The Kansas City Police Department recently completed a study of the city’s red light camera program, detailed in the Kansas City Star. The study’s focus? Whether red light cameras have improved safety on Kansas City streets since they were installed in January 2009. The conclusion? No.

Since January 2009, accidents increased at 11 of 17 monitored intersections, and fatal crashes increased at 13 of those locations. Kansas City is not the first to see this happen with its red light camera program. The Star interviewed University of Illinois at Chicago Assistant Professor Rajiv Shah, who studied a red light camera program in Chicago:

“I’d say [Kansas City’s results are] very consistent with what cities across America have found . . . There’s really not a hard connection between reducing accidents and red-light cameras.”

The results of this study should have red light camera proponents reevaluating their positions. As we have pointed out before, red light cameras have many problems: they invade privacy and create a constitutionally suspect presumption of guilt. They are also prone to mistake. Brenda Talent, executive director of the Show-Me Institute, was fined for a violation she did not commit in Kansas City last year, and 1,000 lucky drivers were falsely accused of running red lights in Arnold, Mo., just two weeks ago.

Not surprisingly, American Traffic Solutions, the company that runs the program, publicly criticized the police department’s findings. ATS identified weather patterns, impaired drivers, and cell phone usage as the cause for increased wrecks. In other words, ATS identified anything but the red light cameras, which the company receives $1.6 million a year to operate, as the culprit for the increased crashes.

Despite the police study, it is likely that camera proponents will not rest. The Star editorial focused on a study by city engineers that found a decrease in total violations at monitored intersections. The Star praised the decrease in violations and declared that “red light cameras are working in Kansas City.” Fewer people running red lights, maybe; but if more accidents are occurring at monitored intersections, it is a stretch to conclude that red light cameras improve safety just because total violations have dropped.

Much to the dismay of proponents like the Star, the police study just confirmed what we already knew. Red light cameras are not about public safety, they are about generating revenue through traffic enforcement. The program has been very lucrative in Kansas City. The police study reports that officers have written nearly 200,000 tickets at $100 per ticket — adding $20 million to the city coffers.

Just in time for holiday travel, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended banning the use of cell phones while driving. The news came when the NTSB completed its investigation of a tragic accident that occurred in Missouri in which two people died and another 38 were injured.

This provides the perfect narrative for what some might consider to be very compelling and policy-minded journalism: A tragedy has occurred and a cell phone was involved. Shouldn’t there be a law against that?

Consider this line from the New York Times’ series of articles on the subject: “With virtually every American owning a cellphone, distracted driving has become a threat on the nation’s roads.” Indeed, in September 2009, the newspaper wrote that it was time to crack down, saying that “…texting at the wheel is a national hazard that calls for a firm federal response.”

This weekend, I heard an interview on National Public Radio with Matt Richtel, the author of several Times articles regarding the dangers of cell phone use while driving, discussing whether he considered himself to be an advocate. Richtel provided the standard journalist line, saying that he just thinks it is important to ask tough questions.

Well, here are two more.

1. Traffic fatalities, crashes, accidents, etc. have declined dramatically. If driving is safer than ever, why is there such concern?

The argument I hear again and again (most recently when I sat in on Donnybrook) is that banning cell phones while driving is about safety. However, Missourinet reports that this year, traffic fatalities are headed for a 62-year low. The same trend is seen on the national level. Fatality, injury, and crash rates have all declined substantially since 1990.

If fatalities, crashes, and injuries are down, then I hardly think that we are experiencing a “national hazard” that warrants an outright ban on cell phone use while driving. Of course, there have been accidents where cell phones were clearly the cause. However, with traffic accidents and fatalities down during the same time period that cell phones became popular, cell phone use is clearly not as dangerous as some fear.

And, even if an action comes with a small amount of risk, that does not mean we should pass a law to ban it. In fact, driving with children in the car may be more distracting than those pesky cell phones. Should we ban driving with children? Are we in the midst of a national driving-with-children epidemic?

2. How could this possibly be enforced? And, do we really want to create another vague reason to stop and question citizens?

How on earth could a ban on cell phone use be enforced? Would a police officer be able to pull you over if you look down briefly while driving? How could the officer discern whether you are talking on a hands-free phone or merely singing along to the radio?

The New York Times should know better than to advocate for additional vague ways for police to stop and question individuals. After all, the Times did an excellent study of a “stop, question, and frisk” policing policy. The newspaper found that after a drastic decline in violent crimes in New York City, the number of stops the police made increased dramatically.

Knowing that police officers can sometimes abuse their ability to stop, question, search, and detain individuals, why would anyone advocate for more vague reasons to stop and question people? Driving dangerously is already illegal. What more do cell phone ban advocates need?

Indeed, the last thing I want to see after the passage of federal legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is another vague reason that police can use to stop and search citizens.

The solution is not to ban cell phones.

I do not condone texting while driving. I also am not a fan of eating while driving, or letting your adorable pet distract you while driving. Though it would make an excellent point and is legal, I do not recommend that you hold a banana to your ear and pretend to talk to it while driving.

I was in a nearly fatal car accident when my family first moved to Michigan. The culprit? Ice. Should driving in Michigan be banned from October through April? Obviously not. Instead, I support independent groups working to inform drivers about dangerous winter driving conditions. Similarly, efforts to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving may end up saving lives.

But an outright ban? It is an overreaction to a tragedy.

Over at the St. Louis Beacon, high-speed spending (and rail) enthusiast Rick Harnish is just flat-out misleading people to get his beloved waste-of-money concept going. Throughout the article, he keeps referring to trips between Saint Louis and Chicago taking 3, or perhaps down to 2, hours.

But the core of it is getting major cities within two or three hours of each other. So, St. Louis to Chicago within three hours — with completely new infrastructure the entire way, it’s possible you get it down under two.

But you know what? The entire project currently underway in Illinois is based on implementing a 4-hour trip each way (at best). We are spending billions to knock a little more than an hour off of the current Amtrak route, and supporters of it are intentionally downplaying that.

Later in the interview, Harnish gives a great little aside downplaying safety of cars and claiming, by insinuation, that trains are safer.

. . . if you believe that our strength and unique identity is tied to the ability to risk your life everyday in a car . . .

OK, so we risk our lives everyday in a car. Would we not risk them in a train? Now, I am not saying passenger trains are unsafe — they are indeed safe. But if you compare them to cars, there are more fatalities on passenger rail than in motor vehicles per passenger mile. According to the latest data, passenger cars have 0.9 fatalities and 83 injuries per 100 million passenger miles. Passenger rail has 2.9 fatalities and 1,226 injuries per 100 million passenger miles. So they are both safe, but let’s not pretend passenger rail is safer.

High-speed rail is to transportation policy what ethanol is to agriculture policy. They are both high-cost jokes designed to please limited constituent groups (corn farmers, unions, Keynesian economists) which would not exist if markets made these choices instead of politicians. (High-speed rail on the eastern seaboard may pass the market test, and thanks to John Combest for the link.)

Brazil: A land entailing natural wonders, a powerhouse economy, and sugar cane ethanol? Yes, that’s right. Ranked second in terms of production and first for exporting, Brazil has long been a pivotal mover and shaker in the global ethanol industry.

Together with the United States, Brazil produces nearly 88 percent of the world’s ethanol supply. However, Brazil uses sugar cane as a preferred alternative to corn in its ethanol production.

With an annual yield of nearly 370 million bushels of corn, many Missourians are deeply connected to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the industry were to dry up, thousands stand to suffer in the short run. Even so, could there be a sweeter alternative?

Well, quite literally, yes. The Brazilian sugar cane industry is said to be seven times more efficient than that of the United States, and less expensive, too — nearly 30 percent cheaper, in fact. Regardless, it appears that the federal government has little interest in the more viable Brazilian blend.

In order to offset a federal tax credit targeted to ethanol blending companies, the United States has levied a tariff on Brazil’s ethanol, perhaps as a way to keep the international market out while spurring on its own domestic product.

Current and past administrations have vowed to reduce foreign oil imports, claiming that we have become too dependent on them. So, why a virtual ban on Brazilian imports? If ethanol is federally promoted as a solution to the so-called national security issue of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, why wouldn’t cheap, clean-burning ethanol from friendly Brazil be satisfactory? If officials are serious in addressing this as a national security issue, they would invest in other forms of energy — namely, those which are not harmful to our country’s environment and well-being.

Thankfully, it appears that lawmakers might be making a move in a better direction. Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fathered an amendment that would slash government subsidies of the corn industry while also lifting the tariff. Unfortunately, Coburn’s amendments may never become actual laws. Nonetheless, the Senate has shown an ever-increasing readiness to bring ethanol subsidies to the curb.

So, is investing in the precarious, ever-expanding corn-based ethanol industry worth the higher food prices, loss of necessary agricultural groundwater, and increased pollution that result? Well, some would argue that the aforementioned are a small price to pay to support an industry. I contend the contrary. Surrounding Missouri’s ethanol industry, we have corn farmers benefiting from subsidies, cattle farmers suffering from feed shortages, and mandates that often require we burn at least 10 percent less-fuel-efficient ethanol in our cars.

When subsidies are involved, benefits for some lead to costs for others. So, who’s right? You be the judge.

In the second half of this short 1967 video about the first personal computer in Britain, the narrator describes how the owner’s son uses the computer to learn reading, writing, and mathematics. The owner, Rex Malik, imagines “a future world where children could be virtually educated by computer.” For all the praise of technology in education, this is still the basic model for technology in the classroom: The student receives information from the computer and sends back answers, but there is little in the way of interaction. This model works just fine for smart, driven students, but its appeal is fairly limited.

Now watch Salman Khan discuss his online Khan Academy at this year’s Technology Entertainment and Design (TED) conference:

Khan Academy gives students engaging instruction in an expanding number of subjects, right now primarily those in mathematics and economics, befitting Khan’s background as a hedge fund manager. Of course, this makes it easier for self-motivated students to teach themselves linear algebra, but I think the real innovation of Khan Academy is the way in which it can supplement more traditional courses.

Instead of receiving a lecture at school and working on problems by themselves at home, students using the Khan Academy can watch the lecture at home online and then work through the problems at school, where the teacher can work one on one with any students who are struggling with the material. Khan Academy’s mastery assessment software also makes it easier to identify who those students are and what particular topic they are struggling with, so the teacher can use his time most efficiently.

And it’s all free! Khan started developing these courses for his cousin and discovered that he had a knack for it. Now the Khan Academy is a nonprofit, where he works full time. Even with virtual schooling programs that are developed by for-profit companies, the fact that they can be used by millions of students simultaneously means that the per-pupil costs are extremely low. We need greater experimentation in our school systems to allow more innovations like Khan Academy to spring up and spread across the world.

Most of Missouri, including much of the Kansas City and Saint Louis metropolitan areas, are still covered in snow. The recent storms that swept through the region left many schools closed — even here, in the Saint Louis area, where the snow was not as bad as predicted. However, for any of the hundreds of Missouri students enrolled full time in one of the state’s virtual schools, their education can continue as scheduled (provided they still have power and Internet access, of course). Nor do they need to wait outside for the school bus in arctic temperatures. Full-time virtual schooling isn’t for everyone, but for self-motivated students who don’t like dealing with terrible weather conditions, it’s a viable alternative to traditional schools that deserves more attention.

Missourinet has the scoop on the recently installed requirements for licensure of private investigators in Missouri. I remember when the efforts to license that profession got going. I owned a firm that did a lot of process serving in the 1990s, and I attended some industry meetings at which the subject of licensing was discussed. (To be clear, I was never a private eye — not that there is anything wrong with being a private eye.)

All the standard justifications for licensing were used: Higher standards would be good for the industry, would lead to increased public respect, would bring more profits for current practitioners, etc. In most cases, for most industries, those reasons are totally bogus. In the case of private investigators, however, I can see some merit in licensure.

The lifeline of the private investigation industry is access to information. In the Internet age, information is all around us, but some of it is still restricted. Consider driver licensing or credit bureau information. Both of them are imperative to the investigation industry; they contain obvious key information needed for finding people, etc. If you allow some people access to that information, I can understand that you would want to know who has access to it and who is using it, in case they start to abuse it. It is really just a modern technology version of the logic Milton Friedman used to support registration of taxicabs.

