Homeless in Arizona

More on those photo radar bandits

My major problem with photo radar bandits is they are just government robbers designed to steal our money. Our crooked elected officials just install them because they are an easy to steal money.

I also have a Constitutional problem with the photo radar bandits. Under Arizona law, a cop is supposed to sign your ticket swearing that he has "probable cause" to write you the ticket.

That doesn't happen with photo radar bandits. At the end of each day the cop just signed all the tickets that the photo radar bandit generated, not knowing if "probable cause" existed for the photo radar bandit to generate the ticket, or if the photo radar bandit malfunctioned.

Source

Arizona red-light cameras: Opinions still colliding

Do they cause accidents or heighten safety? Cities weigh studies

by Ryan Randazzo - Aug. 20, 2012 11:16 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

The debate over red-light cameras and whether they make intersections safer or more dangerous is intensifying in Arizona, as several Valley cities alter or eliminate their camera programs.

Red-light and speed cameras are hot buttons for drivers, and Arizona could serve as the epicenter for the issue. Camera companies, two of which are based here, say the devices reduce severe accidents. Opponents say they cause more crashes by scaring drivers into stopping at the last second before the signal changes.

Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions Inc. fired the latest volley in the information battle, commissioning a study that it contends shows cost savings to cities from using its red-light equipment.

Critics are not buying it. They point to studies from various North American cities that, they say, prove the cameras actually increase the number and severity of accidents.

The conflicting information, which doesn't examine the more controversial photo-enforcement speed cameras, is complicating the issue as city and county officials weigh whether to use red-light cameras.

Peoria took a side in the debate last fall when it decided to cancel the city's contract with Redflex Holdings Ltd., an Australian company with its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix. City officials cited statistics that showed accidents rose when the cameras were used. During the three-year program, accidents at intersections with the cameras increased 29 percent, according to police data.

El Mirage is in the middle of a similar debate after the first year of its camera program. The city abruptly ended operations of its red-light cameras in April after an Arizona Republic investigation found hundreds of drivers in that city were overcharged on their tickets.

Now council member James McPhetres and others are asking for accident data from the intersection of Grand Avenue and Primrose Street to see if the camera reduced collisions, but the Police Department is witholding the information until at least September.

"My gut feeling is telling me we are having an increase in accidents," McPhetres said.

The intersection was not a hot spot for accidents before the cameras went in, he said, and if accidents have increased, he wants to remove the cameras, which only ticket for speeding.

Other Arizona cities have had intense debates over the cameras:

Tempe suspended its contract with Redflex last year amid a lawsuit regarding the company's contract.

Chandler police debated the results of a national study last year that attributed a 79 percent reduction in fatal crashes there to traffic cameras, saying the study didn't take into consideration changes in traffic.

Bullhead City announced it would use cameras last year, and then the city council voted against it.

Avondale and Glendale have ended their programs in recent years.

Despite the cuts in Arizona, the major companies report growth in camera use. ATS officials report installing more cameras each year, with more than 3,000 operating in about 300 jurisdictions. In metro Phoenix, cameras still operate at a variety of high-profile intersections, from Scottsdale and McDowell roads in Scottsdale to Country Club and University drives in Mesa.

Redflex, which provides more detail because it is a publicly traded company, reported in December that it had 2,129 systems installed in the U.S. and Canada. In the six prior months, it had added 91 camera systems while removing 52 from jurisdictions that ended contracts.

Camera opponents focus on accident data, but road-safety experts said that calculating the safety benefits of cameras is more complex than counting crashes before and after cameras are installed.

Richard Retting, who has more than 30 years' experience as a traffic engineer and has conducted extensive research on traffic cameras, said the scientific evidence points to safety benefits.

"I believe that red-light cameras do make intersections safer," said Retting, a vice president with Sam Schwartz Engineering in Virginia.

Camera critics don't trust any analysis conducted by the for-profit traffic-camera industry and contend that companies such as American Traffic Solutions spin the data in their favor.

