Public Opinion of Traffic Cameras in the New Orleans Area
-
Upload
keelin-billue -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Public Opinion of Traffic Cameras in the New Orleans Area
UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Public Opinion on Traffic Cameras
Soc. 2707 Statistics Project
Anna Keelin Billue
Anna Keelin Billue
Table of Contents
Introduction: The Research Question……………………………2
The Survey Instrument…………………………………………………3-4
Data Entry (Data View and Variable View)…………………….5
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………..6-19
Hypotheses………………………………………………………………….21-43
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….....44-47
Completed Surveys……………………………………………………...Back of binder.
1
Anna Keelin Billue
Introduction: The Research QuestionThe research demonstrated and explained in this project serves as a measure of
opinions and attitudes towards traffic-control cameras that monitor speeding and red-light
infractions. When one speeds through or runs a red light in an intersection monitored by
these traffic-control cameras, they will receive a traffic citation by mail. The level of
fairness, cost effectiveness, and safety the traffic cameras provide is still fairly disputed.
I will ask the following questions concerning perceptions and relationships towards
traffic cameras:
1. Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to oppose the traffic cameras in general?
2. Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to perceive the traffic cameras of a violation of their privacy or the privacy of others?
3. Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to perceive the traffic cameras as catalysts for accidents?
4. Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to feel that traffic cameras do not help reduce speeding, red light running, and improve traffic safety?
5. Are those who received tickets aware of how traffic cameras operate?6. Are those who received tickets aware of the location of traffic cameras in the
area they received the ticket or tickets?7. Were those who received a ticket or tickets likely to contest the ticket in
court?8. Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to oppose the
privatization of the traffic cameras?9. Is number of tickets received and perceived seriousness of speeding related
in the population?10. Is number of tickets received and perceived seriousness of red light running
related in the population?
2
Anna Keelin Billue
The Survey Instrument
1. Have you received a speeding/red light ticket from a traffic camera?
a. Yes
b. No
2. How many tickets from traffic cameras have you received (Fill in the blank)? ____________
3. Were you aware of the traffic camera in your area or areas that you received your ticket or tickets?
a. Yes, I was aware.
b. I was aware of the cameras in some area I received tickets but not others.
c. No, I was not aware.
d. Did not receive ticket.
4. Are you aware of how the traffic cameras operate in the technical sense?
a. Yes.
b. No
5. If you received a ticket, did you try to contest your ticket in court (Do not answer if you did not receive a ticket)?
a. Yes.
b. No
6. Do you feel like the traffic cameras are a violation of your privacy or the privacy of others?
a. Yes
b. No
7. Do you support the New Orleans’s choice to use a private firm to manage the traffic cameras and the distribution of tickets?
a. Support
b. Oppose
3
Anna Keelin Billue
(Survey continued on page 4.)
8. How serious of a problem do you find speeding to be?
a. Very serious
b. Serious
c. Minor
d. Very minor
9. How serious of a problem do you find running red lights to be?
a. Very serious
b. Serious
c. Minor
d. Very Minor
10. Do you believe traffic cameras help reduce speeding, red light running, and improve traffic safety?
a. Yes
b. No
11. Do you think traffic cameras potentially cause accidents?
a. Yes
b. No
12. In general, do you support or oppose the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding and red lights?
a. Support
b. Oppose
4
Anna Keelin Billue
Data Entry (Data Set and Variable Set)
Variables
Survey Data
5
Anna Keelin Billue
Data Analysis1. Have you received a speeding/red light ticket from a traffic camera?
Table 1
Table 1, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “Have you received a speeding/red light ticket from a traffic camera?” There were a total
of 20 respondents with no missing values. The majority of the respondents (60%) indicated they
had received a traffic ticket due to a traffic camera violation by answering “Yes” on the survey. 40%
indicated they had not received a ticket by answering “No” on the survey. This question is a
nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 2
Table 2, above, represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The variable
is nominal and independent (for the purposes of this survey). Thus, the appropriate measure of
central tendency is mode. The mode for this survey question is 0, indicating that most people
6
Anna Keelin Billue
answered “Yes” when asked if they received a ticket. The appropriate measure of disbursement is
IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
2. How many tickets have you received from traffic cameras?
Table 3
Table 3, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “How many tickets have you received from traffic cameras?” There were a total of 20
respondents with no missing values, and because this is data is classified as interval ratio,
cumulative percent is included. 40%, the plurality, of the population has not received a ticket. 25%
of the population had received two tickets. The cumulative frequency shows that the majority of
people had one ticket or less, and it also shows that 90% of the population received 3 tickets or less.
