The automated enforcement industry has suffered significant setbacks in the past several months. In November, voters in America’s fourth largest city, Houston, Texas, used the referendum process to outlaw automated ticketing machines. A number of California cities have been dropping red light camera programs after experiencing mediocre safety results. Now one of the key industry players, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), is fighting back with a report released today claiming that with more red light cameras “a total of 815 deaths could have been avoided.” The IIHS report, however, did not actually consider a single red light camera accident.
Instead, the Insurance Institute looked at the raw number of intersection fatalities in 62 large US cities and divided them into a group of 14 localities where red light cameras were installed and a group of 48 camera-free cities. For each group, accidents in the “before” period of 1992 to 1996 were compared with an “after” period of 2004 to 2008. IIHS claimed that fatal “red light” crashes (defined as any intersection crash except a rear end collision) dropped 35 percent in the after period for the cities that happened to have cameras but only dropped 14 percent in the after period. The results reflect citywide accident numbers, not figures at photo enforced locations.
The problem with this overly simplistic method is that it credits red light cameras with accident reductions that take place at intersections without any cameras. It also ignores the natural reduction in fatality rates that happens as automobiles become more crashworthy and hospital trauma care improves over time. Overall, between 1992 and 2008, the fatality rate nationwide dropped 28 percent. The rate is down 35 percent in 2009, representing the lowest rate since records were first kept in 1950.
A more complete analysis of fatal accidents performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that “large fatality declines tended to coincide with areas that had higher increases in rates of unemployment” (view report). This is the case because unemployment takes drivers off the road in peak travel times reducing the chances of an accident. Many of the hardest hit areas economically have turned to automated enforcement to increase revenue. Moreover, studies conducted by independent researchers examining actual accident reports have found that accidents and injuries tend to increase where cameras are used (view reports). This is one of the reasons the public has turned against cameras, a fact that the industry attempts to deny.
“National surveys indicate widespread support for red light cameras,” the insurance industry press release claimed. “At the same time, opponents of automated enforcement have become increasingly vocal, claiming that camera programs are revenue-generating schemes.”
This assertion emphasizes the IIHS report’s lack of objectivity. It is impossible to claim “widespread” support for a program that has been rejected at the ballot box in fifteen out of fifteen elections. The mix of cities that rejected cameras encompass East coast, West coast, liberal, conservative, small and large demographic groups. The anti-camera vote frequently reached between 60 and 86 percent.
The skewed results are not surprising considering the direct financial interest IIHS has in expanding the use of traffic cameras. The Insurance Institute represents the interests of all the major automobile insurance firms from AAA and Geico to State Farm and Allstate. The organization describes its mission as “highway safety research and communications” with the latter mission referring to public relations. Each time a photo ticket is issued in California, Arizona or Illinois (freeway program only), points are assigned to the license of the vehicle owner. Those points give insurance companies the ability to raise the rates for the ticket recipient by anywhere from $50 a year to $500 or more. Since the extra premium does not reflect any additional service rendered, it adds hundreds of millions to the industry’s bottom line each year.
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
Something else funny in the report too. Trying to define “significant’; I suspect a bayesian analysis of the data wouldn’t find so much.
You hit the nail on the head. The insurance industry will push what’s good for the insurance industry. This is analagous to tobacco companies forming an institute to weigh the effects of smoking (yeah, they probably have…). The output of studies is to maximize return to shareholders. Safety is secondary.
As usual, you can’t accept statistics prima facie. Like mfg reported sales, but not breaking out fleet percentages, you just can’t trust data to tell a story.
As an auto underwriter, I cannot just charge whatever I want and expect to retain the business. Yes, infractions on an MVR do affect initial pricing, but if I look at a renewal of 50 y/o person with 1 red light ticket who has been with us for 10+ without a claim, why would I want to drive away that business?
“give insurance companies the ability to raise the rates for the ticket recipient by anywhere from $50 a year to $500 or more. Since the extra premium does not reflect any additional service rendered, it adds hundreds of millions to the industry’s bottom line each year.” <– This is a B.S. statement. It doesn't give me any ability other than some sales pressure to raise rates, but that doesn't stop the consumer from shopping their insurance either. Additionally, underwriting higher-risk drivers and operations is an additional service, and the behavior running red lights – whether your caught or not – does lead to losses.
Luckily property and casualty insurance isn't socialized yet and insurance for the most dangerous activity most people will ever do is affordable, competitive, and offers real financial help to those who are injured.
The IIHS is part lobbying group and part independent lab. The lobbying group is pretty political and seems to be disconnected from the actual scientists. Insurers walk a fine line between navigating idiotic government intervention (banning credit scoring) and pushing for good regulation (mfg seat belts and airbags). Recently they issued a presser encouraging banning cell phone use while driving and shortly after issuing a ‘study’ saying there was no difference in accidents between states which passed these laws and didn’t.
Just be thankful lobbying groups in the auto industry aren’t like the gun world… (think googling-up a study)
Explain to us why “banning credit scoring” is an idiotic regulation? Do people in trouble financially drive worse or file more claims?
Another query would be why I pay insurance per vehicle. I can’t drive 3 at once so why should I have essentially three complete policies for 3 cars, with a small discount for having multiple cars on one policy.
IIHS is well known for performing “scientific studies” that twist the results in order to satisfy its own objectives. They’ve done it many times before.
GS650G – Drivers with lower credit scores correlate to increased auto losses, and actually losses across all lines of coverage. If this underwriting tool was banned, drivers with good credit scores would be subsidizing the rates of those with poor credit history.
Compare this to health insurance today where everyone in the company pays the same rate as it’s illegal to underwrite group health insurance (yes even before the obamacare was passed). Why does a healthy 25y/o male pay the same as an overweight 55 y/o? Well, that’s a political question but basically the healthy people subsidize the sick and there is 0 incentive for the insureds to change their behavior. (think: I’m not going to speed or get into a collision so my rates don’t increase).
You pay insurance per vehicle because there is the possibility for them all to be driven, though most insurers give a discount if the driver/vehicle<1. Multiple units is more like a group discount to write premium. As your Independent Agent for a rate quote! lol. Or just yell at them and they yell at me and I give you a couple bucks off.
Why does a healthy 25y/o male pay the same as an overweight 55 y/o?
Because that’s the nature and purpose of pooling risk. ALL insurance policies have the people who file fewer claims subsidising the people who file more. Allowing insurance companies to cherrypick for the lowest risk individuals defeats the purpose.
Drivers with lower credit scores correlate to increased auto losses, and actually losses across all lines of coverage. If this underwriting tool was banned, drivers with good credit scores would be subsidizing the rates of those with poor credit history.
So are you saying that credit checks were done on drivers who filed claims? How are they correlating someone’s credit score against a claim otherwise? I don’t recall a credit check being done after a claim I had in 2009, I get notified if one is done. Car insurance isn’t like financing, it’s far from it, so are these outfits ringing our credit histories regularly (like at every renewal?)
Seems to me the industry feels people with bad credit will make more claims, for the unmentioned reasons of financial gain or supplemental income from a claim I.E. get a check for the fender bender and drive around with a battered car while paying bills with the money.
I suppose the insurance industry has a right to look out for their wallets any way they can, and people with poor credit can vote with their wallets by choosing cars that are as cheap to insure as possible. And probably cheaper to drive.
Allstate was caught classifying all new applicants for HOI as slightly less perfect in credit worthiness (they had their own rating system of 5 to 1. Nobody apparently rated a 1 which qualified them for the best rate) and subsequently tacked on 50, 100 dollars or more to their insurance. I got my unnatural increase in the mail after they settled the suit.
So it’s with great suspicion I hear about insurance companies using credit ratings in their risk ratings.
Pistolero, this sentence lacks credibility: Additionally, underwriting higher-risk drivers and operations is an additional service, and the behavior running red lights – whether your caught or not – does lead to losses.
Red light cameras have nothing to do with running red lights. The majority of tickets are for turning right on red, which does not lead to any losses. The remainder of through violations are for split-second violations (e.g., you entered the intersection 0.3 seconds after the light turned red). This also causes no losses.
Is there an insurance company that doesn’t raise rates if you get a ticket? If so, sign me up. Even though my record is actual clean at the moment, I’d support an honest insurer. Thing is, I don’t believe such a firm exists.
The majority of tickets are for turning right on red, which does not lead to any losses.
Making ridiculous statements just undermines your credibility. Just yesterday I saw a very near miss when someone turned right on red right in front of the SUV beside me. Only emergency braking and a swerve halfway into my lane prevented a collision. Don’t pretend right on red without stopping is harmless.
Steve65, you have an anecdote about a near miss. NHTSA stats show 2,378 RTIP (right turn into path) accidents at an intersection in 1998 (old, but still relevant). That’s out of a database on 6.3 million accidents. Not all of those accidents were rolling stops, it’s just the number listing a signal violation. So, no, that’s not a statistically significant risk.
RichardD – The behavior of actually running a red light leads to losses (I’m speaking to crossing an intersection after the light has turned vs turning right which is legal), and this is separate from Red light cameras. as I agree they have a negligible safety effect. I think there’s good reasons to think they cause more R/E claims due to increased penalties for entering a yellow that leads to strong braking.
Insurance isn’t a rigid deal, it’s totally negotiable. The issue with personal lines is that there isn’t enough premium involved for someone to manually underwrite you, but if you complain enough to your agent and ask for competing quotes you will find a good deal. Or just go online and quote.
But why would you want a insurer that didn’t underwrite? That means they ignore your good driving behavior and you pay the same as someone with worse. If you don’t like your insurer, find a better one!
Out of all the deeply valid reasons to oppose red light cameras, you chose the patently ridiculous “red light runnig is safe” argument.
Every day I sit at red lights I could safely run. That doesn’t make red light running defensible.
(I’m speaking to crossing an intersection after the light has turned vs turning right which is legal)
Did you seriously just claim that running a red light isn’t running a red light if you’re turing right when you do it?
Not all jurisdictions allow right on red. And I’ve never heard of ANY which don’t require stopping first.
Steve65- You fail to understand the nature of insurance. It’s meant to protect against unforeseen, fortuitous loss. You don’t claim an oil change or tires to your auto insurer do you? Think about what the cost of those services would be if you only had to pay 5% of the cost or less, and it was illegal to ask what car you drive, how many tickets you had, how old you are, do you race, etc. We’re not subsidizing insureds, we’re paying for the expected value of random events that would happen to groups, it honestly doesn’t matter what policy the claim is on for the group because it would happen to one of them.
Why don’t we see “cherry-picking” in other insurance lines? Why wouldn’t we encourage it so people would want to be the ones to be “cherry picked” as if the companies were the ones who set prices instead in reality where consumers choose to pay or not. I quote a rate I hope to get, and then there is the rate I actually write the business for.
Steve65, it’s called yielding. Maybe you don’t have yield signs wherever you live, but they’re the smarter way to control traffic — and more environmentally friendly if you’re into that sort of thing. There’s an effort in the Tenn. legislature to treat right turns at lights into yields, as a matter of fact.
I think you may be hung up on the difference between technical violations which are not dangerous — and 90-95% of red light camera tickets are issued for such technicalities — and someone barreling through a red light 5 seconds after it has changed, or turning right on red at 35 MPH. Those are both dangerous things. Turning right on red at 5 MPH is not dangerous, nor is entering an intersection 0.1 seconds after the light turns red, even though you get a ticket.
Could you get a little more patronizing? I haven’t reached my daily limit of gratuitous insults from the internet.
We have yield signs here. Also, red light controlled intersections with right turn lanes. And 4-way stop signs. And roundabouts with stop signs, thereby completely defeating the purpose of installing a roundabout.
How about you stick with one topic at a time? In this case, running a red light by turning right without first stopping. Are you seriously claiming that this is less dangerous than say, proceeding stright through an empty intersection without stopping? I can do htat perfectly safely on occasion. Why should that be ticketed, and not the right turn on the same red light?
You seem to be asserting that right on red without stopping should be allowed. I find that attitude terrifying, especially given how many people in my vicinity seem to sincerely believe that that is the current state of the law.
Don’t conflate how enforcement is done with whether enforcement should be done. Protesting red light cameras by defending running red lights is foolish. There are more than adequate legitimate reasons to oppose them.
Shocker. The IIHS does crash tests and surveys to build credibility for the organization, and then the organizations backer’s spend that credibility when it actually matters to their bottom line. In this case, spreading the use of camera enforcement, and down the road assigning points to the licenses of as many citizens as possible.
And it’s not like the insurance companies would really care if the IIHS’ name got trashed in the process. They’d simply rename the organization and re-invest in establishing it as a trusted nameplate. This is why, when anyone quotes and IIHS finding on basically any topic, I say “don’t do that.” They simply have too much skin in the game.
And to all the crash test defenders out there…how would you feel if this was a pharmaceutical industry article?
Insurance companies have an incentive to accurately rate vehicles based on their actual crash results. New models don’t have observable data, so there is a financial incentive to test and the more accurate and truthful that data is, the more accurate the rating methodology. I think the analogy to Pharma is inaccurate, Insurers don’t mfg autos.
The economic incentives are positive for trusting the IIHS crash studies. Plus the IIHS isn’t even a lobbying PAC, the PCIAA is, and a few of the bigger players contribute more than that group individually according to OpenSecrets.
“I think the analogy to Pharma is inaccurate, Insurers don’t mfg autos.”
I don’t see why that makes it inaccurate, or what manufacturers of automobiles have to do with license point assignments at all. This study supports a technology which would greatly increase the rate at which tickets are assigned to the American motorist, and the insurance companies have lobbied for points to be awarded as a result. That is your “skin in the game,” they mfg license points.
When a pharma company releases it’s own study which minimizes the cardio risks of a new (heavily invested) drug do you give that study equal weight against an independently financed paper? Saying yes is crazy, they get caught at this depressingly often, and the result is always a class action bonanza.
What the IIHS has done is decided to use just enough data to show that rear end accidents have decreased, without correlating that at all with use of red light cameras. They couldn’t even be bothered to be good at their cherry picking, I hope because the good eggs wouldn’t touch this stinker, another frequent occurance in the pharma world.
Steve65, didn’t mean to sound patronizing. Legitimately, a lot of places don’t have yield signs any more. It’s a disappearing concept. Sorry it came out like that.
Neither running a red light at 2am on an empty road nor turning right on red at low speeds should be ticketed. I don’t believe in ticketing behavior unless it’s actually dangerous. Sort of like how California speed laws used to say “reasonable and prudent” — so the cop would have to prove that your driving 40 mph in a 35 zone was dangerous. Same thing should be applied to intersection tickets. More people die every year from paper cut wounds than from people making slow, rolling rights on red.
I’d go further and question the concept of a victimless “crime.” Alleged danger of an act is a slippery slope as living in general is dangerous, especially driving.