Arizonian Logic

Do you have anything that refutes Redflex's assertion or are you proposing without any evidence their assertion is false?

I believe Redflex can say whatever they want. How many times have you seen ads on TV or the newspaper that were bogus? It seems you can say whatever you want these days and many of the public will believe it. I don't think for one minute they are seeing safety results. I have many cops as friends in the State of Arizona. I have asked them about the camera's and they say "They're a joke". The law requires a person to serve you, not a picture of you in the mail saying you were speeding. The cops say they have received the same tickets and throw them away. I believe many people throw them away and nothing happens. These tickets do not go on your record, they were just for revenue before Napaletano left office here in Arizona. She claimed the state could make over $2mil a year. This has not happened at all.

I have feeling that there are less "Nascar" drivers on freeways around PHX area since the cameras got installed.

For fiscal 2011, Brewer’s budget predicts that freeway cameras will issue 384,864 tickets worth $69,852,816, but because most motorists have simply refused to acknowledge these citations — the current payment rate is just 26.8 percent — a mere $18,720,636 in revenue will be generated.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/arizona-governor-proposes-b...

I live in AZ & honestly, I don't see any improvements on the roads around the cameras, but that is subjective, not objective. This is just my personal observation. I am not a speeder, nor do I run lights so I've never gotten a ticket from the cameras, but I know many people who have. Like the article states, pretty much nobody pays them. They just ignore them and cross their fingers that a process-server doesn't show up at their door.

The problem I see with the cameras is that people know where they are. At the red lights with the cameras people are more observant at those lights, but the next light down the road people are running. Pretty much never fails that every time I'm at a light with a camera it goes off for someone too. The problem with the cameras at the lights is that they're mostly all at really long/big intersections so they have longer yellows than a lot of other lights. You'd think that'd be a good thing so people didn't get as many tickets, but it ends up causing problems because people see that the light is camera enforced and they SLAM their brakes on at the first glimpse of yellow. Now, this isn't a problem if you're keeping a safe distance behind the car in front of you and travelling at a safe speed, but the problem is, most drivers don't it seems here. Again, I am just going off of what I've seen and not fact. I don't know if traffic accidents and red light running are down at these intersections or not.

The other problem is that on the highways people know where the cameras are, so people quickly slow down to like 45 in the 65 zones then speed up to like 85 after them. This creates some crazy traffic patterns, especially in the busier sections in Phoenix.

The traffic cameras that I think are most effective are the ones in the vans that are roving and sit on the sides of the road. They report where they are going to be each day online, but really who is going to check everyday to see where they are? Mostly they put these at different school zone crossings, but sometimes, especially during the middle of the day, they put these in places with lots of speeding. I'm not entirely for these cameras either as I saw some people get in a car accident in front of one near my house one time. I do think they are great at school zones though since people already need to slow down at them and nobody should be speeding in school zones, especially here in AZ since our school zones are all of maybe a tenth of a mile long.

Anyway, I can't say either way if the cameras work or not, I can only give my opinion of what I've seen. I think if AZ changed the tickets into non-points tickets like some other places more people would pay them, which would obviously lead to more revenue which is what it seems the state mostly wants. What I'd be interested in is to see if the 30% that do pay covers the cost of installing them and maintaining them. If not, then the state is taking a hit, which we can't afford right now with our financial problems.

That doesn't refute Redflex's assertion. You are taking the payment rate for tickets and drawing a conclusion with no correlation between the two. You still have no proof that Redflex's assertion is false.

If Reflex is making the assertion that the roads are safer BECAUSE of the cameras, they have to show the data showing that this is true. You asking for others to prove their claims wrong, when I believe the correct way to look at this is expect them to prove their claims as correct.

I have lived in Arizona since 1982 and there is no doubt in my mind that the drivers on the freeways in the Phoenix area have definitely slowed down substantially from before the cameras were there.

You are right that going through that area used to be like you were in a Nascar race and drivers on the freeways in the Phoenix area have definitely slowed down. It would be absolutely insane sometimes as to how fast some drivers were going. I would estimate that the average speed has dropped 10 to 20 MPH and the stress level has gone down also.

The claim was that Redflex's assertion is false. It's not up to me to prove or defend that statement. HawaiianFlyer said their claim is false but has no proof. He says the number of unpaid tickets is proof and I say it has no correlation to the original claim by the company.

