NMA E-Newsletter #227: The True Red-Light Camera Violation

Already bruised by an ongoing bribery scandal, the City of Chicago’s red-light camera program took another body blow recently, thanks to the city’s own Office of Inspector General (IGO).

The IGO conducted an audit of the Chicago’s red-light program to “determine if red-light camera installations were made based on the Chicago Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) stated primary criterion of reducing angle crashes to increase safety.”

The audit sought to answer nine specific questions posed by members of the Chicago City Council, including the following:

• Has the City installed, and is the City installing, red-light cameras in locations with the highest number of angle crashes?
• Has the City used, and is the City using accurate data in determining the location for red-light cameras?
• Is CDOT following its own prioritization steps for red-light camera relocations?
• Which City departments, consultants, and/or employees of Redflex are involved in the decision to install or relocate red-light cameras, and how?
• What is the total cost of the camera system, including installation and annual maintenance?

The findings, or lack thereof, are stunning. In its cover letter to Mayor Emanuel and other city officials summarizing the results, the IGO states the following:

Our audit’s findings can be summarized in two simple points.

First, CDOT was unable to substantiate its claims that the City chose to install red-light cameras at intersections with the highest angle crash rates in order to increase safety. Neither do we know, from the information provided by CDOT, why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated, nor what the City’s rationale is for the continued operation of any individual camera at any individual location.

Second, our audit uncovered little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the City or the general public. Specifically, we found a lack of basic recordkeeping and an alarming lack of analysis for an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue.

That pretty much says it all, but there are some gems contained in the body of the report:

The IGO could not determine if field evaluations for potential RLC installations were done in accordance with appropriate traffic engineering standards to ensure that signal timing is set properly.

The IGO requested the traffic engineering standards used by CDOT and any documentation to show that RLC installations and signal timing were completed in accordance with the standards. CDOT did provide the IGO with the standards but did not provide any documentation supporting that signal timing is set to the required minimum standards or regularly monitored for adherence to those standards.

Other than the site survey provided by Redflex, CDOT management said they were not aware of any involvement by other City departments, consultants or other individuals in the decision process of where to install cameras.

The report also reveals that Chicago has paid Redflex more than $100 million over the life of the program, yet it can’t document costs associated with the purchase, maintenance, repair or miscellaneous fees for any camera location or specific camera.

The IGO dug deeper and did manage to determine that the city’s annual maintenance cost is $13,800 per camera—56 percent of the cost to purchase a brand new camera. That’s like buying a new $30,000 car and then agreeing to spend another $15,000 a year to maintain it. Eight years later (that’s how long Chicago has had cameras), you could have paid for a new car four times over, but you’re still driving an eight-year-old car.

It defies logic.

But every red-light camera program conceived defies logic. Until you realize that the stated goal of such schemes (public safety) is not the true goal (money). Then it starts to click. The game is rigged, and the cheaters protect the game through their disdain for transparency and accountability coupled with their pervasive indifference to the public good.

This is the true red-light camera violation; we shouldn’t shrug it off by saying, “Oh well, it’s Chicago. What did you expect?” We expect, and deserve, better from those we entrust with our public safety and our precious resources.

NMA Florida Alert: Tampa Bay News Report Hammers Red-Light Cameras

Red-light camera supporters in Florida received a major blow this week with the airing of an explosive investigative news story on WTSP Channel 10 in Tampa Bay.

Led by reporter Noah Pransky, the investigation revealed that the Florida Department of Transportation has been quietly shortening yellow-light times at camera-equipped intersections, resulting in millions of dollars of additional ticket revenue. The story featured an interview with NMA Foundation Executive Director Jim Walker, who emphasized that red-light cameras are a for-profit venture, not a public safety tool.

You can view the entire report here.

It’s rare that a story like this ever goes beyond a superficial treatment of the issues, but Pransky dug in and confronted public officials with tough questions. It’s really one of the best pieces of reporting on red-light cameras we’ve seen.

