The graduate of an insurance industry “boot camp” is behind efforts to legalize the use of red light cameras in Florida. State Representative Ron Reagan (R-Bradenton) twice attended the Insurance Campaign Institute, a special program designed to place insurance agents in positions of political power bankrolled by twenty insurance companies. “Essentially a political boot camp, the comprehensive political training program covers all facets of the campaign trail, from organization to grassroots strategies, fundraising, direct mail, advertising, media relations, public speaking, debate preparation, campaign research, and use of insurance community strength,” the Independent Insurance Agents of America explained in a 2001 press release. Reagan credits his 2002 Florida House victory to the Insurance Campaign Institute. To repay his industry backers, Reagan introduced the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, a measure giving cities the green light to install red light cameras. Although the bill is portrayed as a response to the tragic death of a constituent in 2003, Reagan’s legislation is designed to create millions in new revenue for the insurance industry. And here’s how…
In Arizona, California, Colorado and Illinois certain types of photo tickets carry license points. Insurance companies in turn raise the annual rates of drivers who have these points on their license. In effect, the photo tickets generate free money because the extra premium is charged without the insurance company providing any additional services in return. Nothing in Florida law prevents insurance companies from raising the rates on the recipients of photo tickets in the dozens of unauthorized red light camera programs that have recently popped up around the state. Reagan, 54, must give up his state House seat at the end of the next session due to term limits. Reagan has made passage of the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act a top priority for his last term in office. I wonder what job awaits his retirement?
Wouldn’t this qualify as Racketeering under the RICO laws? Who paid for Ron Reagan to attend the Insurance Campaign Institute? If it was the Insurance companies or one of their lobbiest goons, wouldn’t that be bribery? If it was the taxpayers, Why in the hell are they paying for it?
They should tar and feather the SOB.
The entire idea of red light and speed camera’s is just dirty big brother at work. It all just comes down to revenue no matter how one tries to justify it (myself included). It’s all for the children after all!
the answer is more legislation: outside of paid claims (i.e. accidents) insurance companies should not be allowed to raise their rates based on traffic tickets.
All you need is one aggressive state AG to go after a few insurance companies. You’d save the consumer hundred of millions, and pave your way for higher office….
Oh, come on. Unlike with speeding tickets, common sense tells us that those who run red lights really are more likely to cause accidents – and thus should probably be paying higher premiums.
Unlike with speeding tickets, common sense tells us that those who run red lights really are more likely to cause accidents – and thus should probably be paying higher premiums.
The easiest, most effective way of increasing compliance is to extend the length of the yellow light.
When government has a financial incentive to create violations, it will do so. Camera revenues make it all too tempting to shorten the light cycles in order to create violators, instead of extending them to increase compliance.
Government should **never** make a profit from illegal activity, otherwise it will seek to make more things illegal. Justice is supposed to be a cost center, part of the cost of doing business as a democracy.
What PCH said.
(It took me several moments to post this after writing it because I couldn’t stop chuckling)
NJ has elected to test these in our state. 2 weeks ago, it was announced that my town, will be one of the test cities. Instead of adressing the real problems, (driver educaton, road conditions and congestion), the state will attempt to turn a profit by ticketing the vehicle, not the driver.
I drive in NY daily and have gotten these tickets. It makes perfect sense (NOT) to be stuck in the middle of an intersection trying to make a left behind a truck which blocks the view of traffic light and recieve an $85 ticket in the mail the next week. *#&$*($^!!
I must say I don’t really know how “red light cameras” work. How do you trigger them? Is it entering the intersection after the light has turned red? Entering the intersection after the light has turned yellow? Being in the intersection after the light has turned red? How do they control for legal right turns after stop when the light is red?
Does any TTAC member know the answer to these questions?
If the device is only triggered if you enter the intersection after the light has turned red and if the yellow period is not shortened below that specified by traffic engineers then I don’t have a problem with “red light cameras”
An interesting twist is that some of the newer devices are coupled with a device that measures your speed through the intersection so if you speed up to get through the intersection before the red you will receive a photo speeding ticket.
