new category for figures don't lie but liars figure.

We've seen "Speed Related" which means someone was moving. We've seen
"alcohol relate" which means someone had a drink once in their life. Now
there's "red light related" which will unlike the other two seek to
narrow what will be included.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2938.asp

"The brochure goes on to present a chart showing "red light related"
crashes at photo enforced intersections in 2006 and 2007 -- before
cameras were installed -- and in 2008 and 2009 -- after installation.
The enforcement industry created the "red light related" category of
accident as a way to selectively exclude the types of accidents that
increase following the installation of cameras. "

> Who is doing the lying?
>
> I was curious as to what are the types of accidents that
> increase following the installation of cameras. Turns out that "red
> light related accidents means all accidents that occur at an
> intersection with a stop light. Texas State law requires cities to
> report the number of accidents before and after installation of the
> camera.
>
> So what accidents that increase following the installation of
> cameras are not being reported?


I thought that was obvious. Rear-end collisions increase significantly
at intersections with red light cameras installed. But those accidents
are going to be reported in a different category now.

The statistics are being (ahem) massaged to show that red light cameras
positively affect safety. Now the statistics will be reported as
"After the red light camera was installed, RED LIGHT accidents (or
similar wording) decreased significantly". Conveniently ignoring the
fact that four times as many rear-end collisions were caused in the
effort to maximize red light camera fines. -Dave

Brent wrote:
>
> We've seen "Speed Related" which means someone was moving. We've seen
> "alcohol relate" which means someone had a drink once in their life. Now
> there's "red light related" which will unlike the other two seek to
> narrow what will be included.
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2938.asp
>
> "The brochure goes on to present a chart showing "red light related"
> crashes at photo enforced intersections in 2006 and 2007 -- before
> cameras were installed -- and in 2008 and 2009 -- after installation.
> The enforcement industry created the "red light related" category of
> accident as a way to selectively exclude the types of accidents that
> increase following the installation of cameras. "

Who is doing the lying?

I was curious as to what are the types of accidents that increase
following the installation of cameras. Turns out that "red light related
accidents means all accidents that occur at an intersection with a stop
light. Texas State law requires cities to report the number of accidents
before and after installation of the camera.

So what accidents that increase following the installation of cameras
are not being reported?

On Oct 23, 1:16*pm, Brent > wrote:
>
> The enforcement industry created the "red light related" category of
> accident as a way to selectively exclude the types of accidents that
> increase following the installation of cameras. "

Another good example of how those with deficient reason, sense of
responsibility and reading comprehension may be so incredibly easily
misled or have their preconceived misconceptions cemented in their
cement holders by those with little more in one sentence.

Presence of the term "accident" rather than "crash" or "collision"
should automatically switch bull**** detectors to high.

There is no method by which to "exclude" (or include) anything other
than "selectively", but it suggests prejudice.

"The types of accidents that increase following the installation of
cameras" conveniently lacks description and suggests a laundry list
for which there is insufficient space to print when any type other
than than rear-end would be comparatively insignificant.

If you hit someone in the ass you're irresponsibly not devoting
sufficient attention to your following distance relative to velocity.
If that occurs as a result of another driver slamming on the brakes
upon the display of a yellow light you're irresponsibly not devoting
sufficient attention to the driving environment or even bothering to
expect what should be expected.

If you slam on the brakes in response to a flock of geese sauntering
into the road and are rear-ended, will you blame the geese?

And the premise is obviously and blatantly ridiculous. The traffic
enforcement industry created a red light related category? How odd!

They manipulate the data they collect? I suppose you might suggest
prohibiting data sorting and sifting.

Until the most recent widely crossposted thread I had in error allowed
myself to become convinced this group was the most extravagant
repository of nitwits on Usenet.

As the greatest nitwit, you are responsible for my mistake.
-----

- gpsman

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> > Who is doing the lying?
> >
> > I was curious as to what are the types of accidents that
> > increase following the installation of cameras. Turns out that "red
> > light related accidents means all accidents that occur at an
> > intersection with a stop light. Texas State law requires cities to
> > report the number of accidents before and after installation of the
> > camera.
> >
> > So what accidents that increase following the installation of
> > cameras are not being reported?
>
> I thought that was obvious. Rear-end collisions increase significantly
> at intersections with red light cameras installed. But those accidents
> are going to be reported in a different category now.
>

No, it wasn't obvious, because there is no indication that any of what
you wrote is true. If you followed the links to it's source, you will
see that they do in fact count rear end crashes for both before and
after cameras were installed. The number of rear end crashes decreased
after cameras were installed for the 4 particular intersections which
statistics were provided.



> The statistics are being (ahem) massaged to show that red light cameras
> positively affect safety. Now the statistics will be reported as
> "After the red light camera was installed, RED LIGHT accidents (or
> similar wording) decreased significantly".

And your only evidence to support this theory is that they used the
phrase "red light related crashes"? That is pretty thin soup even for
the ultra paranoid.



>Conveniently ignoring the
> fact that four times as many rear-end collisions were caused in the
> effort to maximize red light camera fines.

If they wanted to maximize fines there are undoubtedly things they
could do. And doing those things would might also increase the number of
rear end collisions. So yes, it is conceivable that they could do what
you imagine, but the evidence indicates that is not the case.

-jim

jim wrote:

> No, it wasn't obvious, because there is no indication that any of what
> you wrote is true. If you followed the links to it's source, you will
> see that they do in fact count rear end crashes for both before and
> after cameras were installed. The number of rear end crashes decreased
> after cameras were installed for the 4 particular intersections which
> statistics were provided.

Which makes me wonder if they're "cherry picking" intersections to show
favorable results. They should be providing data on all intersections
equipped with cameras as well as comparable intersections (in terms of
geometry, traffic volume, and light timings) that don't have cameras in
order for the rest of us to draw meaningful conclusions.