Loading...
Backup Documents 02/12/2013 Item #10E 10E :06 An Update on Red Light Camera Research: The Need for Federal Standards in the Interest of Public Safety Barbara Langland-Orban,PhD,John T. Large,PhD,Etienne E. Pracht,PhD ABSTRACT Since publishing our critique of red light camera (RLC) studies in 2008, we have gained increased insights on the controversy over RLCs. Herein we provide additional information on RLCs, and use a question-and-answer format to address frequently asked questions. This update includes the rationale given for ignoring fatalities at RLC sites, the convergence in findings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's compendium of best RLC studies, common violations of research methods in RLC evaluations, the RLC cost-to-benefit implications for motorists, an explanation for the increase in rear-end crashes at RLC sites, and why RLCs may be ineffective in reducing red light running crashes. We conclude with a proposed solution: restoring and improving federal standards through the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to assure proper intersection engineering prior to consideration of RLCs(even though RLCs are not recognized as an established safety device). Florida Public Health Review,2011;8,1-9. Background • Selection bias should not be evident in the In 2008, we published our first critique of red choice of RLC or comparison sites used in light camera(RLC) studies(Langland-Orban, Pracht, the evaluation; & Large, 2008). The function of RLCs is to • Outcomes from the RLC sites should be photograph vehicles that enter an intersection on a separately analyzed and not merged with red light,which results in a citation that carries a fine. untreated or dissimilar sites; The public health concern with RLCs is the increase • Angle, rear-end, and total crashes (and in crashes and injuries being reported in some injury crashes) should be included as studies. outcome measures; Our critique reviewed five major RLC studies. • Variables that need to be controlled for must Four were identified in the National Highway Traffic be included in the statistical analysis, such Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Automated as traffic volume,yellow light timings,and a Enforcement: A Compendium of Worldwide time trend as red light running crashes and Evaluations of Results (Decina, Thomas, Srinivasan, injuries are declining over time absent the & Staplin, 2007), as among the best in meeting use of cameras; NHTSA's data and research design standards among • At least one year of data should be evaluated 75 RLC studies reviewed. The fifth was published in in both before and during camera time the American Journal of Public Health (Retting & periods;and Kyrychenko, 2002) and was the only publication • Findings from the statistical analysis should identified in a medical library search for peer- be fully disclosed, including confidence reviewed publications on RLCs. The five studies had intervals and statistical significance. contradictory findings with differences due primarily After publishing our criticisms of the Retting and to the varying adherence to research methodological Kyrychenko study, Mr. Retting subsequently rigor. The studies that best adhered to scientific challenged our criticisms (Smyth, 2008). We research methods found RLCs were associated with responded by replicating his published analysis, increases in crashes and injuries. which affirmed Retting and Kyrychenko (2002) had The basic standards used for assessing validity incorrectly reported their findings, as well as used when reviewing these studies were derived from flawed research methods. Our replication, which Campbell and Stanley (1963) and the Office of the explains the errors,is published in an a-letter with the House Majority Leader's report on red light cameras original article in the American Journal of Public (2001),which included the following points: Health on-line(Large,Orban,&Pracht,2008). Since publishing our critique we have provided approximately 80 interviews to news reporters Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 1 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fpheindex.htm iOE 't Pt)Ad(13 throughout the U.S., Canada, and England. Our fatal before camera use and 0.8 percent were fatal findings were broadly circulated in the news media; after camera use. Using this information and their however, to date, only two elected officials have results from the seven jurisdictions, it was possible contacted us about our conclusions. This lack of for us to calculate that the number of fatal angle interest among elected officials was profiled in a crashes for the 370 RLC site years was expected to news article about sources of information used in be 4.5 based on before camera data. However, the RLC decision making, which illustrated the tactics actual number of fatal angle crashes was 5.0 in the used by industry proponents to foster confusion about after-camera period, which is more than 10% higher RLC effectiveness(Van Sickler,2010). than expected.Further,for every 100 definite injuries One journal reporter,who requested anonymity, from angle crashes in the before-camera period, 1.28 revealed that the media can be a source of was fatal,which increased to 1.71 in the after-camera misinformation on RLCs. She disclosed that special period, a 33.6% increase. Therefore, increased, and interests that profit from cameras have threatened to not decreased, fatalities were associated with the use reduce or withdraw their advertising revenues if the of RLCs in this study. news is not reported that RLCs provide a safety Additionally, the cost of fatal crashes was benefit.The reporter explained that with such threats, omitted from the Council et al. economic analysis. journalistic ethics permit an editor to report the The rationale cited by the authors was that "small advertiser's perspective if also disclosing the contrary numbers of fatalities should not be allowed to affect assessment that RLCs pose a safety threat, leaving decisions on roadway-based treatments such as readers to form their own conclusion. However, she RLCs" (pp. 48-49). They suggest that fatalities at explained that not all editors abide by this principle, RLC sites can be ignored because they most likely which is compounded by the many controversies result from a person's age (e.g., elderly) or failure to surrounding RLCs.For example,a Florida newspaper use a safety belt, or relate to the type of vehicle reported that their local poll found support for RLCs. driven. Council et al. (2005) further explained they The second half of the article mentioned some of the excluded the cost of fatal crashes in their economic concerns about RLCs, which included using them to analysis because the cost of a single fatal crash generate revenue, failing to save lives, failing to "could significantly bias the results" due to the significantly reduce crashes, and increasing rear-end limited number of fatal and serious crashes in their crashes (Thalji, 2010). However, the most important study. In other words, the authors spotlight the controversy was not mentioned: RLCs have been statistical difficulties of including the cost of associated with an increase in injury crashes. While fatalities,while ignoring the practical implications of the reported controversies are true, the public health such events. Consequently, their estimated annual concern with RLCs is the increase in injury crashes, crash cost savings of $38,845 per RLC site is and possibly fatal crashes, as explained in the overestimated since the cost of fatal crashes was following sections. excluded. Because we are continually being queried on our Using their data,the actual estimated cost of an research, we provide highlights of our findings in a angle injury crash was $82,816 before RLCs and question-and-answer format. Our purpose is to $100,176 after RLCs were implemented, as shown in communicate facts about RLCs by providing new Table 1. Instead of using these actual costs, the information and to answer questions frequently asked FHWA study used $64,468 for all angle injury by the news media. crashes. It appears they averaged the cost of angle injury crashes for the before and after RLC time What was learned about fatalities at RLC periods(excluding fatal crash costs),even though the intersections? cost of an angle injury crash was higher after RLCs In our original critique (Langland-Orban et al., were used. 2008), we faulted the research methods used in the As the Council et al. study (2005) is often cited Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) analysis by RLC proponents, the findings should be titled Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras reconsidered in terms of actual crash counts, in (Council, Persaud, Eccles, Lyon, and Griffith, 2005). addition to the percent changes reported. They report One FHWA official subsequently contacted us to that RLCs were associated with a 25% reduction in point out that we overlooked an important finding: angle crashes and a 15%increase in rear-end crashes. fatal crashes at RLC sites had increased, yet were However,because rear-end crashes are more frequent ignored in the related economic analysis. than angle crashes,the total number of crashes(angle Council et al. (2005,p. 68)report the percent of plus rear-end) was unchanged following RLC use. fatal angle crashes increased in the after-camera Further,the estimated reduction in injury crashes was period, as 0.5 percent of angle injury crashes were Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 2 http://health.ustedu/publichealth/fpheindex.htm 1)c,\\ 10E Table 1.Estimated Angle Injury Crash Cost by Council et al.(excluding fatal crashes)and the Actual Average Estimated Before Camera After Camera Cost of Angle %of %of Code Injury Severity Crash Total Weighted Cost Total Weighted Cost K Fatal $0 0.50% $0.00 0.80% $0 Incapacitating A Injury $120,810 7.70% $9,302 8.50% $10,269 B Non-severe injury $103,468 30.80% $31,868 37.40% $38,697 C Possible injury $34,690 61.10% $21,196 53.30% $18,490 Average(excluding cost of fatalities) 100% $62,366 100% $67,456 K Fatal $4,090,042 0.50% $20,450 0.80% $32,720 Actual Average(including cost of fatalities) $82,816 $100,176 • Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi, and 23 fewer definite injury crashes over 370 RLC site Korukonda (2007), using Empirical Bayes, years(i.e., 132 RLC sites over multiple years),which reported RLCs were associated with a is equivalent to each RLC site having one less significant increase in crashes, including definite injury crash every 16 years.Regardless, fatal angle crashes and injury crashes, three angle crashes increased following RLC use, as did fatalities, and no significant change in red the estimated cost of angle injury crashes.Despite the light running crashes. flaws in the assumptions and analysis, the FHWA • Synectics Transportation Consultants(2003) study(Council et al.,2005)continues to be posted on reported a two percent increase in fatal and the Federal Highway Administration web site as injury crashes at RLC sites, whereas purported evidence of RLC effectiveness (Federal comparison sites experienced a 12.7 percent Highway Administration,2010). decrease. • Washington and Shin (2005) reported no Of the seven studies identified by the NHTSA change in total crashes at RLC sites in compendium as the best observational RLC Phoenix, Arizona, and reported an 11% research,is there any consensus in the findings? decrease in total crashes in Scottsdale, There is convergence: none of the seven studies Arizona. However,the change in Scottsdale identified as the best in design and data in the was not significant as the confidence NHTSA's compendium (Decina et al., 2007) interval overlaps with that of the comparison statistically permit concluding RLCs provide a safety intersections (p. 90). Also, page 18 of their benefit. Further, three of the seven studies report report reveals the comparison sites were increases in injury crashes. The methods and actual distinctly dissimilar from the RLC sites. results from each of the seven observational studies Comparison sites averaged 0.82 crashes must be reviewed to understand what each found, as annually,whereas RLC sites averaged 33.77 the executive summaries are often misleading or crashes. Thus, the selection of comparison incomplete. The studies' findings are summarized sites in Scottsdale directly violates research below. standards required for internal validity • As discussed above, Council et al. (2005) pertaining to statistical regression and biases found that RLCs were not associated with a in differential selection of the comparison meaningful reduction in crashes or injuries, group (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, p. 5). particularly as fatal angle crashes increased Finally, the percent of fatal angle crashes in following RLC use,as did the estimated cost Scottsdale was higher at RLC sites than at of angle injury crashes. "all intersections" (p. 95), and their • Burkey and Obeng (2004) reported a economic analysis excluded the cost of fatal significant increase in crashes and "possible crashes since it was modeled after the injury"crashes. Council et al. study (2005), meaning the crash cost savings were overestimated. Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 3 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fpheindex.htm 10E • The Butler (2001) study was not accessible crashes, citations are "endogenous," meaning to us; however, the NHTSA compendium officials responsible for issuing citations directly reported it but did not find a significant control the number issued. For example, Retting, safety benefit to cameras. Williams, Farmer, and Feldman (1999) studied • Cunningham and Hummer (2004) merged violations,not crashes.In contrast,Wahl et al.(2010) outcomes from RLC approaches with non- analyzed violations and crashes and found violations RLC approaches,meaning their findings are decreased following RLC use, but crashes did not, not specific to RLC sites. meaning RLCs were ineffective in reducing crashes. More recently, an analysis published in the Also, Lum and Wong (2003) studied stopping Journal of Trauma (Wahl et al., 2010) reported an propensity at yellow lights, without analyzing the RLC program was ineffective in producing a safety association between stopping propensity and crashes. benefit. The authors suggested alternative It is not possible to make conclusions about safety interventions should be pursued. associated with RLCs if the impact on crashes and injuries is not evaluated. Some studies are reported to use "unscientific" research methods.What does this mean? Is there an economic incentive in using RLCs? The NHTSA's compendium (Decina et al., RLC vendors and government entities clearly 2007)criticized some RLC review studies for failing can receive an economic benefit from cameras, in to control for other sources of variation in the addition to automobile insurance companies that use outcome measure. The criticism stems from these RLC tickets as a basis for increasing a driver's studies failing to account for other factors that can insurance rate. However, RLCs are merely an increase or decrease crashes, such as changes in expense for motorists.Even if using the FHWA study traffic volume or a long running time trend of (Council et al, 2005), which estimated annual crash declining injury crashes. A common error among cost savings per RLC site as $38,845 (excluding the inexperienced researchers is to make simple before cost of fatal crashes), it affirms RLCs are and after comparisons.Decina et al.(2007)identified economically disadvantageous to motorists. The the following RLC review studies as violating this estimated savings must be considered relative to the research tenet, meaning these reports should not be cost to motorists to achieve the savings.For example, used in RLC decision making: in Temple Terrace, Florida, RLCs were installed in • Cochrane Collaboration (Aeron-Thomas & two directions at two intersections, for a total of four Hess,2005); RLC sites. If believing the estimated annual savings • Transportation Research Board (McGee & of$38,845 per site, the annual estimated crash cost Eccles,2003); savings to Temple Terrace drivers and/or their • Traffic Injury Prevention (Retting, insurance companies would be $155,380 ($38,845 Ferguson,&Hakkert,2003); per site, multiplied by four sites). In the first year, • Road and Transport Research (Hakkert & 21,000 RLC tickets were issued in Temple Terrace, Gitelman,2004);and primarily to drivers making right turns (Shopes, • Proceeding from Transportation Research 2009; Cohn, 2009). At $125 per citation, the cost Board conferences (Flannery & Maccubbin, assessed to ticketed drivers was $2.6 million, which 2002; Persaud, Council, Lyon, Eccles, & greatly exceeds the estimated crash cost savings of Griffith,2005). $155,380. This difference is an extremely adverse To illustrate the importance of including cost-to-benefit relationship for affected motorists, meaningful variables in a study,Table 2 provides the particularly as crashes were reported to increase at variables integrated into each of the five analyses that Temple Terrace RLC sites. The use of RLCs has a we critiqued in 2008. The studies that integrated double negative effect for motorists, as they are put relevant independent variables in the analysis found more at risk for both a fine and a crash. RLCs were associated with increases in crashes and Citations can become a taxation method. A injuries. This reveals the complexity of conducting study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public health research because an outcome can be evaluated ticketing in North Carolina over a 14-year incorrectly attributed to an intervention if variables period, and found the issuance of tickets increased in necessary to explain the outcome are excluded. the year following a decline in municipality revenues. Another type of research flaw in some RLC The authors concluded tickets are not just used for studies is the use of a process measure, such as public safety,but also to generate revenue(Garrett& violations or traffic citations, instead of an actual Wagner, 2006). As a taxation method, RLCs are safety outcome, e.g., crashes or injuries. Unlike highly inefficient due to the large percentage of revenues that accrues to private out-of-state vendors, Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 4 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm • 10E 1,Ao which diminishes funds available within a is the following distance guide recommended in the community for investments and/or consumer Official Florida Driver's Handbook (Department of purchases, thereby reducing the volume of money Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2010). flowing through local businesses. However, since the range for driver reaction times to Due to the adverse cost-to-benefit relationship braking includes two seconds, the trailing driver's for motorists, citizens in some communities have brakes can engage at or beyond the same place on the placed referendums on local ballots, allowing voters road where the forward vehicle's brakes engaged,and to decide on banning RLCs in their community. For a rear-end crash is likely to occur if the trailing example, in November 2010, voters in Houston, vehicle requires a longer stopping distance. The Texas,voted to ban RLCs,which had produced more forward driver's ability to quickly stop affects the than $44 million in fines from 2006 to 2010 distance available to trailing drivers, making abrupt (Pinkerton&Olson,2010). stops hazardous. If RLCs are associated with large increases in Why would RLCs not reduce red light running rear-end crashes, does this imply that drivers are crashes? following too closely? Of the seven studies identified as best in the Rear-end crashes can occur even when trailing NHTSA compendium, only Garber et al. (2007) drivers are abiding by speed limits and following specifically analyzed crashes caused by red light distance guides, which is explained using Florida's running,as the others used the broader category of all rear-end presumption law and the mathematics angle crashes, regardless of the cause. Using EB underlying rear-end crashes. Since 1958,Florida case analysis, Garber et al. found no significant change in law holds a rebuttable presumption that the trailing red light running crashes at RLC sites. A possible driver in a rear-end collision is the sole cause of an explanation is that the majority of red light running accident (McNulty v. Cusack, 1958). One established crashes result from unintentional, rather than rebuttal to this presumption is abrupt and arbitrary intentional, red light running. For example, when braking in accelerating traffic. The Florida Supreme intentional red light running occurs immediately after Court ruled: "Abrupt and arbitrary braking in the signal changing to red, cross traffic has not been bumper-to-bumper, accelerating traffic is an released and the likelihood of a crash is low. In irresponsible and dangerous act that invites a contrast, unintentional red light running is hazardous collision...It is a sudden stop by the preceding driver because cross traffic can be in the intersection when at a time and place where it could not reasonably be the infraction occurs. The failure of RLCs to reduce expected by the following driver that creates the red light running crashes is consistent with crashes factual issue" (Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., occurring from unintentional red light running. 2000). Further, the Garber et al. (2007) study reveals that This ruling acknowledges the hazards of abrupt angle crashes are not a good proxy for red light stops. Unfortunately, RLCs encourage abrupt stops, running crashes since they found red light running which are not always anticipated by trailing drivers. crashes did not significantly change at RLC sites, Abrupt braking is dangerous because drivers attempt whereas angle crashes significantly increased. to stop as quickly as possible, yet drivers need Understanding root causes of red light running different distances to stop due to differences in driver crashes (e.g., intentional versus unintentional reaction times and in distances needed by different infractions, driving under the influence, or traffic types of vehicles to stop. signal or intersection defects)is necessary to advance Stopping has three basic steps: (1) the driver's remedies that are specific to the problem.In contrast, perception time to changing road conditions that RLC advocates presume red light running crashes require braking followed by the reaction time to occur from willful red light running. initiate braking, (2) the vehicle response time to engage the brakes,and(3)the distance needed to stop Does a mutually agreeable resolution exist among once the brakes engage, which is determined by RLC proponents and opponents? speed,road conditions, vehicle type, and tire quality. When the Centers for Disease Control and The total time for driver perception and reaction can Prevention (CDC) identified motor vehicle safety as range from about one to two seconds,which means a one of the top 10 public health accomplishments of trailing driver closes the distance to the forward the 20th Century, it was, in part, attributed to the vehicle in the process of braking, before their brakes federal government being given the authority in 1966 engage. Vehicles are separated by two seconds of to advance safety by establishing standards for roads driving time if using the "Two Second Rule," which and intersections(CDC, 1999).The Federal Highway Florida Public Health Review,2011; 8:1-9. 5 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fph r/in dex.htm 1UE (YA 6 Table 2.Variables Included in RLC Evaluations Critiqued in 2008 Found RLCs Associated with Increased Reported a Safety Crashes/Injuries Benefit to RLCs Burkey& Garber Council Retting& Obeng et al.* Synectics* et al. Kyrychenko One volume Average daily traffic volume X X X used for all time periods Amber(yellow)signal time X X Set per regulations Speed limit on major road X X Left turn lanes on road X X Through lanes on number of lanes X X Time X(month) X(year) Percent of trucks on major road X All-red clearance interval X Right turn lane X Sidewalk at intersection X Solid median at intersection X Pedestrian signal at intersection X No left or right turn on red signs X Snow X Precipitation X *Garber et al.and Synectics Transportation Consultants accounted for intersection geometry in selecting comparison intersections,therefore their statistical analysis did not need to incorporate these(control)variables. Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 6 http://health.usLeduipublichealth/fphr/index.htm 10E ` 3 Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control running crashes,"and provides a link to the Insurance Devices (2009) establishes standards to achieve Institute for Highway Safety's web site, which is an uniformity in traffic control throughout the nation. association funded by automobile insurance Federal standards are needed regarding RLC companies. Oddly, the FHWA web site does not programs to assure intersection safety, even though reference the two studies identified as among the best RLCs were not found to be an evidence-based safety RLC studies in the NHTSA compendium (Decina, intervention in studies identified as the best RLC 2007), which adhered to scientific research methods. research (Decina et al., 2007). Such standards would Both concluded RLCs were associated with increases not preclude states from enacting laws that prohibit in crashes and injuries. They were conducted in the use of RLCs, as some states have already done: Virginia (Garber et al., 2007) and North Carolina Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New (Burkey & Obeng, 2004). In 2008, by email, we Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wisconsin suggested the FHWA include these studies on their (Copeland, 2010), or establishing more stringent web site. An email response was received from the standards regarding yellow light timings, as occurred FHWA's Office of Safety Design (D. Warren, in Georgia. personal communication, June 13, 2008), which Instead of establishing standards for RLCs, the stated the following intentions: FHWA and NHTSA (2003) issued "guidelines" that recommend an engineering analysis and We intend to add links to technical reports on this improvements prior to considering RLCs, but did not topic that were prepared using federal funds mandate such. Consequently, RLCs can be used at including the Virginia and North Carolina reports intersections with engineering defects, which, if you mentioned as well as a recent worldwide critical corrected,would all but eliminate red light running.It evaluation of results published by NHTSA. is a false dichotomy to assume the existence of only two alternatives,to either do nothing or use RLCs,as Although this response was sent more than two the evidence-based remedy is to make engineering years ago,the FHWA web site has not been modified improvements, particularly lengthening yellow light to include the two credible studies. timings. A parallel problem has emerged with the use of As reported in the Office of the House Majority speed cameras, suggesting a need for improved Leader's report (2001), federal standards for traffic federal standards to assure speed limits are correctly signal timings were relaxed in 2000, allowing for set. The FHWA official who contacted us also shorter yellow light timings while permitting the use informed us that, similar to RLCs, roadway of enforcement (tickets) and making the all-red engineering can be manipulated to increase speed clearance interval optional. These changes were camera tickets by setting speed limits that are less contrary to accepted safety standards, but necessary than what safety requires. The FHWA official to allow RLC programs to be profitable, as well as to explained this increases the percentage of people who create the appearance of an epidemic of red light are defined as speeders, thereby increasing the running for the public. The former standards must be number of speed camera tickets issued as drivers restored and strengthened if the goal is to maximize choose speeds perceived as safe,not always attending public safety. to changes in posted speed limits. RLC proponents have said they agree with It is important for the public at large and federal, correctly engineered intersections. If true, they state, and local officials to understand that motor should also agree with restoring the former standards vehicle safety is advanced through evidence-based and requiring an engineering analysis, with any methods. Attempts to generate revenue through indicated improvements, prior to consideration of traffic citations are directly contrary to public safety RLCs. Further, full disclosure of the number of"red since infractions are increased by improper roadway light running" crashes at an intersection, as a engineering, creating hazards and expense for the consideration for implementation of RLCs,should be public. required to prohibit the obfuscation that occurs by reporting angle crashes or total crashes, as the References majority are typically unrelated to red light running. Aeron-Thomas, A.S., & Hess, S. (2005). Red- At present, the Federal Highway light cameras for the prevention of road traffic Administration's (FHWA)web site,titled "Red Light crashes (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration. John Cameras/Automated Enforcement" (2010), creates Wiley&Sons,Inc. confusion about RLC effectiveness. The FHWA web Burkey M., & Obeng K.A. (2004, July). A site states RLCs reduce the "number of red light detailed investigation of crash risk reduction Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 7 http://health.usEedutpublichealth/fphr/index.htm 10E resulting from red light cameras in small urban areas Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Red (Report Number DTRS93-G-0018). Urban Transit light cameras/automated enforcement. Retrieved Institute. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical October 20, 2010 from State University(prepared for the U.S.Department of http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/camer Transportation). as/. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Federal Highway Administration(2009).Manual Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Washington research.Boston.Houghton Mifflin Company. D.C. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009editi (1999, May 14). Achievements in public health, on.pdf. 1900-1999 motor-vehicle safety: A 20th century Federal Highway Administration and National public health achievement. Morbidity and Mortality Traffic Safety Administration. (2003). Guidance for Weekly Report, 48, 369-374.Retrieved April 8, 2008 using red light cameras. Washington D.C. Retrieved from October 20, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4 http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/guidance 818a1.htm. 03/Guidancereport.pdf. Cohn,A.(2009,November 9).Investigation:Are Flannery, A., & Maccubbin, R. (2002). Using one community's red light cameras effective? ABC meta analysis techniques to assess the safety effect of Action News, Tampa, FL. Retrieved November 10, red light running cameras. Paper presented at the 2009 from Transportation Research Board Conference, http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/INV Washington,DC. ESTIGATION-Are-one-community s-red- Garber N.C.,Miller J.S.,Abel R.E.,Eslambolchi light/fNEW9IsGTEaeEp2V8PZwYO.cspx. S., & Korukonda S. (2007). The impact of red light Copeland, L. (2010, January 18). Communities cameras (photo-red enforcement) on crashes in put a halt to red-light cameras. USA Today.Retrieved Virginia. (FHWANTRC/ 07R2). Virginia November 9, 2010 from Transportation Research Council. Charlottesville, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-17- Virginia. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from red-light N.htm. http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/ Council,F.M.,Persaud,B.,Eccles,K.,Lyon, C., pdf/07-r2.pdf. & Griffith, M. S. (2005). Safety evaluation of red Garrett, T.A., & Wagner, G., (2007, July). Red light cameras (FHWA HRT-05-048). U.S. ink in the rearview mirror: Local fiscal conditions Department of Transportation. Federal Highway and the issuance of traffic tickets. Federal Reserve Administration. Washington D.C. Retrieved October Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from 20, 2010 from http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-048.pdf. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety Hakkert, A.S., & Gitelman, V. (2004). The /05048/05048.pdf. effectiveness of red-light cameras: A meta-analysis Cunningham, C.M., & Hummer, J.S. (2004). of the evaluation studies. Road and Transport Evaluating the use of red light running photographic Research,13(4),34-50. enforcement using collisions and red light running Langland-Orban, B., Pracht, E.E., & Large, J.T. violations. Institute for Transportation Research and (2008). Red light running cameras: Would crashes, Education, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, injuries and automobile insurance rates increase if North Carolina. they are used in Florida? Florida Public Health Decina, L.E. Thomas, L., Srinivasan, R., & Review, 5, 1-7. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from: Staplin, L. (2007). Automated enforcement: A http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/C 1702850-8716- compendium of worldwide evaluations of results. 4C2D-8EEB- (DOT HS 810 763).National Highway Traffic Safety 15A2A741061A/0/2008pp001008OrbanetalRedLight Administration.Washington D.C. PaperMarch72008formatted.pdf. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Large, J.T, Orban, B., & Pracht, E., (2008). Vehicles. (2010). Official Florida Driver's Letter: Analysis violates principles of sound research Handbook. Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved August 16, and public health evaluation (in response to R.A. 2010 from Retting and S.A. Kyrychenko's Reductions in injury http://cdn.nationalsafetycommission.com/handbooks/ crashes associated with red light camera enforcement 2010/florida_driver_2010.pdf. in Oxnard, California). American Journal of Public Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 752 So. 2d at Health. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from 595-96(Fla 2000). http://www.ajph.org/cgi/eletters/92/11/1822. Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 8 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm 10E Lum, K.M., & Wong, Y.D. (2002). A study of behavior and reduce crashes?Journal of Trauma. 68, stopping propensity at matured red light camera T- 515-518. intersections.J Safety Res.33,355-369. Washington, S., & Shin, K.. (2005). The impact McGee,H.W., &Eccles,K.A. (2003). Impact of of red light cameras (automated enforcement) on red light camera enforcement on crash experience—a safety in Arizona (FHWA-AZ-05- 550). Arizona synthesis of highway practice (NCHRP Synthesis Department of Transportation,Phoenix,Arizona. 310). Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. McNulty v. Cusack, 104 So.2d 785 (Fla. 2nd Barbara Langland-Orban(borban(a,health.usf.edu)is DCA 1958). Associate Professor,John T.Large Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of (jlarge(a,health.usf.edu)is Assistant Professor,and Representatives (2001). The red light running crisis: Etienne E.Pracht(eprachtna,health.usf.edu)is Associate Is it intentional? Retrieved October 20, 2010 from Professor,Department of Health Policy and http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/finalreport.pd Management,University of South Florida College of f. Public Health,Tampa,Florida.This paper was Persaud,B., Council,F.,Lyon, C.,Eccles,K.,& submitted to the FPHR on May 6,2010,revised and Griffith, M. (2005). A multi jurisdictional safety resubmitted,and accepted for publication on February evaluation of red-light cameras. Presented at the 3,2011.Copyright 2011 by the Florida Public Health annual meeting of the Transportation Research Review. Board,Washington,DC. Pinkerton, J. & Olson, B. (2010, November 4). ELECTION 2010 City won't yield yet on cameras Red-light monitoring to continue until strategy to exit contract is ready; Cameras: Council warned to act fast.Houston Chronicle. 1A. Retting, R.A., Ferguson, S.A., & Hakkert, A.S. (2003).Effects of red light cameras on violations and crashes: A review of the international literature. Traffic Injury Prevention,4, 17-23. Retting R.A. & Kyrychenko S.Y. (2002). Reductions in injury crashes associated with red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California.American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1822-1825. Retting, R.A., Williams, A.F., Farmer, C.M., & Feldman, A. F. (1999). Evaluation of red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California.Accident Analysis&Prevention, 31,69-174. Shopes, R. (2009, November 29). Red Light Fines Rolling in for Temple Terrace, St Petersburg Times(FL),p. 1B. Smyth, L., (2008, June/July). Blinded by the light: Is there confusion surrounding red light enforcement? Traffic Technology International. 18- 23. Synectics Transportation Consultants (2003, December). Final technical report: Evaluation of final red light camera pilot project. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Thalji, J. (2010, December 29). Poll: Yes to red light cameras.St. Petersburg Times(FL),p 1A. Van Sickler, M. (2010, April 25). A USF traffic camera brawl.St. Petersburg Times(FL),p. 1B. Wahl, G.M., Islam, T., Gardner, B., Mart-, A.B., Hunt,J.P.,McSwain,N.E.,Baker,C.C.,&Duchesne, J. (2010). Red light cameras: Do they change driver Florida Public Health Review,2011;8:1-9. 9 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm . vAtuo 10E Counterpoint: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Study Actually Found Cities Using Red Light Cameras Had Higher Red Light Running Fatality Rates Barbara Langland-Orban, PhD, Etienne E. Pracht, PhD,John T. Large, PhD ABSTRACT In February 2011, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) disseminated their research study that compared red light running traffic fatality rates between cities that implemented red light camera(RLC)programs with cities that did not. The IIHS researchers concluded cities that used RLCs had a significantly larger percentage reduction in both red light running(RLR)fatality rates and total fatali ty rates at signalized intersections.Because a previous IIHS study on RLCs was found to use flawed research methods, as well as to incorrectly report findings,the current IIHS RLC analysis is reviewed for adherence to scientific methods. Our review reveals the 2011 IIHS study is logically flawed and violates basic scientific research methods that are required for a study's findings to be valid. It has neither internal nor external validity. More importantly, the IIHS did not filly explain the results of its analysis. Correctly interpreting its model's results actually shows that cities using RLCs had an estimated higher rate of red light running fatalities, specifically 25%, than cities that did not use RLCs in the period "after" cameras were used. Further, the IIHS study was only able to make statements suggesting favorable results from the use of RLCs due to the biased selection of sampled cities. The red light running fatality rate as well as the total fatality rate at all signalized intersections in cities that used cameras was higher in both the "before"and "after" time periods,which affirms that superior interventions exist.Also,we explain the IIHS'financial conflict of interest regarding photo enforcement. Florida Public Health Review,1011;9, 1-8. Background Report(2001) entitled The Red Light Running Crisis: In February 2011, the Insurance Institute for Is It Intentional? The report explained that when Highway Safety(IIHS)disseminated their study that yellow light timings are correctly set at concluded cities with red light camera (RLC) intersections, red light running is a relatively programs experienced a greater percent reduction in infrequent occurrence. However, for RLC programs their red light running(RLR) fatality rate and, to a to be profitable, it is necessary to shorten yellow lesser extent, in their total fatality rate at signalized light timings to create a larger "dilemma zone" intersections, relative to cities that did not where drivers cannot stop in time and hence receive implement RLC programs (Hu, McCartt, & Teoh, a ticket for entering the intersection on a red light. 2011). In contrast to this IIHS conclusion, Further, RLCs can encourage drivers to stop Langland-Orban,Large and Pracht(2011)published abruptly in attempts to avoid a ticket, which is a an analysis that summarized studies identified as the hazardous driving action that is known to increase best designed RLC research in a National Highway rear end crashes. The Majority Leader's Report also Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that, in 1994, the Institute of compendium (Decina et al, 2007). Most of these Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommended that studies found that fatalities at RLC sites occurred in when red light running is a problem at an larger number than at comparison sites, thereby intersection, the yellow light timing can be yielding conclusions directly contrary to the 2011 lengthened (the prevailing standard), or IIHS study. A major difference is that the studies, alternatively, enforcement (tickets) can be used (a classified as best designed,had evaluated actual RLC new provision). This change to permit enforcement sites and adjusted for traffic volume, whereas the was endorsed by the Federal Highway IIHS study analyzed city-wide data, not specific to Administration in 2000, which allows for creating camera sites. "dilemma zones" at signalized intersections that are The controversy surrounding RLCs was associated with red light running and thus increase disclosed in the Office of the Majority Leader's RLC tickets. Because the IIHS findings on the association between RLCs and fatalities is contrary to the RLC Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 1 http://health.usfedu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm , . 1OE 1.0t' studies classified as best designed in the NHTSA fatalities should be ignored in RLC analyses compendium, the 2011 IIHS study is reviewed here because they are an infrequent outcome and for adherence to basic research methods, which are result from issues associated with "occupant required for valid conclusions to be drawn. It should age, restraint use, and the type and size of be noted that a previous IIHS study on RLCs vehicles involved." The IIHS study likewise (Retting & Kyrychenko, 2002) was found to have did not consider these FHWA-cited factors, used flawed research methods, as well as to which are associated with fatalities. By incorrectly report findings, rendering the findings excluding factors known to be associated invalid (Burkey & Obeng, 2004; Large, Orban, & with fatalities, the IIHS study likely suffers Pracht,2008). In addition,the IIHS financial conflict from omitted variables bias (i.e., under- of interest regarding photo enforcement is specification). Unless the excluded variables explained. were statistically independent from those that were included, the influence of the Critique of the IIHS Methods former will be,incorrectly,attributed to the The IIHS analysis included 14 cities that used latter. camera programs and compared them with 48 cities (2) Two of their explanatory variables ("land that did not. The "before period" was defined as the area" and"persons per square mile")are not combined years of 1992-1996 when none of the 62 established factors associated with motor cities had cameras.The"after period" was defined as vehicle crashes or fatalities and have not the years 2004-2008. The 14 "camera" cities were been used in other RLC research. Whereas reported to have used RLCs at some sites variable selection is to some extent throughout this five-year period, whereas the 48 subjective, a clear theoretical explanation comparison cities never used RLCs. for a variable's inclusion must be provided. The IIHS study developed two Poisson If no theoretical basis exists for including regression models.The first model, reportedly, used variables, they should be left out of the red light running (RLR) fatalities per 100,000- model since their inclusion can alter population as the outcome measure (dependent and (distort) the findings. This is especially true continuous variable). The second model reportedly because the authors found no statistical used fatalities per 100,000-population at signalized significance for these factors. intersections (also a continuous variable). The use of (3) Assuming that the dependent variable for the word "reportedly" is explained below in facts 4 each model is defined as reported, some and 5. The determinants (independent variables) variables are included more than one time, used to estimate each outcome were as follows: making them redundant. For example, • Land area in square miles population is the denominator in both • Thousands of persons (population) per outcome measures reported (e.g., fatalities square mile per 100,000-population), as well as a • "After" camera period (0 — 1992-1996; 1 — numerator in the variable "population per 2004-2008) square mile." Further, land density is an independent variable and is also used in a • Camera cities (0 = never used cameras; 1 = second independent variable "population cameras in 2004-2008) per square mile." This introduces the • Interaction between "after" camera period problem of multi-collinearity, meaning and camera cities variables used in the model are highly Five facts are immediately apparent about the correlated and coefficient estimates, such as research design, which jeopardize the internal and the association between cameras and external validity of their findings. fatalities, can be inaccurate as a (1) The Poisson regression models excluded consequence. variables (determinants) known to be (4) The authors report their dependent associated with traffic fatalities, such as variables as rates (e.g., fatalities per changes in public policies or engineering 100,000-population), which are defined as improvements made during or between the continuous. They then proceed with study periods. For example, some states, Poisson regression which is designed for e.g., Florida, repealed their motorcycle count data (not rates). If these first four helmet law between the two time periods, points appear confusing, it stems from the which was associated with increased authors' erroneous use of variables and fatalities. It is noteworthy that the Federal descriptions. The review will proceed Highway Administration's RLC study assuming that the dependent variables were (Council et al., 2005) suggested that actual counts. Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 2 http://health.usfedu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm /,1 (5) If the use of a Poisson regression is selected to be similar to the treated group, in this appropriate and the dependent variable is case "camera cities." The fact that the two groups indeed a discrete number (i.e., count data) have a large difference in fatality rates in the then the correct interpretation of the "before" period reflects bias in the selection of the estimated coefficients is "a change in the comparison group, which jeopardizes the validity of number of fatalities, holding the population the findings(Campbell&Stanley, 1963). density and land area constant." This is, of Further, the IIHS included cities that had course, qualitatively and quantitatively extreme fatality rates. Extreme rates, whether high different from a percentage change in the rate or low, may regress toward the mean (the average) of such fatalities. Examination of the absent any intervention,meaning high rates may fall "before" camera period data illustrates the over time while low rates may rise. Extreme rates importance of this distinction.About 93%of may also indicate the presence of factors that are all camera cities had at least seven fatal unique to the particular observations. For example, RLR accidents in the 1992-1996 period, within the context of the IIHS study, an extremely with most having substantially higher high rate in a particular city may be explained by numbers. In contrast, 56% of the non- yellow light intervals that are systematically shorter camera cities had six or fewer RLR on average compared to the remaining cities in the fatalities. The authors of the IIHS study analysis. ignored the fact that the non-camera cities Scientific research methods allow for including had substantially fewer RLR related sites with extreme rates; however, the comparison fatalities in the "before" period, when sites must be selected to be similarly extreme, cameras were not used in any of the 62 whether high or low (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). studied cities. Of even greater impact, 23% Instead, the extremes are dissimilar because 26 of the non-camera cities had two or fewer (54%) of the 48 comparison (no-camera) cities have (including zero) such accidents. Because no RLR fatality rates per 100,000 population that were city can improve its fatality rate if it is less than 0.4 in the"before" period;two of which had already zero, the simple fact is that the a rate of zero, making a reduction impossible. In "number" in particular, and by extension contrast, only one of the 14 cities using cameras the "percentage change in the rate," of (7%)had a rate less than 0.4. fatalities had much less room for A specific case in point of an extreme was improvement in the non-camera cities. Phoenix, a camera city. Its status as an outlier is illustrated by the fact that it had an RLR fatality Review of the IIHS Findings rate of 1.82 per 100,000 population in the "before" Ignoring the obvious problem relating to the period, which is almost four standard deviations use of "percentage change in rate" as discussed above the average of the sample. The Phoenix rate above,the following provides a more detailed review declined to 1.01 in the "after" period. The inclusion of the results and interpretations. Table 1 provides a of Phoenix reflects further selection bias due to its portion of Table I from the IIHS results. The IIHS extremely high fatality rate,which is then compared reported that cities using RLCs had a larger percent with cities that already have low fatality rates and reduction in red light running fatality rates. This then ultimately reporting the findings as percent misrepresents their findings. Cities that used RLCs changes only. According to the IIHS study results, had a substantially higher rate of red light running Phoenix had a 45%decrease in its red light running fatalities in both time periods, "before" and "after" fatality rate. It is noteworthy that the average camera use, relative to cities that did not use RLCs "before" rate in the non-camera cities was 0.4, or, (point 5). Similarly, cities that used RLCs had a stated differently, the Phoenix "before" period rate higher fatality rate at signalized intersections than was over 300% higher compared to the non-camera cities that did not use them, in both time periods. city average.Given its starting position,interpreting Cities starting from a higher absolute base can show a 45% decrease as evidence of RLC effectiveness is greater relative improvement than those already faulty because the fatality rate of 1.01 in the "after" performing well, even in the absence of an period is still extraordinarily high and 2.7 standard intervention, hence the larger percentage rate deviations higher than the sample average. change in the"camera cities." The dynamic of bias described above permeates Table 1 also reveals that the IIHS method for the interpretation of the regression results as selecting comparison cities violated research revealed in Table 2, which replicates Table 2 from methods since the comparison cities (no RLC use) the IIHS study, reporting the results from their averaged much lower fatality rates in the "before" statistical analysis of RLR fatalities per 100,000 period, relative to camera cities. Scientific research population. methods require that the comparison group is Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 3 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fplir/index.htm otiA0 The IIHS researchers wrote the following about establishment," which was focused on defending the cities: "The rate of fatal red light running crashes business interests and profits, while subjugating between 1992-96 and 2004-08 was reduced by an evidenced-based interventions that reduce injuries estimated 16 percent (fexp(-0.1709)-13x100)for cities and fatalities. He wrote, "Under existing business without camera programs and by an estimated 36 percent values,potential safety advances are subordinated to other ([exp(-0.1709-0.2809)-13x100) for cities with investments,priorities,preferences, and themes designed to cameras." This is a favorable presentation of the maximize profit. findings, but distorts actual results because the Nader(1965)described the private"traffic safety authors excluded the estimate for the"camera cities" establishment" as focusing exclusively on driver variable,which is both large and positive. behavior, instead of engineering improvements that Table 3 presents our interpretation of their are associated with the prevention of crashes and results and summarizes the percent differences, injuries.Nader explained that crashes resulting from estimated relative to the base case. The base case is engineering defects of automobiles can be imputed to the"before"period in cities not using cameras.Thus, drivers, which is also true of roadway engineering cities using cameras had an estimated 65% higher defects,such as yellow light timings that are set too rate of red light running fatalities in the "before" short, thereby forcing red light running. Nader period. This extreme starting position undoubtedly explained the myopic focus of the private "traffic impacts the ending position. Cities not using safety establishment"as follows: cameras had an estimated 16% decrease in the RLR Today almost every program is aimed at the fatality rate in the"after" period,despite the fact that driver — at educating him, exhorting him, some started with a rate of absolute zero. Both of watching him, judging him, punishing him, these findings are, nonetheless,correctly reported in compiling records about his driving violations.. the IIHS report. However, cities that used cameras had an estimated 5% higher fatality rate in the Although published in 1965, this is an accurate "after" period relative to the base case, a finding not description of photo enforcement programs. reported by the IIHS researchers, albeit this Nader also explained why automobile insurance difference is unlikely to be statistically significant. companies are ambivalent about reducing crash The important question is what was the costs. First, insurance companies are able to gain difference between cities using vs.not using cameras approval from state regulators to raise insurance in the "after" camera period? The "after" period premiums to cover higher losses, making them estimate (-0.17) is the same for both groups. Thus, indifferent about loss prevention, since increased the difference between the two groups is the "cities losses justify increased premiums, passing higher with cameras" estimate (0.4998) plus the crash costs on to drivers. Second, automobile "interaction" estimate (-0.28). Thus, cities using insurance companies earn more profit from cameras are estimated to have a 25%higher red light investment income (investing premiums collected running fatality rate [(EXP(0.4998-0.28))-1] in the from drivers) than from underwriting activities. "after" period relative to cities not using cameras, Thus, higher premiums produce more money to despite the greater reported percent reduction in the invest and hence more profit for insurance former. The authors' incorrect conclusions were companies. based on the interaction effect only and not the The importance of these principles is evidenced result from both the main effect(cities with cameras) in the average automobile insurance rate change that and the interaction effect. occurred nationwide in 2009. From 2004 to 2008, the annualized rate of premium increase was about Understanding the IIHS Conflict of Interest 3.2%, consistent with inflation (U.S. Department of The IIHS is supported and funded by Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008). In 2008, automobile insurance companies and associations, the real estate bubble burst and the U.S. stock and their financial interest in traffic tickets and market crashed, with average stock market returns ambivalence toward lowering crash costs were being down over 37% (Anspach, 2011). This loss explained nearly 50 years ago by Ralph Nader, an may explain the large increase in automobile expert on traffic safety. In Nader's landmark book, insurance premiums in 2009, which jumped by Unsafe at Any Speech The Designed in Dangers of the double digits across all states. For example, average American Automobile, a chapter titled "The traffic automobile insurance rates in Florida increased by safety establishment:Damn the driver and spare the car," 58%, averaging $1,055 in 2008 and $1,668 in 2009 explained the IIHS interests.Nader(1965) described according to www.insurancelevel.com (2010) and the IIHS as part of a private "traffic safety Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 4 http://health.usfeduipublichealth/fphr/index.htm . . 1 0 E .),),\L‘,7\' Table 1.Table 1 from the IIHS Study- Average Annual per capita Rates of Fatal Red Light Running Crashes and All Fatal Crashes at Signalized Intersections for Cities with and without Red Light Camera Enforcement Programs, 1992-96 and 2004-08 14 cities with 48 cities without camera programs camera programs 1992-96 2004-08 Percent 1992-96 2004-08 Percent change change Average annual population(million) 9.02 10.08 11.7 17.07 19.08 11.7 Average annual rate of fatal red light running 7.16 4.66 -34.9 4.79 4.10 -14.4 crashes per million population Average annual rate of all fatal crashes at 16.38 14.02 -14.4 13.02 13.27 1.9 signalized intersections per million population Table 2:Table 2 from the IIHS Study- Poisson Model of the Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Average Annual per capita Rate of Fatal Red Light Running Crashes Parameter Estimate Standard error p value Intercept 1.7050 0.1547 <0.0001 * Land area in square miles 0.0001 0.0003 0.6391 Population density(thousands of persons per square mile) -0.0371 0.0191 0.0527 After period(2004-08)vs.before period(1992-96) -0.1709 0.0678 0.0117* Cities that implemented red light cameras vs.cities that did not 0.4998 0.1436 0.0005* Interaction of study period and city group -0.2809 0.1079 0.0092* Table 3:Summary of Percent Differences Estimate -0.17 0.4998 -0.28 Before=0 No Camera=0 After&camera= 1 Period Cameras After= 1 Camera= 1 All other cases=0 %Difference Before No 0 0 0 Before Yes 0 0.4998 0 0.65 After No -0.17 0 0 -0.16 After Yes -0.17 0.4998 -0.28 0.05 Florida Public Health Review, 2012;9, 1-8. 5 http://health.usfedu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm IQE % iik/)) www.CarInsurance.com (2011). Thus, auto "recurrent practice in the traffic safety establishment and insurance rates jumped subsequent to insurance assures the participation of industry people directly in company investment losses, suggesting the increase official programs." This continues today,as evidenced may have occurred to achieve return on investment by agendas from the Governors Highway Safety expectations, and not due to a large increase in Administration (GHSA) annual meetings. The individual risk relative to crashes and injuries. GHSA membership includes highway safety This supports Nader's assertion that higher representatives from each state. Insurance losses are simply passed on to drivers in the form of companies and camera vendors participate as higher premiums, as there was no large increase in associate members (Governors Highway Safety individual risk. Instead,traffic fatalities had declined. Administration [GHSA], 2011), and IIHS The National Highway Traffic Safety representatives and other special interests Administration (2010) reported that fatal crashes participate as speakers. For example, in 2010, a declined between 2007 and 2009. For example, the representative from the Partnership for Advancing number of fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes declined Road Safety presented "Automated Enforcement: from 34,172 in 2008 to 30,797 in 2009,representing We've Got Your Number" (GHSA, 2010), which is an almost 10%drop. In addition,the rate of fatalities an organization funded by traffic camera vendors per 100,000 population declined from 1.26 to 1.13. (thenewspaper.com,2010).Whereas free speech laws The drop in fatalities is in accordance with the permit such presentations, it illustrates how the reduction in miles traveled that followed the process allows proprietary interests to influence recession: billions of miles traveled declined from public officials, apparently absent disclosures of 3,032 to 2,979 in respectively,2007 and 2009.These financial conflicts of interest. data cast serious doubt on the notion that premiums increased in response to increased risk. Conclusions Further, automobile insurance profitability had The 2011 IIHS study actually found that cities increased prior to 2004 after the insurance industry that used cameras had noticeably higher red light developed new pricing tools in 2000. Instead of running fatality rates than cities that did not use categorizing drivers into four or five tiers for cameras in both "before" and "after" time periods. underwriting purposes, insurance companies began This finding was also true regarding the total using thousands of factors to determine a driver's fatality rate at signalized intersections. This rate (Oster, 2004). A proliferation of traffic tickets, suggests other interventions were more effective in via photo enforcement, creates a proliferation of lowering fatality rates at signalized intersections. factors (tickets) to use in underwriting that justify However, the authors of the IIHS study did not cite premium increases. Hence, the automobile insurance these findings. Further, the extremely high rates of industry has a financial interest in advocating for red light running fatalities in the "after" period in photo enforcement. both Phoenix (1.01 per 100,000 population) and Tickets can result in multi-year automobile Bakersfield (1.06 per 100,000 population), which insurance increases from surcharges due to points on used cameras, are evidence that other interventions a driver's license and/or from underwriting may prove particularly effective in these cities if ever penalties. In Florida, a state insurance specialist implemented, as comparison cities (no-camera) explained that RLC tickets can be used in averaged 0.41 per 100,000-population in the "after" underwriting, similar to other tickets, to increase a period. driver's automobile insurance rate, even though the Further, the impropriety of the IIHS research tickets do not add points to a driver's license (Rick approach, which uses cities as the unit of analysis Lunsford,personal communication,July 29,2011). It instead of RLC sites, is evidenced by the was noted that practices vary among insurance Washington and Shin(2005)analysis of the 10 RLC companies, such that drivers would need to contact sites in Phoenix. Washington and Shin (2005) their own company to ascertain the percent increase analyzed crashes and injuries at RLC and and duration (years) of any penalty from a camera comparison sites in Phoenix, and adjusted for traffic ticket. volume. They concluded: (1) total crashes did not It is not surprising that public officials can be change at RLC sites; (2) the net safety benefit was misinformed about the relative effectiveness of traffic negligible since RLCs were not associated with tickets and photo enforcement in reducing crashes. reducing injuries or fatalities; (3) spillover effects Ralph Nader (1965) had also explained that the were not found; they wrote: "the findings may suggest private "traffic safety establishment" has inserted motorists are aware of which approaches have cameras themselves as educators to public officials and law and which do not;" (4) the RLC sites had a higher enforcement regarding traffic safety. He explained percent of fatal angle crashes,relative to comparison that the merging of public and private funds is a sites, in the "after" period; and (5) the cost of Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 6 http://health.usfedu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm , .iv ,k), 10E Al fatalities was excluded from the economic analysis http://www.ghsa.org/html/about/assoc_members. (meaning the negligible safety benefit that was htm.Accessed October 21,2011. reported is incorrect because the higher fatal crash Hu, W., McCartt, A.T., & Teoh, E.R. (2011). costs at RLC sites were excluded from the economic Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal analysis). As the Washington and Shin (2005) Crashes in Large US Cities. Insurance Institute for analysis has revealed, analyzing only RLC and Highway Safety.Arlington,VA. comparison sites within a community produces Langland-Orban, B., Large,J.T., & Pracht, E.E. contrasting results than analyzing aggregated data (2011). An Update on Red Light Camera Research: from all signalized intersections within a community The Need for Federal Standards in the Interest of (as done by the IIHS). Public Safety. Florida Public Health Review. 8, 1-9. Meanwhile, the U.S. PIRG(2011)has published Available at: recommendations regarding RLCs that are designed http://hsc.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2511FA2D- to advance the public's interests when government 6BC2-4091-9FD5- entities consider camera programs. These DBF711F420AA/0/2011pp00109FPHROrbanetal.p recommendations can also be used to evaluate df.Accessed October 13,2011. existing RLC programs to assess adherence and, Large, J.T, Orban, B., & Pracht, E. (2008, thereby, determine if cameras are used for public October 30). Analysis violates principles of sound safety or for advancing private business interests. research and public health evaluation(in response to R.A. Retting and S.A. Kyrychenko's Reductions in References injury crashes associated with red light camera Anspach, D. (2011). A rear By rear Look At enforcement in Oxnard,California).American Journal S&P 500 Stock Market Returns Since 1973,Data Table: of Public Health. Available at: Historical S&P 500 Index Stock Market Returns. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/eletters/92/11/1822. Available at: Accessed October 20,2010. http://moneyover55.about.com/od/howtoinvest/a/ Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at any speed The marketreturns.htm.Accessed October 7,2011. designed in dangers of the American automobile. New Burkey M., & Obeng K.A. (2004). A detailed York: Grossman Publishers. investigation of crash risk reduction resulting from red National Highway Traffic Safety light cameras in small urban areas (Report Number Administration. FARS data tables. Available at: DTRS93-G-0018). Urban Transit Institute. North http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University Accessed October 31,2011. (prepared for the U.S. Department of Office of the Majority Leader Report, U.S. Transportation). House of Representatives (2001). The red light Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). running crisis: Is it intentional? Available at: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for http://www.thenewspaper.com/r1c/docs/finalreport research. Boston.Houghton Mifflin Company. .pdf.Accessed October 20,2010. Council, F.M., Persaud, B., Eccles, K., Lyon, C., Oster, C. (2004, April 22). Auto insurers cut & Griffith, M. S. (2005). Safety evaluation of red light rates - for some: After years of increases, new cameras (FHWA HRT-05-048). U.S. Department of pricing tools let carriers tailor premiums to Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. individuals' risk. The Wall Street Journal. New York, Washington D.C. Available at: N.Y.,page D1. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/saf Retting, R.A., & Kyrychenko, S.Y. (2002). ety/05048/05048.pdf.Accessed October 20,2010. Reductions in injury crashes associated with red Decina, L.E., Thomas, L., Srinivasan, R., & light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. Staplin, L. (2007). Automated enforcement: A American Journal of Public Health,92, 1822-1825. Compendium of Worldwide Evaluations of Results thenewspaper.com. (2010, March 15). (Publication Number DOT HS 810 763). National Partnership for Advancing Road Safety Is new photo Highway Traffic Safety Administration. enforcement industry front group. Available at: Governor's Highway Safety Administration. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3079.asp. (2010).2010 Annual Meeting Agenda, Washington D.C. Accessed October 31,2011. Available at: U.S. Department Of Labor, Bureau of Labor http://www.ghsa.org/html/meetings/annual/2010 Statistics; Consumer Price Index; Washington, D.C.; /agenda.html.Accessed October 31,2011. (September 2011); Available at: Governor's Highway Safety Administration ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. (2011). GHSA Associate Members. Washington D.C. Accessed October 19,2011. Available at: U.S. PIRG (2011, October 27). Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead. Boston, MA. Available at: Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 7 http://health.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm 10E ,P http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report- a rchives/tax—budget-policy/tax—budget-pol icy- reports/caution-red-light-cameras-ahead. Accessed October 31,2011. www.Carinsurance.com. (2011). Average auto insurance rates: State average rates - compared to national insurance rates; CPI historical average premiums (2009 — 2011). Available at: http://www.carinsurance.com/Average- Premiums.aspx.Accessed October 7,2011. www.insurancelevel.com. (2010). Car insurance rates by state (2004-2008, 2010). Available at: http://www.insurancelevel.com/resources/car- insurance-rates-by-state.cfm. Accessed October 7, 2011. Washington,S.,&Shin,K..(2005). The impact of red light cameras (automated enforcement) on safety in Arizona (FHWA-AZ-05- 550). Arizona Department of Transportation,Phoenix,Arizona. Barbara Langland-Orban (borban @health.usf.edu) is Associate Professor, Etienne E. (epracht(ahealth.usfedu) is Associate Professor, and John T. Large (jlarge(ahealth.usfedu) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, University of South Florida College of Public Health, Tampa, FL. This paper was submitted to the FPHR on November 8, 2011, and accepted for publication on January 12, 2012. Copyright 2012 by the Florida Public Health Review. Florida Public Health Review,2012;9, 1-8. 8 http://health.usEedu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm 10E Liff ' File Number: 19) E01121209 ' Date Filed: 02/23/2011 Robin Carnahan Secretary of State .. -<. -. State of Missouri . Robin Carnahan,Secretary of State c tiyCw" Corporations Division • � Via.. '. PO Box 778/600 W.Male Se,Rm.322 Jefferson City,MO 65102 Application for Certificate of Authority of a Foreign Nonprofit Corporation (Submit with filing fee 01525.00) I. The Corporation's name isNCSR, Inc. and it is organized and existing under the laws of Texas 2. If the corporation's name is unavailable,the name it will use in Missouri is not applicable 3. The date of its incorporation was 02/07/2011 ,and the period of its duration is perpetual mast iday/year 4.The address of its principal place of business is 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 . .Address City State Zip Code 5.The name and physical address of its registered agent and office in the State of Missouri is • Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.222 E Dunklin ST, STE 102 Jefferson City ,MO 65101 Name Address City State Zip Code 6.The names of its officers and directors and their business or home addresses are as follows(attach additional sheets as necessary): . Name Address City • State Zip Code Indent David Kelly 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 Vice President N/A Secretary Charles Territo 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 Treasurer Ronald P. Reagan 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 Director James D. Tuton 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 Director Charles Territo 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 Director George J.Miner 8227 Smithfield Avenue Springfield VA 22152 • 7.The specific purpose(s)of its business in Missouri: To promote public awareness and education regarding the benefits of road and traffic safety technology. . (Please see sees page) • Name and address to return filed document I • • Name:t t Addres City,State,and Zip Code: Corp.55A(05.2009) • d•1932577.1 State of Missouri Creation-NonProfit 3 Page(s) IIIIIIIII III IIIIII • 71105416603 , t14)1\iAl3 8.Does the corporation have members?Yes K No 9.If incorporated in Missouri would the corporation be a public benefit X . .__or mutual benefit Corporation? 10. The effective date of this document is the date it is filed by the Secretary of State of Missouri unless a future date is otherwise indicated:---.,_.