Table 4
Table 4, above, represents the data’s appropriate measures of central tendency and
measures of disbursement. This is an interval ratio variable. Thus, the appropriate measures of
central tendency are mean, median, and mode. The mean for this question was 1.50. This means
that the average number of tickets received is 1.50. The median for this question was 1.50, as well.
7
Anna Keelin Billue
This means that 1.50 tickets were the center of the distribution where 50% of the tickets were
more and 50% of the cases were less. The mode for this survey question is 0, indicating that most
people answered “Yes” when asked if they received a ticket.
The appropriate measures of disbursement for Question 2 are standard deviation, variance,
and range. The variance of the number of tickets received was 2.368. This means that the answers
have a variability of 2.368 from the mean. By taking the square root of the variance, the standard
deviation is calculated into original units that are more easily comparable to the mean. The
standard deviation for this question is 1.539 units. This means essentially the same thing as
variance, but it is expressed in units that are not squared. The range is the distance between the
highest amount of tickets and lowest amount of tickets. In this question, the number of tickets
received range from a low of 0 to a high of 5.
For this question and for my significance test, I grouped the interval ratio variables to
compare them with ordinal tests (see Figure 1):
Figure 1
How many tickets did you receive?
10 50.0 50.0 50.08 40.0 40.0 90.02 10.0 10.0 100.0
20 100.0 100.0
.001.002.00Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
8
Anna Keelin Billue
3. Were you aware of the traffic camera in the area or areas you received your ticket or tickets?
Table 5
Table 5, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the question
“Were you aware of the traffic camera in the area or areas you received your ticket or tickets?”
There were a total of 20 respondents with no missing values. The majority of the respondents
(80%) indicated they had not received a ticket, and thus, they could not answer the question. 30%
of respondents (who had received more than one ticket) were aware of the cameras in some areas
they received tickets in, but they were not aware of the cameras in other areas they received tickets
in. 10% of those who received tickets were aware of traffic cameras in the area where they were
cited for speeding or redlight running. This means 40% of the population was at least aware of the
presence of traffic cameras when they acted outside of the speeding limit or traffic lights. This
question is a nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 6
9
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 6 represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The variable is
nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The mode for
this survey question is 3, indicating that most people answered “Did not receive ticket” when asked
if they were aware of the traffic cameras in the area they received their ticket. The appropriate
measure of disbursement is IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
4. Are you aware of how traffic cameras operate in a technical sense?
Table 7
Table 7, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “Are you aware of how traffic cameras operate in a technical sense?” There were a total of
20 respondents with no missing values. The majority of the respondents (55%) indicated they were
aware of how traffic cameras operated in a technical sense by answering “Yes” on the survey. 45%
indicated they did not understand how the cameras worked by answering “No” on the survey. This
question is a nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 8
10
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 8 represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The variable is
nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The mode for
this survey question is 0, indicating that most people answered “Yes” when asked if they were
aware of how traffic cameras operated in a technical sense. The appropriate measure of
disbursement is IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
5. If you received a ticket, did you try to contest it in court?
Table 9
Table 9, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “If you received a ticket, did you try to contest it in court?” There were a total of 20
respondents with 30% of the values missing. The 30% of values missing can be accounted for
because this question was a filter question in which those who had not received tickets did not
answer the question. The majority of the respondents (70%) indicated they did not try to contest
their speeding ticket from traffic cameras in court by answering “No” on the survey. None of the
respondents who received tickets answered “Yes” they had contested their ticket in court. This
question is a nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 10
11
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 10 represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The variable is
nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The mode for
this survey question is 1, indicating that most people answered “No” when asked if they had
contested their ticket in court. There is a missing value of 6 respondents, but as mentioned above,
the missing values can be accounted for because this question was a filter question in which those
who had not received tickets did not answer the question. The appropriate measure of
disbursement is IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
6. Do you feel like traffic cameras are a violation of your privacy or the privacy of others?
Table 11
Table 11, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “Do you feel like traffic cameras are in violation of your privacy or the privacy of others?”
