Talk:Red light camera

Done

Edited so that the article better reflects a neutral point of view and includes content on the parent traffic enforcement camera article. Leightonwalter (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited so that the article better reflects a neutral point of view; reinstates information about investigatory tactics used by the police. User:einsteininmyownmind 15 July 2009

added reference to the web site www.thenewspaper.com. Kielhofer 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

Attention needed

• World view !!! Article still is US based...
• Check content
• reassess once work done

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're being overly polite. This article is an utter mess. It needs extensive overhaul in content, style (reads like a school report, full of colloquial language), support, and just about every other aspect. I am working on some improvements and will post them when I get a chance. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, this is just a note to correspond with the Robotics project tag parameter "Attention needed" so that when we sweep through them every couple of months we know why it was tagged as needing action :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the cost of fines in the US, as it varies by at least a factor of ten, from one locale to another. Further, while most locales treat the violations civilly, akin to a parking ticket (you can get as many as you can afford to pay), others handle them just like any other moving violation, including the assessment of one or more demerit points. When I was deciding which section to put my paragraph in, I did not find any one section which stood out as the best place. I ended up placing my info in the Usage section. I hope that others will expand the information, perhaps to where it merits its own section or subsection. Einsteininmyownmind (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this a valid source? http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsIndustryPRMain.html It looks like some guy with no skills and a chip on his shoulder created a webpage. It's a quarter step above a blog... Reallypablo (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested draft to improve this article

I am posting this note hoping to catch the attention of a capable editor who can help me improve this article. It's a subject I care about and know well, because I work with American Traffic Solutions, a developer of traffic enforcement technologies. (The company is currently mentioned in the article.) Now, being naturally cautious, I have read the conflict of interest guideline and see that I may be too close to edit without outside input. It is after all a subject of some controversy.

However, the current article faces other challenges that other editors have not resolved. Earlier this year, a discussion was held about whether to merge this article or not, and while it seems that it won't be, a note at the top of the article remains. An editor has also pointed out the article does not now contain a "worldwide view" of the topic, and I agree this is a fair criticism. I also think the sections are too long in the current version, and readers are unlikely to get very far. To address these issues and make it better overall, I have been working on a better version of this article for several months offline, and I recently created this account specifically to suggest changes to this article. My attempt to write a better draft can be reviewed within my user account area here: User:VenturaHighway/Red light camera

My version does not include the photographs which are now in use, although I think they should be included, or more could be added. It is not my intention to make any edits that will contravene Wikipedia's guidelines, so I will be looking for help and advice from other editors. There is so much information in both the current version and mine that it all may be a little overwhelming, but I would be very grateful for someone who is interested in helping make this article a better resource. Thanks in advance. --VenturaHighway (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome on Wikipedia, and thanks for your cautious, forthright approach to improving this article given your likely conflict of interest. There's a great deal of good material in the draft text you've put together, and I think a lot of what you've written would be a large improvement over the analogous text in the present article. However, there is also material in the present article that ought to remain because it is more neutral, more balanced, more complete, or suchlike. I haven't got time right this minute to work on incorporating your text into the article. You mention you "work with" ATS. Can you elaborate, please? That covers a lot of ground. This is a contentious topic, as you can see, and disclosure as full as possible will make your edits a great deal more durable. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be happy to see this new version in here with some minor tweaks.

At the moment the first sentence in the current version says:

• "captures an image of a vehicle moving through a signalized intersection traffic moving in the direction of that vehicle has a red signal."

That is one of the worst opening sentences I have ever seen on here. The lead then goes on to say:

• "most red light running is caused by engineering defects" and
• "This defect guarantees a steady stream of cars running red lights"

It is even cited!

I am tweaking the draft. Feel free to revert me if you feel the edits are not worthy. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the quick response. I know anonymity is allowed on Wikipedia, so I would prefer that, but I also wanted to stay on the right side of disclosure guidelines. As I understand it, the focus need not be on the author, but on the work presented, so I’d rather let the article and its sources speak for themselves. I hope this is OK. I certainly encourage you both to work with my draft as you see fit, and if you think some or all of it is OK to replace what's in the current entry, please do. If it needs more work, I can help with research if needed, as well. --VenturaHighway (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's asking for your name or anything, but "I work with ATS" could mean anything from you mow the lawn in front of the corporate HQ to you're the CEO of the company to you're a paid lobbyist...what angle are you coming from? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests"
• "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

Regarding the proposed draft:

• There is only a small sentence dealing with the company, "American Traffic Systems (subsequently American Traffic Solutions) (ATS) and Redflex Traffic Systems emerged as the primary suppliers of red light camera systems in the US,[18]"

The citation seems fine, a duplicate of the article from The Arizona Republic and the info is correctly represented.

• There is no other mention of the company. There is no peacocking, fluff, puffery or other inflammatory self promotion.

I cannot see any evidence of COI. There is a presumed possible COI if you had just said "This is me" and then started puffing up the ATS info. That has not happened though. You declared first, said "check this out" and have only mentioned your company once in one sentence.

I cannot see what any further delving into this editors position in the company is going to achieve. It is obvious from their writing style that they are fairly well educated and able to string a sentence together to the extent that I am pretty sure this is not the gardener :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New York State law has been amended to allow camera enforcement of signals in four more cities and two counties. Otherwise, I think this is a lot better than the current article. It's more NPOV and more readible.--'Triskele Jim (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The "current" article as of when? Most of the suggested improvements were incorporated into the article text yesterday. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Hello again, Scheinwerfermann and Chaosdruid. Please accept my apologies for posting the request about the introduction elsewhere than here. Continuing, I see that the final sentence of the introduction has now changed from "Studies have shown that using these cameras does not necessarily increase safety, in some cases accident rates have increased once they were installed" to "Studies on the safety effects of red light cameras have reached a range of conclusions." This is better than before, but not the most accurate explanation. Knowing the degree of controversy surrounding the topic, I think accuracy here is especially important. It is certainly true that some studies have shown that some types of accident rates do increase (as noted in my draft and the current article) but these studies have also found that the overall effect is to decrease accident rates. For example, a 2003 statement by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[1]:

Last year, the Institute critically reviewed crash-based studies of red light camera programs throughout the world. Virtually all reported crash reductions —some larger than the Oxnard study, some smaller—in injury crashes. The variability of the findings reflects methodological differences across the studies. Nevertheless, the body of evidence indicates that red light cameras are beneficial. They reduce injury crashes by about 25 to 30 percent, and that’s after accounting for some small increase in rear-end crashes.

Another source, the ITE Journal[2] in review of more than 45 national and international studies found a substantial reduction in red-light violation rates, reduced crashes from red-light running and right-angle collisions:

The findings described above are the results of many different evaluations performed on differing data of differing sample sizes for differing types of intersections using different evaluation methods. However, the trends are quite clear and undeniable even if the numerical values may not be fully certain.

If installed at locations with significant red light running crashes and/or violations, over a group of intersections, red light cameras:

• Substantially reduce red light violation rates;
• Reduce crashes that result from red light running;
• Usually reduce right-angle collisions;
• May result in an increase in rear-end collisions;
• May or may not reduce total crashes, but rarely result in a substantial increase; and
• Usually reduce crash severity by virtue of reducing the more severe right-angle crashes while sometimes increasing the less severe rear-end collisions.

Both sources are used in the article. Given the complexity of analyzing the studies concerning this topic, I believe my original submission to be sufficient for the introduction that it simply stated both sides and did not conclude with a summary statement. If a summary statement is needed, I suggest something similar to what IIHS wrote: "Worldwide studies have shown that red light cameras provide a net benefit through reduced injury crashes, even when small increases in rear end crashes are taken into account." To quote again from the IIHS original: "Last year, the Institute critically reviewed crash-based studies of red light camera programs throughout the world. … Nevertheless, the body of evidence indicates that red light cameras are beneficial. They reduce injury crashes by about 25 to 30 percent, and that’s after accounting for some small increase in rear-end crashes." What do you think? VenturaHighway (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

VenturaHighway, keeping in mind your professional affiliation with a provider of red-light cameras, it looks to me as if you are walking towards the direction of POV-pushing and conflict of interest, and I wish you'd please take a step or two back. This what we're talking about is the article's lede. Its job is to provide a very concise, general overview of the article's scope and content. The present wording does exactly that, quite neutrally in accord with WP:NPOV.

It is not in dispute that studies of RLC efficacy have reached a range of conclusions. That range of conclusions, and the studies that reached them, and the issues and politics and analyses and veracity of those studies and their conclusions are all discussed in good, reasonably balanced and neutral, and well-supported detail in the relevant section of the article. We amply cover the conclusions and positions of many parties including the IIHS, and we also cover criticism of the IIHS as having strong financial motivation to support RLCs and therefore not necessarily quite fully objective; our job here is not to promulgate IIHS position statements (whether or not we tweak their wording).

As with most any complicated phenomenon, there are many ways of looking at it and many different interests pushing their own points of view. You were completely correct that it was not appropriate for the sentence in question to be POV-loaded against RLCs, and by that same token I do not think it is appropriate to POV-load the sentence in favour of RLCs. Nor do I think it is a good idea to lard the lede. Let it do its job, and let readers get the extensive, detailed coverage of the matter from the relevant section of the article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Scheinwerfermann. I hope you can appreciate it is my intention to avoid creating COI or NPOV problems (and I have read carefully about this), and this is why I have refrained from direct edits to the article and why I have chosen to discuss this on here on the talk page. I have to say that I do not appreciate being discouraged from offering my perspective, and I trust that we can continue to discuss the matter on the merits. It does seem that we have a difference of opinion about how to best represent this information. Because I want this to be about the facts, I have taken a few days to prepare carefully.

To be clear, I believe no sentence summarizing the findings of the various surveys is necessary, and I still suggest it simply can be removed. However, if there is to be one, it should not imply a balance where there is not one. While the statement that studies of RLC use have come to "a range of conclusions" is not false, it is misleading by implying a false balance.

In your reply to me above, you have questioned the objectivity of IIHS, and while I disagree they are unreliable here, they are hardly the only source for this conclusion. For example, you did not address the report from ITE Journal. ITE Journal is published by the Institute of Transprotation Engineers, established in 1931. From its website: "The Journal is written by and for transportation engineers, transportation planners and others responsible for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods on our surface transportation systems."[3] They are a reliable and reputable arbiter on this topic, and their conclusion (quoted above) upon reviewing 45 worldwide studies is that RLCs on balance are a benefit. Surely this recent (2010) study is useful in establishing this point.

Another supporting survey is "Automated Enforcement: A Compendium of Worldwide Evaluations of Results"[4] released by NHTSA in 2007. It reviewed 14 studies, including 7 given a detailed evaluation. Here is what it says: "General findings across the key studies were consistent with those found in earlier studies. That is, a decrease in right-angle crashes occurred; with a concomitant increase in rearend crashes. When violation frequencies were considered, the results were consistent with previous studies that found decreases in red light running violations—even at non-treatment intersection sites. In addition, several studies conducted an economic effects analysis based on an aggregation of right-angle and rear-end crash costs for various injury severity levels. The studies revealed that RLCs provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit. RLCs contributed more to decreasing fatal and injury-producing angle and left-turn crashes than to decreasing PDO [property damage only] crashes."

On the other side, the best organized group is the National Motorists Association, and they host studies that support their opposition to RLCs on their website, here [5]. There is only one study of studies there, a 2003 Transportation Research Board study called "National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 310, Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience-A Synthesis of Highway Practice". While this one did not find RLCs created a safer environment, it also stated: "As the use of automated systems becomes more widespread and more mature, there will be better opportunities to conduct the research needed to reach a conclusive finding and to provide guidelines for where these systems may be appropriate."

And since 2003 numerous studies have shown there is a safety benefit, including one from "Houston’s Digital Automated Red Light Enforcement Program, Revised Report"[6] by Rice University and the Texas Transportation Institute in November 2009. This one found "lower levels of collisions of all types at monitored approaches after the implementation of cameras compared with these same approaches before cameras were introduced. These lower levels of collision rates are statistically significant at the 90% or 95% level of confidence. … These findings lead us to conclude that the reduction in collisions at monitored approaches is due in large part to the introduction of red light cameras at these intersection approaches."

The underlying point here is that while individual studies have arrived at various conclusions, when these studies have been reviewed in aggregate by reputable scientific journals, university research departments and government review boards, the result is quite consistently a finding that RLCs provide an overall safety benefit. My suggested replacement sentence again is:

Worldwide studies have shown that red light cameras provide a net benefit through reduced injury crashes, even when small increases in rear end crashes are taken into account.

This is not a "larded" sentence, it is simply an accurate summary of widespread findings. I do not see why this should be considered a controversial change. It is more informative than the current sentence and amply supported by reliable sources. Please let me know if you agree, or explain why my logic is flawed. Thanks. VenturaHighway (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's discouraging you from offering your perspective; don't let's get peevish. Your primary suggestion to remove the sentence in question altogether is probably the best way forward; the extensive study and meta-analysis of RLCs is amply covered in the studies and politics subsection of the article. Take a look at the tweak I just made to the lede; what do you think?

As for the meta-analyses themselves, we'll likely continue to disagree on the purity of IIHS' motives, but I agree with you that no rational basis exists to look askance at ITE or their conclusions. The NHTSA text you cite is quite illustrative, though I'm not entirely sure it supports your position quite as firmly as it looks like you might like to believe. I work very closely with a great deal of NHTSA research, and the language they use is a very intricate weave of engineering, politics, science, and legal syntax. This is not at all to dismiss NHTSA or their research, but rather to say that often what they mean by what they say is nowhere near so clearly apparent or unambiguous as it seems. I go on this tangent to underscore my previous point: there are many ways to look at an issue such as RLCs' safety performance. Overall crash cost is certainly a valid way to look at the issue, but it is not the only way, and it may not necessarily be the only apposite way. It's often politically or commercially expedient for various interested parties to latch onto a particular prism through which to view a phenomenon, but any individual such prism is going to have its blind spots and its distortions, to stretch the analogy. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think that is a better way to go. And I appreciate that you've heard me out this far. I've just made one more tweak, moving the fact of ongoing research into the middle of the sentence, for readability. Hope that is all right, and that I am still exercising great caution in doing so. VenturaHighway (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks very fine to me! Very appropriate for the lede. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Further questions

Reading further this week, I realized there are some problems with sourcing in this version of the article, specifically changes made after my draft. I think this may have been done to preserve some of the information from the previous article, but that information seems to be erroneous. Specifically it's information culled from Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida? that is used twice in the "North America" section.

The first sentence this source is used to support is this: "This FHWA study has been criticized on grounds that one of its co-directors has performed research for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which represents an industry that profits significantly from red light camera surcharges." The problem: this is too interpretive from the study, while there is a better way to summarize it. In the section "Why Do Some Studies Conclude Cameras Reduce Crashes and Injuries?" It does say this: "The university professor who co-directed this study and provided the methodological ideas has also conducted research for the IIHS." It points this out, but it doesn't extend to criticism. For what it's worth, the professor indicated is highly respected in the industry (his CV) and the study was peer-reviewed. At best it implies that the study should be considered carefully, and the authors of this study disagree with some of the methodology. An alternative version of this sentence might say that other studies have identified potential areas of disagreement with the study's design, rather than speculating on hidden motives, which is not clearly supported.

My second point is a little more straightforward: the following (highly confusing) sentence is attributed to the article: "(…)the authors spotlight the statistical difficulties of including the cost of fatalities, while ignoring the practical implications of such events", assuming that each angle injury crash had a societal cost of $64,468, when in fact the cost was $82,816 before camera use and $100,176 after camera use(…)" -- the problem is very simple: it does not appear in the article. I conducted a Google search for one of the phrases, and the top hit was Wikipedia. Other uses of the phrase also seem to be copied from Wikipedia. I don't know if this was falsified or what, but it doesn't seem verifiable, and I think it should be removed. Not to mention it's confusing, and by making the change above, the same point is still made.

Looking forward to other editors' feedback. Thanks. VenturaHighway (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional refs added. Specific detail on your second point: I'm not sure how, but it looks as if you might have overlooked the direct sources of the quote you assert doesn't appear in the linked article. It certainly does; see page two here, right hand column, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I see where the quote originally came from. It was initially attributed to the wrong source, and I failed to find it on Google. I see that you have updated this, but if you look again you will see that there is erroneous use of a closing quotation mark without an opening one. I can fix this, but perhaps you would prefer to do that.

My point remains that the way the study is described in the article now is imparting more detail than is actually supported. The UCF study says this about the FWHA study co-director: "The university professor who co-directed this study and provided the methodological ideas has also conducted research for the IIHS." That is all it says about the co-director. It doesn’t criticize his work and it doesn’t even identify the researcher by name. How does one get from that to "This FHWA study has been criticized on grounds that one of its co-directors has performed research for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a private corporation representing the auto insurance industry that profits significantly from insurance surcharges on drivers ticketed by red light cameras"?

The sources you have provided show these are quite clearly blogs, and it is my understanding that blogs are considered self-published sources and not meant to be used as sources in Wikipedia articles. Wise Up Winnipeg is an activist blog that has been around for a handful of months. The other is the blog of a personal physician, who is not a recognized expert in road safety, and he even backs off the claim in the sentence following what you have highlighted.

