Ticket cameras as a revenue source

Well, you can move elsewhere or you can un-elect those who are tracking you!

Fred

I do not know what you said to yourself while sitting looking at the news about the Boston Marathon bombing or about the Cleveland kidnapping. BUT - perhaps you were following along with all of the questions about what more could the "government" have done to prevent these atrocities. The questions that were being asked lead me to believe that some people thought more should have been done in terms of invading the perpetrator's "privacy".

If Automated Traffic Enforcement and license plate readers were ubiquitous, then maybe we could equate the "government" and "big brother" but it seems to me that "Uncle Sam" would be a better moniker.

To me, "big brother" should be applied to the combined data accumulated and kept by non-government entities like banks, cable companies, cell phones, credit card companies, insurers, internet service providers, medical providers, merchants, phone providers, social media (like Facebook, etc.) and utilities, to name some of the major players.

Just consider the Boston incident. I'm sure that there were government surveillance cameras that provided pictures but what I was seeing mostly came from the "media" and from individuals.

Consider Google and Google Street View.

Does it seem that the ads that show up on your computer (tablet, smart phone, etc.) seem tailored based on what you did in the past?

Do you wave at the monitors when you enter some establishment?

Your link was to someone who seemed opposed to license plate readers in particular (and of course it is the license plate that is used in Automated Traffic Enforcement). The fact that this person was found to have an expired sticker did not seem to adequately enter into the equation. I suppose we would have all applauded if the plate reader had come across the car of someone who was seen kidnapping some kid.

I think everyone ought to consider the balance we need to attain here. We can not put the technologies involved back in the bottle.

Should we say that 4,263 Red Light Camera intersections and 861 Speed Cameras result in a major government revenue source? Hardly, but it gets one's attention.

Given that they all seem to succumb to graft eventually, no matter who is elected, the idea of somehow voting out the problem doesn't seem very realistic. Further, the citizenry should not be forced to leave their own country simply because those in power have chosen to abuse it.

All about the money.

To catch those breaking the law and with the intent to cause harm I am all for it...

Any cameras that are put out there to turn our highways into revenue generators need to be banned, period.

There are about 4 million miles of roadway in the US. Of that about 47 thousand is freeway. 861 speed camera over that number of miles is just a drop in the ocean.

Similarly there are probably over 2 million traffic lights in the US. That's quite of lights without RLC. Frankly I'd like to see a lot more of them.

In the UK speed cameras and RLCs are well advertised and warning signs placed on the highways. The same procedures should be mandatory in the US.

Our government has de-facto turned into a very big and powerful corporation. It creates lots of jobs, being the largest employer; it creates lots of secondary business in the form of government contracts; if you look closely, you will notice that it operates by pretty much the same marketing methods as private companies. The value of "public good" has long ago deteriorated by itself, and especially with media manipulation, when public perception about the necessities and values is efficiently formed and shaped, it has practically disappeared. This in a nutshell is the explanation of our wars, where we "fight the terrorists", of our "war on drugs", which gives jobs to hundreds of thousands in law enforcement, justice industry, prison industry, etc; etc.; "child protective services", whose main objective long ago has become creating service contracts for the affiliated providers; and, yes, all those involved with road safety. All these branches couldn't care less about the terror/drugs/kids/roads; they have well defined goals and performance metrics, and they just do their jobs in order to feed their families. The litmus test is always the absence of any factual material supporting the necessity (any studies showing reduction of road incidents because of cameras? nope; in fact it was shown that there's none). And the trend is, as long as there's less and less opportunities to create and offer real product or service that people will want to buy, there will be more and more of those who basically have no other choice but to "enforce the laws" of all kinds - and the number of laws will be growing exponentially. Today's business opportunities are in lobbying some new law, and then building the framework to enforce it - such as creating surveillance networks in order to track offensive speech, and numerous others.

It's objective historical process, dictated not by some evil individuals who might be tracked and neutralized, but by the historical trend. At some point this trend will turn around, like they all do, but for now it's quite mature and moving along just fine.

Moderation action has been taken on this thread.

