The Majority Favors Speed Cameras?

At the recent Arizona House of Representatives hearing on HB 2106, a bill that would ban speed cameras along state highways, there were surprisingly few proponents in attendance. With a single exception, every citizen addressing the committee objected to the cameras. Support came exclusively from state and local government flacks, law enforcement brass and the vendors that hold these lucrative contracts.

This begs the question: If hardly anyone at the public hearing seemed to be in favor of the cameras, why do opinion polls consistently say that at least 70 percent of Phoenix-area residents support the cameras? In the six years I've lived in Phoenix, I have yet to meet anyone who's an enthusiastic supporter. I've met a few who were, at best, ambivalent. So precisely where does this elusive majority hang out? After several weeks spent poring over documents, some obtained after filing Open Records Act requests, it appears the explanation lies in the polls themselves.

The reality of public opinion polls is that they're not done for the public good. A poll is commissioned by a person or group that wants to gather useful information or, more often, to promote an issue, policy or cause. In a political race, a candidate will have a survey conducted that shows them as the best candidate and most favored by the electorate. It works the same way in corporate America. If a company wants support for a controversial agenda that is purportedly in the public interest, it has pollsters do a survey that shows strong public acceptance of it.

American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the giant photo enforcement vendor that holds the contracts for many of the metro Phoenix municipalities, has a history of producing opinion polls showing lopsided support for its speed cameras. So it came as no surprise that ATS issued a new survey less than 24 hours after the January 2009 Arizona statehouse hearing had concluded. As before, it showed strong public support for photo enforcement. But are these polls accurate?

To find out, I analyzed each of ATS' Arizona surveys on photo enforcement, beginning with their first, issued in 1996. At that time an ATS customer, the city of Scottsdale, was about to become the first in Arizona to begin implementation of what would become a citywide photo enforcement program, christened Focus on Safety. Prior to rolling out the program, from city records it's apparent that the city had studied a how-to document provided by the federal government to promote photo enforcement.

The Federal Highway Administration is clear about its enthusiasm for photo enforcement. "FHWA is promoting red light cameras as one of its identified priority, market-ready safety technologies" its mission statement reads in part. For cities like Scottsdale, the FHWA document is a step-by-step blueprint for establishing a successful photo enforcement program. Among its key recommendations:

• "[Establish] public awareness and educational outreach efforts... targeting employers, schools, driver education programs, and local community groups, as well as the media...


• Reports of program results, emphasizing the achieved safety benefits, should be available and posted on the program web site and local newspapers.


• The campaign should employ various communications media designed to reach residents and commuters, including regular surveys to gauge public support and awareness, and should focus on a central message of improving traffic safety.


• An example of a safety message is to emphasize that red light camera systems can be applied as an effective tool to reduce collisions resulting from red light running."

Scottsdale appeared to dutifully follow these guidelines, including the generation of public opinion surveys as evidence of citizen support for its cameras. But there were risks. If a straight-up poll were conducted by an experienced, competent and ethical public-opinion survey firm, there was no guarantee it would generate favorable results.

For assistance with this vexing issue Scottsdale city officials turned to their photo enforcement vendor, American Traffic Solutions. The Scottsdale-headquartered firm had just signed the first of several contracts with Scottsdale and stood to make millions from Focus on Safety. As is customary in the photo enforcement industry, ATS would provide everything--vehicles, cameras, operators, film, forms, paperclips--plus installation and maintenance of the cameras. They would also handle the program's back-office tasks--comparing license plates to state DMV records to get a name, generating the citations, mailing them and tracking payments, including the dispatching of process servers when registered owners didn't promptly remit the fines. In return they would be paid a monthly fee for services and equipment plus a healthy cut of the take. Financial acumen isn't required to guess that ATS was keen for public opinion surveys to show strong support for this extremely lucrative program.

"Three key criteria influencing the accuracy of a poll are how the questions are worded, the order in which they're asked and the number and form of alternate answers."

ATS hired Behavior Research Center (BRC), a Phoenix public opinion survey company whose client list also includes the city of Scottsdale and other municipalities with photo enforcement programs. The BRC report was submitted that May and widely quoted by Scottsdale as justification for its photo enforcement program. The 1996 poll results make for an interesting read.

Among the report's findings:

• "Over 80 percent classify [speeding] as 'serious' or 'very serious' problems. Belief that stricter traffic law enforcement would reduce the number of speeders, drunk drivers, and red light runners registers among 70 to 80 percent of the public, and 62 percent foresee a lower risk of being involved in a traffic accident with stricter law enforcement."


• "Sixty to 77 percent believe photo radar use in Scottsdale could help reduce speeding, red light running, and improve traffic safety."


• "A majority of the driving public in Scottsdale support [sic] photo radar as a traffic safety program."