I can understand the arguments some readers might make, that private investigators should not be able to access information like that in the first place, license or no license. So why not just prevent access altogether and get rid of licensing rules at the same time? I can agree with that in part, but I don’t like the implicit assumptions that only agents of the government (including lawyers, as members of the bar) get to have access to certain information. Obviously, you can’t be giving out that information to everyone, either, so I admit I don’t quite know where to draw the line.

In reading the rules of private investigator licensing in Missouri, they appear to have left out the worst excesses of licensing. They don’t appear to have placed any limit on the number of licenses, or instituted any extreme education or experience requirements. However, that same lack of explicit guidelines might allow the board too much discretion in rapidly approving ex–law enforcement officials (who, for obvious reasons, make up the bulk of the labor pool in this field), while rejecting applicants without law enforcement backgrounds. I hope that does not happen. Those are decisions that clients and markets should make.

The fees for the application process are high, which is probably intentional. Not high as in law school high, but still high. Often, licensing rules are designed to help the current practitioners by reducing part-time competition. A $500 application fee might not deter anyone who wants to do the job full-time, as a career, but it may well be high enough to prevent someone from applying who is looking to do it part-time. The fact that the fee is only $50 if you want to be an employee of an existing agency tells me the same thing, and I don’t think it is proper for government to be making those decisions.

P.S. — Thanks to Combest for the story link, and our thoughts go out to John on the recent passing of his father.

Today the Saint Louis Business Journal published a letter to the editor by John Payne and me (link added):

Editor:

The editorial board recently oversimplified our views on rural broadband access (“It’s a wired world, after all,” Aug. 20 issue). We do not oppose the proliferation of broadband into rural areas, merely the government subsidization of such expansion. Greater broadband penetration in rural areas indeed provides social benefits, but we remain skeptical that those benefits will outweigh cost of millions in taxpayer dollars.

Solutions for extending broadband exist in the private sector. I-Land Internet Services, for example, is expanding broadband into rural western Missouri at no cost to taxpayers. Fifty percent of people living in rural areas already have home broadband Internet service, according to a Pew Internet study released earlier this month. Furthermore, of the people who do not have high-speed Internet, only 6 percent cited a lack of access as the primary reason for not subscribing, compared with 48 percent who find the Internet irrelevant and 18 percent who have usability issues. Eighty million dollars is a very high cost to benefit such a small subset of people.

Christine Harbin, research analyst, Show-Me Institute
John Payne, research assistant, Show-Me Institute

Of additional note, contributors to Show-Me Daily have discussed this issue before.

The St. Louis Business Journal wrote a delightful editorial about the state and federal subsidization of broadband access for rural areas. The article quoted our research analyst, Christine Harbin (you have to be a paid subscriber to read her comment on the Business Journal site):

Some will argue the money could be better spent on education, health care, you name it. Indeed, there are many needs but these federal funds were designated for broadband. The state’s in-kind contribution does not impact the dire budgetary situation or projected $600 million shortfall.

Only the Show-Me Institute, the ultraconservative think tank, finds a reason to object. Research analyst Christine Harbin commented: “If an individual desires faster Internet service, he or she can either pay the market rate for the service or relocate to a larger town in order to access a broadband connection that’s less expensive.”

Of course, we received Ms. Harbin’s remarks via a high-speed Internet connection, and we certainly would not have wanted to miss sharing them with you.

The Business Journal could not have illustrated Christine’s point more succinctly. She, and the Business Journal, have both chosen to locate in the city of St. Louis. This decision entails extra costs, like the earnings tax and a higher cost of living, but it also has some cost-saving benefits, like less-expensive broadband access.

It is more expensive to provide Internet access to rural areas. This does not mean that rural areas should not have Internet access, only that they should shoulder the steeper costs of this service if they want to use it. When Internet access is subsidized, it distorts the market because the lower price leads people to consume more without seeing the true cost. If someone opts for the lower general cost of living in a rural town, she should accept that urban amenities may not be available at as low of a price as they are in more populated urban areas. In the same way that rural areas may be loathe to subsidize an urban area’s mass transit, it is reasonable for urban areas to be loathe to subsidize a rural area’s broadband Internet.

People should be allowed to live where they choose, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else should subsidize them.

At around 5:05 this afternoon, I will be on the Mike Ferguson show on 93.9 FM The Eagle in Columbia, talking about government-subsidized broadband Internet access for rural areas. If you are not in Columbia, but would still like to listen to the show, you can listen online — provided you have a fast enough Internet connection. The invitation was extended to me based on this post I wrote a couple of weeks ago.

(Headline reference here, which is meant both to celebrate the Rush concert in Saint Louis this Sunday, and to annoy my colleague David Stokes.)

On Friday, August 20, the Show-Me Institute, along with Liberty on Tour and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), will host an informal panel discussion about recording the police. Recently, individuals in Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts have been arrested for filming either their or others’ arrests. In Maryland, police raided a motorcyclist’s home after he had posted video footage of a traffic stop on YouTube. Anthony Graber, the motorcyclist, faces up to 16 years if convicted of violating Maryland’s wiretap laws. The Illinois legislature has explicitly made it illegal to record an on-duty police officer without his or her permission. A man arrested for filming an arrest in Boston has recently filed suit against the city.

These arrests raise interesting questions of privacy expectations, free speech, differing state laws, and, as Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko has noted, your right to petition the government. This panel discussion is our attempt to explore the issues of liberty at stake, as well as provide the opportunity for anyone who is interested to meet the panelists and to ask questions.

The discussion will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, August 20, at the Show-Me Institute’s office at 4512 W. Pine Blvd in the Central West End of Saint Louis. Please RSVP either by email to info@showmeinstitute.org, by phone to (314) 454-0647, or by commenting on this blog entry.

The event is free and snacks will be provided. However, because Liberty on Tour is traveling across the country, we suggest a $5 to $10 donation to help pay for the group’s travel costs.

Our star-studded panel includes:

• Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour, a project to tour 13 cities in 13 weeks to talk about the principles of voluntaryism. Adam is also a founder of Cop Block, an organization devoted to watchdogging police officers who break the law. Pete Eyre currently works for the Future of Freedom Foundation, which advocates for individual liberty, free markets, private property rights, and limited government. Both Adam and Pete were part of the Motorhome Diaries project.
• Redditt Hudson, of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Redditt is a former Saint Louis police officer, and part of his work at the ACLU is to lead workshops that educate people about their rights under the law, including practical advice about how to interact with the police.
• John Payne, a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, will be moderating the discussion. John has argued for greater transparency and recording of SWAT raids in Missouri, and follows issues of civil asset forfeiture closely.

If you have the time, please drop by, and don’t hesitate to bring questions! The panelists will speak briefly about their perspectives on recording the police, and then we will open up the discussion for questions from the general public. After about an hour of discussion, we will move the group to Sasha’s on Shaw for dinner and drinks.

If you can’t make it, you can send questions you’d like asked to info@showmeinstitute.org, tweet them to @showmeinstitute, or post questions on the event’s Facebook wall. Finally, we will film the discussion and post it online for those who cannot attend.

The federal government will spend almost $82 million in Missouri to expand high-speed Internet access in rural areas. This is no doubt a boon to rural residents who want faster Internet access, but is this really a necessary function of the government? Most people in rural areas can already get high-speed Internet access through satellite connections — although they carry the same limitations as satellite television.

More to the point, if these people deeply desire faster Internet service, they have the option of moving into a decent-sized town and getting a cable or DSL connection. The fact that they don’t indicates that, for the vast majority of these people, living in a rural area is more important than having extremely fast Internet service. Choices involve trade-offs, and if a person chooses to live in a rural area, he should either be willing to forgo high-speed Internet access or pay the market rate for the service. Because I live in Saint Louis, it is easier for me to attend large, public events like Cardinals games and the upcoming Rush concert than it is for someone from Shannon County, but that does not mean the government should subsidize trips to Saint Louis for people from Shannon County. At the same time, I cannot enjoy Missouri’s outdoors as easily as someone from Shannon County, but the government shouldn’t pay for my float trips on Current River.

A person should be free to live where and however he pleases provided he does not interfere with the equal right of others to do the same. It is not the government’s role to subsidize one way of life over another.

Link via John Combest.