Cameras are for safety and money.....
Discussion
Automobile Association of America pulls its support for traffic cameras
One of the foremost advocates of traffic safety has withdrawn support for the District of Columbia's traffic camera enforcement program after city officials conceded revenue was a primary motivation. The Automobile Association of America (AAA), which supports the use of traffic cameras to enhance road safety, has rebuffed the city's plan to expand the program to earn more revenue. The Metropolitan Police Department collected $18,368,436 in fines through August 2002 with the automated red-light enforcement program, which was implemented in August 1999 to combat "the serious problem of red-light running."
"There is a mixed message being sent here. When using these cameras you should not have a vested interest in catching one person running a red light or speeding," said Lon Anderson, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic. Mr. Anderson said that AAA brought attention to a camera that the automobile association deemed unfair on H Street Northeast adjacent to the Union Station garage exit. The camera was affixed at a location on a declining hill with a flashing yellow light that went to red without changing to a solid yellow. "Drivers didn't even know they were running a light. That camera issued 20,000 tickets before we caught it," Mr. Anderson said. He said the camera also caused its share of rear-end collisions, as opponents have contended since the first few months after the program began. "At the H Street camera, we noticed several near rear-end collisions" Mr. Anderson said. "There have been studies that show that red-light cameras can cause an increase of rear-end accidents, but there aren't any hard numbers yet."
He said he became furious when he read reports in The Washington Times a week ago quoting D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams as saying that the cameras were about "money and safety." The mayor is also reported to have said that the city was looking to expand the program, in part, to earn revenue to offset a projected $323 million budget deficit. Mr. Anderson said the mayor's comments made it appear as if the city had a dual policy on cameras and that they undercut the credibility of Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey's automated red-light enforcement program. "That is what happens when you're putting [on] pressure for numbers," he [Anderson] said. Until recently, both Mr. Williams and Chief Ramsey have said that the No. 1 goal of the cameras is to make the streets safer for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists by targeting red-light violations and speed infractions.
The city also may be heading for a court fight, said Richard Diamond, spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican, a strong opponent of the cameras. A number of cases against the cameras have been filed in D.C. Superior Court, but "when the courts get a hint that the case is trying to attack the system it is immediately dismissed," the spokesman said. A recent report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that red-light running in the District had dropped 64 percent since the cameras were set up. But Mr. Diamond and Mr. Anderson said that the report says nothing about the increased number of rear-end collisions that may have been caused by the cameras. Richard Retting, the insurance institute's senior transportation engineer, said such collision increases were not studied for the report but may be included in studies later. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Diamond said that drivers approaching red-light cameras are so afraid of being flashed that they slam on their brakes well short of intersections, surprising tailing motorists and causing accidents.
Mr. Diamond cited the camera problems last year in San Diego. A judge threw out almost 292 traffic tickets issued by automated red-light cameras last year, ruling that the city had given away too much police power to the private company running the devices. "The only reason we found out about the accident increases in San Diego is because the courts forced them to release all of the data," he said. It also was discovered that the city's vendor, Lockheed Martin IMS, placed some of the cameras too close to the intersection and reduced the yellow-light time. San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano later said that more accidents were reported at some camera intersections than prior to the red-light photo enforcement. And at some intersections there was no change in accident totals. All of the information on the cameras' lack of effectiveness came after the courts forced the police department to release all the data. "This is the only case where we have the full data and the cameras didn't work," Mr. Diamond said.
The Los Angeles Times reported last November that accidents also were up at red-light camera intersections in that city. It was also reported that accidents were up as much as 11 percent citywide.
(Written by Brian DeBose and published in the 17 October 2002 edition of The Washington Times.
One of the foremost advocates of traffic safety has withdrawn support for the District of Columbia's traffic camera enforcement program after city officials conceded revenue was a primary motivation. The Automobile Association of America (AAA), which supports the use of traffic cameras to enhance road safety, has rebuffed the city's plan to expand the program to earn more revenue. The Metropolitan Police Department collected $18,368,436 in fines through August 2002 with the automated red-light enforcement program, which was implemented in August 1999 to combat "the serious problem of red-light running."
