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. 

This week, a man was arrested on the charge of interfering with police communications here in Houston.

As someone who spent seven years around the newspaper business, I spent time in the newsrooms of a couple of newspapers in Kansas.  The one thing that was always present in those newsrooms was a police scanner, usually calling out officers, paramedics and fire fighters to handle citizens in need.

I was hooked, and personally enjoy listening to the scanner more than other forms of entertainment.  It is, in fact, the ultimate reality show.  Granted, these days much of the routine stuff is now handled electronically via computers in the vehicles, there is still much to be heard.  In fact, as I write this I am listening to several Houston Police channels, as well as Houston Fire.

Houston has previously reported that the system that is being used is old.  This in itself makes it prone to interference.  Houston needs to upgrade the system, but not without much forethought and planning.  Other cities were quick to convert, and end up with difficulties and incompatibilities.  Others end up with huge gaps in the system, putting the people who swore to protect and to serve in jeopardy themselves.

The improper use of radio equipment by the foul-mouthed practical joker is not just a local offense, but will likely have him facing federal charges as well.  The Federal Communications Commission does not take interference lightly.

Let’s just hope that this event does not force them down the road of a system that can’t be monitored by those who wish to monitor it - much like what San Antonio has done. 

Being able to talk amongst user groups is a must in this post 9/11 world, and the city needs to stick to a system that ultimately will talk to other agencies in the area, including Metro, Harris County, Galveston County and Fort Bend County.

Only time will tell if Houston will be able to address the citywide communications issue. 

When I envisioned this blog ten months ago, I thought it would be a good sounding board for me to vent issues and ideas.  Then I got sidetracked by other things in my life and everything stopped in my corner of the Blogosphere.

I decided recently it was time to return, and over the last couple of weeks I have held my own, although time still doesn’t permit me to write a nightly post.

Depending on the availability of source material to discuss, I will try and post here as often as I can.  I know that several of my posts lately have been on issues being discussed in the Texas state legislature, and I assure you that is not going to be the only thing I post about.  The current legislative session has just provided a rich source of source material for me to rant about.

First and foremost, blogging will probably stop when I travel, or I have other events that require my attention.  My real life away from the computers has to come first.  Not to fear, I was gone out of the country for a couple of weeks in January, and my current schedule is looking like the end of March for the next trip (although in my line of work at my real job, that can change at a moment’s notice).

So, onward and upward…  Keep reading, keep commenting, and I’ll keep posting.

More news coming out of the Austin. 

Legislator Coleman introduced House Bill 1304, which institutes a moratorium on Taser purchases and use during calendar year 2008.

With the current number of Taser related incidents that have happened around the state, it might sound like a good idea.  In fact, it, like the Houston Police Department’s chase policy will limit the options that are available to those who have sworn to protect and serve the public. 

I agree that possibly the state should propose a standardized training requirement, along with specific “recertification” intervals.  Right now, each department has their own set of requirements, and I think those inconsistencies are part of the problem.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the requirement to be shocked by the device is optional in some departments training, while others, including Houston Police Department, doesn’t even include that option.  To me, the standardized training should include exactly that, a requirement to receive a shock from the device that they are going to use.  This is just like an officer at the academy being able to participate in hand to hand combat to understand taking control of a situation, to safely handling the police car in special cases such as pursuits.

So, Austin, tell the cops how they have to be trained to use it, but don’t stop them from using a taser. Otherwise the officer might have to resort to a stronger, more deadly force to stop a suspect.

And that’s not good for anyone.

We’ve all seen them, along a freeway or on a street.  Four or five tow trucks lined up to try and get a piece of the business at a scene of an accident.  We’ve seen the drivers of those trucks snake their way down the emergency lane past the backed up traffic just to get in on it.

Could the days of the cowboy tow truck driver be numbered?

In a bill filed today in Austin, Senator Hegar offered:

Senate Bill 500: Relating to the establishment of a tow truck rotation list in certain counties; providing a penalty.

Let’s look at an example of this working.  The city of Olathe, Kansas, just outside of Kansas City, implemented just such a program 15 years ago.  Tow truck drivers argued it’s unfair, but the city proved them wrong.  While it thinned out the number of renegade drivers (those that only have a truck or two), and gave better opportunities to the larger organized tow companies.

The tow companies realized that they now had a guaranteed tow once out of every so many incidents - a sure bet, when compared to the current Texas method of selection.  Renegade drivers banded together to form larger companies, and everyone won.  Best of all, the trucks themselves weren’t creating additional hazards by weaving through traffic to get to the call.

I saw this in action last fall, when I was visiting family near Olathe.  The car I was riding in was rear-ended, pushing us into a vehicle in front of us.  Olathe Police were called, and informed of at least one wrecker needed.  Within a few minutes, both an officer and a single wrecker arrived.  We were in the left turn lane on a very busy street, yet traffic continued to flow fairly smooth around the accident.  Fortunately, we were able to drive away, but the wrecker driver offered to assist us with the trip home if we had further problems.

Here in Houston, of course we not only have the renegade drivers, we have SafeCLEAR.  While the text of the bill is not as clear as I wish it was, it is possible that this could bear impact on it as well.   

I guess we’ll just have to watch this and see, but if implemented in Harris County, it could make the roads much safer then they are today.  It would also be much more fair to the tow companies then the current SafeCLEAR program is.

We’ll keep you posted. 

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.

Funny question to ask.

It’s when people like a religious group from Topeka, Kansas (I know who they are, and I’m not going to add to their fodder with their name being searchable on Google to this site) can protest military funerals as a way of speaking out against abortion.

I’m sorry, but the (Name Removed) family and their band of followers should disappear; take their protests elsewhere - somewhere other than a church, funeral home or cemetery.  Ideally it should never be visible or heard from a location where funeral services and graveside services are held.  It also should not be seen anywhere along the route a grieving family will travel in a funeral procession.

Fortunately, the state legislature may be working on just a solution.  I applaud legislator Geren for doubling the minimum set-backs for these kinds of protests.

UPDATE Feb. 8: State Senator Harris just introduced a duplicate bill in the senate.

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 was reading the story about Pearland Police Officers receiving their Taser training when a important note about Houston’s Taser Training came to light:

Being shocked is not required in every department.

Houston Police Department officers do not get shocked during Taser training, but deputies with the Harris County Sheriff’s Department have the option during their training. Deputies are not required to participate, Lt. John Martin said.

Yes, you read that right.  Houston does not actually have each officer stand on the receiving end of their Taser when being trained.

If you search any of the online video sites for “Taser” (Not linked since most have language not suitable for minors) you will find many videos of officers taking one.

While I, personally have no desire to be a living target for one of these, I certainly understand why many agencies would expect their officers to understand the power and capabilities of the device.  It makes the officer think when acting, since they know exactly what the person that’s at the other end of those barbs is feeling.  It also makes them think to release the trigger before more harm is done.

That, in itself is exactly why it should be done.  The fatalities and lawsuits that are appearing more and more frequently here in Houston says that the already overworked officers are quick to deploy, and quick to use the taser, but don’t know when to stop.

I believe it’s time that HPD require mandatory refresher training, and every officer is certified only after taking the juice.

UPDATE:
KHOU is reporting that the city controller is now reviewing the HPD Taser policy. Watch this space for further updates.