See forum rules.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28855

~Angela

If you're looking for balance, well the machines themselves are impartial. They see something where it shouldn't be, snap a picture, and their job is done. Are they fair? Not always, but it's pointless arguing with a camera as the camera cannot make judgment calls like a human can. While the cameras themselves are part of the issue simply because they only do what they are told to do, the main issue is that the person reviewing that picture after it is taken is anything but fair or impartial.

Since it has been conclusively established that highway cameras are a form of revenue enhancement and not a deterrent, there is no incentive for the person looking at these pictures to be fair or impartial. They are pressured from those higher up to increase revenue by any means necessary, and given the human tendency to succumb to their base urges of power lust and greed, the person looking at these pictures will simply toss the rules out the window. After all, he's bringing in tons of money for the city that it hasn't rightfully earned.

It's not about your safety or mine, and it never has been. It's all about making a profit these days, the people be damned. I'm not going to try and change your mind if you truly believe the cameras are all about safety, but while you're entitled to your opinion, the facts don't support it.

--Extremely well put!

Much applause!!

That's about all there is to it!

I could not agree more.

We will agree to disagree, I suppose, because you will not be able to link to studies (as opposed to articles from camera opponents like thenewspaper.com or the National Motorist Association) that "conclusively establish" that cameras "are not a deterrent",

Clearly, I am a proponent of cameras but I have never claimed that they are not also revenue generators. Indeed, I am sometimes called to task because I like the fact the people who break the law - and should be fined - are paying more into the municipal cofers than I am.

In times past, people would object to being ticketed by a camera rather than an officer because they claimed that an officer would sometimes give them the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying that, you assert that the officers reviewing camera data "toss the rules out the window".

Unless the officers reviewing data are able to manipulate the video, then it would seem that the city has "rightfully earned" the revenue. The camera caught the person breaking the law, did it not?

Now, I agree that many municipalities impose fines that are exorbitant, often because the county and the state want their portion too. Still, the fact was that the law was broken.

I think that - to the extent that cameras change behavior of drivers and that change of behavior reduces the rate of red-light running or speeding - that my safety is improved. For it to be otherwise, then the presence of cameras would have to result in increased speeding and red-light running. I have never seen anyone claiming that. The claim is usually that cameras increase accidents but the accumulated data seems to be showing that either total accidents decline or that the severity of accidents declines.

Actually I think the facts support my positions.

I am not opposed to money being generated from fines but I am opposed to the idea that revenue from these devices is used to balance the government budgets. Here in Nassau County on Long Island, the budget includes a calculation for revenue from RLC's. That is wrong. The budget should be balanced without considering any revenue from fines. Revenue from fines should be considered surplus.

As the article points out, if nobody were speeding through the various communities, the government would be in big trouble financially. It has been reported that Nassau County has seen a drop in revenue as more and more people have been obeying the traffic lights. As such, the county is installing fifty more lights (for a total of 100) to try and make up for the lost revenue. It is a game of diminishing returns. They could eventually go to 200 and get even less money.

I love that one. My state says we are raking in 20 million on cigarette taxes. "Let's double the tax per pack." Then the budget is set for 40 million in tax revenue and they spend it all. At the end of the year, the lawmakers can't understand why they only took in 25 million. Now they have to diminish services because of a 15 million dollar shortfall in the budget.

In the interests of full disclosure, where I live state law prohibits red light and speed cameras.

I am saying much the same thing I said at http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39681 last month. I'll repeat it for the benefit of those who don't want to click the link.

I believe that the rules get tossed aside in favor of generating revenue. I also believe it is done because the people within the system have allowed themselves to become corrupt and decadent. The cancer that is within the system also affects the body as a whole. Just look at the road system. Sure, there is some new construction as well as some repair. In fact, the last three years near my home have seen the completion of a new bridge and connecting roads, rerouting of a state highway over that bridge, and repairs on a much smaller bridge nearby. Yet about three towns over, they're still using a military portable bridge system as a temporary replacement for an old bridge that was torn down three years ago.

