Posted on 08/23/2002 1:11:16 PM PDT by John Jorsett
When the nation's No. 1 cheerleader for red-light cameras admits there might be one teensy-weensy downside to the program, you just know it's going to be a lulu so large it couldn't be crammed under the carpet without making a bulge the size of a circus tent.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently enthused over traffic-tickets-by-mail schemes for an entire issue of its Status Report. On red-light cameras, however, it did allow that "most studies also reported increases in rear-end crashes." It went on to say, "This isn't surprising. The more people stop on red, the more rear-end collisions there will be."
Duh! Not to worry, however, because "photo enforcement leads to significant overall reductions in crashes," assures Susan Ferguson, the institute's senior vice-president for research.
Well, that depends on who's telling the story. The institute itself did two studies, both in Oxnard, California, the most recent one published in 2001. Other studies have been done, but the IIHS roundly pooh-poohs them. Why? Because they don't follow a curious methodology the IIHS invented especially for Oxnard. IIHS insists that all red-light-camera studies must account for "regression to the mean" and for "spillover effects."
Regression to the mean is a fact of life; in any one year, there could be an extraordinarily large number of crashes at a particular intersection, but over several years the count will revert back to average (mean). Funny that IIHS insists regression be accounted for in studies at stoplights when it never considers the same factor in its studies of speed limits.
Spillover effect is IIHS's trick for giving the cameras credit for reducing fatalities even where they aren't. It assumes that red-light cameras at a few intersections will cause drivers to stop promptly all over town, or all over the county, or maybe all over the state, so improvements outside the cameras' ZIP Codes are credited to them nonetheless. As statistical acrobatics go, this one is breathtaking. But you ain't seen nothin' yet. The obvious way to gauge the payoff of red-light cameras is to compare intersections with cameras to those without, then zoom in on crashes actually caused by drivers running red lights. Instead, IIHS considered all crashes at all 125 signalized intersections in Oxnard and concluded that injury crashes dropped by 29 percent due to the cameras, even though they were installed at only 11 intersections.
Spillover effect, don't you know. Skeptics will notice that crashes went down rather randomly all over town, and some ordinary intersections outperformed those with the gotcha equipment. The cameras look remarkably ineffectual until, just in time, spillover effect arrives to snatch victory from the jaws of ho-hum.
Skeptics will also notice that these IIHS studies, which pretend to be about red-light running, never bother to isolate those crashes specifically caused by running red lights. Why? It says, "The crash data did not contain sufficient detail to identify crashes that were specifically red-light-running events." This is believable only to those who've never heard of police reports. Oxnard, like most California jurisdictions, reports crashes according to the California Highway Patrol protocol, which includes a "primary collision factor," i.e., the cause of the crash. Those reports are collected into a CHP database (SWITRS). Running red lights falls under the category of "stop signals and signs." According to Steve Kohler of the CHP, it includes stop signals and stop signs. Nothing else.
Since all signalized intersections in Oxnard are, by definition, controlled by signals and not stop signs, red-light running should be neatly isolated as a "primary collision factor." When IIHS finds numbers that support the story it wants to tell, it jumps on them like a trampoline. When it hides from numbers as it did in this case, you can bet they go the wrong way.
IIHS has refused to release the study's raw data so that others may verify its conclusions, but Jim Kadison, a disarmingly sincere member of the National Motorists Association, went directly to SWITRS for crash data on the nine signalized Oxnard intersections used in the first IIHS study. He smelled something funny in IIHS's breakdown of crashes; just nine percent were rear-enders. Across the nation, it's about 40 percent, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Looking at the data, Kadison could reduce rear-enders down to a single-digit share only by narrowing the definition of intersection to "between crosswalks." Narrowing that way chops off the entire approach to the intersection, exactly where rear impacts happen. It looks like IIHS purposely designed its study to avoid seeing rear-enders. Sure enough, when he opened the "intersection" to include crosswalks and 100 feet each side of them, rear crashes rose to a more normal share. Over this enlarged zone, rear-end crashes increased by 33 after red-light cameras were installed. At the same time, side impacts dropped 25 percent. Kadison concludes that the cameras merely trade one type of crash for another.
IIHS's claim of safety from cameras is flatly contradicted by a number of cities that have tried them. "At some intersections [with cameras] we saw no change at all, and at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents," admitted San Diego police chief David Bejarano on ABC News's Nightline. In Charlotte, North Carolina, station WBTV had this to say, "Three years, 125,000 tickets, and $6 million in fines later, the number of accidents at intersections in Charlotte has gone down less than one percent. And the number of rear-end accidents, which are much more common, has gone up 15 percent."
In Greensboro, the News & Record reports, "There has not been a drop in the number of accidents caused by red-light violations citywide since the first cameras were installed in February 2001. There were 95 such accidents in Greensboro in 2001, the same number as in 2000. And at the 18 intersections with cameras, the number of wrecks caused by red-light running has doubled." The granddaddy of all studies, covering a 10-year period, was done for the Australian Road Research Board in 1995 (cameras went up in Melbourne in 1984). Photo enforcement "did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and [cross-street] accidents," wrote author David Andreassen in the page-one summary.
Red-light cameras turn out to be a very expensive way to crank up rear-end crashes. Motorists in Washington, D.C., alone pay a half-million dollars a month in fines. That's not enough, IIHS says. It wants points on driving records, too.
You've no idea how much I'm giggling at reading this.
The IIHS wants more accidents. Insurance rates will continue to rise that way.
Follow the money.
BTTT
I got a ticket once based on a red light camera, and it was a fair cop. Paid the fine, and now I'm a little more careful at that intersection. The bad part was the envelope the ticket came in looked like junk mail, so it sat around for a couple of weeks in the junk mail pile. Someone must be looking over me, because as I was throwing away the stack, something made me open it. It was due that day, and bad things could have happened if I hadn't responded by the deadline.
I'm sorry too, but I disagree. If one has ever sat on as many city council meetings as I have, heard the nit-wit proposals presented before city councils by various company's promoting their project or product on the amount of revenue the city would receive. You would know that $$$$ is truly the mothers milk of politics at even the cross street level.
And BTW, the "councilpersons" love revenue.
More important, from the insurance industry's perspective, is that in a rear-end collision there is no question about which driver is at fault. In a side-impact collision at a signalized intersection, you always end up with 15 witnesses claiming that the light was green when Driver #1 entered the intersection and 15 witnesses saying that it was green when Driver #2 entered the intersection.
I speak from experience......
The only reason the rear-end collisions are going up is because people follow to close..Period....
But it does pay well for the individual that gets rear-ended....
Actually your lucky, as running a red light is Russian roulette...Most busy intersections have many fatalities in their credits....Getting broadsided by a vehicle moving at 40 mph can resemble an aircraft crash scene....Very brutal...
I usually coil in reply to the suggestion of any British-like proposal, but the exception proves the rule. Here goes:
In the UK, as you approach a green and its time to go to yellow approaches, the green begins to flash. Next comes yellow, and it too, flashes as it is going to go to red. It is remarkably simple and I wonder why the US hasn't gone to this like we have everything else British, except this really works.
Yes, but there could be from a legal perspective.
Most jusridictions have laws, legislative or case, regarding causing an accident by stopping too fast.
Tell it to the judge, and he will find you guilty....If someone stops for a red light and you rear-rear them, you are liable and at fault...No witnesses needed, as you were following to close.....Case closed....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.