If this charge, which would be serious if there was more than innuendo to it, has not been voiced by a recognized industry expert, or lent credence in a truly reliable source, I ask that you reconsider and remove this. It is, as I say, merely innuendo, and does not illuminate the subject. Thank you. VenturaHighway (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, I'd still like to discuss the issues I have raised above, and I'd like to continue my point as well. In particular, I think the second half of the statement, describing IIHS in the "Studies and politics"/"North America" section is improperly represented. This phrase specifically: "…a private corporation representing the auto insurance industry that profits significantly from insurance surcharges on drivers ticketed by red light cameras."

First, none of the sources demonstrate that IIHS "represents" the auto insurance industry. According to the IIHS website: "The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and property damage — from crashes on the nation's highways." Also, IIHS is an organization, not a corporation.

Second one of the three sources provide any proof that "insurance surcharges on drivers ticketed by red light cameras" exist. Insurance premiums vary depending in part upon a person's driving record, but that’s the case for any traffic law infraction that's reported to the insurance companies. Facts are that most states do not assign driver license points to drivers who receive red light camera tickets, so insurance companies don’t even know who is getting a ticket. To quote the IIHS on this point:

"A few jurisdictions treat automated enforcement citations just like parking tickets in that the registered owner is liable. Similarly, just as parking tickets do not result in points or are not recorded on a driver's record, many jurisdictions do not assess points or make a record of automated enforcement citations."[7]

Third, my second point makes this almost unnecessary, but I’ll address it: the three sources for this statement do not prove whether the auto insurance industry’s profits are "significant" in any way. While the Wake Up Winnipeg blog states that the UCF study "cites Florida data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which shows that insurance profits skyrocketed from 2000 to 2004 – from $8.7 billion to $14 billion" the writer is misquoting the original source, which uses the word "premiums" and not "profits." As for the blog by Duffy Ballard, he writes about "the question of conflict of interest – the IIHS is funded by the insurance industry, an industry that benefits not only if there are fewer car accidents but also if more drivers accumulate points on their license (increased fees for these drivers)." I addressed the points and fees issues above, but he presents this conflict of interest point as a possibility, not a fact, and he says nothing about the insurance industry profiting "significantly" from surcharges.

I hope you will consider my points as they are focused on evidence in sources and presented in good faith. I would slike to assist in making this section more accurate than it is now. Thank you, VenturaHighway (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point to make about this article

Despite a few unanswered questions above, I have another issue to raise with the current "Studies and politics"/"North America" section, and the issue is this sentence, which concludes the section's penultimate paragraph:

In 2010, Arizona completed a study of their statewide 76 photo enforcement cameras[71] and decided they would not renew the program in 2011; lower revenue than expected, mixed public acceptance and mixed accident data were cited.[72]

The problem is that this study was not about red light cameras, but instead speed cameras. This is a different application of the technology, and one that has a separate Wikipedia article. This is easily verifiable from the sources already used, but another is an Arizona Republic story from July 15, 2010.[8] It begins:

Arizona ends its groundbreaking speed enforcement program Thursday with the expiration of a company's two-year contract that put dozens of cameras along Phoenix-area freeways and other highways across the state.

If this information should be included anywhere on Wikipedia, it is the speed limit enforcement article. It is off-topic for this article, so it really doesn't belong here, and I suggest that it be removed. Thanks, VenturaHighway (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How are violators identified?

I see nothing in this article that explains how police identify whose vehicle is running the red light. Presumably it's a photo of a license plate? If so, is it the front or rear plate (some states including South Carolina do not have front plates)? Is any effort made to be sure the correct vehicle is identified (for instance, if the license plate is registered to a green Mustang, and the photo is of a red Camaro, what do the police do?)? WilliamWQuick (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw a guy using a $30 water gun remote control helicopter filled with ink to spray the lenses of the cameras to disable them. Would be interesting to include in the wiki a section on other samples of civil protest toward these cameras. Some may be offended.... Others inspired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.209.97 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Drivers said opposition to the red light program doesn't give someone the right to vandalize." http://longisland.news12.com/story/34742166/police-red-light-camera-vandalized-in-coram But "the number of pedestrian fatalities in DC has fallen recently, even as they increase nationally." https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/02/26/complicated-heroism-man-accused-smashing-dc-traffic-cameras/