The Virginia Senate passed three bills that would facilitate the use of red-light camera, devices some say infringe on the rights of law breakers.

And now they have more ammunition: a study that shows the cameras cause more rear-end collisions at intersections.

Critics seized on the study’s finding that crashes involving injuries increased slightly after red-light cameras were installed at intersections.

In Fairfax County, 10 of 13 intersections studied showed an increase in crashes after the cameras were installed. Eight of those intersections experienced an increase in crashes with injuries.

On average, total annual crashes in the 13 intersections rose to 20 from 18, and crashes involving injuries increased to eight from 6.5.

Supporters of the cameras, however, said more research is needed to determine the relative severity of injuries with and without the cameras. Sen. William C. Mims, R-Loudoun, an advocate for the cameras, said injuries from rear-end crashes tend to be less severe than “T-bone” collisions commonly caused by red-light violators.

Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, R-Fairfax, argued that traffic safety can be bolstered by increasing the length of yellow lights at problem intersections, avoiding the upswing in rear-end crashes caused by cameras. “We’re trying to attack a problem the wrong way,” he said.

Constance Sorrell, chief of systems operations for VDOT, said the increase in crashes at intersections with cameras is no surprise. She said a similar pattern occurs when traffic lights are first installed at intersections.

There’s the answer: Let’s get rid of traffic lights altogether.

Two researchers, Forrest M. Council and Bhagwant Persaud, reach a more nuanced conclusion. They found that rear-endings had gone up nearly 15 percent after cameras were installed in seven cities, with injuries from such accidents up 24 percent. Right-angle crashes declined by 24 percent, with injuries down nearly 16 percent. Weighing the economic impact and severity of injuries, they found the overall effect positive.

The chances of Fairfax County being able to enact an ordinance protecting the rights of gays are slim now that a subcommittee of the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns voted 7-2 to kill HB 2116. Subcommittee votes are not recorded, but reports say two Democrats voted against it. The Dems on the committee are Hall, D.C. Jones, Armstrong and Ware. Anybody know which voted against it?

Virginians will continue to be able to pack heat in day care centers when the Senate’s Committee for Courts of Justice rejected by one vote SB 743. Here’s the vote:

YEAS–Saslaw, Marsh, Norment, Howell, Lucas, Mims, Puller–7.
NAYS–Stolle, Quayle, Edwards, Reynolds, Rerras, Blevins, Cuccinelli, Obenshain–8.

I guess gun owners want to ensure they can defend themselves against attack by the baby brigade.

Meanwhile, the same committee approved SB 807 that would require gun buyers at gun shows to undergo background checks. Sen. Fred Qualye (R-Chesapeake) who voted against SB 743, sided with the gun control advocates.

YEAS–Saslaw, Marsh, Quayle, Norment, Howell, Lucas, Mims, Puller–8.
NAYS–Stolle, Edwards, Reynolds, Rerras, Blevins, Cuccinelli, Obenshain–7.

The Washington post has a story about the “Acknowledged Inaccuracies in 2004 Exit Polls.” But the reasons are still unclear. They seem to want to blame Republican voters’ reluctance to talk to exit pollsters.

The differences between the final exit poll results and the vote count revived criticisms of the exit polls fueled by consecutive election-night debacles in 2000 and 2002. They also fueled assertions that the exit poll results were accurate and that it was the vote count that was flawed or deliberately manipulated to deliver the election to Bush.

The analysis found no evidence of fraud resulting from the rigging of voting equipment, a contention made repeatedly by those who question the 2004 vote.

[Report authors] Lenski and Mitofsky compared the exit-polling results with the final vote tally in 1,460 precincts where interviews were conducted and vote returns were available.

“Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average within-precinct error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. . . . While the size of the average exit poll error has varied [in past elections], it was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data,” Lenski and Mitofsky wrote.

But they acknowledged in the report that they remain at a loss to explain precisely why Bush supporters, or Republicans generally, were more likely to refuse to be interviewed than Kerry voters.

I have another question: Are Republican voters less likely to participate in an exit poll than, say, a telephone poll? That they were in exit polls seems a pretty easy answer with, as the authors admit, no evidence to back it up.

A couple of weeks ago I commented on the increasing tendency of Bush appointees to suffer amnesia at their confirmation hearings. Dana Milbank and Charles Babington address the issue in today’s “Washington Memo” column.

Gonzales used the words “I am not at liberty to disclose” at least 10 times; “I do not recall” or “I have no recollection” six times; I did not “conduct a search” seven times; “I am not at liberty [to discuss certain matters]” 10 times; and “I have no present knowledge” seven times.

The last one I especially like. I wonder if that means he has “past knowledge” but at present won’t recall it.

I wonder what conservative readers of this blog might think.

“It’s a little bit appalling,” Bruce Fein, a Reagan administration Justice Department official, said of the Bush administration’s dealings with Congress. “A conservative should want greater congressional scrutiny — it limits government, and it checks folly.”

Anybody know what the Democrats’ position is on ensuring the long-term viability of social security? We know what Bush wants, though we need more details. And Congressman Bill Thomas has a few ideas, like making it gender-specific. But what do the Democrats want? That we can’t articulate it sums up the problem with da Dems. They have no position except to be opposed to Bush’s.

After I wrote the above paragraph, I thought maybe I had missed something. So I plugged in a few terms in Google and see if the da Dems really had a plan. Well, not unless they came up with one in the past two weeks, as E. J. Dionne made note of the absence of an SS policy in a column Jan. 7. They’re planning one apparently. Meanwhile, Bush’s view of the “crisis” continues to sink in, or perhaps better, just sinks.

Oh wouldn’t this be fun.

As part of the [CBS Evening News post-Rather] overhaul, [CBS chairman, Leslie Moonves] indicated he would even consider a role for Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “Daily Show.” Mr. Stewart has emerged as both a late-night comedy star and a biting commentator on the news.

…Mr. Moonves, who is also the a president of CBS’s parent company, Viacom, noted that because Comedy Central is also owned by Viacom, Mr. Stewart is available for such consideration. “Jon Stewart is part of our company and we speak regularly about all sorts of different things,” Mr. Moonves said.

This story is mostly about social conservatives. But where are the stories about what other faith-based groups are doing?

The Family Foundation is allied with two national evangelical groups, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family. Among its top legislative issues are passage of a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage; barring state funds from going to Planned Parenthood; and requiring state agencies to post spending budgets online.

The Interfaith Center’s membership includes several mainline Protestant denominations as well as Jewish, Muslim and Catholic groups. Its legislative priorities include making it illegal to leave young children by themselves in cars; ending or suspending the death penalty; and health coverage for uninsured Virginians.

That’s the challenge for the moderate middle: to get the press to cover the faith-based groups that are more about helping people than dictating their behavior.

The plan to make at least the top Virginia universities “charter schools” with more autonomy from state regulation is gathering momentum, with support from the House Speaker Bill Howell (R-Stafford) and Gov. Mark Warner.

House Speaker Bill Howell said he plans to introduce legislation that would free all public colleges from some state bureaucracy but would also enable individual institutions to petition the state for “a higher level of autonomy.” Howell, R-Stafford County, did not explain further. But the statement from Howell – as well as similar sentiments expressed by the other members of the commission studying the issue – will probably bolster efforts by Virginia Tech and other universities to reduce red tape.

…”It reinforces each board of visitors’ authority and responsibility for meeting those expectations,” said [John] Bennett, who directed the Finance Committee’s staff before Warner tapped him as finance secretary.

“It does grant some operational flexibility in return for a commitment toward meeting these expectations, sets forth a process for actually translating those expectations into a way that we can actually measure them, and then provides some incentives” to universities that meet them, he said.

Bennett said the legislation will be complex, so the details will matter, and that Warner “is completely comfortable with the framework.”

A framework is all we’ve got upon which to judge the proposal.

A subcommittee exploring the possibility of giving more autonomy to colleges and universities has worked out broad guidelines to cut state oversight into personnel, purchasing and construction expenditures.

But the subcommittee has yet to be able to reach agreements between state officials and college heads on how to ensure that tuition remains reasonable, that Virginian students can still get into those schools and that the state retains the right to conduct comprehensive performance and fiscal audits.

During a two-hour meeting Tuesday, the subcommittee – on which Howell sits – was briefed on progress that has been made, but was told that many details have yet to be worked out.

Agreements with college presidents have been negotiated on the overall concept of granting those schools more independence, but other sticky issues to be finalized include:

Establishing detailed, written expectations for each school’s performance if granted reduced state oversight.

Setting academic standards for each school that opts into the initiative.

Figuring out how to set a fair base state funding level for those schools, with incentives for good performance.

As the Charlottesville Daily Progress reports, at least some citizens are organizing against the proposal.

Four Charlottesville residents criticized the charter proposal, including Tom Gayner, a UVa graduate who said that he worries that universities could adopt the UVa law and graduate business school models of charging in-state students $27,000 and $32,000 a year, respectively, which he said could freeze out much of the middle class.

“In the middle, there tends to be a squeeze where people can pay the tuition, but it is burdensome as well,” Gayner said. “I think we are on the verge of rushing to make a massive change for a successful system in a rush and without perhaps full awareness of the ramifications of the change.”

Gayner said he is part of a parents’ network for affordable tuition formed in the past five days to oppose the charter proposal.

Tuition is certainly one issue. If the schools increase tuition 10% per year over the next five years, that means that costs for today’s eighth graders will be over $20,600 for tuition room and board (assuming R&B also increases 10% a year) plus the costs of books and personal expenses, as compared to under $13,000 a year for this year’s students.

But more important, no where have I seen any discussion of what percentage of incoming classes will be held for Virginians. Right now it’s only 65-70%, as compared to the University of North Carolina, another highly rated public school, that reserves 82% of its seats for in-state students. I think the pressure will be on UVa. to hike the number of higher paying out-of-state students.

But what irks me most about this issue is how the schools have intentionally hidden the details from the public. They’ll eventually will be released, but probably with only a few days for the public to digest them before the Assembly votes them into law.

As any long-time reader of this blog knows, the role the press plays in politics is of sometimes consuming interest to me. The bias shown, more the last five-10 years likely in favor of the right than the other way around, has profound impact on many voters.

Today, The Washington Post plays an all too familiar press role – heightening the mean and nasty side of politics with no redeeming journalistic value. If one guy calls the other guy a bigot without any proof, the press shouldn’t publish the accusations. But as we saw during the Jim Moran campaign, the Post is very willing to trade in such unsubstantiated charges. See here and here.

Today’s story is not so blatant or favorable to either party. But the event is a non-story. There is no news except the pointed barbs between the two candidates for governor. It’s yesterday’s news that AG Jerry Kilgore is stepping down to free him up to raise money while Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine is shackled by state laws forbidding him to do so while the Assembly is in session. We learned all that in yesterday’s story. All today’s story does is trade is ridiculous and vapid accusations by both sides. That’s not to say that the charges won’t impact, or at least reinforce, how someone might vote. But the story hardly elevates the discourse. And if there is no real news, why bother? The fact that Kilgore resigned hasn’t “escalated” the rivalry between the two candidates. It already was heated and negative; the resignation, despite the hypocritical criticism by Kaine’s forces, hasn’t made it more so. In fact, it was long expected, according to most reports. The only news yesterday was the name of the law firm where Kilgore will park his W-2 while campaigning.

The press impacts campaigns as much by what it decides to report as by how it reports the news. This is a case of a trumped-up story. And we wonder why politicians go negative. It’s because some papers can’t resist reporting it.

By the way, I pick on The Post because it’s the 800-lb. gorilla (although the Richmond Times-Dispatch overall has much better state politics coverage.) But The Post was not alone yesterday. Many other papers also went with this “did not, did too” story.