Corporations that stand to gain millions if the Florida legislature legalizes red light cameras have created a network of victim advocacy groups to promote their cause. Central to this effort is Melissa Wandall, founder of the Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida. Wandall became involved in the issue after a tragic red light running accident took the life of her husband Mark in 2003. Wandall now uses her status as a victim to travel the state and to lobby the legislature on behalf of red light cameras. Sympathetic newspapers frequently run her opinion pieces on the eve of important committee votes. Far from being a grassroots effort, however, Wandall’s group is part of a slick marketing campaign funded in large measure by the traffic camera industry.
Five of the top manufacturers of automated ticketing machines—Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), CMA Consulting, Gatso, Lasercraft and Redflex—hired a public relations firm to create the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running. Using this group helps the camera corporations disguise the self-interested nature of their lobbying activity.
“Redflex is active in supporting legislation with the USA market to promote the benefits of photo enforcement to improve public safety through the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running and lobby efforts in specific states,” the Australian traffic camera company explained in a 2005 filing with the Australian Securities Exchange.
One of the National Campaign’s early strategies was to solicit victims of tragic accidents that could be used as tools to advance their corporate legislative agenda. This plan sought to gather such victims into a “Survivor Advocate Network.”
“[The lobbying firm] will work with these individuals to prepare, assist and even ‘coach’ them for advocacy involvement if desired,” the National Campaign explained on its website. “Some of the activities in which survivor advocates can choose to participate are: writing letters to legislators; testifying before state legislative committees; speaking to news reporters on the phone; writing letters to the editors of local papers; serving as a spokesperson at media events; and working with other survivor advocates throughout the country.”
Wandall was particularly good at all of these tasks. With the help of Neil Spirtas, she formed the Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida in March 2006. Spirtas, the coalition’s vice president, is also vice president of the Manatee County Chamber of Commerce which receives funding from Peek Traffic Corporation.
“Peek Traffic, a manufacturer based out of Palmetto, develops innovative traffic control products,” a Manatee Chamber blog update explained on March 8, 2006. “Starting in 2005, they assisted the Manatee Chamber and the county in running a red light camera pilot program. The program is used to document the number of individuals who ran red lights at the test intersection.”
Wandall’s connection to companies that profit from photo enforcement run deeper. Her husband worked for John Hancock Financial Services, the US division of the Canadian insurance giant Manulife. Among the company’s assets are one million shares of ACS stock along with significant holdings of insurance firms such as Allstate. The Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida lists among its supporters a number of organizations that profit directly from red light cameras. These include, in addition to Manatee County, a number of municipalities and the Florida League of Cities.
The automated ticketing industry shows up on the supporter list in the form of the National Campaign as well as Peek Traffic and Quixote Corporation. Even though the campaign is billed as a “life saving” effort, the abortion group Planned Parenthood is listed as a supporter of Wandall’s traffic camera crusade.
It is no accident that insurance companies have also played a strong role in advocating red light camera legislation in Florida. State Representative Ron Reagan (R-Bradenton) named his red light camera legislation the “Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act” to make it appear that it was introduced in response to the tragic 2003 accident of a constituent.
As we reported last year, Reagan graduated from the Insurance Campaign Institute, a “bootcamp” designed to teach industry employees how to become lawmakers to advance the industry’s interests. Insurance companies stand to benefit directly from expanding the scope of automated enforcement because photo tickets carry points in several states, including California.
Take Elk Grove, California, as an example. Last year, a pair of red light cameras in the city dished out 9,364 tickets worth $426 split between the city, state and Redflex. Ninety-six percent of the violations, according to the Sacramento Bee, did not actually involve red light running but rather turning right on red.
Nonetheless, each ticket recipient received a point on his license and three years of higher insurance payments. The extent of the premium increase varies by company and by driving record, but if a ticketed premium goes up an average of just $40 a year as a result of a ticket, insurance companies would make more than a million in net profit from Elk Grove’s pair of cameras. Considering more than sixty cities across California have active camera programs, each with dozens of cameras, the small investment in promoting photo enforcement has already paid off in a big way.
A 350K PDF file at the source link below documents the Survivor Advocate Network and shows the financial backers of the national and Florida red light camera campaigns.
National Campaign Supporters (National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, 4/24/2009)
Here is a point of logic that has not been addressed. Red light cameras do not physically prevent a car from running a light, so as much as I sympathize with this lady for the loss of her husband, a red light camera would not have changed the outcome. These companies are cashing in on personal tragedy to advance their own agenda.
How good is melissa at explaining just how a camera at an intersection would have made a difference? Or is that secondary to the feel good solution of doing something?
All you cash cows out there – MOO. Another cash grab from all us suckers out there. These cameras could be used to help with real red light running by programming them to catch those who really are running lights – you know those entering the intersection on a red 2 seconds or so old. But that would not make enough money, and after all, when it comes to real safety or money, we know which one will win. For the insurance companies, this is the dreaded win-win. How many ratepayers are going to get banged with surcharges for “running” red lights. I just hope as much of that new found revenue as possible is taken away by rear end crashes and back injury lawsuits.
When it comes to politics, follow the money and you will have your answer.
As far the senseless loss of her husband, I truly sympathize with her. Random events in life make people look for a purpose or reason to make something positive out of her loss.
I just respectfully disagree that a person’s loss means others now need to support their cause financially or through the enaction of further restrictions on others.
And as mentioned, guess who served on the Advisory Board of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, also red light camera funded? That’s right, Obama’s nominated NHTSA director, MADD CEO Chuck Hurley.
Perhaps a stupid question, but what are people doing in cities and states without red light cameras to prevent them from ever being installed?
How, exactly, would a red light camera have saved her husband?
RE: the several posters who queried about how the camera would have saved the husband.
It simply would not. In fact, statistics show that the revenue-generating measures taken at camera-equipped intersections dramatically increase crashes at those intersections. All so the revenue stream stays up. It’s been heavily documented by TTAC/The Newspaper, mainly involving shortened yellows to force more people to run the light after it’s red.
“Corporations that stand to gain millions if the Florida legislature legalizes red light cameras have created a network of victim advocacy groups to promote their cause. Central to this effort is Melissa Wandall, founder of the Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida. “
What do you mean “if”?
We already have red light cameras all throughout Orlando; it’s part of the “Orlando Stops” program. Each intersection that has the cameras also has signs depicting a traffic light and the words “Orlando Stops”.
Is it possible that Orlando and/or Orange County installed these prematurely?
Unfortunately, the majority of the population falls for this silliness because they believe in processes rather than results. Not unexpectedly, about 90% of insurance company employees and 70% of government employees have the personality types that blind them from the ability to challenge what looks like a good process, even if it is failing miserably.
It’s really fun (though sometimes painful) to watch engineers make the transition from academia to the real world. I am sure many here have great stories. Unfortunately, folks that work in insurance and government positions, as well as most economists who do studies, never make an equivalent transition. Never.
So, the red light people have figured out a way to milk the system which will likely perpetuate itself in spite of the casualties.
My only suggestion would be to fight fire with fire. Who, other than the general public, would be aligned with stopping the red light fiasco?
“Even though the campaign is billed as a “life saving” effort, the abortion group Planned Parenthood is listed as a supporter of Wandall’s traffic camera crusade.”
I hate to nitpick off-topic but this quote pisses me off.
One – what the hell is planned parenthood doing supporting a legislative effort with absolutely no bearing on their goals? If I was a supporter I would be livid.
Two – it’s profoundly dishonest, and nasty, to imply that abortion support is predicated on a desire to take a life. Abortion was legalized because women were dying in large numbers due to coat-hanger abortions. Almost everyone I know who is pro-choice supports it for this reason, the “my choice my body” argument is a side show.
Three – why would you write on a topic where you have a clear agenda, as the Newspaper clearly does, and in doing so use language that is going to alienate a lot of progressive voters? Stupid. The last thing any political cause is aided by right now is being solely aligned with the Republican party. There simply is no pay-off for this strategy, unless the goal is simply to set up a political hot potato to rail against incumbent politicians.
Giving victims and their loved ones a voice is in no way exploitation. Melissa Wandall has lost a loved one and is trying to make positive change out of tragedy.
There has never been any idea that the cameras will bring people back, but what they do DO is wake up our society to the fact that our actions can and will have consequences. The cameras will not change how ALL people approach an intersection, but if they make more motorists hesitate to “beat the light” then they have done their job… and more loved ones will make it home safely.
I pray that you never have to walk in the shoes of any of these “victims.”
moondyed :
April 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Giving victims and their loved ones a voice is in no way exploitation. Melissa Wandall has lost a loved one and is trying to make positive change out of tragedy.
There has never been any idea that the cameras will bring people back, but what they do DO is wake up our society to the fact that our actions can and will have consequences. The cameras will not change how ALL people approach an intersection, but if they make more motorists hesitate to “beat the light” then they have done their job… and more loved ones will make it home safely.
I pray that you never have to walk in the shoes of any of these “victims.”
That’s rather idealistic. I don’t know if you’re truly ignorant of the facts or have some agenda toward putting a positive spin on this, but, I’ll remind everyone again (since nobody else seems to remember from the countless TTAC/The Newspaper articles on this very website):
the vast majority of government policy with regards to red light cameras dictates shortening the yellow light to increase revenues. It does achieve this goal, but it also dramatically increases accidents at the red light.
Also, next to zero deaths are caused by right-on-red violations, yet at most camera-monitored intersections well over 90% of the violations caught are rolling stops during right-on-red maneuvers.
So, basically, they at best do nothing to curb the actual situations in which deaths occur during red light runs, and at worst, increase the liklihood of injuries/deaths by doubling accident rates at the lights.
But, of course, the companies interested parties (companies installing the cameras and making profits off the violations, local governments making revenue from the violations, insurance companies raising rates due to violations/points and accidents caused at the inersections) are all for adding cameras and shortening yellows, almost universally without regard to actual public safety.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again just in the remote chance that a Florida or National politico is reading TTAC:
If you vote in support of Red Light Cameras, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.
I am a voter. I vote in every election. I check on your voting records before I vote. One more time for “the children”:
If you vote in support of Red Light Cameras, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.
What increases accidents at the red lights is RUNNING THEM!!! Not having a consequence to that is what promotes the illegal behavior–THAT’S IGNORANT!! And good for the 90% of right-on-red, rolling-stop light runners that got a ticket–THEY DESERVED IT!! If the law says STOP and you don’t there should be a consequence, i.e. A TICKET! Think of the camera as taking the place of the police cruiser that is in short supply ( a whole ‘nother issue). If you saw a cop would you stop?? HELLO??? Then “yes” you have to stop. What gives law breakers more right to the road than me and my family? Yes…local government should get revenues from violators and if you don’t like it…wait for it…newsflash…FOLLOW THE RULES!!! It’s ridiculous that there is so much nay say over something that has been proven to save lives.
how would cameras have saved her husbands life you ask?? Ask the HABITUAL red light runner who killed him if she would have stopped this time knowing it was going to cost her something??
tvollmer
You sound like a drug “warrior”. Have you given any thought to the possibility that red light cameras won’t actually stop red light running? These programs are introduced as budget initiatives in so many places precisely because they are predicted to provide long term revenue, no one expects a drastic change in driver behavior. Claims to that effect are sales pitches, not reasoned and rational arguments.
“over something that has been proven to save lives”
there is plenty of debate on exactly this claim.