Virginia DOT Study Shows Cams Increase Injury Accidents
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=117
The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red
light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents.
Virginia DOTA brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light
camera programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occured
where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The Virginia
Transportation Research Council at the request of the state transportation
secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia's camera law
-- motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that
are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona).
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers
found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible"
decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more
injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain
this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has
not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end
collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original
promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and
injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.
1.7mb PDF format
Key Statistic:
Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to a definite
increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net
decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an
increase in total injury crashes. Page xiii
Summary of Empirical Bayes Method (Level 4 Analysis)
[Editor's note: only Fairfax County data reflects the most rigorous
analysis. Other cities did not provide volume, yellow time, and data on
other key factors.] The latter half of Appendix D shows the results of an
Empirical Bayes analysis for Fairfax County crash data only. These results
suggest the following:
* The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to
17%.
* The cameras are correlated with an increase in rear-end crashes
related to the presence of a red light; the increase ranges between 50% and
71%.
* The cameras are correlated with a decrease in crashes attributable to
red light running, and the decrease is between 24% and 33%.
* The cameras are correlated with a decrease in injury crashes
attributable to red light running, with the decrease being between 20% and
33%.
* The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes,
with the increase being between 7% and 24%.
Page 28
...but it obscures the that only a small percentage of crashes are
attributable to red light running. Data from Virginia�s Department of Motor
Vehicles, for example, suggested that in 1998 (a year when no red light
cameras were in operation), only 3.3% of all crashes involved a driver who
�ran traffic control� (DMV, 1999). Page 124
Article Excerpt:
There is a practical issue with regard to issuing citations for red
light running: the Code of Virginia requires that an in-person summons,
rather than certified mail, be used to compel an individual to appear in
court. Because of the high cost of delivering summonses outside Virginia,
this requirement could make the programs administratively difficult for some
localities if it became commonly known that only an in-person summons can
require a vehicle owner either to pay the penalty or to appear in court.
However, the program can still legally continue in its present form without
a change in the Code. Page xii
A Fairfax County assessment showed a 40% reduction in accidents after 3
months of camera operation (Ruby and Hobeika, 2003). A limitation of the
study, however, was that it covered only a 3-month period. Further, the
study did not account for the changes in the yellow time while the impact of
the cameras was examined. Page 13
The one surviving legal worry actually turns out to be a practical
problem, generated by the interaction of the notice provisions in the
enabling statute and the Commonwealth�s other service requirements. Because
the mere mailing of a ticket without personal service by a law enforcement
officer does not constitute sufficient notice under the statute�s own terms,
successful enforcement may require personal in-hand service if the accused
fails to either pay the penalty or come to court. Although the statute
permits the jurisdiction to make the initial attempt to summon the accused
to court via mail, if the person fails to respond, he or she is not
considered to have been satisfactorily served with notice. However, personal
service on all violators is obviously a very expensive proposition,
involving many personnel hours, and would defeat one of the primary
motivating factors for employing automated detection systems in the first
place�a reduction in the number of officers required to enforce red light
laws. Thus, unless a jurisdiction is willing to devote resources to
implementing extensive in-hand service, citations mailed for red light
camera violations become essentially unenforceable. The average citizen is
probably not aware of this loophole, but if word were widely disseminated,
such knowledge could completely undermine the effectiveness of red light
camera programs, as citations issued to violators would lose their practical
impact. Again, this is a practical, but not legal, challenge. Page 17
Source: Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement Programs in Virginia (The
Virginia Transportation Research Council, 1/27/2005)
You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit
www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message
may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights
appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
