Toting up all of the Road Warrior's errors

Staff Writer John Cichowski's "road warriors" crawl into the Lincoln Tunnel.

Editor's note: Errors in the Road Warrior column have been so numerous and so glaring, a concerned reader has actually added up all of the mistakes, omissions and other flaws in the past three months, and sent another e-mail to alert management of The Record and Staff Writer John Cichowski, who apparently has done nothing to repair his reputation or guarantee accuracy in his column.

"Even when presenting his wish list for 2013, the Road Warrior made multiple mistakes.

"The Road Warrior's Sunday column is the 23^rd article with problems, starting with his Sept. 12 column, and even though I've notified The Record's management and the Road Warrior himself, I have received no indication of any preventive measures to address these problems and very few published corrections.

"I look forward to an update based on a call from The Record's management today, Dec. 17.

"Knowledgeable readers wish that the Road Warrior would provide more meaningful and accurate information, conclusions and advice about transportation issues.
"John's repeated self-serving, but mistaken, descriptions of himself as a "know-it-all" are most troubling for readers and transportation experts, who know better, in light of the overwhelming evidence below that I have presented to The Record's management and Cichowski about his failed reporting, just since his Sept. 12 column.
"1. Misleading and/or False Statements, which also included false "facts" or incorrect items - 80 times

"It also includes mathematical errors and  scientifically foolish "facts," which contradict the laws of nature.

"2. Useless, Impractical, Unsafe, or Misleading Advice - 10 times

"3. Misdirected Readers Due to Key Omissions of Relevant Information that were Paramount to the Topic - 28 times
"4. Not Addressing Readers’ Questions Directly or Correctly - 14 times

"Many times, a reader's question was also based on misleading or false info, which the Road Warrior didn't correct.

"5. Useless, Misleading Stories that Wasted Readers' Time - 8 times

"These specific stories should never have been published.  The Road Warrior exhibited empathy for people, who should have known better and  exhibited no common sense to easily solve their own problems and/or exacerbated their own problems by making all the wrong decisions about their unsubstantiated claims.

"What is even more troubling is that many mistakes were simply repeated in follow-up columns, even though I pointed out the mistakes and corrections for previous columns.

"The Road Warrior is also plagued by an inability to correctly state and comprehend facts from published studies that should be the easiest type of reporting based on well-presented statements and facts in these studies.

"Let us hope readers can find peace of mind and The Record and Road Warrior can find a way to make it easier for our understanding of relevant transportation issues and needed actions without so many reporting mistakes.

"Highlights of mistakes from the Dec. 16 column are noted below.

1. Misleading statement - "We could do better if we could reduce pedestrian fatalities at least 5 percent instead of gaining at least that much [5%]," said state traffic safety chief Gary Poedubicky."

"CORRECT FACTS - Unfortunately, Road Warrior failed to mention that pedestrian deaths are currently more than 15% higher than they were at this point last year.  While wishing for fewer pedestrian fatalities, it is important for the Road Warrior to present relevant facts to readers rather than quoting officials with misleading statements.

2. Misleading statement - "With this year's walking death totals already eclipsing last year's 143, that's a tall order [reducing pedestrian deaths by 5%] because New Jersey pedestrian fatalities are traditionally twice the national average."

"CORRECT FACTS - It is NOT a tall order since in 2 of the 4 years prior to 2011, pedestrian deaths were less than 143, including 3.5% lower in 2008.  Better and more enforcement and education of drivers and pedestrians could achieve a 5% reduction.

"Even though I have previously pointed out his mistaken reporting about this issue, the Road Warrior tries to scare and misdirect readers with the same inconsequential facts about pedestrian deaths rather than more relevant facts. 

"A key relevant safety fact is that NJ pedestrian fatalities (deaths per 100,000 people) are traditionally only 10 %- 30% higher than the national average.  In many NJ counties, it is much lower than the national average, but in some NJ counties it is more than twice the national average.  This is what transportation experts, government officials, and the Road Warrior need to focus on.

"The Road Warrior continues to report the inconsequential fact, which should not be cause for concern, that NJ pedestrian fatalities are traditionally twice the national average based on percentage of pedestrian fatalities vs. overall road fatalities. The Road Warrior fails to mention this percentage is artificially higher because NJ has one of the lowest overall road fatality rates of any state.  When you divide a somewhat higher number of pedestrian fatalities by the much lower number of overall road fatalities for NJ in comparison to other states, you get a much higher percentage of pedestrian fatalities. 

"In addition, a key relevant factor for concern is that pedestrian deaths tend to be relatively higher with more difficult traffic safety solutions due to the fact that NJ is the most congested state in the US.

3. Misleading false statement and fact - "A bill in an Assembly committee would double the $100 fine for steering with one hand while manipulating an electronic device with the other."

"CORRECT FACTS - Updated bill in an Assembly committee would increases the fines up to 8 fold vs. current $100 fine. The proposed fines would be $200 to $400 for a first offense, $400 to $600 for a second offense, and $600 to $800 with 3 driving points for third or subsequent offenses, along with the potential for a 90 day license suspension.

"I pointed out a similar mistake about this issue in a previous Road Warrior column.

4. Misleading statement due to omission of key info -- "Why not require vision testing every 10 years? Actually, the Legislature mandated such tests in 1977, but the law has never been enforced."

"CORRECT FACTS BASED ON KEY OMISSION -- The Road Warrior does NOT need to wish for something that is being made easier to implement.  Road Warrior fails to mention anything about MVC vision testing where "The medical community has partnered with the Motor Vehicle Commission on pilot vision program to help ensure that NJ drivers meet the visual acuity standard [at least every 10 years].  Health care providers will send vision screening results to the MVC for those patients who would like to participate in the [voluntary] program."  Drivers can find answers to many of their question about this program at http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/vision.htm

"Here's hoping for change and better fact-checking, corrections, reviewing (Googling?), and oversight of proper questions and answers to readers' questions by The Record's editors, columnists, & reporters based on more reliable, accurate, and common sense information prior to publication."

Related articles

• Road Warrior errors are running rampant
• Why did Road Warrior demean women?
• Road Warrior has reader seeing red again
• Road Warrior errors continue unchecked
• Reader: Road Warrior screwed up again
• Reader: Road Warrior compounds errors

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.