poor stats

In a recent blog I wrote that the public dislikes red-light and speed-enforcement cameras, but apparently that's just not so (actually, my point was that the public didn't like the idea of using such technology to raise revenue, and the solution I offered was for people to stop speeding and running red lights).

But that aside, this USA Today article published some real numbers regarding the public's perception of cameras and other traffic-enforcement policies. A recent survey by the Center for Excellence in Rural Safety at the University of Minnesota found that the public actually doesn't hate this technology as much as expected.

Apparently, 64 percent of Americans support the use of automated speed enforcement using cameras and radar systems. I think that's pretty high, really. (P.S. I'm not sure if it's relevant or not that this study focuses on "rural" safety and not "urban" safety. I would think the number would be lower for city dwellers who drive in a lot more traffic and probably go through a lot more lights, but I've been wrong before.)

This study also surveyed the public's perception of things like alcohol ignition interlocks, mandatory helmet laws, sobriety checkpoints and seat belt laws, and found generally high approval ratings for such policies.

And I'm not the only one surprised by these numbers:
"We were surprised by the level of support for these strategies," says Lee Munnich, director of the center, established by the 2005 federal transportation act and sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration to research rural road safety. "In many states, it's been difficult to get legislators to pass some of the tougher restrictions."

But, there is still a significant amount of resistance on the part of many states. According to this article, there are a number of states restricting the use of cameras:

At least six states — Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia — prohibit camera enforcement, according to Anne Teigen, a transportation policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures; Nevada exempts cameras operated by an officer or installed in a police vehicle or facility. Arkansas, New Jersey and Wisconsin prohibit speed cameras. Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana and Tennessee are considering bans on camera enforcement, she says.

Perhaps legislators in these states should start listening to their constituents. Plus, enforcing a lot of these policies does bring in additional revenue and who can argue against more money?

The debate about video surveillance being used to identify and automate traffic crimes continues to be hot news in the mainstream media. This article in USA Today discusses how some states are dealing with this controversy.

First up is red-light cameras. These are mounted on traffic lights and identify and ticket vehicles that run red lights. Basically, the camera snaps a picture of the license plate and automatically mails the offender a ticket. To me, that's a great use of technology. It's the same as having a police officer patrolling every intersection, right? And they're becoming fairly common:

Red-light cameras are used in 441 communities in 25 states and the District of Columbia and speed cameras in at least 56 communities in 12 states and D.C., the Insurance Institute says.

And apparently they're effective:
A federal study found that red-light cameras cause a 25% decrease in broadside crashes and a 15% increase in less deadly rear-end crashes.

So that means less people are running red lights and smashing into oncoming cars, but more people are rear-ending each other, likely out of fear the cameras will catch them if they try to make it through the yellow light.

The public doesn't love red-light cameras, but really have it out for speed cameras apparently. In some places, these cameras are ticketing drivers going 10-15 miles an hour over the limit and people aren't happy about it. For example, in Ridgeland, S.C. where the state's first speed cameras will be installed this summer the average ticket will be $130 for 10-15 mph over the speed limit, according to the publication.

There are several other examples of states and cities using and/or banning such technology, but one of the primary issues the article focuses on is that these cameras are only being put in place to generate revenue:

"In principle, I think photo enforcement is valid if it's done right. You can't have a cop everywhere, and yet the law is supposed to be enforced everywhere," says Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the non-profit, libertarian Reason Foundation, which researches public policy. "The problem is a lot of times, cities go into this looking mainly at revenue rather than safety."

So what if cities are making a little bit of money with these installations? Good, it's about time there's some real ROI for security applications and wow if they can actually make money from it. It's not like municipalities are exactly rolling in dough these days. If you, as a citizen, don't want to contribute to that fund, I suggest you not speed or run red lights and if you do, know you're taking a risk. People always knew they were taking a risk when doing such illegal activity and I think they're just upset because there's a better chance of getting caught.