"There is a mixed message being sent here. When using these cameras you should not have a vested interest in catching one person running a red light or speeding," said Lon Anderson, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic. Mr. Anderson said that AAA brought attention to a camera that the automobile association deemed unfair on H Street Northeast adjacent to the Union Station garage exit. The camera was affixed at a location on a declining hill with a flashing yellow light that went to red without changing to a solid yellow. "Drivers didn't even know they were running a light. That camera issued 20,000 tickets before we caught it," Mr. Anderson said. He said the camera also caused its share of rear-end collisions, as opponents have contended since the first few months after the program began. "At the H Street camera, we noticed several near rear-end collisions" Mr. Anderson said. "There have been studies that show that red-light cameras can cause an increase of rear-end accidents, but there aren't any hard numbers yet."
He said he became furious when he read reports in The Washington Times a week ago quoting D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams as saying that the cameras were about "money and safety." The mayor is also reported to have said that the city was looking to expand the program, in part, to earn revenue to offset a projected $323 million budget deficit. Mr. Anderson said the mayor's comments made it appear as if the city had a dual policy on cameras and that they undercut the credibility of Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey's automated red-light enforcement program. "That is what happens when you're putting [on] pressure for numbers," he [Anderson] said. Until recently, both Mr. Williams and Chief Ramsey have said that the No. 1 goal of the cameras is to make the streets safer for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists by targeting red-light violations and speed infractions.
The city also may be heading for a court fight, said Richard Diamond, spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican, a strong opponent of the cameras. A number of cases against the cameras have been filed in D.C. Superior Court, but "when the courts get a hint that the case is trying to attack the system it is immediately dismissed," the spokesman said. A recent report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that red-light running in the District had dropped 64 percent since the cameras were set up. But Mr. Diamond and Mr. Anderson said that the report says nothing about the increased number of rear-end collisions that may have been caused by the cameras. Richard Retting, the insurance institute's senior transportation engineer, said such collision increases were not studied for the report but may be included in studies later. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Diamond said that drivers approaching red-light cameras are so afraid of being flashed that they slam on their brakes well short of intersections, surprising tailing motorists and causing accidents.
Mr. Diamond cited the camera problems last year in San Diego. A judge threw out almost 292 traffic tickets issued by automated red-light cameras last year, ruling that the city had given away too much police power to the private company running the devices. "The only reason we found out about the accident increases in San Diego is because the courts forced them to release all of the data," he said. It also was discovered that the city's vendor, Lockheed Martin IMS, placed some of the cameras too close to the intersection and reduced the yellow-light time. San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano later said that more accidents were reported at some camera intersections than prior to the red-light photo enforcement. And at some intersections there was no change in accident totals. All of the information on the cameras' lack of effectiveness came after the courts forced the police department to release all the data. "This is the only case where we have the full data and the cameras didn't work," Mr. Diamond said.
The Los Angeles Times reported last November that accidents also were up at red-light camera intersections in that city. It was also reported that accidents were up as much as 11 percent citywide.
(Written by Brian DeBose and published in the 17 October 2002 edition of The Washington Times.
Many people (including my self) maintain that revenue generation is one if not the driving force behind scamera introduction. The above report proves it.
At least the Americans have the balls to say so, and even better, the guts to rip the camers down when they don't work.
IMHO the Government should spend all the money on some better causes and research within the NHS that is going to benefit and save more lives, such as Cancer research or some other. For christsake approx 1 in 3 people get cancer or suffer from cancer during their life (I believe this figure to be true I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) yet only 3000 odd people die in car accidents a year, where do the priorties lie??
I'll climb down now.
At least the Americans have the balls to say so, and even better, the guts to rip the camers down when they don't work.
