RLC increase accident!

This NMA article claims that
“Red-light cameras are touted as devices that increase intersection safety. However, information is quickly surfacing that shows the inaccuracy of that belief.

One source that is highlighting the increase in accidents is the media. Because so many studies are showing an increase in collisions at red-light camera intersections, various news outlets are conducting their own studies in this phenomenon. Below is a small sampling of these reports.”

In the previous paragraph, note the use of the word “studies” when what is really being reported is “news outlets” articles – not “studies.”

It would seem logical that the links to these so-called “studies” would begin with one that was rock-solid – but that is not the case. The lead reference says:

“Los Angeles | KCAL TV
A local TV station fact-checked the city's claims that their ticket cameras reduced accidents and found that the opposite was true. At 20 of the 32 intersections studied, accidents increased and several intersections tripled their accident rate.”

Here is the link if you would like to follow it.

Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents
http://blog.motorists.org/la-red-light-cameras-increase-acci...

Consider these paragraphs from the article.

“We looked at every accident at every red light camera intersection for six months of data before the cameras were installed and six months after.

The final figures? Twenty of the 32 intersections show accidents up after the cameras were installed! Three remained the same and only nine intersections showed accidents decreasing.”

Obviously the reporter was not versed in statistical techniques. The main faults with his presentation are that the comparison is flawed – the before and after periods should have been for the same time frame. Specifically, the six-months data on accidents after implementation of the cameras should have been compared to the same six-months of the previous year. Further, six months is likely not a long enough period to draw conclusions.

Note that the reporter did not give a percentage figure in his claim that accidents had increased. We don’t know whether the number was 1% or 50% but one suspects that the number would have been reported if it were significant.

It is entirely possible the claim from the LAPD that accidents had been reduced by 34% was correct for comparable periods of time.

Unless your article's data was made in a way showed below. But than, who needs to be honest, when it's all about safety.

Last month, a group calling itself the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR) obtained a great deal of exposure for red light cameras through the "National Stop on Red Week" publicity campaign. Several police departments around the country participated, with most news reports treating the issue as a public service announcement. Documents show the group coordinating this effort, NCSR, is controlled exclusively by the photo ticketing firm American Traffic Solutions (ATS).
source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp

Or like here:

...ATS was equally generous in inviting municipal employees from across the country to attend a complimentary seminar in Arizona discussing "tips and tricks for speaking with the media" regarding red light cameras and "when to panic, when to relax" regarding efforts in the state legislature to restrict automated ticketing. Airfare, lodging and wages during such events is considered official business and paid by taxpayers. ATS picked up the rest of the tab, for which municipal employees expressed gratitude...
source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3581.asp

Are you part of one of this campaigns?

No, I am not a part of one of the campaigns you provided links to above. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

When I worked (I am now retired), I was an actuary. As you have noticed, I step in when someone tries to use some newspaper article as an authoritative study. I sincerely doubt that members who post links to articles by thenewspaper.com and NMA actually follow the links and read the articles. Since the headlines are usually anti camera, the articles seem to be posted without a critical review as to accuracy or statistical significance.

By the way, Wikipedia says:
The NMA, originally called the Citizens Coalition for Rational Traffic Laws (CCRTL), was founded in 1982 to advocate against the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Law,[2] which was their chief cause until its successful repeal in 1995. The National Motorists Association name was adopted in the late 1980s.

It seems everyone has an agenda and organizations are not always as they seem.

Why is it we only complain about the history of organizations advocating against our particular position on an issue?

@Box Car, I believe that we would agree that most organization have some agenda - that is why the organization exists. I believe both of us would agree that this is permissible.

I hope that we can agree that it is not permissible (regardless of which side of an issue one is on) to distort or misrepresent facts. It is one thing to spin facts in your favor as long as all of the facts are made known. It is quite another to misrepresent studies by (1) selectively highlighting facts that a study presented as part of their full disclosure and (2) creating the impression that said study also drew the improperly implied impression.

They sure do.

'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'

SL Clemens, aka Mark Twain, attributed this great observation to Benjamin Disraeli. However there is no independent verification that BD ever spoke or uttered the phrase. Regardless, the phrase is perhaps the best description of what is done with or to statistics, and in the opinion of author Michael Crichton (dec'd), always be skeptical.

There are cities reinstalling cameras in order to reduce accidents.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/09/14/elk-grove-village-pla...

As I see, Jgermann, you have very specific way to judge articles and statistics about RLCas. If they are in favor of RLC (as: cameras reduce accidents, increase safety etc.) you ALWAYS believe them to be true. No questions asks.

But if they are negative they always have - according to you - "agenda" and are more or less lies. That's the main reason why You sound like fanatic, who will newer see wrong in RLCs, because there are always be a "statistic" paid for by ATS or other RLC company or paid by them "independent", "grass root" organisation that will provide you with "truth".

And if those companies are dishonest and try to manipulate public by dishonest propaganda measures than sorry, but I will always be against them. If they resort to lies to advanced their position it means, that they don't have arguments based on truth. And for this sort of entities I say simply "get lost".

Daytona Beach News-Journal reported Sept. 14, 2011 that 31 Tickets by Red Light Cameras were dismissed in Daytona Beach.

The reason was that documents requested by attorneys to back up the violations were not made available.

One attorney questioned the accuracy of the RLC system and mentioned the System may actually be reformed through legal challenges.

As with any violation, if proof of the violation is not presented the case is dismissed. Attorneys question anything that might work to their advantage. That's not the same as a provable claim of inaccuracy.

