RLC use going down..Speed Cameras going up

 

http://autos.aol.com/article/red-light-camera-programs-decli...

Early in his tenure, Gov. Chris Christie saw red-light cameras as a way to augment traditional traffic enforcement and keep motorists safe on New Jersey roads. Lately, he's seen the automated traffic technology as more of a nuisance.

Christie indicated last month a five-year statewide pilot program wouldn't be renewed when it expires in December. "I'll wait until all the evidence comes in ... but I will tell you that my gut feel on this one is that I don't favor it," he told The Asbury Park Press.

He's not alone. Red-light cameras are falling out of favor with communities and motorists across the country. After two decades of continuous growth, the number of red-light camera programs is declining in the United States. The number peaked at 540 two years ago, according to records kept by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Today, there are 502 programs, a decrease of about 7 percent.

Conversely, growth in speed-camera programs remains steady. Over the past three years, the number of speed-camera programs has grown from 115 to 140 today, according to IIHS, an increase of 21.7 percent.

"There's a bit of a disconnect there, in seeing one go up and the other go down," says John Bowman, communications director of the National Motorists Association, which also tracks the number of automated programs. "I would hope some of the backlash with red-light cameras would start to carry through to speed cameras, but we haven't seen that yet."

The reasons behind the decline of one type of automated enforcement system while the other continues a steady uptick aren't clear. In some cases, changes in state laws affect local programs; in others, the fiscal health of municipalities affects automated enforcement contracts. And sometimes the controversial nature of the traffic cameras plays a lead role in discontinuing their use.

An Avalanche Of Problems

Next month, voters in Maple Heights, OH, will vote on whether to terminate the town's fledgling traffic-camera program. Launched only in July, the cameras have already accounted for nearly $400,000 in revenue for a cash-strapped town. The Ohio Supreme Court had to compel the town to include the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot. If history is any indication, the cameras won't be popular with voters.

In 27 of the 30 instances in which automated traffic enforcement ballot initiatives have been voted upon over the past 23 years, voters have rejected traffic cameras. In votes involving red-light cameras only, voters rejected them 10 of 11 times, according to National Motorists Association records.

Recently, high-profile problems with these systems have only worsened.

An ongoing investigation into Chicago's red-light camera program revealed unexplained spikes in the number of violations recorded at certain locations. Thousands of motorists received tickets they did not deserve,according to the Chicago Tribune.

In August, the former CEO of RedFlex Traffic Systems was indicted on corruption charges in Chicago. Prosecutors allege that Karen Finley bribed a city transportation official to win more than $100 million worth of contracts.

In New Jersey, a judge dismissed approximately 17,000 red-light camera citations because a glitch in the system prevented unsuspecting motorists from receiving their tickets.

A recent Inspector General's report that examined Washington DC traffic enforcement found aspects of its automated programs troubling. The report found that an earlier study "intended to instill public trust that speed cameras are installed by the DC government to improve safety and not just increase local revenues" had the opposite effect when it concluded that 300 of 300 possible locations for automated enforcement equipment were justified.

The report found an abundance of problems in DC Automated enforcement cameras issued violations in cases when they did not have enough information to conclusively identify vehicles, when camera information did not match license-plate registration information and when photographic evidence was not available to motorists.

In the Capitol and elsewhere, the burden of proof often lies with ticketed motorists, who are increasingly frustrated in their inability to fight back.

More than a few critics believe that red-light cameras are outright money grabs designed to generate revenue, not enhance traffic safety. The decrease, they say, is coming because motorists are fed up with these violations and are finally fighting back.

"It's all about the revenue," says Declan O'Scanlon, a New Jersey assemblyman who has introduced legislation that would thwart the use of automated enforcement cameras and encouraged Christie to not renew the pilot program. "The more people know about these ATMs – automatic taxing machines – the more they realize that they are nothing more than government-sanctioned theft."

Do Cameras Improve Safety?

Even when deployed properly, there are lingering questions over whether red-light cameras actually enhance traffic safety. Numerous studies of various scope and method have attempted to determine their effect and delivered mixed results. One that both supporters and critics cite is a 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration.

Researchers in that study analyzed cameras stationed at 132 locations in seven US cities. They found both sides had some merit: red-light cameras in the selected cities reduced right-angle crashes by 25 percent, but they also found a 15-percent increase in rear-end collisions, the latter of which is potentially caused by motorists who hit their brakes when they realize they're entering an automated enforcement zone.

