C.R. cameras are not the only factor in reduced accidents

I have found that people can say or do whatever they want, until challenged. Such is the case with Cedar Rapid’s Police Chief Wayne Jerman and The Gazette’s “Fact Checker” (“Has Cedar Rapids reduced crashes by using traffic cameras?” March 14), both claiming traffic accidents have been reduced due to the operation of Automated Traffic Enforcement Cameras. Well, I challenge.

To begin, the assertion implies any reduction in traffic accidents is solely due to traffic enforcement via camera operation. It completely ignores other factors that may have been a factor. For example, such as perhaps change in state law that prohibits the use of electronic communication devices (i.e., cellphones) for texting while driving a vehicle?

The fundamental issue is that traffic accidents are not a problem. Rather, they are an indicator of a problem. Without study, it is impossible to know precisely what that may encompass, and could be any of the following or combination thereof: driver distraction, driver impairment, inclement weather, poor roadway design/conditions, mechanical failure, etc. Regardless, proponents of traffic camera enforcement instead solely attribute the problem to be speed.

Let’s be clear. There is but a single premise associated with automated traffic camera enforcement, one which proposes by issuing citations for red light and/or speed violations that driver behavior will become conditioned to obey the law; thereby improving safety. As such, the degree to which safety may be improved can only be measured through a progressive decrease in the number of citations issued at respective stationary locations over time. The city cannot dispute this, because former Police Chief Greg Graham, in office when the city advocated for camera installation, assured the public that this would be the result. Thus, by city admission, it is a myth to associate traffic camera effectiveness on safety simply via accident data.

The City’s “Traffic Camera Data — 2020 Annual Report” clearly demonstrates there has not been a progressive reduction of citations issued at any camera location. Instead, the data shows counterproductive progressive increase. This is obvious comparing the first full year of operation in 2011 to the last full year of operation in 2020 whereby increases range from 20 percent at Williams Boulevard and 16th Street SW to a staggering 362 percent increase at First Avenue and 10th Street. The average for all locations is an increase of 115 percent!

So, “data doubters,” how can there be any relationship between traffic camera enforcement and accident reduction when citations have increased? Logically, the opposite is true. Remember the distinction between problem and indicator? This means speed is likely not the problem associated with accidents. Just as the chief and Gazette argue, one could just as easily contend without challenge that accident reduction is the result of deterring driver distraction. Unfortunately, no one really knows, because the city has never spent a cent to fund a comprehensive study to determine real cause(s) through empirical data. Likewise, the city has never conducted independent survey to determine whether citizens favor or dislike the cameras.

There have been two approaches to traffic camera enforcement considered by Legislature. One would implement restrictions, such as forbidding citations until speed exceeds 20 mph over the limit. The other would banish camera use. The latter is the only one that makes sense. If the former would only encourage speeding up to the 20 mph threshold; a ludicrous proposal.

Gary Hughes lives in Marion.