Does risky driving behavior make it more likely that you will have an accident?
Actually, no.
It is a numbers game — and the insurance companies set it up so they win. It all depends on your risk pool — which is based on a myriad of factors, not just driving history. You can’t use race right now, although that may be a factor. Not sure if you can use age as in elderly. Medical conditions? Blind people might have a hard time getting insurance.
The point being is we already have limits on defining that pool. This is a regulated industry, and as long as traffic tickets are being treated as revenue sources, insurance companies shouldn’t be the ones making more money.
Volvo,
You SHOULD have a problem with these cameras because the the theoretical idea that bad results need not occur is short sighted. The truth is that these devices create an incentive system much like Enron bookkeeping, California Energy Deregulation, Mortgage Backed Securities, and many other schemes.
We cannot depend on the folks making and enforcing the laws not to fall into this trap as long as the punishment and disincentive is so disconnected from the undesirable influences these things have on the players involved. It’s not enough to have rules and laws. Those rules and laws must actually work for our benefit.
It is clear that most jurisdictions have started making bad decisions when these things are installed. Many have shortened yellows, but almost all have failed to continue to properly do their jobs of engineering and managing safe and efficient traffic flow. Instead, the camera becomes the quick and profitable fix rather than the many other fixes that have much greater, but less easily connected benefits.
Improved signage, better design, road maintenance and expansion, light timing, enforcement of other traffic infractions, etc. all will be neglected in favor of slapping up more cameras.
Let’s hypothesize that adding 2 minutes to the average commute to a large surburb will result in more people running a red at the left turn into that suburb. Let’s say that we can either spend $20,000 finding some changes, and $100,000 making those changes along the commute, or we can put up a camera that will make a profit. Which solution do you think will be made? After all, what justification is the 2 minutes for breaking the law?
I thought (at least here in California) that the insurance industry is limited by the government as to how much profit they can make. So, if they raise the rates for people caught running red lights then they would have to lower the rates for those that don’t. (Unless, of course, the cameras actually cause more accidents–then it’s worse for everyone.)
My understand of California light law is that you must not enter the intersection when it is red. Assuming yellow lights aren’t re-calibrated to be super short, how hard is it to obey the law? There are basically 3 classes of people who will get caught: people going way too fast for conditions/vehicle, people not paying attention, and people actively trying to beat the light. As someone who sometimes actually uses the public sidewalks and crosswalks, these 3 classes of drivers need to be taken off the streets (before they take me off the streets).
Perhaps red light cameras aren’t the solution, but some form of traffic enforcement of the reasonable and easy-to-follow rule would be a good thing.
Sunny,
Well, “assuming” something that turns out to be untrue may not be helping your case. They already busted San Diego for the scam. I saw one of the lights in question, it was scary that they shortened it, but they did.
At any rate, the problem with the “how hard is it to obey the law?” issue is the heart of the problem. Do we really want to incentivise a government body, in conspiracy with a private corporation, to make it HARDER to obey the law? That’s what happens when these lights go up. EVERYTIME, NO ASSUMPTIONS.
I agree traffic enforcement is called for, but a human being should be involved, and the profit for the state should be limited to preserve the purity of their motivations as much as possible.
The easiest, most effective way of increasing compliance is to extend the length of the yellow light.
And then, when people adjust to the longer yellow and still run the reds? Longer still?
Private enterprise and government should not engage in a partnership to create a revenue source under the guise of “enforcing the law”.
It doesn’t matter if the person ran the red light or not. As soon as private enterprise profits from said motorist running the red light, the horror has begun.
Look, I don’t like red light runners more than anyone else. But the motivation here is NOT about traffic safety, I assure you.
And then, when people adjust to the longer yellow and still run the reds?
They won’t. Driver behavior should generally be unaffected by these adjustments.
We already see this with speed limit changes. Drivers do what they are going to do, regardless of the rule.
When limits are increased, compliance increases. When they are decreased, compliance decreases. Raising a limit doesn’t result in significant speed increases, and lowering limits doesn’t cause drivers to slow down.
One problem with compliance is when there are no universal consistent standards for determining the appropriate interval for a yellow light. Some standards exist, but they are not used uniformly.
Studies have already shown that lengthening the yellow light increases compliance. Unless the whole thing is a cash grab, the idea of lengthening the light should be welcomed, as we can pretty much guarantee increased obedience with that simple change.
If government officials fight the change, it’s easy to guess why. When cash is on the barrelhead, they want drivers to violate the law, as it’s an easy way for them to add money to the treasury without a conspicuous tax increase. Safety has nothing to do with it.
One point worth noting is that if the insurance industry is pushing for it, they probably have the claimaccident-reduction statistics to back it up. That said, it might still be a revenue-generator for the municipality, but that’s not the impetus the insurance companies would be using: they just want the claim numbers down…
…unless they’re applying these as moving violations to the owner of the vehicle, rather than in a fashion similar to highway tolls or parking tickets. That’s bad, as there’s no real way a machine can do that with acceptable accuracy.
I’m all for fining people who speed or run red lights, but applying demerits when you can’t effectively determine the offender is a real problem.
One point worth noting is that if the insurance industry is pushing for it, they probably have the claimaccident-reduction statistics to back it up
Not the case at all. In fact, it’s the opposite — the insurance industry routinely lobbies for laws that give them excuses to raise rates without incurring additional risk. For example, they continually defend redlining by ZIP code, even though the data shows that ZIP codes don’t impact loss rates.
An insurer that can collect more from the same policyholder without increasing their risk profile is a happy insurer. The ability to turn law abiding safe drivers into offenders gives them more revenue at no cost, an actuary’s dream come true.
In fact, it’s the opposite — the insurance industry routinely lobbies for laws that give them excuses to raise rates without incurring additional risk.
That’s true, but it isn’t mutually exclusive to pushing for laws that do reduce claim costs. Not that this is irregardless of whether or not they result in lower premiums. Bumper-bash regulations come to mind.
I’m not defending the industry—I think they’re parasites—but I don’t think they’d put throw their lobbying efforts behind a measure that increased, or at least made no difference to, claim costs. I’m sure they’d prefer municipalities not do anything to increase payouts as opponents of red-light cameras claim the devices must (by virtue of their causing more accidents).
For example, they continually defend redlining by ZIP code, even though the data shows that ZIP codes don’t impact loss rates.
Are you sure about that? I’ve seen loss-rate tables by Canadian postal code that back up the costs per square mile, even if the rate increase is simply tracking population density. Yes, they draw more revenue in dense areas, but they pay more claims. And claims–or lack thereof–is the goal.
The ability to turn law abiding safe drivers into offenders gives them more revenue at no cost, an actuary’s dream come true.
This is also true, but there’s a popular limit to what the public is willing to accept in terms of fees, while there’s a much lower limit to what we’ll collectively pay for to reduce the risk that the insurers have to take. This played out across Canada about four or five years ago, and watching the industry backpedal on premiums while pushing claim-reduction measures was fun, in a way. You could see the PR and executive staff at the major insurers looking physically ill at the prospect of government-provided insurance expanding further.
Psar,
I would expect the opposite of what you expect, when it comes to where the insurance guys really put their strongest efforts vs. where they publicly put there efforts.
If claims rates go down, then the insurance companies have to reduce rates. Lowering claims is only good for a short boost. OTOH, increasing claims rates actually increases long term profits because they make money on the percentage difference, as well as on interest on the total pool. The bigger the better.
Lastly, the real winner with these things is that by creating more “bad” drivers, they can raise rates on a minority of drivers. This could lead to less pressure to reduce rates by the majority. The insurance regulators might be less aggressive about how much the “bad” drivers pay, and certainly easier to deal with when grandma can more easily afford insurance because a few more careless drivers are getting nailed for higher rates.
Pch101, you are smoking crack if you think people who run the reds today are doing so because the yellows are too short, and would otherwise be completely law-abiding citizens. The parallel to speed limits is incredibly weak.
Where I grew up, South Florida, they eventually had to go to longer and longer “all-red” cycles. Yes, people did adjust and ran later and later into the red.