Be sure to read the transcript along with all of the helpful background data. It’s definitely worth a look.

NMA Massachusetts Alert: Legislative Hearing to Consider Motorist Bills

The legislative Joint Committee on Transportation will be holding a public hearing this week on several bills with important implications for Massachusetts motorists. Bills pertaining to the authorization of red-light cameras, speed cameras in school zones, and school bus cameras will be considered. In addition, a bill establishing privacy controls over data from automated license plate readers is also on the agenda. Below if a list of relevant bills:

H.3068
H.3074
H.3075
H.3153
S.1695
S.1724

Click here for more detail on these proposals. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 16 at 1:00 pm at the Massachusetts State House.

The NMA opposes all forms of camera-based photo enforcement. (Learn more here.) We encourage you to attend the hearing to let committee members know what you think. If you can’t make it, please take a moment to contact committee members with your views.

NMA E-Newsletter #226: An Excuse for More of the Same

Stakeholders in the traffic safety community, including the NMA, point to the consistent downward trend in highway fatality rates from 1995 through 2011 to bolster their various positions.

Since the 1995 repeal of the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit, highway speed limits in many states have been steadily rising to 70-75 mph and beyond. So much for the “Speed Kills” argument.

Others counter that better cars, higher auto safety standards, improved roads (debatable) and better driver education (also debatable) have had a greater impact on highway safety. Their message: “Speed still kills despite all the gains we’ve made.”

So, what happens when the safety barometer (the highway fatality rate) starts to move in the opposite direction, even just a little?

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released its preliminary 2012 highway fatality statistics showing a slight uptick in the fatality rate—1.16 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), compared with 1.10 for 2011. That’s about a 5.5 percent increase but still the fourth lowest rate in 56 years (when such statistics became available).

News stories have been predictably alarmist. “In a sharp trend reversal, highway deaths rise,” says one headline. Another reports: “Grim news from America’s roads: Across the country, more people are dying in car accidents.” The stories go on to report that the increase wasn’t unexpected because people are driving more due to the improving economy. Some observers correctly state that after years of historically low motor vehicle death rates, an increase was bound to happen sooner or later.

And that’s really the point. It’s unreasonable to expect the fatality rate to continue plummeting indefinitely, although we would all welcome it. That more people died on our highways in 2012 is “grim news” indeed. But does it truly represent a “sharp trend reversal,” and is this the most constructive way to portray what’s going on? No on both counts.

Trend lines bounce around, and a slight bump in one data point shouldn’t cause a panic. Public reaction to this kind of news is typically muted, if non-existent, despite the urgent tone set by the media and others. The highway fatality rate moved up slightly in 2005 and then continued its steady downward trajectory in 2006. The same will likely happen now.

This won’t stop the safety lobby, however. We will see stepped-up calls for more traffic enforcement nationwide, more bans on certain kinds of in-vehicle behavior, more highway “safety” legislation, stricter vehicle safety standards, and a continued push toward vehicle automation.

Will more of the same old command-and-control save lives? It’s hard to say. We do know it will bring tradeoffs and unintended consequences. For example, due to increasingly stringent side impact safety standards, the door height of a typical new car is higher than on older models. This results in smaller windows all around leading to diminished views—an obvious safety hazard. And because you no longer can see out the back window, you have to pay for a backup camera with an insufficient range of view.

Sometimes the “less is more” approach is the most effective. Take the German Autobahn. Some stretches have no speed limit and traffic routinely cruises at 150 mph. Yet the 2011 fatality rate was 0.32 per 100 million VMT, according to German Federal Highway Research Institute. Astonishingly low.

The Autobahn system works thanks to consistent enforcement of, and adherence to, a few basic rules: pass on the left, yield the left lane to faster traffic and pay attention to your driving. Pretty simple … and effective.

NMA E-Newsletter #225: On Speedometers, Faulty Thinking and Shameful Consequences

Car buffs appreciate the subtle visual evolution of automotive features over time—from rooflines, to side view mirrors or taillights, every successive design tweak is studied and critiqued.

A great example of this ongoing refinement comes from the humble speedometer. This website charts the evolution of Chevrolet speedometer designs from 1941 through 2011. A quick review will bring back memories for many readers—some pleasant and some not so pleasant.  With its maximum 85 mph speed limit, the speedometer from the 1985 Chevrolet Silverado falls squarely into the latter category.

For years most speedometers topped out at 120 mph. But in 1980, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) mandated that speedometers could only go up to 85 mph, even though vehicles could travel faster. The idea was the brainchild of then NHTSA Administrator Joan Claybrook, who thought that lower speedometer numbers would discourage drivers from pushing their cars to the limits. And while the mandate only lasted for two years, Claybrook hasn’t given up

Thirty years later, she continues to rail against auto manufacturers for putting higher and higher limits on speedometers. In this recent article she blames the manufacturers for using the allure of speed to sell more cars: “‘They think that speed sells,’ she said of automakers. ‘People buy these cars because they want to go fast.’ ” The article continues: “Claybrook concedes there’s no data to show the 85 mph limit saved lives, but she believes it did. She called the ever-higher speedometer numbers immoral.”

Claybrook is right about one thing: Auto manufacturers have been inflating speedometer numbers to make their vehicles appear more powerful. Top speedometer readings for current family cruisers can be as high as 140 mph or 160 mph. Even the tiny Toyota Yaris shows a top limit of 140 mph.

This bit of marketing sizzle may help sell a few more cars, but does it create more speed demons on our roads? When was the last time you saw a Ford Fusion screaming down the interstate at 100 mph? Or any other car for that matter?

If Claybrook truly believes responsible drivers will put themselves in harm’s way because their speedometers tell them it’s OK, she understands nothing about driver behavior. The same holds true for those who believe that raising speed limits will encourage drivers to just drive that much faster.

The truth is that posted speeds have little impact on actual travel speeds; motorists tend to drive at a speed they believe is safe and reasonable. This turns out to be the safest speed to travel and forms the basis for the 85^th percentile speed limit. Put another way, responsible motorists know what a safe speed is without having to be told. (Learn more about the 85^th percentile here.)

Yet, “safety advocates,” such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) refuse to acknowledge the safety benefits of the 85^th percentile formula. In a recent news story covering a proposal to raise interstate speed limits in Illinois, IIHS spokesperson Russ Rader discounted 70 years of traffic engineering practice:

Rader called the 85th percentile approach “a moving target” and disputed the National Motorists Association’s claims that motorists’ speed remains relatively static when limits are raised.

As speed limits rise, studies show that drivers tend to exceed that limit by 5 to 10 mph, he said.

“People drive the speed at which they don’t think they’re likely to be stopped and ticketed,” Rader said.

Note the sophistry in that last statement. To perpetuate the myth that speed limit signs or numbers on a dial compel drivers to behave recklessly—making them care more about getting caught than their own safety—represents, at best, faulty thinking, and, at worst, a cynical attempt to push an agenda.

In either case the result is the same: the chronic under posting of speed limits leading to more accidents and higher costs for drivers. Shameful.

NMA Florida Alert: Urge Veto on Transportation Bill RLC Amendments

The red-light camera industry will stop at nothing to keep the cash register going. The latest attempt is to amend the omnibus transportation spending bill (House Bill 7125) to make challenging camera tickets even harder.

Among other things, HB 7125 would allow the imposition of a $250 surcharge on top of the base camera ticket fine of $158, for a total of $408. It would also strip away formal rules of evidence and allow camera cases to be heard in administrative hearings, not courts of law. Both of these provisions would make it much harder for motorists to get a fair hearing.

For more information on how HB 7125 hurts drivers, click here and here.

HB 7125 has passed both the Florida House and Senate. It now goes to Governor Scott for his signature. We urge you to contact the governor to tell him to veto the pro red-light camera provisions contained in this bill. His contact information is here:http://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/

Office of Governor Rick Scott
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
(850) 488-7146

NMA Pennsylvania Alert: Exciting New Opportunity for PA Members

With the spread of red-light cameras to more communities, mismanagement within the Turnpike Commission and news of corrupt traffic courts, Pennsylvania has become a critical battleground for motorists’ rights.

The good news is that more and more Pennsylvania NMA members are stepping up to fight these abuses. And you can to. But where do you start?

Why not join the Pennsylvania NMA Member Google email group? When you do, you’ll gain an insider’s perspective on the fight for drivers’ rights in the Keystone State.

All you need to do is send us your name and email address and we’ll sign you up. From there, you’ll be able to stay in touch with other members on issues that directly affect Pennsylvania motorists. Share ideas on important legislation, drivers’ rights, ticket fighting, activism and whatever else you come up with. The goals of the group are to:

• Allow all members to participate equally
• Keep members informed about important driving issues
• Provide a forum to discuss ideas
• Facilitate collaboration among members
• Encourage members to act in their local communities
• Support the development of a strong Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Motorists Association

The group will be facilitated by a NMA staff member, but we will not take an active leadership role nor will we set the agenda. That’s up to you.

If this sounds like something you would be interested in, send a note to nma@motorists.org with your name and email address, and we’ll sign you up.

NMA E-Newsletter #224: Justified—or Not

Public officials often use traffic engineering reports to justify policies motivated more by political expediency than by concern for public safety. In a recent three-part series for the NMA Blog (linked below), NMA Massachusetts Activist John Carr analyzes how misguided priorities result in deficient, misleading and inaccurate reports—reports that lead to poor traffic engineering and bad public policy.

Carr dissects many examples of faulty reporting from his own experiences driving through the Northeast. In Bridgewater, Connecticut, engineers ignored the facts from their own traffic study that clearly indicated the speed along a stretch of Route 133 should have been posted at 45-50 mph. Instead, they concluded the following:

‘The study has not indicated any significant changes since the previous study or revealed any pertinent information that could have an effect on the existing speed limit. Therefore, based on roadway geometrics, road side development, vehicle operating speeds and trial runs, it is recommended that the existing 40 mph speed limit remain the same.’

In Worcester, Massachusetts, officials used a faulty engineering report to justify the placement of four-way stop signs at an intersection with no accident problem and very low traffic volume. As Carr explains it:

There was a political demand for stop signs to slow traffic. Stop signs aren’t supposed to be posted at low volume intersections or for speed control. The DPW came back with a report explaining why stop sign standards could be ignored… The city solicitor advised the city clerk not to sign the ordinance. The signs were posted anyway. They aren’t legal, but they are posted and that’s what the city cares about.

Throughout the series, Carr provides tips on how to spot a compromised report:

If you are reviewing a document that purports to be an engineering study to set a speed limit, start with a checklist:

• Does the study include data, or merely assert that data has been considered?
• Does the study give you enough information to suggest an approximate speed limit (within 5 mph)?
• Does the study admit to political influence?

And this only scratches the surface. Public officials at all levels need to follow the rules and be held accountable when they don’t. Unfortunately, they’re often enabled by those who should, and do, know better.

Here’s another example of someone who should know better: In testimony before an Illinois Senate committee on a measure to increase interstate speed limits, Illinois DOT representative John Webber told lawmakers higher speeds cause more accidents. He also stated that higher speed limits encourage drivers to just drive that much faster.

If Webber doesn’t know that both of these assertions are false, he should. His statements demonstrate either a fundamental misunderstanding of speed zoning or a willful misstatement of the facts. Either way, he’s not acting in the public interest. (Learn more about proper speed zoning.)

We thank John Carr for providing readers with a provocative series of articles. We encourage you to read them all here:

Making Excuses
Taking a Closer Look -Part 1
Taking a Closer Look - Part 2

We would also like to hear from you. Do you know of any examples in which the justification for a traffic-related proposal was clearly motivated by something other than the public good? Drop us a note and tell us about it.

