IIHS (or the Insurance Institute of Misinformation) has had more than one “report” exposed as FLAWED!
“Actual red light accidents not studied in 2001 Oxnard report
Incredibly, the 2001 IIHS Oxnard study did not actually study any accidents caused by red light running. “…the crash data did not contain sufficient detail to identify crashes that were specifically red light running events…” (2001 Oxnard report, page 1). Nor did it even study accidents at intersections that have red light cameras. Instead, the study’s author, Retting, merely looked at accident codes from a database over a 2 and a half-year period to claim that accidents throughout the Oxnard area dropped by about 30 percent as a result of the red light cameras. The connection between area accidents and red light cameras is only an implied connection. There is no scientific evidence in the report showing any demonstrable connection between the two. ”
Than you have the 2011 report (that IIHS brings Up) that was exposed CHERRY PICKING TOWNS! “The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the “before” period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities “before” to improve in the “after” period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.”
“IIHS did not bother gathering data regarding any of the factors FHWA considered essential, aside from looking up 1990 and 2000 population figures. In fact, the insurance industry relied upon the eight-year gap between the “before” and “after” periods to obtain the desired result. In locations like Chandler, Arizona the community went through significant changes — including the building of the Loop 101 and Loop 202 freeways — during this time. These new routes drew traffic away from intersections during the “after” period despite the increase in population. Without accounting for the change in traffic volumes, the figures would be misleading. Chandler accounted for the greatest decrease in citywide accidents in the IIHS report. IIHS not knowing which locations in the city had cameras could not check whether there was a difference between camera and non-camera locations.
A professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago did check and determined last year that there was no statistical difference before and after the cameras were installed in the Windy City. The data refuted the IIHS assumption that there is a so-called “spillover” or “halo” effect that spreads good driving habits throughout the photo-enforced jurisdiction. Between 2001 and 2008, use of cameras had no effect on the percentage of accidents that took place at intersections — the figure remained steady at about 25 percent (view report). IIHS claimed big accident reductions in Chicago and in Washington, DC. A 2005 investigation by The Washington Post found accidents doubled in the nation’s capital (view report). Likewise, despite IIHS claims, Baltimore, Maryland last month reported inconclusive results from its photo ticketing program.”
www (dot) motorists (dot) org
Ban the Cams on Facebook
Camerafraud on Facebook
Also note that there are already CRACKS in the claim of IIHS!
Below the city of St. Pete DUMPED RLC and HAD NO INCREASE IN CRASHES! (Tampa which has RLC had a INCREASE!)
“Last year, 10Investigates found there was no increase in crashes in St. Petersburg a year after it removed its red light cameras.”
Yet Tampa had an increase! “The city’s report showed crash reports at 23 RLC intersections – the most in all of West Florida – climbed by 40% since 2010, which was less than the city’s 47% overall increase in reported crashes during that time. Tampa did not include “fender bender” types of crashes, as the state did, only “crash reports where there were reported injuries or a vehicle was damaged to the extent that it had to be towed from the scene.”
Those findings seem to conflict with the state’s findings, which indicated crashes jumped by 50% at eight intersections in Tampa after cameras were installed. Tampa’s report also didn’t indicate what radius was used for defining an “intersection,” a controversial variable that, in 2014, 10Investigates WTSP exposed as a way to eliminate certain crashes from a statistical analysis”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
IIHS (or the Insurance Institute of Misinformation) has had more than one “report” exposed as FLAWED!
“Actual red light accidents not studied in 2001 Oxnard report
Incredibly, the 2001 IIHS Oxnard study did not actually study any accidents caused by red light running. “…the crash data did not contain sufficient detail to identify crashes that were specifically red light running events…” (2001 Oxnard report, page 1). Nor did it even study accidents at intersections that have red light cameras. Instead, the study’s author, Retting, merely looked at accident codes from a database over a 2 and a half-year period to claim that accidents throughout the Oxnard area dropped by about 30 percent as a result of the red light cameras. The connection between area accidents and red light cameras is only an implied connection. There is no scientific evidence in the report showing any demonstrable connection between the two. ”
Than you have the 2011 report (that IIHS brings Up) that was exposed CHERRY PICKING TOWNS! “The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the “before” period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities “before” to improve in the “after” period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.”
“IIHS did not bother gathering data regarding any of the factors FHWA considered essential, aside from looking up 1990 and 2000 population figures. In fact, the insurance industry relied upon the eight-year gap between the “before” and “after” periods to obtain the desired result. In locations like Chandler, Arizona the community went through significant changes — including the building of the Loop 101 and Loop 202 freeways — during this time. These new routes drew traffic away from intersections during the “after” period despite the increase in population. Without accounting for the change in traffic volumes, the figures would be misleading. Chandler accounted for the greatest decrease in citywide accidents in the IIHS report. IIHS not knowing which locations in the city had cameras could not check whether there was a difference between camera and non-camera locations.
A professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago did check and determined last year that there was no statistical difference before and after the cameras were installed in the Windy City. The data refuted the IIHS assumption that there is a so-called “spillover” or “halo” effect that spreads good driving habits throughout the photo-enforced jurisdiction. Between 2001 and 2008, use of cameras had no effect on the percentage of accidents that took place at intersections — the figure remained steady at about 25 percent (view report). IIHS claimed big accident reductions in Chicago and in Washington, DC. A 2005 investigation by The Washington Post found accidents doubled in the nation’s capital (view report). Likewise, despite IIHS claims, Baltimore, Maryland last month reported inconclusive results from its photo ticketing program.”
www (dot) motorists (dot) org
Ban the Cams on Facebook
Camerafraud on Facebook
Also note that there are already CRACKS in the claim of IIHS!
Below the city of St. Pete DUMPED RLC and HAD NO INCREASE IN CRASHES! (Tampa which has RLC had a INCREASE!)
“Last year, 10Investigates found there was no increase in crashes in St. Petersburg a year after it removed its red light cameras.”
Yet Tampa had an increase! “The city’s report showed crash reports at 23 RLC intersections – the most in all of West Florida – climbed by 40% since 2010, which was less than the city’s 47% overall increase in reported crashes during that time. Tampa did not include “fender bender” types of crashes, as the state did, only “crash reports where there were reported injuries or a vehicle was damaged to the extent that it had to be towed from the scene.”
Those findings seem to conflict with the state’s findings, which indicated crashes jumped by 50% at eight intersections in Tampa after cameras were installed. Tampa’s report also didn’t indicate what radius was used for defining an “intersection,” a controversial variable that, in 2014, 10Investigates WTSP exposed as a way to eliminate certain crashes from a statistical analysis”