On The Spot Blog

Alexis Grant over at the Chronicle's new City Hall Blog (A nice blog by the way) reported last week that The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released a new report last week on the improvement of intersection safety with the installation of red light cameras.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an organization that researches and lobbies for changes to laws at the federal, state and local levels.  It's funding is entirely from the insurance companies that we pay every month to provide coverage on our vehicles.

Over the weekend, I had a chance to read the report that Alexis was reporting about.  The IIHS report points out many flaws in their methodology, proving that their research is, for the most part, invalid.

The report focuses on two intersections in Philadelphia which were scheduled to get red light cameras, and three in Atlantic County, New Jersey that police say warranted cameras, but were not allowed by state law.

For one, the sampling period.  The interval of time after yellow lights were lengthened was only 6 weeks before the sampling was taken.  A few weeks later the red light cameras were turned on, and after 4 months grace period (warnings) and 12 months of enforcement, the final sampling was taken.  3 samples were tainted by malfunctioning equipment but they claim that didn't skew the results.

In fact, they even attest to longer yellow lights improving red light running over 12 months.  Could some of the improvement actually have been the longer yellows and not the cameras?

Another flaw is where the samples were taken.  The six experimental sites (the ones that had their timing changed and red light cameras) averaged 31,000 cars a day, whereas the three control sites (no changes made during the study) averaged 14,000 cars.  The report also says that the control sites were taken 50 miles away in New Jersey; meaning that a separate state, county and local jurisdiction could have tainted the results as well.

The conclusion of the report discusses 90% or more reduction in red light running.  It does not track the increase in rear-end collisions, as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid getting a ticket.

So, lets take some facts that the makers of the cameras, nor the city council, fail to tell you.

Innocent until proven guilty - A basic right in our country.  It's a part of our legal system.  With red light cameras, you're guilty until proven innocent, or otherwise incriminate someone else.

Face your accuser - another of our basic rights.  It's kind of hard to face a camera in court, let alone question it.

Cameras will not stop dangerous drivers - A drunk driver won't pull over for a camera flash, nor will it stop the guy that's driving 100 MPH.  That's what real police have to do.

It's all about safety - If that's the case, then why did Affiliated Computer Services of Dallas spend over $305,000 in lobbying as well as the campaigns of several elected officials in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania?  What the stories don't answer is how much did the IIHS spend on lobbying and campaigns? (Story credits: Don Russell, Philadelphia Daily News, 2003)

It will reduce accidents - The same intersections in the IIHS report actually saw an increase in the rear-end collisions in the first several months the cameras were active. (Story credit: Gwen Shaffer, Philadelphia Weekly, 2005)

It's no longer about protecting the public, if it was, there wouldn't be a need for these cameras.

(Editorial note - story references courtesy the National Motorists Association. This does not constitute an endorsement of all of their positions on traffic safety laws, only in the matters of camera enforcement.)

 

 

As we come to mid-month, more news from Austin on all of the action to stop or slow the spread of the disease known as red light cameras.

Two more bills have been filed, House Bill 1570, and Senate Bill 195.  House Bill 1570 is identical to the previously discussed Senate Bill 125, requiring that the revenue be directed towards a designated Trauma Facility.  If both pass their respective chambers, it would hold promise for the bill to make it to Governor Perry’s desk.

Senate Bill 195 takes a radically different approach from the other bills proposed and looks back to the 78th legislative session.  It repeals a section of the state transportation code that was enacted in 2003.  The earlier changes eliminated the requirement that red light runners be served the criminal citation in person by the citing officer, allowing for the offense to be ticketed with a civil citation - bypassing the requirement of being served by the officer.  The new bill repeals that change, making all red light cameras illegal in the state.

So, by my scorecard, here’s the bills that are in the legislature as we speak:

• 3 bills prohibiting cameras on state highways
• 2 bills requiring revenue to go to trauma facilities
• 1 bill requiring minimum light change intervals at camera enforced intersections
• 1 bill setting standard signage requirements
• 1 bill repealing the previous legislatures authorizing change

 
 

Now, for some good news.  The Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee is planning a hearing February 21 in Austin, and both Senate Bill 125 and Senate Bill 195 are on the agenda.  No hearings have been scheduled with the House Urban Affairs committee for the six on their agenda.

I will continue to support all of these bills, and strongly support Senate Bill 195, since it clearly removes the right to use cameras - while the others just restrict their usage.

As soon as I can get a transcript of the upcoming hearing, I will post a commentary.  For those of you reading this after my post in the Chronicle’s City Hall blog, I hope to have some more insight into the flawed Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s report on cameras posted here later this weekend. 

Phoenix suburb Scottsdale, Arizona recently conducted a 9 month test of a "Photo Radar" system on loop 101 (Phoenix's version of 610).  The city has now passed a resolution to turn the cameras back on full time, considering the system a success.

In the ZDNet and Arizona Republic stories, it says that the cameras activate when speed is 11 miles per hour over the speed limit. The Arizona Daily Star reports that the fight may not yet be over, not without a statewide ballot issue on the November 2008 ballot.

As most Houstonian's know, Police Chief Harold Hurtt still maintains a home in Phoenix, and travels there most weekends.  We know that Phoenix uses red light enforcement, much like what is now being deployed throughout Houston.

Could photo speed enforcement be the next cash cow the city of Houston tries to cash in on?  I suspect it will come up for discussion.

Would it make Houstonians slow down from the blazing fast speeds that we travel on area roads?

Or, will the state legislature put the brakes on another of the city's misdirected ideas before it takes off?

Only time will tell.

My RSS feed blinked across yet another bill being floated around Austin:

House Bill 1052: Relating to requiring warning signs before intersections at which a municipality uses a photographic traffic monitoring system to enforce compliance with a traffic-control signal

Add this bill to the six others that I mentioned in an earlier post. 

This one in particular requires that cities use a TXDOT approved sign and requirements for size and display of the sign at all intersections with camera enforcement.

I will continue to support all of these bills, and will continue to monitor the developments here. As many know, the state legislature can be ineffective at times, with all of their procedural and time wasting processes.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed that one or more of these bills make it to Governor Perry’s desk.

I subscribe to an RSS feed from the Texas Legislature that gives a one-line title to each bill introduced in the current Legislative session.  Tonight, as I was scrolling through the day’s activity, a couple of titles caught my eye:

Senate Bill 369: Relating to an offense involving a motor vehicle with an altered or obscured license plate.

and

House Bill 985: Relating to the power of a local authority to enforce compliance with speed limits or a traffic-control signal on a highway under its jurisdiction by an automated traffic-control system.

The first bill is important, as it clarifies the earlier passed laws regarding obscuring license plates, and takes out the clause that has been abused about frames on license plates. 

It also clearly legalizes the use of license-plate mounted transponders, like the ones being used by the Harris County Toll Road Authority when the metallic coating of some windshields interferes with traditional EZ-Tags.

The second bill instructs the Attorney General to deny implementation of photographic enforcement devices on highways within the state, including traffic light and speed enforcement.

This raised my curiosity, so I decided to dig deeper.  I did a search on the Legislature’s web site for the word “photographic” in Bills introduced so far in this session and came up with a total of eight results.  Here are the others of relevance:

• House Bill 55: Relating to the power of a local authority to enforce compliance with a traffic-control signal on a highway under its jurisdiction by a photographic traffic signal enforcement system.
• Senate Bill 125: Relating to the deposit of revenue collected from certain traffic penalties in the designated trauma facility and emergency medical services account.
• House Bill 614: Relating to requiring a standard change interval for a yellow signal at intersections at which a municipality uses a photographic traffic monitoring system to enforce compliance with a traffic-control signal.
• House Bill 922: Relating to the power of a municipality to enforce compliance with speed limits by an automated traffic control system.

The above bills show some of the creativeness of the representives that we have sent to Austin.

House Bills 55 and 922 are the same as House Bill 985, but they only cover traffic signal enforcement, while 985 added speed enforcement devices as well.

Senate Bill 125 seems the most interesting one.  It says “fine, you can have them” but says that 50% of all revenue generated has to go to a designated trauma facility or other emergency health care center.

House Bill 614 also doesn’t ban them, but says that cities must maintain a minimum yellow light time as defined in the statewide standards.  This is good, since it says they can’t shorten yellow lights to increase revenue.  I have always advocated longer yellow light times at high-risk intersections, and several studies concur that the longer yellow light is a better accident deterent than red-light running tickets.

I support all of these bills, although a combination of Senate Bill 125, House Bill 614 and House Bill 985 would be the best solution.  Tell the cities, “You can’t use them on the highways, but everywhere else is fine, and while you’re at it, those have to have minimum yellow light times and the trauma centers get half your revenue.”

I suspect a combination of that would deter many municipalities from beginning a program, and might even have some of the cities that have already taken the steps to install them to turn them off.

In the business I’m in, I frequently see questions about how to enforce human behavior by using a piece of technology.  My response has always been, technology will not fix the problem of human nature, but humans work best at changing human behavior.

Cities like Houston need to invest in real officers on the streets, not in technology that accuses drivers of something without rock solid proof.  The cameras they invested in only take pictures of the rear of the car, and then put the burden of proof on the owner to incriminate another driver or pay up.  The system is flawed, and I hope that the state legislators will at least pass one of the above bills to start the way towards fixing the system.