IMHO the Government should spend all the money on some better causes and research within the NHS that is going to benefit and save more lives, such as Cancer research or some other. For christsake approx 1 in 3 people get cancer or suffer from cancer during their life (I believe this figure to be true I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) yet only 3000 odd people die in car accidents a year, where do the priorties lie??
I'll climb down now.I think revenue is the ONLY motivation for camera's in this country, the justification for this being the level of fine.
Most fines for breaking a law are set at levels to seriously discourage and make you think twice about breaking the law.
Look at TV licence evasion, upto a £2000? if caught.
Excessive speeding is around £300+ generally.
But minor speeding is only £60 and points.
Call me cynical but that doesn't appear to be a deterrent. It seems set at a level that will generate a substantial income but not too high that drivers will be overly worried or cause them to really look at their speed. This refers to those who do 35-40 in 30 zones and similar increases in the other zones.
Imagine doing 35-40 mph in a 30 zone carried a fine of £500, you'd be guaranteed a major drop in so called speeding as a result.....but no guaranteed income.
It seems to me the means of survival of the Safety Camera Policy, like the Congestion Charge, relies on the failure of the public/drivers to adhere to the publicly presented ojective of these policies.
This suggests massive mismanagement by the organisations responsible or who have a vested interest ie County councils, police forces, government etc.
>> Edited by swilly on Wednesday 26th February 15:41
Most fines for breaking a law are set at levels to seriously discourage and make you think twice about breaking the law.
Look at TV licence evasion, upto a £2000? if caught.
Excessive speeding is around £300+ generally.
But minor speeding is only £60 and points.
Call me cynical but that doesn't appear to be a deterrent. It seems set at a level that will generate a substantial income but not too high that drivers will be overly worried or cause them to really look at their speed. This refers to those who do 35-40 in 30 zones and similar increases in the other zones.
Imagine doing 35-40 mph in a 30 zone carried a fine of £500, you'd be guaranteed a major drop in so called speeding as a result.....but no guaranteed income.
It seems to me the means of survival of the Safety Camera Policy, like the Congestion Charge, relies on the failure of the public/drivers to adhere to the publicly presented ojective of these policies.
This suggests massive mismanagement by the organisations responsible or who have a vested interest ie County councils, police forces, government etc.
>> Edited by swilly on Wednesday 26th February 15:41
Montana Speed Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may know, Montana removed all daytime speed limits on December 8, 1995. Here is the first speed survey done by MT DOT for the period Jan - March, 1996:
Road type Miles Number of vehicles
observed %>55 %>60 %>65 %>70 %>75 %>80 %>85
Urban Interstate 11 13,770 82.08 55.57 24.06 12.22 5.03 --- ---
Rural Interstate 1,180 20,867 --- --- 47.82 22.26 7.90 2.83 0.61
Rural other 12,719 29,774 59.18 34.09 15.59 5.84 2.15 --- ---
%>55 means percent of drivers exceeding 55, 65, etc.
And here is one done for the period April - June, 1996:
Road type Miles Number of vehicles
observed %>55 %>60 %>65 %>70 %>75 %>80 %>85
Urban Interstate 11 12,392 83 51 31 16 9 --- ---
Rural Interstate 1,180 31,579 --- --- 61 38 19 8 2
Rural other 12,719 41,769 69 44 23 9 3 --- ---
%>55 means percent of drivers exceeding 55, 65, etc.
So, who can't be trusted -- the motorists who aren't abusing that freedom, or the safety organizations that said everyone would be zooming around at 100 mph?
Self-preservation. What a novel concept.
Do the safety groups, whose self-anointed position is to protect us from ourselves, know that when Montana had a speed limit, it was treated with all the seriousness of a parking ticket? From 1974 to December 8th, 1995, Montana law said anyone who went over the 55/65 daytime speed limit was guilty of not conserving a natural resource (not speeding) and would be fined all of $5. Furthermore, the legislature made it so that no $5 ticket could be kept on your license for the purpose of suspending it. As if that wasn't enough, they also said that insurance companies could not raise your rates if you got one (or 100) of the $5 tickets. In effect, Montana never did have a speed limit even when they did.
