Legislative News

Legislative News

Louisiana Legislature committee DENIES voters SAY ON TRAFFIC CAMERAS!

Ban the Cams note:   Wonder what the Legislature is afraid of????  A MASSIVE REJECTION AT THE POLLS???  LET THE CITIZENS VOTE!

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/traffic_camera_red_light_nola.html

Traffic camera bill dies in Louisiana House committee

A bill to allow Louisiana's voters to decide the future of traffic camera programs died in committee Thursday. The bill failed by a 5-10 vote, but the sponsor said he is determined to bring the issue back next year.

House Bill 217, by state Rep. Jeff Arnold, D-New Orleans, would have prohibited the levying of fines from traffic cameras unless a majority of the area's voters chose to approve the program. City and parish governing authorities would have had until mid-2014 to hold elections on the issue.

Arnold made an impassioned plea to the committee to send his bill to the House floor, saying the red light and speed camera programs were a money grab from local governments that led to an uptick in accidents.

"The experts say that (traffic cameras) makes it safer," Arnold told the committee Thursday. "I've also been told that experts built the Titanic. An amateur carpenter build Noah's Ark."

"Local government is blinded by money and false statistics," he added.

Opponents of the bill said the issue is better handled locally. They said some local officials, such as Plaquemines Parish Sheriff Lonnie Greco, have urged parish councils to defer installing cameras until public concerns are addressed.

"For us, it's an matter of home rule," said Dee Stanley, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Lafayette, adding the program has already been heavily vetted by the public. "We've had a positive experience with the program."
The Louisiana Chiefs of Police, the Louisiana Municipal Association, the Union of Police, and several representatives from the City of Lafayette were also present in opposition to the bill.

Those who voted for Arnold's bill included: Austin Badon, D-N.O.; Wesley Bishop, D-N.O.; Terry Brown, I-Colfax; Kenny Edward Havard, R-Jackson; and Tom Willmott, R-Kenner.

Those who voted against Arnold's bill included: Regina Barrow, D-Baton Rouge; Johnny Berthelot, R-Gonzales; Robert Billiot, D-Westwego; Jared Brossett, D-N.O.; Roy Burrell, D-Shreveport; Michael Danahay, D-Sulphur; Dalton Honore, D-Baton Rouge; Barbara Norton, D-Shreveport; Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro; and Steve Pugh, R-Ponchatoula.

Read more: Louisiana Legislature committee DENIES voters SAY ON TRAFFIC CAMERAS!

Legislative News

Matt Hay UPDATE ON Kathie Conway (Scamera Language that was ill advised)

UPDATE 8:54.

Matt Hay


***Update on HB555 HA 2 (insertion of scamera language into statute): After corresponding with Representative Conway, she has assured me that her intent was to reduce the ability to of municipalities to derive revenue from speed traps, and attempted to include these systems as she says she also does not support them. I applaud her position, however, after corresponding, she does now realize the unintended consequences of the language. Our apologies to Rep Conway for ascribing ulterior motives to something which she says was an unintended consequence. In any case, the amendment failed, and she would like to work together next session to stop the cash cow abuse of these systems. For that, she has both my thanks, and apologies. This is an example of why a) we must stay vigilant, and b) communicate with our legislators and not assume that which is blatantly obvious to us, is as obvious to them.***
 

UPDATE 1:52.

WrongOnRed


Changing the profile photo for the day in remembrance of Missouri Rep Kathie Conway (R-104 St. Charles) betrayal of liberty, the Missouri Constitution, the Rule of Law, and most egregiously, her constituents. On 04/30/13, Rep Conway attempt to sneak a law legalizing Red Light Scameras as well as the issuance of warrants and revocation of driver's licenses for those who chose to disregard these Notices of Violation issued by for profit entities own by Goldman Sachs. She tried to sneak this into HB 555, which was a bill that would remove the helmet requirements for motorcyclists. Thankfully, the amendment was defeated when Rep Paul Curtman called her out for it. Here is the Journal for that day: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/jrnpdf/jrn060.pdf

Kathie appears to be a wolf in sheep's clothing as she speaks about liberty while at the same time, shilling for Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffett, who own large portions of American Traffic Solutions

(OLD TITLE)

Matt Hay exposes rep who attempted to sneak SCAMERA legislation in MO, Kathie Conway (Scamera "rep").

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wrongonred/permalink/530417703667031/

•    Matt Hay
So Paul Curtman is likely too much of a gentleman to name names, but I am going to put her on blast. The Rep that tried to sneak this in was Kathie Conway from the 104th in St. Charles. The journal is here: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/jrnpdf/jrn060.pdf

It was House amendment #2 to HB555 (The Motorcycle No Helmet Law)

HA #2 Failed, but was intended to not only legitimize Red Light Scamera systems, but also authorize warrants for anyone who ignores the unenforceable scamera "Notices of Violation"
 

Read more: Matt Hay UPDATE ON Kathie Conway (Scamera Language that was ill advised)

Legislative News

House says NO to the ATS effort at sneaking RLC legistlation in MO!

Thanks to Matt Hay on shareing this over the web!

Matt Hay
ATS tries to sneak one in.

Paul Curtman

Today, in the 3rd section of an amendment that was being introduced, I found language that would have, for the first time put into legal statute, protections for the use of RED LIGHT CAMERAS and other automated photo and video surveillance technology.