"The basic problem with reports of that sort is they are built upon assumptions on top of assumptions," said Richard Diamond, an anti-traffic-camera crusader who has been fighting the companies for years .

"Nothing about it is a measure of anything real," Diamond said.

Study flaws

Analyzing crash data can be complex. Retting has analyzed many studies and also has cited shortcomings in much of the U.S. research on red-light cameras.

He said flaws include:

Not taking into account changes in traffic flow at the intersections. If an intersection gets a traffic camera but traffic volume increases, the data might not show a reduction in crashes. Likewise, if traffic volume decreases, it can appear that the camera-equipped intersection reduced collisions.

Failing to account for "regression to the mean," which can happen when an intersection with a high rate of accidents is selected to be studied. Over time, this accident-prone intersection will "regress" or have a number of accidents more in line with the average. If the study doesn't account for this statistically, it can appear the camera reduced accidents.

Not adjusting for the "spillover" effect. Cameras are shown to reduce the amount of intentional red-light running, and some studies have shown that drivers maintain that caution at neighboring intersections without cameras. This can make it appear in research that all intersections had a decline in accidents with or without cameras. Landmark study

The definitive study on red-light cameras is a 2005 Federal Highway Administration report that analyzed red-light cameras at 132 sites in seven different jurisdictions across the country, Retting said.

That study found that cameras reduced the number of T-bone, or angle, crashes while increasing the number of rear-end crashes. The overall number of crashes was essentially unchanged.

The study included an economic analysis to determine how much the negative economic impact of increased rear-enders offset the benefits of reducing more severe T-bones. It determined there was a "modest" cost benefit to using red-light cameras.

"In some cases, rear-end crashes go up," Retting said. "If we were unhappy with that trade-off, we would eliminate traffic signals in our society. They almost always increase rear-end crashes, but reduce angle crashes."

The study determined that for the seven jurisdictions, the camera-equipped intersections saw 379 fewer T-bone crashes than expected, a 25 percent reduction. But they saw 375 more rear-end crashes than expected, a 15 percent increase.

The intersections had 55 fewer T-bone crashes with definite injuries, and only 32 more rear-enders with definite injuries, for a reduction of 23 injury crashes across all locations.

That modest benefit penciled out to $39,000 to $50,000 in driver savings per site per year from a reduction in severe accidents, according to the study.

The study examined intersections with cameras and compared their accident rates before and after installation, and also used a reference group of intersections without cameras. It took into account the differences in traffic volume to correct for any changes in crash frequency that were caused by increases or decreases in traffic.

Camera supporters, especially those who have lost loved ones to red-light runners, said the cameras are worth the trouble even if they only modestly decrease serious accidents.

"Despite what the people who are against cameras will say, studies all over the U.S. have proven that ... if placed in the right locations (red-light cameras) are very, very effective," said Frank Hinds, whose 17-year-old daughter was killed in 1997. She was a high-school senior when a Chevy Blazer ran a red light and struck the car she was in near Ironwood High School.

Hinds now serves as executive director Red Means Stop Traffic Safety Alliance. Signals vary

While he supports traffic cameras, Retting said that not every intersection is a good candidate for cameras. He also said that other options should be tried first to reduce collisions at intersections with a high accident rate.

"Not every red-light runner is hellbent on getting through that red light," he said.

He said that trees, hills or curves in the road can obscure drivers' views of some lights, and those issues need to be fixed to ensure people are not running the light by accident. Some dangerous intersections benefit from warning lights down the block to alert drivers to the traffic signal, he said.

In Arizona, Retting said many intersections have reduced crashes by installing large plates behind the signals to make them more visible against the setting or rising sun.

And the yellow light needs to be timed properly for the road so motorists have time to react before the light changes to red.

(Paradise Valley alerted more than 1,000 drivers in 2009 they would receive refunds for tickets they were issued at a mistimed yellow light at Tatum Boulevard and McDonald Drive.)

If those efforts don't reduce the number of people running the light, a camera might be the next-best option, Retting said.

He said that while conducting studies of cameras in the field, it is common to hear drivers hit the gas to beat lights that they see are turning red.

"That is where cameras come in," he said. "They create the opportunity to deter people from running the light, and punish those that continue to break the law."

Profit motives

Critics complain that the cameras are simply a way to fleece motorists, describing them as "automated ticketing machines."

But the data doesn't bear that out, either, because strictly from a balance-sheet perspective, the cameras and tickets don't earn all cities money.

A 2011 analysis by The Republic of financial figures from 10 major Arizona municipalities using traffic cameras found that about half lose money on them once the additional expenses of processing the tickets through the courts are included.

The state makes money because it gets a cut of every ticket and doesn't have any expenses associated with the cameras like cities. And the camera companies make money.

But after paying the camera companies, giving the state its cut and paying for the staff time to process photo tickets, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler and Peoria reported losses from their programs in 2010.

Pima County, Phoenix and Paradise Valley reported profits from their programs.

Scottsdale, Tucson and Surprise could provide only rough estimates for expenses for city court staff, making it difficult to determine if they generate profits or losses.

That analysis did not consider the avoided costs of accidents that might be prevented by the cameras. That is what the new American Traffic Solutions study attempts to calculate.

American Traffic Solutions provides an online tool where viewers can plug in one of 25,000 cities to calculate how much money one red-light camera can save in avoided medical costs, emergency responders, court and legal expenses, property damage, lost productivity, and the monetized value of pain and quality of life.

Revenue from tickets was not a part of the calculation because the company wanted to show just what is saved by avoiding crashes and not having police officers pulled from other work to provide 24-hour traffic enforcement.

The study determined that in Phoenix, one red-light camera saves the city and residents $214,000 in its first year, significantly more than the 2005 Federal Highway Administration report.

The study estimated a 4.1 percent reduction in fatalities, 1.7 percent drop in injuries, and 6.8 percent drop in property damage at a busy intersection from the presence of a camera.

It did not assume an increase in rear-end collisions.

American Traffic Solutions spokesman Charles Territo said not all intersections see an increase in rear-end collisions, and those that do often find it temporary, while the reduction in T-bones and red-light runners is a long-term change.

"Rear-end collisions are almost always property damage and rarely is there any significant injury," Territo said. "T-bone collisions ... are where the real costs come in."

He added, "The value in a red-light safety camera is not in the revenue it generates, but rather in the money they save and the lives they save as a result in reduction in collisions."

Critics unmoved

Diamond and other camera opponents debate the Federal Highway Administration report from 2005. He said that the cost savings from fewer T-bones and more rear-end accidents are unproven.

"For rear-enders, think of an 18-wheeler smacking into the back of a Smart car," he said. "Not pretty. What frequently happens is a rear-end hit punts a car into an intersection and you end up with a multicar collision."

Diamond cited a 2006 audit in Winnipeg, Manitoba, that found that T-bone crashes decreased during two years after cameras were installed, but that rear-end crashes increased at first, then decreased. The data also showed a decrease in repeat offenders over time, suggesting that people changed their driving behavior in response to the cameras.

The police data in that audit, however, was contradicted by information from Manitoba Public Insurance records that the auditors reviewed, which showed an increase in crashes overall from 2003 to 2004, especially in the most expensive crashes.

"They (Manitoba Public Insurance) paid for hospital bills and repairs, so the numbers are real," Diamond said. "The report found costs went up, not down, at camera intersections."

The insurer's data did not detail the types of crashes, nor did it track weather or other external factors. The Winnipeg audit called for a more controlled study to take such matters into account because of the data discrepancies.

Diamond also likes to track the incidents of single-car crashes near cameras, which he said the devices cause. He posts them along with the regular updates on his website.

He also likes to share a BBC video about traffic cameras in Great Britain that shows drivers slamming on the brakes and crashing when they spot a speed camera down the road.

Lisa Halverstadt and Dustin Gardiner contributed to this article.