When the safety groups say that the fatalities are higher in rural states (which they are), they place little or no importance on the lack of passing drivers (to get/give help), not to mention ambulances that have to drive 15 minutes or more to get to the scene. They can't change that, so they blame speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMA's Web Page, www.motorists.com/mtspeed.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Documents
Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits
States' Attitudes Toward Speed Limits
Related Pages
Speed Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may know, Montana removed all daytime speed limits on December 8, 1995. Here is the first speed survey done by MT DOT for the period Jan - March, 1996:
Road type Miles Number of vehicles
observed %>55 %>60 %>65 %>70 %>75 %>80 %>85
Urban Interstate 11 13,770 82.08 55.57 24.06 12.22 5.03 --- ---
Rural Interstate 1,180 20,867 --- --- 47.82 22.26 7.90 2.83 0.61
Rural other 12,719 29,774 59.18 34.09 15.59 5.84 2.15 --- ---
%>55 means percent of drivers exceeding 55, 65, etc.
And here is one done for the period April - June, 1996:
Road type Miles Number of vehicles
observed %>55 %>60 %>65 %>70 %>75 %>80 %>85
Urban Interstate 11 12,392 83 51 31 16 9 --- ---
Rural Interstate 1,180 31,579 --- --- 61 38 19 8 2
Rural other 12,719 41,769 69 44 23 9 3 --- ---
%>55 means percent of drivers exceeding 55, 65, etc.
So, who can't be trusted -- the motorists who aren't abusing that freedom, or the safety organizations that said everyone would be zooming around at 100 mph?
Self-preservation. What a novel concept.
Do the safety groups, whose self-anointed position is to protect us from ourselves, know that when Montana had a speed limit, it was treated with all the seriousness of a parking ticket? From 1974 to December 8th, 1995, Montana law said anyone who went over the 55/65 daytime speed limit was guilty of not conserving a natural resource (not speeding) and would be fined all of $5. Furthermore, the legislature made it so that no $5 ticket could be kept on your license for the purpose of suspending it. As if that wasn't enough, they also said that insurance companies could not raise your rates if you got one (or 100) of the $5 tickets. In effect, Montana never did have a speed limit even when they did.
When the safety groups say that the fatalities are higher in rural states (which they are), they place little or no importance on the lack of passing drivers (to get/give help), not to mention ambulances that have to drive 15 minutes or more to get to the scene. They can't change that, so they blame speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NMA's Web Page, www.motorists.com/mtspeed.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Documents
Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits
States' Attitudes Toward Speed Limits
Related Pages
Speed Limits
Speed limits - the hidden agenda
Malcolm Heymer, a London Transport Planning Manager with a local authority, argues that speed is not the main cause of accidents
In many other countries around the world, highway speed limits are being reduced and enforced more vigorously, with speed cameras and other sophisticated equipment being deployed on a large scale.
We are told that this is necessary to cut the frequency of road accidents. Is this the real reason, however, for the current focus on speed enforcement and, even if it were, is it the best way to reduce accidents?
Taking the second question first, we are frequently told in the UK that speed is the main cause of between 'one third' and 'most' road accidents.
When asked to substantiate these imprecise claims, however, the proponents of strict speed limit enforcement are unable to do so. The research evidence that does exist gives a very different picture.
A study covering eight police forces in the UK showed that excessive speed was the primary cause of just 4% of the accidents analysed. A study in a large English county found that 5% of accidents were speed related. In Florida, USA in 1996, excessive speed was found to be the cause of just 2.2% of accidents.
These figures mirror the results of accident analyses carried out in connection with road safety improvements in my own highway authority area, where excessive speed is rarely implicated in more than 5 to 10% of accidents.
