Cops want green light for more red light cameras because study says they're just the thing to prevent accidents ... or do they?
By RICK BELL
If a civilian coughed up evidence this way, the uniforms would just roll their eyes.
It's sad, hearing cops crowing about red-light cameras, saying little, explaining less, sticking to a script designed NOT to tell the whole story while hoping the press is willing to be spoon fed.
The Calgary police want to put up at least three more red-light cameras, maybe more, including one soon to be announced at 16 Ave. and Deerfoot Tr. The province also requires a study be done.
The cop brass realize some out there think red-light cameras are cash cows. Others aren't sure what they feel.
Studies elsewhere on the continent show cameras don't really make life much safer. Some places have even banned the devices.
So ... Gadzooks Batman ... here is a study. And the study shows ... who would have thunk it ... red-light cameras are pretty close to the greatest gift to humanity since the pop-up toaster.
Right-angle collisions are down 48.2%. Rear-end collisions are reduced by 39.6%. The safety effects of the cameras spill over to intersections without cameras. For every buck spent on the cameras, Calgarians save almost $11 in medical costs, property damage and lost productivity.
The conclusion?
Red-light cameras rule.
Can't wait until April Fool's Day when the red-light cameras start taking snapshots of folks going over the speed limit through a green light.
A similar report on speed-on-green cameras will no doubt be equally rocking.
But first, there is this report. Well, actually we don't get a report. We have a one-page synopsis of a 15-page study.
Sgt. Clive Marsh, the man in charge, can't give us the study. Maybe in a day or two, he says. Maybe later in the day.
Late in the day, there is no study. Then, after a phone call to city police HQ, this scribe scores the study.
He is told the report is sure tough to come by. He is told the police had to get the report from the people who wrote the report and they are in Ontario.
You have to wonder, since the cops scoop up $3.9 million last year on red-light tickets, why they couldn't have copies of the study on hand or even afford to bring one of the study's big brains to explain. Why put on a big show if the headliner isn't in town?
After all, questioning Sgt. Marsh is tougher than dealing with know-nothing Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.
The sergeant can't comment on other studies showing red-light cameras aren't effective. He doesn't bother to ask the people doing the study why their findings differ but he feels they're "very, very thorough."
He knows this study says the cameras are a good thing though he's not sure why they are good in Calgary but not so good in many other locales.
Calgarians are, in Marsh's words, "just driving more confidently and showing more awareness of the safety aspects of driving."
He tosses off this chestnut as an intuition of his.
He says the Calgary police always thought red-light cameras were great and now they had proof but getting proof wasn't the purpose.
Oh no.
He does admit they are "pretty excited." Then there's the study. Sgt. Marsh doesn't know the cost of the study because it's "not part of my program."
"I'm the operational component," he says.
Many legitimate questions could be asked about the ins and outs of the method used to crunch the numbers, because the devil is always in the details, but the police have no one to answer.
They also can't explain why there is no review of the study by other traffic experts.
The report, such as it is, does find a reduction in right-angle crashes from the number of collisions expected if there was no red-light camera.
But any decrease in rear-end accidents from the number expected without red-light cameras is "not statistically significant." Say what?
"It is not possible to state that the effect of the red-light camera program on rear-end collisions is conclusive." The reason for the difference between the results of this study and previously published results in other studies in other jurisdictions also requires "further research."
As for better safety somehow spilling over from red-light camera intersections to other intersections, there's actually a significant increase over the expected rear-enders in red-light intersections. "Further assessment needs to be conducted to explain this result."
No kidding.
The alleged economic benefits are a jumble of numbers where the police again can't handle the arithmetic.
Where are the police handlers? Why are the cops pitching this half-baked spin? Even on the question of whether longer yellow lights would prevent collisions, Marsh answers: "I can't really answer."
He says that's up to Silly Hall's roads department.
He also says the red-light cameras aren't a cash cow but cash is "part of the program."
What a gong show. Funny. The consultants once wrote a deep-think Silly Hall should use. It found snow on the roads causes lots of crashes.
Red light Cameras (not speed cameras) REDUCED (yes) rear-end collisions
to speed-on-green cameras though (esp if they are set like +-5kph)
Quote
