COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 6, 2003 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000682 - An Ordinance providing for civil liability for violations of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to obedience to steady red-light signals and stopping at an intersection or crossing; and establishing an administrative system for adjudicating liability in connection with such violations; all under certain terms and conditions. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 000682 PAGE NANCY LAVIN, PhillyWalks .................... DENNIS WINTERS, Clean Air Council ........... LINDA RIPA .................................. IRA WINSTON ................................. TOM MCCAREY, National Motorist Assoc. ...... DAVID DISABATINO, ACLU ...................... LESLIE BLAKEY, National Campaign to Stop 7 Red Light Running ...................... 61 CATHY CHASE, Advocates for Highway and 8 Auto Safety ........................... 73 JUDGE FRANCIS KELLY ........................ 97 9 DOMINIC CEREMELE, Finance .................. 98 RICHARD DICKSON, Parking Authority ........ 102 10 FRANCIS HEALY, Police Department .......... 124 VINCENT FENERTY, Parking Authority ........ 130 11 DUTCH EICHORN, Dept. of Transportation .... 165 CHARLES TRAINOR, Dept. of Streets ........ 171 12 13 14 3 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The Committee on Streets and Services, the public hearing, is now in Session. In attendance, to my left is Councilman Mariano, to my immediate right is Councilman Rizzo. Councilman Kenney and Councilmember Nutter have been assigned to this Committee by the Council President, Anna Verna. And also Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller is here also. I understand that there are a couple of people who have a meeting, that they need to leave these Chambers almost immediately, and I will call them up first. Nancy Lavin and Dennis Winters. The Clerk will read the title of the Bill.
Bill No. 000682, providing for civil liability for violations of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code relating to obedience to steady red-light signals and stopping at an intersection or crossing; and establishing an administrative system for adjudicating liability in connection with such violations; all under certain terms and conditions.
It is my 4 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 understanding that Councilman Rizzo has an opening statement. Councilmember Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on Bill No. 000682, the Red Light Camera Ordinance, which addresses a very serious problem that affects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and visitors of Philadelphia - traffic accidents caused by red light running. Everyone knows that red light running is a serious problem both nationwide and particularly in Philadelphia. In 2001, there were 44 fatal red light running crashes in Pennsylvania in which 48 people died. About of those fatalities occurred 18 in the City of Philadelphia alone. These statistics 19 are proof that red light running is a threat to 20 public safety and that your elected leaders have a responsibility to act to remedy the growing problem. While I recognize the significant achievements of law enforcement in the City of Philadelphia to make our roadways safe, I also recognize the great burden placed on our law 5 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 enforcement that may prevent them from expending the resources necessary to combat the red light running. That is why I introduced Bill No. 000682 in Philadelphia City Council. The objective of my legislation is to implement a photo monitoring system at dangerous intersections in the City of Philadelphia in order to photograph vehicle license plates of motorists who violate steady -- and I repeat, steady red lights, thus creating hazardous conditions at intersections around the City. As I mentioned earlier, the statistics of the number of accidents caused by red light violators every year in Philadelphia, as well as around the country, are overwhelming. The number of deaths and injuries associated with red light running cannot be overlooked and have highlighted the need for a red light photo monitoring system. Further, the statistics relating to the effectiveness of photo monitoring enforcement systems that have been implemented around the country are impressive. In many instances these systems have been responsible for reductions in red light traffic accidents and deaths, injuries and 6 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 property damage associated with them of between 40 and 60 percent. With two of the most dangerous intersections in the country right here in Northeast Philadelphia, we cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer. Red light cameras are a proven and effective tool in reducing red light traffic accidents that will support our efforts to make intersections in the City of Philadelphia safer. I look forward to continuing the dialog on this issue in the future and ask for support of my colleagues on City Council for this important initiative. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that opportunity.
Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. Also for the record, Councilman Ortiz has now joined this Committee. Ms. Lavin, Mr. Winters, you decide among the two of you who will speak first.
My name is Nancy Lavin, Vice President of PhillyWalks, the only pedestrian advocacy organization in the greater Philadelphia 7 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 region. Two years ago in Philadelphia, there were 39 pedestrian fatalities caused by motor vehicles. There were 2,409 injuries. New York statistics report that drivers are at fault in 90 percent of pedestrian deaths. PhillyWalks supports the use of these cameras because they have the potential to reduce the numbers of crashes caused by red light runners. We sponsored a public forum addressing the subject, that featured Councilman Rizzo. The large number of attendees was overwhelmingly in favor of the Councilman's proposal to implement the cameras in Philadelphia. To achieve the highest level of pedestrian safety, this technology must be accompanied by our local agencies taking proactive steps to educate the driving public about our pedestrians' right-of-way. In order words, teach that driving is not one of those rights. It is a privilege. To enforce already existing laws and stress improved engineering; that is, traffic signage and signaling, for example. Red light cameras will play a significant part in enhancing Philadelphians' 8 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 quality of life. Options for one's own normal activity in the course of one's day are included in the Center for Disease Control program for healthy communities. The nexus between the two is the importance of walking, bicycling, taking transit, as well as driving. But when one mode threatens all the others through inconsiderate or aggressive actions, red light cameras can add one more tool to promote a safe environment. So in conclusion, these cameras represent much more than just a Kodak moment. They will, instead, help create a more perfect picture of a better and safer Philadelphia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dennis R. Winters, and I am Deputy Director of the Clean Air Council, Philadelphia's oldest membership-supported environmental organization. I'm here today to express the Council's support for legislative intent of Bill 000682, an 9 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Ordinance to establish photo enforcement of red light running in the City of Philadelphia. While not apparent at first, the Clean Air Council's interest in this Bill is one of expanding the choice people have in choosing the way they get from one place to another in our beautiful City. Rather than have to rely on motor vehicles to get around, if walking and bicycling are perceived to be safe and enjoyable experiences, studies and surveys have indicated that these two modes are used more often. And every auto trip avoided improves the air we all have to breathe. Philadelphia is still in non-compliance with the Clean Air Act for ozone, a pollutant largely resulting from our overdependency on the automobile. On the other hand, if walking and cycling are thought by most people to be risky and dangerous activities, they are going to be far more likely to use their vehicle. Pedestrians suffer the most under the situation because more cyclists will choose to break the law and use the sidewalk rather than the street, simply because they feel safer there. Unfortunately, bicycles on the sidewalk and pedestrians, particularly those that are elderly, 10 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 are accidents looking for a place to happen. The statistics delivered by others here this morning clearly show the increased safety of streets and intersections where photo enforcement is used to catch motorists running red lights in many of our major cities. It is time Philadelphia made its streets safer by doing the same thing. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will ask for Panel No. 1, Linda Ripa and Ira Winston. Thank you for your testimony. Also in attendance is Councilmember Darrell Clarke.
Good morning. My name is Linda Ripa. My son, Sergio Ripa, and I had the misfortune of being in the path of a red light runner in Philadelphia. I know all too well, the suffering. We almost lost our lives. I don't need to prepare a written speech 11 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 because I can tell you just from everything that I've experienced, that no one, and I mean no one, should have to suffer the way that my son and I have suffered and continue to suffer. Instead of being killed instantly, I feel as though I am dying slowly, surgery after surgery after surgery. I don't know how many more I'm going to have to have. The red light cameras -- this is solely about protecting the innocent people, protecting the law-abiding citizens. And if someone is opposing the red light photo enforcement, I feel that they have no business being behind the wheel of a motor vehicle because they're not only taking their own lives into their own hands, they're taking the lives of innocent people into their own hands. This is just something that must be passed through Council. And I hope that this is just the beginning, not just for the Philadelphia area, but for all the states as well. Thank you.
My name is Ira Winston. I'm an employee of the University of Pennsylvania. In January of 2002, I was struck by a 12 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 motor vehicle at 34th and Walnut Street while crossing the street. The car ducked around another car into a turn lane and then went through a solid red light and broke my right leg. I was fortunately okay and I'm doing quite well right now. The particular intersection is a very dangerous intersection because it's on Walnut Street just as it enters the Penn campus. Cars drive up Walnut Street from Center City going very slowly, then they hit a three-lane section where it all opens up, and they hit about 40 or 50 miles an hour. And if they make the lights, they hit the Penn campus with all the students crossing the streets at full speed. Attempts have been made to narrow the street at that location, but have been unsuccessful because it is a state emergency road and it cannot be narrowed. We need other techniques for signaling drivers that they have arrived at a major pedestrian site. I'm not convinced that a red light running camera would have stopped the gentleman who ducked around another car and hit me. But I will tell you one thing that I learned from this experience is, I used to be a red light runner 13 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 myself until this happened to me. It took being hit by a car to wake me up. But I'll tell you that the majority of people who run through these red lights are not the drunk drivers or the crazy drivers. They're people like you and me who just are in a rush to get someplace. And you know that light is a two-minute light and you just don't want to wait and you go through it. And for people like us, we would worry about getting caught by a red light running camera. And we would worry about that sort of thing. And that can make a difference. I will not -- I guarantee you, I will not run through another red light after what I went through, but I hope it doesn't take people having to have their legs broken so they can also change. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank both of you for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll ask Mr. David DiSabatino and Tom McCarey to please come to the witness table. Good morning. Please identify yourself 14 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Tom McCarey. I'm a member of the National Motorists Association. Mr. Chairman, Councilman Rizzo, and distinguished Councilpeople, the statements and assertions of ticket camera supporters are, at best, misleading and, at worst, outright falsehoods misled by convoluted, ten-year-old data from an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study. Proponents claim, red light runners cause percent of all crashes and fatalities. 13 Absolute bunk. Federal Highway Administration 14 statistics show 92,000 red light violation crashes 15 in 1999 versus 98,000 in 1996, a 6 percent 16 improvement. These numbers comprise less than 2 17 percent of all US crashes. 18 Proponents of ticket cameras need you to 19 believe that all red light violations are dangerous 20 actions deserving of punishment. Camera and other 21 data from Florida, Maryland to Virginia, and 22 Australia reveal that way less than percent of 23 these violations result in a crash. The red light 24 violation mileage fatality rate fell to a record low 25 between 1992 and 1999. 15 1 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Red light ticket camera advocates loudly proclaim that there is an epidemic of red light running caused by aggressive driver behavior. In reality, there is an epidemic of malpractice in the setting of traffic control devices. Most US signalized intersections, with approach speeds over 35 miles per hour, do not provide enough amber warning time for safe stopping or clearance because over 90 percent of speed limits are underposted. Over 70 percent of red light violations result from signal timing shortfalls or honest human error. Numerous other problems exist, including signals lacking synchronization and change interval formula limitations, with driver disobedience purposely programmed into signal timings. These traffic control deficiencies manufacture scofflaws out of reasonable and safe drivers. They also cause more crashes. Camera enforcement profiteers insist that they respect you and your rights. The ACLU says cameras violate due process. Regardless of who is driving, the ticket gets mailed to the vehicle's registered owner. Illegally reversing the burden of proof from the State to the defendant, the owner, if 16 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 not guilty, must turn in the violator. According to an Insurance Institute for Highway Study, almost 30 percent of red light violation automated tickets get mailed to an innocent person. Cameras also deny the Sixth Amendment right to confront your accusers. Mail does not provide adequate or guaranteed notification. With tickets often arriving weeks after an alleged violation, clear recall can be impossible. All traffic citations, even parking tickets, are issued at the time of the events. Guilt or innocence can definitely be established. If not guilty, clear recall of the event allows the accused a proper chance to challenge the charge in court. Cameras undermine every aspect of an American's legal right to a fair trial. Based on their own biased, conflict-of-interest-inspired surveys, supporters claim most people want cameras. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration poll of 1998 admitted that 35 percent of those surveyed had never even heard of photo enforcement. Any acceptance results from misinformation and the false premise that cameras save lives. Since cameras cannot 17 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 improve safety, opinions are meaningless. Do camera advocates really care what we think? No. The first ticket camera program in New York City began without public consensus. Camera supporters urge you to believe that this automated technology offers the best solution to improving traffic safety. In reality, it offers the surest means for quickly extorting great amounts of money from safe driving motorists. Cameras fail to provide even a partial solution. Proper analysis of over camera programs reveals 13 that photo enforcement cannot enhance safety.
14 Often-times, cameras increase accidents, especially 15 rear-end collisions, which already kill 70 percent more people than red light violations. The most comprehensive study, by Andreassen of Australia, analyzed crash data from five years before and five years after cameras at 41 photo-enforced intersections in Melbourne. Even right-angle crashes, the ones allegedly prevented by cameras, increased by 150 percent after camera installations. Plus, camera sites from all over the globe continue to photograph fatal crashes, proving 18 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 their inability to avert them. DWI, inattentive and reckless drivers constitute the vast majority of red light violation crashes. Cameras cannot detect, impede or apprehend these perilous motorists. Only live police officers can, thereby preventing fatalities, instead of just photographing them. Furthermore, the lust for photo enforcement money will supersede correcting dangerous engineering malpractices. In reality, camera supporters have placed power and money above public safety. They really hope you will swallow one final assertion: This is a safety issue and has nothing to do with money. The previous paragraph refutes the safety part. Proponents of cameras will all profit from their operation. Money from fines enhances the coffers of state, county and city police, local governments, camera vendors, and insurance companies. Campaign money from insurance and camera corporations helps encourage pro-camera politicians. Conflict of interest abounds. Photo enforcement programs throughout America have extorted over $100 million as of January 2001. The 72 insurance 19 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 companies funding the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety usurped an additional $30 million in policy surcharges. " If officials truly care about safety, not just revenue enhancement, then engineering is the key. Engineering, not enforcement, maintains the greatest effect on compliance and safety. Correctly engineered traffic signals, often including more yellow warning time, will seriously diminish red light violations and crashes as demonstrated in Detroit, Omaha, and San Francisco. It's simple, inexpensive, and it respects people's rights. Camera enforcement provides absolutely no benefit to society, only detriments. Cameras extort money and violate rights while increasing crashes and fatalities. Cameras remove the police presence needed to apprehend DWI, criminal and reckless drivers. They also deny police direction. Photo enforcement will encourage further engineering 20 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 malpractices and other unethical behaviors as documented in Washington DC, Virginia, and Florida. In the interest of truth, justice, freedom, and real safety, this red light ticket camera program should be rejected by City Council, and no future program should ever be considered. Whether well intentioned or not, those who endorse cameras have placed power and money above the welfare of the people of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the City Council Committee on Streets and Services. My name is David DiSabatino, and I'm the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you for inviting the ACLU to present testimony on Bill 000682. The ACLU opposes this legislation because we think it undermines due process rights and poses a threat to the privacy of drivers in Philadelphia. We believe that using technology rather than human beings --
Do you have copies? 21 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
I'm sorry. Copies of my statement have been passed around.
We believe that technology rather than human beings to enforce our laws diminishes the fundamental principle that guilt is determined on an individualized basis. We also fear the program could actually harm public safety, as already has been pointed out. Finally, we are concerned about the administrative role of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, an unelected entity that is no longer under the control of the City of Philadelphia. Red light camera technology is being sold as a means for enhancing public safety and reducing the number of accidents. We have serious reservations about the evidence regarding red light cameras and safety, and hope that you will look at such evidence skeptically. However, should you remain convinced that this program will enhance public safety, and feel that the benefits outweigh the serious Constitutional concerns, then we hope that you will 22 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 attach to this legislation a mandated reduction in insurance premiums for automobile drivers. After all, if we're being asked to give up some of our rights to privacy and due process, then certainly we should be guaranteed a substantial reduction in what we pay to insurance companies. Under the proposed red light camera program, the owner of a car that is photographed going through a red light will be presumed to be guilty. The owner will have to request a hearing to prove his or her innocence. Furthermore, at such a hearing, the rules of evidence will not apply. All of this, in the birth place of freedom. In the United States of America, we presume someone is innocent until proven guilty. In this country, the burden is on the government to establish that one is guilty. These principles are abandoned in the red light camera program. The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions recognize the right to confront one's accuser. This right of confrontation is rendered meaningless when one's accuser is a machine. Some discount these concerns about traditional notions of due process by claiming that public safety is more important than Constitutional 23 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 notions of fairness. You heard testimony from victims of crashes this morning. We are very sympathetic to the plight and suffering of victims. But the ACLU is just as concerned about public safety as the proponents of red light cameras. But it's this nation's commitment to due process and procedural fairness that distinguishes the United States from other countries. We lose too much of our freedom each time we trade away any of these core components of our justice system. A state court in San Diego, California, has vindicated this concern over fundamental fairness. That Court held that the evidence from red light cameras is quote, so untrustworthy and unreliable, that it lacks foundation and should not be admitted. There's additional information attached to my prepared remarks. The testimony presented by the Honorable Richard Army, then Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives to the US House Transportation Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. The ACLU is also concerned about the 24 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 potential invasion of privacy through the use of these cameras. Experience has shown that once surveillance systems are put into place for a limited purpose, they inevitably are used for additional purposes. I'm sure you all can imagine the pressure that will be brought to bear on law enforcement to permit red light camera evidence to be used for 24-hour surveillance. We fear that in a few years' time, these cameras will not just be used to catch drivers going through red lights, rather we find that the cameras have become a critical component of a system designed to keep tabs on all of us, all of the time. " We suspect that data and photographs collected by red light cameras will become part of ever-expanding databases. We have seen that every new use for data opens the door to more and more privacy abuses.
