Sept 10 2016 – Kevin Yaworski – WiseUpWinnipeg – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-og
Updated Sept 28 2016 – FIPPA request proves MPIC funding WPS “to counter reductions by the City in our budget”
Updated Jan 2 2016 – PC’s / MB PUB ignore wasteful spending and approve MPIC 3.7% rate hike; Warning signs against HTA, a distraction and not improving safety; CoW COO want to waste more tax payer funds fighting a loosing battle in court and more
- MPIC is pushing for $afety initiatives that divert $ Millions to Police to do enforcement instead of true Safety initiatives.
- Photos of how MPIC funds being used in MPIC, WPS, CoW, CAA $afety pilot program – warning these photos may cause an alarming response
- Warning signs used are against the HTA, known to be a distraction and not improving safety
- CoW COO want to waste more tax payer funds fighting a loosing battle in court
- FIPPA request proves MPIC funding WPS to counter reductions by the City in their budget
- WPS above the law again – double standard on the roads and for disciplining, investigating or prosecuting officers.
- Related news coverage
- What you can do about this
- Much more details on where your Autopac and License fees are going
- PC’s objected to NDP allowing MPI rate hike while wasting money but are ok now they are in power
- Links to related info:
- Accidents, Violations, Demerits, Fine and Penalty amounts trending up since Winnipeg Photo Enforcement (PE) started in 2003 which is contrary to primary goals and grounds for termination by the Province
MPIC is contributing to false and misleading information (Safety Propaganda)
- Example of unbiased and detailed engineering study, conclusions on how to address an increase in rare right angle crashes, more common rear end collisions and other collisions at intersections.
MPIC is pushing for $afety initiatives that divert $ Millions to Police to do enforcement instead of true Safety initiatives
They doing this because they want the increased insurance and license fees after demerits issued. They don’t care that the majority of the tickets being issued in Winnipeg are unfair or unlawful due to the known and aggressively targeted traffic engineering deficiencies and other serious issues.
They choosing to do this instead of address the out of control spending for years on salaries, benefits, pensions, admin costs that are up to 40% over previous years and more. If this was not occurring and they were spending more on proper education and driver training our roads would be safer, our insurance and license rates would go down drastically and we would be getting refunds instead of increases. This is required by MB PUB when their is surpluses from less accidents.
Also MPIC insures all Manitobans, not just Winnipeggers. Why should insurance paid from those outside Winnipeg be used to fund WPS?
See much more details on this in the links below.
Find what needs to happen to end this abuse and make those responsible accountable below.
Here is some alarming information on what MPIC is spending our Autopac and License fees on:
Examples of how MPIC funds being used in MPIC, WPS, CoW, CAA $afety pilot program
This 5 way partnership with Manitoba Public Insurance, City of Winnipeg , Winnipeg Police Service, CAA and Government of Manitoba is not working for the public, is actually putting them at risk and has already caused harm. This affecting a lot more than just drivers and vehicle owners.
Updated Sept 28 2016 – Freedom of Information Act request proves MPIC funding WPS “to counter reductions by the City in our budget”
MPIC is diverting funds to WPS after it’s huge budget increase requests only partially allowed due to uncontrolled spending
$500k for multi- year pilot $afety program that was supposed to be used for better signage and visible WPS enforcement at Kenaston at McGillivray, Leila and McPhillips, Grant and Kenaston, St. Mary’s at Bishop Grandin and Lagimodiere at Regent.
These on MPIC’s most dangerous intersections list but is being abused by WPS with unfair, unlawful and unsafe enforcement in marked and unmarked cars parked unfairly, unlawfully and unsafely and not the required signage. Parking on crosswalks, bus stops, meridians, shoulder on exit or merge lanes and after the zone and issuing unfair if not unlawful tickets due to dangerously $hort 4 sec amber time which is the cause of at least a 50% increase in rear end collisions and the cause of some other accidents at these intersections. FIPPA request showed Senior MPIC and WPS staff referring to “enhanced enforcement” only at Kenaston/McGillvray and Bishop Grandin/St Marys.
News Release from MPI regarding the Pilot Program.
Even in the news release it says “MPI said data analysis showed that more than half of the collisions at the top five intersections were rear-end collisions”
Here is photos of your MPIC funds hard at work in this MPIC, WPS, CoW, CAA $afety pilot program aka Ticket and Demerit drive and funding WP$ after it wasted the $100’s of Millions it given and fairly, unfairly and unlawfully collected already.
Bishop @ St. Mary’s WPS unmarked Car in cross walk – before 911 call and fire truck arrives – Mar 27 2016
Bishop @ St. Mary’s WPS unmarked Car in cross walk – after 911 call and fire truck arrives – Mar 27 2016
Bishop @ St Mary’s – WPS marked car parked unlawfully on Cross walk – June? x? 2016
Bishop @ St Mary’s – WPS marked car parked unlawfully on Cross walk – June? x? 2016
Bishop @ St. Mary’s – WPS marked car parked unlawfully on meridian – Feb 12 about 6:30pm
WPS marked car parked unlawfully in bus stop doing enforcement. At least it before the zone but the aim of the project was to have visible warning so trying to hide in bus stop is not trying to visible. Also no tripod as is required in manufacturer’s operating manual as as you almost alway see RCMP use and what you see WPS always using when they are in the news with CAA.
July 28th 2016
WPS on grass and sidewalk Bishop and Dakota – Apr 22 2016
May not be related to $afety pilot project
Warning signs used are against the HTA, known to be a distraction and not improving safety; CoW COO want to waste more taxpayer funds fighting a loosing battle in court and more
The permanent warning signs specified in the agreement are up at Leila/McPhillips and Kenaston/McGillvray. The former is the one getting just signage and the latter is getting both signage and “enhanced enforcement”. Bishop/St. Mary’s is the one getting just “enhanced enforcement” and there is a forth getting nothing to act as the control. I should also note that those signs are well known to not improve safety and actually pose as a distraction. Under the Highway Traffic Act, those signs are also illegal to be placed on Manitoba roadways. MPI, WPS and CoW have all ignored the HTA when those signs got put in.
FIPPA results show speeding not an issue and MPIC concerned that there is not as many tickets issued in the project as expected (i.e. they won’t be issuing as many demerits, penalties, suspensions etc…).
All the while MPIC, WPS and CoW ignoring the root cause of most of the accidents and violations (dangerously short amber time) and other known engineering deficiencies even when repeatedly brought to their attention.
Our COO Michael Jack wants to waste more taxpayer funds fighting a loosing battle in court. We have certified engineers and proven national standards in use in MB outside Winnipeg and required by law in Ontario and elsewhere on our side.
Who signed the agreement for this program?
FIPPA request proves MPIC funding WPS “to counter reductions by the City in our budget”
Even more concerning is the following Freedom of Information Act Request responses:
All communication and documents related to police officer issued traffic enforcement tickets at St. Mary’s rd and Bishop Grandin Blvd from January – June 2016. To include discussing type of offenses being targeted.
I started looking at the remaining records that came back from this FIPPA and found the following very concerning record that clearly states WPS saying the “funds are being used to counter reductions by the City in our budget” and they hope MPIC will do more of this in the future.
This on top of the facts:
– The agreement calls for more visible signage but the photos attached and (video also available) show it was marked and unmarked cars parked unsafely, unlawfully and unfairly on crosswalks, meridians, bus stop, end of zone etc…
– That they referring to enforcement at Bishop @ St. Mary’s and Kenaston @ McGillvary as “enhanced enforcement”.
– They hiding the names of senior people that were making these decisions even though they are not fighting serious crime and are not at risk of retaliation etc…
– The independent study WPS / CoW paid for to review photo enforcement before expansion said there was a large number of accidents at many intersections (mostly rear end) and they recommended the cause be investigated. We have told them the cause for years and they know it is the dangerously short amber or no AWF’s at least at the higher speed intersections. They tried to cover up with APEGM complaint etc…
– Other concerns in the records.
From John Burchill (WPS Detective Sergeant)
Sent: Wed, May 4 2016 5:07 PM
To: Cam Baldwin; Jamie Blunden; [redacted]; Gord Friesen
Cc: Elizabeth Pilcher; Greg Burnett
Subject: RE: MPI Intersection Project – update / reminder
While it is only a one year pilot project, the funds are being used to counter reductions by the City in our budget and hopefully the data will encourage MPI to fund other similar enforcement / safety programs in the coming years. Like us MPI is having to justify their project funding to the Public Utility Board and a successful program will go a long way in supporting subsequent proposals.
It wouldn’t let me copy past from the pdf but I took screen shot below.
This response didn’t show up online on City FIPPA site as required so I asked and the clerk responsible called me to say it was her fault and was due to the large number of files and size so WPS couldn’t send them by email so put in the post. Then she forgot but is going to do it the following week. They have been combined into one pdf now accessible here:
Under August 2016 (but requested in June)
The above email is on Page 86 (related on Page 84 and 85)
MPIC City of Winnipeg Agreement for this $afety program is on Page 93
We have not finished reviewing the other records.
There and others FIPPA responses available here:
Records released in response to FIPPA Requests
The City of Winnipeg publishes a monthly list of records that have been released in response to FIPPA requests that have been granted in full or in part. Requests for personal information or otherwise identifying requests are not posted.
FIPPA Response 16 06 549 – Bishop@St.Mary’s Officer Enforcement Targeted 2015
More details about this FIPPA:
It is also concerning that names of senior WPS staff that are involved in some of the decisions resulting in this unfair and unlawful actions are being redacted with out legitimate reasons. The FIPPA regulations allow this if releasing the names of Officers could but them at risk of retaliation from Criminals. These are not the officers (foot soldiers) that are fighting serious crime and are not at risk from the public other than calling for them to be properly investigated, disciplined or if needed resignation or termination without severance. Also part of the responses where redacted or severed without valid reasons. The action between MPI and WPS should be public record.
That some of the details of this agreement redacted in the name of testing and A formal complaint will be raised with the MB Ombudsman to address this serious issue.
Here is more details of what was removed, severed or redacted, cited privacy, officer safety, study integrity and other concerns.
s, 16(1) … protect the privacy of all third parties and …. 17(2)(b) and 17(3)(i)
Offence notice numbers and other person info removed
Names of some WPS members have been removed …. could … compromise members pesonal safety
Details removed that could reasonably be expected to harm or threaten security of electronic information systems and comms systems…
non public ph numbers removed …
Two draft reports that divulge advice, opinions or recommendations developed for the WPS have been withheld in accordance with s. 23(1)a of the Act
Advice to a public body ….
The City of Winnipeg’s Transportation department was consulted and there was concern of the integrity of the study being compromised inf certain details of the Agrement were to be disclosed. As such, we have elected to sever a portion of the Agreement under s.29(a) of the Act which is a exception that protects testing or auditing procedures, …..
Enforcement tolerance limits have been removed from a report to protect public safety in accordance with s. 24(c) of the Act.
Furthermore some info has been removed with comments “not responsive to request” …..
The above photos, video and other evidence show this MPIC funding used for unlawful, unsafe or unfair enforcement while the Mayor, several City Councillors and other senior people at the City and Province ignore the known traffic engineering deficiencies that would address the actual causes of the majority of the motor vehicle accidents and injuries in Winnipeg. Even ignoring recommendations in 3rd party studies they paid for with public funds that calls for the cause of the 50% increase in rear end collisions at red light camera locations be investigated. They know the cause is $hort amber time especially dangerous at higher speed intersections. This brought to their attention repeatedly including via APEGM formal complaint. Then an attempted coverup of this exposed by whistle blower.
WPS assigned a high cost estimate to the FIPPA with the latest info and said it was due to the large number of responsive records even though they knew they were mostly redundant. They denied a request to waive this fee as it involves public safety and interest, then tried to delay it’s release saying they waiting on MPIC even though they already had the responses because they said they were mostly redundant (WPS, MPIC and CoW likely wanted time to discuss the impact and responses to the release). Then City Clerks didn’t put the responses online as required once it released until requested over a month later (all coincidence?).
MPIC is ignoring this unfair, unsafe or unlawful enforcement as they don’t mind the increase in revenue from more penalties to license and insurance after demerits assigned. Especially with their out of control spending mgmt to staff ratios, salaries, pensions benefits, expenses and more. All the while limiting what they spend on effective driver education and training which proven to make the biggest improvement in safety and reduction in accidents. Drivers and Vehicle owners should be getting huge refunds or reductions in license fees and insurance premiums as required by MB PUB.
Some of this behavior should be formally investigated for criminal behavior or gross negligence. More of the public need to stand up against this.
In fact City Council didn’t reduce WPS budget this year or any recently. They increased it by several $Million and only gave them less of the huge increase they had asked for again. This after the Police Board or City Council didn’t object to WPS buying a 365k military armoured vehicle we couldn’t afford to buy or maintain.
Then WPS decided to cut and reduce low cost officer body camera and cadet programs instead of making efficiency changes involving 300 more high paid and trained officers then we can afford or need based on detailed independent report.
Then WPS spent $200k on advanced rifles even though many officers already assigned two firearms or a second in their vehicle and it proven more or advanced guns only contribute to escalation of violence with more of the public and police being shot.
Then WPS ask for a bailout to pay their bloated pension.
This should be enough for a formal investigation by the RCMP for gross negligence if not criminal behavior that is putting the public at risk and has already caused harm.
PC’s objected to NDP allowing MPI to raise rates when wasting money but now are trying to allow it.
WPS above the law again – double standard on the roads and for disciplining, investigating or prosecuting officers
There has been complaints made to WPS about parking unlawfully like illustrated above.
They have clearly responded that they can breach any parking law/bylaw. This is contrary to sections … of the HTA
Winnipeg police pull 180 on U-turn complaint against officer
Officer repeatedly caught doing unlawful u-turns on one way street after issuing tickets to save time getting back to setup again. This recorded as well as the complaint discussion. They were going to accept formal complaint until they heard it was an officer. Then just said he is allowed to do that because he is setting up for enforcement. Then said he will be told to put his lights on next time. When told they can’t use their lights unless they are actively attending an emergency they had nothing further to say.
The HTA says they can’t breach the HTA unless they are actively attending an emergency, must have their lights on, …
There is several examples of officers not being disciplined, investigated or prosecuted
WPS launching internal investigation following fraud allegations in K9 unit
WPS officer in Canine unit investigated for fraud with 100k worth of overtime in 4 years for private security work with no canine which was a condition of the OT approval. Worse yet OT is currently pensionable.
WPS not commenting and stalling on this and other investigations..
… more to be added (see online)
And there is others.
Part of how the Winnipeg Police Service ended up in its current dismal state
Related news coverage:
News Release from MPI regarding the Pilot Program.
MPI said data analysis showed that more than half of the collisions at the top five intersections were rear-end collisions
Reduce speed limits at high collision intersections: Professor
This professor’s education and experience has nothing to do with traffic engineering and he claims to know what he is talking about. MPIC paying him as well?
5 worst Winnipeg intersections for crashes
Top 10 worst intersections for collisions in Winnipeg: MPI
MPI lists 5 most dangerous intersections
Public awareness campaign launched to crack down on crashes
Winnipeg council to study city’s high-collision intersections:
Winnipeg’s four-second amber lights here to stay: Committee
Attempted coverup of dangerously $hort 4 sec amber time
‘Militarizing police’: Winnipeg buys $343K armoured vehicle for officers
Layoffs loom as Winnipeg’s mayor, police board disagree on budget
Fri Mar 11 2016
The police board is asking city council to cover a $2.45 million shortfall, while the mayor says they have already been given plenty to spend
He said this year’s budget includes a $16.7-million increase to the police’s budget, which he adds has risen by 80 per cent over the past decade, which is “unsustainable.”
Winnipeg Police Board requests $3.7M from city to cover pension liability
Sept 9 2016
They asking for this after they already denied xx Millions more earlier this year and only given x Million. They had already bought a 365k miliatary armored vehicle we couldn’t afford. Then wasted 200k they didn’t have on advanced rifles for officers when many already have a second firearm in their vehicle and other waste.
Police board finance chair Derek Johannson said that overtime costs contributed to the pension liability. He said the pension burden is exacerbated when officers nearing retirement rack up overtime hours.
(some officers allowed to transfer to traffic unit or wait till end of shift to arrest criminals at known location to rack up OT processing them. This should not be permitted and if needed time in lieu like most civil servants).
$____k for WPS to enforce 30k School Zones artificially reduced by the Province and City Council even thought a engineering study from Edmonton said reduction to 30k did not improve safety, was not needed if properly sign posted and only gave a false sense of safety to pedestrians . The only info the Province and City Council relied on for their decision was from CAA doing single day visual observations which had no accident or injuries. They ignored CAA and Engineers recommendations for flashing lights only when kids preset and Engineers call for safe and efficient speed limits. These engineers and the national standards they rely on are certified and regulated to improve public safety as well as efficient traffic flow which just one way proven to improve safety.
MPI is giving police across the province more money, to put more marked and unmarked cars on the street. The cash will cover overtime for officers who are doing speed enforcement. 1800 tickets in reduced 30k zones in 2016 so far.
The following documents show they spent $50k per year over 4 years for driver or youth student education but spent over $800k in one year on officer enforcement.
It is a requirement that MPIC refund if there is a surplus but they are wasting and misusing $100’s of Millions and the PUB is ignoring or not trying hard enough to enforce fiscal restraint and accountability.
What can be done about this?
We have to work collectively to put pressure on the Minister responsible for Crown Corps including MPIC and PUB and the critics for these plus our MLA’s., the Premier, the Mayor, our Councillors and demand these public safety and misuse of funds issues be addressed. That our taxes, fees and valuable police resources be used fairly, lawfully and efficiently.
If you want to voice your concern ask what is going to be done about this you can contact:
Honourable Ron Schuler
Minister of Crown Services
Phone: (204) 945-8020, Fax: (204) 948-7700
Contact the critic for the Minister of Crown Services in Parliament
Contact the Chair and if needed members in the
STANDING COMMITTEE FOR CROWN CORPORATIONS
You can ask your MLA to raise a Grievance when Parliament in session.
Once in each session, each MLA is allowed to raise a grievance. There is no restriction on the subject matter of the grievance. Each grievance is limited to 10 minutes, but there is no limit on the number of grievances raised on one day.
Much more details on where your Autopac and License fees are going:
This is just some of the info from the following document linked below.
CAC (MPI) – Public Utilities Board – Government of Manitoba – Info requests…
Based on 2014
MPIC paid police to do enforcement:
$60k – School Zones
$500k – Distracted driving
Another concerning fact is they do not appear to want to invest as much in Driver Eduction and Training.
For example this report only lists approx 50k per year over 4 yrs in education directed at high school kids about the impacts of impaired driving.
Investing in proper education proven to positively change behavior so why not spend more on education and less on enforcement with high paid and trained officers especially with serious crime rates the one of the highest in Canada as per WPS reports as well as OT, Salaries, Benefits and Pension way above Canadian police service averages.
MPIC Employee compensation and benefits:
5.57 FTE Staff to 1 FTE Mgr
About 1,887 employees during 2014. They list compensation of the 1,275 that made over $50k. Total compensation includes regular salary, taxable benefits, retiring allowances, retroactive pay, vacation pay and severance pay.
This before pension contributions (and OT?)
$337 million in pension liabilities in 2014
Just some of the higher paid positions:
Guimond, D, President & CEO
Vice President, Business Development, Communications & CPO
Martin, C, Vice President, Customer Service & COO
Kalinowsky, K General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
Exec Dir, Driver Safety, DVA Admin & Registrar Motor Vehicle
Hallonquist, J Executive Director, Service Centre Operations
Director, Knowledge Management Services
MPIC only sells vehicle insurance and licenses drivers in MB so what does it need a high paid Business Development VP and similar positions?
What do some of the other directors and managers do and do we really need that many of them. Not likely.
Just some of the other costs
Post Retirement Health Benefits Premiums:
21 Million – out of scope employees (?)
Special services expenses are increasing by 26% from 2014/15 to 2015/16 and 20% from 2015/16 to 2016/17. Corporate special service expenses are increasing substantially from
$6.9 million in 2014/15 to $8.7 million in 2015/16 to $10.4 million in 2016/17.
We have info from FIPPA requests related to this and other abuse to share as well but still sifting through some of it. So far it is pretty clear there was actions being taken that were not improving safety and actually putting the public at risk. There has to be consequences for this and action taken to prevent this. We are submitting complaints with the Ombudsman for some of the records or information that was redacted, severed or removed without just reasons. Stay tuned! #WiseUpWinnipeg
This and related abuse proves we need to demand our MLA’s amend the HTA and other legislation to:
– Require following engineering standards and ban traffic enforcement at any deficient location
– Require harsher consequences for abuse of the public, public funds and putting the public at risk including retroactive penalties, funds recovered from their pensions and banning from ever serving the public in any capacity other than volunteer stray garbage pickup and other community service.
Then OUR Mayor Brian Bowman, Public Works chair Counc. Janice Lukes, Police Board chair Counc. Scott Gilligham, COO Michael Jack and others at City Hall will have to stop ignoring these serious issues and stop ignoring their own engineers other than Luis Escobar (said 4 sec amber is here to stay and other $afety decisions even after APEGM complaints panel found him guilty before it was covered up). They will be forced to correct the long list of deficiencies that have been repeatedly brought to their attention and stop creating or ignoring them. Then the violation epidemic, photo enforcement, back log of up to 2 year or more in traffic court; crown bribing accused with half off fine to change plea, lying or misleading and other issues will go away immediately.
Then we demand people with unfair and unlawful tickets get refunded, MPIC demerits removed and penalties refunded.
Then we will have safer roads, safe and efficient traffic flow and a bunch of happy campers except former WP$ officers and senior staff whoes greed lead them to abuse the public and system to fill their pockets and pad their pensions are looking for work and no one will hire them except as glorified security guards if that. Our senior officials that allowed all this to happen or ignore it either in jail or begging for a job in the private sector.
For other recommendations to address serious crime, huge net debt and interest and their social and economic impacts and other serious issues see links below for proper use of public funds and resources …
CAC (MPI) – Public Utilities Board – Government of Manitoba
Information Requests – Round 1
CAC (MPI) 1-1
Jul 31, 2015
Other sources available on request and will be added in a future update
To share this post:
MPIC diverting Millions to Police for $afety initiatives most of which are a waste and actually putting the public at risk – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-og
Links to related info:
Enough is enough with the out of control spending and abuse of the public and public funds by WPS and MPIC with the blessing of Senior people at the City of Winnipeg and Province of Manitoba – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-ox
WPS budget needs to be reined in and a detailed analysis of Fraser Institute study “Police and Crime Rates in Canada” and related facts – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-nV
Warming many School Zones get artificially lowered again to 30k Sept 1st and why you should be concerned. – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-nw
Warming many School Zones get artificially lowered again to 30k Sept 1st and why you should be concerned – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-nw
*** Important update for WiseUpWinnipeg members and the General Public about previously reported abuse of our Charter Rights, our Justice System and worse ***
It is way past due for a major overhaul at City hall! – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-m5
Public Safety and Proper use of Public Funds at City of Winnipeg – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-e6
Accidents, Violations, Demerits, Fine and Penalty amounts trending up since Winnipeg Photo Enforcement (PE) started in 2003 which contrary to primary goals and grounds for termination by Province
The following has been trending up since 2003 when Photo Enforcement (PE) Provincial legislation and City bylaws and agreements amended or created without due diligence by relying on stats and information they did not verify were independent, accurate, complete and true.
Disrespect in police and government
Revenue down initially due to less tickets than expected but then tickets trended up but at cost to taxpayers due to Police Salaries; OT, Pension and benefits, court costs etc… trending up.
City Audit report of PE in 2005-2006 confirmed the stats and info relied upon were false and misleading and that the procurement process was not followed.
The Pilot study was conducted by the same company that got the sole source contract (ACS / Lockheed Martin (since acquired by Xerox who are now spinning it off to avoid fall out from Executives being convicted of Fraud and others being investigated). The entire safety camera industry is imploding from similar issues.
It also confirmed the primary goal of increasing public safety was not achieved (once again due to incomplete and inaccurate stats) and the secondary goal of revenue to supplement City budget challenges was less than forcasted unless due do less violations that forcasted (i.e. safe drivers).
There is overwhelming evidence they then stepped up agressively targeting engineering deficiencies and other unfair and unlawful tactics to make up for this. This wasn’t enough so they created more deficiencies and used more false and misleading info to expand the program and stepped up WPS officer enforcement including asking officers to volunteer for OT to do Project Drive (FIPPA) and others since than.
Photo Enforcement Program Review Final Report February 2006
Audit Department Leaders in building public trust in civic government
Summary below but full report here:
The City launched the Photo Enforcement Program in late 2002, pursuant to an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act.
The primary intent of the new legislation is to improve traffic safety through reduction of red light running and speeding violations and collisions and injuries associated with these high risk driving behaviours. While enhanced safety is the primary goal of the program, projections made at the launch of the program suggested that it would also help to address the City’s budget challenges. Significant revenues were projected – over the first five years of operation, gross revenues were projected to exceed $95 million with net revenues expected to exceed $65 million. The actual revenues realized to date have been significantly less than projected.
In launching the program, we found that a lack of due diligence in the procurement process led to misleading and unsubstantiated information going forward to the Award Authority, City Council. The WPS Contract Administrator did not identify and address all significant risks associated with the procurement process.
MPIC is contributing to false and misleading information (Safety Propaganda)
This being used to advance their and ACS / Xerox, WPS, CoW and Province’s hidden agenda of unlawful taxation as fines and penalties. MPIC even funding (sponsoring) 3rd party institutions that provided WPS “independent” studies (paid for by more public funds) that are filled with more false and misleading stats and info. What little honest info was in there was recommendations that have been ignored including looking into cause of 50% increase in rear end collisions.
Research that is relied on for public safety decisions should be completely independent of 3r parties. This is usually secondary education institutions or other well respected institutions that have conflict of interest policies that are enforced.
WPS photo enforcement site is filled with false or misleading info (Safety Propaganda) the same as was provided by ACS Photo Enforcement partner that City Audit even said was false and misleading but Senior people at WPS, City Hall and the Province ignored other than include more MPIC data but it still incomplete and not presented accurately or independently verified.
Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF)
The study concluded that there was a slight reduction in the rare right angle collisions but it said there was not enough data to come to proper conclusions and recommended more data be included (i.e. the data WPS provided was limited and missed some of the information from MPIC). Also not all crashes reported to police. No study done since then to confirm the slight reduction in right angle crashes. Other indepependent and verified studies have been done and found no improvement and and only an increase in collisions and engineering changes are all that are needed to improve safety . See study details below.
The WPS & MPIC funded study also found a 42% increase in rear end crashes. That this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education.
However, the evidence then also suggests there was a 25% increase in rear end crashes at other intersections in Winnipeg without cameras. Again, this would suggest mitigating strategies are required to combat these negative side effects, not only in the vicinity of camera intersections, but throughout the entire city of Winnipeg. Further monitoring will be required. WPS, City Hall and Province ignored.
However, the data also suggest that photo enforcement may be less effective in preventing serious speeding violations.
Unfortunately, due to limitations of the data it was not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of these mobile radar cameras.
Conduct further research into infrastructure and engineering differences between
It is recommended that efforts are made to improve data collection.
All these recommendations ignored.
MPIC benefits from increased revenue from demerits assigned after police enforcement tickets issued and even funds police for enforcement which is a conflict of interest. It should focus on driver training and education not enforcement.
There is also concern that MPIC funding / sponsoring TIRF many have influence the studies results.
TIRF website lists Sponsors:
– Platinum Sponsor – SGI (Sask Public Insurance)
– Gold – MPIC
SGI & WPS partners with ACS Photo Enforcement and they as well as MPIC benefit from revenue directly from unfair and unlawful taxation as fines or penalties.
Example of unbiased and detailed engineering study and conclusions on how to address and increase in rare right angle crashes and more common rear end collisions and other collisions at intersections.
Longer Yellows Reduce Crashes (Texas Transportation Institute)
The Texas Transportation Institute shows that engineering improvements are an effective alternative to cameras.
The objective of a red-light-running treatment program should be the reduction of red-light related crashes (as opposed to red-light violations). Countermeasures that reduce red-light-related crashes will likely also reduce violations.
The identification of intersections with the potential for safety improvement (i.e., “problem” locations) should be based on an evaluation of individual intersection approaches.
Any treatment of a problem intersection approach should be intended to return the approach’s expected crash frequency to a level that is consistent with that of the typical approach. The implementation of countermeasures with the intent to reduce crashes below that of the typical approach represents “over treatment.” Over treatment is not likely to be cost-effective.
Treatment programs for locations with red-light-related problems should follow a sequential process that includes the following steps:
1. Conduct an engineering study to confirm the nature and extent of the problem.
2. Identify and implement viable enforcement countermeasures.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented countermeasures.
4. If red-light-related problems still exist, consider implementation and evaluation of additional (or other) engineering countermeasures until all viable countermeasures have been tried.
5. If red-light-related problems still exist, consider the implementation of an officer enforcement program that targets intersection traffic control violations and includes a public awareness campaign.
6. If officer enforcement is determined to be unsuccessful or ineffective, then camera enforcement can be considered. If camera enforcement is implemented, it should be accompanied by a public awareness campaign. Also, rear-end crashes should be monitored and remedial action taken if a sustained increase in rear-end crashes is observed.
In general, countermeasure selection to address a problem location should be based on a comprehensive engineering study of traffic conditions, traffic control device visibility, crash history, and intersection sight distance. The findings from the engineering analysis can then be used with the procedure outlined in Figure 5-6 to determine the most viable set of countermeasures.
Title: Development of Guidelines for Identifying and Treating Locations with a Red-Light-Running Problem
Report No.: FHWA/TX-05/0-4196-2
Author(s): James Bonneson and Karl Zimmerman
Publisher: Texas A&M University. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
College Station, Texas
Format: Monograph, 1 volume
Study Sponsor: Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
i.e. not influenced by ACS or Redflex or other 3rd party for profit Photo Enforcement vendors or one of their lobby groups or private or public insurance providers that can benefit from demerits and license and insurance penalties assigned after unfair or unlawful Officer or red light or speed camera tickets.
Full-text Link: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4196-2.pdf
The problem of red-light-running is widespread and growing; its cost to society is significant. However, the literature is void of quantitative guidelines that can be used to identify and treat problem locations. Moreover, there has been concern voiced over the validity of various methods used to identify problem locations, especially when automated enforcement is being considered. The objectives of this research project were to: (1) quantify the safety impact of red-light-running at intersections in Texas, and (2) provide guidelines for identifying truly problem intersections and whether enforcement or engineering countermeasures are appropriate.
This report documents the work performed and conclusions reached as a result of a two-year research project. During the first year, the researchers determined that about 37,700 red-light-related crashes occur each year in Texas. Of this number, 121 crashes are fatal. These crashes have a societal cost to Texans of about $2.0 billion dollars annually. During the second year, red-light-related crash and violation prediction models were developed. These models were used to quantify the effect of various intersection features on crash and violation frequency.
The insights obtained were used to identify effective engineering countermeasures. The models were also used to quantify the effectiveness of officer enforcement. Procedures were developed to identify and rank problem locations. The models and procedures were incorporated in a Red-Light-Running Handbook that is intended to serve as a guide to help engineers reduce red-light-related crashes.
Study Number: TxDOT Research Project 0-4196 >>
Study Title: Safety Impact of Red-Light-Running in Texas: Where is Enforcement Really Needed?
Study Sponsor: Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Lead University: TTI
A summary of the report from pro fact source: