Arizonian Logic

I think what it boils down to is this,

Getting a ticket equals enforcement to redflex.

Paying the ticket is optional to 70% of the people that receive tickets.

30% of people that pay + 70% that don't = 100% enforcement, which of course = improved safety!

The sticking point is what metric is being used by Redflex for their claim. HF feels it is tied to the number of tickets paid, but the original article didn't state what metric Redflex was using for their claim. So you can't say the number of tickets ignored proves the claim is false just as those that say the number of tickets has no correlation. It's an apples and elephants debate.

I find the definition of enforcement to be "The act of enforcing; ensuring observance of or obedience to"
and
"•The act of enforcing; compulsion; A giving force to; a putting in execution; That which enforces, constraints, gives force, authority, or effect to; constraint; force applied"

While one of the definitions has the word enforcement and constraining, it seems clear that "ensuring observance" can include acts other than compelling the payment by force.

I would rather you did correlate the issuance of tickets with safety. I think they are likely to be correlated.

Redflex and the AZDPS keep shouting about the safety, and how the cameras are there to promote safety.

Whereas we all know they are just a Napolitano money grab, an unsuccessful one by the way.

Now, if you want it to really be about the safety, pass a law where the ticket is $4 for a camera violation, but there are two license points.

Then it will be all about the safety and the money will be out of the mix.

So a town that issues more tickets is, on par, "more safe" than any other similar town??

Any statistician will tell you that is definately not the case.

Ok. I will.

(I see I end-up explaining a lot of things to you...but on the internet that is a good thing. The more times I use words and terms like "Redflex", "ticket repayment rate", "Red-light", and "Arizona" the higher this thread climbs in a Google search for these words and terms. This thread is now NUMBER ONE for a Google search of: "Redflex 'ticket payment rate'". So, keep it up - you guys are my vehicle for getting my word out!)

Oh...here's your explanation du jour...

To disprove a claim or "theory". One does NOT have to prove an alternate, or competing, theory or claim.

They must only show the original claim does not hold true in instances it claims to hold true.

Example: General Realitivity has never been proven. But, it explains all the phenomenon explained by classical Newtonian physics, plus phenomenon that Newtoniain physics just can not explain. So, General Realitivity has since replaced Newtonian physics as the general world view of the universe we live in.

So, even though General Realitivity has never been "proven", nor does it completely "disprove" a Newtonian world view; it "knocks enough holes" in classical physics to replace it as a world view.

For Redflex to be incorrect in their claim I don't really need to "prove" a competing claim, as many are asking me to do. I just need to show that their claim is not valid in a given number of circumstances. Arizona is one of those circumstances.

I think you are ignoring the operative word in "enforcement" is "force". And it is part of ALL the definitions.

Not everything that leads to execution or effect is enforcement. Enforcement is not the CAUSE of everything.

Is a "Your speed is..." digital radar sign enforcement? I don't think so.

Is a speed bump enforcement? Again, I don't think so.

If a "Your speed is..." digital radar sign produces the same effect as a speed camera, can one really say enforcement is at work? I don't think one can.

Well good! I am glad you can distinguish that Redflex is a company that operates in ways other than it should.

You're one step forward on the path...

Red-light camera
Arizona
ticket

I call myself a statistician and, once again, you are trying to make correlations that are not proper. By the way, I did not say that the issuance of tickets and safety WERE correlated. I was careful to say that the issuance of tickets and safety were MORE likely to be correlated that the level of ticket payment and safety.

With certain data sets available, a statistician might indeed tell you that such was the case.

We are talking about a specific region with its own traffic patterns and conditions that has traffic cameras and has been issuing tickets (and according to you, most of which are not paid). Whether or not one could make a valid comparison to another town depends on a number of factors that neither you nor I have available to us.

I am not the only person on this thread who is trying to convey to you that your are comparing apples and oranges.

There are lots of "theories" that are based on faulty facts and logic. I agree that it is often impossible to "prove" a new theory but when the "theory" relies on some proposition that is either right or wrong, then the proponent of the new theory must prove that the fact stands or fails.

You have asserted that Redflex's claim that safety has improved due to enforcement is wrong (nonsensical in your terminology). This claim is something that can, in fact, be shown to be true or not. A number of us are saying that you are trying to support your "theory" through an improper correlation. Given this improper correlation, you must indeed "disprove" Redflex's claim.

And the operative word in "illegal" is "legal"

Using the definition as "ensuring observance of or obedience to", I think the sign can be a form of enforcement of speed limits.

If you can get to a conclusion that I consider that "Redflex is a company that operates in ways other than it should" from anything I have written, you are demonstrating that you can make up anything, aren't you?

I wonder how many people will try the "Redflex 'ticket payment rate'" search. I did and I get only one hit - our discussion. How long did it take you to find the search that got us to number one?

If I use "ticket repayment rate" only, we show up as number 3. That is unfortunate because that does not seem to be a likely Google search term

I also am happy to see our discussion likely to be viewed by other than POIFactory members. My general goal on our own site is to demonstrate how people jump to misleading conclusions or use selective quoting to advance an agenda - and it seems that you did have an agenda (even though I thought it was only an emotional response at first). So, a reasonably logical person would likely agree that HawaiianFlyer made an improper correlation and might be more skeptical the next time someone like HawaiianFlyer speaks out.

I wish that HawaiianFlyer would provide a link to the original article. With only his interpretations to go on, we are kept from the facts.

Nationwide the statistics are better overall and the companies that build these systems are claiming the credit. But since these systems are not used in every state it is beyond me that they can make these claims
David

You did not carefully use the word MORE. Nor did you carefully make any reference to "payment vs safety" as you have now re-directed the comparison.

In your reply the only metrics you listed in comparison were "issuance of tickets" and "safety".
And you said "I think they are likely to be correlated." with no futher context.

Am I supposed to believe you mean someting other than that correlation you yourself make sole reference to?

Also, What does the phrase "I call myself a statistician" mean? Are you asking me or telling me?You are either a statistician or you are not. It's not that difficult. It's like being a marine biologist...you either are or you are not. It's someting you should know fairly definitely about yourself.

Could you tell me of a study that uses violations issued (tickets) as a metric in analizing safety and accident causes?

Again, if Arizona's photo-camera ticket payment rate is 30% of tickets issued, then Redflex's claim their "safety gains" come from "enforcement" are baseless claims.

Redflex does not provide enforcement in Arizona.

ANY definition of enforcement is a two party operation. It requires an enforcer to act on an enforcee for enforcement to be consumated. Enforcement is not a mono-pole. It is a noun describing an action between two agents.

In law enforcement, as in classical conditioning, the enforcer provides a stimulus of some significance (SS) to a particular behavior that falls outside the unconditioned response (UR) to an unconditioned stimulus (US).

In this case, when the enforcee/citizen falls outside the normal unconditioned response (UR) by failing to stop completely at a red-light or obeying a speed limit - an unconditioned stimuli (US); then law enforcement presents the enfrocee with a significant stimulus (SS) of a "ticket" for that behavior to effect a change in that behavior.

Like I said, the stimulus must be of some significance to the enforcee. In this case, in most states, it is usually a monitary fine, points on a license, higher insurance, denial of renewal of license or registration, etc.

In Arizona, however, Redflex has introduced a neutral stimulus. Pavlov called this in classical conditioning - a conditioned stimulus (CS). A conditioned stimulus (CS) is a stimulus that does not normally result in a response in the enforcee. It is analogous to “the bell” in Pavlov's studies. (I call Redflex's cameras a neutral stimulus because citizen don't normally slows down or changes their red-light running behavior because their automobile might be captured in a benign, unenforced personal photo. So, a camera in itself is normally neutral to the enforcee unless it is operated with the full force and backing of the enforcer, in that case it would be a SS as described above.)

In any event, the enforcement cameras in Arizona have, over time, become a neutral, conditioned stimulus (CS) as 70% of recipients do not respond to the tickets as if they were actually a significant stimulus (SS) from the enforcer.

Granted at one time in the beginning of Redflex's Arizona camera program (much like Pavlov paired and associated his bell with the dogs food) the conditioned stimulus (CS) of the cameras was repeatedly paired and associated with stopping at red-light and speed limits - the unconditioned stimulus (US). This pairing and association was most likely achieved through advertizing and media reports about how the new cameras were coming to “nabbing speeders and red-light runners” with not much other details about how the program does not fit into Arizona's existing legal framework.

So, in the beginning the enforcee/citizens conformed to the cameras with out much fuss confusing the conditioned stimulus(CS) [cameras] with a significant stimulus (SS)[a ticket issued by a officer]. That is, the citizen slowed down (he made a conditioned response, CR) - because he has associated the camera (the conditioned stimulus, CS) with the speed limit (unconditioned stimulus, US) and its penalty (significant stimulus, SS) for exceeding the limit.

I call this the associative phase where the conditioned response (CR) is introduced and learned. And it is similar to how Pavlov trained (CR'ed) his dog to associate the bell (CS) with food (US).

But, some very smart people in Arizona figured out that Redflex was not serving the violations correctly. Advertizing and the media began widely reporting this fact, and the fact that the enforcee no longer was legally required to respond to the Redflex's conditioned stimulus (CS) as if it was a significant stimulus (SS) applied by the enforcer. The link between Redflex's conditioned stimulus (CS) and the significant stimulus (SS) provided by law enforcement was shown to be a false link. Redflex's ticket repayment rate steadily fell to what is is today, 30%. The vast majority of Arizonians (the enforcee) no longer associate the Redflex's cameras with the enforcer (law enforcement). So much so they ignore payment of the camera tickets by a 70% margin.

And, as I said in the beginning, enforcement is not a mono-pole. It definition requires both enforcer and enforcee to be effected enforcement. Redflex continue to issue tickets, but the enforcee refuses to respond in a meaningful way, 70% risking even threat of futher prosecution. The link between enforcer and enforcee is now broken in the arena of photo enforcement in Arizona.

Further, a conditioned response (CR) to a conditioned stimulus (CS) is a secondary response. Significant stimulant (SS) by the enforcer is no longer being applied. There is no interaction between the enforcer and the enforcee for a conditioned response to a conditioned stimulus to occur. It is a form of self regulation or self censorship. Enforcement by the enforcer is not occurring.

(It is interesting to note this is the usual mode of operation of a totalitarian government. After a brief, brutal associative phase the regime relies, for the most part, on self censorship of it citizens to maintain order leaving the regime free to basically manage propaganda to keep the self censorship going. Rarely is a politically significant stimulant (SS) need applied. And when it is applied - it is always a resounding victory for the regime to further propagandize. So, it is interesting to note how wide the differences between Redflex's claims and those of independent studies. The video Redflex's website claims to reduce accidents as much as a resounding 50%.)

Whatever safety effects Redflex reports in the vicinity of their well marked cameras in Arizona is now a remnant conditioned response (CR) to the cameras, the conditioned stimulus (CS), much the same way Pavlov's dog salivated at the sound of the bell. The conditioned response (CR) is not associated with actual laws, the unconditioned stimulus (US) and law enforcement, the significant stimulus (SS). (The food is no longer necessary to make the dog salivate.) The CR now is associated with a past association the CS has with the US and SS, which now no longer strongly exist for the citizen as 7 out of 10 if them reject the Redflex ticket as not SS.

That can be viscerally seen with the Arizona fixed speed camera application – freeway motorist slow a the camera locations and speed-up in between. Creating a “hurky-jerky” flow of freeway traffic. And continued dislocation between the cameras and enforcement is further seen in the fact that Arizonians no longer respond to Redflex's tickets as if it were a legitimate significant stimulus (SS) by the enforcer.

Well, you're free to explain to me how you really feel about Redflex.

You don't need to play 20-questions around my comments.

How does giving feedback of a drivers speed ensure that the speed is observed and is in fact enforced?

If that feedback is now considered enforcement it doesn't attempt to "ensure" the result.

If the definition says ensure. Well, you have to make an attemt to do that if you want to use the word properly.

Perhaps, Redflex could lobby to have the word "enforcement" reduced to its minimum interval like the yellow light timing.

They certanly have an incentive to do so.

Redflex claim is their results come from enforcement.

I do not have to prove that they are not correct. I do not have to prove a not.

Redflex made the claim. Responsibility to substantiate that claim lies squarely on their very broad shouders.

Links on the first page of this thread.

You haven't looked around yourself lately...

Yes you are!

Ok guys lets keep it friendly.

Miss POI

You have an agenda but I thought you would be honest about what others have said on this thread. I see I made a bad assumption.

I also thought I would be able to paraphrase what others had said and you would be able to make the connection but I see I gave you too much credit. What a-user actually said was "apples and elephants", so I have to apologize for not making the statement as an exact quote (which would have meant I would have enclosed the words within quotation marks.

I thought I would do a review of some of the comments to your original post (other than mine) since we are on the second page and I want the facts before any readers. This is what I found:

on 04/19/2010 - 7:23pm rjrsw wrote
“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.”

on 04/19/2010 - 8:14pm a-user agree with rjrsw by writing
“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.”

on 04/19/2010 - 7:26pm a-user wrote
“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.”

on 04/19/2010 - 8:08pm rocknicehunter agreed you had offered no evidence:
“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.”

on 04/19/2010 - 9:59pm Not2Bright asked HF the question:
“Perhaps if only 29% paid the fines, it wouldn't be true. How many have to pay the fines before you believe it?”

on 04/20/2010 - 3:09am a-user wrote a very good pieces on your lack of correlated facts under the title “Why There Is No Correlation”

on 04/20/2010 - 8:11am a-user replied to your response to that in which you admitted “So, you are actually right, I can not PROVE anything about the falseness of Redflex claims about enforcement is the cause of safety.” but then you continued trying to make some connection. A-user then replied again and concluded “So, you are actually right, I can not PROVE anything about the falseness of Redflex claims about enforcement is the cause of safety.”

on 04/19/2010 - 3:10pm pkdmslf made the observation “The number of tickets issued (paid or not) is not an indicator of improved safety on our highwayrs [sic]”

on 4/21/210 - 12:35 Not2Bright (who seems to have some background in mathematics) wrote: “It's all in the statistics. 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.”
on 4/26/2010 - 1:19pm a-user observed that: “Comparisons have to be made using the same data such as a before and after using the same criteria.”

on 4/26/210 - HawaiianFlyer admitted what his reason for this thread was when he said “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.”

on 4/26/210 - 8:39pm a-user replied to twix by writing:
“The sticking point is what metric is being used by Redflex for their claim. HF feels it is tied to the number of tickets paid, but the original article didn't state what metric Redflex was using for their claim. So you can't say the number of tickets ignored proves the claim is false just as those that say the number of tickets has no correlation. It's an apples and elephants debate.”

HawaiianFlyer, do you still feel I am the only one who would love for you to cite the original article so we could glean more facts if they exist.

I am beginning to doubt that an article ever existed.

Sorry, that's not my statement, but everything else you attributed to me appears correct.

Ok I played with you for a while...

But here's some of the real word for you...

Your doubts, expectations and assumptions are not a reflection of me. Those are your feelings. You should take more responsibility for them. They are not my concern.

If someone doesn't meet your expectation. That says something about you.

It should be obvious by now your failed expectations and bad assumptions are certainly not because of my not trying to legitimately show you something!

-------

When a corporation makes a statement I think is false I hold them to show its validity. If that lets' you down. Well...then...(to flip that guilt coin)...you've let me down. You have poorly represented your position. I assumed you were a honest person as well. I also gave you a lot of credit. Obviously, to take a similar position, I too expected more out of you. But, alas you failed to deliver. I wonder if you ever will. (Sound familiar?)

Your "apology" about elephants, above, is nothing but but patorizing. I'm not stupid, and if you claim anything but a patonizing tone, you are a total failure at conveying your thoughts effectively.

So, own up to own agenda - to get on this site and patronise a particular point of view and call it a search for facts.

So you see...

We can both boo-hoo and play the guilt card...Trying to make someone feel guilty or less worthy because you don't see the same thing, doesn't make you neutrual or objective. I just means YOU have failed to see, that's all.

So, if you don't agree with the questions asked at the beginning of this thread then just move on. Hanging around and patronizing people (and calling it something else - a search for facts) is just rude.

This is NOT a library, your not going to get fottnotes here! If you think you're going to - then you don't know your audience.

So, the fact is I guess you gave us all on this site too much credit. So, maybe instead of whining about it, the best thing you can do is just stop giving people credit! Because I really don't care to hear how extending such credit is such a let down for you. I really don't think anyone else cares to hear you tales of failed expectations either.

This is not the place for that!

Soooo......

If you're really interest in the subject of this thread then here's some more information for you:

AND NOOOOO!! I am not going to provide you a link or footnote. There is enough information with each excerpt to go find what I am refering to, if that is what you wish to do. If you don't wish to find the information yourself - THEN DON'T BLAME ME!

Redflex home page video claim:
their cameras are PROVEN to reduce accident by 50%. No independant study I have read indicate anything close to that. Strange the descrepancy is so large infavor of the company that stands to make the profit. (Yes! I am implying my secret "agenda" that I think that is fishy!)

Redflex 2009 Annual Report:
Numerous citations that Redflex operations is Arizona are indeed "ENFORCEMENT".

Redflex 2009 Annual Report:
Numerious citations concerning losses from Redflex's inability to collect ticket revenue because of the state law about process service.

Redflex 2009 Annual Report:
Citations concerning Redflex's campaign to change the Arizona law about process service (Yes! My secret "agenda" is I feel that sort-of erodes the personal freedoms of people everwhere.)

Artcle from "The truth About Cars. com", January 18, 2010, quote:
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.
End quote.

Yes for the final time: A link to this artice is on the first page of this thread. If you can not find it...that is your problem. NOT MINE.

Do not extend me any more of your "credit". I did not ask for it. And I do not want to hear your (false?) belly-aching when you feel it has not been returned to you with interest.

It took a while, but I read the 2009 annual report from Redflex. I FOUND NO STATEMENT OR IMPLICATIONS BY REDFLEX THAT SAFETY HAD IMPROVED IN ARIZONA.

I did find a section under the CEO report on page 9 where the CEO stated that the program had encountered a number of difficulties - the most important of which (in my opinion) was the shooting death of a speed van driver.

The CEO also spoke of issues in getting complete and comprehensive data through the court system which had affected their ability to assist with fine collection follow-up.

I don't know exactly how others would react to the statement HawaiianFlyer makes that "Redflex 2009 Annual Report:
Numerous citations that Redflex operations is Arizona are indeed 'ENFORCEMENT'" when they find out that the phrasing is usually the descriptive wording "first ever state-wide speed enforcement contract in the USA". in the Annual Report, no claim is made that ENFORCEMENT (I don't know why HF loves to capitalize the word, but I will do so also) has impacted safety - either up or down.

HawaiianFlyer's second paragraph in his initial post 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." I do not find any claim in their 2009 Annual Report that would give rise to his claim.

HawaiianFlyer has demonstrated once again that opponents of photo cameras resort to deceptive quoting and fallacious logic to advance an agenda.

So, before I advance my agenda (through deceptive quoting and fallacious logic) any further...

Is it your position that Redflex makes no claim their product(s) used in Arizona make an impact on saftey?

If you see flashing police car lights ahead, and you are speeding, do you slow down?
Same with camera intersections. Once you know they are there, by experience, or you see a sign, MOST people will slow down or stop accordingly. It is only the rfandom fool who says to themselves that they should just continue speeding past the police car/traffic light or whatever. So making you think can make you safer.

I did not find that claim in the 2009 Redflex annual report.

I did not find that claim in the article about Arizona.

So, I do not know that Redflex has made any claim about safety - one way or the other - regarding Arizona.

1 ? do they have cameras in Oceanside where you live.
Cause you sure seem to be in a quandary about what goes on here.

Yep. Cameras in Oceanside.

Up the road in Loma Lina they increased the yellow interval by 1 second at intersections with a camera; now they are about to remove the cameras themselves.

Just north in Anaheim their use will be put on a ballot measure this year.

I hear you Arizonian's are going to be getting a ballot measure, too. Is that state wide?

I recently saw a video on youtube that showed a red light camera in Arizona was below its minimum yellow light time (federal law).

Hey! That's great! Illinois is pushing to go below the federal guideline of 3 seconds minimum as well!

Yes but this will not be the last either, it seem that these cameras will be around after all it is generating $$$.
So I just sit and wait to see what happens.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/06/20100506ar...

This is good news and deserves it's own thread. I am going to give it one.