For example, cameras that were installed at the Texas-Oklahoma border have been used to capture the license plate numbers of thousands of law-abiding citizens who were then subjected to inquiries about why they were crossing the border. We feel that information collected 25 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 through red light cameras will ultimately be sold, shared, or otherwise abused. The ACLU is also troubled by reliance on technology, rather than human beings, to enforce the laws of Pennsylvania. We think that this diminishes the principle of individualized determination of guilt. How can a person accused of driving through a red light effectively cross-examine a video camera? How does one test the credibility of the photograph that was taken, or the system that is used to generate the photograph? How does one account for mistakes that are made by a machine? Anyone who is mistakenly charged due to camera errors will be required to demonstrate that the system itself malfunctioned. Individuals will have put themselves in a position where they may have to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars on attorneys and experts in order to prove that the red light cameras were improperly installed or inaccurately functioning. Defending one's self against a false charge of running a red light will no longer mean merely demonstrating that the police officer's observations were inaccurate. Rather, one will have to show that a fancy technological device 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 is not working properly. And all of this may actually harm public safety. There were reports in some jurisdictions that used red light cameras that the yellow light intervals had been shortened. While this may lead to an increase in revenue for the government due to more citations being issued, it can also lead to more rear-end collisions at intersections where yellow lights have been shortened. If you want to make the public safer, you could have engineers design the dangerous intersections that we all know about in Philadelphia, lengthen the time of yellow lights, and provide for more public transit so there will be fewer cars on the road. The ACLU believes that Americans should carefully examine and debate the extent to which we want computers, surveillance cameras, and other technologies to be used for law enforcement purposes in place of real human beings who make actual observations of human behavior. We also believe that traffic safety and due process are not mutually incompatible. We do not think that traffic is compromised when we protect privacy. 27 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Last year the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed Act 123. Pursuant to that law, the Philadelphia Parking Authority must be the administrator of the red light camera program. The ACLU is troubled by the fact that this system that compromises our privacy interests and the fundamental notions of due process is going to be run by an agency that is not elected and not under the control of the City. It would be one thing for the citizens of Philadelphia to have this system run by employees who must answer to our elected officials, but the system is not going to operate in that manner. And the interests of the citizens of Philadelphia will be subject to the whim of an agency that is now a creature beholden to the powers that be in Harrisburg. It's for all these reasons that the ACLU of Pennsylvania urges you to oppose this Bill. However, should you not agree with our views, we do hope that you will at least consider conditioning implementation of this program on an actual substantial reduction in auto insurance premiums in Philadelphia. If we're going to be asked to sacrifice our rights in the name of safety, then 28 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 shouldn't we see some relief from the punishing auto insurance rates? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'll be happy to take any questions you have.
Thank you very much. I'm intrigued by your indication you would like us to attach mandatory reductions in insurance rates. Are you an attorney?
How in God's name would we do that? Because if it's that easily done, we could pass that today. I don't know if it's going to work. What teeth does the City Council have to mandate reductions in auto insurance rates?
I think you're right that there's no way to directly do it.
No. I think that what the City Council could consider is ways to negotiate with the folks who are going to benefit from these programs, to bring to the table the insurance companies. I mean, we've been under these high 29 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 insurance rates for so long, as City Council knows. Various programs have been tried to try to make the streets of Philadelphia safer for insurance companies through Live Stop and other such programs, but we haven't seen any relief. So it's a real concern to the citizens of Philadelphia. If we can come up with creative ways to make it more affordable for drivers to register their cars and insure their cars --
But for argument's sake -- and the last witness disagrees with the statistics that indicate the reduction in accidents and injuries. You haven't spoken to that in your testimony about statistics, whether you disagree or agree with the effectiveness. Yours more is a civil liberties argument. I understand it and respect it. Would it seem natural that if, in fact, for argument's sake, it did reduce the amount of accidents and injuries, that it would be another piece in our ability to go to Harrisburg, Live Stop, reduction in accidents, reduction in injuries, reduction in premium payments, wouldn't that seem to make more sense as a component piece of the argument on why Philadelphia should get some rate relief? 30 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Well, we don't think that you can skip over the privacy and due process issues.
We may have an argument about that. I'm not going to debate you on it because I respect the ACLU's position on a lot of these issues. Thank God you're there to at least give the other side. But as far as putting together pieces that will allow us to make a cogent argument to Harrisburg that we should deserve rate relief, would not this seem to be one of those pieces?
That's essentially what the core of that part of our proposal is, that if you do go forward with this, that it be considered in the entire nature of the negotiation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. I actually wanted to follow-up on Councilman Kenney's issue with respect to insurance rates. During the course of the deliberations on the state level authorizing the implementation of 31 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 this program in the City of Philadelphia, did the ACLU testify?
The ACLU did participate in the process. I wasn't there. Our legislative director, Larry Frankel, was present. I'm not sure if he gave testimony on it. I think he did.
Well, you not knowing if they testified or not, my question was going to be relating to the auto insurance issue on a state level, since the State Legislature has substantially more involvement in the process than we do here locally. I was wondering if that was a part of the testimony and to what degree you were hopefully going to tie this issue if, in fact, implemented to the insurance rates? And it actually may even come up in the confirmation hearings of the insurance commissioner in the next few days.
It may not have been raised during the original hearings in Harrisburg on the 123. But for sure now, if this effort does move forward, we will be tying this issue to the issue of auto insurance in Harrisburg.
Wouldn't it be 32 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 prudent even if we for some reason don't authorize it today, to have that on the table in the future if, in fact, we implemented it? It may change Members' minds if there was actually a thought that they would reduce to some degree. And I'm a little reluctant to believe that that's going to happen, frankly speaking, given all we've done here locally.
Councilman, if I may. These red light ticket cameras increase accidents, rear-end collisions especially, which are litigated terrifically in Philadelphia. Insurance rates are going to go up. Eventually, the insurance companies are going to demand points on these tickets like they have everywhere else in the country. Everybody's rates are going to go up, and it's going to be one more reason for people to leave Philadelphia.
Well, that was actually my next line of questioning with respect to other municipalities. With respect to other municipalities, do you have statistics to show that where this program has been implemented, rates have gone up or gone 33 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 down?
I don't know about rates. But I know about a 125 percent increase in rear-end collisions after a 10-year study in Australia.
You just said that in other municipalities auto insurance has gone up.
So you don't know that that has, in fact, happened? You're assuming that they've gone up in other areas?
As day follows night, when you have an accident, your rates go up. There's going to be more accidents and more deaths and crashes.
It's not an assumption. It's a fact borne out by the insurance --
Sir, excuse me. The question was, have they gone up or gone down in other municipalities where this program has been implemented? You either don't know, yes or no. 25
That's the answer I'm looking for. You don't know. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. McCarey, you keep referencing Australia. Is there any difference in the traffic patterns? I think they drive on the different side of the road.
Well, not substantially. But there is some difference in their traffic patterns and their highways, I assume?
Not that I know of. This study is the most comprehensive study. It debunks other studies. The Insurance Institute says there's no rear-end crashes. You can look at my last page. I made a diagram. They look at the rear-end crashes inside the crosswalks. If you go back to 50 22 feet, that's where the rear-end collisions happen. 23 They conveniently leave that out of their studies. 24
Don't you think 25 that the cameras in those instances where there may 35 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 be accident at an intersection, where there hopefully is a camera installed, would help alleviate some of the legal issues, the expenses of lawyers debating who went through the light first? Don't you think that would be somewhat helpful?
No. And it certainly isn't worth the cost of the detriment of the cameras.
It's not worth the drawbacks that cameras bring to the situation.
It's a grassroots, member-funded, non-profit organization to promote automobile rights. We're against this instance in particular, enforcement for profit. There's rational ways of engineering to make driving safe. And there's a lot of misconceptions and myths put out by the government, especially in the insurance companies and some of the people you've heard here today.
You say it's a 36 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 grassroots organization made up of just --
Well, there's a president and a communications director and some lady answers the phone. It's in Wisconsin.
Someone handed me a sheet of paper here that speaks to some of the issues, and I'm not certain if they're accurate or not. I'd like to ask you. 37 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 What is the National Motorists Association's position on sobriety checks?
Against it. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Most DUI problems come from people who have 1.2 to 1.7 percent alcohol in their blood. There's a lot of different complicated medical things about blood alcohol --
I just want to make certain that this note that was handed to me is accurate or inaccurate. What is the National Motorists Association's position on mandatory seat belt laws?
Against it. It's up to the person's individual choice. The government has no business making decisions for people.
What is the National Motorists Association's position on automobile safety inspections?
So it's the individual's right, in your opinion, the Association's opinion, to decide whether or not 38 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 their vehicle is safe or not?
You suggest that everyone who drives a car maintains it?
I'm not suggesting everyone. Well over 97 percent of the motoring public is safe and reasonable. This is an attempt by the camera companies paying for this program to discredit the National Motorists Association.
Sir, I was just handed a slip of paper. Sir, I've given you the courtesy of listening to your testimony, much of which I disagree with. But that's okay. That's the process. So I'd just like to know the position of your association on all these issues.
What is your association's position on mandatory automobile insurance?
What is your 39 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 opinion on mandatory factory installation of air bags in vehicles?
Air bags have killed people. There's a lot of controversy about that. I don't know their position. I don't have a position.
Is it correct that your association is now boycotting General Motors Saturn products because apparently they are manufacturing vehicles with daytime running lights?
That's correct. Daytime running lights are unnecessary, and they're confusing.
For me, I wish that every time you started your car up your headlights would go on automatically. Because I see people driving around constantly at dusk, driving around in the middle of the night without their headlights on. I think that there should be a law that they go on automatically all the time. As soon as your car starts up, those lights should be on. So that's really one I disagree with you on. Any questions for this gentleman?
Mr. Chairman, I wasn't finished. 40 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
No. Actually, I was going to ask Mr. DiSabatino the question with respect to insurance rates in other municipalities.
I apologize. Councilman Rizzo will be next. I'm sorry about that.
Mr. DiSabatino, the issue with respect to other municipalities and insurance rates, gone up, gone down, don't know?
I'm not prepared to talk about those issues. I came to address mainly the Constitutional issues.
I understand. But you referenced it in your testimony.
We have seen some evidence, but we have not evaluated the evidence. We're attorneys rather than traffic safety people.
Thank you. Councilman Rizzo and then Councilman Cohen after Rizzo. 41 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
The statistics that I have indicate that deaths, injuries, property damage associated with -- after the installation of red light cameras, property damage cases in many of the municipalities have been reduced between 40 and 60 percent. And, again, I'm not here today to talk about the financial aspects of this, but the information that I received is that it's had the trickle down effect and has affected the number of losses in some of the cities that have implemented cameras. So I just wanted to put that out there. And, again, I appreciate both of you coming in here. I wish you didn't come, but I appreciate that you came and expressed yourself. There's one last thing on the list that really amazes me with the number of -- how the National Motorists Association could be against trying to repeal laws when you violate the speed limit in a work zone. You're trying to repeal that law that doubles the fine in a work zone. When you hear -- just recently out on the turnpike, two workers were killed by a car that was speeding and in a work zone. Why you would want to be hooked up with trying to repeal that law amazes me. 42 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
You have to deal with that individual speeder. Texas A&M transportation --
But after somebody's killed, you can deal with individual speeder, but that doesn't bring the person back to life that was killed.
If it slows down the vehicle in the work zone and the accident never occurs because that sign that says it's -- let me tell you, it gets my attention and I think it gets a lot of people's attention.
Texas A&M Department of Transportation Engineering Department did a study that said doubling fines has little effect on compliance. So it's just a money grab by the government.
Councilman Mariano and then Councilman Cohen. Councilman Mariano first.
Thank you, Mr. 43 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Chairman. Mr. McCarey, explain to me the rear-end crashes in your theory on how the red lights cause --
Not to my knowledge. You need a certain amount of yellow time to safely decide whether to stop or to continue. And I talked to Charles Trainor and he said that the yellow time is based on the posted speed limit. The posted speed limit has nothing to do with what people drive. People drive the 85th percentile speed. That's the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers or less, slightly less, speed. If the speed limit posted is 30, people could be going 40 at the 85th percentile. You need more yellow time to stop. So every light in Philadelphia is mis-timed.
Do you think -- this is just my theory. Yellow light to a lot of people means go faster and get through it before it gets red. It's what I've seen. I'll be 48 years 44 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 old. I've been driving since I was 16. I don't think I had any moving violations that I can remember. The people listening to this on the radio, if they're here, a lot of this stuff you're trying to explain to us is very technical. It's your theory on it. And the other side has a theory. But in all practicality, to me, the yellow light makes sense. Even if it saves -- will it save any lives? Probably. Because people that have money that are in a hurry are going to go through the light anyhow and say, "The heck with it." And that goes to sum up with what the guy from the ACLU says. But people who don't have money, which are probably most of the people in Philadelphia -- and it's not about trying to get money, on my part. I can't speak for the sponsor of the Bill. I know him. I doubt it. He's really trying to do something here that helps people stay alive. We can probably bring a lot more people in for both sides of the issue. I just can't understand why something like this -- I understand the ACLU's point of view. I think I do. But your point of view and your organization's point of view, if there's a red light people are going to 45 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 go through it, if they're going to go through it anyhow. I heard theories before from these people that said, "We'd rather have stop signs because people will blow red lights because they figure the guy on the four-way red light or the four-way stop" -- I'm looking at one of the judges over there. I think he explained it to me. People blow things if they're going to or not. But there's an effect here. Something is going to happen here if you do this. Someone is going to take a picture of your plate, and if it's me driving or it's my car -- I have to deal with my 22-year-old that may have my car. It may give me a good reason not to lend my car to him. You're not getting my car because of that. But I just can't understand -- maybe it's a lack on my part -- where anyone would think that this would cause more accidents. I mean, I understand the stopping part, but it's going to cause accidents the other way. It's got to be both ways.
No, it's not. And they're not my opinions and it's not theory. These are engineering facts backed up by the Institute of 46 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Transportation Engineers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. If you have a properly engineered intersection, the cameras are not profitable.
Explain properly engineered intersection. Let's talk about Grant and the Boulevard in my district. That's the most dangerous intersection in the country. Where we did the Live Stops and people are still doing 85 miles an hour in a 35-mile-an-hour zone.
A lot of people. The only person I know that's not is me. I doubt if everybody else is. I'm not. Because if I do it, it's a story in the Inquirer. So I'm obviously not doing it. Plus the cops that stop us know all of us. And if you think they won't write us a ticket, they will. It works the other way too. Seriously, that's a busy intersection. Now, I'm sure there was an insurance company that was involved in that study, so you may discount that study. I know what I see from living in this City my whole life. People are riding around -- one of the Councilpeople told me he saw 47 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 somebody shaving as they were driving. I see people driving SUVs that are smaller than me, they got their hands up, they're talking on the cell phone, they're doing things with their nose that I won't mention, their ears. Who knows what else they're doing. We need help here.
I can tell you what they did in Detroit for four problem intersections. They combined with the AAA. They made better pavement markings, better signages, better site lines and they increased the size of the lenses from eight inches to 12 inches and they increased the yellow time. Violations went down by 50 percent and it stayed there.
Even if that's all done, isn't that guy who's going to blow that red light, he's going to blow that red light anyhow because he's in hurry? The only thing that's going to stop him from blowing that red light is because something is going to happen to him. He's either going to get hit in an accident or he's going to get a ticket. Hopefully, he doesn't get in an accident. He will get a ticket if this passes.
A camera is not going to 48 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 stop a guy like that. There's a very, very small percentage of people like that. You're never going to stop a willful red light runner, a DUI, a criminal, a reckless driver. That's what the police are for. They can stop him before he gets to the next camera to take a picture of him running into somebody.
I have to differ with you. It's not that I know a lot of criminals, but I know a lot of people -- we're talking about criminals and people who make bad decisions driving. I just have to differ with you on that. They're going to get in trouble. There's going to be at least a ticket sent to their house. So if my son, my 22-year-old or my 18-year-old is out there with my car, I'm going to get that ticket. I read the stuff here that may have been the ACLU's. Two weeks ago, I know who had my car. It's down to two or three people. It's me, my wife, my son and maybe my other son. He's in college. Do you know what I'm saying? I mean, it's clear in your mind, but it's just as clear in our minds. It's simple stuff to me. I can't speak for the rest of the Committee here. Something is going 49 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 to happen. It may affect one person. If it affects one person who slows down, that's a victory for us.
With all due respect, those are emotional opinions, and the camera companies have resorted to emotion to try to sell these things. I have statistics that show that 80 percent of red light running occurs within one second of the red. That's an honest human mistake. Fairfax County, Virginia, lengthened the yellow from four seconds to five-and-a-half seconds. Red light violations went down by 96 percent and have stayed there. That hasn't been tried in Philadelphia yet. I think it's worth a try before you even look at these cameras. But the statistics show the cameras increase rear-end collisions. And it really is all about the money.
This is the last thing I'll say. I'm on this Committee. I've been on this Committee for eight years. Nobody from any red light company has contacted me, or any camera company. I haven't heard anything. I talked to Councilman Rizzo when he started it. I didn't sign it at the beginning because one of the Traffic Court judges had an opinion and I wanted to listen to 50 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 them, and I did. Now I'm for it. But what's black and white to you, it's not to us. Thank you. Thanks for your theories.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DiSabatino, you're the representative of the American Civil Liberties Union?
I'm just a bit troubled. I'm troubled by both aspects of this situation, but I'm troubled that the Civil Liberties Union would think in any way that a payoff in financial relief would justify any violation of privacy rights.
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that we justify it. I was suggesting 51 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that if Council does move forward with this, because of an honest disagreement over the extent of the Constitutional problems, that Council consider providing relief to overburdened drivers at the same time.
Well, I'm not so sure that there's really a difference of opinion about violations of Constitutional rights. I think the division is more about people who care about the violations and those who don't. And if you don't care about violations of civil rights, of course you don't know anything about privacy, you don't care to protect it. But if you care about civil rights, then you know that things always come to us in sweet, syrupy conditions. This is only going to be the picture of the license tag. Nobody is ever going to see a face. Now, anybody who knows anything about progress knows that's untrue, knows that shortly after the plan is put into effect, if it ever is, that there will come a statement, we've now perfected this, and now we can get to the place where we can put points on because we can get enough of a picture so that somebody can defend himself 52 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 properly and, therefore, we don't have to limit ourselves to only ticketing. We can actually give people points. Not only a civil violation, but we can affect the driving habits. We've seen photographs begin to invade privacy all along the business intersections of the City. And in no time at all -- speaking historically, it may take 5 or years. So maybe 10 in my lifetime I'm safe. But for most of my colleagues, if they don't understand that this is merely the beginning of what we generally call a slippery slope, and it get's more slippery and the slope gets more intense, and in a short period we're going to have a violation of rights. So I would just suggest that the Civil Liberties Union reconsider its attitude. I don't think there's any question as to whether it's a violation of civil rights and privacy. It is. And it leads to the kind of things like in the new Security Act, which permits the government to go into areas we never thought they would ever be allowed to go. For example, if you take a book out of a library -- now, isn't that an innocent thing? You go to the library. You want to 53 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 read a book. You've read maybe about Iraq you're interested in. So you go there and then the government decides to investigate because there's a specific provision in that act which permits the government to get library information, including what books, who read. And so suddenly you're called in. "We notice that in April three years ago you read a book on Iraq. What was your reason for reading that book on Iraq? Were you going to work with Saddam Hussein? Were you against him? " Well, that kind of privacy -- we've always rejected that kind of invasions of privacy. Yet it sounded innocent enough when introduced. When people face a crisis -- and driving accidents are a crisis. I admit that. It's a serious problem. Philadelphia is a City where everybody passes the red light and everybody throws trash on the street. Sooner or later we're going to have cameras on every street in Philadelphia so that we'll identify people who drop pieces of paper on the street. Maybe that's worth the price that you have to pay for a clean city, but it seems to me that other cities have become clean without that. 54 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 And there must be non-invasive methods for dealing with situations. I'm also concerned about the fact that governments have become pretty much like private business. They look for every conceivable way to raise funds, particularly from poor people and low income people. And it seems to me that this is aimed basically, like most government financing is aimed, at the people who are not influential, at the people who it's felt will accept it. And that's the low income people who are overwhelmingly most of the drivers in the country. So I'm concerned about those aspects. And I'm concerned about why is it that in Philadelphia, unlike many other cities, we don't solve these problems without going to these extremes, which always also involve money.
Somehow the government makes money out of the bad habits of people. So I'm concerned about all the aspects of this case. But one of my main concerns is the Constitutional concern of privacy, and I just want to reinforce my view that I don't think any price is worth paying to permit an invasion of privacy. 55 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 I wonder what happens if somebody is out on a street that night and a robbery takes place near where a red light was passed, and the police begin an investigation very properly of the robbery. And they want to follow every lead. And police should follow every lead. And your car happened to pass that intersection at or about the time. Suddenly you're involved in a robbery investigation. And maybe you were in that neighborhood for reasons you're not prepared to disclose to the public. Maybe if you were a lawyer, you were investigating a case, a case for a client who did not wish to have their names released. I can think of all kinds of ways in which the information could be harmful to people. And so I'm wondering is it worth the price, if there is a price? Can there been a price to this kind of thing? Why can't we get smart and figure out ways to clean up the City from the trash, make it a clean City and make it a safe City. Why can't we find a method to convince Philadelphians that you ought not to pass red lights. It's too dangerous for everybody; for the driver, for the pedestrians, everybody. Why can't we do it preserving our basic 56 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Constitutional rights? Why is it whenever there is a crisis in anything, the first approach always is, let's give up some basic American right that we think is important enough to fight about, to fight militarily, to give up, if necessary, our children. So I'm very concerned about this issue. I'm listening intently. But I don't want to neglect or underestimate the very serious invasion this would be of privacy and Constitutional rights. Just think of yourself walking your dog, deciding one night to walk two blocks further because it's a lovely night, having something happen somewhere where you're walking, and then having to explain what were you doing in this neighborhood. You didn't belong here. We watched you walk on other nights and you only walked across the street where the park is. What were you doing two blocks away that night? They're the kind of concerns I have. I don't think this is an easy question at all. And I'm also very suspicious -- who gets the money in this Bill? Who's going to get the money? Have you checked that?
It goes to the Parking Authority, which is the administrator of the 57 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 program. I'm not sure how that money is shared between the City and the State.
Well, if anybody has any information, I'd like to know. Because Parking Authority recently changed ownership. And they sold out from one outfit to another outfit. And the first outfit had all kinds of investment practices, like building garages and empty holes, like at 8th and Market Street investing $30 million. And the new ownership said, "We're going to take care of the school system with the Parking Authority," only to find there was no money.
Councilman Cohen, there are representatives from the Parking Authority who will be testifying this morning. I'm certain that you will want to reserve your questions for them.
Okay. Very good, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So if either of you have any comments -- I tried to follow the gentleman from the other organization, but he was way beyond my level of understanding about slippery slopes. I think he slipped all the way down. But I am very much 58 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 concerned with the position of the Civil Liberties Union.
Councilman Cohen, I just want to respond briefly by saying I agree with you 100 percent. We are opposed to the legislation. I didn't mean to imply that the ACLU would consider it okay if there was enough of a financial relief exacted for the citizens of Philadelphia. We completely share your concerns about privacy and due process. And I think that we are also aware, as you are, of the importance of enforcing the the traffic laws. But we really believe that real human police officers, law enforcement officers, should be doing that enforcement rather than relying on technology. It's tempting, as you say. But also as you said, the technology is advancing so quickly, that right now or in a few years, we will have the ability to track people in public in a way that a prior generation couldn't even imagine. And when people make the argument, "Well, it's for safety," it's a very appealing argument, as you say. But it also presents real Constitutional problems. And that's what we're encouraging City Council to do, is to think about those problems before adopting a new 59 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 technology which then becomes part of everybody's daily life.
Councilman Cohen, the bottom line is, we're against this because it won't work. It will cause more crashes and fatalities and it just extorts money from motorists. If it worked, fine. But it doesn't work. It has proved it hasn't worked. There's statistics all over the country, every program.
I'm inclined to think you're right with respect to your conclusion. To Mr. DiSabatino, anybody who thinks you're going to find a way to get the insurance companies to stop molting the public, I think we're dreaming. On the Live Stop program, I think the Chair has reported at other meetings about the great reduction in the number of problems for insurance companies. And the insurance companies respond, "Yes, that's true. But that's kind of irrelevant. It only reflected a tiny portion. So tiny it doesn't effect the rates." The insurance company will probably come up with that kind of story, if this program were put 60 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 into effect. And if it were indeed successful, they'd probably say, "Well, that's really irrelevant. You didn't stop enough. It wasn't quite successful enough." Insurance companies are going to have to be dealt with by an Insurance Commissioner who really works in the interest of the public. And City Council has expressed its opinion to the Governor as to the first -- two steps have already been taken: The change in the Insurance Commissioner and the passage of a Bill for a Consumer Advocate for auto insurance. But in any event, this presentation is a problem. I think it ought to be presented, but I think we all ought to be conscious of the dangers that we face by the shortcut approach. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the panel? (No response.)
Seeing none, I ask the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, 61 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Leslie Blakey, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Cathy Chase. Is there someone here from the Pennsylvania Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? I don't have a name for that organization. I want to hear from them. Good morning, ladies. Please identify yourself for the record. Decide among the two of you who will speak first.
Thank you, Councilman DiCicco, Vice Chairman Cohen, and Members of the City Council for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of City Ordinance 000682, a Bill that would allow Philadelphia to establish a photo red camera pilot program within well-established guidelines. As Executive Director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, an industry-funded advocacy organization, I urge your favorable vote on this important Ordinance that will help decrease red light camera running crashes and reduce deaths and injuries in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia during 2001 there were 20 fatalities caused by red light runners. Fatal 62 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 red light crashes in Philadelphia are increasing, and they account for nearly half of the fatal red light crashes in the entire State of Pennsylvania. Nationally, red light running caused as many as 218,000 crashes last year, resulting in more than 181,000 injuries and 880 deaths, at a $14 billion cost to American taxpayers. One in three Americans knows someone who has been injured, somebody who has been killed, or both, because of a red light runner. Red light running crash deaths are increasing three times faster than any other type of roadway fatality. Philadelphia's home to two of the country's most dangerous intersections, according to State Farm Insurance. But red light running is not only a problem at these troubled intersections. It's a problem right outside the doors of City Hall. We took our cameras outside the building, and in one hour, this is what we found. And I urge you to look carefully on the video at the signal which shows -- when the signal turns red, you will be able to see running the red light right outside the doors of City Hall. (Videotape played.) 63 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
As you can see, too many drivers do not consider running a red light to be a serious traffic offense or a danger to their fellow citizens. Consistent enforcement is necessary to deter people from making this dangerous and often deadly choice, and photo red light camera programs are a very effective safety countermeasure to establish this goal. I would like to depart from my written remarks here for just a moment to address some of the issues that were brought up by the previous witnesses. In particular, I want to call the Council's attention to three reports that were released in just the past month: One from the Transportation Research Board, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences; one from the FHWA; and one from the Texas Transportation Institute. All three of these were major comprehensive reports and all three endorsed the benefits of photo enforcement programs and their effectiveness. There was also one other report which was released back in February from the Virginia Institute of Technology studying the Fairfax County program in Fairfax, Virginia. The report showed that, in fact, the issue of cost 64 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 is really a cost to society, not the issue at hand. It's the savings that are achieved from savings in crashes and injuries and fatalities. In that study, the research has found that projected over eight years, eight cameras, only eight, in Fairfax County would save $30 million in societal costs, which is, I think, one of most significant findings recently is that we benefit from reduced accidents and reduced injuries, but there's also saved police power, saved EMS personnel, savings in terms of commuter time from tie-ups and congestion and so forth caused by injuries, not to mention the savings in families from people who are out of work due to these crashes and injuries. Also, with respect to the aspect that was brought up in terms of civil liberties, the issue of being able to confront your accuser. Under these systems, under these programs, and in the Philadelphia proposal, you will still have the right to do that. The ticket is merely a summons to present your case at a hearing, if you so choose, or to pay the ticket if you choose to do so because you recognize that you are guilty. You can confront your accuser, which is the State. The camera is not 65 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 your accuser. The photo is merely evidence. The State is your accuser, and the opportunity is there for you to confront the State and deny that you ran the red light. However, in most cases, people see themselves in the photo and -- or where there's video, they see themselves on the video and they recognize that they actually ran the light. This is a very --
Point of information. As I understand this Bill, you're speaking in your testimony as to a photograph of a person. It's my understanding that this program is only photographing a license. So I don't want to mislead anyone here. Maybe other jurisdictions have the ability or the capacity to photograph the driver. One of the things that was, I think, strongly, from my perspective, favoring the Bill, was the fact that it was only the license plate that was being photographed. So a lot of the civil liberties issues are not as serious because you're photographing the plates. I don't want your testimony to --
That's correct. What I was 66 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 addressing was the issue of being able to confront your accuser. And you do have the opportunity to confront --
I just didn't want anybody here in the room or on the panel to think that somehow there was going to be facial photographs of the driver.
That's correct. It will be a rear license plate only. And the camera only activates and takes a picture once someone has crossed the crosswalk and entered the intersection after the light has turned red. So that the only pictures that will be taken will be people that are actually breaking the law. And the picture will be of their license plate, not of the individual. So the issue that I was going to, in terms of Constitutional issues, has do to with the right to confront your accuser, which you still have.
I just want to make sure that the record was clear, that no one's photograph was being taken. It was only the license plate.
Further point of 67 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 information, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to also point out that every photograph, license plate that's photographed, before that is sent to the registered owner of that vehicle, that a Philadelphia Police officer will be associated with the process where -- the Parking Authority can further elaborate on that. But they will view each of the photographs to be assured that it is a legitimate violation, that it's looked at by the police officer before it's sent. So that is also the human factor into the process. And, again, if that's not absolutely correct, I'm sure that I'll be straightened out on that, but I believe that's how that is going to work.
That certainly is my understanding, as well. And with respect to a remark that was made by our previous witness, which is that in the case of a live citation issued at the time by a police officer that -- he made the comment that guilt or innocence can be established at that time. And, in fact, that is not the purpose of a law enforcement officer. An officer is not to establish guilt or innocence. The officer cites the offender 68 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 based on what he has observed, and guilt or innocence is not established at that time. It operates exactly the same way effectively, as this program would operate, which is that you then are allowed to present your evidence at a hearing that you are either innocent or guilty. So there really is actually very little difference from a Constitutional standpoint.
Thank you very much. Excuse me for interrupting your presentation.
