When The National Motorists Association blog noticed a large number of pro-red-light-ticket-camera editorials coming out of the Orlando Tribune, they decided to investigate. Turns out that every one of the pro-camera pieces was written by a single member of the Tribune's editorial board, George Diaz. Well wouldn't you know it: Diaz is "the point man on editorials pushing for red light camera legislation in Florida" for the National Campaign To Stop Red Light Running. The lobbying group is funded by the fine people who make and sell red-light-ticket- cameras. Needless to say, the Tribune has ethical standards which state that Editorial staffers "should avoid situations in which their activities in connection with any group or cause could be perceived as influencing what the Sentinel publishes or broadcasts." What's more, "when conflicts of interest are unavoidable but not obvious to readers, they should be disclosed in the story." And of course, Diaz did neither. For shame.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Who funds the “National Motorists Association?”
People like me who are members. Glad to know my $30 is being put to good use.
I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with PR campaigns, though as this example shows, in practice ethics are thrown out the window and locked out of the building. Companies and organizations have a right to try to sway public opinion in the interest of profits or causes, but there lies a fine ethical line that PR types often dance upon and sometimes cross with the same zeal of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. The results often reek of half-truths, dishonesty, and lies with cheery pseudonyms taking the place of the organizations behind the efforts. Who could disagree with a name like the National Campaign To Stop Red Light Running? When you know the truth, it’s easy to, but people like this George Diaz character are in the business of shading the truth from the scrutiny of the public.
For a newspaper to run editorials by a PR flack posing as a member of their own editorial board is absolutely egregious.
First, a minor correction. Although owned by the Chicago Tribune (or maybe “Tribune Inc.”), the Orlando paper is called the Orlando Sentinel.
Minor, but makes a difference, because many of us in Central Florida call it…
wait for it….
…”The Slantinel”
Misleading reporting, and general pro-bureaucracy writing and editing has earned it this name. And of course, has denied it my subscription.
This reminds me of what GEICO Insurance did about 15 years ago. It seems that a company that was developing a new technology radar gun for speed control was running low on cash. Geico stepped in with the funds, with the catch that they would get a certain number of guns free. These were then distributed free to police departments in areas that Geico sold insurance. Naturally the tickets enabled Geico to surcharge motorists. Nice, huh? The conflict of interest is disgusting.
I have been a proud NMA member for over 15 years. I personally lobbied, along with 50 or so like minded and committed folk for repeal of the 55 mph limit. In the end, it was our Utah lobbyist, a very persistent western lady, who got crucial support for us on the floor of Congress to get the 98% ignored NMSL repealed.
We here in NY organized “civil obedience days” where we got on a highway and did 55 in the right lane only to protest the law. There was always a clueless wonder who’d dawdle into the “left open” left lane and block traffic, despite the fact the 20-50 cars in the right lane all had 55 protest signs.
NMA is the only organization which is not funded by some bogus group of insurance companies or red lite scamera vendors. While we are sometimes derided as “professional speeders” the fact is that we lobby for using the 85th percentile as the rational basis for setting realistic speed limits.
The 85th percentile is proven to be the safest method…google it. Only insurance company funded lobbyists are against it. If you could make the prevailing speeds illegal, even though the vast majority are below 85th percentile, then the insurance companies can surcharge for speeds that science tells us are not dangerous. If they are illegal, then we will see tickets issued for speeds that are not dangerous….free insurance surcharges !!!!!
Take a look at motorists.org and decide for yourself. I have been in very many State legislative meetings where NMA is the only pro motorist organization. AAA does nothing useful. The only organizations will be the astroturf scamera “group” or a police officer giving the police view point. Hitting these folks with facts from respected highway engineering sources, or better, using their own stats against them, is very effective, and shows the open minded politicios that there is another point of view and possibly, just possibly, the cure for safer roads is not more enforcement with a bigger hammer.
NMA has not made anyone rich. We have, however, turned over the NMSL and are fighting at the front lines to prevent the USA from becoming a Camera Hell like Australia or the UK.
Join Us !
I’m just glad to see the Petsmart.com’s mascot got himself a new job.
I used to be a member of the NMA years ago and recently renewed my membership. You could spend $30 on a lot less worthy or valuable things, TTAC’rs, so please consider joining.
When I lived in Florida, people ran red lights a shocking amount of the time. Even cops. What this article doesn’t discuss is that Florida has an insane amount of “timed” lights (non-intelligent) and the waiting period for the cycle is so, so long, that drivers have serious incentives to run them.
Ever been stuck at a red light for 5 minutes without a single car in sight? That’s normal in the Florida I know.
They need to focus on better management of the traffic flow, not on enforcement of an imperfect system.
Red light cameras are a complete scam used by governments to collect money from motorists.
Red light cameras are placed in intersections that have higher rates of people running red lights. The drivers going through these intersections are the same ones that are going through the surrounding intersections that don’t have higher rates of red light running. This means that there is something about these intersection that encourage running a red light.
The government could choose to do an engineering study to determine what is causing the increased incidences of running the red light. They then fix the problem(s) and make the intersection safer.
Or they can set up a camera to collect money from all of the drivers who fall victim to the poorly designed intersection. On top of this, some cities shortened the yellow light time at intersections with cameras to pull in more money.
Money is the motivation behind red light cameras. Any talk about safely is simply to distract the gullible.