NMA E-Newsletter #223: New Studies Provide Insight on Distracted Driving

With police and policymakers fixated on stopping cell-phone use while driving, one might conclude that all other potential driving distractions have been miraculously eliminated. (Click here to read about how far police will go to enforce cell phone and anti-texting laws.)

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

According to a new study from the Erie Insurance Group, the number one cause of distraction-related highway fatalities in the United States is daydreaming. The study, which analyzed two years of NHTSA fatality data (2010-2011), found that 62 percent of distraction-related highway fatalities were due to being “generally distracted or lost in thought.” By comparison, cell-phone use contributed to only 12 percent of distraction-related highway fatalities.

So, should we ban daydreaming behind the wheel? It sounds absurd, but some misguided lawmaker may try. And based on the results of bans already in place, it wouldn’t work anyway.

The Erie study also found that stimuli outside the vehicle (objects, persons or events) contributed to seven percent of distraction-related fatalities. Coincidentally, results from another recently released Canadian study shed light on the potential impact of this kind of distraction.

Researchers at the University of Alberta found that billboard messaging had a profound impact on driver distraction and driving performance. Messages with positive emotional connotations sharpened driver attention, while messages with negative emotional connotations blunted attention and resulted in distracted driving behavior.

A news release, citing comments from lead study author Michelle Chan, summed up the results:

Chan contends that emotional distraction while driving may come from anything from music to news to conversations, so it would be hard to legislate against those types of factors. Self-regulation on the images and language marketers use on billboards could be one way to reduce potential for emotionally related vehicular incidents. 

Ultimately, she says, drivers need to take responsibility for their actions behind the wheel, even if it means reducing the usual driving stimuli such as talking or listening to the radio.

“Any kind of distraction is risky when you’re driving. But there would appear to be a larger risk when it comes to emotional stimuli.”

Chan’s views mirror those of the NMA: Drivers face so many kinds of distractions that selectively legislating against one potentially risky activity is ineffective and counter-productive. Chan’s findings also show that potential distractions can come from what’s going on outside the vehicle, not just from what’s going on inside. This seems obvious to us, but given the current obsession with banning certain in-vehicle behaviors, you would never know it.

We don’t want to ban billboards (although a drive along Wisconsin’s bucolic highways would be more pleasant without them). We do, however, urge traffic planners and policymakers to address driver distraction and confusion stemming from cluttered visual environments.

The over-application of highway signage/markings has been shown to increase accidents. In contrast, open traffic designs, with minimal or no signage, can significantly reduce accidents. (See this newsletter for a fascinating case study.) The reason? When drivers are freed from micromanagement, they assume greater responsibility for their own actions. This naturally leads to safer, more attentive behavior behind the wheel.

The NMA’s position on distracted driving is clear: Distracted driving can best be addressed through efforts to educate the public about its dangers. Enforcement can be useful to a degree, but banning specific actions behind the wheel is unnecessary. Distracted driving is distracted driving, regardless of the cause. If a motorist demonstrates a lack of control of his vehicle and is a safety risk, there are distracted driving laws on the books of all states that allow law enforcement to pull that driver over.

NMA California Alert: Fight Judge’s Camera Ruling in Murrieta

In November 2012, citizens voted to remove red-light cameras from three intersections in Murrieta. Now Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia has overturned those ballot results by stating that traffic regulation is a statewide concern; therefore, the red-light camera ban cannot be enforced locally.

But the battle isn’t over yet. Anti-camera activists are planning to attend the Murrieta City Council meeting Tuesday, April 16 to urge public officials to vote to remove the cameras. And you can make a difference by attending. You don’t have to speak—just show up and fill a seat.

Here are the details:

April 16, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers
24601 Jefferson Ave.
Murrieta, CA 92562  (map)

Leading the charge is Diana Serafin, who spearheaded the effort to get rid of the cameras in the first place. Feel free to contact her for more information at:

Phone: 951-677-7884 or 951-526-9575
Email: d.serafin@verizon.net