Impressive numbers to be sure. An analysis of the survey shows how these numbers were conjured up.

According to "20 Questions a Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results" by Gawiser and Witt, three key criteria influencing the accuracy of a poll are how the questions are worded, the order in which they're asked and the number and form of alternate answers. They should be fair and unbiased, presenting a balanced set of choices. And they should be asked in an order that does not influence the response.

For example, say the authors, "... during bad economic times if people are asked their opinion of the economy before they're asked their opinion of the president, the presidential popularity rating will probably be lower than if you had reversed the order of the questions. In good economic times the opposite is true." In other words, the questions asked prior to the critical question can skew the results.

The BRC poll shows clear evidence of questions designed to elicit a particular response. And the order in which they are asked is highly suspect. For example, the first question asked:

"As you know, Scottsdale has grown rapidly in the past few decades and this has resulted in a growth in automobile and truck traffic in the community. In general, would you say each of the following are [sic] very serious, serious or not serious problems in Scottsdale these days:

• Drivers who exceed the speed limit
• Risk of being involved in a traffic accident
• Drivers who run red lights
• Young people who drive recklessly
• Drunk drivers"

Not surprisingly, 83 percent of respondents felt these were serious or very serious problems.

Having identified the "problem"—speeding, reckless driving, red light running and accidents—people next were asked if:

"...stricter enforcement of traffic laws in Scottsdale would reduce or not reduce [the problem]".

An average of 73 percent agreed it would help.

The next survey question asked if the people were aware of "photo radar or radar speed cameras". Those who responded in the affirmative were asked:

"In general do you support or oppose this traffic safety program (photo radar/radar speed cameras)?" [boldface added].

Here photo radar and speed cameras are presented as ways to enhance traffic safety and reduce the problem. And by linking traffic safety with speed cameras, people opposed to speed cameras would also be opposing traffic safety, something few socially conscious adults would seem anxious to do. Fifty-five percent said they would support speed cameras—and traffic safety.

Any of these shenanigans would qualify this survey as a self-serving promotion of photo enforcement, made to appear as a scientifically-conducted public opinion poll. But it was to be the first of many such surveys by BRC for its clients, photo enforcement vendors—ATS and Redflex—and the city of Scottsdale.

Scottsdale apparently wasn't satisfied with the survey's reported 55 percent approval rate for photo enforcement. To remedy the situation, it rolled out a massive publicity campaign, feeding stories to a compliant media which also generated editorials and op-ed pieces, nearly all of them favorable. The sole major local daily paper, the Arizona Republic, quickly took up the cause, printing editorials in support.

"Not surprisingly, hardly any of the respondents were in favor of more collisions."

At the same time, Scottsdale blanketed residents with promotional flyers included with water bills; it bought ad space on theater screens; distributed posters, and promoted its photo enforcement program through radio drive-time traffic reports, police department demonstrations and other forums.

After the media blitz, BRC gave the 1997 survey a tune-up. Two important new questions were added. As before, the pollsters first established the problem—speeding, red light running, collisions—and presented the solution: photo enforcement. But then the people were asked:

"As you may know, studies by the city of Scottsdale show that collisions are down by 4% citywide and 20% where photo radar or red light cameras are in use. In light of this, are you more favorable towards the use of photo radar and red light cameras?"

This is a statement masquerading as a question. And it clearly is intended to elicit a favorable response. Not surprisingly, hardly any of the respondents were in favor of more collisions. For this question the approval rate for photo enforcement soared to an average of 92.5 percent.

That "question" was followed by this one:

"Statistics show that 35% of collisions are due to speeding and 6% of collisions are due to the running of red lights. In light of this, are you more favorable or less favorable towards photo radar and red light cameras?"

Another home run. Predictably, a big majority said they looked favorably toward less speeding and fewer collisions—and by default they looked favorably toward photo enforcement.

This 1997 ATS/BRC poll reported a 75 percent approval rate for photo enforcement. The new format was so successful it was repeated nearly every year, unchanged, until 2006, often paid for by ATS and Redflex (the other dominant photo enforcement company and which assumed the Scottsdale contract from ATS) and distributed by Scottsdale. It reliably returned the same high approval rate each year.

The BRC poll would receive another tune-up in 2006. It was fortified with additional leading questions and tailored to show overwhelming support for the city's campaign to install speed cameras on Loop 101. Those survey results have been passed around the world by the city of Scottsdale and the State as proof that the public, by a two-thirds majority, approves of photo enforcement. It's the justification for the statewide DPS photo enforcement program and is being used by municipalities around the country for the same purpose.

In the January 2009 ATS poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, (POS) the results say that 63 percent of the state's citizens support the continued use of speed cameras on state highways. Some 69 percent supported the use of cameras by local police and 84 percent favored red light cameras. But this poll seems to have all of the bias and fatal errors as those conducted by BRC, plus some new ones.

Picking the poll group "... is the bedrock of mathematical reality," according to Gawiser and Witt. "When the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population."

There are some curious anomalies in the POS survey's group:

• It was restricted to registered voters aged 18 and older.


• There was no requirement that the person be a licensed driver.


• Females outnumbered males 52 percent to 48 percent


• The 18-24 age group was smaller than actual


• The over-55 age group was larger than actual

Age Group Size: ATS Opinion Poll Group vs. U.S. Census Arizona Statistics (2000)
	ATS/POS Survey Group	U.S. Census	Variance from actual	Group Characteristics
Male	48%	49.9%	- 4%	Most likely to be opposed
Female	52%	50.1	+4%	Most likely to be in favor
18-24	7%	9%	-23%	Most likely to be opposed
25-34	16%	14.5%	+10%
35-44	22%	15%	+46%
45-54	17%	12.2%	+39%
55+	37%	21.7%	+70%	Highest pct. in favor

By limiting the group to people registered to vote in Arizona, the size of the age groups was altered. Using voter registration as a qualifier was done, said POS partner Lori Weigel, to give lawmakers feedback on what their constituents are thinking and to provide city officials contemplating photo enforcement a sense of the electorate's feeling on the subject. (As noted earlier, those who commission opinion polls always have an agenda.)

Women are most in favor of speed cameras while men are most opposed. Inflating the number of females in the group by four percent and decreasing the percentage of males by the same percentage skewed the results in favor of those approving of cameras. And a consequence of the registered-voter requirement was a further variance between the group's demographics and those of Arizona as a whole. "If you look at census numbers, the size [of the 18 to 24-year-old group] is going to be somewhat lower," Ms. Weigel said.

In the POS group seven percent of the people were age 18 to 24 and 37 percent were age 55 and older. Yet the most recent U.S. Census report shows that 18-24 year-olds account for nine percent of all Arizonans and those 55 and older account for only 21.7 percent.

Altering the size of these two groups would have affected the results. That's because previous Arizona polls taken on this subject—whose groups included only licensed drivers and which didn't require voter registration—have reported that only about 14 percent of drivers aged 24 and younger approve of photo enforcement while drivers 55 and older are the most supportive, averaging 76 percent.

By under-representing the 18-24 group by 23 percent and over-representing the 55-up group by 70 percent the approval rate was artificially inflated.

The POS poll followed the same four-step format as the BRC polls:

• Identify the problem: red light running, speeding, drunk drivers


• Present a solution: photo enforcement


• Inform the person that photo enforcement lowers accidents and fatalities, increases traffic safety and saves tax money.


• Ask if they approve or disapprove of photo enforcement.

To achieve the last two steps, POS took a highly unorthodox approach. First, three questions asked opinions on whether "... the Department of Public Safety should or should NOT continue to use speed cameras to ticket drivers who exceed the speed limit by eleven miles per hour or more?"

The next two questions asked whether local police should continue to use speed cameras to cite drivers for 11 mph over the limit and whether they should continue to use red light cameras.



I asked Ms. Weigel about inclusion of the stipulation that speeding tickets be issued only for violations at 11 mph or more over the limit. Would the approval rate decrease if the 11 mph threshold hadn't been mentioned? "I would assume they would be lower on that," she agreed.

Then the survey's big question. The people were asked, "Which [of two statements] comes closest to your own opinion. Do you agree more with:

"People who support the use of speed cameras because they reduce the number of speeders and make Arizona's highways safer than just using police officers. Since the cameras were installed, collisions and fatalities have dropped significantly in the Phoenix area alone. Besides, photo enforcement uses no tax dollars. It's totally funded by violators.

(or do you agree more with...)

People who oppose the use of speed cameras because they say cameras are not here for safety. The cameras are there to generate revenue for the government. This is simply another tax on hard working Arizonans. Police officers should be the only ones authorized to issue traffic tickets. Besides, the use of cameras infringes on drivers' privacy and civil liberties."

The first statement presents as facts that speed cameras:


• Have been proven to reduce speeding, collisions and fatalities
• Have made Arizona highways safer
• Impose no tax burden on taxpayers
• Are funded by the violators

In the second statement opponents merely "say" or allege that:

• Speed cameras aren't about safety
• They are used to generate revenue for the government
• They're a tax on hard-working Arizonans
• They're an infringement on privacy and civil liberties"

Whom to identify with? Sixty-three percent weighed in on the side of reduced speeding, fewer deaths and collisions and safer highways—with no new taxes. Which would you choose?

An objective observer might conclude that the recent American Traffic Solutions poll suffers from the same lack of credibility as those before it. So the next time a public opinion poll is offered as supporting evidence, look beyond the results. There may well be some surprises.