Despite Increase in Total Crashes, City Wants More Red Light Cameras
Should St. Pete install more red light cameras?
During Thursday's city council agenda review meeting, city administration was on the defensive following a report by the Tampa Bay Times that despite an overall increase in traffic accidents, the city wants to add more red light cameras.
Earlier this week, city staff released a lengthy report of data from the first year of red light cameras in St. Petersburg. In it, are numbers about red light running crash rates, red light running injury crash rates and red light related rear end rates. What was not in there, was the total number of crashes.
The total number of crashes at intersections with red light cameras is actually up 10 percent. According to the Times, "crashes increased from 298 to 328 at the 10 intersections with cameras between November 2011 and October."
Joe Kubicki, director of the city's transportation and parking management department, began his brief presentation Thursday with an apology to city council for omitting the overall crash numbers from his report.
"We’ve really tried to make it clear, isolate the camera issue from other problems at intersections," Kubicki said. "If it caused confusion, I apologize."
He said there was no intent to leave out or hide information. The purpose of the report, he said, was to shed light on red light running related crashes. Other crashes, Kubicki said, have nothing to do with red light cameras.
"A majority (of crashes) are caused by other reasons other than running red lights," Kubicki said.
Kubicki and Mayor Bill Foster said the total crash numbers were left out of the report in order to focus more on red light related crashes. Foster said the other crash numbers were a distraction from the real red light running crashes.
"The No. 1 cause of intersection accidents today is driving under the influence of a cell phone," Foster said. "Distracted drivers are causing havoc at every intersection. It has nothing to do with red light, green light. ... We have a decline in red light related crashes."
According to the city's report, red light related crashes have been declining in the first year of the program compared to the three years prior to installation of the cameras.
- Red light running crash rate net reduction of 25 percent,
- Red light running injury crash rate net reduction of 39 percent,
- Red light related rear end crash rate net reduction of 15 percent
Longtime opponent of red light cameras, St. Pete resident Matt Florell, is not buying the city's "omission" excuse.
"I completely don’t understand how it could be an oversight or omission," Florell told Patch. "It was on purpose."
During the first year of the Stop on Red program, there were 36,185 violations. Of those violations, 22 percent were issued for left-turns, 40 percent were issued for thru movements and 38 percent issued for right turns.
Council member Wengay Newton said he is getting tired of hearing about new data of the red light cameras from Florell and the media instead of getting the numbers directly from city staff.
"Why can’t we just get (the information) we need to be getting," Newton said Thursday. "We always find out from the media. The data shows total crashes are up by 10 percent."
Florell said he has plans to meet with city staff and members of city council prior to the Dec. 20 report to install nine additional red light cameras in the city.
In October, council voted to delay adding cameras until a full year's worth of data was collected on their effectiveness.
Nine new proposed cameras, which in some cases are not in new intersections just new directions, include:
- Northbound at 34th Street and 1st Avenue S,
- Northbound and westbound at 34th Street and 22nd Avenue North
- Northbound and southbound at 34th Street and 5th Avenue N,
- Northbound and southbound at 66th Street and 13th Avenue North
- Northbound and westbound at 66th Street and 38th Avenue North.
Florell said he wants to ask the city for proof that red light cameras affect only red light running crashes before any new cameras are installed.
"There is no study that makes that claim," Florell said. "Red light cameras are basically a distraction that affects the total crash situation of an intersection.
"You can’t just separate the statistics you like to say it is working and ignore everything else," Florell added. "True scientific studies don’t do that, politicians do that."
Stephen
7:32 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
The city just got BUSTED LYING on their RLC stats and they want "more"?
NO MORE RLC.
Not the first time the city was busted. http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/joe-isuzu-invades-the-city-of-st-petersburg-rlc-department.html
Quote: Joe Isuzu was a pathological liar who made outrageous and overinflated claims about Isuzu’s cars.
Ban the Cams: Only this time the Joe (City of St. Pete) is trying to sell RLC as a "safety" device!
City of St. Pete (AKA Joe Isuzu) http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/tampa-st-pete-red-light-cameras-making-money-reducing-violations/1234215 He said his department compared the average number of red-light accidents in the three years before the cameras were installed to the numbers in the six months since the cameras were installed.
The number of accidents related to red-light running at the 10 intersections with cameras has dropped 60 percent.
(No not really Joe (city of St. Pete).
Former FHP patrolman with 25 years in force who went thru stats FOUND the "decrease" was a Increase!
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/fl-spanalysis.pdf
"In the "before" period, there were a total of 6, 12 and 10 accidents in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively -- for an overall average of 9.3. After the cameras were activated, there were ten crashes total. "
Paul went on to say this:
"Utilizing the data from the city, there is no way to arrive at a 60 percent reduction in crashes caused by red light running,"
Stephen
7:33 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
Check out more on the RLC scam:
www.motorists.org
www.banthecams.org
camerafraud on Facebook.
Jerry Kendall
8:37 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
So now the city is dropping all pretext about the RLC's being about safety. With the accident rate up at those intersections, that argument is pathetic. However, with the revenues pulled in from those cameras we clearly see what the city is all about. Has anyone verified that the yellow's have not been shortened at those intersections? Many other cities have done that.
Dharma
8:52 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
YES!!!! As to the yellows being shortened how about being with that driving moment and just plain follow the driving rules.. its not the yellows it’s the driving, no matter how short they have been timed you to stop!!! i love the revenues pulled in due to cameras, it’s because people are finally being caught as they do something wrong that is really making anyone unhappy. Since people will not hold themselves accountable for their actions this does.
Lava
5:36 pm on Friday, December 14, 2012
In other words, you love killing people.
You love cities tricking people with the lights, watching them crash into each other trying to avoid the lights, and watching the city milking money from them besides.
Brian Ceccarelli
4:55 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
The length of the yellow light equals:
A. 50% of the time to stop
B. 100% of the time to stop
C. 150% of the time to stop
The answer is A.
http://redlightrobber.com
S. Ripley
9:08 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
The argument for RLC is much older than this. If you want real statistics – those that in include large amounts if data over long periods of time- you have to look at some of the western European countries, where RLC has been in use for decades. In most cases you’ll find that over time driver behavior is changed and that there is real net benefit. Taking a 6 month, 1 year, or 2 year snapshot is just that: a snapshot – it like checking how your lawn is growing every few hours.
The revenue issue is entirely another matter- how these things are funded and what is done with the money should always be scrutinized.
If you still don’t like it: slow down, stop tailgating, and pay attention. If you do those three things you’ll never get a ticket.
James C. Walker
6:50 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
For S. Ripley:
If the yellow intervals are set correctly long for the ACTUAL approach speeds, most of the violations simply do not occur. In most cases with a correctly long yellow the camera will not record enough violations to even pay its own high costs which tend to be $3,000 to $5,000 per month per camera. And most cities will not install cameras that lose any significant amount of money. MONEY was the purpose for the cameras and if they won't make profits most cities won't use them.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
nic weathersbee
10:20 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
I drove my motorcycle into a car that ran a red light, i was traveling at 50mph, and slammed into the car without braking. I'm lucky to be alive, but no camera in the world would have stopped that car from going through the red light. The only thing a camera would have done would be taking a picture of me pinwheeling through the air.
Now, if the person running a red light caused a giant pillow to drop down, lol, then I might be for them. Otherwise they are simply a scam to fleece us. This is the worst council ever according to many many people. I will be voting the majority of them out at every chance I get. And the mayor? lol, the same.
Paul Henry
10:56 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
I lieu of making two replies here to basically the same argument "Just don't run the light and there will be no problem":
Have either of you read the law? Do you realize what it means when the government no longer has to prove YOU broke the law but YOU must now prove you did not? Perhaps actual examples will help:
Earlier this year in Orlando, a driver stopped for a red light. The car next to him did not. The automated for-profit company "cropped out" the red light runner and no one at the police department caught it. Simple to fix, as the city evidence exonerates him, right? Wrong. The money is so important that he was blown off by Orlando officials until he went to WFTV, the media.
A couple in Bradenton own a moped. It was in their garage when a motorcycle supposedly ran a red light in Tampa. A police officer guessed at the tag and mailed them a ticket. Now due to how the law is worded they must prove they didn't break it and make a trip to Tampa, costing time and money, Fortunately the media got involved again.
A vehicle owner in Jacksonville got a ticket in the mail from a city in South Florida. Since he had never been there, he ignored it. His license was suspended for a violation he didn't commit. The tag number was one character different. Again, after media involvement this was straightened out.
These are but a few of the cases of owners wrongly accused in Florida. There are many other issues with the devices as well.
Lava
5:48 pm on Friday, December 14, 2012
There was a woman who moved to Colorado. She lived there about six months and got a ticket from New Jersey. It was dated a day she WORKED in Colorado. She mailed in a response. The attorney lost it/didn't give it to the judge. She got an appeal. The court PUT the notice in the mail the day of the hearing; she received it the day after. Between "hearings" her license was suspended, or not suspended, or suspended, something! She got another appeal.
She said to herself: if I mail this, the court will lose it. If I fight in person, I have to take the airplane to appear in court. Paid her punishment.
An old couple was pulled over. The policeman said he "saw" the driver talking on a phone. The couple did not even own a cellular phone. The couple got the media paying attention. The reporter asks the police chief. The chief says he knows different information from what the reporter has.
Paul Henry
11:05 am on Friday, December 14, 2012
So now there is a year's worth of crash data and red light running crashes are down 25%? When I inquired earlier this year after a claim of a 60% reduction in red light "related" crashes, the city sent me 38 crash reports for the past 4 years for identical 6-month periods of time. Here is the breakdown, these are the facts as obtained from the city of St. Petersburg, so draw your own conclusion:
Pre-device:
Year 1: 6 crashes
Year 2: 12 crashes (this shows how these crashes vary year-to-year)
Year 3: 10 crashes
Post-device:
Year 4: 10 crashes
FACT: There was NO CHANGE from the year prior, 10 each year.
FACT: The average for the prior 3 years was 9.3. Comparing the 10 from year 4 to this number, it was a 7% increase.
Does anyone believe any numbers the City of St. Pete publishes? They should have zero credibility on this issue.
James C. Walker
12:28 pm on Friday, December 14, 2012
The city wants more red light cameras for one and ONLY one reason - to make MONEY. Safety is not relevant, higher crash rates are not relevant, fairness to motorists is not relevant, deliberately improper engineering to cause more technical violations is not relevant .... the ONLY thing that is relevant is more MONEY.
St. Petersburg voters need to repeatedly contact their elected and appointed officials to demand that the cameras be taken down. Vote out any city official who either openly supports the cameras or stays silent to therefore endorse them. Vote in ONLY officials who openly and strongly oppose the cameras and will work tirelessly until they are removed from St. Petersburg.
The revenue to be collected with cameras has corrupted the current group of officials and they must be replaced to end the corruption. The chances that the city would retime the lights for maximum safety and minimum violations which would end most of the corrupt revenue stream is zero now. The city is addicted to the dollars from the improper engineering and will not change it for more safety.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
sparky
12:46 pm on Friday, December 14, 2012
The city administration constantly omits data and mis-informs the city council to get them to vote the way they want. Its about money and its about lies by an administration that thinks they are beyond serving the public. Out with Foster and out with the department heads. The lies about the Lens are multiple and just keep adding up. Wolf and the city attorney team couldn't construct an honest sentence if their lives depended upon it.
James C. Walker
1:56 pm on Friday, December 14, 2012
St. Petersburg needs to follow Collier County's example
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3973.asp
Note the comment of the candidate for sheriff in the next to last paragraph. It applies to ALL red light camera programs from ATS, Redflex and other camera providers.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
Lava
4:55 pm on Friday, December 14, 2012
Whoa, did anybody else notice?
Before Cameras, most crashes were caused by cell phones. The response was...to install red-light cameras.
After cameras are proven to cause crashes, the response is..."more crashes are caused by cell phones."
i don't care if most crashes are caused by trees suddenly falling onto the roadway. The SUBJECT under discussion is the crashes caused by cameras! You don't have to have the cameras, anyone who puts up cameras, therefore, wants to cause crashes.
Joey Ismail
5:20 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
The only idiots who are for these scam cams work for the companies that provide them. I've yet to meet a single citizen who is ok with this farce.