City of Winnipeg and WPS failing to meet the Conditions of Authority from the Province for the Photo Enforcement Program

wp-image-1201966939jpg.jpg
Oct 16 2017 – Kevin Yaworski – WiseUpWinnipeg http://wp.me/p1fJaD-1a2
The City of Winnipeg and WPS have failed every year since 2003 to meet the Conditions of Authority set out by the Province of Manitoba for the Photo Enforcement Program.
Here is a summary of the Conditions of Authority and related information.
They have failed every year on almost all counts and have not followed the most important recommendations in the following City Audit. This is grounds for the program to be terminated at cost to the City.

They also ignored the few proper recommendations in the following “study” by TIRF in 2011 for WPS / CoW that was used to expand Photo Enforcement.

The Province has also failed to enforce these conditions and are continuing to to take 50% of the apparent revenue. In the big picture this and related abuse on the road and in the court room to say the lease is having enormous costs and impacts to taxpayers, society and the economy.

Find details of of a proper study of red light cameras and the findings below.

If you want the program terminated for not meeting these requirement or to help reform it and related enforcement programs so they are being operated as legislators intended visit http://www.wiseupwinnipeg.com and join the discussions on our Facebook group at WiseUpWinnipeg

<!–more

–>

Original Conditions of Authority

The legislation still require most of this and the City and WPS have failed to meet these conditions every year since 2003. The safety improvement “stats” provided are only for stationary not mobile and are incomplete, false and misleading. Every time we have included the complete data from MPIC, WPS and PWD plus correlated it is clear there is actually a reduction in safety.

The Province and MPIC are ignoring these conditions and actually supporting this unfair and unlawful enforcement. They turning a blind eye to dangerous misengineering and the resulting increase in accidents and injuries in return for their share of the apparent $afety revenue. In the big picture this only benefiting the few at the expense of the many, more focus on serious crime, society and the economy.

Now they want to add more unneccessary legislation, lower speed limits against engineering recommendations and expand automate enforcement. They are not enforcing these conditions, required signage, national engineering standards, charter and other legal rights and are not adding any transparency or accountability.

Province of Manitoba, City of Winnipeg and MPIC supporting Toward Zero / Vision Zero Strategy – What this really means

City of Winnipeg Audit report of PE from 2005-2006

This audit confirmed the stats and info relied upon initially and while operating were false and misleading and that the procurement process was not followed.
The Pilot study was conducted by the same Corporation that received what equated to a sole source contract (ACS / Lockheed Martin (since acquired by Xerox who have now spun it off to Conduent to avoid fall out from executives and public officials being convicted of bribery and related crimes and others being investigated). The entire safety camera industry is imploding from similar issues.

The complete data also confirms the primary goal of improving safety was and is not being achieved. This confirms incomplete and inaccurate stats also used to mislead officials for the secondary goal of revenue to supplement City budgeting challenges. It was less than forcasted due to less violations (i.e. safe drivers).

There is overwhelming evidence they then stepped up aggressive targeting of 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. Their own stats indicate an large upward trend in violations.

Photo Enforcement Program Review Final Report February 2006
Audit Department Leaders in building public trust in civic government

Summary of this audit below and the full report here:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/audit/pdfs/reports/photo_enforcement.pdf

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.

We suggested that the City attempt to negotiate a reduction in future contract costs. We also made other recommendations to improve operational and financial management of the program. With respect to performance reporting, we suggested that the WPS continue to work with the Province to obtain better data and to place more effort on analyzing data that is available.

Summary of the Conditions of Authority:

————

The primary goal of the Photo Enforcement Program is to enhance safety.

In the shorter-term, an outcome could be lower speeds at monitored sites. In the mid-term, speeds may be lower across the City as drivers change their behaviour. The longer term anticipated outcome of the Photo Enforcement Program is a reduction in serious collisions and injuries.

The assumption is that an overall reduction in speeding and red light running will lead to the desired long-term outcome. We would not expect a program of this scope to achieve its long-term objectives for several years. We would expect, however, data to be collected and analyzed, trends identified and evaluated, and progress to be measured and reported on as the program matures.

Annual Report to the Province

Under the Conditions of Authority agreement with the Province, the City is required to submit an annual report by April 1st of each year outlining the status and effectiveness of the Photo Enforcement Program.

The WPS report must contain information on the following:

(a) Amount of surplus fine revenue derived from the use of photo enforcement, and the specific purposes for which the surplus revenue has been used.

(b) Effectiveness of photo enforcement initiatives:

Program Outputs

• locations of units

• deployment criterion

• hours of operation

• number of offences

• number of not guilty pleas, acquittals or stays, and convictions

• number of offence notices issued for speeding and red light violations detected by conventional means

• all public awareness initiatives

Program Outcomes

• a controlled study evaluating the impact of photo enforcement on speed and red light violations including average speeds at locations with and without photo enforcement

• 85th percentile speeds at both (speed at which 85% of traffic is travelling at or below)

• proportion of speeding vehicles by speed range

• speed adjustments resulting from the analysis of data arising from photo enforcement activities

• an analysis of the effect of the photo enforcement on traffic safety including annual statistics and year to year variance in traffic collisions, traffic injuries and collision severity

———–

More details on the regulations for Photo Enforcement:

https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/current/_pdf-regs.php?reg=220/2002

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.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/police/safestreets/stats.stm

Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF)

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/project_show.php?pid=13

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/WinnipegPhotoEnf-FinalReport-12.pdf

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
intersections.

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.

http://tirf.ca/sponsors/index.html

Much more details of this and related here including link to proper safety study of photo enforcement by an independent and trustworthy academic institute with verified results.

MPIC diverting Millions to Police for $afety initiatives most of which are a waste and actually putting the public at risk

https://yaworski.net/2016/09/10/mpic-diverting-millions-to-police-for-safety-initiatives-most-of-which-are-a-waste-and-actually-putting-the-public-at-risk/

Example of unbiased and detailed engineering study and conclusions on how to address an 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

2004 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

Summary: 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 Above Summary obtained from: Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Website

A summary of the report from pro fact source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp

About Kevin Yaworski

I use my blog to write about things I find interesting or that I think are matter of public interest.
This entry was posted in justice, News and politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to City of Winnipeg and WPS failing to meet the Conditions of Authority from the Province for the Photo Enforcement Program

  1. Pingback: Province of Manitoba, City of Winnipeg and MPIC supporting Toward Zero / Vision Zero Strategy – What this really means | Whats Up

  2. Pingback: Reopening Portage and Main and more important matters including “Studies”, “Reports” and “Stats” | Whats Up

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s