Another report from red light cam fight in Chapel Hill [priv]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:56:11 -0500
From: Ben Brunk <brunkb () ruby ils unc edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) 
Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
To: declan () well com, James W <jsuberw () confounding org>
Subject: another account of the Chapel Hill stoplight cameras fight

Declan,

Hello from Chapel Hill.  I thought your readers might like some of the 
inside scoop on what just took place here with regard to the vote to remove 
the stoplight cameras.  It is true, the Town Council voted 5-4 against 
continuing their "Safelight" system.  I sent many letters and e-mails in 
protest of the cameras and there were several local activists (notably, a 
man named Will Raymond) who worked very hard to get this done.  The turning 
point came with the election of two new council members who campaigned on a 
promise to put an end to the system and actually carried through on that 
promise.

One thing that really bothered me about this whole process was how sourly 
politicized the issue became.  The pro-camera people could not win on the 
facts so they resorted to the typical forms of misdirection.
One of the Council members as well as the company (ACS) pulled out all the 
stops in an attempt to sway the debate away from facts and logic and into 
the realm of emotionalism and hand-waving (which is how the cameras came to 
be in the first place).  The Saturday before the vote, ACS had a "question 
and answer" forum at the local library which included a representative from 
ACS handing out all kinds of schwag.  Also present was a woman named Ann 
Sweet from the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running who spoke about 
how her daughter, Shawnee who died after being hit by a red light runner 
(no one from ACS attempted to explain how a stoplight camera system would 
have prevented this tragedy).  ACS is a major contributor to the National 
Campaign to Stop Red Light Running. No bias there, really--only an entirely 
phony grassroots lobby, similar to Americans for Gun Safety.  I think that 
if an investigative journalist were to peel back the layers some more, they 
would uncover a sophisticated public relations and marketing scheme at work 
whereby the companies who want to get cameras installed come to a city and 
blitz the media with pro-camera propaganda, including editorial page 
comments.  If one were to believe media reports during the months leading 
up to the camera vote, one would conclude that red light running was an 
epidemic and people were dying here every day because of it.  Of course, no 
such epidemic existed.  Nothing was any different than before.  Before the 
cameras were voted on the first time, opposition to the cameras was 
virtually shut down.  Every television segment and print article was about 
how cameras increase safety and save lives, but offered no evidence to back 
up those claims.  The original council meeting that took place was 
ridiculous--the vote was already a done deal and concerns of opponents such 
as myself were paid only lip service.  The anti-camera editorials I wrote 
never saw daylight, yet many "local" residents wrote editorials that were 
printed.  I was never able to contact any of those "local" writers, 
however.  I suspect that the council had ACS as a vendor lined up 
beforehand, although the council was ostensibly voting to "seek a vendor to 
implement the cameras."  I wonder how closely the company worked with the 
council and other town employees before the original vote?  The sell job 
was very tightly managed and coordinated.

I find that many of the arguments against the cameras such as privacy, 
privatization of law enforcement, and related matters, are valid but easily 
shot down by cameras supporters.  What camera opponents might better focus 
upon is the unassaible fact that stoplight cameras do not create a 
measurable improvement in intersection safety.  Think about it:  If an 
intersection is already working so that there is only one accident in ten 
thousand crossings (or better), then there is almost no room for 
improvement there.  100% safety is a laudable goal, but not an actual 
physical possibility.   By using that  argument, you throw it back to the 
camera people to defend their proposal.  They will spit out many numbers 
and figures, none of which describe exactly how the cameras supply that 
extra magical  .0001% improvement.
If one bothers to read the NC State study referenced in the articles, the 
author states that cameras should be used as a last resort after all other 
potential fixes have been exhausted (this was never attempted in Chapel 
Hill).  The author's eloquent verbiage attempts to conceal the hard facts 
but his devotion to the scientific method betrays him in the end.  Traffic 
safety literature is rife with this subterfuge--for some reason these 
researchers are unable to come right out and say things like "this 
system  does not lead to measurable improvements."  Whether their funding 
depends on a certain candor, I cannot say, but it is certainly a problem 
when policy makers come to rely on these reports.
Anyone with any background in performing cost-benefit analyses would 
quickly conclude that there is enormous cost with little to no benefit.

Some truly unbelievable rhetoric flew around during that meeting as well as 
at the council meeting.  Accusations such as "Chapel Hill is now sending 
the message that it is okay to break the law" and "it is absolutely 
imperative that the town do something to improve intersection safety" 
(this, despite there being no evidence of a red light running epidemic or 
abnormal number of accidents in Chapel Hill).

Another matter that occurred to me recently is that one reason stoplight 
cameras may have become popular in North Carolina is because the state 
legislature passed a law requiring all speeding ticket revenues to revert 
back to the general fund.  That law was highly successful at shutting down 
speed traps and the subsequent abuse of motorists by small town cops whose 
primary job is to raise revenue.  Without the incentive of quick, nearly 
unaccountable cash, the speed traps were scaled back.
Stoplight cameras are their direct replacement, unfortunately.  The 
remnants of the speed trap mentality persist--speed limits in Chapel Hill 
appear to be designed around 1940s automobile technology, ensuring that 
practically everyone is speeding all the time unless their car is 
parked.  Ridiculously low speed limits are a national problem, there is 
nothing special about Chapel Hill in that regard.  One wonders if there is 
any reliable, untainted highway research literature at all.  I mention this 
because low speed limits appear to be a major factor in intersection where 
red light running is common.  Since the yellow light times are calculated 
based on the posted speed limits, their duration is too short for the 
intersection to clear when the light changes.  Today's posted speed limits 
have about as much in common with reality as Lord of the Rings or Star Wars 
do.  That unreality has not prevented municipalities from taking advantage 
of the free money.  By now, Americans have been bilked out of trillions of 
dollars through unfair traffic enforcement practices.  That represents a 
whole lot of money flowing into government and a whole lot of financial 
choices and personal time taken away from the people.  I doubt the current 
victims will see a refund from the town.

My take on the whole terrible experience is that once policy is in place, 
it is very difficult to roll it back.  The underlying reason for the 
council canceling the program was because they weren't making enough 
money.  The negative public reaction is a distant second place after the 
revenue aspect (and according to the media, there was *overwhelming* public 
support for the cameras).  The other concerns got big play in the media, 
but only so they could be shot down by camera supporters.  As I write this, 
neighboring cities such as Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, and now Cary all 
have stoplight cameras installed or about to go in.
The cash is rolling in.

And there you have 1100 words on stoplight cameras in Chapel Hill!


Ben Brunk

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)