Road Warrior has reader seeing red again

A red light camera in Chicago. (Wikipedia)

Editor's note: A reader concerned over repeated, uncorrected errors in the Road Warrior column has sent another e-mail to Staff Writer John Cichowski, Editor Marty Gottlieb, head Assignment Editor Deirdre Sykes, Deputy Assignment Editor Dan Sforza and Production Editor Liz Houlton, commenting on Cichowski's sloppy reporting in a recent column about red-light cameras.

Dan / John,

Even with some acknowledgements of the other side's viewpoints in the Nov. 9 column, it is very clear that repeated Road Warrior reporting on red light cameras continues to demonstrate a blatantly biased support of red light cameras based on misleading, false, and incomplete information that simply contradict readily available facts.

Once again, the Road Warrior then confuses or mislead readers with a review that miscomprehends and contradicts the facts in favor of red light cameras. 

It does not promote the integrity of The Record and offends informative readers.

This is the 12th time I've notified you about your mistaken reporting since your 9/12 article.  You have yet to acknowledge any of these problems.

I am publicizing to other media personnel, news sources, and your readers about the major problems with Road Warrior columns.

What is truly laughable and very sad at the same time, is the Road Warrior column FAILED to mention that Pohatcong voters voted in favor of a non-binding referendum for red light cameras at 2 intersections, one of which was permanently shut down on Nov. 8, the day before this column, and both of which could be subject to expensive legal fees, plus return of most of the ticket fees that have already been collected, as noted below.

1. Route 22 & New Brunswick Ave. (Route 122)  - Due to irreconcilable legal and ethical conflict with neighboring Greenwich, these red light cameras, which generated ~$680,000, were shut down on Nov. 8 for enforcing the law with no immediate plans to resolve the matter.

Approximately 28% or ~$190,000 of tickets issued by Pohatcong were for infractions that were under Greenwich police jurisdiction. None of this money was shared with Greenwich. 
 

“The intersection is removed from the pilot program and the camera needs to be disconnected and all equipment and signage needs to be removed,” NJ DOT spokesman Tim Greeley said in an email Thursday. “The judiciary will no longer process violations at this location dated 11/1 or beyond.”

2. Route 22 & St. James Ave. - Red light camera enforcement at this intersection and the intersection above were suspended in June when it was determined that timing of yellow light intervals had not been certified in accordance with red light camera legislation, which required certification prior to enforcement of any red light cameras. Cameras at these 2 intersections were finally certified and put back into operation.

Pohatcong could have significant legal fees, and collection of revenues at these 2 intersections for the 8 months prior to suspension could be subject to class action or individual suits seeking restitution of all ticket fees since the red light cameras had not been certified prior to enforcement.

Highlights of the misleading false statements are noted below.

1. Laughably misleading false statement - "a tiny town [Pohatcong] voted  overwhelmingly to keep red-light cameras....this one was a landslide...Fifty six percent... voted to keep the cameras"

CORRECT FACTS -  First off, it is laughably a stretch of any credible reporter's delusions that a mere 56% approval vote (Yes or No) is considered a landslide, by any credible definition of what is a landslide vote, which I checked from multiple sources.

Second off, it is laughably a stretch of any credible objective reporter's imagination that a mere 56% approval vote (Yes or No) is considered overwhelming. All objective news reports that I checked simply stated a majority approved the measure by a 56% approval vote.

The only ones who would indicate these election results were overwhelming or a landslide are very biased individuals or organizations, such as ATS, who installed the cameras, and National Coalition for Safer Roads, who is a paid advocate of red light camera companies.

2. Misleading statement due to missing items - "Fifty six percent of tiny Pohatcong Township voted to keep the cameras.... at two heavily travelled intersections."

CORRECT FACTS -    You FAILED to mention the vote was nonbinding without any legal validity and did not indicate whether to keep the cameras NOW, as per all other similar referendums voted on in various municipalities, but only 4 years in the future in 2016 when the voters wishes from 2012 will be a moot point.  If officials ever decide to adhere to the voters' wishes, it will occur after the contract expires with American Traffic Solutions in Sept. 2016 when Pohatcong will decide the situation based on completely different conditions, incl. cameras at one of the intersections have been shut down.

3. Misleading false statement - "red-light crashes dropped 78 percent"

CORRECT FACTS -  Red light crashes have NOT dropped 78 percent due to the red light cameras, which were only activated at the end of September of 2011. 

Red-light related collisions were18 in 2010 when there were no red light cameras. There were 10 collisions in 2011 when the red light cameras were activated for a little more than 3 months.  There have been four through the first nine months of 2012.  Every credible news report I have read has reported it correctly, as noted, without any percentage reductions.

You mistakenly assumed there was an annual reduction of 14 crashes based on 4 crashes this year, which are really only for the first 9 months of 2012, due to red light cameras in order to arrive at your false calculation that red-light crashes dropped 78 percent (14/18). Any credible report with a percentage reduction would compare same time frames (1 full year).

As an example, if a report came out in January of next year and there was only 1 crash in January, no credible reporter would state that red-light crashes dropped 94 percent (17/18).

In addition, no credible report would imply that all crash reductions from 18 in 2010 were due to the red light cameras since there only 10 crashes in 2011 when the cameras were not even activated for the first 9 months.

4. Misleading false statement - "timing on yellow lights, which is generally three seconds"

CORRECT FACTS - As you have repeatedly made this and similar mistakes in previous articles, timing on yellow lights is required by law to be a minimum of 3 seconds with longer intervals, which approximately correspond to 1/10th of the higher driving speeds above 30 MPH at the red light intersections (i.e. 4 seconds for 40 mph).

Calculation criteria for these speeds at red light camera intersections is based on actual recorded speeds of 85% of cars vs. the posted speed limit at intersections without cameras.

5. Misleading statement due to missing items - "But like Pohatcong, a small town in Washington State also approved cameras by a similar margin on Tuesday.  For the second consecutive year, voters in Longview supported speed cams in school zones."

CORRECT FACTS -  Road Warrior FAILED to mention that while Longview supported speed cams the previous year, they had also voted against red light cameras the previous year.

6. Misleading false Statement - "Is voter support for cameras turning a corner?  National Coalition for Safer Roads calls the victories "significant"." and their president indicated that "people are embracing safety cameras."

CORRECT FACTS - No credible reporter would seriously have ever asked this question or then allow any answer in the affirmative since 4 other towns in the US voted to ban cameras in this year's general election and more than 90% of every other town in previous elections has voted to ban the cameras. The overwhelming evidence is that people have been and are continuing to reject the cameras.  Once again, the report FAILS to mention that National Coalition for Safer Roads contributes money to support red light camera votes and is a paid advocate for red light camera companies.

This is a frequent Road Warrior problem where quoted statements and claims from officials and experts contradict readily known facts concerning reported issues.

7. Misleading false Statement - "Camera revenue approaches $2 million"

CORRECT FACTS - Gross revenue is more than $2.2 million based on $85 tickets and net revenue is ~$1.5  million based on Pohatcong receiving $56.50 per ticket.  Ticketing has dropped almost 75% since the red light cameras started a year ago.  The Road Warrior statement is false based on either gross or net revenue.

8. Misleading false statement -   "Cameras reduce crashes, but the other side [who are against red light cameras] has good arguments, too," Kern said. "Yellow-light timing should be shorter."

CORRECT FACTS - The other side, who are against red light cameras, always state that yellow-light timing should be longer to prevent crashes as one of the alternative solutions. 

This is a frequent Road Warrior problem where quoted statements and claims from officials and experts contradict readily known facts concerning reported issues.

Here's hoping to change and better fact checking, corrections, & reviewing (Googling??) by The Record's editors, columnists, & reporters, for more reliable, accurate, and common sense info prior to publication.