--- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:56:11 -0500 From: Ben Brunk <brunkb@private> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 To: declan@private, James W <jsuberw@private> 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/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Feb 04 2004 - 06:21:45 PST