Even where excessive speed is a causal factor in an accident, it is a symptom of the more fundamental failure to identify a hazard ahead or respond correctly to it. Just as in medicine, where it is important to treat the disease and not the symptom, so road safety activity should be targeted at improving hazard awareness skills, not rigidly enforcing often arbitrary speed limits.
The Australian Road Transport Commission has recently concluded that better training in hazard perception is the only measure likely to reduce driver-related accident rates.
So what are the real reasons for focusing on speed enforcement? One attraction is the ability to extract more revenue from road users. When speed cameras were first approved for use in the UK, we were told that they would only been sited where there was a history of speed-related accidents.
This restriction has been cynically ignored, with speed cameras even installed on new roads before they were opened. Many cameras are hidden behind trees or road signs and are sited where drivers are likely to exceed the speed limit, because it is safe to do so.
In the March 1999 edition of the staff magazine of London's Metropolitan Police is the following statement: "Speed cameras at the moment have their limitations but when these matters can be overcome, they will be a sure winner for raising revenue."
There is an even more sinister reason. In May 1996, The Car Free Cities Network of the European Union (www. edc. eu. int/cfc/about. html) adopted the 'Copenhagen Declaration', which included the following exhortation: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility.'. Thus car use is to be discouraged by all possible means.
Strictly enforced, low speed limits are one way of achieving that political aim. A delegate at a recent UK conference called for a 50 mph speed limit on UK motorways to create a shift to rail travel.
Local authorities in the UK are blatantly lowering speed limits in order to encourage modal shift, even though a government study has shown that 20 mph zones introduced into UK cities have failed to lead to an increase in walking and cycling.
Given this political agenda, it is hardly surprising that 'Speed Kills' propaganda is promoted so vigorously. By so doing, people are conditioned to accept ever lower speed limits and greater enforcement.
Residents are also encouraged to demand lower limits, in the false belief that this is the way to improve safety. Thus a downward spiral is created, leading to ever greater restrictions on personal freedom, which are quite unjustified.
Professor Garel Rhys of Cardiff University Business School has said that "Plans to tax and penalise car use are leading Britain into a former Soviet-style regime." Should we professionals allow ourselves to become agents of this process, in supposedly free societies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader responses:
Email your response for possible inclusion in this space or in the magazine.
From Chuck Bagg, USA:
All across the US there are millions of arbitrarily low speed limits that were originally set 30, 40, or even 50 years ago. Since these limits were first posted, car handling and manoeuvrability have improved dramatically due to such developments as the introduction of front wheel drive, power rack and pinion steering, power disk brakes, steel belted radial tyres, four-wheel independent suspension, and other more subtle refinements. Thus, it is generally safe to exceed posted speed limits by at least 15 to 20 miles per hour, and most drivers routinely do so. However, on rare occasions, there is a posted speed that is actually reasonable, and exceeding it by the usual amount can be dangerous. Also, a few arrogant slowpokes insist on rigidly obeying the posted speeds, forcing normal drivers to become impatient and pass them, sometimes at considerable risk. Therefore, excessively low speed limits are actually more dangerous than reasonable ones, and nearly all the speed limits that were posted more than twenty years ago need to be raised significantly in the interest of safety.
Click here for our index of Opinion columns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.worldhighways.com - World Highways online
© Route One Publishing. All rights reserved.
Route One Publishing, Horizon House, Azalea Drive, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8JR.
Malcolm Heymer, a London Transport Planning Manager with a local authority, argues that speed is not the main cause of accidents
In many other countries around the world, highway speed limits are being reduced and enforced more vigorously, with speed cameras and other sophisticated equipment being deployed on a large scale.
We are told that this is necessary to cut the frequency of road accidents. Is this the real reason, however, for the current focus on speed enforcement and, even if it were, is it the best way to reduce accidents?
Taking the second question first, we are frequently told in the UK that speed is the main cause of between 'one third' and 'most' road accidents.
When asked to substantiate these imprecise claims, however, the proponents of strict speed limit enforcement are unable to do so. The research evidence that does exist gives a very different picture.
A study covering eight police forces in the UK showed that excessive speed was the primary cause of just 4% of the accidents analysed. A study in a large English county found that 5% of accidents were speed related. In Florida, USA in 1996, excessive speed was found to be the cause of just 2.2% of accidents.
These figures mirror the results of accident analyses carried out in connection with road safety improvements in my own highway authority area, where excessive speed is rarely implicated in more than 5 to 10% of accidents.
Even where excessive speed is a causal factor in an accident, it is a symptom of the more fundamental failure to identify a hazard ahead or respond correctly to it. Just as in medicine, where it is important to treat the disease and not the symptom, so road safety activity should be targeted at improving hazard awareness skills, not rigidly enforcing often arbitrary speed limits.
The Australian Road Transport Commission has recently concluded that better training in hazard perception is the only measure likely to reduce driver-related accident rates.
So what are the real reasons for focusing on speed enforcement? One attraction is the ability to extract more revenue from road users. When speed cameras were first approved for use in the UK, we were told that they would only been sited where there was a history of speed-related accidents.
This restriction has been cynically ignored, with speed cameras even installed on new roads before they were opened. Many cameras are hidden behind trees or road signs and are sited where drivers are likely to exceed the speed limit, because it is safe to do so.
In the March 1999 edition of the staff magazine of London's Metropolitan Police is the following statement: "Speed cameras at the moment have their limitations but when these matters can be overcome, they will be a sure winner for raising revenue."
There is an even more sinister reason. In May 1996, The Car Free Cities Network of the European Union (www. edc. eu. int/cfc/about. html) adopted the 'Copenhagen Declaration', which included the following exhortation: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility.'. Thus car use is to be discouraged by all possible means.
Strictly enforced, low speed limits are one way of achieving that political aim. A delegate at a recent UK conference called for a 50 mph speed limit on UK motorways to create a shift to rail travel.
Local authorities in the UK are blatantly lowering speed limits in order to encourage modal shift, even though a government study has shown that 20 mph zones introduced into UK cities have failed to lead to an increase in walking and cycling.
Given this political agenda, it is hardly surprising that 'Speed Kills' propaganda is promoted so vigorously. By so doing, people are conditioned to accept ever lower speed limits and greater enforcement.
Residents are also encouraged to demand lower limits, in the false belief that this is the way to improve safety. Thus a downward spiral is created, leading to ever greater restrictions on personal freedom, which are quite unjustified.
Professor Garel Rhys of Cardiff University Business School has said that "Plans to tax and penalise car use are leading Britain into a former Soviet-style regime." Should we professionals allow ourselves to become agents of this process, in supposedly free societies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader responses:
Email your response for possible inclusion in this space or in the magazine.
From Chuck Bagg, USA:
All across the US there are millions of arbitrarily low speed limits that were originally set 30, 40, or even 50 years ago. Since these limits were first posted, car handling and manoeuvrability have improved dramatically due to such developments as the introduction of front wheel drive, power rack and pinion steering, power disk brakes, steel belted radial tyres, four-wheel independent suspension, and other more subtle refinements. Thus, it is generally safe to exceed posted speed limits by at least 15 to 20 miles per hour, and most drivers routinely do so. However, on rare occasions, there is a posted speed that is actually reasonable, and exceeding it by the usual amount can be dangerous. Also, a few arrogant slowpokes insist on rigidly obeying the posted speeds, forcing normal drivers to become impatient and pass them, sometimes at considerable risk. Therefore, excessively low speed limits are actually more dangerous than reasonable ones, and nearly all the speed limits that were posted more than twenty years ago need to be raised significantly in the interest of safety.
Click here for our index of Opinion columns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.worldhighways.com - World Highways online
© Route One Publishing. All rights reserved.
Route One Publishing, Horizon House, Azalea Drive, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8JR.
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff