![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edited so that the article better reflects a neutral point of view and includes content on the parent traffic enforcement camera article. Leightonwalter ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Edited so that the article better reflects a neutral point of view; reinstates information about investigatory tactics used by the police. User:einsteininmyownmind 15 July 2009
added reference to the web site www.thenewspaper.com. Kielhofer 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer ( talk • contribs)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about the cost of fines in the US, as it varies by at least a factor of ten, from one locale to another. Further, while most locales treat the violations civilly, akin to a parking ticket (you can get as many as you can afford to pay), others handle them just like any other moving violation, including the assessment of one or more demerit points. When I was deciding which section to put my paragraph in, I did not find any one section which stood out as the best place. I ended up placing my info in the Usage section. I hope that others will expand the information, perhaps to where it merits its own section or subsection. Einsteininmyownmind ( talk) 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
How is this a valid source? http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsIndustryPRMain.html It looks like some guy with no skills and a chip on his shoulder created a webpage. It's a quarter step above a blog... Reallypablo ( talk) 14:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this note hoping to catch the attention of a capable editor who can help me improve this article. It's a subject I care about and know well, because I work with American Traffic Solutions, a developer of traffic enforcement technologies. (The company is currently mentioned in the article.) Now, being naturally cautious, I have read the conflict of interest guideline and see that I may be too close to edit without outside input. It is after all a subject of some controversy.
However, the current article faces other challenges that other editors have not resolved. Earlier this year, a discussion was held about whether to merge this article or not, and while it seems that it won't be, a note at the top of the article remains. An editor has also pointed out the article does not now contain a "worldwide view" of the topic, and I agree this is a fair criticism. I also think the sections are too long in the current version, and readers are unlikely to get very far. To address these issues and make it better overall, I have been working on a better version of this article for several months offline, and I recently created this account specifically to suggest changes to this article. My attempt to write a better draft can be reviewed within my user account area here: User:VenturaHighway/Red light camera
My version does not include the photographs which are now in use, although I think they should be included, or more could be added. It is not my intention to make any edits that will contravene Wikipedia's guidelines, so I will be looking for help and advice from other editors. There is so much information in both the current version and mine that it all may be a little overwhelming, but I would be very grateful for someone who is interested in helping make this article a better resource. Thanks in advance. -- VenturaHighway ( talk) 18:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the proposed draft:
I cannot see any evidence of COI. There is a presumed possible COI if you had just said "This is me" and then started puffing up the ATS info. That has not happened though. You declared first, said "check this out" and have only mentioned your company once in one sentence.
I cannot see what any further delving into this editors position in the company is going to achieve. It is obvious from their writing style that they are fairly well educated and able to string a sentence together to the extent that I am pretty sure this is not the gardener :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, Scheinwerfermann and Chaosdruid. Please accept my apologies for posting the request about the introduction elsewhere than here. Continuing, I see that the final sentence of the introduction has now changed from "Studies have shown that using these cameras does not necessarily increase safety, in some cases accident rates have increased once they were installed" to "Studies on the safety effects of red light cameras have reached a range of conclusions." This is better than before, but not the most accurate explanation. Knowing the degree of controversy surrounding the topic, I think accuracy here is especially important. It is certainly true that some studies have shown that some types of accident rates do increase (as noted in my draft and the current article) but these studies have also found that the overall effect is to decrease accident rates. For example, a 2003 statement by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [1]:
Another source, the ITE Journal [2] in review of more than 45 national and international studies found a substantial reduction in red-light violation rates, reduced crashes from red-light running and right-angle collisions:
Both sources are used in the article. Given the complexity of analyzing the studies concerning this topic, I believe my original submission to be sufficient for the introduction that it simply stated both sides and did not conclude with a summary statement. If a summary statement is needed, I suggest something similar to what IIHS wrote: "Worldwide studies have shown that red light cameras provide a net benefit through reduced injury crashes, even when small increases in rear end crashes are taken into account." To quote again from the IIHS original: "Last year, the Institute critically reviewed crash-based studies of red light camera programs throughout the world. … Nevertheless, the body of evidence indicates that red light cameras are beneficial. They reduce injury crashes by about 25 to 30 percent, and that’s after accounting for some small increase in rear-end crashes." What do you think? VenturaHighway ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks very fine to me! Very appropriate for the lede. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading further this week, I realized there are some problems with sourcing in this version of the article, specifically changes made after my draft. I think this may have been done to preserve some of the information from the previous article, but that information seems to be erroneous. Specifically it's information culled from Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida? that is used twice in the "North America" section.
