005, the chance of being involved in a fatal accident has dropped a full 30 percent.

In addition to economic factors, road fatalities nationwide continue to decline as hospitals improve trauma care services and older cars on the road are replaced with newer models equipped with stability control, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones and other advanced safety features. Assuming accident trends continue, about 13,000 fewer people will die on the roads in in 2010 than perished in 2005.

A copy of the latest NHTSA fatality report is available in a 600k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 9/11/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/us-1h2010.pdf
 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3303.asp

10/26/2010
New Mexico: Study Shows Photo Enforcement Increased Accidents
Study shows total accidents increased slightly where combination red light speed cameras were used in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Photo enforcement cameras are temporarily disabled in Albuquerque, New Mexico after a study by the University of New Mexico failed to offer a complete justification for the program. Mayor Richard J. Berry announced that he would eliminate six of the twenty red light camera intersections where accidents increased the most. He also will stop issuing speed camera citations at intersections -- although he plans to keep three vans to set up mobile photo radar traps. While the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems is expired, Berry is seeking a better deal from other photo ticketing vendors.

Albuquerque started the automated enforcement program with a pair of red light cameras in 2004 and gradually expanded to cover both speed and red light tickets at twenty intersections (although three locations were shut down by the state in May). The combination has resulted in the mailing of 527,250 citations, each worth between $100 and $400. Total revenue exceeded $37,931,000 with another $5,676,000 expected in fiscal 2011. Of this amount, Redflex has taken home $15,947,000 with another $3,498,000 expected in 2011.

With that much money at stake, the study, which was funded by the city of Albuquerque, presented automated enforcement as favorable a light as it could. The study measured the number of accidents in thirty-eight camera-free control intersections used for comparison with the twenty photo-enforced intersections. The total number of crashes at the photo enforced intersections increased while camera-free intersections saw a decrease. While injury accidents decreased at the camera intersections, the decrease was much more prominent, 29 percent, at camera-free locations.

The report dismissed the increase in the overall number of crashes by providing an accident cost analysis not based on any examination of the collisions in Albuquerque, but by applying a generic formula designed to downplay the importance of rear end collisions. The report recommended that the city use engineering countermeasures to improve safety. Mayor Berry issued a statement confirming his willingness to do so -- including giving drivers longer yellow times.

"I have asked the city's municipal development director to look at ways to improve these intersections with better traffic engineering, signage, adjustments to the length of yellow lights and enhanced signalization," Berry said.

A copy of the full study is available in a 2mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Albuquerque Red Light Camera Study (University of New Mexico, 10/26/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/nm-abqrlc.pdf

Regional News:
Other news about Albuquerque, New Mexico   http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/related.asp?V=131

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3277.asp

California: Los Angeles Auditor Finds No Safety Benefit to Red Light Cameras
City auditor finds no safety benefit to red light cameras in Los Angeles, California.

Los Angeles, California City Controller Wendy Greuel yesterday issued a scathing 77-page critique of the red light camera program responsible for ticketing 44,542 Angelenos last year. While city officials insisted that ticketing "red light runners" caused a significant reduction in accidents, the numbers show that 67 percent of those tickets were actually mailed to people making right turns on red, not running red lights. The auditor found no credible evidence that safety had improved at the monitored intersections.

The total number of collisions at camera locations did decline 72 percent between 2004 and 2008, but they increased 53 percent from 2008 to 2009 -- at a time when accidents at locations without cameras had dropped 14 percent. Rising gas prices and the recession led to a significant drop in traffic volume from 2004, forcing auditors to label the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) safety claims as "misleading" because they did not take into account broader trends that could explain the change in accidents.

"Without a formal engineering survey, attributing these results solely to automated enforcement is questionable," the audit explained. "For example, we learned that LADOT instituted an all-red phase at photo red light intersections, along with the camera installation. That change alone could have made the intersection safer. We noted other concerns regarding the completeness and type of data that is collected. Other factors that affect reported program results are not considered. Taken together, these issues cloud the value of reported outcomes."

One of the most critical flaws in the data comes from the LAPD policy of not filing accident reports unless there is an injury or a crime like hit and run is reported. With most intersections only having five accidents, a single collision could sway the results either way.

"Based on concerns regarding the completeness and relevance of the data collected, the success of the photo red light program cannot be judged solely on these reported statistics," the audit concluded.

Safety was not even the main concern when deciding where to install cameras. Instead, political considerations were given the final say, as the primary goal was to avoid a "negative public perception of the program," according to the audit. The city also avoided locations on state roads because that would have required an engineering analysis -- something the city wanted to avoid because it might suggest alternatives to enforcement. As a result, instead of placing cameras at locations with up to 13 accidents caused by red light running, the private vendor installed cameras at a location with only 2 accidents.

"Studies we reviewed suggest that a DOT engineering survey or evaluation should precede referring an intersection for automated enforcement," the audit explained. "Any enforcement method should be the last resort for increasing public safety."

The city claimed it could not afford to perform any formal engineering studies to find alternative means of reducing accidents. Although the city acknowledged that longer yellow times would reduce so-called red light running, it refused to extend times by more than a third-of-a-second. State law in Georgia and Ohio mandates one extra second of yellow at enforced intersections.

"LAPD stated the city intentionally lengthened the time for the yellow signal phase from the legally required 3.6 seconds to 3.9 seconds or higher in deference to potential violators," the audit explained. "They estimate this effectively reduced by one-third the number of citations that would have otherwise been issued."

The audit did claim that the program that issued tickets with a face value of $19,865,732 last year was operating at a loss. American Traffic Solutions (ATS) charges $3,071,250 to operate cameras at 32 intersections, and the city's share of the ticket collections was $3,704,548. Still, the auditor suggested the city was operating the program at a loss because it claimed the salaries of six full-time and three part-time employees against the program. ATS performs all of the required tasks for the ticketing program, and court documents suggest that in many California cities, police frequently do not review citations one-by-one before they are issued.

Revenue is also lower than expected because motorists are widely ignoring the pricey $446 citations. In 2008, 39 percent of tickets went unpaid. That figure jumped to 52 percent in 2009. The court does not put a hold on vehicle registrations or driver's license for those who ignore a photo ticket, so there is no consequence to tossing the citation beyond the possibility of being reported to a collection agency.

The audit also points out that between September 2009 and April 2010, ATS operated the camera program without a valid contract (page 52). Earlier this year tickets issued in the city of South San Francisco without a contract were found to be invalid, forcing the refund of 3000 citations worth $1.3 million.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3077.asp

View the full audit in a 1.1mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Audit of the Photo Red Light Program (Los Angeles, California City Controller, 9/29/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/ca-laaudit.pdf
 

http://blogs.canoe.ca/raisinghell/general/red-light-camera-data-in-full/

Red light camera data in full
tom.brodbeck - September 27th, 2010
If you check out the Manitoba Public Insurance crash stats for the 12 red-light locations where cameras were installed in 2005, you’ll see the collisions numbers are even worse than what we’ve been reporting so far.

For most of the intersections where red-light-cameras have been installed, we’ve been giving you the numbers based on the year the cameras went in, in order to present a uniform set of statistics.

Some cameras were installed in 2003, some in 2004 and others in 2005. There have three more more installed since then.

If MPI had figures for the years leading up to the installations of the cameras, it would provide us with even greater insight into how dramatic crashes have increased since the cams were put up. Unfortunately, MPI doesn’t have that data compiled, with the exception of the cameras that were installed in 2005.

For those, we have two years of crash data prior to the installation of the cameras. And what it shows is that the increases in crashes for most of those locations are even more pronounced.

For example, the corner of Logan and Main had an average 28.5 crashes annually for the years 2003 and 2004. A red-light camera was installed there in August of 2005 and the numbers jumped instantly to 41. They never came back down to the pre-red-light camera years, staying instead at an average of 31 crashes a year.
You can view below those figures and all of the raw data from MPI we’ve been reporting on over the past week.

Attachments:

File	Description
38244503-Mpi-Crash-Stats.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3268.asp

US Road Fatalities Hit Record Low
Data suggest economy, more than public policy, the primary factor in reducing accidents.

Earlier this month, US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that traffic fatalities and injuries reached an all-time low in 2009. Last year's tally of 33,808 highway deaths represented the lowest figure on record since 1950, despite a small 0.2 percent increase in overall vehicle traffic. Many local officials have taken advantage of the positive trend by crediting benefits seen nationwide to particular public policies implemented locally. Federal officials likewise used the statistics to promote their own programs that encourage the issuance of traffic tickets.

"Today's numbers reflect the tangible benefits of record seat belt use and strong anti-drunk driving enforcement campaigns," said National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator (NHTSA) David Strickland said in a September 9 statement.

A more detailed NHTSA report calculated that the number of people killed per 100 million vehicle miles traveled dropped ten percent from 1.26 in 2008 to 1.13 in 2009. The highway injury rate dropped 6.3 percent from 79 to 74. Injury crashes dropped 6.9 percent and property-damage-only crashes dropped 4.6 percent. This document highlighted other factors responsible for the overall 5.3 percent accident decline.

"The reduction in total fatalities could be attributed to many factors such as the economy, unemployment, improvements in vehicle design, and highway safety programs," the August Traffic Safety Facts Research Note explained.

Read more: US Road Fatalities Hit Record Low (Towns without SCAMERAS DID BETTER THAN PHOENIX!)

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2010/09/14/15350641.html

News Columnists / Michael Platt
Speeding barely a factor in crashes
By MICHAEL PLATT, Calgary Sun

Last Updated: September 14, 2010 5:28pm

 If it isn’t a cash cow, it sure stinks like something a herd of heifers left behind.

Thousands of speeding tickets worth millions in extra revenue for the province, yet when the statistics on crashes are released, speeding is nowhere to be found.

The 2009 Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics do say plenty about collisions, and exactly why we have them.

Following too close, running off the road, turning across path of oncoming traffic, failing to yield to pedestrians.

All these, and many more, make up the detailed list explaining exactly why Alberta motorists were involved in 10,809 casualty collisions last year.

The charts cover time of day, weather, type of vehicle — even age and sex of the driver.

Yet in 93-pages of meticulous information, there is no mention of speed, despite it being the number one safety concern on Alberta roads, if we judge by the number of tickets written.

On highways alone, Sheriffs and RCMP issued fines worth $111 million between April 2009 and March 2010, with over 80% of those tickets from speeding. It’s a similar story in cities and towns.

So where are the statistics showing the danger of putting the pedal to the metal?

It seems the province left speeding out of the new report on traffic collision statistics, and it takes a special request to Alberta Transportation to get a copy of the relevant document.

When the report arrives, entitled “Driver Error Pie 2009,” it’s easy to see why it went missing from the main report.

As well as nifty pie chart, it contains the truth about speeding. And the truth is, only six crashes out of every hundred involve speeding.

It’s a flabbergasting fact, given the endless propaganda paid to speeding as a serious danger to the public, and the multitude of equipment and manpower devoting to stopping those who break the limit.

Solicitor General Frank Oberle said as much Tuesday, when the collision stats were released.

“Law enforcement’s visibility on our roads serves as a constant reminder to aggressive drivers and speeders that high-risk driving will not be tolerated,” said Oberle.

Aggressive drivers, sure. But the government’s own numbers show speeding isn’t a major cause of wrecks.

The exact wording, from Alberta Transportation, is thus: “Speed – 6.2% of total collisions involved one or more drivers indicated by the police as having been travelling at a speed too great for the given conditions.”

True, when speeders do crash, it isn’t pretty, and the report says speed is a factor in three out of ten fatal crashes, a number that’s been made public before.

But it’s that hidden figure, 6.2%, where things no longer add up. Frankly, it stinks.

From the photo radar in our cities, to the sheriffs scribbling fines on our highways, Alberta’s anti-speeding campaign is focused on a factor present in a paltry percentage of crashes.

If safety were the real concern, police resources would be spent on preventing tailgaters, or monitoring crosswalks.

Of course, it’s vastly more lucrative to fine drivers who break the speed limit, even though the province’s own statistics suggest more lives would be saved if police focused on bad driving.

A cash cow? A waste of time, in any case.

Getting those in power to admit that police would be more effective without the radar gun isn’t easy.

As Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette spoke to the overall reduction in annual fatalities and injuries, he wasn’t keen to suggest police should refocus their efforts.

Ouellette did say the upcoming distracted driving legislation, which will ban mobile phones, lipstick and other driving diversions, won’t be enforced the way speed laws are.

“I don’t want this bill to turn into a policeman sitting behind a billboard, watching to see if someone takes a bite of a sandwich,” said Ouellette.

“We told the police, we want you to use this as a tool to make our roads safer.”

In fact, Alberta’s police already have the tools to make out roads safer, in the form of keen observation, good judgement, and ticket books.

But first, officers need permission to hang up the radar guns, and focus on the real danger on our roads.

Clearly, it isn’t speeding.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3198.asp
 

Speed cameras generated 1.5 million tickets last year in the UK.

The TaxPayers' Alliance and Drivers' Alliance last week calculated that UK speed cameras issued £87,368,227 (US $131,256,380) worth of tickets in fiscal 2009 without any demonstrable safety benefit. Since speed cameras were first installed on British roads in 1991, the roads became more dangerous than they would have been without photo enforcement, according to the report.

"The road casualty rate has declined at a slower rate since speed cameras were introduced in the early 1990s," the study explained. "Using the road casualty rate from 1978-1990 it can be estimated that 1,555,244 more road casualties have occurred from 1991-2007 than would have if the 1978-1990 trend had continued."

Such figures should see a continuous steady decline because advances in automotive technology including anti-lock brakes, stability control, crumple zones and airbags have made vehicles significantly safer over time. Those who are injured in an accident are also more likely to survive as medical treatments and trauma care likewise advance.

In terms of the number of fatal accidents per billion passenger miles traveled, the casualty rate fell from 773 in 1979 to 331 in 2007. The pre-camera fall, however, was far more impressive. Had cameras never been installed, the group projected the casualty rate would have been 128 in 2007.

Automated ticketing machines in the UK are operated by speed camera partnerships representing local city and county officials teaming up with police. Beginning in 2007, the revenue generated by each partnership was sent directly to the national treasury with money reallocated back to the partnership through road safety grants. This setup was designed to remove the impression that the cameras were merely being used to raise revenue. Newly elected Prime Minister David Cameron now pledges to stop grants for the purposes of adding new fixed speed cameras.

This was the first count of tickets that included magistrates' courts along with the national figures. Partnerships in England and Wales accounted for the greatest number of tickets -- £65,748,850 (US $98,721,524). Another pound;19,214,594 (US $28,850,691) went through magistrates courts in England and Wales. Scotland issued £1,641,630 (US $2,464,905) in automated citations while Northern Ireland collected £763,153 (US $1,145,909).

View a copy of the report in a 200k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Research Notes No. 3 -- speeding fines (TaxPayers Alliance and Drivers Alliance, 7/12/2010)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/uktaxpayer.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3175.asp

Illinois: Study Finds No Benefit To Chicago Red Light Cameras
Analysis examining Chicago, Illinois red light cameras finds no clear safety benefit.

A new study of the country's largest red light camera program found no significant benefit to the use of photo enforcement. Rajiv Shah, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago released the final version of his exploratory analysis into Chicago's photo ticketing program, which boasts 188 cameras.

Shah's analyzed Illinois Department of Transportation data obtained by the Chicago Tribune which showed that although accidents dropped seven percent at intersections citywide, fifty camera-monitored intersections saw a five-percent increase in accidents. The city used its own, much narrower dataset to claim a significant decrease in accidents. The city only had ten usable intersections and defined "accident" in a way that limits reporting of rear end collisions that take place farther from the intersection. Shah recrunched the numbers and found a net safety benefit of just 1.5 percent.

"The goal was not to do a comprehensive study of red light cameras, but only to ask whether the benefits of red light cameras are obvious," the study concluded. "A more comprehensive study would include control groups. In sum, our findings show that red light cameras have, at best, a marginal positive impact on accidents. It's clear that the benefits claimed by the city are hyperbole and that there is no evidence that the red light camera have had a significant safety benefit."

Read more: PDF LINK TO CHICAGO STUDY: RLC PROVIDE NO BENEFIT!

Ban the Cams note:  For those interested in the Peer Review and the Authors Response to the IIHS, the below link has the PDF on it.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3009.asp

Virginia DOT Defends Red Light Camera Study
Virginia Department of Transportation defends red light camera study from attack of financially interested opponents.