There were a total of 20 respondents with no missing values. The majority of the respondents
(65%) indicated they felt that traffic cameras are a violation of their privacy or the privacy of others
by answering “Yes” on the survey. Only 35% of respondents did not feel that traffic cameras were a
violation of privacy. This question is a nominal variable. Cumulative frequency was not included.
12
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 12
Table 12, above, represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The
variable is nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The
mode for this survey question is 0, indicating that most people answered “Yes” when asked if they
felt that traffic cameras were in violation of their privacy or the privacy of others. The appropriate
measure of disbursement is IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
7. Do you support New Orleans’ decision to use a private firm to manage the traffic cameras and the distribution of tickets?
Table 13
Table 13, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “Do you support New Orleans’ decision to use a private firm to manage the traffic cameras
and the distribution of tickets?” There were a total of 20 respondents with no missing values. The
majority of the respondents (90%) indicated they opposed New Orleans’ decision to use a private
firm to manage the traffic cameras the distribution of tickets by answering “Oppose” on the survey.
13
Anna Keelin Billue
10% indicated did supported New Orleans’ decision to use a third party ticketing company. This
question is a nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 14
Table 14, above, represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The
variable is nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The
mode for this survey question is 1, indicating that most people answered “Oppose” when asked if
they supported or opposed a third party ticket vendor. The appropriate measure of disbursement is
IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
8. How serious of a problem do you find speeding to be?
Table 15
Table 15, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “How serious of a problem do you find speeding to be?” There were a total of 20
respondents with no missing values, and because this is data is classified as ordinal, cumulative
percent is included. 50%, the majority, of the population felt that speeding was a “minor” problem.
14
Anna Keelin Billue
Only 5% of the population felt like speeding was a very minor problem, and only 10% felt like
speeding was a very serious problem. The cumulative frequency shows that 95% of people felt like
speeding is either “minor”, “serious”, or “very serious”.
Table 16
Table 16, above, represents the data’s appropriate measures of central tendency and
measures of disbursement. This is an ordinal variable. Thus, the appropriate measures of central
tendency are median and mode. The median answer for this question was 2.00. This means that 2
tickets were the center of the distribution where 50% of the answers were more and 50% were
less. The mode for this survey question is 2, indicating that most people answered “minor” when
asked how serious of a problem they felt speeding was.
The appropriate measure of disbursement for Question 8 is range. The range is the distance
between very minor and very serious. In this question, the seriousness of feelings against speeding
range from a very minor to very serious.
15
Anna Keelin Billue
9. How serious of a problem do you find running red lights to be?
Table 17
Table 17, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “How serious of a problem do you find running red lights to be?” There were a total of 20
respondents with no missing values, and because this is data is classified as ordinal, cumulative
percent is included. 35%, the plurality, of the population felt that red light running was a “minor”
problem. Only 5% of the population felt like red light running was a very minor problem, and only
10% felt like speeding was a very serious problem. The cumulative frequency shows that 60% of
people feel like speeding is a “serious” or “very serious” problem.
Table 18
Table 18, above, represents the data’s appropriate measures of central tendency and
measures of disbursement. This is an ordinal variable. Thus, the appropriate measures of central
tendency are median and mode. The median answer for this question was 1.00. This means that 1
ticket was the center of the distribution where 50% of the answers were more and 50% of the cases
16
Anna Keelin Billue
were less. The mode for this survey question is 2, indicating that most people answered “minor”
when asked how serious of a problem they felt red light running was.
The appropriate measure of disbursement for Question 9 is range. The range is the distance
between very minor and very serious. In this question, the seriousness of feelings against red light
running range from a very minor to very serious.
10. Do you believe traffic cameras help improve traffic safety?
Table 19
Table 19, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “Do you believe traffic cameras help improve traffic safety?” There were a total of 20
respondents with no missing values. The majority of the respondents (65%) indicated they
believed traffic cameras helped improve traffic safety by answering “Yes” on the survey. 35%
indicated they did not believe traffic cameras improved traffic safety by answering “No” on the
survey. This question is a nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 20
17
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 20, above, represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The
variable is nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The
mode for this survey question is 0, indicating that most people answered “Yes” when asked if they
believed traffic cameras help improve safety. The appropriate measure of disbursement is IQV.
However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
11. Do you think traffic cameras potentially cause accidents?
Table 21
Table 21, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “Do you think traffic cameras potentially cause accidents?” There were a total of 20
respondents with no missing values. Respondents were clearly divided on their opinion. 50% of
respondents though traffic cameras could potentially cause accidents. The other 50% did not think
the cameras were capable of causing accidents. This question is a nominal variable. Thus,
cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 22
18
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 22, above, represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The
variable is nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode.
This survey is bimodal because 50% of the respondents answered “Yes”, and 50% of the
respondents answered “No.” The appropriate measure of disbursement is IQV. However, IQV is not
necessary to test per the project instructions.
12. In general, do you support or oppose the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding and red lights?
Table 23
Table 23, above, represents the frequency distribution from the data collected from the
question “In general, do you support or oppose the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding and
red lights?” There were a total of 20 respondents with no missing values. The majority of
respondents (75%) opposed the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding and red lights. 25% of
the population supported the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding and red lights. This
question is a nominal variable. Thus, cumulative frequency was not included.
Table 24
19
Anna Keelin Billue
Table 24, above, represents the data’s appropriate measure of central tendency. The
variable is nominal and dependent. Thus, the appropriate measure of central tendency is mode. The
mode for this survey question is 1, indicating that most people answered “No” when asked if they
supported or opposed traffic cameras to enforce speeding and red lights. The appropriate measure
of disbursement is IQV. However, IQV is not necessary to test per the project instructions.
20
Anna Keelin Billue
HypothesesHypothesis 1: Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to oppose the
traffic cameras in general?
Figure 2
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Do you support oroppose the use of trafficcameras to enforcespeeding and red lights?* Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values in Figure 2.
Figure 3
Do you support or oppose the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding and red lights? * Have youreceived a speedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
2 3 53.0 2.0 5.0
16.7% 37.5% 25.0%
10 5 159.0 6.0 15.0
83.3% 62.5% 75.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Support
Oppose
Do you support or opposethe use of traffic camerasto enforce speeding andred lights?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
(Figure 4 and test continued on next page.)
21
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 4
Chi-Square Tests
1.111b 1 .292.278 1 .598
1.095 1 .295.347 .296
1.056 1 .304
20
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.00.
b.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and support of traffic cameras aren’t related in the population.₀
H : Receiving a ticket and support of traffic cameras are related in the population.₁
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 1.111χ₂
5. Decision about the Null
critical value= 3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
22
Anna Keelin Billue
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative
Receiving a ticket and support of traffic cameras are not related in the population.
The majority of both groups (those who did or didn’t receive a ticket) generally
opposed traffic cameras in general.
Hypothesis 2: Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to perceive the
traffic cameras of a violation of their privacy or the privacy of others?
Figure 5
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Do you feel like thetraffic cameras are inviolation of your privacyor the privacy of others?* Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing value in Figure 5. This is okay.
Figure 6
Do you feel like the traffic cameras are in violation of your privacy or the privacy of others? *Have you received a speedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
8 5 137.8 5.2 13.0
66.7% 62.5% 65.0%
4 3 74.2 2.8 7.0
33.3% 37.5% 35.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Yes
No
Do you feel like thetraffic cameras are inviolation of your privacyor the privacy of others?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
(Figure 7 and test continued on next page.)
23
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 7
Chi-Square Tests
.037b 1 .848
.000 1 1.000
.037 1 .8481.000 .608
.035 1 .852
20
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.80.
b.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras as a violation of privacy ₀
aren’t related in the population.
H : Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras as a violation of privacy are ₁
related in the population.
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 0.037χ₂
24
Anna Keelin Billue
5. Decision about the Null
critical value= 3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative
Receiving a ticket and perceiving traffic cameras as violations of privacy are not
related in the population. Both those who had and hadn’t received tickets almost
equally felt like traffic cameras were a violation of the positive.
Hypothesis 3: Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to perceive the
traffic cameras as catalysts for accidents?
Figure 8
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Do you think trafficcameras potentiallycause car accidents? *Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values in Figure 8. This is okay.
(Figures 9-10 and tests continued on next page.)
25
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 9
Do you think traffic cameras potentially cause car accidents? * Have you received aspeedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
8 2 106.0 4.0 10.0
66.7% 25.0% 50.0%
4 6 106.0 4.0 10.0
33.3% 75.0% 50.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Yes
No
Do you think trafficcameras potentiallycause car accidents?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
Figure 10
Chi-Square Tests
3.333b 1 .0681.875 1 .1713.452 1 .063
.170 .085
3.167 1 .075
20
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.00.
b.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras as a catalyst for accidents ₀
aren’t related in the population. (see H on next page).₁
26
Anna Keelin Billue
H : Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras as a catalyst for accidents ₁
are related in the population.
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 3.333χ₂
5. Decision about the Null
critical value=3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative
Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras as a catalyst for accidents are
not related in the population. However, those who had received tickets
overwhelmingly felt that traffic cameras were catalysts for accidents (66.7%), and
75% of those who had not received tickets did not feel that traffic cameras were
catalysts for accidents.
27
Anna Keelin Billue
Hypothesis 4: Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to feel that traffic
cameras do not help reduce speeding, red light running, and improve traffic safety?
Figure 11
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Do you believe trafficcameras help improvetraffic safety? * Haveyou received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values in Figure 11. This is okay.
Figure 12
Do you believe traffic cameras help improve traffic safety? * Have you received a speedin/redlight ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
8 5 137.8 5.2 13.0
66.7% 62.5% 65.0%
4 3 74.2 2.8 7.0
33.3% 37.5% 35.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Yes
No
Do you believe trafficcameras help improvetraffic safety?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
(Figure 13 and tests on next page.)
28
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 13
Chi-Square Tests
.037b 1 .848
.000 1 1.000
.037 1 .8481.000 .608
.035 1 .852
20
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.80.
b.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras improving traffic safety ₀
aren’t related in the population.
H : Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras improving traffic safety are ₁
related in the population.
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 0.037χ₂
29
Anna Keelin Billue
5. Decision about the Null
critical value= 3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative
Receiving a ticket and perception of traffic cameras of promoters of traffic safety are
not related in the population.
Hypothesis 5: Are those who received tickets more aware of how traffic cameras
operate?
Figure 14
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Are you aware of how thetraffic cameras operatein the technical sense? *Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values in Figure 14. This is okay.
30
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 15
Are you aware of how the traffic cameras operate in the technical sense? * Have you received aspeedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
6 5 116.6 4.4 11.0
50.0% 62.5% 55.0%
6 3 95.4 3.6 9.0
50.0% 37.5% 45.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Yes
No
Are you aware of how thetraffic cameras operatein the technical sense?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
Figure 16
Chi-Square Tests
.303b 1 .582
.008 1 .927
.305 1 .581.670 .465
.288 1 .592
20
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.60.
b.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and awareness of how traffic cameras operate aren’t related in₀
the population.
31
Anna Keelin Billue
H : Receiving a ticket and awareness of how traffic cameras operate are related in ₁
the population.
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 0.303χ₂
5. Decision about the Null
critical value= 3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative.
Receiving a ticket and support of traffic cameras and knowedge of how traffic
cameras operate are not related in the population.
Hypothesis 6: Are those who received tickets aware of the location of traffic cameras
in the area they received the ticket or tickets?
Figure 17
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Were you aware of thetraffic camera in the areaor areas that you receivedyour ticket or tickets? *Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values. This is okay.(Figures 18-19 and tests continued on next page.)
32
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 18
Were you aware of the traffic camera in the area or areas that you received your ticket or tickets? * Haveyou received a speedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
2 0 21.2 .8 2.0
16.7% .0% 10.0%
6 0 63.6 2.4 6.0
50.0% .0% 30.0%
4 0 42.4 1.6 4.0
33.3% .0% 20.0%
0 8 84.8 3.2 8.0
.0% 100.0% 40.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Yes, I was aware.
I was aware of thecameras in somearea I receivedtickets but not others.
No, I was not aware.
Did not receive ticket.
Were you aware ofthe traffic camera inthe area or areasthat you receivedyour ticket or tickets?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
Figure 19
Chi-Square Tests
20.000a 3 .00026.920 3 .000
14.061 1 .000
20
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
8 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .80.
a.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
33
Anna Keelin Billue
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and awareness of traffic cameras in the area aren’t related in ₀
the population.
H : Receiving a ticket and awareness of how traffic cameras in the area are related ₁
in the population.
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 0.303χ₂
5. Decision about the Null
critical value= 3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative
Receiving a ticket and awareness of traffic cameras in the area of citations are not
related in the population. Most people who said they received tickets were aware of
traffic cameras in some area but not others.
34
Anna Keelin Billue
Hypothesis 7: Were those who received a ticket or tickets likely to contest the ticket in
court?
Figure 20
Case Processing Summary
14 70.0% 6 30.0% 20 100.0%
If you received a ticket,did you try to contestyour ticket in court? *Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*30% of the values are missing because this test was used a filter question for comparison. So, this is okay.
Figure 21
If you received a ticket, did you try to contest your ticket in court? * Have you received aspeedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera? Crosstabulation
12 2 1412.0 2.0 14.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
12 2 1412.0 2.0 14.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
NoIf you received a ticket,did you try to contestyour ticket in court?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
Figure 22
Chi-Square Tests
.a
14Pearson Chi-SquareN of Valid Cases
Value
No statistics are computed because Ifyou received a ticket, did you try tocontest your ticket in court? is a constant.
a.
*This was a filter question in which none of the respondents answered “Yes.” Thus 100%
did not contest the ticket. Not contesting a ticket in court is a constant (see Figure 22).
35
Anna Keelin Billue
Hypothesis 8: Are those who received a ticket or tickets more likely to oppose the
privatization of the traffic cameras?
Figure 23
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
Do you support NewOrleans's choice to use aprivate firm to manage thetraffic cameras and thedistribution of tickets? *Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values. This is okay.
Figure 24
Do you support New Orleans's choice to use a private firm to manage the traffic cameras and thedistribution of tickets? * Have you received a speedin/red light ticket from a traffic camera?
Crosstabulation
1 1 21.2 .8 2.0
8.3% 12.5% 10.0%
11 7 1810.8 7.2 18.0
91.7% 87.5% 90.0%
12 8 2012.0 8.0 20.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?CountExpected Count% within Have youreceived a speedin/redlight ticket from a trafficcamera?
Support
Oppose
Do you support NewOrleans's choice to use aprivate firm to manage thetraffic cameras and thedistribution of tickets?
Total
Yes No
Have you received aspeedin/red light ticketfrom a traffic camera?
Total
Figure 25
Chi-Square Tests
.093b 1 .761
.000 1 1.000
.091 1 .7631.000 .653
.088 1 .767
20
Pearson Chi-SquareContinuity Correctiona
Likelihood RatioFisher's Exact TestLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)
Exact Sig.(1-sided)
Computed only for a 2x2 tablea.
2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .80.
b.
*Cells have an expected count of less than 5. So the significance test will be skewed.
36
Anna Keelin Billue
1. Assumptions
Independent Random Sample
Nominal x and y
2. Hypothesis
H : Receiving a ticket and awareness of traffic cameras in the area aren’t related in ₀
the population.
H : Receiving a ticket and awareness of how traffic cameras in the area are related ₁
in the population.
3. Type of Test
(independence)χ₂
1 tail test
= .05α
degrees of freedom= 1
4. Calculations
= 0.930χ₂
5. Decision about the Null
critical value= 3.841
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to reject the alternative.
Receiving a ticket and support of the privatization of traffic cameras are not related
in the population. However, both those who received tickets and those who didn’t
seemed to overwhelmingly oppose the privatization of ticket companies.
37
Anna Keelin Billue
Hypothesis 9: Is number of tickets received and perceived seriousness of speeding related in the population?
For the purpose of this test, I grouped the interval ratio variables to compare them with ordinal tests in SPSS. However, I still used my interval ratio variable with one of my ordinal variables. I used Gamma for this test.
Figure 26
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
How serious of a problemdo you find speeding tobe? * How many ticketsdid you receive?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values in Figure 26. All is okay.
Figure 27
How serious of a problem do you find speeding to be? * How many tickets did you receive? Crosstabulation
1 1 0 2
10.0% 12.5% .0% 10.0%
3 4 0 7
30.0% 50.0% .0% 35.0%
5 3 2 10
50.0% 37.5% 100.0% 50.0%
1 0 0 1
10.0% .0% .0% 5.0%
10 8 2 20
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?
very serious
serious
minor
very minor
How serious of aproblem do youfind speeding tobe?
Total
.00 1.00 2.00How many tickets did you receive?
Total
Figure 28
Chi-Square Tests
3.786a 6 .7064.808 6 .569
.000 1 1.000
20
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
11 cells (91.7%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .10.
a.
38
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 29
Symmetric Measures
-.056 .338 -.165 .86920
GammaOrdinal by OrdinalN of Valid Cases
ValueAsymp.
Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.
* Figure 29 shows that Gamma says -5.6% of the variance in the respondents’ perception of seriousness of speeding can be explained by the amount of speeding tickets they have.
Figure 30
Directional Measures
-.033 .204 -.165 .869
-.034 .211 -.165 .869
-.033 .197 -.165 .869
SymmetricHow serious of a problemdo you find speeding tobe? DependentHow many tickets did youreceive? Dependent
Somers' dOrdinal by OrdinalValue
Asymp.Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.
1. Assumptions
Random sampling
Ordinal X and Y (X is a grouped interval ratio).
Normal sampling distribution
2. Hypothesis
H : y=0₀
H : y≠0₁
3. Type of Test
t (Y)
2 tail test
= .05α
4. Calculations
t= -0.165
39
Anna Keelin Billue
5. Decision about the Null
.869> .05
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative.
The number of tickets received and perception of seriousness of speeding are not
related in the population.
Hypothesis 10: Is number of tickets received and perceived seriousness of speeding related in the population?
For the purpose of this test, I grouped the interval ratio variables to compare them with ordinal tests in SPSS. However, I still used my interval ratio variable with one of my ordinal variables. I used Gamma for this test.
Figure 31
Case Processing Summary
20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%
How serious of a problemdo you find running redlights to be? * How manytickets did you receive?
N Percent N Percent N PercentValid Missing Total
Cases
*No missing values in Figure 31. This is good.
(Figures 32-35 and tests are on the next few pages.)
40
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 32
How serious of a problem do you find running red lights to be? * How many tickets did you receive?Crosstabulation
3 3 0 6
30.0% 37.5% .0% 30.0%
2 3 1 6
20.0% 37.5% 50.0% 30.0%
4 2 1 7
40.0% 25.0% 50.0% 35.0%
1 0 0 1
10.0% .0% .0% 5.0%
10 8 2 20
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?Count% within How manytickets did you receive?
Very Serious
Serious
Minor
Very Minor
How serious of aproblem do youfind running redlights to be?
Total
.00 1.00 2.00How many tickets did you receive?
Total
Figure 33
Chi-Square Tests
2.929a 6 .8183.900 6 .690
.083 1 .773
20
Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases
Value dfAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
12 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .10.
a.
41
Anna Keelin Billue
Figure 34
Directional Measures
-.078 .196 -.402 .688
-.086 .217 -.402 .688
-.072 .178 -.402 .688
SymmetricHow serious of a problemdo you find running redlights to be? DependentHow many tickets did youreceive? Dependent
Somers' dOrdinal by OrdinalValue
Asymp.Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.
Figure 35
Symmetric Measures
-.122 .304 -.402 .68820
GammaOrdinal by OrdinalN of Valid Cases
ValueAsymp.
Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Not assuming the null hypothesis.a.
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.b.
* Figure 29 shows that Gamma says -12.2% of the variance in the respondents’ perception of seriousness of redlight running can be explained by the amount of speeding tickets they have.
1. Assumptions
Random sampling
Ordinal X and Y (X is a grouped interval ratio).
Normal sampling distribution
2. Hypothesis
H : y=0₀
H : y≠0₁
(Test continued on next page)
42
Anna Keelin Billue
3. Type of Test
t (Y)
2 tail test
= .05α
4. Calculations
t= -0.402
5. Decision about the Null
.688>.05
Fail to reject the null hypothesis.
6. Decision about the Alternative
Fail to support the alternative
Receiving a ticket and perception of seriousness of red light running are not
statistically significantly related.
43
Anna Keelin Billue
Conclusion
My goal was to measure general public opinion and relationships between those who had or
had not received tickets based on a violation captured by a traffic camera. I wanted to find out if
receiving a ticket affected their feelings towards the traffic cameras or not.
My first hypothesis (Figures 2-4) was if people who received tickets were more likely to
oppose or support traffic cameras. My hypothesis failed, but I still feel like, in general, the majority
of people do not support traffic cameras. The percentages express this same feeling. Those who
have received citations because of violations caught by a traffic camera are especially likely to
oppose traffic cameras.
My second hypothesis (Figures 5-7) asked if people who received tickets or not perceived
traffic cameras a violation. This hypothesis was also rejected and did not find a statistically
significant relationship. I wanted to measure feelings of privacy violation as a sub-measure of
opposition to traffic cameras. Also, I was interested to know what other people thought.
My third hypothesis (Figures 8-10) measured if people felt traffic cameras could potentially
cause accidents. Once again, my hypothesis failed and did not find a statistically significant
relationship. However, the percentages revealed that those who had received a ticket felt, as a
majority, that traffic cameras could be catalysts for accidents. This indicated to me that those who
had received tickets had experienced or thought of a potentially dangerous situation that made
them think about the fairness of the traffic camera operations. Thus, those who had received tickets
were more likely to feel weary of the actual overall improvement in safety that can be attributed to
traffic cameras.
44
Anna Keelin Billue
My fourth hypothesis (Figures 11-13) questioned if people felt like traffic cameras
improved safety. This hypothesis was to test my theory expressed in the last hypothesis. However,
this relationship was not statistically significant.
In my fifth hypothesis (Figures 14-16), I questioned if people who received tickets were
aware of how traffic cameras operated. I wanted to see if those who had received tickets or not had
a better understanding of the operational processes of the cameras. This relationship was not
statistically significant.
In my sixth hypothesis (Figures 17-19), I measured awareness of traffic cameras in areas
were tickets were received. This relationship also came out statistically insignificant, but most
people who received tickets said they were aware of traffic cameras in some areas they received a
ticket but not others.
In my seventh hypothesis (Figures 20-22), I had a strange result, and I did not really
understand what to do. I wanted to know if the people who received tickets had contested their
tickets in court. 30% of the values were missing, which can indicate instability, but it was expected
because the question is a filter question on my survey. However, the respondents that did answer
all answered “No.” SPSS said that the question and answers were then considered constant.
However, I believe if I had taken a bigger sample, there would have been more ticket contestants.
Since the sample was so small, I am not entirely surprised. Since no data was provided, I could not
complete the hypothesis test, and I am left to use the percentages and say “Most people do not
contest.”
My eighth hypothesis (Figures 23-25) was to question if people who had or had not
received a ticket or tickets felt like the privatization of traffic cameras through a third party was
wrong or right. Like the other tests, this test came out not statistically significant. However, over
85% of both groups (those who had received a ticket or tickets and those who had no tickets) felt
45
Anna Keelin Billue
the privatization was very wrong. So, although the hypothesis test indicated there was no
relationship, I feel like there must be. People strongly oppose the privatization behind the traffic
cameras.
My ninth hypothesis (Figures 26-30) measured if the number of tickets received affected
perception of seriousness of speeding. I wanted to measure this to see if, as the number of tickets a
person had increased their feeling that speeding was not that big of a problem decreased. However,
this relationship was also not statistically significant. The results were inconclusive.
My tenth hypothesis (Figures 31-35) measured if the number of tickets received affected
perception of seriousness of red light running. I wanted to measure this to see if, as the number of
tickets a person had increased their feeling that redlight running was not that big of a problem
decreased. However, this relationship was also not statistically significant. The percentages showed
that those who received more tickets were more likely to feel that red light running was either
“serious” or “minor”. Those who had received fewer or no tickets were more prone to rate their
feelings towards red light running at the extreme ends of the survey: “very serious” or “very minor.
Although none of my hypotheses revealed statistically significant relationships, I feel like
the percentage differences reveal a few relationships. For instance, people pretty strongly oppose
the privatization of a third party ticket vendor. However, between those who received tickets and
those who didn’t, there often were not too many differences. Thus, I conclude that statistical
analysis helped me as far as calculating the percentages, but the actual significance tests were not
that helpful. I would have had to do at least some statistical analysis to find my answers for this
project. So, I found statistical analysis pretty helpful in helping me measure feelings towards traffic
cameras.
This project was very interesting, and I am interested in my results. However, now that I
have completed, I realized there were a few errors and sort of useless questions in my survey. I did
46
Anna Keelin Billue
not really think about how the questions would all connect or how to draw conclusions out of all of
my answers while writing my survey. This made my hypotheses difficult to connect and measure.
However, now that I have done this entire project, I realize how to make surveys a little clearer and
easier.
47