Home > Opinion: The Roads Have Eyes

View Main Topics: Camera Enforcement    Speed Cameras    Red Light Cameras    Revenue from Cameras    Camera Accuracy    Engineering/Signals    License Plate Readers Police Enforcement    Checkpoints and Stops    Speed Limits/Traps    Tickets and Cash    Seizure/Confiscation    Parking Tickets    Taxes and Tolls    Drunk Driving Laws Miscellaneous Issues    Miscellaneous    Hypocrisy    Bad Policy and Injustice    Propaganda    New Technologies    Privacy Issues    Year In Review The Revolt    Protests    Camera Destruction Subscribe via RSS or E-Mail Back To Front Page

Opinion: The Roads Have Eyes An editorial by Richard Diamond detailing problems of fairness and accuracy that come with reliance upon photo enforcement. Your days of being pulled over for speeding are numbered. That would be great news, except in an increasing number of states the flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror are being replaced by the photographic flash of traffic cameras -- we'll call them automated ticketing machines, or ATMs. Sadly, these particular contraptions are the opposite of the familiar money-dispensing machines found outside our local banks. Instead, these devices take our money, and dispense it in massive bundles to voracious local governments. The cameras come in two formats: red light cameras and speed cameras. Both types capture still photos or video clips of cars in motion -- cars that have somehow triggered, either rightly or wrongly, a virtual trip wire that says, in effect, "We just caught you breaking the law." The companies that operate the cameras on behalf of various jurisdictions later mail out the photos they've captured to the cars' registered owners, along with hefty fines for violating a state law or municipal ordinance. Speed cameras use radar, laser, or pavement-mounted sensors to create an estimate of speed. Red light cameras use a similar array of sensors to determine whether a car entered an intersection as little as a tenth of a second after the light has turned red. If traffic cameras haven't yet come to your town, don't get too comfortable, because local governments are becoming increasingly interested in recruiting the obedient robot tax collectors. And collect they do. In Illinois, for example, roving vans park on the side of the road to facilitate the mailing of citations -- carrying fines of up to $1,000, plus insurance points -- to anyone driving a few miles-per-hour above the 45 MPH speed limit in a highway work zone. (And let's not even question the fairness of special "work zone" fines, except to point out that only about 15 percent of work zone fatalities are actually caused by automobile traffic.) Following the lead of Illinois, Arizona will soon deploy permanently mounted speed cameras on freeways throughout the state. In just nine months last year, a pilot program in Scottsdale, AZ mailed out 120,000 speeding tickets with a face value of nearly $19 million. In other words, traffic cameras are serious business, generating more than a billion dollars every year for local governments and the insurance industry. While the cameras certainly cramp the styles of driving enthusiasts, a closer look at their implementation reveals that they also make our roads more dangerous and our legal system less fair. False-Positives When jurisdictions first decide to begin photo ticketing, officials uniformly swear by the uncanny accuracy and fairness of the traffic cameras. If you're doing nothing wrong, they say, you need not fear our machines. But if you think that anyone who doesn't speed on public roads or run red lights has nothing to fear, think again. Consider the case of Don Zimmerman, a Minneapolis, MN resident with a spotless driving record. Stopped at a red light in August 2005, Zimmerman prepared to make a left-hand turn from a one-way street onto another one-way street. He inched his car slightly forward and allowed his front tires to cross the first line of the crosswalk. The light turned green, and Zimmerman slowly turned his Ford Focus around the corner. A series of flashes illuminated his rear-view mirror. Six weeks later, Zimmerman opened his mailbox to find a $142 ticket for running the red light. The ticket shocked Zimmerman, so he went online to check a video recording of the incident -- and saw that it proved nothing. So he took the next day off from work, paid $20 to store his car in a downtown garage (using a short-term metered spot would have guaranteed a parking ticket), and waited at city hall. Three-and-a-half hours later, a hearing officer looked at the video and agreed that Zimmerman was innocent. The officer then apologized because he actually had no authority to drop the fine. Zimmerman would have to go to court for that. Exasperated, Zimmerman decided he wasn't about to pay another $20 and wait in line all over again. So instead of following instructions, he called a local television news reporter who threatened to televise Zimmerman's court hearing. The local police captain moved swiftly to dismiss the citation. Zimmerman's story exposes one of the most significant problems arising from the use of machines to enforce traffic laws: Machines are incapable of fairness (let alone basic judgment), and they can't be cross-examined. This bothersome reality conflicts with the common-law principle of due process, and so our legal system must adapt to the concept of an unthinking device being the sole witnesses of a victimless crime. Most states -- with the exception of California, Arizona and Illinois -- side-step the issue by defining photo enforcement violations as "civil infractions" instead of "crimes." Civil infractions were institutionalized as a way to collect parking ticket revenue (now its own multi-billion dollar business) while eliminating the pesky, old-fashioned concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The few states that maintain the criminal court system for photo tickets do so at a heavy cost: Overburdened courts get plagued with even more dockets (with taxpayers shouldering the bill), and drivers suffer higher insurance premiums for simply receiving camera citations -- the drivers' actual guilt or innocence notwithstanding. Camera supporters like to trumpet the point that even if a camera does make a mistake, it's no big deal because the driver has the right to a fair hearing where the ticket can be challenged. That's due process enough, they say. After all, it's not like mistaken tickets are a regular occurrence. Unless you're Don Zimmerman. In December 2005, Zimmerman opened his mailbox and found another ticket for allegedly running a red light. Once again he checked the online video, which clearly revealed that it was the driver in an adjacent lane who tripped the sensor. Zimmerman bypassed his "fair hearing" and went straight to KARE television reporter Bernie Grace. In an interview with Grace, Minneapolis Police Captain Greg Reinhardt insisted that a police officer reviews every video to ensure only the guilty receive a ticket. Zimmerman scoffed at the notion. "Either he has cataracts in his eyes," Zimmerman told us, "or he's reading the camera in Braille or something. There's no way anyone viewed that video." The Minnesota camera enforcement program, like most of its type, takes advantage of those who don't want to go to the trouble and expense of issuing a challenge that can end up costing as much as the ticket itself. For all but a handful of drivers, it's much easier to write the check and be done with it. Safety First? Camera supporters argue that while their brainless sentries might make occasional mistakes, they're still worthwhile if they save just a single human life. With speed cameras, for example, the conventional wisdom is that drivers will see the cameras, and slow down to avoid being ticketed. Slower is safer, after all. With red light cameras, the assumption is that drivers fearing a ticket will decide not to gun it through an intersection, potentially T-boning a car headed the other way. Those who do receive tickets learn a valuable lesson, and share their cautionary tales with other drivers. There can be no better way of educating the public about safe driving. Indeed, a number of studies funded by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) claim fantastic reductions in the number of violations and accidents in areas where cameras are introduced. But these safety claims merit a closer look -- especially when you consider that the IIHS is wholly funded by the nation's top insurance firms, and the insurance industry makes billions from license points issued with traffic citations. The first thing worth noting is that a high percentage of traffic camera tickets actually go to out-of-towners. A 2006 study of speed camera tickets issued Washington, D.C. indicated that about 80 percent of the citations went to non-District residents. (To date, the District has mailed out 2,952,333 photo fines -- the equivalent of five for each resident.) In Loma Linda, CA, 93 percent of the violations recorded last year were issued to drivers who were passing through the city. These numbers are relevant because negative-reinforcement therapy applied to out-of-towners does little to increase the safety consciousness of local residents. This very issue was raised by Jim Bizieff, a police lieutenant in Union City, CA, which runs a red-light camera program. In an internal memo to his police chief, he discussed the experience of the neighboring city of Fremont, which had a camera program of its own. Bizieff wrote, "They believe that due to the huge volume of commuter traffic, that most violators are not local and the education/enforcement effort does not create a long-term reduction in violations for that reason." (View full memo in 260k PDF file) Bizieff's memo documents another interesting fact: In Union City, the profit from each $361 red-light citation is split between the state, Union City, and Redflex, the Australian company that sets up the cameras, photographs drivers, mails the tickets, collects the cash, and, in many cases, offers the testimony in hearings. Redflex promised Union City that its system would generate about 1,897 photos each month. Sure enough, the first month's numbers were just about right on the money, with $547,560 worth of tickets mailed. (This dollar amounts represents about 1,500 tickets. The Union City cameras actually photographed more cars, but some photos were thrown out because they lacked clarity, or showed police cars or ambulances tripping the camera.) Then something interesting happened. At one of the camera intersections (Union City Boulevard and Lowry Road), the number of citations plunged from 309 in September to 80 in December. Such a quick 58 percent drop in the number of violations would seem to indicate that the cameras were working as promised. Or was something else going on? "The initial projections, as well as the first few weeks of operation, were based on faulty yellow light timings," Bizieff's memo explains. "October 2005 was the first full month with the system operating with the correct yellow light timings. There is an obvious drop-off in incidents and citations from August to October." To put Bizieff's memo in perspective, it's important to know that the duration of a yellow light has a profound effect on safety. Imagine what would happen if you were approaching an intersection, and the light flashed yellow for just a half-second before changing to red. If you were far enough back when the yellow flashed, you would have no problem stopping. But picture yourself closer to the crosswalk when the light flashes yellow. You're now faced with a split-second decision -- either run the red light or slam on the brakes and risk a rear-end collision. Engineers use the term "dilemma zone" to describe the moment of confusion created by inadequate yellow warning times. Stuck in the dilemma zone, many motorists choose to run the imminent red light as the lesser of two evils. Given the obvious importance of proper yellow light timing, you might assume Union City fixed its timing problem willingly. You'd be wrong. Dave Goodson, a motorist with an engineering background, performed a number of measurements and calculations after receiving a ticket at Union City Boulevard and Lowry Road. His case forced Union City's traffic engineers to concede that they had set the yellow signal time 1.3 seconds too short. The timings weren't faulty, they were illegal. They were also profitable. Regressing Behavior It turns out the financial success of red light cameras depends on short yellow light durations. According to a report by the California State Auditor, more than three out of every four red-light camera tickets were given for violations that happened when the light had been red for less than one second. What's more, the vast majority of the tickets were the results of infractions that happened within the blink of an eye, literally less than 0.4 seconds. Union City's camera vendor, Redflex, despite knowing the importance of yellow light durations to their bottom line, assured the city police that the reduction in photographed violations was only temporary. Bizieff reported that Redflex told him that the city, "should expect a rebound in following months with citation numbers gradually approaching, but falling short of, the original numbers." Did this happen? Nope. A year later, Union City red light violations were still down -- by 73 percent in the period since the yellow light timings were properly set. Indeed, longer yellow timings make our roads safer. This is backed up by the Texas Transportation Institute, which concluded that an additional second of yellow light time can cut not just violations, but also accidents by 40 percent. Such an encouraging conclusion runs counter to what you'll read in studies (usually funded by the insurance industry) that celebrate red-light cameras -- and not longer yellows -- as boons to public safety. What these biased studies don't explain is that a statistical phenomenon known as "regression to the mean" often explains decreasing accident rates. Think about it this way. When a jurisdiction decides to install traffic safety cameras, the first practical question is, Where should they be installed? The answer is obvious: in locations that have had a lot of accidents. Let's take the hypothetical example of a certain road that normally has about two fatal accidents a year. One day, a van full of people loses control and rolls down a cliff, killing six people instantly. That road's fatality tally jumps to eight for that year, making it a prime candidate for camera installations. So speed cameras are installed. The next year, without any fluke van accidents, fatalities settle back down to two per annum. This return to an average number is known as the regression to the mean. You could have installed potted plants to monitor the road, and produced the same result -- but this doesn't stop public officials from holding a photo op to celebrate the cameras as the cause of success. Make no mistake, regressions to the mean are recognized by traffic engineers; they're just not publicized. We give you the case of an official U.K. Department for Transport report, which attributed a 54.5 percent reduction in accidents to speed cameras. Sadly, the fact that regression to the mean accounted for 44.1 percent of this "success" wasn't mentioned until the appendix way at the end of the document. Studying the U.K's accident rates a bit further is useful, because one can barely drive a few miles without seeing a speed camera on the island. Indeed, the U.K. is now home to more than 6,000 cameras, and about two million drivers are ticketed every year for driving just a few miles per hour over the limit. In 1991, the year before speed camera citations were first issued, there was a total of 311,368 injury accidents in the U.K. One decade and 3,561,817 automated speeding citations later, injury accidents had not declined at all -- the 2001 total stood at 313,309, despite significant advances in trauma care, road engineering, and vehicle safety equipment, such as airbags and ABS. After 2001, U.K. government statistics did begin showing a decline in the number of serious accidents -- but were the stats valid? After all, the British Medical Journal found that the road injury rate increased slightly from 90.0 per 100,000 population in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004, and this conclusion was drawn from the review of actual hospital records. In explaining this discrepancy, an official government watchdog group, the Statistics Commission, said last year, "There is known undercounting of road accidents in police statistics which are used to... inform policies on traffic safety." In other words, in the profit-driven world of camera enforcement, reports are being manipulated to make speed cameras appear more effective than they really are. It gets worse when we turn our attention to red light cameras, since these devices can actually introduce hazards of their own. When a motorist knows a camera is watching, he's wont to slam on his brakes at a yellow light rather than risk a ticket. In these cases, the camera does indeed keep the driver from running the red. But if the motorist behind doesn't know a camera is watching and is caught off-guard by the lead car's sudden braking, he'll rear-end the car that stopped early. Indeed, studies prove that red-light cameras lead to more rear-end collisions -- in some cities up to 139 percent more, according to a 2007 study sponsored by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Though this effect is well-documented, it's often dismissed by camera supporters who suggest that rear-enders are merely "fender benders," and are acceptable alternatives to the "deadly" T-bones that cameras prevent. Sounds plausible enough, right? After all, when you're struck from behind, you have a trunk and large crumple zone to protect you. Conversely, just thin sheet metal and a pane of glass offer protection during a side impact. Right? Well, it turns out that rear-end collisions can be plenty injurious. We'll give you the case of Winnipeg, Canada, whose city auditor obtained data on every intersection accident that occurred in town between 2002 and 2004. The data was collected by Manitoba Public Insurance, which, as the province's only insurance company, had the sole burden of paying the hospital and repair bills. Now, keep in mind, this insurance carrier was providing numbers on actual costs, not statistical estimates, which are often quoted in studies of this type. The Winnipeg auditor found that the number of injuries at intersections with red light cameras jumped 64 percent. The cost of property damage claims increased up to 113 percent -- all despite a significant drop in the number of T-bone collisions. With devastating results like this, it's difficult to see how rear-enders can be considered "low-impact" accidents. Several U.S. studies have reached similar conclusions. The Washington Post discovered in October 2005 that injury accidents increased 81 percent (and total accidents doubled) at D.C. intersections equipped with red light cameras. In the same Virginia DOT study that reports red-light cameras cause more rear-end collisions, we learn that while T-bone accidents decreased slightly, the overall number of injury accidents increased -- by as much as 24 percent. Follow the Money So if safety isn't the primary motivation behind camera enforcement, what is? To find the answer, in 2006 a reporter for the U.K.'s Daily Mail posed as an Eastern European looking to buy a speed system. A few cocktails at a posh restaurant brought out the truth from Jon Bond, the former Warwickshire Police Chief Superintendent and current CEO of Tele-Traffic UK Ltd., the number one U.K. vendor of laser speed cameras. A hidden camera captured a speed camera executive and former police chief admitting that their photo enforcement tools were part of a "scam." The systems make "buckets of cash," Bond told the reporter. "There will be so much money coming in, you won't know what to do with it." Ironically, these damning words were captured on a hidden television camera. Profit motives also drive the issue in the United States. In 2001, I spoke with Ron Arnone, a former employee of Lockheed Martin IMS -- then the red light camera contractor for San Diego, California. Arnone served as a leading witness in a criminal traffic court trial in which hundreds of defendants joined together to fight the machines that had accused them of running red lights. Arnone told me (as well as testified) that money was the only topic photo enforcement employees ever talked about behind the scenes. He said safety was the last thing on their minds, a fact confirmed by confidential memos obtained during the trial. Judge Ronald L. Styn absorbed this information and ruled, "The evidence obtained from the red light camera system as presently operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted." The fact is, despite all the legal, ethical, fairness, and safety problems they introduce, traffic cameras are just too attractive a revenue source for local and state governments to turn down. Even San Diego couldn't resist re-installing cameras a few years after Styn's rebuke . There's still hope, as the camera issue is blowing up in court rooms across the nation. The Minneapolis camera program that bedeviled Don Zimmerman shut down in September 2006 after a state court of appeals found the program violated state law, a decision upheld this year by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court is currently hearing a challenge to speed cameras, and early this year, court rulings forced San Jose, CA to drop the speed camera program it had operated since 1996. San Jose was using speed cameras despite a specific law the California legislature wrote in 2000 stating that it, "does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction." You would think this wording is clear enough, but it's not. In fact, just this March, the California Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority -- a governmental group with jurisdiction that stretches from Santa Monica to Simi Valley -- signed a contract to set up speed cameras just outside the famous Hollywood Bowl. With local governments blatantly flouting legislation, it's clear that drivers must get directly involved to protect their rights. Indeed, in the four times that photo ticketing has been the subject of a referendum, the people loudly and clearly said "no" each time. Last year, for example, 76 percent of voters in Steubenville, OH rejected speed cameras. Cameras have also been rejected in Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. If traffic cameras are on the horizon in your area, contact your representatives and demand the public have a say in the matter. If it's too late and you've received a photo ticket, fight it. Californians, in particular, should take advantage of a free website, www.highwayrobbery.net, to learn more about how to beat automated tickets. And all drivers would do well to heed Don Zimmerman's advice: "Don't ever pay a ticket until you go online, and are sure you're guilty." First published in the Summer 2007 edition of High Performance Driving magazine.

Front Page | Get Updates | Site Map | About Us | Search | TheNewspaper.com: Driving politics