In 2007, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) performed one of the most comprehensive statewide surveys of the impact of red light cameras on safety (view report). It caused quite a stir upon its release. The study took advantage of seven years' worth of data both before and after cameras were installed, examining a far more extensive dataset than most competing studies.

Despite the agency's best effort to present automated enforcement in a positive light, the unavoidable results were that, on a statewide level, accidents and injuries increased where cameras were used. This outcome has proved to be an embarrassment for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) which has been the primary organization generating research claiming that red light cameras improve safety. IIHS noted that VDOT essentially bent over backwards to accommodate the industry, but because the ultimate results were unfavorable, the VDOT report should be discarded.

"That the final conclusions of the [VDOT] study are guarded and more conservative than the results might suggest supports our belief that the negative results of the study cannot, and should not be cited and used as a deterrent to the implementation of red light camera programs," a draft 2007 IIHS critique stated.

Essentially, IIHS argued that one should question the VDOT/Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) study because the results conflicted with conclusions generated by IIHS itself.

"A large body of peer-reviewed research generally has found that camera enforcement reduces red light violations and injury crashes," the final IIHS critique stated. "Results of a new study commissioned by the Virginia Transportation Research Council and completed in June 2007 appear to contradict these earlier findings, but there are significant methodological issues with the VTRC study that call into question the validity of its conclusions."

The insurance industry's financial interest in the issue of photo enforcement amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. States like Arizona, California and Illinois impose license points on certain types of red light camera and speed camera tickets. That means for each photo ticket issued, the insurance companies have the legal right impose an annual monetary surcharge on the recipient of as little as $25 to as much as $1000 extra per year.

The draft insurance industry critique argued that VDOT's model "underestimated" the benefits of red light cameras by using an improper statistical model influenced by the enforcement location selection process. IIHS chose two intersections and re-analyzed the data to illustrate the industry's suspicion that VDOT's methodology produced unfair results. VDOT countered this by doing a full-blown reanalysis following every IIHS recommendation.

"While findings regarding rear-end crashes and angle crashes did not change substantially, Table R1 below suggests that the approaches suggested by the reviewers would have caused red light running crashes to increase slightly," VDOT explained in its response to IIHS.

Specifically, instead of a 42 percent increase in rear-end collisions, the cameras would be associated with a 48 percent increase in accidents. Angle collisions would increase 30 percent instead of 20 percent and "red light running" accidents would increase 15 percent.

In the final, published version of its paper, IIHS dropped the concrete analysis of VDOT's equation but retained the vague criticisms about how the "highly unusual crash prediction model" was "unreliable." In a November 2008 email, VDOT Associate Principal Research Scientist John Miller said that he intended to ask IIHS to include VDOT's response on its website.

As of January 2010, IIHS had not done so. VDOT posted all of the raw data for its report online, inviting independent analysis and critique as the agency finalized its work. IIHS does not provide any raw data on its website that would allow independent verification of the industry's claims.

View the full VDOT/VTRC point-by-point response in a 170k PDF file at the source link below. The draft of the IIHS report is provided with VDOT's comments ("authors' response") given in gray shaded boxes.

Ban the cams note:  The Scamera Side has known for some time that longer ambers reduce RLV DRAMATICALLY.  (Depsite all the lying the scamera side likes to do like say "longer ambers increase rlr".  Perhaps the most BLATANT LIE THEY HAVE SAID AS OF LATE!)

This is from a 2001 press release by the NMA on Fairfax County, VA.  After 43 MONTHS OF LONGER AMBERS, RLR WAS DOWN OVER 90%!

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/red-light-camera-citations-down/

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/red-light-camera-citations-down/

Red Light Camera Citations Down
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 12, 2001
CONTACT: Eric Skrum, Communications Director
608-849-6000 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Red Light Citations Drop Below One Per Day
Increasing Yellow Light Time at Fairfax Red Light Camera Intersection Results in 94 percent Drop in "Red Light Violations."

Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association said, "Records from Fairfax County show that increasing the time of yellow lights significantly decreases the number of red light violations. The Virginia Department of Transportation increased the yellow time on the traffic lights at US50 and Fair Ridge Drive by 1.50 seconds on March 26, 2001. This increase in yellow time from 4.00 seconds to 5.50 seconds resulted in a 94 percent drop in citations, less than one per day, at this red light camera enforced location."

