Cash Cow or Public Safety: Flaws in Photo Radar and Suggested Changes to the Program
By Jonathan Scott
“It’s a cash cow” (Shultz 2016). “No it's about safety” (Iveson). These quotes illustrate the polarizing political topic of photo radar’s place in society. A 2014 online vote of over 10,000 readers by Global News asked if photo radar (PR) was a deterrent or a cash grab. The results showed that 50.7% of the people compared to 49.3% felt that PR served as a deterrent. This poll came after Edmonton took over the photo program from the police and the cost of operating ballooned to nearly 47 million dollars. This leads people to the question: why would the city spend that much on PR if they did not think they could or would make back the money with the funds generated from the program? In recent years the city of Edmonton has published analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of the PR program by showing a decrease in tickets over the years, thus supporting the safety side of the debate. Regardless of this there is no easy answer to whether PR is financially motivated or truly designed for safety. I intend to apply psychological theories to demonstrate why PR is such a hot topic of debate. I will argue that because of flawed implementation this discussion burns hotter than it should and I will propose some alterations to the program to cool the debate and provide immediately safer streets.
Polarization is one of the primary roots of the debate with bias pushing the two sides further and further apart. If you believe the program is a cash cow you probably will not accept the City’s claims that PR is designed for safety and thus more likely to think that officials are covering up a financially driven program. Conversely, City officials could argue that opponents of PR simply don’t like it because of their desire to drive above the posted speed limit. Also on the City’s side stand the individuals who voted in support of the PR program in the Global News poll might believe that people concerned with the program are simply trying to avoid fines for breaking the law. The aforementioned positions though partially valid, from both sides demonstrate the problem of bias and naive realism. Both polls feel they see the world as their objective reality and that the other side is ill-informed (Kennedy & Pronin 834).
In support of the theory of bias leading to polarization in 2014 during an apex in the PR debate Mayor Iverson released a statement on his blog essentially providing a pro PR stance and referenced a study done by El-Basyouny, a U of A professor and chair of the Edmonton traffic safety research. Although there was no study rather a link to El-Basyouny’s pro anti photo radar blog post, of particular interest were the comments to their statements on the PR program. Commenter 1, “No link to the El-Basyouny study? Not like it’s a very credible study with a massive conflict of interest between the author and COE. I find it hard to believe that the “risk” of a collision doubles while traveling 65 in a 60 zone”. Comment 2, “I hope that there will be more thought in the future around designing streets to “cue” for the speed at which we want traffic to go. Scona Road, for, e.g., is designed to look like a highway, and it’s unsurprising that it’s a speed trap for many. Unless it’s gridlocked it ‘feels’ faster”. El-Basyouny's study advocates for the efficacy of the program by presenting evidence that speeders do in fact slow down upon receiving multiple tickets (2014). Iveson’s blog and El-Basyouny’s study contrasted with the comment section on El-Basyouny’s blog post are prime examples of how bias and polarization can set the stage for a conflict spiral that can never be settled because of a 50/50 split of opinions toward the PR program.
In 2005 a policy review study done by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) warned that implementing PR programs presents specific challenges and if done incorrectly citizens could be led to question their efficacy (Willis 2005). “Using speed cameras in low-risk environments (e.g., on rural freeways with low volumes of traffic and no history of speed-related crashes) generates” public skepticism about the motives for their use and leads to accusations that the cameras are being used to generate revenue, not to improve road safety – a frequent accusation” (Willis 2005). This warning coincides with common complaints from motorists regarding PR enforcement.
To demonstrate the efficacy of the PR program the Global News posted the following graph released by city council showing a reduction in tickets issued by current PR efforts.
(Wong 2017)
Following the release of these statistics Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Sun wrote an article which claims that “part of the problem on Whyte and 101 [avenue] is that both streets are engineered for 60 or even 70 km/h. So that is the speed many drivers naturally go” (2016). The City both executed and enforced their PR program exactly how the Texas Institute warned not to. Furthermore, of the top 10 locations in Edmonton to receive a photo ticket, five are on Anthony Henday or the Yellowhead (Wong 2017), both of which are major thoroughfares with already depressed speed limits according to the Edmonton Sun article (Gunter 2016). The TTI study brings forth evidence proving that PR programs can in fact result in a reduction in speed but only when their implementation is given careful consideration.