Sure. Absolutely. One of the other aspects, though, that I was interested in addressing was the privacy issue, which I do want to reiterate that driving is a privilege. When you're driving on a public road, there's a different set of obligations at work. And when you're breaking the law on a public street, you're not entitled to special protections of privacy. The camera systems that we're talking about here will allow the photograph only from the rear and, therefore, we're not identifying any individual. And when that ticket or citation is sent to the owner of the vehicle, the owner has the opportunity to identify the person who is driving, 69 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 if it was not them. And they have the opportunity, therefore, to have the ticket abated and the proper person cited subsequently. So there's quite a lot of built-in protection here in terms of civil liberties. One of the other aspects that I wanted to address that was presented in the previous testimony is that there was an assertion that rear-end collisions greatly increased as a result of these programs. In fact, the evidence for the rear-end collisions have increased in one of the reports -- as a matter of fact, it was an extensive review of 90 different programs in the United States and in other countries which was released by the Texas Transportation Institute -- stated, and I quote, that any increase in rear-end collisions is both slight and temporary. That was their conclusions based on studies of 90 different communities. The previous witness, and often when we hear this from opponents, greatly exaggerates the importance of the rear-end crashes. The rear-end crashes also, when they do occur, tend to be much less injurious, much less damaging than the typical red light running crash, which is a T-bone crash 70 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 often resulting in brain injury and spinal cord injury, as well as fatalities. One other point that I wanted to make which has to do with the San Diego case that was cited previously. In San Diego -- in fact, Judge Stein's ruling in San Diego affirmed the Constitutionality of the program there, as did the audit that was conducted by the State of California, which was an audit that was called for by the State's Legislative Body and conducted by the State's Independent Auditing Authority. The Constitutionality was not at issue in that program, on the temporary interruption of the program out there. It had to do with procedures in oversight by the City of San Diego in administering the program. The interesting results, though, of ceasing the red light camera program in San Diego was that crashes in San Diego actually went up after the cameras were turned off at camera intersections by 14 percent. So if anyone has any doubt that red light cameras reduce crashes, you have only to look at the case in San Diego, which shows that once the cameras were turned off during this temporary interruption, over that period of time crashes went back up 14 percent. 71 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 I think that's a very telling statistic. The other aspect is the popularity of the programs. It was asserted that a lot of people don't understand them, don't know about them, or do not have enough basis, therefore, on which to make up their minds. Our opinion poll of just last August, which was a national poll, showed that 83 percent of the American public supports the use of photo enforcement. But more interestingly is that in areas where photo red light programs are in effect, the studies and polls by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have shown that support in the public actually goes up after the programs are in place and have been in place for some time. People recognize the value of the photo enforcement programs in these cities, and support actually increases. I'll just return now to my original remarks. I apologize for interrupting, but I just could not let some of these inaccuracies pass unchallenged.
The red light camera programs nationwide have very promising results. And in nearby Wilmington, Delaware, violations decreased by 56 72 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 percent since the start of red light camera programs in July 2001. Additionally, citations from the Wilmington program have been upheld 97 percent of the time they've been contested. Residents there are getting the message that red light running is not an option. Red light photo enforcement programs are popular with the general public. I just mentioned that our poll showed 83 percent support. And the cameras supplement police work and allow law enforcement to focus on other crimes. Red light cameras capture and process the violation without a dangerous pursuit. This technology is a valuable supplement to good engineering and is in use in 70 communities throughout the United States. I urge the City Council to authorize the use of this lifesaving technology as part of an overall traffic safety program. When combined with good engineering practice and strong public awareness and education programs, this method of enforcement is a very effective procedure in preventing crashes and tragedies that all too often result. 73 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Thank you very much.
Thank you. Good morning, ma'am. Would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Cathy Chase. I'm with Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and I'm going to try to keep my remarks as short as possible. A lot of my points have already been expressed, but since I made the trip up from Washington, I think I'll do my best to make some remarks that hopefully you'll find persuasive. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is a non-profit organization. We work to advance highway safety laws, both the state and federal levels. We're a unique organization because we're comprised of consumer health safety and law enforcement organizations, as well as insurance companies. For example, one of our board members is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and they are in support of this legislation as well. I'm pleased to be here today to testify on Bill 000682 to help stop the dangerous problem of red light running in 74 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 Philadelphia. We all know how tempting it is to run a red light, either if we're in a rush to go somewhere or we're just running late. We all likely know that this is dangerous behavior, but we don't know how deadly the consequences of running a red light can be. At Advocates, we work with victims of red light crashes across the country to get laws passed. I've seen firsthand how the crashes can affect the victims and their loved ones. We've heard from two of them today. But by working with victims, we aren't playing on your empathy, as was suggested by a person who testified earlier. Rather, we're demonstrating, what else is there except for life? If we're not here to try to protect people -- what is the point of protecting people's rights to liberty if you don't protect the people? I don't understand that argument. In 2001, 880 people were killed by red light runners, and 181,000 people were injured. And citizens of Philadelphia are not spared the personal and financial toll of red light running crashing. In 2001, there were 44 fatal red light running crashes in Pennsylvania, in which 48 people died. 75 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 And we've already heard before that almost half of those happen in Philadelphia. Additionally, in the City of Philadelphia, there was 21,532 red light running tickets issued in 2002. And so far this year, there have been more than 6,000 red light runners who have been cited. While this seems like a lot of tickets, it's really only a small portion of red light runners who are getting caught. Law enforcement simply does not have the resources to devote to consistent widespread enforcement that is needed to deter people from engaging in this dangerous and potentially deadly behavior. You've already heard about some polls. And poll after poll demonstrates that the public is supportive of these red light running cameras. People get it. They want the cameras. Furthermore, there's ample data demonstrating that the cameras work. You've already heard of a couple of very credible studies that have been done on these red light camera programs. I'll just add one more that wasn't mentioned yet. , has experienced a 69 percent reduction in red light 76 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 running violations at intersections with cameras. That amounts to 25,900 fewer violations a month. That's a lot of people who are being protected by red light cameras. And despite the lifesaving benefits that we've mentioned and the public support that we've mentioned, often-times this debate is boiled down to Big Brother or misinterpreted Constitutional rights. Arguments about privacy and Constitutionality are specious, in that the Constitution gives us a reasonable expectation of privacy, which does not apply to public roads. Additionally, the red light camera proposed in this Bill would only require photographs of the license plate of the offender, not the driver's image and not the interior of the car.
In this respect, a photograph is less invasive than when a police officer pulls someone over, because the officer would see both the person and some of the interior of the car. Cameras take a picture of all violators. There's no subjectivity or privacy violation. It's very clear. Whoever crosses the intersection after the light turns red will receive a citation. Unlike cameras at ATMs, shopping malls' 77 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 parking lots, in this room, these cameras only take your picture if you have already broken the law. The right to confront one's accuser, another lost liberty according to opponents, which is embodied in the Sixth Amendment, has never meant the right to confront an arresting officer or someone issuing the ticket. The right is preserved in court where all ticketed individuals can go if they disagree. By obtaining a driver's license, an individual agrees to abide by certain rules, one of which is to obey traffic signals. The use of cameras is just one way to enforce this law, and is a supplement to ongoing police enforcement. The sole purpose of the automated enforcement systems is to serve as a deterrent to breaking the law, preventing this law-breaking act from happening in the first place. Finally, common sense ways in favor of implementing red light cameras. Automobile crashes, like diseases, kill tens of thousands of Americans a year. When we're sick and go to the hospital, we want and we expect our doctors to use the very best methods and the very latest technologies to save our 78 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 lives and treat our illnesses. Similarly, when addressing the problem of motor vehicle crash deaths and injuries, we want and we expect our government to take every reasonable step to eliminate the dangers posed by law breakers. It makes sense to use all of the proven technological tools at our disposal to prevent the loss of life of innocent motorists. For these reasons, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety strongly supports this Bill and urges its passage. Allowing the use of auto and photo enforcement to stop reckless driving will save taxpayer dollars, save police resources and, most importantly, save lives. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Ms. Chase. For the record, Councilmember Goode, who is a Member of this Committee, is also in attendance. Either of you ladies can answer this question. I'm really impressed with the numbers in your testimony, Ms. Chase, where you state that the 79 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 reduction in red light running violations in Washington, D.C., had been reduced by 69 percent. That kind of goes counter to what some of the earlier witnesses were testifying, that this is just another attempt on behalf of government, in one sense or another, to increase ticket writing, which will, in effect, increase revenues. Is there any reduction in the number of vehicles who use these intersections, since they now know that there are cameras there? Do you see any of that kind of reduction?
I'm just curious. I'm supportive of this Bill. I just was curious, that if people know that there is that red light at a particular intersection, they'll find an alternative route, and would that have any bearing on the number of violations that are being written.