Skrum continued, "Fairfax County records show that 'events,' red light violations, captured by the camera fell from an average daily rate of 52.1 per day before the yellow time increase to just 2 per day afterwards, a reduction of 94 percent.

"Fairfax County records also show that citations being issued dropped to just 0.82 citations a day on average during the 67 days after the yellow time was increased.

"This camera was activated February 8, 2001 by Lockheed Martin (NOW ACS) under an agreement with Fairfax County. The Virginia Department of Transportation is responsible for operating these signals. The decision to install a red light camera at this intersection confirms that this intersection was considered a location of serious violations with increased potential for accidents.

"This experience should prove to any skeptic that sound engineering practices, not only work, but are preferable to exploiting motorists through the use of ticket cameras and related automated enforcement devices," Skrum concluded.

Fairfax County red light camera enforcement records were received from Fairfax County on July 9, 2001 by the National Motorists Association. Those records reflected camera enforcement data through the end of May, 2001 and were the most current and complete records available on the day of receipt (as stated by Fairfax County officials). It should also be noted that the average daily traffic in this intersection is approximately 74,000 vehicles per day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Update

It should be noted that proponents of red light cameras have been wrongfully using this intersection as an example that lengthening yellow light times has a minimal safety effect. They claim drivers adjust to the light increase over time.

This is deliberately misleading.

There are various studies that have shown that drivers do not negatively adjust to longer light times. You can find a list of these studies by clicking here.

The intersection of US 50 and Fair Ridge Drive was averaging 250 validated citations per month for the two months before the yellow lights were lengthened. For the next 18 months, the average number of citations was 15 per month, a decrease of 94 percent. The camera was then taken offline for eight months.

The cameras were then reactivated. During the subsequent 17 months, the average number of validated citations has been 26 per month.

This may be higher than 15 per month, but it is drastically lower than 250 per month, which is what it was before the increase in yellow light time.

This is still a 90 percent decrease in violations since the yellow lights were lengthened 43 months earlier.

Additionally, none of these numbers take into account traffic volume. This is an area that is experiencing very rapid population growth, which would suggest that the traffic volume is up. This could explain the slight increase.
 

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/monday-letters-red-light-cameras-are-a-hazard/1095104

Monday letters: Red light cameras are a hazard
In Print: Monday, May 17, 2010

  
Red light cameras make driving safer | May 8, letter

Red light cameras are a hazard

Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, suggests our critique of red light camera studies is flawed and that the IIHS camera study is valid when concluding cameras reduce crashes communitywide. While he questions our research integrity, facts allow for concluding Lund is incorrect, as explained below.

• Our analysis reviewed four of seven red light camera studies that were identified as the best research by a 2007 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compendium. We also reviewed a fifth study, which was the IIHS study of camera use in Oxnard, Calif., even though it was not identified as one of the best research studies.

• Among these five studies, three adhered to scientific research methods and found cameras are associated with increases in crashes and injuries. Red light cameras are hazardous because they alter driving behavior in ways that are known to increases crashes, e.g., abrupt stops.

• The remaining two studies (one was the IIHS study) violated sound research methods, yet the studies continue to be referenced by camera proponents. Lund failed to mention that we replicated the IIHS study and our criticisms are now published in the same journal (American Journal of Public Health) online under the title "Analysis Violates Principles of Sound Research and Public Health Evaluation" (available at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/eletters/92/11/1822).

It appears the IIHS study attempted to attribute the pre-existing time trend of declining red light running crashes to camera use. In their study, the intersection approaches with cameras represented only 2 percent of all approaches in Oxnard listed as "camera" approaches, and the remaining 98 percent of "camera" approaches in their study were signalized approaches that did not have a camera. This hides any increase in crashes at actual camera intersections.

Lund failed to mention that there was no significant decrease in total crashes, despite the methods used. Instead, the findings were incorrectly reported in their publication, creating the appearance of a significant decrease in total crashes when no such decrease occurred, as evidenced in our replication.

Contrary to Lund's opinion, our research is independent as it is not funded by any outside agency or special interest. Our critique differentiated valid camera research from invalid research, something the general public does have the ability to do. In contrast, the IIHS is funded by auto insurance companies.

Barbara Langland Orban, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of Health Policy and Management, USF College of Public Health, Tampa