-.-.----- Date may not he more than 90 days after the filuzgdate in this Office In Affirmation thereof,the facts stated above are true and correct: (The undersigned understands that false statements made in this filing are subject to the penalties provided under Section 575.040,RSMo) • David Kelly President 0242/2011 Authorized signature of officer of chairman o he board Printed Name Yule Date Note:You must submit a current(not more than 60 days old)certificate of good standing or certificate of existence with this applica- tion.This may be obtained from the Secretary of State or other authority that issues corporate charters in your state of domicile. • • • • • • • • • • • d-1932577.1 Coip.55A(05/2009) jOE 170 • Corporations Section ��t g Hope Andrade P.O.Box 13697 �, . �� Secretary of State Austin,Texas 787.11-3697 5) Office of the Secretary of State Certificate of Fact The undersigned,as Secretary of State of Texas,does hereby certify that the document,Certificate of Formation for NCSR,Inc. (file number 801380435),a Domestic Nonprofit Corporation,was filed in this office on February 07,2011. It is further certified that the entity status in Texas is in existence. In testimony whereof,I have hereunto signed my name officially and caused to be impressed hereon the Seal of State at my office in Austin,Texas on February 08,2011. • ,/‘" ‘'.q C4d 611°‘°. - Fie /a' Hope Andrade • Secretary of State Come visit us on the internet at httpilwww.sos.state.tx.us/ Phone:(512)463-5555 Fax:(512)463-5709 Dial:7-1-1 for Relay Services Prepared by:SOS-WEB TED:10264 Document:353622030003 r . OE � .k r t ' I . G J 1 � h° ,eq Q.'-- �fri o' '-' f ev- c,,,, M' ^si ,i cfr.i 10i + My •, A0 1 i 0)�•C∎ S f t 'Yy„,,,, j G 41;r1fA'"i � `i 5el�; lk S.i:nIAAtiV ,i iit" gP" i .,hr 1 Yd4SiIi'i'ki P ° iAllr l'tl?a..1 � P6tti -ifiV� s L. y t t1t! ail,h. t3.4, ,, State of Missouri :74'7:44,10 I. l� ' ,i'�P` �,,.. �f'It e 4$ r s.• i 0 1, ;Z J ';wit: :�3+Y�y' r . / n ; 111111Q1, 19 4 vm, rs, - .. T a t -� Igk.. ISSOURi •µ'r'' ,�k, Robin Carnahan — �,:1 1,1s Secretary of State _ p, .�, CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY '' .. FOREIGN NONPROFIT "� 4` s° WHEREAS, k' '::• , NCSR,Inc. �` r:; E01121209 4r using in Missouri the name <.T, t` , NCSR,Inc. ;� •*, 1 has complied with the Missouri Nonprofit Corporation Law which governs Foreign Corporations; =� : ,,1 �" by filing in the office of the Secretary of State of Missouri authenticated evidence of its +a7 ". te incorporation and good standing under the Laws of the State of Texas. - ,....---40, ,11 NOW,THEREFORE,I,ROBIN CARNAHAN, Secretary of State of the State of Missouri, do hereby certify that said corporation is from this date duly authorized to transact business in this =` ' f.i ,Iiz` State,and is entitled to all rights and privileges granted to Foreign Nonprofit Corporations under - � � - the Nonprofit Corporation Law. - ` ' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I hereunto +' set my hand and cause to be affixed the ���'����i'���. ;� "" GREAT SEAL of the State of Missouri. + + ;y s *fcisat� f „ .e, i1 t• Done at the City of Jefferson,this "....-,,,4E*,oc**** *„.4/ 1� ,•, - 23rd day of February, 2011. * ,** Yr. ^ .w,,, gg,e ( IJ h��.ys, � No yea p >N Ile* AsDCCCXK �t-4 _ ; Vii, "�' Secretary of State th, / r` ZVltN10.. - III ��',�I°P!1: It t,1 "I! r ltF II E t:q �'l .,,',N POW 1 ,til "i,4gq l 11 :1} .11 II�rt!,•1 ti�t I. ^I I,I�1 ty,:)t 11 @{ H U @r I7 ., & ` ti vk,'tt l! !! t =1 ,,z4, , -,i • �'ti VVA �V�r"�" ,4,Vi a n y i� P ,;4 'A�'' I. ,R �U�-Ni f,Pik : ` ' Iv ,� ""."„y?'� S , ti 4,". t.d i i ,,,+•"1•,',,,°.,,,`,� k. I. ,,74 y,1 e ,,�t A . 1 ,+. t t J tt t w r ,,,,p, , , �$ y ,0 k 0 S , 1y' k'' h 1 \ -f '�`� iii k ‘le.., - '" ),J E ' Q • 'T+' m` t4 ° ' , vc,�.:. a, � .t-ro`+f'!w' ♦ ✓5w/A,_. "%'4+. `.=,'. -,J#r 'Sts. s.- ''i. , "'4._ .� i i. .Z' i o+' -. f—. `i -,, (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # 1 0„ E I -7 MEETING DATE_ ("':�1 f/ / -% _ (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE P''-':(2 t,) 641'1 (/ "0 "'v7 f NAME e/9( „ i`fCaly`/!7° ADDRESS (PQ i X, 6,41 f}l. (C i (, 5 �. r y _ i Representing/Petitioner: C2..-1 Other: µ COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # R A ,U tiail- MEETING DATE ,//i..2./, 3 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE &•Y .G.r,-j(;,2 .. NAME i ,(: J G�,l �/G(1.A ADDRESS f-Z Representin /Petitloner. C+yl l�1 s4 A,_..o,,, „ Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGIS I ER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. // IL; („:a..,'- 7,_.,r,, _.?_ T ) /�j)'t,t ( t-t-;.,' (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # //",E MEETING DATE ---; /(Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITL ,,,-417, ° CS..:b.r ,,• NAME •),,e--e"--'r / .` P. ,' ADDRESS if Y' ;r� :„ 17 r Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGIS I ER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. J iN;J<',. 1 'Y( =-cam .2“..1'i j-.)t'1 : (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # /Y�y. MEETING DATE Ex'-/,2 -/ti (Circle Meeting Type); Regular Special Workshop Budget i AGENDA ITEM TITLE f r /1 1, (1 rc)GY)2.f, S. NAME ic%ill// /,*1f,'C1,/±y>�. ---, ADDRESS -_j 7 '/ 7/,N4&,,,M1 t )1 -'% ‘,A)91,\.1 , /94,, E (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # MEETING DATE (Circle Meeting Type) "Uvular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TTTLE I 6-:7 ( e f 11/1 f NAME L-- Cx C,.1_. %j( 1`r �7$Yif ADDRESS ' .2 0 C f.1Pv.. 1 L M- ✓ r` c.p4,.L"_ Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda itarri'# 9-6 . MEETING DATE 3/13 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE (d', .,e 1- t -a44,4,44 iraW.NAME � �. ADDRESS ) C � n ra j? 7 Repre ing/Pe itioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR y�. N4-2, d%'Y'� 1/ f. ,//- 2_ 4 ",' f (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # /c MEETING DATE 1 t ' >' (Circle Meeting Ty ) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE !' r-__.f / J �� I ,fij)/,.®"/7 //1 / r f NAME Lf, '1✓;'`tf t h ADDRESS i J I'eX G;1 :-177/9/ T "2;694,- 4� Representing/Petitioner: .- Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. Yr1II ADF I TMTTCII Tn Tung/nl�.�u....-., (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # a -E MEETING DATE '2. 712 ( t (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE i s kl _ C Er,^Aey 1 NAME A (V G�,r c /'V1 ct i i�, i" t ADDRESS i�( � 5 fit e ' J / Representing/Petitioner: & G' 4 'k'At- `t ` " it`i r y Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # e MEETING DATE .-fir/f/ /7 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE �',x _. / ,.� ADDRESS %'S /t ' rPe NAME , Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDIN CE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDI G,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # 1 - 10 f MEETING DATE t " , .�(4/-7' (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE rt{�2CrC� kJ , tc e v 00 1, " dtGU'_c:. L,t, NAME // ADDRESS JGYr'T� �� �'� _-_ Representing/Petitioner: 1 2t✓ "AIM 7�s A U i / {J i7 Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # 1 . MEETING DATE i 2. I' (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE F .r-I�- (,' �1,� 2fJY - t NAME J' l 'G•;':^ t'it:Y`1Q.1 ADDRESS /6-'0 !A/a(°f•.'j( L4-1 r Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. VAII ADC I TMTTCr%TPt TUDCC/'Dl IJTNIl ITCC Cnn vntt ni.■ a.c...v. .a... a.v.-�.. •---•---•-- is V f/ vd 1j d..; Vl (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # ( g %c MEETING DATE;2/1."://1/' (Circle Meeting Type)(Regular)Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE Y -' NAME , ( e r--` • "? 'A v .�)ft�}�, J{� Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS).REGTSTFR WITH THF CI FRK TO THF BOARD AT THE BOARD MINI ITFS AND RFCORr)S DFPARTMFNT (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # 1 o = i MEETING DATE (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE 4 1 (.i G,f i+ :r4?). fl it NAME s1 r y ADDRESS s,.• Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. Vr1) (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # MEETING DATE ic-6 a/> G/7 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE plL L-ijfi,./ (1nPt' y�� J,, NAME ��.� �ri .�.. ADDRESS 6701 Oil Z f;'cr., �x��l Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # 1(-) MEETING DATE 7"-,1" r !� / (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE _iy L,'6-0 s) -7,^--'''' NAME C / _ _ ADDRESS ,. - 7._//,'i is' �c. ' / ' s-4M9 `1 I Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS).RFGISTFR WITH THF(1 FRK Tr)THF RnARn AT THF anARn Mrnu fTFC Am-)17 Prnonc rIFDADTMgruT -T, at'( (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # i()&" u MEETING DATE 1 2 1= 1'-> Q-')13 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget 3 - �; . - AGENDA ITEM TITLE Y ')„,;CI fir, ' _ NAME TC IV Pop.F.m . ADDRESS 7-,D 0 9 t:;4117-W i,D A)'G' W 1JAP(.-r� '3 T 1.2-D Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOt.I rl1MMFNrc ARIA-....-- --- 1i\1 frk' , ,1 , fsV( I A6---,-,/?,,,,,, • ov (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # MEETING DATE L" J _ ��JJ'13 (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE :(`- ('/=!/ (,4,1-7.„,,,_.a �-- Ct 1, A /t1. NAME \� (Nc +� ADDRESS :�)1 ��_.1 iY�_.. Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY ... ,, rn ruc annon AT THE RoARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. liki/4'\i-c, —7_r`'MS, ' -2/ - -,,,„/.-Z., (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # i cj 4 MEETING DATE i 2 (-•u"+; -') 6' (Circle Meeting Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA ITEM TITLE -. NAME lY fl i n. . L j i7t1 it>'v1 ADDRESS G , Representing/Petitioner: Other: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS i SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF Ml tNTY (PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY) Agenda Item # tJE a- MEETING DATE /L _-.. ' . (Circle Meetin g Type) Regular Special Workshop Budget AGENDA*EM TIT E ':-0 4v C 2-evil.tlz,0. fi; NAME '.j4'i�t, i .C.e'i - ADDRESS Ci -,i'LK I-)0 2 is 1,67/4 -. // ,i-I-7 (j ;• Representing/Petitioner: �-I Other: / COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2003-53,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24,REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES(INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE(3)MINUTES FOR YOU COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PRIOR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD