The M.I.A. Media on Red Light Cameras.  What do they fear?

http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/the-m-i-a-media-on-red-light-cameras

The M.I.A. Media on Red Light Cameras
Posted on May 13, 2012 by Paul Henry

What do they fear?

I get daily alerts about news stories regarding red light cameras, so I can say there is plenty of news coverage about them. This post is not meant to paint with an overly-broad brush, since the media has been the only way some injustices involving red light cameras ever were corrected- such as people getting tickets for their tag sequence when the vehicle that ran the light had another state’s tag on it, or the wrong vehicle entirely being cited. This post will focus on why the media does not obtain and publish- or at least make available for independent review- the exact data that would support the “safety” aspect of the cameras: Crash reports.

When I first started on the highway patrol, a collision involving a motor vehicle was called an accident. Some years later, it was renamed a crash. Police have always completed crash reports for several reasons, including but not limited to-

â– The investigation as to the cause of the crash and prosecution of the offending party/parties.
â– Statistics, used for analysis to determine if additional engineering was needed.
â– A written record for insurance claims.
We’ll focus on the second one.

Let’s say red light running was causing a large number of our crashes in Florida- although it isn’t. According to the Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles publication Traffic Crash Facts, as of 2009, the year before the cameras were “legalized” by the legislature,  all categories of crashes- fatal, injury, and property damage- red light violations accounted for about 2.8% of all crashes. To justify the need for enforcement, we should show there were a high amount of crashes due to red light running. Fail #1. But we’ll disregard that fact for now.

I’ll lay this out as the city government of the fictional Cashflow, FL using two scenarios. We have 10 intersections with red light signals, and over the course of the year we experience 100 crashes in the city. Of these crashes, a total of six take place within an intersection with a red light signal. All the rest are rear-end crashes prior to the intersection, or at an intersection without a signal- such as a vehicle turning left, or running off the road and hitting a pole, etc. Since our crash rate at the signals is over twice the state average, we must do something, so we start by analyzing the crashes. We find that of the 10 intersections with signals, crashes took place at five of them- one had two crashes. More on this later.

We then find out about the “easy button” for red light enforcement, red light cameras. We are solicited by the fictional prestigious camera firm of Willwe, Foolem, and Howe. They put on a free presentation and explain how our red light enforcement can be handled by them for free, and it will result in a lot of money for our city. They suggest we use “violation” data to show how many cars run red lights in our city as opposed to how many actually crash.

In scenario one, our Police Chief says the camera use should go to where the most crashes were, and the five intersections that had a crash in the prior year get cameras as opposed to the video study that shows five others had more violations. The Chief points to the crash reports that show this is where the crashes took place, so this is where the cameras need to be. It’s not difficult to understand that- just as with any manpower issue for police, you direct your resources to where the need arises. You do not, for example, increase patrols in an area where there have been only 10 daytime burglaries in a year as opposed to one where there have been 50. The same principle applies to traffic enforcement.

In scenario two, the Chief is overruled by the city council, and they install the cameras at the intersections where the most violations were recorded. While this is possibly a valid means, it is less valid than utilizing the location where there was an actual crash vs. one that did not have any crashes.

So what does the media have to do with all of this? Like anything else they deem worthy of investigation, they can show if the facts align with what is actually taking place. If they do not, we can’t be sure the information they are presenting (which is often a press release from either local government or worse yet a camera company) is accurate.

Remember those crash reports? Upon review of the crash reports that involved red light violations, it is found they took place at varied days of the week, but most were in the evening after 10 PM and before 3 AM. Further investigation reveals of the six, five involved DUI drivers that ran the light. However, if we expand the list to include crashes within 50 feet of an intersection, the number jumps from six to 50. In the year following the camera installation, the number of crashes within intersections is five, or a 16% reduction. These five also involve impaired drivers. For the sake of this post, we’ll say the overall crashes were about the same, but using the 50 foot standard the number did not decrease. If however, we now define an intersection as being within 20 feet of the legal boundary instead of 50 feet, we find  that instead of 50 crashes, we now have only 25. Incidentally, the only way to determine this information is from the actual crash report.

After a year of camera use, we say that there were 50 crashes at intersections within the year prior to the cameras, and in the year following, there were only 25- which is a 50% reduction. Who can argue with success like that? The answer is no one unless they perform an analysis of the actual crash reports. If they did, they’d find that the cause in all of the current year crashes were drunk drivers, and if the same standard were applied there was no reduction in overall crashes and only a 16% reduction in red light violations. Keep in mind this is a better-case scenario for the cameras- it may well have been a 16% increase.

The average citizen cannot afford to shell out big loads of cash to buy crash reports- but do you wonder what would happen if they did? Wonder no more. In 2011, a citizen named Burt Eno, who is a retired Engineering Professor, obtained the crash reports the City of Dunnellon used to justify their red light cameras. While I do not know him, I have read his report http://www.ocala.com/article/20111204/OPINION/111209930/1005/sports01?Title=Red-light-cameras-are-about-revenue on the situation. In summary, he wrote:

In summary, none of the 27 accident reports submitted with the three camera installation applications pertained to red-light-running and none of them involved right-hand turns.

I obtained the applications for Tallahassee, but they failed to include any crash reports or data- instead relying upon video surveys that showed violations and a generic “the police say we need it” statement. Per DOT rules, these are acceptable methods.

I have written to several news organizations that have written articles about red light cameras and specifically statistics, such as WFTV in Orlando. I tell them of my law enforcement background so they know I am not just some crackpot on the Internet. To date, only one person, a reporter in Tallahassee for WCTV, has ever responded. His response was that they may look into it in the future. One function of our free media is to hold our government accountable for what they do. When the media fails to do so, people like Dr. Eno have to step up. If the actual data is not available, we have to trust that our government is accurately reporting it. The media used to care about this, but apparently not so much anymore.

The issue of camera placement is something I will address in the 2013 version of the Motorist Rights bill. In addition to addressing several legal issues, it will require any government wishing to install a new automated traffic enforcement device to show there is a need based upon crash reports over a certain period of time prior to the installation. It’s common sense, but it will hurt cashflow (pun intended) and as such be strongly opposed by the well-funded local government and camera lobbyists.

 About Paul Henry
Paul has a law enforcement background, having served as a Florida Deputy Sheriff and State Trooper for over 25 years until he retired. He worked many levels and positions within the FHP, from road patrol trooper to lieutenant in criminal investigations, where he investigated numerous criminal cases. After retirement, Paul wished to pursue his automotive hobby and be left alone, but saw an increasing amount of waste in government as well as the government's increasing involvement in our private lives and liberty, so he became politically active. Paul is the founder of the non-partisan citizen's group Floridians Against REAL ID, and authored two bills for the 2012 Florida legislative session: REAL ID partial repeal and Motorist Rights (red light cameras). Paul is the 2013 Legislative Action Committee Chair for The Tea Party Network, a network for constitutional and Tea Party groups to do more than just complain about issues. Paul works as the Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs with the Florida Campaign for Liberty and lives in the Tallahassee, Florida area.

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview