University of South Florida researchers have uncovered fundamental flaws in the first U.S. study that claimed red light cameras decrease accidents. Since 2001, the insurance industry’s report on the benefits of red light camera use in Oxnard, California has been cited by hundreds of cities as the basis for the adoption of photo enforcement. Researchers Barbara Orban, Etienne Pracht and John T. Large attempted to replicate these findings and discovered that the Oxnard numbers, intended to serve as the model of peer-reviewed scholarship, simply don’t add up. “The regression analysis of [Oxnard study authors Richard] Retting and [Sergey] Kyrychenko does not support their conclusion that red light cameras reduced total or injury crashes,” the University of South Florida team wrote in the American Journal of Public Health last month. This sounds familiar…
In 2004, North Carolina A&T University Professor Mark Burkey was the first to publish a detailed critique of the methodology used in the Oxnard report [see: page 13]. The Florida researchers verified Professor Burkey’s findings.
“The Oxnard red light camera study violates many basic principles of sound statistical public health research and lacks internal and external validity,” the Florida researchers concluded. “All red light camera investigations should be scrutinized for adherence to applied research methods since studies with greater adherence to quasi-experimental research designs have concluded red light cameras are associated with large increases in crashes and since special interest groups with a financial stake in red light camera use are actively working to influence public opinion and policy.”
A number of observers have pointed to conflicts of interest involved in the Oxnard study. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety funded the research which, in turn, helped its parent companies collect millions in additional profit. Because widespread installation of cameras has increased the number of photo tickets issued in California, each of which carries license points, these companies have been able to collect substantially higher annual insurance premiums. In 2001, the former majority leader of the US House of Representatives slammed the Oxnard study’s primary author for not disclosing his own fundamental conflict of interest.
“Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Retting was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras,” a 2001report from the Office of the House Majority leader stated that, “In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the ‘objective’ testimony that they are effective.”
As of September 29, Retting was no longer employed by the Insurance Institute. He now works for Sam Schwartz Engineering, a toll road consulting firm.
[Read an extract from the new study at thenewspaper.com]
Rettig has made his mark as an utter shill for the Insurance Industry. His comments are usually at odds with the “highway engineering” community.
I recall being at a Transportation Research Board meeting in Washington a few years back. The room had about a hundred highway engineers and policy makers.
There was a presentation on realistic speed limit zoning. The presenter was discussing the 85th percentile rule of speed limit setting, in that you take a speed sample, and set the limit on a limited access road at the measured 85th percentile. This has proven to make the traffic flow smooth, minimize speed differential, and minimize collisions. It also results in a number a bit higher than posted, but usually in accordance with speeds actually driven. It means less tickets, surcharges, etc.
99 engineers shaking their heads “yes”. One IIHS flack shaking his head “no”- Retting. If I ever had any questions about the relative credibility of the two groups, they were resolved that day.
Those who know roll their eyes at any “Rettig Quotes”, but he has clearly found a niche, much like the “scientists” who the tobacco industry used to hire to say “more research is needed”.
That does not make him any more credible, or less a whore..in my opinion as a lobbyist for realistic traffic laws for the past 20 or so years. He may harbor a sincere belief that he is doing good work, but we usually don’t let the one nut in the room make policy.
It seems like every measure taken to attempt to enforce traffic laws is dismissed, by a certain subset of driving enthusiasts, as either ineffective, purely a cash grab by some entity or other, or even counter-productive.
This suggests we’d be better off if there were no traffic regulations, or they were not enforced.
There is no question the human body has not evolved to withstand collisions at speeds greater than running pace. Use of motor vehicles typically involves higher speeds and consequent risks.
I’m curious to know how the roadway liberterians evaluate the risks of driving, and how they would deal with them.
I’m curious to know how the roadway liberterians evaluate the risks of driving, and how they would deal with them.
50,000 (roughly) people die in car accidents each year out of, what, say 100 million drivers… That’s a .05 (POINT ZERO FIVE) percent death rate among active drivers.
Now just adjust that by your own driving abilities (or lack thereof) and luck (or lack thereof) and you should have your very own personalized risk rating.
Personally, I’d like to see the highway speeds removed entirely and let “survival of the fittest” run it’s course. The herd needs thinnin’.
Of course that will never happen. The government isn’t about to stop coddling the incompetent.
Here I go again. Electronicaly controlled governed speed controls in cars,rather than profit based enforcement of unrealistically low limits. We have the technology.
“Electronicaly controlled governed speed controls in cars”
The day that, or an absurdly low, rigidly, enforced national speed limit, comes to pass, my procedure for buying a “new” car will be to ask my mechanic to let me know the next time one of his other customers wants to unload an old vehicle. All that will matter is that the candidate be cheap and still serviceable.
While Montana’s daylight limit was reasonable and prudent, I gave serious thought to retiring there. Not any more.
“Electronicaly controlled governed speed controls in cars”
Oh, I’d love to be the lawyer with that case where a whole family horribly killed, maimed, bent, twisted, or spindled due to a rear-end crash where the speed control either
A. Malfunctioned
or
B. Functioned correctly, but allowed a rear-end accident to occur with a large/heavy/prickly and/or flammable vehicle.
Of course, I use the word “love” facetiously here; plus I’m not a lawyer.
But if I was on that grand jury, I’d eat the ham sandwich and hang the legislature, mayor, chief of police, the councilman’s baby sitter and the librarian’s dog for a tragedy of this nature.
Bravo brandloyalty for speaking up against the conventional enthusiast wisdom.
As for wolven “the herd needs thinnin,” wouldn’t it be simpler just to have them (drivers in the wrong time or place) executed? I hope you’re joking; otherwise it’s a revolting declaration. (I trust you’ve never had a loved one or friend “thinned” in a car crash, especially through no fault of their own.)
It seems like every measure taken to attempt to enforce traffic laws is dismissed, by a certain subset of driving enthusiasts, as either ineffective, purely a cash grab by some entity or other, or even counter-productive.
I don’t see this at all. Most people don’t object to reasonable enforcement of reasonable laws. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unreasonable laws to complain about.
I’ll say this again — if you want to increase compliance with red lights, the easiest ways to achieve that are to standardize the length and, in many cases, extend the timing of the yellow light.
The ability to profit from illegal activity gives government an incentive to create illegal activity. There have already been documented examples of yellow light times being shortened at camera points. To do that is to be clearly not motivated first and foremost by safety, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Quoting Pch101:
“I’ll say this again — if you want to increase compliance with red lights, the easiest ways to achieve that are to standardize the length and, in many cases, extend the timing of the yellow light.”
Well, how long would the yellow light phase have to be, to satisfy you that a cash grab is not taking place? Would you expand the use of the yellow light so it’s on more than the red and green lights?
My observation is that yellow lights are plenty long enough for people driving at the speed limit. Those speeding are forced to make a choice within a limited amount of time whether they can safely stop or must proceed. The faster they’re going, the more time they need to make the decision because it will take them longer to stop. And so the faster they’re going the more likely they are to go through on the yellow because they can’t stop in time. So the speeders think a longer yellow will benefit them. Of course, if they’re in the cross streets being stopped to accommodate this, they’ll get mad about how long it takes the lights to change.
How about eliminating the yellow light entirely? Red lights would be much easier to stop for if people weren’t speeding to begin with. Notwithstanding the claim the speed limits are a cash grab also, of course.
I don’t know if they still do this, but in England in the 70’s, they used the yellow light to let drivers stopped at red lights know that the light was about to turn green. The sequence was: red->red+yellow->green->green+yellow->… So drivers were ready to go when the light changed.
Why not switch the use of the yellow light? Why not use it for both starting and stopping? Why not eliminate it entirely? Random timing of colors? The point being that one’s reaction to how the lights are set up is arbitrary, and related more to one’s inclinations and cherished beliefs about the activity of driving.
Replying to Wolven:
As for trivializing the number of people killed in car accidents yearly, it is still many times the death rate in other cirucumstances that Americans have gone absolutely bananas about. At the risk of stirring up more outrage, I won’t mention one particular event.
Anyway, you can’t just include the deaths. You have to include the injured, plus all the effects of both on the relatives and friends. Plus the property losses.
Addressing electronic control of vehicles, I’m all for that. Maybe it could be limited to major highways, and be optional. When you switch onto automatic, any responsibility for accidents goes to the system operators. Anyone driving manually retains responsibility. This challenge to the myth of the romance of driving needs to be addressed.
Quoting Kendahl:
“While Montana’s daylight limit was reasonable and prudent, I gave serious thought to retiring there. Not any more.”
Montana went through a period of having no upper speed limit for cars on major highways. Accidents changed from simple rollovers with injuries, to cars crashing so severely it was like they exploded, and all occupants were being killed. That’s why the speed limits were brought back. Not to mention the inefficiency of driving so fast.