The first sentence this source is used to support is this: "This FHWA study has been criticized on grounds that one of its co-directors has performed research for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which represents an industry that profits significantly from red light camera surcharges." The problem: this is too interpretive from the study, while there is a better way to summarize it. In the section "Why Do Some Studies Conclude Cameras Reduce Crashes and Injuries?" It does say this: "The university professor who co-directed this study and provided the methodological ideas has also conducted research for the IIHS." It points this out, but it doesn't extend to criticism. For what it's worth, the professor indicated is highly respected in the industry ( his CV) and the study was peer-reviewed. At best it implies that the study should be considered carefully, and the authors of this study disagree with some of the methodology. An alternative version of this sentence might say that other studies have identified potential areas of disagreement with the study's design, rather than speculating on hidden motives, which is not clearly supported.
My second point is a little more straightforward: the following (highly confusing) sentence is attributed to the article: "(…)the authors spotlight the statistical difficulties of including the cost of fatalities, while ignoring the practical implications of such events", assuming that each angle injury crash had a societal cost of $64,468, when in fact the cost was $82,816 before camera use and $100,176 after camera use(…)" -- the problem is very simple: it does not appear in the article. I conducted a Google search for one of the phrases, and the top hit was Wikipedia. Other uses of the phrase also seem to be copied from Wikipedia. I don't know if this was falsified or what, but it doesn't seem verifiable, and I think it should be removed. Not to mention it's confusing, and by making the change above, the same point is still made.
Looking forward to other editors' feedback. Thanks. VenturaHighway ( talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite a few unanswered questions above, I have another issue to raise with the current "Studies and politics"/"North America" section, and the issue is this sentence, which concludes the section's penultimate paragraph:
The problem is that this study was not about red light cameras, but instead speed cameras. This is a different application of the technology, and one that has a separate Wikipedia article. This is easily verifiable from the sources already used, but another is an Arizona Republic story from July 15, 2010. [8] It begins:
If this information should be included anywhere on Wikipedia, it is the speed limit enforcement article. It is off-topic for this article, so it really doesn't belong here, and I suggest that it be removed. Thanks, VenturaHighway ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing in this article that explains how police identify whose vehicle is running the red light. Presumably it's a photo of a license plate? If so, is it the front or rear plate (some states including South Carolina do not have front plates)? Is any effort made to be sure the correct vehicle is identified (for instance, if the license plate is registered to a green Mustang, and the photo is of a red Camaro, what do the police do?)? WilliamWQuick ( talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw a guy using a $30 water gun remote control helicopter filled with ink to spray the lenses of the cameras to disable them. Would be interesting to include in the wiki a section on other samples of civil protest toward these cameras. Some may be offended.... Others inspired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.209.97 ( talk) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edited so that the article better reflects a neutral point of view and includes content on the parent traffic enforcement camera article. Leightonwalter ( talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Edited so that the article better reflects a neutral point of view; reinstates information about investigatory tactics used by the police. User:einsteininmyownmind 15 July 2009
added reference to the web site www.thenewspaper.com. Kielhofer 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer ( talk • contribs)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about the cost of fines in the US, as it varies by at least a factor of ten, from one locale to another. Further, while most locales treat the violations civilly, akin to a parking ticket (you can get as many as you can afford to pay), others handle them just like any other moving violation, including the assessment of one or more demerit points. When I was deciding which section to put my paragraph in, I did not find any one section which stood out as the best place. I ended up placing my info in the Usage section. I hope that others will expand the information, perhaps to where it merits its own section or subsection. Einsteininmyownmind ( talk) 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
How is this a valid source? http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsIndustryPRMain.html It looks like some guy with no skills and a chip on his shoulder created a webpage. It's a quarter step above a blog... Reallypablo ( talk) 14:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this note hoping to catch the attention of a capable editor who can help me improve this article. It's a subject I care about and know well, because I work with American Traffic Solutions, a developer of traffic enforcement technologies. (The company is currently mentioned in the article.) Now, being naturally cautious, I have read the conflict of interest guideline and see that I may be too close to edit without outside input. It is after all a subject of some controversy.
However, the current article faces other challenges that other editors have not resolved. Earlier this year, a discussion was held about whether to merge this article or not, and while it seems that it won't be, a note at the top of the article remains. An editor has also pointed out the article does not now contain a "worldwide view" of the topic, and I agree this is a fair criticism. I also think the sections are too long in the current version, and readers are unlikely to get very far. To address these issues and make it better overall, I have been working on a better version of this article for several months offline, and I recently created this account specifically to suggest changes to this article. My attempt to write a better draft can be reviewed within my user account area here: User:VenturaHighway/Red light camera
My version does not include the photographs which are now in use, although I think they should be included, or more could be added. It is not my intention to make any edits that will contravene Wikipedia's guidelines, so I will be looking for help and advice from other editors. There is so much information in both the current version and mine that it all may be a little overwhelming, but I would be very grateful for someone who is interested in helping make this article a better resource. Thanks in advance. -- VenturaHighway ( talk) 18:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the proposed draft:
I cannot see any evidence of COI. There is a presumed possible COI if you had just said "This is me" and then started puffing up the ATS info. That has not happened though. You declared first, said "check this out" and have only mentioned your company once in one sentence.
I cannot see what any further delving into this editors position in the company is going to achieve. It is obvious from their writing style that they are fairly well educated and able to string a sentence together to the extent that I am pretty sure this is not the gardener :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, Scheinwerfermann and Chaosdruid. Please accept my apologies for posting the request about the introduction elsewhere than here. Continuing, I see that the final sentence of the introduction has now changed from "Studies have shown that using these cameras does not necessarily increase safety, in some cases accident rates have increased once they were installed" to "Studies on the safety effects of red light cameras have reached a range of conclusions." This is better than before, but not the most accurate explanation. Knowing the degree of controversy surrounding the topic, I think accuracy here is especially important. It is certainly true that some studies have shown that some types of accident rates do increase (as noted in my draft and the current article) but these studies have also found that the overall effect is to decrease accident rates. For example, a 2003 statement by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [1]:
Another source, the ITE Journal [2] in review of more than 45 national and international studies found a substantial reduction in red-light violation rates, reduced crashes from red-light running and right-angle collisions:
Both sources are used in the article. Given the complexity of analyzing the studies concerning this topic, I believe my original submission to be sufficient for the introduction that it simply stated both sides and did not conclude with a summary statement. If a summary statement is needed, I suggest something similar to what IIHS wrote: "Worldwide studies have shown that red light cameras provide a net benefit through reduced injury crashes, even when small increases in rear end crashes are taken into account." To quote again from the IIHS original: "Last year, the Institute critically reviewed crash-based studies of red light camera programs throughout the world. … Nevertheless, the body of evidence indicates that red light cameras are beneficial. They reduce injury crashes by about 25 to 30 percent, and that’s after accounting for some small increase in rear-end crashes." What do you think? VenturaHighway ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks very fine to me! Very appropriate for the lede. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading further this week, I realized there are some problems with sourcing in this version of the article, specifically changes made after my draft. I think this may have been done to preserve some of the information from the previous article, but that information seems to be erroneous. Specifically it's information culled from Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida? that is used twice in the "North America" section.
The first sentence this source is used to support is this: "This FHWA study has been criticized on grounds that one of its co-directors has performed research for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which represents an industry that profits significantly from red light camera surcharges." The problem: this is too interpretive from the study, while there is a better way to summarize it. In the section "Why Do Some Studies Conclude Cameras Reduce Crashes and Injuries?" It does say this: "The university professor who co-directed this study and provided the methodological ideas has also conducted research for the IIHS." It points this out, but it doesn't extend to criticism. For what it's worth, the professor indicated is highly respected in the industry ( his CV) and the study was peer-reviewed. At best it implies that the study should be considered carefully, and the authors of this study disagree with some of the methodology. An alternative version of this sentence might say that other studies have identified potential areas of disagreement with the study's design, rather than speculating on hidden motives, which is not clearly supported.
My second point is a little more straightforward: the following (highly confusing) sentence is attributed to the article: "(…)the authors spotlight the statistical difficulties of including the cost of fatalities, while ignoring the practical implications of such events", assuming that each angle injury crash had a societal cost of $64,468, when in fact the cost was $82,816 before camera use and $100,176 after camera use(…)" -- the problem is very simple: it does not appear in the article. I conducted a Google search for one of the phrases, and the top hit was Wikipedia. Other uses of the phrase also seem to be copied from Wikipedia. I don't know if this was falsified or what, but it doesn't seem verifiable, and I think it should be removed. Not to mention it's confusing, and by making the change above, the same point is still made.
Looking forward to other editors' feedback. Thanks. VenturaHighway ( talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite a few unanswered questions above, I have another issue to raise with the current "Studies and politics"/"North America" section, and the issue is this sentence, which concludes the section's penultimate paragraph:
The problem is that this study was not about red light cameras, but instead speed cameras. This is a different application of the technology, and one that has a separate Wikipedia article. This is easily verifiable from the sources already used, but another is an Arizona Republic story from July 15, 2010. [8] It begins:
If this information should be included anywhere on Wikipedia, it is the speed limit enforcement article. It is off-topic for this article, so it really doesn't belong here, and I suggest that it be removed. Thanks, VenturaHighway ( talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing in this article that explains how police identify whose vehicle is running the red light. Presumably it's a photo of a license plate? If so, is it the front or rear plate (some states including South Carolina do not have front plates)? Is any effort made to be sure the correct vehicle is identified (for instance, if the license plate is registered to a green Mustang, and the photo is of a red Camaro, what do the police do?)? WilliamWQuick ( talk) 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw a guy using a $30 water gun remote control helicopter filled with ink to spray the lenses of the cameras to disable them. Would be interesting to include in the wiki a section on other samples of civil protest toward these cameras. Some may be offended.... Others inspired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.209.97 ( talk) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)