When I posted

I made no judgment about whether or not red-light cameras increase or decrease accidents - I simply provided a counter-point to the OP of this thread.

I did make comments on the article found in the OP's link to demonstrate that an analysis of one of the "studies" (in this case only a newspaper article) might be somewhat non-scientific.

You replied with two instances of organizations whose purpose can be fairly interpreted as providing support of companies like ATS. I commented on your post and did not dispute your conclusion which I think is a fair assessment of those organizations. I do not think those organizations have issued any "studies", however. They certainly provide "talking points".

Recently you said

@grzesja, I am going to ask you to re-read my post about the first article in the series of "studies" referenced by the link of the OP. I carefully quoted all of the statistics presented and indicated the statistical flaws. I made no claims.

In the article I reviewed - if you would take the time to go read it - you would certainly have to agree that it was not one "paid for by ATS or other RLC company" as it was trying to draw a statistical conclusion that RLCs increase accidents (whether or not the reporter was involved with any "independent", "grass root" organisation that will provide you with "truth" I have no idea.)

Then you commented:

What I have hoped to do by reviewing articles is to try to get at the truth. I suspect that many of our members read ONLT the headlines and accept them without ever following the links to see if the data in the articles matches the conclusion in the headlines. If you were to tell me that you faithfully follow all the links and look at the data, then that would create a situation where you and I could debate the meaning of the data in these threads.

So far, no one has disputed any analysis I have made of the underlying data in various articles that have been linked too.

By the way, there have been several instances relating to short yellow lights when - after following links and reading all of the references - I concluded that the municipality was after revenue rather than safety. If someone was really following my reviews, I would have hoped that they would have grudgingly admitted that I deal with the facts.

Clearly, I am in favor of traffic camera. I believe that they have increased safety. Almost always, they generate revenue which I believe to be a positive by-product (especially if the revenue is used for things like driver education, etc. - although most of the time it seems to go to the state coffers). I think that cameras free police to pay attention to reducing crime.

Being somewhat of a statistician, I find it hard to allow misrepresentation of facts to go without comment.

You seem to be implying that I have an "agenda" and yet you are one of several who most often make that claim about me. Could that also be an "agenda"?

Once again, I will be happy to debate facts with you. That would seem to be more enlightening than debating whether or not you or I have an "agenda".

Extremely well said. Skepticism is necessary. Cynicism is not.

To put in my 2 cents, red light cameras do not cause "accidents" for they are car crashes caused by people. Whether it is cell phone use, tailgating or just being stupid it is a "Crash". Two blocks from me the street makes a jog and every year at least two people missed the stop sign and jog ending up in a front yard.
The home owner finally put two car hood high boulders along the sidewalk so now anyone missing the stop sign and jog destroys his/her car. And there are marks on those boulders showing that someone hit it.
It is not RLC, stop signs or boulders that cause crashes but stupid people that do.

Did you by any chance read the two comments in regards to that article?

mazuba

I live by the intersection and all has been quite for months, before when the red light was on all you heard all day was brakes slamming on and people getting rear ended How many of those 29 accidents happened during the blizzard or when the intersection flooded during July and in the spring. The red light is only on south bound rt 83, there is not camera on north bound or on Devon AVE. How many were caused by the north bound traffic or from the traffic on Devon. We need all the facts before you can make at the truth. are accidents down because of the red light or does Elk Grove need more money?
September 14, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Reply | Report comment

turk

Totally agree with mazuba. 8 months includes a severe blizzards, severe thunderstorms and floodings, This article is way too misleading. How about looking at the data before the camera was ever installed to after it was installed. What are those statistics?
September 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm | Reply | Report comment

I did read those comments.

I made no claims as to the accuracy of the article. As I believe I mentioned in another reply, I only included it as a counterpoint.

I do not think anyone knows what the facts are and the article did not constitute a "study".

Thank you for your clarification. I wasn't talking about your previous posts. I was merely asking if you read the comments. You also, in that post claimed that "cities" were reinstalling cameras, and only provided one link (which equals one city). You also did not state that it was a counterpoint, but that's beside the point.

The comments are intriguing to me because, having someone comment on what they observe as someone that lives near the intersection, is pretty illuminating. I've never encountered a comment like that before, and I believe it's worth repeating/pointing out.

It is people that caused those crashes for to have a rear end crash means one was either not paying attention or tailgating.
Yesterday morning in Ankeny Iowa a school crossing guard was killed by a driver who ran a red light and claims he did not see the crossing guard in his reflective vest and red stop sign getting ready to let children cross with the walk sign. Had he ran the light a few seconds later there would have been more fatalities. Alcohol was not involved reported the police but speed was.
Also the City of Des Moines reported that they collected $73,788 for red light violations since the beginning of August and $22,880 from September 1 to 15. This is from 5 cameras

If the driver was paying attention that would not have happened. Crossing guards are usually at intersections near schools. There had to be other activity on the street (more kids). This would have been a clue and depending how close the person was to the school there would have been a "school zone ahead" sign.

According to the Ankeny police the driver has several previous tickets for speeding and he passed a car that had stopped for the guard.
Also if one entering Des Moines on I 235 from the west and can't find those speed cameras, they are above you behind the overhead signs just past the sign on the right telling you about it. Each lane has its own camera which photographs the rear license plate of the car.
The position of the cameras is -93.684443, 41.592000 eastbound.

@kurzemnieks

Thanks. I confirmed this Des Moines site is in the POI Factory speed camera file.

JM