|
November 02, 2005
Collusion and collision
I really hate it when I find an important Philadelphia news item going largely unreported in the Philadelphia Inquirer. But according to this report in a journal devoted to driving issues, "accidents have increased 10-20 percent since red light cameras began issuing tickets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." Why have I seen nothing about this in the Philadelphia Inquirer? As Philadelphia's only major daily, doesn't it have a sense of responsibility to report issues affecting the safety of its readers? (Especially right now, when a huge public transit strike is literally forcing commuters out of the buses and trolleys and into their cars to face what may be the worst gridlock in Philadelphia history....) I mean, I'm a subscriber to the Inquirer and a loyal daily reader. Why should I have to discover this by reading Glenn Reynolds' links? It's probably also worth asking why Glenn is doing a better job of reporting the story than the Inquirer, too, but I don't want to rub it in. I know that Knight-Ridder has fallen on bad times lately, but I don't think this explains the problem. More likely, I suspect, is a reluctance to "rock the boat" with the powers that be in the Philadelphia city government -- which desperately needs money. But should that be at the cost of public safety? The underlying circumstances strike me as outrageous. Not only has there been an increase in accidents, but the outfit which builds and supplies the cameras can also be fairly said to have built and supplied the legislation and the politicians too: The Philadelphia Daily News explained the circumstances surrounding the film provision. Dallas-based ACS is the largest U.S. camera contractor and is one of the few that have not yet converted to all-digital systems. ACS used a lot of money to influence the legislature, paying S.R. Wojdak & Associates $175,910 in lobbying fees. Stephen Wojdak just happens to be a lobbyist for the city of Philadelphia and raised money for the mayor's campaign.(Don't bother to click on the links which are supposed to go to the Philadelphia Daily News. They are now non-functional.) Back in the old days, with two competing daily locals, there'd have been no way to keep a story this major -- that the devices have increased accidents -- out of the papers. And lest anyone think the Inquirer "didn't know," consider their story which ran in August: A provision in the state law that allows the city to use the cameras at traffic intersections also puts photographs, written records, reports, facsimiles, names, addresses, and "the number of violations" off limits to the public.More recently the Inquirer reported a problem with a camera malfunction causing the generation of erroneous tickets. But the real story -- the one involving a direct danger to public safety -- is that accidents have increased, and that is not being reported in the Inquirer. It doesn't make sense -- unless the goal is to help Philadelphia keep the cameras. I sincerely hope that the Inquirer doesn't share this goal, and I'd hate to think that in their haste to preserve the cameras, they might be inadvertently assisting a government coverup of a dangerous condition. Because, if the non-reporting of the danger is coupled with the deliberate sealing of data, how are Philadelphians to ever know that the official information they're being given is wrong? To give an egregious example, the Philadelphia Parking Authority's web site FAQ would have Philadelphians believe that any increase in accidents caused by red light cameras is only temporary, and that the deadly "T-bone" collision rate does not rise at all: The installation of Red Light Cameras may temporarily cause an increase in rear end collisions. However, any small increase in these minor accidents returns to previous levels when drivers begin to slow down and comply with the speed limits and traffic signal phases. Significantly, however, the more severe accidents (like the deadly right angled “T-Bone” type) are dramatically reduced after camera installations. The vast majority of studies and reports (over 90%) support this fact.According to the Washington Post, that simply isn't true: The Post obtained a D.C. database generated from accident reports filed by police. The data covered the entire city, including the 37 intersections where cameras were installed in 1999 and 2000.As Glenn says, "traffic-ticket revenues are up, and that's more important than your safety!" It's bad enough that a financially troubled city government would consider revenue more important than safety. But when a leading newspaper ignores such a public safety issue, that's worse. posted by Eric on 11.02.05 at 07:41 AM
Comments
City governments know that if you want reduce accidents all that is necessary is to lengthen the yellow lights. That, unfortunately for revenue, results in fewer traffic tickets. Part of the funding for many of these programs is to show city governments how it will increase revenue by encouraging them to shorten the yellows. Public safety and methods to make our streets safer (which is what we have a government for) is not their agenda. It's criminal in many, many respects, but most of all it is because they do not understand their role. Ironic that this should occur in Philadelphia. Tar and feathers would be too good for them and our Founders wouldn't have hesitated. Grand Stand · November 2, 2005 10:43 AM I agree completely. I have always held traffic laws to be the model of good laws, since their function is not to control your thoughts or your private parts but simply to keep cars from banging into each other. But when even those laws get corrupted by politicians, we're in trouble. Looks like more cars are ending up banging into each other. As for your newspaper, it doesn't seem terribly informative. You've discussed extensively one major terrorist episode it failed to discuss, and now even a problem right on your doorstep, so to speak, that it doesn't report on. You might as well be reading My Weekly Reader. I could aay the same about other papers. The P-I here is too biased to the Left on the whole, and you can't trust anything you read in The Walter Duranty Times. Blogs like this one are my main source of news these days. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · November 2, 2005 02:24 PM Actually, it's been my (admittedly lazy and un-rigorous) observation that yellow lights have already been getting longer, and that red-light running has increased during the same time-span. My explanation for this is that people know that signals stay yellow longer (and greens more delayed), therefore they feel safer in speeding up rather than stopping in response. How the use of red-light cams could result in an increase in accidents is beyond me. Anyone suggest a cause-and-effect relationship? Raging Bee · November 2, 2005 02:25 PM I have absolutely no expertise in traffic engineering, but a Virginia study said it was because of sudden stops: RICHMOND — Habitual red-light runners are hitting the brakes at intersections monitored by enforcement cameras, but their newfound caution is sometimes rewarded with a crumpled rear bumper, according to a new state study. The research arm of the Virginia Department of Transportation found that cameras reduce red-light-running by about 21 percent. However, the study also shows that crashes become more frequent at intersections after cameras are installed, driven by a surge in rear-end smash-ups. http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80826&ran=203722 Eric Scheie · November 2, 2005 03:24 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What common good could possibly be served by deliberately keeping the "the number of violations" from public scrutiny? That alone strikes me as both suspicious and wrong. The rest of it can probably be kept secret for reasons of privacy, but numbers of recorded violations are important data for public -- i.e., democratic -- decision-making.