Winnipeg Police Caught Manipulating Accident Data. Again.

by Robert Farago

Published: June 13th, 2009

winnipeg police caught manipulating accident data again

The Winnipeg, Canada, Police Service has been caught a second time underreporting the number of accidents at red light camera intersections in order to make the lucrative program appear effective. The Winnipeg City Auditor was first to note the police tactic in a 2006 audit report. This week, the Winnipeg Sun found the police are still using the same technique to protect a program which generated $14,086,804 CAD in revenue for 2008.

According to the 2008 Photo Enforcement Program Annual Report, accidents went from 161 in 2002 — before cameras were installed — to 101 in 2007, an impressive 37.3 percent reduction. The figures considered the first twelve locations where red light cameras were installed. The Sun obtained data from the monopoly provider of insurance cover, Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI), and found the real accident figure for 2007 was 168, not 101. According to the more reliable MPI data, accidents increased significantly year after year since 2002, only dropping in 2007 as traffic volumes just began a sharp decline.

Officials frequently dismiss such increases by claiming only the number of insignificant “fender benders” changed. The 2006 audit report included data proving the greatest increase in accidents actually occurred in the most serious category of collisions.

Winnipeg is not the first police agency to be caught fudging photo enforcement figures. In 2006, the UK Statistics Commission, an independent government agency, issued a statement condemning what it called the “known undercounting of road accidents in police statistics.”

The board had been following research published in the British Medical Journal that showed a significant discrepancy between actual hospital records and injury statistics provided by police agencies that were being used to report a similar 30 percent reduction in serious injury accidents where speed cameras were used. The hospital data showed a slight increase in the number of injuries.

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 11 comments

Aloysius Vampa on Jun 14, 2009

This kind of stuff really makes my blood boil.

Like Reply
JohnHowardOxley on Jun 14, 2009

@ ConspicuousLurker Yes, this is the thin edge of the wedge towards something close to total social dissolution. When the agents of the state are regarded as positively inimical by the general populace, one suspects that some very bad things are in store, indeed.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.