The authors found a net economic benefit for the system – that is, the costs saved by preventing more-serious, right-angle crashes are more substantial than costs incurred from the increase in rear-end crashes. But they also noted a need for a second, more definitive study of the issue.

The economic aspects of red-light cameras aren't only found in accident reduction. A 2011 report (PDF here) from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund on red-light cameras warned that contracts between public municipalities and private camera vendors often put profit above traffic safety, because many of these contracts call for the vendors receive 30 to 40 percent of the revenue raised by tickets. When traffic enforcement is privatized, these contracts often limit the government's discretion to set and enforce traffic regulations, further putting the public at risk, the report said.

The report noted some red-light camera vendors have organized under the auspices of grassroots organizations, such as the National Coalition for Safer Roads, which produced the video below. U.S. PIRG criticizes the group for presenting only the upside of automated enforcement without discussing other alternatives.

More Complexity To Red-Light Cameras

Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research at IIHS, says the organization's studies show red-light cameras enhance traffic safety. Accidents that occur as a result of red-light running claim approximately 676 lives per year, according to the FHA, so reducing those accidents by a quarter could substantially save lives.

The benefit of red-light cameras can be difficult to quantify, she says, because the cameras don't merely modify a driver's behavior at one intersection, they can potentially modify a driver's behavior at all intersections. That's hard to measure.

In some cases, she says, red-light cameras have been removed because they've done their job. "It can do with cameras that are no longer needed because they're been successful in reducing violations," she said. Yet she concedes there is growing public opposition to the red-light cameras, something she finds befuddling because in IIHS surveys, motorists regard red-light running as a more serious traffic violation than speeding.

But speed limits are simpler to understand, and typically well marked. Red-light violations can have more complexity. Motorists often have less control over the timing of yellow lights, and motorists may not regard rolling through a right turn at a red light as an offense on par with a straight-line path through a red.

"They both can be controversial, but you seem to see that red-light cameras do have more and stronger opposition," she said.

Several cities in Ca began

Several cities in Ca began to remove RLC saying it is not profitable for them

--
NickJr Nuvi 3597LMT

Red Light Cameras

We should not be given tickets by sub contractors. It is one thing to receive a ticket from a police officer it is rediculas to receive one from a sub contractor. Usual;ly the sub contractor is not even in the same state you received the ticket in. Talk about Big Brother. Outlaw Red Light Cameras.

Makes Sense

If Speed Cameras are bringing in much more money, why operate Redlight cameras. That way the politicians can say, see we're listening to your dissatisfaction in this way. The numbers $$$ tell the story.

What's gotten worse is challenging these tickets in Court. It takes time from work, a general attitude in the courts saying you prove you didn't break the law, & contractors playing with the exact measurements & conditions that the cameras respond to.

Fred

not surprised

speed cameras are a lot harder to disprove.

Asking for Facts

FZbar wrote:

If Speed Cameras are bringing in much more money, why operate Redlight cameras. That way the politicians can say, see we're listening to your dissatisfaction in this way. The numbers $$$ tell the story.

What's gotten worse is challenging these tickets in Court. It takes time from work, a general attitude in the courts saying you prove you didn't break the law, & contractors playing with the exact measurements & conditions that the cameras respond to.

Fred

What facts do you have that would support the statement of "contractors playing with the exact measurements & condition?"

I find something back in 2001 time frame in San Diego and perhaps Beaverton OR. I seem to recall something more recent about sensors not being in the right spot but can't find my saved reference. If I had to guess, it would be Chicago.

Having given you those references - I submit you are making a statement intended to "inflame" rather than to "inform" and ask you to support the statement with facts because you make the statement in such a way that implies that this is a current and widespread problem

If you wanted to say that it was your opinion that contractors play with sensors to generate more tickets and thus more revenue, I would not have a problem. You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Corruption? Chicago?

Quote:

In August, the former CEO of RedFlex Traffic Systems was indicted on corruption charges in Chicago. Prosecutors allege that Karen Finley bribed a city transportation official to win more than $100 million worth of contracts.

I was so shocked to see "Chicago" and "corruption" in the same sentence, that I almost sped through a RLC and stopped in a Speed Camera zone!

How about this?

jgermann wrote:
FZbar wrote:

If Speed Cameras are bringing in much more money, why operate Redlight cameras. That way the politicians can say, see we're listening to your dissatisfaction in this way. The numbers $$$ tell the story.

What's gotten worse is challenging these tickets in Court. It takes time from work, a general attitude in the courts saying you prove you didn't break the law, & contractors playing with the exact measurements & conditions that the cameras respond to.

Fred

What facts do you have that would support the statement of "contractors playing with the exact measurements & condition?"

I find something back in 2001 time frame in San Diego and perhaps Beaverton OR. I seem to recall something more recent about sensors not being in the right spot but can't find my saved reference. If I had to guess, it would be Chicago.

Having given you those references - I submit you are making a statement intended to "inflame" rather than to "inform" and ask you to support the statement with facts because you make the statement in such a way that implies that this is a current and widespread problem

If you wanted to say that it was your opinion that contractors play with sensors to generate more tickets and thus more revenue, I would not have a problem. You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

I'm sure you will nit-pick these, but go ahead:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/44/4416.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/43/4322.asp

@tomturtle

Thanks for the links. Link 1 gives me an opportunity to demonstrate once again how thenewspaper.com misleads in this article about Redflex and Chesapeake VA.

Having started with a headline "Red light camera vendor uses a spreadsheet to calculate profit based on engineering deficiencies such as short yellow time", a reader is expecting the article to demonstrate that the headline contained accurate information.

This is yet another example of how misleading thenewspaper.com can be. Let's look at paragraphs six and seven which say

Quote:

"Redflex has also developed an additional analysis approach that is truly unique to Redflex," the proposal explained. "Redflex sought the guidance of a renowned professor from Texas A&M University and the development of a 'Violation Calculator' that factors in not only the quantitative violation analysis, but the engineering factors at an approach level that would also influence driver behavior."

The factors measured include the yellow duration, traffic volume, the speed limit and 85th percentile approach speed, the percentage of heavy vehicles, whether the signals have backing plates and the average duration of the green signal. The shorter the yellow time, the less visible the signal and the more deficient the engineering, the greater number of tickets will be issued, and the greater the profit for the city.

Unless a reader is watching carefully, it is quite easy to think that paragraph seven is also something that Redflex stated in its proposal. BUT NOTE that there are no quotation marks around paragraph seven. This is a statement created by the author of the article. It makes an accurate statement that " The shorter the yellow time, the less visible the signal and the more deficient the engineering, the greater number of tickets will be issued, and the greater the profit for the city"

But, there is nothing that I could find in the proposal - which you must follow a link to read - that says or implies anything about greater profit to the city.

So, the reader can easily assume - as perhaps you did - that Redflex and Chesapeake colluded to choose deficiently engineered red light at which to place cameras.

Now look at paragraph three which says "Redflex promised that within ten days of signing the contract, the firm would send the city a list of the most profitable intersections based on an eight-hour video assessment of each prime location."

In the Redflex proposal, the wording is as follows:

Quote:

Upon issuance of the contract, Redflex will issue a report to the city of the optimal recommended placement of cameras and provide an opinion of which intersection approaches would most benefit the city.

Now all of us realize that the Redflex representative and the person from the city responsible for handling the proposal could have tried to find those intersections which would produce the most revenue. That is a long way from the tone of thenewspaper.com article which claims that such actually happened.

I looked to see if I could find any other articles about Chesapeake that would have prompted thenewspaper.com article but did not find anything with negative implications.

I did find http://wtkr.com/2014/01/30/gotcha-how-red-light-cameras-are-.... This article reports that Newport News VA shortened yellow light timings at left turn lanes after VDOT updated their yellow light formula in January of 2013. The new timings were consistent with the formula.

However, the article notes that Chesapeake chose not to lower their timings. This would seem to be - in and of itself - a refutation of the implied claims made about Chesapeake by thenewspaper.com.

Nothing was presented anywhere that would support the implication that Chesapeake placed red light cameras at intersections where engineering was deficient. Were that the case, I would have expected to be linked to articles commenting on such deficiencies

I'm very interested in what you thought that this link proved. Did you read all the articles (those linked to within the link I have just commented on) or did you interpret thenewspaper.com as accurate on its face?

Well, I Read It....

I dunno about TomTurtle, but I did take time to read the Redflex proposal. Some concerns:

1) In the box on Page 6, that shows the different scores given to various companies, it states that one of the reasons ATS was rated lower was:

"lower than requested citation issuance rate."

Now I guess there is some way to read that and draw the conclusion that the Chicago RLC system was NOT put in place to generate revenue. I can't figure out how, though grin

2) On Page 8, Item 1, Bullet Point 6:

"Potential number of violations expected per average 24 hour period".

To me, this is another smoking gun. There could be very dangerous intersections vis a vis the red lights, but if a lot of violations were not expected per 24 hour period, these intersections would be rated lower than other intersections which would generate more tickets.

3) On Page 10, paragraph below the two bullet points, last sentence:

"When using the City's own crash data in conjunction with the survey and violation calculator Redflex has seen a "confirmed" [their quotes] 85% confidence in our ability to accurately identify the annual number of violations that will occur at an intersection."

Why do you care how many violations will occur at any given intersection if the objective of the program is not revenue generation? I would think the most important criterion would be how dangerous the intersection is (which is NOT the same thing as how many people run a red light at a given intersection).

There are a couple of other statements in the RFP that could either be read to support that the system is being installed primarily for revenue generation or for safety, depending on how you read them.

Finally, I think it is grossly naive to think, given the prospect of a town/city reaping hundreds of thousands or in fact millions of dollars in extra revenue that would NOT have been collected without an RLC program, that town/city officials still make their decision to install these cameras based primarily (or solely) on safety.

Regards,
--Lee

Well read, Lee

RebHawk wrote:

...
There are a couple of other statements in the RFP that could either be read to support that the system is being installed primarily for revenue generation or for safety, depending on how you read them.

Finally, I think it is grossly naive to think, given the prospect of a town/city reaping hundreds of thousands or in fact millions of dollars in extra revenue that would NOT have been collected without an RLC program, that town/city officials still make their decision to install these cameras based primarily (or solely) on safety.

Regards,
--Lee

I agree with all of your points.

I would just assume that any talking points made by Redflex would be intended to say - without being blatantly obvious in something that could be gotten under some Freedom of Information request - that we (Redflex) can produce the most revenue.

What we do not have is any discussion notes from the city.

So, what cannot be assumed is that Chesapeake went into the contract looking for revenue only. And, that is what opponents of Automated Traffic Enforcement ALWAYS assume and state.

I am certain that Chesapeake's planners realized that there would revenue generated.

Given that municipal budgets have been severely cut since 2009 due to the recession - and education has borne a disproportionate share of the cuts (full disclosure: my daughter is a first grade teacher) - cities need revenue and ATE is one of my preferred ways of getting it.

I say again: given that ATE is properly administered, revenue is generated from people who have violated the law (not from the general population).

I'll add, Lee, well said, also.

Further Thoughts

jgermann wrote:

So, what cannot be assumed is that Chesapeake went into the contract looking for revenue only. And, that is what opponents of Automated Traffic Enforcement ALWAYS assume and state.

I don't believe it is only done for revenue purposes. I think town/city leaders use the safety aspect to morally justify it in their minds. That and the bribes they get from Redflex reps grin

Quote:

Given that municipal budgets have been severely cut since 2009 due to the recession - and education has borne a disproportionate share of the cuts (full disclosure: my daughter is a first grade teacher) - cities need revenue and ATE is one of my preferred ways of getting it.

Hey, I can relate. I work at an NC university, and our budgets have been cut steadily since 2008. NC used to have RLC programs in some towns and cities, but had to get rid of them because of a catch 22. In NC, a large portion of those types of fines (in addition to parking tickets) by law has to go to the local board of eduction. Well, when you subtract that amount, there is not enough money left over to pay the contractor. So all those systems, with the exception of Wilmington and (I think) Indian Trail (or somewhere near there) disappeared. Interestingly enough, this was brought about when a local board of ed sued a state university (not the campus where I work) for not giving them their portion of campus parking fines. Before that, most faculty/staff lots on our campus were ungated and lots of tickets to students got written for parking in them. After the judge's ruling, almost every faculty/staff lot got gated, and now many fewer tickets get written, which of course means the local board of ed isn't seeing much money from this particular source.

Quote:

I say again: given that ATE is properly administered, revenue is generated from people who have violated the law (not from the general population).

I agree, but still feel strongly that I'd rather have a human evaluate my transgressions on site rather than in an office where they are processing many violations per hour.

I think we can agree that when an activity becomes a large revenue generator, there is an incentive to maximize that return. I'm not convinced that meshes very well with the promotion of safety and fairness.

All that said, I've never had an RLC ticket. I make my arguments out of logic, not because I have a bone to pick with the system.

Cheers,
--Lee

It shows that settings are played with...

jgermann wrote:

I'm very interested in what you thought that this link proved. Did you read all the articles (those linked to within the link I have just commented on) or did you interpret thenewspaper.com as accurate on its face?

You made a big deal out of someone mentioning that contractors play with the exact settings used on RLCs. This shows that they do make changes to them not that you needed any articles to know that. Just because the newspaper adds verbage to explain terms to its readers does not make the article invalid. Nor does the fact that you cannot find another story on something make a story invalid. And the fact that you try so hard to find something to debunk on them gives them more credence in my opinion. Thanks!

Where? How?

tomturtle wrote:

You made a big deal out of someone mentioning that contractors play with the exact settings used on RLCs. This shows that they do make changes to them not that you needed any articles to know that. Just because the newspaper adds verbage to explain terms to its readers does not make the article invalid. Nor does the fact that you cannot find another story on something make a story invalid. And the fact that you try so hard to find something to debunk on them gives them more credence in my opinion. Thanks!

I did not find anything in that article that even came close to claiming that a contractor (in this case Redflex) "[played] with the exact settings used on RLCs".

To have made your statement above, you must have. So, what change did Redflex make to any RLC in Cheasepeake VA?

This is a discussion of the

This is a discussion of the second link that tomturtle submitted above. Based on Tom's reply to my analysis of his first link, I am awaiting how "contracter" will be introduced.

This thenewspaper.com article has a title and headline with says Virginia: Engineer Slams Short Yellow For Red Light Camera Turns
Virginia legislature considers revising rules for yellow time in turn lanes for red light cameras.

It says:

Quote:

Cities in Virginia are short-changing motorists at intersections, and a professional engineer is asking the legislature to do something about it. Joe Bahen will testify before a House of Delegates subcommittee later today about what he says is an dangerous shortening of yellow warning time at signals monitored by red light cameras
...
"Fifteen of the twenty camera systems operated by the city of Virginia Beach are operating illegally. Virginia Beach has issued more than 200,000 illegal camera citations for right-turn violations since 2009. Injury crashes at this intersection have more than doubled since the cameras were installed
...
Cities have taken advantage of the legal ambiguity. On February 15, 2013, Newport News took made the extraordinary move of shortening the yellow signal time at the left-turn lanes on Oyster Point Road and Jefferson Avenue from 3.6 seconds to 3.2 seconds. Local officials in Virginia Beach insist that the right and left turn lanes, which generate the vast majority of ticket revenue, do not need to use the same yellow duration as the straight through lanes. Under Virginia law, the ITE methodology must be used for any photo enforced intersection.

[emphasis added]

Note that the article is forthright about the fact that " professional engineer ... Joe Bahen" is " licensed engineer for the National Motorists Association" Note that the NMA is the organization that authored the article "6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit " at http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni... which article I have debunked several times (see http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39375/#comment-322009)

I can't understand the "this intersection" phrase which follows the "Fifteen of the twenty camera systems operated by the city of Virginia Beach are operating illegally" statement and then says that injury crashes have more than doubled. However, this article http://hamptonroads.com/2011/04/study-virginia-beach-redligh... seams to conclude otherwise overall (some increased, most decreased, overall decrease)

And, we get no information as to why the 15 camera systems are operating illegally.

"On February 15, 2013, Newport News took made the extraordinary move of shortening the yellow signal time at the left-turn lanes on Oyster Point Road and Jefferson Avenue from 3.6 seconds to 3.2 seconds" is a factual statement. See
http://wtkr.com/2014/01/30/gotcha-how-red-light-cameras-are-... which includes the statement "In Newport News, that formula change allowed city engineers to lower many of their yellow lights last year." I suppose this is what thenewspaper.com means by using the phrase "legal ambiguity". But,

tomturtle, what did you want this article to prove? I would have thought it would have been about "contractors playing with the exact measurements & conditions".