Red light on the red light cameras

Florida State Senator Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg), has filed a proposed law to ban red light cameras for the upcoming legislative session.

Red light camera

"This program was originally sold as being about safety," Brandes said. "I have come to believe that it's now about revenue."

Of the $158 collected from every citation, the state takes $83. The remaining $75 is split between the municipality and the camera vendor.

Between July 2012 and June 2013, according to the Florida Department of Revenue, the cameras produced about $62.5 million for the state.

The biggest player, by far, is American Traffic Solutions, a Tempe, Ariz.-based company that operates cameras in about 70 cities and counties in the state, including Miami, Tampa, New Port Richey, St. Petersburg and Fort Lauderdale. It has 24 lobbyists working for it in Tallahassee. 

Guess who is among the largest lobbying firms for the 2013 State of Florida legislative term?  American Traffic Solutions.  They have 24 registered lobbyists in Tallahassee.

Think they might be looking to grow the business by ticketing more drivers?

Is this what we call a "Public-Private Partnership"?

The Trib, clearly reacting to Brandes proposal, yet again comes down on the wrong side of the liberty question, this time on red light cameras.

The evidence in Tampa is pretty persuasive. The number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras is down nearly 30 percent, the number of citations for running red lights at those intersections is decreasing, and police say motorists are changing their driving habits for the better.

The city has every reason to continue, or perhaps even expand, its use of the technology.

Well at least they are consistent against your civil liberties, as they decided last week we needed more camera surveillance, which we questioned their judgement last week.

Why did the Trib not highlight some real data?  One really cannot draw any real conclusions from a statement "The number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras is down nearly 30 percent" without understanding the time frames they are citing. Was it a year?  A month?  A day?  How was the data controlled for other variations... such as weather, time of day, holidays etc.? What is the source? Even if there is a statistical correlation, without proper controls, that may not prove that more red light cameras were the direct cause for a reduction in accidents.

Elsewhere, the Tampa Bay Times reports different stats:

In the six months before the city of Port Richey installed red light cameras on U.S. 19 at Grand Boulevard, authorities reported just two motor vehicle crashes at the intersection. Two years later, that number had jumped 700 percent to 14 accidents over the same six-month period.

The statistics show that it is time for two west Pasco cities to drop the pretense of red light cameras being about enhanced public safety. A report this month from Pasco County revealed a significant drop in accidents at only one of nine intersections equipped with the cameras along U.S. 19 in the cities of Port Richey and New Port Richey. And, overall, the data show an increase in crashes when taking into account vehicles skidding on wet pavement, drunken or distracted drivers or other contributing factors.

"We're not saving anything, in terms of making it safer, as far as red light cameras go,'' Commissioner Jack Mariano correctly surmised after being briefed on the report at a Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting.

 Given the Trib's proclivity for surveillance, if we all had cameras in our cars all the time for Them to monitor, we could further reduce traffic violations, crime, ... and privacy. Oh, never mind.

The cameras are not without flaws. As with any technology, there were bugs to work out. Lawmakers last year, led by a bill Brandes championed, made tweaks in the law that made the appellate process fairer and eased the rules for motorists turning right on red.

Actually, the "tweaks" apparently made things worse:

Attempts at reform didn't go entirely as planned. State legislators complicated the appeals process by forcing local governments to set up an appeals process or hire special magistrates to hear cases, while putting additional costs on drivers challenging their tickets.

Of course, red light cameras are money makers for the local jurisdictions.  They're incented to keep it that way.

We are not technophobes.  We are for using new and interesting technologies, but we draw a line when it encroaches... or even can encroach, on our privacy, and our right to be left alone.  We're certainly not for more running of red lights.  Perhaps we could alter the technology such that if the driver runs a red light, the get a mild shock or buzz in the steering wheel, or use a gamification (using a simple score keeping to encourage certain behaviors) coupled with smartphones for safe driving with some rewards or recognition.

Insurance companies are offering safety monitor devices for further discounts, if you're OK with your insurance company monitoring your driving.  That's up to you.  It can benefit you, but not the state or municipal government.  Or American Traffic Solutions.

Red light cameras from a technology point of view are revenue cash cows and productivity enhancers (fewer police or deputies needed to write more tickets!) for the municipalities.  I expect any moment now we'll see reduction in the Tampa Police and Hillsborough County Sheriffs budgets and staffing since they are obviously doing more with less.  Right?

Hillsborough County Public Safety, including the Sheriff's department, is already is by far the largest department according the Hillsborough County budget.  And they want more, apparently.

Hillsborough County proposed 2014 budget

In case you're wondering where all these cameras are, they're all over the Tampa Bay area.  Too many for me to count.

Just a few red light cameras in the Tampa Bay area

And surprise, they've been prone to abuse from local officials, such as strategically reducing the yellow light times in an obvious effort to increase revenues.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations -- and the revenue they create. 

Nice work if you can get it.  I wonder if there's any connection to those 24 lobbyists in Tallahassee?

Not only the shortened yellows, but right turn on red is another big money maker, despite rolling right turns are involved in less than 1% of accidents according to most stats.  In the past, the law enforcement could exercise some judgement on whether you abide by the law.  Now, if you stop early, and don't properly stop over the sensors in the road... cha ching!

The state is making money.  The municipalities are making money.  ATS is making money.  They are all collecting more data.  They are all now hooked to the millions these cameras bring in to them.

Making money off of you.  Where will it end?

At least Jeff Brandes has an idea.

Is there ever enough surveillance?

The Tribune came out in favor of more surveillance in a recent editorial.

The surveillance cameras left behind after the Republican National Convention last year are proving to be effective at solving crimes and tamping down criminal activity.

Tampa police told the City Council this week that the cameras were directly responsible for the arrest of an assault suspect, and that they have been helpful in solving burglaries. Their visibility downtown may also be responsible for deterring criminal behavior like shoplifting.

Clearly, the benefits of having the cameras outweigh the privacy concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and others when the cameras remained after the RNC left town.

The Trib goes on how the cameras have helped solve several crimes, the images are recorded and erased every thirty days (except when?), etc. Please read the whole thing if you have not.

No doubt the surveillance state cameras keep things in control.  I'm sure the law enforcement authorities have adequate controls and procedures.  I'm sure no law enforcement officer would ever violate their oaths. Right?

Surveillance camera

Don't get me wrong.  I know several local law enforcement officers as friends and acquaintances, and have worked with some in a professional capacity.  I'll be among the first to defend them when they have to make that split second life or death decision.  I can't imagine what that must be like.  Fortunate for me.  I'm glad they are there for us.

Tampa 2012 RNC Surveillance Cameras

But they are like us, only human, and can make mistakes.  Surveillance cameras are another tool they can use for a great public service, and another tool with which they may make mistakes. Just as they might make mistakes with a firearm.  And just like police abuse with a firearm is punishable, abuse by authorities of surveillance cameras is punishable. Good.

In the current surveillance state, in addition to surveillance cameras, we have:

• NSA with our phone records
• DEA with even more phone records
• IRS with our financial records
• IRS collecting more information on our health access
• IRS with more data than ever before
• CFPB with our credit card transactions
• IRS abusing disfavored political groups
• Red light cameras
• Toll booth tracking
• Smartphone tracking
• Automatic License Plate Recognition

Lots of people are watching you.  If not directly with surveillance cameras, they can monitor you with Big Data and analytics.  They can know where you are, where you've been, where you're going, who you know, who you know knows who, what you buy, ...

And that's just some of the government surveillance.  

Businesses are tracking you as well on the web and in their businesses trying to figure out ways to get you to buy, and get you to buy more.  Again, Big Data is part of the equation.  

Is there a limit?  

The Trib states:

But privacy concerns now pale in comparison to security concerns. People in public places have no expectation of privacy in this increasingly dangerous post-9/11 world. Businesses routinely use cameras, and individuals frequently use their smartphones to record public events.

The Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year pretty much ended the privacy debate over the placement of security cameras at large public gatherings.

The RNC established Tampa as a city capable of hosting a large national event with significant security concerns. It proved to be a public relations boon and a financial windfall for the city.

Although unintended, its most enduring legacy may be a safer downtown.

Perhaps.  The Trib is mixing private choices in how we interact with businesses and our use of smart phones, and public safety.  Private choices are activities we can opt out of if we're concerned about a business that may overreach and compromise our privacy for their benefit.  We do make compromises around conveniences and benefits ... and safety ... over privacy all the time.  We can do so with many business activities.  Maybe not enough, but many companies are giving us control and choice over our data.

Government data collection is harder to control.  Let us know how well you make out the next time you chose to not fully share your financial information with the IRS.

We are also seeing with the NSA spying scandal the federal government has required Verizon, AT&T, Google, Facebook, and others to provide all sorts of data on their behalf. Privacy and the use of our data are likely to get murkier before it clears up.

The privacy debate is much larger than just security cameras at large public gatherings.  The recent news around the NSA spying and web data collection and security breeches has only made privacy our our data more of a concern.

But who watches the watcher?

If this additional surveillance is such a good idea, then perhaps we can turn some of this surveillance state on the state.  What if  law enforcement was being watched as well?  

A watched cop is a better cop.   That's the point that Ron Bailey of Reason makes. That's good as far as it goes, but the surveillance state today is more than a cop on the beat wearing a video camera.

Video Surveillance monitoring center

It includes camera surveillance all over the municipality, monitored and collected by computers, maintained and analyzed by more computers, and data and video analytics specialists... and some 3rd party contractors, consultants, and data and analytics providers.

In today's surveillance state, we need to watch all the watchers.  That includes those behind the locked doors crunching through the data.  More video for them? More other monitoring and auditing and compliance such as a Dodd-Frank for our watchers?  I'm not sure I have an exact answer.

But if surveillance cameras are good to keep us in control, perhaps we need something similar to ensure our watchers are in control.