Do you see the problem with that? You may not, but I do. The infrastructure of this country is disintegrating before our eyes and rather than doing sensible things such as not getting involved in a never-ending string of wars or even *gasp* curtailing the spending, governments would rather print more money (increasing the rate of inflation) and take the bulk of the money we earn through working our asses off.

It's not about manipulating photographs or video, because it doesn't even require that! In the state I live in, just to contest a ticket costs $100, which is not refundable even if you do manage to successfully fight the ticket. That is a guranteed revenue stream for the state, because no matter which way you go the state profits. So all the person looking at the picture or video has to do is send out the ticket, regardless of whether you've violated a traffic rule or not. This applies regardless of whether the state allows red light cameras or doesn't.

It's always been about the revenue, and will always be about the revenue. Because governments do not care about you or I, except for how much money they can take from us to feed their insatiable thirst for wealth and the power that goes along with it.

Amen Brother!

maybe some deserve it, maybe some don't but if you think politicians put these up for safety you're fooling yourself. It always comes down to revenue and if they don't generate money they pull them.
Safety is used as a cover to say we need more money.

I mean, it is partly about the money. It is also important to government to control and monitor all of our activities. They want this even more than the money. One thing that is absolutely clear, it is not nor has ever been about safety. That is just a fairy tale for consumption by low information folks.

perplexing! Help me understand, please.

You state that your state does not permit Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) but it does assess a $100 non-refundable charge to contest a ticket adding that

You believe

implying to me that [most] officers reviewing pictures [of something other than red light cameras] are corrupt and interested in assisting the city/state to unlawfully profit.

My previous comment was based on the fact that red light cameras are supposed to not even take a picture until the light has turned red - so technically, if the vehicle had crossed the line of the intersection, there is a violation. My understanding is that the review officers have some discretion as to how far into the intersection the vehicle was in determining whether to actually issue the ticket. Plus, the review officer has to determine if the license plate is readable in order to direct the ticket to an actual person. Your clear implication is that this approach is "toss[ed] out the window" and tickets issued simply for profit.

Even though you say

I am at a loss as to how a ticket that did not document a violation can be issued.

Two things seem to be required. Cameras that are miscalibrated and officers that are corrupt.

My opinion is that, if such actions happen, they are rare indeed. If they were happening then someone would have the guts to contest such a ticket (non-refundable charge or not) and the pattern of abuse would come to light - and be immediately picked up by thenewspaper.com and the National Motorist Association. I have not seen any such articles.

I do agree that our country's infrastructure is crumbling and I believe that this will impede our ability to compete in a global marketplace. The fact that we (and I do mean we - because I voted and I assume you did too) squandered budget surpluses of the late 1990s on tax cuts for the rich and then an ill-advised war in Iraq does not mean that we (as in the citizenry] should not now be willing to pay more taxes to assure that our kids and grandkids have the infrastructure to compete. Once again, I observe that ATE increases revenue from people who break the law.

Just a side note. Certain groups have been saying since the original stimulus in 2000 that printing money (which the Fed has done and is still doing thru Quantitative Easing) would result in immediate inflationary pressures. Reminds me of the story about Grandma dipping snuff. The whole family said it would be the death of her. When she finally died at age 102, every remarked about her snuff-dipping "see, it killed her".

When has inflation last increased? Seems to me that increasing taxes and devoting the new revenue to infrastructure improvement would forestall inflation - if that is your worry. Unfortunately, higher taxes are almost universally opposed - regardless of the good that might come from them.

I do not think you mean such, but it sure sounds like you are saying that government "revenue" is used for the personal gains of those in "power" as opposed to anything that would benefit "you or I"

The great philosopher, Pogo, observed "We have met the enemy, and it is us". WE are the government. We all live somewhere and we can run for local office to change local conditions; some will then go on to run for state office; later some for national office. That is the "us" and just because one of us thinks that taxes are too high and so is successful in getting them reduced which (unintended, perhaps) means that infrastructure does not get repaired or that teachers get laid off does is not an "insatiable thirst for wealth and the power". Likewise, "us" is still applicable when the other of us is willing to have high taxes (and post war prosperity) applied to creating infrastructure like the Interstate Highway System. Was this an "insatiable thirst for wealth and the power"?

I have never understood why people fail to grasp that the "government" is the collective "us". Maybe, it is because only slightly more than half of us vote.

Where did these funds come from?

The person looking at the picture does not need to be fair. He is your adversary, and he is expected to accuse you, using every opportunity. That why we have the court where you both go, and that's where you are supposed to find the fairness.

I wonder why. With today's laws, there are lots of cases where technical law violation did not result in any loss that would be compensated by the payment.

Depends on how you define your safety - be it from the technical violations of the law, or from something that really endangers your life or property. Speeding and red-light-running are exactly the technical violations, that may or may not be precursors to the real loss, which is the accident. If RLC decreases red-light running and speeding but increases the rate of accidents (such as, because of other reasons), then, I guess, only someone working for the government might welcome RLC.

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accident...

Reports From The Media

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.

Washington, D.C. | Washington Post
This report showed an overall increase in accidents at red-light camera intersections of 107 percent.

Portland, Oregon | KATU News
KATU News reviewed city statistics and found a 140 percent increase in rear-end crashes at the intersections where red light cameras were installed.

Fort Collins, Colorado | The Coloradoan
Ft. Collins, Colorado has experienced an 83 percent increase in the number of accidents since red light cameras were installed.

Oceanside, California | North County Times
This report showed a 800 percent increase in rear-end accidents.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Philadelphia Weekly
This article showed an increase of 10 to 21 percent in accidents in intersections with red-light cameras.

Corpus Christi, Texas | TheNewspaper.com
Data released by the city showed that the total number of accidents in Corpus Christi increased 14 percent, from 310 incidents to 353, at nine locations where automated ticketing machines were stationed. Contrary to the claim that red light cameras reduce the severity of collisions, the number of accidents involving injuries increased 28 percent from 140 to 179. Rear end collisions also increased by nearly a third from 160 to 208.

Winnipeg, Ontario | Winnipeg Sun
The average number of collisions at Winnipeg’s 12 original red-light camera intersections has jumped 18% since the devices were installed in 2003, according to Manitoba Public Insurance data obtained by the Winnipeg Sun. Despite claims by politicians and police brass that intersection cameras are making our streets safer by reducing collisions, the MPI data shows after six years of use, crashes at the intersections are actually going up, not down.

vrapp cherry picks locations against
And others cherry pick for.
Sometimes I wonder if there is any correlation between accidents and RLC.

Except they never seem to catch them until the damage is done and people are dead. The citizens of this country should not be subjected to intrusive tracking and surveillance, especially when it does absolutely nothing to make us safer.

@jgermann: It's only perplexing because you choose to make it so.

You get a $100 ticket. Regardless of whether you have actually done anything wrong, you have two options: fight the ticket or pay the ticket.

In the fight the ticket option, you must pay court fees of $100 just to have your case heard. If you successfully get the ticket dismissed, you still are out $100 as that court fee is not refundable. If you fail to get the ticket dismissed, you must pay a total of $200 ($100 for the court fees, $100 for the ticket).

In the pay the ticket option, you avoid the court fees mentioned above but must pay the ticket, so you are still out $100.

Therefore, the state is guaranteed income from traffic enforcement, even if you have evidence that you were not in the wrong.

*******************************************************

Your previous comments all seem to be based on the general belief that everyone in a position of authority is an upstanding citizen and does the right thing. Quite utopian, but the harsh truth is that people lie. They do it all the time. Police officers are paid to lie. In fact, the police officer's job is to use any means necessary, even lying, to get you to convict yourself. It's not a stretch to have a police officer simply write down what he thinks is the license plate, even if he can't read it. After all, it's not "to protect and serve" anymore, but "profit first, last, and always".

We should not be paying more taxes. City, state, and federal governments should not be living beyond their means, but they insist upon doing so. As a result, they find "new and innovative" ways to steal the money we earn from us. Less taxes and less spending, coupled with reducing a military budget that is some three times larger than the next ten countries combined is how the government needs to run. If it can't do that, then it is the citizen's duty to replace that government with a government that will actually work in the best interests of those it governs.

We are not the government. If we were in fact the government we would be Switzerland, which has a true democracy. This country is not a democracy, and I'm not even sure it can be called a constitutional republic these days. It's more like a plutocracy, which is only a few steps above communism. However, while we are not the government, we are the arbiters of change. Change that is desperately needed, but only at the business end of a bullet.

*******************************************************

P.S.

You're out of line with this statement. If I didn't mean it, I wouldn't have said it.

In the post to which you reply here, I wrote

I do not think you mean such, but it sure sounds like you are saying that government "revenue" is used for the personal gains of those in "power" as opposed to anything that would benefit "you or I"

I am indeed sorry to know that you correctly expressed your opinions on people who work for government. I will make note so as to not be out of line in such a way again.

I am glad that I live in a place where government is respected, even if not always agreed with. In the few instances over the past many years where authority was abused, those doing the abusing were fired and/or convicted of crimes.

If not through higher taxes, then how will the country's infrastructure be repaired (estimates are as high as 2 trillion dollars), or education improved?

Aside from reducing the military budget, what would you cut that will produce 2 trillion?

They are catching violations and contribute to income badly needed...As far as I am concerned they can put them on every street corner if it catches violations.

Money, Money, Money...

red light running is part of my daily commute. As a woman blew the light this morning, she looked right at me (I was sitting with a solid green arrow for a left turn), and went on her merry way.

There's no way this behavior is gonna change without penalties. When someone speeds 65 in a 25, despite the signs to slow down and about the children in the neighborhood, they pay a stiff fine. Do we complain about how stiff the fine is? How is it that running a red light is not serious, it kills people or causes unnecessary accidents. And without cameras, there are zero consequences.

Yet, someone ran a red light this morning for you, and nothing bad happened. Running a red light does not always cause an accident. Am I condoning it, no. I'm merely pointing out that it's not always that dangerous.

It's ALWAYS dangerous - it just doesn't always result in an accident.

Hire more patrol cops. Put points on people's license. Too many points and they lose the right to drive. Now that is a behaviour changer.
No need to penalize an average motorist that may be a split second in violation.

How is it ALWAYS dangerous? As cars go through a yellow, and it switches to red, they're technically going through a red. Is that dangerous?

You started your post with "... someone ran a red light ..." and that's what I responded to. If you were really referring to entering the intersection on yellow I might actually agree with you but I'd not consider that "running a red light". If you do, I'd allow that as a possible exception . I still maintain that what most people consider to be "running a red light" always creates a dangerous situation.

Interesting

Strephon_Alkhalikoi makes some absurd statement in the previous posts and expects us to believe him.
In my USA police officers are not paid to lie. Some officers do stretch the truth but most of them are caught and punished. Try listening to a police scanner and see what really happens on a police beat.
My government does not steal money from me. I have voted in every election since the 1960’s including city and state except one school election where I was gone. I sometimes voted for the winners and sometimes for the loser but I know that the winners voted for money spent and since majority rules I can’t complain unlike some losers except by the ballot.
Strephon_Alkhalikoi also states “I also believe it is done because the people within the system have allowed themselves to become corrupt and decadent.”. I have questions about this and would appreciate some evidence that can prove this statement for those people who he claims are decadent have to follow procedures set by law.
For the city of Des Moines to put up speed cameras on I235 they had to get permission from the state DOT which had to go through procedure for it is a state highway. At certain times of the day that spot is equivalent to a race track and every month about 2000 people are reminded by mail that they broke the law. In DSM if you broke the law, they will inform you and give you a website where you can review your transgression. If you disagree you can protest which several have and won. If you do not have a computer you can go to the police station and use theirs to see what they have.
What Strephon_Alkhalikoi and others are stating is that since cameras do not stop people from breaking the law, all cameras should be banned. I will take it further and state that since laws against rape, murder, incest, bank robberies, terrorism, stealing etc are not stopping these crimes the laws preventing them should also be banned. It goes both ways.
I do not care about the cameras for I know where they are around my house and drive appropriately and do not contribute to the city budget. I usually drive under the speed limit before the cameras hoping that some fool will ride my bumper and as we enter the camera area I change lanes and let the idiot race by me hoping that he/she gets a ticket.

Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant, nor do I really care if you do or don't. The fact of the matter is these things are not safety devices but revenue generators, and anyone thinking otherwise is but a sheep to be fleeced.

We see this in many areas where fines have been discretely redirected from safety concerns to cover incompetent spending/waste.

Fines used to "control" behavior have limited results to achieve a desired behavior. The vaste majority of those who are impressed by the size of the fine are those who normally follow the laws anyway.

As an example of fines not working can be seen where a majority of people travel at 50 mph in a 30mph zone. Under the guise of "safety", the solution was to reduce the limit to 25mph. Guess what, those travelling at 50mph are still travelling at 50. Net result increased revenues from speeders as well as those used to travelling at 30mph... and 0 safety benefits. Oh yeah ... one heck of a lot more money.

This is what happens when term politicians get involved in things they know nothing about and are more concerned in buying votes. I guess they rely on the fact that people will not demand/look-for results.... but it sure sounds good in the next re-election campaign.

Let professionals do their jobs. Safety really is a concern for them. In my example above, their solution was to park an unattended car in a position that looks like a radar vehicle. Very effective indeed! ... But was discontinued due to a drop in revenues. Safety indeed!

Why lease? Seems to me that cities should be able to buy their own equipment. At $300 to $500 a ticket the cameras would pay for themselves soon. No contracts and keep all the money.

To paraphrase the Late Great Ben Franklin

Those that will trade liberty for security deserve and will have neither

Mike

Chicago's Inspector General spouted out on this very subject last week and it was not along the accepted party lines, traffic cameras have very little use in traffic safety

As most of these cameras generate a bill from a 3rd party, not a ticket from the local or state police, this is simply a revenue stream. No taxes, no real authority for enforcement.

The State of Mississippi legislature made these illegal a few years ago as several cities were considering them.

I've often wondered about that myself ...

Here a few years ago, a drunken migrant worker traveling an estimated 70mph in a 45mph zone ran into a car that was stopped in the center turn lane of a five lane highway making a legal turn in the middle of the night. The family was coming back from vacation, and several were killed. It was tragic. What was the town council's response? Get the NCDOT to lower the speed limit on that stretch of road to 35mph. It defies explanation to believe that any speed limit would have kept the family from being killed, since they were stopped and the drunken worker was going 70. So now, everyone who travels that nice stretch of 5 lane highway (with turn lane) has to go 35mph, which is demonstrably too slow for that stretch of road.

NC Highway Patrol used to do this (and perhaps still does) in the median at the I-26/I-40 interchange in Asheville. To make it more convincing, they would put a (female) manequin in the car dressed in an HP uniform. One day Dad came through the interchange. Someone had broken into the car, stripped the manequin naked, and laid her spread-eagle on the hood of the car. Pretty funny I thought, but my sense of humor is offbeat.

Cheers,
--Lee

Good one!

Guess it means that things should be changed on occasion to keep the drivers guessing ..... still effective though! ....and not expensive!

@spokybob - that is a perceptive statement. In looking at "studies" over the years, I have not seen a consistent relationship between RLCs and the number of accidents at RLC intersections. More often than not, the number of rear-end collisions will rise just after RLC installation. However, once drivers are used to the camera being there, their behavior changes. It may even be that the behavior change is more pronounced from the drivers that are second in line and used to think that they would blow through the light behind the car in front of them. Now they know better.

Five years ago, one could find "studies" that camera opponents could use to make a claim that RLCs increased accidents. One study by three PHD researchers in South Florida made that conclusion. See http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C1702850-8716-4C2D-8EEB-1...)

In recent years, all that opponents can get are "media reports" like vrapp provided when he replied to me above.

In starting this analysis, it must be pointed out that the "Reports from the Media" are not "Studies" but rather reports of investigations by news agencies. The lead-in to the National Motorist Association article states:
"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."

None of the media reports have a "source" where the reporting can be checked.

The referenced media reports were dated
November 10th, 2009; October 4, 2005; November 11, 2005; Oct 30, 2005; April 22, 2005; October 26, 2005; 4/10/2009; and September 22, 2010, respectively.

The most current media report was the eighth one - about Winnipeg. I thought I would see what I could find out about the claims by the National Motorist Association claims.

Analysis of Media Report 8. Winnipeg Sun, Sept. 2010

Using Manitoba Public Insurance data for accidents at the intersections, the Sun asserts that accidents rose from a before of 204 accidents in 2003 at the original 12 intersections where cameras were installed to an average of 241 between 2004 and 2009 - an 18% increase.

The Sun article states that:
"Police-reported collisions are incomplete because many crashes aren't reported to police. The MPI data is far more accurate because it's based on insurance claims."

Whether their assertion that insurance claim data is more accurate is interesting. I have never seen that assertion before.

Usually, accident analysis data includes side, rear and total accident statistics. The article only gives totals. When "studies" are conducted, they often correct for any increases in traffic flow at the intersection, as well as any changes in confounding factors like speed limit, intersection size, approaches, etc. A study would certainly compare the side impact accidents (which generally are the more severe and sometimes result in fatalities) and the rear-end accidents separately. The Sun article did not do that.

A later article in the Sun (http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/06/10/mpi-released-faulty-cr...) discloses that the MPI data was not correct for the years 2003 to 2006, saying "The upshot is we will never know exactly how red-light cameras affected collision rates at these intersections. That’s because neither government, MPI nor the city of Winnipeg put in place a reliable and accurate way of measuring collisions at these intersections from the beginning of the program, even though they said they were going to do so.
...
When the Winnipeg Sun requested detailed crash data from the WPS’s traffic division for red-light camera intersections for the years 2003 to 2008, they said they didn’t have it.

So while they claim the most serious types of crashes —like right-angle collisions — have gone down since the beginning of the program, when we asked for the year-by-year data to prove it, they claim they don’t have it."

But, to me, the pertinent quotes from this most recent article are:
"The number of crashes at red-light camera intersections increased by just over 2% from 2007 to 2010, according to the latest round of data prepared by Manitoba Public Insurance for the Winnipeg Sun."

and

"Transportation Minister Steve Ashton responded to those damning figures by saying while crashes may be up at photo-enforced intersections, collisions at all intersections in the city went up by an even higher amount — 62%."

All of a sudden, the Sun reporting does not seem to be quite so "damning".

And still no breakdown of the kind of accidents.

But, as the "made for TV" commercials say: WAIT!

An independent study conducted by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that red light cameras contributed to a 46 percent decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections. See http://www.talentclick.com/safety/are-red-light-cameras-effe... dated April 30, 2013 whose source is http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/WinnipegPho...

Part of the conclusions from the study read as follows:

"Regarding the results from the time series analyses of red light running crashes, when considering the strongest evidence only (effects significant at 5% level), there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and a 42% increase in rear end crashes. Given that rear end crashes are typically less severe than right angle crashes and the fact that this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education about the functioning of the photo cameras, it appears the photo enforcement safety program has had a positive net effect on traffic safety in the city of Winnipeg.

The 42% increase in rear end crashes was followed by a decrease but this decrease was less significant. When considering all the evidence including these less significant effects (i.e., effects that are only significant at the 10% level), it can be concluded that there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and only a 15% increase in rear end crashes. However, the evidence then also suggests there was a 25% increase in rear end crashes at other intersections in Winnipeg without cameras. Again, this would suggest mitigating strategies are required to combat these negative side effects, not only in the vicinity of camera intersections, but throughout the entire city of Winnipeg. Further monitoring will be required"

This analysis confirms my feeling that reports from thenewspaper.com and the National Motorists Association must be taken with a grain of salt. I do not think either of them would take the step of correcting previous reporting like the Winnipeg Sun did in their follow up article. If someone finds that either did do a follow-up, I would appreciate knowing.

You have both a source of information for law enforcement and a way to track movements. All the information is out there for the collection.

This is getting out of control with RLC.