Because I don't trust my govt and a private contractor being in cohoots trying to make money. Now tell me that does not create an unsafe condition. First people behind me have to brake, get pissed off, fly around me in a rage and probably speed up more because of it. My other problem with speed cam is the face your accuser issue, months after the fact you get a ticket and are guilty because a Camera says so? I might not have noticed the flash at the time so how could I check timing and such at time of incident to see if they were working properly? How do you defend against a charge if you were not made aware at the time of infraction?

While HF has not offered any evidence in support of his assertion that that Redflex's statement is false, Redflex still has the ultimate burden of proof that the statement is correct and not made up PR BS.

Until they prove that this is a correct and factual statement it should be rejected immediately. HF's assertion is a mute point until Redflex comes up with their own evidence, not just a self serving statement issued as fact.

What is happening here is that someone has made a statement implying (in my words, not HawaiianFlyer's) that Redflex must be lying about safety. This, of course, would be to the delight of photo camera opponents.

Now, to take a look at this mathematically, I assert that there is likely no correlation at all between the percentage of people who pay fines from cameras and the impact on safety. I certainly feel that the 70% non payment rate is no different that the percentage of people who pay parking fines, but if anyone has data on that, it would be appreciated. From a mathematician's point of view, what we have here is that an "interesting" but "not relevant" fact has been quoted.

One could make a case that - even though 70% of the people sent tickets did not pay their fine - their subsequent behavior was such that THEY drove a bit more safely (meaning paying more attention) after getting the ticket.

My daughter who lives out there echos that. She says it is not quite so crazy. Slow down and smile as you go by the camera...

Perhaps if only 29% paid the fines, it wouldn't be true. How many have to pay the fines before you believe it?

I'm not implying anyone is lying. If I think someone is lying I usually come right out and say it. I'm funny like that.

I believe there is a discrepancy.

It seems that if BOTH the following conditions are TRUE (and they both might very well be):

1) There is a marked safety improvement in Arizona since the enhanced enforcement provided by Redflex.

2) 70% of people who receive a photo ticket from Redflex huck it in the trash and don't bother to pay it.

THEN, it stands to reason, the safety improvements gained in Arizona came mostly from a cause (or causes) OTHER THAN enforcement.

After all if you issue tickets, and very few feel compelled pay them, you really can't call that "ENFORCEMENT"; can you? And if 70% of tickets issued go unpaid then neither can you say that Arizona motorists are really motivated by Redflex's enforcement.

So, if motorists in Arizona are actually slowing down, but at the same time most are choosing to hucking their speeding tickets in the trash, then there is a motivator at work other than enforcement that has caused the slowing of traffic.

At least that what it says to me if BOTH the above statements (1 & 2) are true. And, like I said, they both may very well be true.

But if they are BOTH TRUE then the threat of enforcement is unlikely to be the motivating factor that makes statement 1 true.

Therefore, a claim by Redflex that their "enforcement" is the cause of safety improvements is...well, I'll just say, needs to be re-evaluated.

The last so called study I saw was done by university graduate students. I wonder how much "coaching" Redflex did with the grad students and their faculty advisor. Their study is only useful to the legislators to which they give copies along with large campaign contributions.

Your comparison is of two pieces of data that have no correlation. It's the same as claiming people are healthier, but only 29% of the people that are sick go to a doctor. Therefore the statement that people are healthier is incorrect.

As others have stated, you have no information on the basis for Redflex's statement. Redflex could be basing their statement on a much wider set of criteria than your measurement. We don't know any of the measurements showing the conditions before and after a camera was put in operation. The fact a camera is in place will, over time, affect the habits of those that regularly frequent the area. We see that evidence reported here as anecdotal evidence by the number of reports of people slowing way down when approaching a speed camera location. We also hear about people stopping abruptly at intersections "rather than run the risk."

Here is where the fallacy lies. You can't compare the number of tickets paid against the behavior of drivers behind the wheel. Here, they know if they ignore the citation there will be little chance they will be served. So the comparison is against those who pay the citation and those who do not. We don't know if the person that threw the ticket away changed their driving habits or not. That is the missing piece to your argument the number of citations payed proves the claim is false.

The remainder of your post is an attempt to justify your belief there is a correlation between the number of tickets paid and the behavior of drivers at locations where enforcement cameras are located. So yes, you have two statements that appear to conflict but there is no evidence the statements are linked. The motivator that could be at work in Arizona is drivers are more aware of enforcement cameras and are changing their driving habits in those areas to reduce the risk a process server will show up at their door.

Thanks for your through, but skeething analysis.

I don't (as you say) believe the statements conflict. They both can be true. The both can be false. One or the other can be either true or false. They are in effect mutually exclusive. So, you are actually right, I can not PROVE anything about the falseness of Redflex claims about enforcement is the cause of safety.

But, I can knock some big holes in it!

First off, it is Redflex that has made the positive correlation between "enforcement" and the "safer streets" in Arizona. And what I have to say about that is Redflex's actual system of "enforcement" in Arizona is too weak and arbitrary to even be called enforcement. So, to ascribe ANY causeality to it as if it was a REAL system of enforcement (with actual positive and negitive reinforcements) is questionable.

You say, "We don't know if the person that threw the ticket away changed their driving habits or not. That is the missing piece to your argument the number of citations payed proves the claim is false."

And you are absolutely right! But the number (70%) of tickets ignored by the public does prove one thing...Redflex is providing little to no enforcement in Arizona. And if Redflex is not providing meaningful enforcement, one can only wonder why they make claims about the efficacy of the enforcement they are not providing.

Further, one does not need to know the "measurements before and after the cameras were put in place". I am not concerned here with the margin of efficacy, but, rather, if the cause of it is as Redflex claims.

(Could a "Your speed is..." digital sign produce the same results on the same stretch highway? If so, one could hardly claim ENFORCEMENT was the root cause of speed reductions.)

Redflex is claiming increases in safety due to "enforcement". Yet, their system of mail a letter and throw it away provides little "enforcement" in Arizona. It is more akin to donation solicitation than law enforcement.

To make safety claims based on such an arbitrary and random system of "enforcement" is very dubious and should be questioned based on whether it is actually enforcement or not.

HF,

We could go on about this till the cows come home and leave again. The problem is neither one of us in in a position to provide any proof to the veracity of the other's assertions.

As far as "enforcement" though, Redflex doesn't enforce anything. They provide the evidence and it is up to the legal authorities to provide the enforcement. The method they have chosen, sending notices by mail when the law requires them to be personally served is not a Redflex problem. it is the local/state issue they have to deal with and find a solution that satisfies the requirements of the law.

We don't know what statistics Redflex is using for its basis. It could be the number of recorded infractions at each location. If the number of infractions decrease - regardless of the reason - they can claim "enforcement" is working. Kind of like "what your definition of is is."

I do know there is no correlation between the number of tickets that are unpaid and Redflex's claim that enforcement is working.

Your right. Redflex doesn't enforce anything. When I referred to "Redflex sending out tickets" I was referring to the system between Redflex and state municipalities in total.

In any event, it most certainly is Redflex's problem! They could very well hire a legal, bonded, private process server just like any law firm in the state has to do when required to sever papers. The option to do so is certainly there for Redflex, and I am sure the process servers would love to have their business. So, I don't understand why a "free lunch" should be carved into the state law just for Redflex.

Well...I can't agree with that at all. Threat of enforcement is not the motivation for EVERY change in driver behavior. There certainly are causes OTHER THAN enforcement that influence drivers' speed and reactions. Like I said above, if a "Your speed is..." digital sign produces the same results on the same stretch highway; one could hardly claim ENFORCEMENT was the root cause of speed reductions.

Absolutely! But, every answer begins with a question...

What data is being used to quantify "safety improvements"?

The number of tickets issued (paid or not) is not an indicator of improved safety on our highwayrs.

I would think a reduction in accidents, injuries, etc. would be a better indicator. But.... that does not necessarily mean that it is a result of the use of speed cameras.

Example: Maybe people have slowed down and have a lower incidence of running redlights due to the Redlight/Speed camera POI's they use in their GPS units. ????

We don't know. I threw out the number of citations as one scenario, but it is pure conjecture.

Just came back from the land of speed cameras and red light cameras. It must be spring since they are popping up all over the place. I was in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area for four days and did not have my picture taken. What a relief.
JeffSh

30% of those ticketed pay the fines, 70% don't.
First assumption would be that only 30%, or less, of drivers will change their habits.
It doesn't matter if only 1% of drivers improve their habits. A 1% improvement is still an improvement.

I find no discrepancies in the article. The discrepancy found here is in trying to relate comments that almost certainly have no statistical correlation. There is no logical path I see between a comment about improved safety and a comment about the percentage of people who pay a ticket.

As someone has already mentioned, if the number quoted of those who paid tickets were different, say 92%, it would still not be proper to assume a correlation between safety and payment percentage.

To test the lack of correlation, one might ask the question of whether enforced payment (by "booting" the vehicle, collection agencies, etc.) would thereafter improve safety. I personally do not see any linear improvement in safety resulting.

That would mean that to prove a discrepancy exists in this specific discussion, one would have to "prove the opposite"

I believe you have mis-understood. I am not implying a causal link between safety and Redflex's dismal ticket payment rate.

What I am questioning is: IF THEIR IS AN INCREASE IN SAFETY at the camera locations IT IS NOT BY WAY OF ENFORCEMENT as Redfelex claims in Arizona.

To illistrate take the extreme example:

Let's say over the past year there was not one single accident in the vicinity of a speed camera and not on single accident at a camera monitored red-light intersection in Arizona, while the rest of the state's accident rate stayed the same. For that year Redflex had a multi-fold increase in safety exclusively at their monitored locations.

But, during that same year, not one person paid a photo ticket that was issued in Arizona. For that year Redflex's repayment rate was zero percent in Arizona with no repercussions to the motorist's.

In this extreme example Redflex can very well claim there is a increase in safety from their camera instalations. But, they should NOT claim the CAUSE of that increase came from ENFORCEMENT...as nothing was ever enforced.

Whatever the CAUSE of the safety increase it was something OTHER THAN enforcement.

So, if Redflex's ticket payment rate is less than 30% of tickets issued, should they really claim their "increases in safety" come from ENFORCEMENT?

I am not trying to illistrate a "correlation between safety and payment percentage" as you have interpreted. As I said above, I believe they are mutually exclusive. Much like heads or tails when flipping a coin. One does not affect the outcome of the other. But they BOTH can not be true at the same time.

That is, if someone fliped a coin, and I asked "Is it heads or tails?" And she said "It's BOTH!" My next statement to her would be, "Ok, if thats true, whatever your flipping - it's not a coin!"

Same with Redflex. If they are claiming "improved safety through enforcement". And I ask them what their enforcement rate is (their rate of effected punishment) and they say "Well, it's less than 30%". My next statement to them would be "Ok, you might very well be getting improved safety - but it's not through enforcement!"

Any enforcement might increase safety, whether through officers issuing tickets or by photo camera means.

To turn your argument around, let's assume the cameras did not exist. Now, let's take an intersection that has had a lot of accidents recently. Let's advertise and follow through with placing police at the intersection to give tickets.Word gets around that there is a "trap" at that intersection. By your logic, there would be no impact on safety, right?

No Logic just do the math 30% is better than 0%.
It's all about $$$$$$.If there was no cameras then hey no $$$$ kinda like play craps in Vegas ,,now that odds.

I haven't a clue what would happen at the hypothetical intersection. Safety could go up. It could go down. It could go sideways. You would need to try it out and see what people actually do. Then you would have some trends to work with.

(And in Arizona there are two trends already at work...Redflex claims safety is going up. While at the same time 70% of Arizonan's are throwing their photo-camera tickets in the trash.)

So, what I will tell you is - if you advertize the intersection, while at the same time the police were handing out tickets motorist knew they did not have to pay (a la Arizona); then I would suspect whatever the impact in safety that occured at the intersection would have come from the ADVERTIZING and not the enforcement. (After all it's not a "trap" if you know you don't have to pay the ticket..)

Either way, if motorist's know they don't have to pay the tickets issued, and are not paying them; then one should not be so quick to judge "enforcement" as the driving motivator behind the motorists actions. Nor should one be so quick to assume that what Redflex is providing is actually enforcement.

You were quite happy to draw conclusions from the article without all the necessary facts. Why not on my hypothetical?

I gave a fairly blunt assesment as to the CAUSE of change for your hypothetical intersection. Allowing for conditions similar to Arizona, I said it was due to ADVERTIZING - with emphasis even in my original answer! (You have selectively edited that out in your quote above...)

Did I leave something out? Is there something you misunderstood in my answer?

...Or is this just not the answer you were expecting?

HawaiianFlyer said
“Redflex (the private, third party company maintaining all all the speed and red-light enforcement cameras in the state) claim substantial safety improvements through better law enforcement with their cameras. … In other words, if a vast majority of the camera tickets issued in the state go un-enforced, I don't think Redflex has the right to claim improvements in safety due to increased enforcement. That's just non-sensical.”

A-User asked HawaiianFlyer
“Do you have anything that refutes Redflex's assertion or are you proposing without any evidence their assertion is false?”

HawaiianFlyer replied
“For fiscal 2011, Brewer’s budget predicts that freeway cameras will issue 384,864 tickets worth $69,852,816, but because most motorists have simply refused to acknowledge these citations — the current payment rate is just 26.8 percent — a mere $18,720,636 in revenue will be generated.” In my opinion, this was not responsive to A-User’s question (which I would have asked had he not done so.

Indeed, A-User replied
“That doesn't refute Redflex's assertion. You are taking the payment rate for tickets and drawing a conclusion with no correlation between the two. You still have no proof that Redflex's assertion is false.”

HawaiianFlyer responded
“In this extreme example Redflex can very well claim there is a increase in safety from their camera instalations. But, they should NOT claim the CAUSE of that increase came from ENFORCEMENT...as nothing was ever enforced.

Whatever the CAUSE of the safety increase it was something OTHER THAN enforcement.

So, if Redflex's ticket payment rate is less than 30% of tickets issued, should they really claim their "increases in safety" come from ENFORCEMENT?”

I then entered the discussion and tried to set up a situation to which HawaiianFlyer might respond to see if he could logically support what appears to be his argument that a low level of enforcement “proves” that an improvement in safety was not possible (and thus implying that Redflex was lying). HawaiianFlyer ties to deflect both the original question from A-User as well as my hypothetical which included advertising that police (not a camera) would be giving tickets and that word got around that a “trap” was in place. I gave no hypothetical about enforcement. Then, I asserted to HawaiianFlyer that, by his apparent logic, there could be no improvement in safety.
Correctly, I think, HawaiianFlyer declined to say whether or not safety would go up or down or sideways. What this should have indicated to HawaiianFlyer is that his reason for not responding to me was something he should have considered before making his original claim.

Before concluding that Redflex should not make a claim that the increases in safety came from enforcement, HawaiianFlyer might have attempted to determine whether those who did not pay were people who lived in Arizona (or more appropriately, perhaps, lived in the municipality that issued the ticket). This is, I am sure, NOT the case, but just suppose that a very high percentage of people who did not pay were out of towners. Perhaps the “ADVERTIZING” among those who did pay tickets was enough to change the behavior of those ticketed people and so safety improvements followed.

Without seeing the original article that prompted HawaiianFlyer to make his original post, one cannot say whether or not there was any data about enforcement. However, I might assume that - prior to the camera - there were a certain number of tickets issued by police officers. After the cameras were installed, there was a large increase in tickets issued. Perhaps we can assume that only 30% of the police officer on-site tickets were paid. The greater number of tickets acted as “ADVERTIZING”. So, even though to pay rate was low, the additional number of “enforcement” tickets might be the reason safety improved.

HawaiianFlyer objected to my quoting him (without given more of that post) as saying “I haven't a clue what would happen at the hypothetical intersection.”
Since I did, in fact, feel that his answer was going to be a deflection, I should have expanded my comments to ask him what “clues” he had about his original “I don't think Redflex has the right to claim improvements in safety due to increased enforcement. That's just non-sensical.” statement.

Again, I answered your hypothetical intersection question in very plain language. Here again that answer is reprinted below:

Rather than a "deflection", that sounds pretty direct to me.......

From your reply (it was quite lengthy) I am unsure if you didn't like that answer, or you just didn't like the way it was answered. Was there another question in there somewhere?...I really couldn't tell.

BTW...I did not "object" to your quoting me. I like to see my comments quoted. Any advertizing is good advertizing, as they say.

I simply said, "You have selectively edited that out in your quote." Which you did. Hardly an objection - more an observation.

I'm not sure if things are improving on the main roads or not, but there sure are to many red light and speed cameras on roads like Scottsdale Road. It makes driving difficult because the cameras distract from the road conditions. I'm also curious why Southbound drivers get more of them than North bound do. We spend most of our time in the Glendale area and it's sure nicer to drive there than in the Scottsdale area. Many less cameras.

Well, it is about your not answering how you correlate statements that a number of us submit are not correlated. Perhaps you might start again and tell us why a low enforcement rate means that Redflex should not be able to make the statement that safety improved through the enforcement that did take place.

I don't mind the red light cameras, anyone willing to run red lights needs a ticket. Too bad the law cant be on ever corner. Redflex is just a money grab and cameras on the "freeways"(for now) need to go.

So, this is about me...Well, that's certanly a shift away from the subject.

I answered every question, even the hypothetical one. (And it was quite a work-out showing you that I had answered it. I will not be answering off the subject questions of that type again.)

I have many posts above. Here's some highlights.

My original question from the first posting is:

...because

...and then I said

So, those are my questions and reasons for posing them. I hope they clarify the subject of this thread for you...

Until you can demonstrate that safety improvement through enforcement is directly correlated to the absolute level of enforcement, your statements are your emotional response - not a logical conclusion.

So if the absolute level of enforcement has not yet been demonstrated to be correlated to safety improvements through enforcement - as you say above.

Then should Redflex continue to claim a higher/increased level of enforcement (that they provide) has caused improved safety through enforcement?

You are confusing payment with enforcement, or perhaps I should say equating payment and enforcement. When I set up the hypothetical situation in which that we both agreed that an improvement in safety could be be impacted by the "Advertising", I was hoping to get you to see that enforcement has to do with the act of issuing tickets, or even threatening to issue tickets. Payment (or not) is what happens after enforcement.

I have seen a number of quotes on this site that purported (since the cited article actually concluded otherwise) to prove that enforcement of traffic laws through cameras (which from the facts presented could only be a factor of the issuance of tickets) did not result in an increase in safety. Perhaps you were influenced by such.

Mathematically, there is another way to approach the issue of whether payment of tickets correlates with an improvement in safety. Your reading is that it is nonsensical that a 30% level of payment could correlate to an increase in safety through enforcement. If the level of payment had been given as 60%, would you have made the "that is nonsensical" claim? Perhaps you might have or perhaps not. However, I doubt that you would have made the "that is nonsensical" claim if the level of payment had been 90%. Mathematicians refer to this branch of math as "fuzzy logic" as there is some point where people's conclusions will change.

Still, several of us have observed that "payment of tickets" is different from "issuance of tickets". I think that "issuance of tickets" can be equated to "enforcement". I think that enforcement (either through tickets presented directly to a motorist by an officer or through tickets sent to the owner of the vehicle) results in a change of driving behavior by the persons (or owner-of-the-vehicle's influence on the person driving). It is the change of driving behavior by such persons (who will thereafter avoid the site or follow the law at that site) that results in an increase in safety.

Redflex will throw whatever numbers out there that will make it "appear" that the cameras have improved safety.

If it isn't verifiable, then they can say yes, their cameras improve safety. On the other hand you can't say that it hasn't either.

Any data can be manipulated to make something look good.

for both sides of the argument. Comparisons have to be made using the same data such as a before and after using the same criteria.

I live in the Phoenix area and I totally totally agree with you! People know exactly where these cameras are so they drive fast...slow down near the cameras then speed right back up. I see alot hit the brakes when they see the camera sign which to be is dangerous especially if someone is not familiar with where they are and is not expecting someone to throw their brakes on for no apparent reason! I believe they should be gone! What did we ever do, how did we ever make it without something or somebody telling us what to do every move we make!

Thank-you! Finally someone get's it.

The original question, and the reason for opening this thread, was call into question the validity of Redflex's claim their their safety improvements were caused by enforcement.

I never set out to prove anything...I wrote in the beginning, all I want to do was knock some holes in Redflex's claim.

I'm just working in the area for short time and that's what I see on I-10 is speed up and slow down. Someone who lives in Goodyear told when this Redflex contract was done they (local government) wasn't going to renew their contract. That's all I know just obsevations.

What he said.

Enforcement is the act of compelling or constraining by force. So, I don't believe the issuing of a ticket (that you don't have to pay) can be called enforcement.

But, let's forget that for a moment and plug in this NEW definition of enforcement (the "issuance of tickets") into your argument, that my questioning of Redflex claim is invalid.

So, below I will be so bold as to re-write your quote with the new definition substituting the word 'enforcement':

Until you can demonstrate that safety improvement through {the issuance of tickets} is directly correlated to the absolute level of {the issuance of tickets}, your statements are your emotional response - not a logical conclusion.

Then with the NEW definition pluged in, I must ask the same question from the post above, again with {tickets issued} substituting for the word 'enforcement':

Then should Redflex continue to claim a higher/increased level of {issuance of tickets} (that they provide) has caused improved safety through the {issuance of tickets}?

--------

I mean, after all, if I am not allowed to correlate the "issuing of tickets" to safety then should Redflex be allowed to do the same thing???

BTW..."Emotional response"?? Really?? There you go again, making this all about me. I dislike having to point this out to you, but perhaps a little, subtle feedback will get you stop doing it. (Note here, while staying on the subject: I'm not enforcing anything. So, if you do change this habit - it was not by way of enforcement!)

Please help me understand this distinction.

If I change "should Redflex continue to" to "could Reflex", then my answer would be yes.