According to Willis’ review the correct way to use PR is in “School zones; roads around playgrounds; construction sites, or places like Whyte ave that have a lot of dining, and drinking with heavy pedestrian traffic (2005); he also recommends neighborhoods; and high speed roads built to low geometric standards (narrow lanes, no shoulders, no edge markings, sharp curves, poor sight distances, etc.) are all high-risk driving environments where speeding should be vigorously deterred” (2005). The TTI study also suggests that the public must believe that PR is a necessary and ethically designed program with public safety at it’s core, otherwise hidden photo radar vans will only serve to promote a deep distrust of the system (2005). Willis’ work definitely shows the beneficial aspects of PR enforcement it also shows that in order for its beneficial effects, the reality of achieving such effects requires a delicate balance of a variety of factors Unfortunately, Edmonton has failed at such a balancing act; a common theme arises in complaints about PR: the vans are both hidden and are unfairly placed.
To alleviate these concerns the Willis review suggests that cameras be used in two ways: to eliminate speed in a particular area (school zone, playground) and to catch broader zones like highways. Willis found that first method is more effective if visible to commuters and the second if hidden. The visible factor, is key to point out because in Edmonton neighborhoods 1026 speeders were caught using covert PR in school zones in one day (Maimann). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, PR programs should not be used as a replacement for an actual police rather; rather, they should serve as a last resort and supplemental force to law enforcement.
The Willis TTI study and select psychological theories serve as a base to propose alternate solutions and explanations that could aid in not only improving the overall effectiveness of PR but temper the debate and provide immediately safer streets. My reasoning is based on a skinner’s concept of operant conditioning, a simple psychological concept. However, this process should be undertaken with caution as it is most often applied to animals and not humans. The Willis review and the reasoning behind how PR works I do not believe that it is far fetched to think that Skinners ideas could be applied to a situation such as this.
Skinner demonstrated this process with his famous Skinner box: a rat is placed in a box then the floor is electrified, once the rat accidently trips the lever the current shuts off. Consequently, the next time the current comes on the rat rushes to flip the lever. Transfer negative reinforcement to PR and it is simple: you speed and thus receive a ticket. According to negative reinforcement a speeding ticket would function as a future reminder to decrease your speed. However, with this method there is a time delay and for operant conditioning to be most effective reward and punishment must be immediate. In the case of PR people who are caught speeding however receive their ticket two weeks after the initial violation and for those two weeks experience no adverse effects and the roads remain an all to hazardous place. Therefore, if the main goal of PR is to provide an immediate reduction in speed it is clearly not delivering.
Skinner also taught the rats to avoid or escape negative reinforcement and punishment. He did this by implementing a warning light. The rats quickly learned that if the light came on electrocution followed. Eventually they became wise to the pattern and flipped the switch when the light came on and rats learned escape and avoidance behavior. Transitioning operant conditioning to PR on the graph I posted earlier the city published those findings of PR claiming it creates safer streets. However, left out of that argument was the fact that more digital feedback signs as well as regular speed limit signs were also posted during that time frame (Gunther 2016). These signs resemble the warning light that helped the rats avoid negative reinforcement. You could argue they are more responsible for slowing speeders than a hidden PR van. This aligns with the Willis’s TTI study and the value of visible deterrents, an outright warning for speeders results in a reduction in speed. In addition to this point with no warning, the behavior will persist? So providing drivers with proper warning allows them to use either escape or avoidance behavior. If avoidance options were available, meaning the PR vehicle was visible, the day PR caught 1065 speeders the streets would have been made immediately safer.
Based on the above mentioned arguments, I prose a few modifications. First, paint the PR vans vibrantly so that there is no missing its presence: turn it into a giant warning light signaling to drivers that if they continue to speed you will be punished. Second, implement more digital speed signs that warn drivers of their dangerous and punishable behavior. Third, stop hiding in the bushes, but when you do have a speed limit/PR warning, which is required by law (Alberta Transportation 2009). If these required signs are used in conjunction with digital displays, I would argue the there would be an immediate reduction in speed.
My idea is not without its flaws and critics would argue that if everyone were to know where the vans are they will slow down temporarily and then speed up again. Yes, that is probably true, for speeders, this is why I am still in favor or some hiding of photo radar as the program does work in the long term. I also think it would be a good idea to place PR signs anywhere where speed is an issue; because, if speeding immediately after passing the PR is a problem then the mere threat of PR is enough to decrease one’s speed. Furthermore, it would remove some of the cash cow stink of the PR program. Drivers often felt ripped off and deceived by PR placement and retarded speed limits on roads where the speed limit could easily be higher. A common statement arose about PR: “If you’re speeding and you get caught by radar, you deserve the ticket, simple as that,” he says. “But it’s how it’s being done that offends me. You’re hiding behind a tree?” (Shultz 2016). It appears that those on the anti-PR side even acknowledge that its needed, they just don’t approve of the means by which it is enforced; illustrating the City’s failure to properly implement hidden cameras, they have proceeded in the precise manner that Willis’ TTI review warned not to.
Finally, PR’s programs have a history riddled with scandal and corruption. The city of Chicago was accused of tampering with yellow light times to create more red light tickets (Shimizu 2015). The city of Winnipeg has double the fine cost compared to other Canadian provinces, and they were found guilty of not properly warning drivers to PR, and it is believed this was done to raise more money (Shimizu 2015). Furthermore, this study by Shimizu found that site selection bias may also result in favorable results benefiting the city in regards to statistics that show the effectiveness of PR. These findings only further perpetuate the fact municipalities use PR as a means to generate funds and illuminates the need for Edmonton to rise above the rest and a set a new and improve standard for their program.
In conclusion, the PR program in its current state is not ideal and the debate remains open as its effectiveness and ethics. That being said, I do believe that it can be improved upon. Suggested changes should not be viewed with contempt if the City’s primary concern truly is safety, a flashy colored PR van in a school zone really could save a life. However, if PR becomes as transparent as I am proposing the city stands poised to lose millions of dollars in fines. This all boils down to system justification where “initiating such social change involves admitting that the system failed which, we argue, conflicts with the basic psychological need to believe one’s system is effective and legitimate” (Kay 2011). If the city wants opponents of PR to accept the program, they need to recognize that it is broken. We are lucky that we live in a society that has “balance between social stability and change” (Kay 2011). Wherein we know that our government is open to change and hopefully they will eventually make changes to PR to make it more effective and remove the cash cow odor from the debate.
References
Basyouny, Dr, Karim. Research Shows Photo Radar Makes Roads Safer. October
2014
Gunther, Lorne. (June 1, 2016). Gunter: Edmonton city council shows photo radar is
bunk. Edmonton Sun. Retrieved from www.edmontonsun.ca.
Iveson, Don. (October 6th 2014) Safe Streets and Photo Radar. Retrieved from:
http://doniveson.ca/2014/10/06/safe-streets-photo-radar/
Kay, C Aaron. Frieson, Justin. On Social Stability and Social Change: Understanding When
System Justification Does and Does Not. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2011 20: 360. DOI: 10.1177/0963721411422059
Kennedy, Kathleen. Pronin, Emily. When Disagreement Gets Ugly: Perceptions of Bias
and the Escalation of Conflict. Retrieved from: psp.sagepub.com at MacEwan University Libraries on December 22, 2015
Mcleod, Saul. (2015) Skinner- Operant Conditioning. Simply Psychology. Retrieved
Maimann, Kevin. (feburary 2, 2015) 1065 Driver Caught Speeding In Edmonton School zones in
One Day. Edmonton Sun. Retrieved from: www.edmontonsun.ca
Recommended Practices. Photo Radar Signs. Alberta Transportation. 2009 Retrieved
from www.trasnportaion.alberta.ca
Shimizu, Hiroko. Desrochers, Peirre. Speed or Greed does automated traffic
enforcement improve safety or generate revenue? Frontier Center for Public Policy (2015) Retrieved from: www.fcpp.org
Staples, David. (May 3rd, 2016) Edmonton Man gets Ticket for Trying to Slow Speeders.
Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from: www.edmontonjournal.com
Willlis, K David. Speed Cameras: An Effectiveness and a Policy Review. Center for
Transportation Safety Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System. (2005) Retieved from: http://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti. tamu. edu/ documents /TTI-2006-4.pdf
Wong, Julie. (January 20, 2017). Top spots in Edmonton where you’ll get a photo radar
ticket. Global News. Retrieved from: www.globalnews.ca