Well, they don't always know where the red light cameras are. While it is on the MPD, the Metropolitan Police Department Website, where the cameras may be, they do move the cameras from time to time. The casings stay in place, but the cameras are moved, so people don't always know. 80 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 They know it could be there and they know all of the possibilities where it might be, but they don't know if it would actually be there or not.
Is there a percentage of intersections in the jurisdictions that have the red light cameras installed, a percentage of intersections that they're installed at? Is that different in every municipality, or is there a general number that we can look to? Currently, I think we have nine or so intersections that we're looking to do, out of I don't know how many thousands of intersections in the City of Philadelphia.
It various greatly. There are towns that have just one camera, and that's all they have. I think that's the case --
Well, a community similar to the size of Philadelphia, are there any comparisons to that?
I think that basically it varies. Partly because a lot of times these things start out as pilot programs, and once the cameras have been in place for some time, the City finds that they're so effective that they decide to 81 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 increase the number of cameras. It tends to be quite varied in terms of how many.
Just for the people attending and watching this hearing at home, in the legislation that came from Harrisburg there are nine intersections that are mentioned there. They are to be considered. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to get cameras. But they are nine intersections that need to be considered by our traffic engineering people, the Police Department, to see whether or not they should be equipped with cameras. And I believe our policy here is even going to be more stringent. There's going to be a period of time where we're going to post that intersection to let them know that it will be a photo-enforced intersection, so there should be no 22 surprises here. In fact, that's part of what I learned from you folks about the culture change in Washington and other municipalities where the number of violations decreased substantially because people 82 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 realized that they should not be running red lights, especially in the intersections that have cameras, and even intersections that aren't equipped with cameras in many of those municipalities. The culture change, people started to stop when they see that yellow light.
Keeping people informed is one of the important aspects of this, and keeping the public up to date about the camera program and so forth helps to deter the red light running. What we want is to ultimately get to zero citations and zero violations.
Ms. Blakey, in the interest of fairness, earlier I asked questions of Mr. McCarey based on a sheet of paper that someone handed me. Someone has now handed me a sheet of paper to ask you a question. Who funds your organization?
Happy to tell you. We are funded by members of the industry that supplies and maintains cameras, ACS State and Local Solutions and Red Flex (ph) are funders of our campaign. Other industry members also support us in various other 83 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 ways and we are happy to acknowledge that. Part of the mission of our campaign is to operate in a very credible way, but we're here to supply information that's provided by a number of other resources, studies and other sources of information. We do not do our own research. So when I am reporting facts, they are facts that have been established by other organizations.
Thank you. Thank you for your answer. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I wanted to ask briefly a couple of questions, and it centers around information. One of the problems that we tend to have when we have somewhat controversial issues, we have individuals or groups that come in to testify. They tend to be geared one way or another. And my concern is that we rarely have an opportunity to have an objective viewpoint. In government we have certain offices set up in Philadelphia. We have the City Controller, who is supposed to give us an 84 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 objective viewpoint on the budget. So when Council and the Administration tend to have differences, we go to the Controller and other portions of government. You have auditors at the state level to give you the facts. Is there an agency or an entity that I can go to that will give me the hard core facts as it relates to this issue, someone who is not funded by the red light camera industry or someone who has views that go beyond just this particular issue, but clearly views relating to the civil rights of individuals?
Sure. Actually, the Federal Highway Administration has no ax to grind on this at all. And they just came out with -- literally last month -- it was one of the reports that I mentioned and I'd be happy to get you a copy, "Guidelines for Red Light Camera Programs." In addition, the Transportation Research Board, who also came out with their own guidelines as well last month, also essentially drew the same conclusion.
When you say guidelines -- 85 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
Well, I guess I'm looking more for a statistical analysis.
I think that in both of these reports they establish the statistical analysis as part of the argument, and then they go on to make their points.
And both of those are entirely independent. They have no connection to anyone who gains or loses, except the public.
One other brief question, since you are obviously very involved and knowledgeable of the red light camera. Traditionally when you talk about running red lights, we have the human error because we tend to utilize police officers. Is there a failure rate associated with camera operations? Is it minimal or does it vary? 86 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 One of the concerns that I have is the ability of an individual to face their accuser in the event -- in the traditional program you have a police officer and people that can kind of, like, look to the judge to hear the case and hear the story and make an objective determination based on who's the most believable person. When you're up against a machine, a camera, it's rather difficult in terms of your ability to influence that individual who makes that determination. But, in fact, machines are machines. They sometimes fail. And I'm wondering, is there a failure rate associated with these cameras?
There's an extremely low failure rate. Usually when there are issues that come up concerning the programs, they involve situations where, somehow or another, there's been a breakdown between communication and the engineering department, perhaps in the City and the enforcement side, and some engineering error has been made, perhaps in locating the cameras or something like that. The camera and the camera technology itself is extremely reliable. I call your attention to the testimony 87 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 that was submitted by Richard Reading of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. And it was written testimony that was submitted. He points out that the insurance researchers used red light cameras in Arlington, Virginia, for about three years. This was just a field study. More than 30,000 violations were reported, but no citations were issued because the work was conducted for research purposes only. The camera systems have been extremely accurate and reliable. They have required virtually no maintenance. The same equipment subsequently was installed in two intersections in Howard County, Maryland, to help police and traffic engineers evaluate the extent of red light running and the feasibility of using red light cameras to help enforce traffic laws. The results confirmed, again, that violations are frequent and that the red light cameras function well. And they have quite a number of the actual data and methodology to support Dr. Reading's conclusions.
It's good to hear that it's minimal. But there is -- and I'm sure there has been instances when the camera didn't work 88 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 properly. What recourse does an individual have? One of my concerns is Joe Blow, Susie Q, whatever, gets a violation. The camera is not functioning properly. This person doesn't really have the resources to hire an expert to determine if the camera is functioning properly. Would the cost associated with reviewing the camera or determining whether or not the camera wasn't functional be left on the City, the State, or would it be left on the individual who's indicating that they think there was a faulty camera?
It's my understanding that -- and I don't work for the government, obviously, or for anyone who runs the systems. But it's my understanding that the company and the government are so sensitive about the issue of the cameras not working properly, that if there is a question that perhaps this ticket shouldn't have been issued or the camera wasn't working properly or there was mud on the license plate or something, that they don't issue the tickets. There's a certain percentage of tickets that, even though someone ran a red light, the tickets aren't issued. But to address some of your other 89 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 concerns, when -- I can speak in Washington, D.C. -- when someone goes to challenge a ticket, they go for themselves. So they're inconvenienced. They have to take some time off from work, which is an inconvenience, certainly. But you can represent yourself in Traffic Court and you can challenge, you know, you don't believe the cameras were working properly. And then the company or government has to show that.
I have a follow-up to that, as well. And you may not be the person to answer this. It may have to do with the Parking Authority. In the City of Philadelphia, and I suspect in other municipalities, if an individual is issued a ticket at a meter for overtime and the meter expired, and the individual who received the ticket has a dispute as to the accuracy of that, then the Parking Authority will send someone out with a device or whatever to test the accuracy to see if the clock on the meter is accurate. Is there anything in this system, the camera system or in the system of issuing the ticket and the remedies to dispute that, that are similar 90 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682 in nature where if I were to receive a ticket for having allegedly gone through a red light and I want to dispute the fact and say it wasn't red, when I entered the intersection it just went from green to red, which is a common excuse in Philadelphia, there was never any yellow; is there a remedy for that? Is someone able to go out there to check and see if the camera is accurate as it relates to the timing of the lights? I'm not sure how the mechanics of that works. I suspect that when you enter the intersection, it probably takes just about everyone's tag, I would assume, right? Or is it timed to the traffic device?
It's timed to the traffic light. But what usually happens, what will tip off the manufacturer or the government that the camera systems aren't working properly, it doesn't make one mistake. If there's a problem, it's broken and it makes thousands of mistakes, then they send a technician out to go fix it. I think what you said, Mr. Chairman, is a very fair analogy to the parking meters. It's a very similar kind of system, in my understanding. 91 05/06/03 - STREETS - BILL 000682
That's exactly right. The situations happen fairly rarely, but when they do, it comes to the attention fairly quickly because there's quite a few errors that get made. But also the question of having regular maintenance crews that really go out literally on a weekly or more frequent basis.
That was my next question. So there is regular maintenance?