There are NO laws that allow or prohibit the use of red light camer...as etc.
Red light cameras are regulated by MoDOT at this point without any statutory protections or authorization.

DID YOU KNOW that if you get a ticket from a red light camera, in many cases, the red light camera company gets a % of your fine? Conflict of interests and corruption abound in programs like these.

I am against the use of red light cameras so I spoke out against the amendment and urged the House to vote against it. The house overwhelmingly voted the amendment down.

Legislative News

Ohio Ban bill in committee. Scamera side "advocates' or is that PAID lobbyist (by vendors and towns) spread propaganda.

http://www.wksu.org/news/story/35363

Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Ohio lawmakers debate a state ban on red-light cameras
Defenders argue they save lives  (AKA SCAMERA SIDE PAID LOBBYIST MOST LIKEY)

by WKSU's STATEHOUSE CORRESPONDENT BILL COHEN

Reporter
Bill Cohen 
  
 
Red-light cameras issue tickets without a police officer being present.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

In The Region:
More than a dozen Ohio cities have installed traffic cameras to catch speeders and drivers who run red lights. Some motorists are angry over the tickets they’ve received, and they’re pushing Ohio lawmakers to ban the cameras.

The Ohio House Public Safety Committee is holding hearings on the proposal. Statehouse correspondent Bill Cohen reports the most recent hearing featured advocates of the cameras.

Ban the Cams Note:  That really should read "lobbyist of the scamera vendors and cities".  That is what they really are in many cases.

Wonder if one were to pull the speaker list of advocates on scameras how many are:

1.  paid lobbyist by the scamera vendors

2.  paid lobbyist by the cities sending their officers to lobby

3.  salesman who get a per ticket commission on photo contracts.

Might make a great investigative article since many who speak have a direct or indirect monetary interest in the scameras!  (their jobs depend on the scameras).

Legislative News

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/brewer-signs-photo-radar-restrictions/article_7b9e9372-9f0a-53f7-83fb-ee721b096713.html

Brewer signs photo-radar restrictions

Burden put on cities to show state roads are safer with cameras

Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services Arizona Daily Star
April 11, 2013 12:00 am 

Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation Wednesday that could curb future photo-radar installations on state highways, and maybe even force removal of some of them there.

The law eliminates the ability of cities to set up speed and red-light cameras on state roads with little more than perfunctory state oversight. Instead, cities will have to provide statistics to prove the devices will make a real difference in safety.

Already installed photo-enforcement cameras will be allowed to stay through the end of their current permit. But at that time they will have to come down unless there is evidence their presence has reduced speeding and accidents.

Brewer has never been a big fan of photo enforcement.

When she became governor in 2009 she inherited a contract Janet Napolitano, her predecessor, had signed with Redflex Traffic Systems to place 100 fixed and mobile speed cameras along state roads.

Brewer was critical of photo enforcement, particularly because Napolitano used estimated new revenues from the cameras to close a state budget gap.

"I certainly don't support photo radar as a revenue-generating solution to solving our budget," Brewer said. "And I believe that's what it initially was put in (the budget) for."

She killed the Redflex contract in 2010.

The new law in some ways mirrors Brewer's beliefs, in that it preserves the right of cities to petition to put photo cameras on state roads if they can justify it from a safety perspective. But it is designed to preclude their placement if the main goal is to raise money from traffic citations.

ADOT currently has agreements with seven cities, including one for a red-light camera at North Oracle and West River rods in Tucson.

Nothing in the legislation precludes cities from erecting red-light and speeding cameras on their own local streets that are not part of the state highway system.

"I certainly don't support photo radar as a revenue- generating solution to solving our budget. And I believe that's what it initially was put in (the budget) for."

Gov. Jan Brewer

Legislative News

Bus Scameras and “Florida” Coalition,  could it be funded by a camera vendor????  Katie Luebker has a interesting history!

The committee that voted to pass the bus scamera bill, EVERY PERSON VOTING FOR THE BILL TOOK MONEY FROM ATS in 2011 and 2012!

To say that Ban the Cams is not “surprise” on the vote of representatives currently taking money from ATS, is an understatement.

Of interest (besides how the reps voted, more on that near the bottom), is the “coaltion” really a “grassroots group” or a ASTROTURF Group???

WE know that ATS is NOTORIOUS FOR ASTRO TURF GROUPS, like these discovered by www.bancams.com    The link is here:  http://bancams.com/more-front-groups/

Heck ATS employee has been busted doing fake comments too!  http://bancams.com/ats-gets-caught-faking-citizen-comments/

But back to the "coaltion".  There seems to be no mention of them in www.sunbiz.org based on a search here:  http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ByName

The director of the "coalition" is a Katie Luebker.  http://www.flstoparmsafety.org/

Ban the Cams found this on a google search:

October 2012 Archive | Education articles blog on schools in Florida ...
www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/archives/201210?page...CachedShare
Shared on Google+. View the post.
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Oct 31, 2012 – The Florida Stop Arm Safety Coalition, created in August, noted that over ... all Floridians,” coalition director Katie Luebker said in a release.

14 - Education articles blog on schools in Florida & Tampa Bay: the ...www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/frontpage?page...CachedShare
Shared on Google+. View the post.
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The Florida Stop Arm Safety Coalition, created in August, noted that over ... stop arm violations should alarm all Floridians,” coalition director Katie Luebker said ...

Matt from www.stpetecameras.org discovered the following on Katie.:

"Katie Luebker joins Response America after serving as membership director for Coalition for a Conservative Majority, a conservative grassroots organization. She is a veteran of multiple campaigns, including McCain-Palin 2008. With an extensive background in research as well as her campaign experience she is a valuable asset to our team. A lifetime Florida resident, Katie graduated with honors from the University of North Florida with a bachelor's degree in Spanish and International Studies."

http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1652172407&targetid=profile

And her facebook profile ties it all nicely together:

http://www.facebook.com/katie.luebker

So, to sum it up, she's a professional grassroots organizer, quite a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.”

(Ban the Cams has attached a PDF that Matt found on her employement with the PROFESSIONAL GRASSROOTS  "ORGANZER" and with the "coaltion")

Paul Henry has below outlined how everyone voted and who was taking money from ATS:

Committee on Education

Chair:
Senator John Legg (R) $500 10/6/2008 $500 total NO

Vice Chair:
Senator Bill Montford (D) $500 8/13/2010; $500 10/16/2011; $500 10/12/2012  $1,500 total YES

Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R) $500 10/28/2010; $500 10/22/2012  $1,000 total Not present
Senator Jeff Brandes (R) Not a dime. NO
Senator Dwight Bullard (D) Not a dime. Not present
Senator Bill Galvano (R) $500 12/08/2011; $500 10/25/2012  $1,000 total YES
Senator Maria Lorts Sachs (D) $500 12/02/2011 $500 total YES
Senator David Simmons (R) $500 09/09/2011; $500 09/26/2012  $1,000 total YES
Senator Kelli Stargel (R) $500 10/18/2012 $500 total YES

Of the 9 members, 7 of them have taken ATS money. ATS total campaign donations just for this committee: $6,000

The final vote: 5-2 for passage, with 2 not present. The sole NO vote that took ATS money did so almost 5 years ago. All YES votes have taken ATS money in 2011 and 2012.

 The bill is very problematic. http://www.banthecams.org/Call-To-Action/fl-bus-scamera-bill-to-be-heard-next-week-recomend-you-call-to-oppose-sb-950.html

OF REAL CONCERN is the DOUBLE JEPORADY Clause.

Paul Henry:

“ The bill does away with public input for the school board resolution required to use the devices by exempting the resolution from Chapter 120 of Florida Statutes.”

The bill is mainly concern with diving the money.  “Speaking of money, the fine breakdown for this “safety” bill gives the least amount (10%) for bus safety. The state gets a generous 30%, the county gets 25%, and the school district gets 35%- but keep in mind they’ll have to pay the device contract fees out of this each month, which will require a minimum amount of tickets.”

DOUBLE (maybe more) jeopardy. “ In addition to the automated for-profit red light device law’s guilty until proven innocent, lack of a court hearing from the mailed ticket, and lack of any witness in court to authenticate evidence, this bill has yet another constitutional affront- double jeopardy. If the owner is ticketed and fills out an affidavit that someone else had the vehicle, then that person is acquitted in court, the Sheriff must (no discretion is allowed) ticket the owner a second time. The owner then has no option but to pay the fine or go to court. If you think this is no big deal, here is what will happen sooner or later:

Mr. Smith (you’ll remember him from the red light device example) owns a car and is out of town on business. He has three family members that are of driving age. While he’s out of town on business, Mr. Smith’s vehicle is determined to be in violation of passing a stopped school bus. He receives a ticket and grills his family members. One of his children say they had the vehicle that day, so being the good citizen, Smith fills out an affidavit and has a ticket issued to his kid. Incidentally, my ‘friend’ and Florida Sheriff’s Association lobbyist Orange County Captain Michael Fewless touted doing just this to his son for an automated red light violation at a recent hearing. The kid goes to court and tells the Judge that they loaned the vehicle to a friend, but were scared to tell their dad about this. The Judge being wise and compassionate finds the child not guilty. Smith is then re-ticketed and has to pay the fine for something he did not do.”:

Attachments:

File	Description
Katie Luebker on Response America.pdf

Legislative News

Chicago wants to expand the scam to include parking "camera" tickets.

Ban the Cams note:  We just posted a article on this where business people were rightfully complaining that these devices were KILLING THEIR BUSINESS!  http://www.banthecams.org/Taking-on-the-Government/hampstead-trader-claims-traffic-camera-is-killing-business.html

Quote:  "This will drive me out of business, kill local trade and drive customers to supermarkets and online shopping. That’s why so many local businesses are closing down. It’s a total nuisance. I’ve already had to shut down once because of traffic cameras."

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/03/red-light-cameras-may-soon-issue-parking-traffic-tickets/

Red Light Cameras May Soon Issue Parking, Traffic Tickets
March 12, 2013   Chicago Parking Tickets, Red Light Cameras

A sign warns drivers of red light cameras at Kedzie & Irving Park
Could red light cameras be used to give out parking tickets, too?

The City of Chicago, while searching for a new vendor to operate its controversial red light camera program, is asking bidders for ideas on how else to use the cameras, including spotting parking violators.

The city insists it’s just asking at this point and has no plans to use the red light cameras to ticket drivers for anything other than running red lights.

But one critic said the aggressiveness of the city’s camera enforcement “makes my hair stand on end.”

“Chicago has to be the most predatory camera city in the country,” said James Walker, executive director of the National Motorists Association Foundation.

Read more at DNA Info Chicago.  http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130311/chicago/red-light-cameras-issuing-parking-tickets-city-asks-bidders-for-details#ixzz2NIFQakms
 

Legislative News

Ohio Politicians railly against speed cameras as 'big brother'

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130311/NEWS0108/303110108/Pols-rail-against-speed-cameras-big-brother

Pols rail against speed cameras as 'big brother'

Mar 12, 2013

ELMWOOD PLACE — Stopping speed cameras’ operation in this village was the first step.

Now, Ohio state legislators want to continue a campaign to restrict their use around the state.

About a half-dozen current and former state legislators stood in the rain Monday to rail against Elmwood Place’s operation of the program. While standing near a speed camera near the intersection of Vine Street and Township Avenue, legislators called speed cameras “reprehensible” and “contrary to America.”

“This is not a safety issue,” said state Rep. Dale Mallory, D-West End.
“This is a speed trap and is an example of big brother gone wild in a budget crunch.”

Mallory and state Rep. Ron Maag, R-Lebanon, are lead sponsors of legislation that would prohibit municipal authorities, the state highway patrol, or third parties from using a photo-monitoring device to determine compliance with traffic infractions and speed limits. The bill, HB 69, is in the Transportation, Public Safety and Homeland Security committee and Maag expects discussions next week.

Mallory couldn’t say whether the bill has enough support in the House, Senate or governor’s office to be enacted. But he offered advice to municipalities toying with the idea of implementing speed cameras: “Don’t do it.”

The effort against the cameras gained major support Thursday when Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman ordered a permanent injunction of the program after a group of residents and businesses filed a lawsuit. The suit challenged the program’s ability to grant due process to challenge citations among other things.

From the time the cameras were installed through March 8, Elmwood Place has collected $970,000 from fines paid, said village Mayor Stephanie Morgan. Morgan said the village is not appropriating additional money from proceeds the cameras generate until the injunction is lifted.

Morgan said the cameras were installed for safety reasons and declined further comment about the injunction at the village municipal building Monday.

The village entered into an agreement with Maryland-based Optotraffic LLC in July to manage the traffic cameras and citation issuance process. The program began Sept. 1.

“Optotraffic will continue to work closely with the village of Elmwood Place in appealing the decision, which we believe is unsustainable,” said Tim Ayers, a spokesman for the automated speed enforcement company.
Ayers declined comment on the news conference.

Citations sent to drivers levy fines of $105 to keep motorists from speeding through key village corridors. Mallory said cameras should be used to fight crime. But in the village, people avoid the area and as a result, businesses are hurt.

Maag said if operation of the program was wasn’t about money, then the proceeds from violations could be donated to charity.

“This is not the way to balance the budget on the backs of citizens in this community,” Mallory said.
 

Legislative News

Iowa:  Mobile Scameras Banned, others restricted by Iowa House Bill.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130228/NEWS/130228018/1056/news05?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

Bill requiring state review of traffic camera installation advances in Iowa House

Written by Jason Noble

Cities and counties would have to receive approval from the Iowa Department of Transportation before placing red-light and speeding cameras on state and federal highways under bill that advanced Thursday in the House.

The local governments would be required to prove that a traffic ticket-generating camera is necessary and that other forms of enforcement are unworkable before the state would OK installation. It applies to permanent camera equipment.

The mobile traffic enforcement cameras used by many cities, meanwhile, would be banned outright by the bill.

The application process mandated by the law would mirror DOT policy that was enacted last year and updated just last month. That policy likewise requires cities and counties to submit a “justification report” when seeking to install cameras on state highways, U.S. highways and interstates.

The bill, House File 334, won subcommittee approval on Thursday, clearing it for debate by the full Transportation Committee. To remain viable for passage this year, the bill must clear the full committee by the end of next week.

Traffic enforcement using camera equipment has exploded in communities across Iowa, but is much maligned by motorists and questioned by civil liberties advocates who see it as a government encroachment on privacy.

Bill sponsor Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, has said requiring DOT oversight of local governments’ installation of the cameras would ensure safety and necessity are the driving factors in their use.

Legislative News

Ed Hooper NOW represents ATS, R-ATS.  Bus Scamera bill.

Rep. Ed Hooper has a new designation as to representation. Normally, it is the party letter followed by the city or area he represents. Seeing as how by filing a bill for automated for-profit school bus enforcement, he now represents ATS, so he will henceforth be known as Rep. Ed Hooper (R-ATS).

Ban the Cams note:  When a pro scamera piece came out in the Orlando paper, was interesting to note that NOT one crash mentioned WOULD HAVE EVER BEEN STOPED BY THE BUS SCAMERA!
www.banthecams.org%2F3254-accident-used-in-justification-would-not-have-been-prevented-by-the-school-bus-scamera.html

Example: And in 2005 Gaston Roy Johnson Jr., 14, was hit and killed by a car as he stepped off his bus coming home from Olympia High in Orange on the first day of school after Christmas vacation. The driver, whose license had been revoked because of a series of seizures, was sentenced to prison.

HOW DOES A Bus Scamera "stop" a driver who is DRIVING ILLEGALLY (since scameras only send bills) with a medical condition. If he had a seizure, NO BUS SCAMERA WOULD HAVE EVER STOPPED THIS!

Example 2. Among them, in May five Sumter County children were injured when a sport utility vehicle driven by an elderly woman slammed into the rear of their stopped bus.

How does a bus scamera "stop" a elderly driver who was either NOT paying attention or was no longer able to drive safely from REAR ENDING THE BUS??

Example 3. Two elementary-school boys about to get on a bus on Clarcona-Ocoee Road in January were hit by a car forced into them by another vehicle belatedly trying to stop.

How does a bus scamera "stop" a driver NOT paying attention WHO HIMSELF WAS TRYING TO STOP!

Bus Scamera don't "stop" anyone, it just sends a bill. Which is what this is really about long term.

Ban the Cams.  Early reports on the bill indicate that is written for CAMERA Vendors, WITH REALLY NO DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS!

Paul Henry found this:
Here is part of the "new" statute (bigger bucks this time, yeah, baby!). At least it's called a camera this time. My comments are in CAPS

NO FACES RECORDED- DRIVER CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED
(5)When the operator of a motor vehicle violates s. 316.172 by failing to stop behind a school bus displaying a stop signal or by passing a school bus before the stop signal has been withdrawn, the school bus safety camera shall record images or video of the violation and record the vehicle’s license plate. The images or video recorded by a school bus safety camera may not contain the face of the operator of or any passenger in the motor vehicle.

MONEY MONEY MONEY $$$$
(6)A fine of $250 shall be imposed for a violation of s. 316.172 when enforced under this section.

BUT IT'S FOR EDUCATION!!! THE STATE'S CUT IS 30%. NOTE "LESS COSTS TO ADMINISTER AND OPERATE" THIS IS THE ATS PAYDAY. 25% WITH NO STRINGS FOR THE COUNTY! 10% ACTUALLY USED FOR THE BUS!
All fines collected, less costs to administer, operate, and maintain the program, shall be distributed as follows:
(a)Twenty-five percent shall be remitted to the county in which the offense was committed.
(b)Thirty-five percent shall be remitted to the school district in which the offense was committed.
(c)Thirty percent shall be remitted to the Department of Revenue for deposit into the General Revenue Fund.
(d)Ten percent shall be remitted to the Department of Education for school bus safety initiatives.

DRIVER NOT TICKETED:
(7)(a) ...the sheriff’s office shall issue a notice of violation to the registered owner or lessee of the motor vehicle depicted in the images or video.

GOING AFTER TAGS NOW (LICENSES WERE NOT ENOUGH):
(7)(b)1.h.1. ...and the denial of a new or replacement license plate or revalidation sticker as part of motor vehicle registration until the owner or lessee presents a receipt from the applicable governmental entity

OWNER GUILTY:
(d)4.f. ...the motor vehicle owner or lessee who has been issued a notice of violation is responsible for payment of the fine unless the owner or lessee successfully transfers liability to the person identified as the operator pursuant to subparagraph (c)3.,

This is far more complex than the RLC bill, and just as bad.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0950/BillText/Filed/HTML

Legislative News

RLC SCAM ALERT Minnesota.  NO TO HB 487 RLC SCAM!

Seems Redflex and their FRONT GROUP are trying to find new markets now that Chicago has given Redflex the boot.   See Article: http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1010817/396/Minn-lawmakers-consider-stop-light-cameras- 

Quote:  Red-Flex, the Australian company that produces a wide array of automatic enforcement systems, has hired a Minnesota lobbyist and a Minneapolis attorney to work in support of the legislation during the 2013 session.

Quote II:  A group calling itself the Traffic Safety Coalition sent out a press release Tuesday applauding the legislation and noting that 27 of Minnesota's 360 traffic fatalities in 2011 involved a traffic signal. 

THAT "Coaltion" is A REDFLEX FUNDED ASTRO GROUP!!!!  Also note, NO mention of how many fatals were RLR or the underlying causes like DUI for example!!!

The MN RLC SCAM bill is HB 487. 

Ban the Cams STRONGLY ENCOURAGES Minnesota Citizens to call and write (email) their reps to OPPOSE the RLC bill!

1.  Bring up the Fact that RLC DO NOT improve safety.  You can reference reports:  http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies  article:  http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/articles

2. Also bring up what REDFLEX DID in Chicago:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-red-light-investigation-0208-20130208,0,379202.story

"Hoffman last week presented the audit committee of Redflex's board with a starkly different version of events, reporting that Bills received thousands of dollars in pricey hotel stays, including tickets to at least one Super Bowl and White Sox spring training trips over the course of many years, according to sources. Hoffman's report implicated company executives in the wrongdoing and recommended that some be fired, the sources said."

3.  Mention that the "Traffic Safety Coalition" is a REDFLEX ASTRO TURF GROUP!  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3445.asp
 

quote:  "An Australian company has hired kingmakers from Chicago, Illinois to prevent Texas residents from being able to decide whether or not red light cameras should be used in their community. A "grassroots" group calling itself the Texas Traffic Safety coalition filed a lawsuit to stop the city of Port Lavaca, Texas from holding a referendum on the photo enforcement program run by Melbourne-based Redflex. Although no court order was issued in the case, the city council decided not to hold the election, despite the city charter's instruction that the council must place a qualified petition on the ballot.

According to the March 3 Texas Secretary of State filing that created the Texas Traffic Safety Coalition, the group consists of three directors: David Goldenberg, Gregory Goldner and David Smolensky. All three are officers of Resolute Consulting, a public relations firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Redflex is one of the firm's satisfied clients."

4.  Mention that many of the Lobbyist might have PERSONAL profit on a per ticket basis in passing the bill.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-red-light-probe-louisiana-20121022,0,423208.story  or http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/stoplight_camera_contractor_de.html

Quote: “ On Jan. 27, however, the council voted 7-0 to suspend camera enforcement, amid a wide-ranging federal criminal investigation of former Parish President Aaron Broussard's administration.

Roberts, who sponsored the measure, said he was disturbed to learn that Redflex planned to give about 3.2 percent of its Jefferson Parish revenue to lobbyists who had helped the company win the contract. Among the lobbyists: Bryan Wagner, a former New Orleans City Council member, and Julie Murphy, who is married to Judge Robert Murphy of the 24th Judicial District Court.”

5.  Heck Even Cops who speak in Favor of RLC scam might be BEING PAID BY THE RLC SIDE.  http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/07/police-union-director-also-a-red-light-camera-lobbyist/

TO CONTACT YOUR REPS in Minnestoa:  http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legislators.aspx
Link to the Bill:  http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF487&Go.x=9&Go.y=13&Go=Search&ls_year=88&sessionvar=20130

CALL YOUR REPS AND TELL THEM NO TO HB 487.  NO to TRAFFIC SCAMERAS!

Legislative News

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2013/02/speed-camera-repeal-bill-introduced-in.html

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Speed Camera Repeal Bill Introduced in Senate

A bill to repeal speed cameras, Senate Bill 785 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=SB0785&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS, has been introduced for consideration by the state senate.

The bill's sponsors are senators E. J. Pipkin(R, Kent, Queen Anne's, Cecil, and Caroline Counties), Richard Colburn (R, Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot, and Wicomico Counties), and Nancy Jacobs (R, Harford and Cecil counties).   The synopsis for the bill states that it's purpose is: "Repealing the authority of counties and municipalities in the State to use speed monitoring systems to enforce highway speed laws; repealing the authority to use work zone speed control systems to enforce highway speed laws within work zones; etc."

We earlier covered the House Version of this bill, HB251 http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2013/01/delegates-call-for-speed-camera-repeal.html.

To get a vote in the Senate, SB 785 would first need to clear the Judicial Proceedings Committee:
Judicial Proceedings Members:Brian E. Frosh (Chair): 301-858-3124; Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3124; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Lisa A. Gladden (Vice Chair): 410-841-3697; Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3697; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

• James Brochin http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=brochin&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Joseph M Getty http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=getty&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Jennie M. Forehand http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=forehand&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Nancy Jacobs (SPONSOR) http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=jacobs&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• C. Anthony Muse http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=muse&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Jamie Raskin http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=raskin&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Christopher B. Shank http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=shank&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Norman R. Stone Jr. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=stone&stab=01&ys=2013RS
• Bobby A. Zirkin http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=sponpage&tab=subject6&id=zirkin&stab=01&ys=2013RS

Legislative News

States look at changes to ticket camera rules
By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor

Ticket cameras are a perennial topic in states throughout the country. This year the issue is again drawing discussion in statehouses – both for and against the enforcement tool.

Jim Walker, a consultant for the National Motorists Association, said that lawmakers would be better served to look at another option.

“You can put in a camera, and after one year the typical reduction rate is 40 to 50 percent,” Walker told Land Line. “If you add a second to yellow you will normally achieve a 60 to 90 percent reduction rate in one day, but it guts the revenue stream.”

Lawmakers in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maryland and Washington are looking to ban the use of red-light cameras and/or speed cameras.

Additional efforts in Iowa and Missouri wouldn’t end ticket camera programs, but they would take much of the incentive away for communities to use the money-making devices. An Arizona bill would impose specific requirements for posting speed cameras.

Specifically, the Missouri bill would route revenue to local school districts while an Iowa bill would direct the money to local nonprofits.

Multiple measures in Maryland also would discourage the use of cameras to dole out tickets. One bill would require daily calibration checks of equipment. Another bill would penalize speed camera companies and local governments $1,000 each for false violations.

Delegate Jon Cardin, D-Baltimore, said changes are needed to show residents that the cameras are not a money grab.

“We want to make sure the vendors are being held to the same degree of accountability as the driving public,” Cardin told “Land Line Now.”

A recent analysis by the New Jersey Department of Transportation showed that the so-called “automatic ticketing machines” also are a safety hazard.

The agency found that intersections posted with the cameras have seen an increase in wrecks. The collisions are also more costly.

New Jersey Sen. Mike Doherty, R-Washington, said the report’s findings are no surprise. He said it’s time to take down the cameras.

“This complete failure to achieve that primary goal of increasing driver safety should lead to the immediate termination of the red-light camera pilot program,” Doherty said in a statement.

New Jersey lawmakers are pushing for alternatives to simply dispensing tickets for red-light violations. One bill would lengthen yellow times at intersections posted with cameras. It would also implement a one-second delay for violations.

Other states, including Indiana and Oregon, are looking at bills that would authorize red-light cameras and speed cameras, respectively.

In Connecticut, lawmakers introduced two bills to allow cities with 48,000 or more people to use red-light cameras.

Multiple bills offered in the Empire State would result in more cameras posted in New York City. One bill would add 100 red-light cameras to the 150 already posted in the city. A separate bill would set up a truck weight photo-monitoring system while another bill would authorize the use of speed radar on one busy thoroughfare.

OOIDA leadership says the focus on ticket cameras ignores the more logical and reasoned approach to roads and traffic.

“The goal should be to keep traffic moving in as safe a manner as possible,” said OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer. Communities should be pursuing “intelligent traffic lights that actually monitor traffic and are triggered by traffic flow,” he said.

Walker notes that easy fixes are available, such as installing backplates to traffic lights, to lower red-light violation rates nearly 50 percent.

“If you re-engineer lights for inexpensive changes, you would do more for safety than can be accomplished with a camera, but it won’t make any money. Engineering for safety is not profitable.”

Legislative News

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4017.asp

Arizona Reconsiders Traffic Camera Ban
Lawmaker in Arizona to introduce legislation banning the use of speed cameras and red light cameras.

Lawmakers in Arizona will once again debate whether to continue the use of automated ticketing machines. State Representative Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) intends later today to introduce photo radar ban legislation that in the previous session came within a few votes of passage. This year, grassroots activists supporting the measure are hopeful newly elected members like Petersen will push the bill onto the desk of Governor Jan Brewer (R).

"It's about time that local jurisdictions and foreign companies stop taking away money from Arizonans, especially in these hard economic times," Campaign for Liberty spokesman Shawn Dow told TheNewspaper. "Visitors shouldn't be shaken down when they travel our streets."

Dow points out the state Republican Party in Arizona unanimously adopted a resolution formally opposing the use of photo radar, and the GOP holds sixty percent of the seats in the legislature. Many of the party's biggest supporters of photo enforcement are now gone, including state Representative Linda Gray, who was term-limited out of office. While he served as speaker, state Representative Kirk Adams also blocked any legislation on the House side that threatened to advance to final passage. Adams stepped down to run for a congressional seat last year but was clobbered in the primary by former US Representative Matt Salmon.

Legislation that would have put the question of banning red light cameras and speed cameras in Arizona to the voters died on a split 14 to 14 vote http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3732.asp in the Senate in March of last year. Petersen's bill revives language introduced in the previous sessions that immediately bans the use of cameras as an act of the legislature.

"No traffic complaint, notice of violation or other legal form of civil or criminal charge or citation shall be issued or filed in the state of Arizona for an alleged violation of this title or of any other state, county or municipal law relating to the operation of a motor vehicle if the alleged violation was detected through the use of a Photo Enforcement System," the proposed legislation will state.

If the legislation passed, Arizona would become the sixteenth state where photo enforcement is banned (view list http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp). The bill would serve a particularly powerful message as American Traffic Solutions is based in the Phoenix area. The US office for Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia is also located within the state. Redflex lists Arizona as one of the company's top-four markets, including California, Illinois and Texas.

Legislative News

NYC wants more scameras, Revenue is most likely reason.

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24723

More ticket cameras sought for New York City

By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor
Multiple efforts are underway in the Empire State to add ticket cameras in more areas in New York City.

One bill would allow New York City to add 100 intersections to the 150 already under the watchful eye of camera surveillance. The enforcement tool has been in use in the city since 1994.

A 2009 law expanded use of the money making mechanism. A five-year pilot program was created in Buffalo and Rochester, as well as Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, to install cameras at 50 intersections in each locale. Yonkers was permitted to use the devices at 25 intersections.

Sen. Tony Avella, D-Bayside, wrote in a memo attached to S459 that the New York City program “deserves to be expanded.” He cites the lack of police manpower to enforce coverage at thousands of intersections throughout the city.

Opponents, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, question the claim that cameras are solely intended to keep people safe. They cite statements made four years ago by county officials in Nassau and Suffolk counties that refer to the boost in revenue the red-light cameras will provide.

A separate bill from Sen. Daniel Squadron, D-Brooklyn, would add ticket cameras to one busy Brooklyn roadway. S198 would permit cameras to detect speeding violations on McGuinness Boulevard.

According to New York City Department of Transportation statistics, the four-lane thoroughfare averaged about one vehicle-pedestrian collision per month during a recent five-year period.

Another bill offered by Squadron is intended to get tough with truck drivers using New York City streets that are off limits to trucks. S240 would set up a pilot truck weight photo-monitoring system in New York City.

Targeted at trucks using roadways posted as a “No Truck” zone, it would allow city government to set up a local ordinance to create a demonstration program. As many as 50 intersections could be outfitted with photo-monitoring devices to snap pictures of trucks.

Squadron wrote in a bill memo that it “provides an enforcement mechanism that will also generate revenue.”

Truckers say passage of the effort would be another reason to avoid going into the city. They cite difficulties navigating through the area not knowing if a road is posted.

Cameras would be activated by a vehicle sensor working in conjunction with a vehicle scale. Owners of vehicles found in violation would face $50 fines. No points would be added to the driver’s license, and the insurance company would not be notified.

Owners not driving the vehicle at the time of the offense could seek indemnification against the operator.

Exceptions would be made for trucks making “a legitimate delivery” in the area.

The bills are in the Senate Transportation Committee.

Legislative News

Bill to Ban Bluff City Traffic SCAMERAS introduced in TN Assembly

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0314&GA=108

HB 0314 by *Hill T, Lundberg, Hill M, McManus, Rogers.

Traffic Safety - As introduced, prohibits the use of unmanned traffic enforcement cameras in certain areas of Bluff City. - Amends TCA Title 5; Title 6; Title 7 and Title 55, Chapter 8.
 

Legislative News

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/jan/24/mississippi-bill-would-not-recognize-speeding-tick/

Mississippi bill would not recognize speeding tickets from 'evil-eye' cameras
By Phil West
Memphis Commercial Appeal
Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:02 p.m., updated January 25, 2013 at 12:07 a.m.
.

JACKSON — State House members declared Thursday that the state Department of Public Safety will not recognize out-of-state traffic tickets issued by private companies operating "evil eye" cameras to catch speeding drivers and those running red lights.

The legislation would recognize such tickets only when they come through regular channels by other states that are members of the Interstate Driver's License Compact.

Supporters said five states — Tennessee, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin — are not members of the interstate group.

Sometimes, though, private companies operating what one member called "these evil eye cameras" submit ticket information to the state Department of Public Safety, which supporters said are overwhelming state safety employees.

In at least one instance a Mississippi woman lost her driver's license after being ticketed in Louisiana but didn't know she had received a ticket, said Rep. Andy Gipson, R-Braxton.

"What's happening is these out-of-state companies are sending in these electronic tickets to the Department of Public Safety, and turns these tickets in and the state of Louisiana is not even involved in the process," Gipson said.

"And our people are losing their licenses."

Gipson noted that Louisiana is an Interstate Driver's License Compact member, "but the state of Louisiana is not sending in the ticket. The company is, but they're not a member."

House members approved the bill on a vote of 119-0 and sent it to the Senate for consideration there.

Legislative News

http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/traffic-camera-ban-restrictions-on-the-table-in-iowa-legislature/article_74257a1c-659f-11e2-8d34-001a4bcf887a.html

Traffic camera ban, restrictions on the table in Iowa Legislature

January 23, 2013 2:59 pm  •  Rod Boshart

DES MOINES — Opponents of traffic enforcement cameras are going to take another run at banning the devices statewide this legislative session.

Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, filed three bills Wednesday dealing with red-light and speed-monitoring cameras, such as those operating in Davenport, Muscatine and other Iowa cities.

One would ban the devices effective July 1, and others would seek to place new restrictions and regulations on local governments to cap fines for violations and designate some of the revenue from the automated enforcement for other uses.

“I’m hearing from more and more Iowans,” Zaun said. “I think the support to get rid of these is growing rather than shrinking.”

Zaun said he expects the 2013 session at least would produce some limitations and restrictions on the operation of traffic-enforcement cameras.

Last session, the Iowa House voted 58-42 to ban traffic enforcement cameras, but the issue never came to a vote in the Iowa Senate. Zaun said the Iowa General Assembly has 37 new members this year, so the prospect for legislative action on the issue is uncertain this early in the process.

Sen. Tod Bowman, D-Maquoketa, who took over as chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said the Iowa Department of Transportation has issued guidelines for the operation of automated enforcement devices. He said he wants to use those guidelines as a starting point for possible policy changes that could include uniform citations for violations or other operational rules that would assume their continued use by local jurisdictions with local control to enhance safety. (Ban the Cams note:  Wonder how much money the scamera vendors are giving to certain "representatives' to sell the public out to the SCAMERA Business).

“I don’t think we’re going to eliminate them completely. I’d say that’s probably a pretty accurate statement,” Bowman said. “The big thing for me is safety. To a certain degree, the argument becomes should I be able to break the law without having any consequences just because a police officer is not right there to catch you? To me, that’s condoning the wrong behavior.”

Bowman said he was willing to have a discussion about reshaping the regulations for operating traffic-enforcement devices.

“I’m going to be having a lot of conversations with people that have interest in this area and listen and see what direction we want to go,” he said. “It is going to be discussed. Where it goes from there, we’ll see, but it’s not a closed door. We are going to look at it.”

Zaun said his preference is to ban the devices outright, but he also is looking at options to limit how much camera operators can receive as a share of the proceeds, as well as ways to require that the excess revenue generated by traffic enforcement cameras be deposited into trust accounts that fund local nonprofit organizations or provide money for people involved in accidents with uninsured drivers. He also favors putting the excess proceeds after contract obligations are paid to the camera operators into the state road use tax fund.

Davenport collected $1.34 million in revenue from traffic cameras during fiscal year 2011. That revenue goes into the city's general fund, but it is tabbed for public safety use, such as police overtime and operating the traffic camera program in the police department's traffic division.

Gov. Terry Branstad has said he would sign legislation to ban traffic-monitoring devices if the legislature sends a bill to his desk.

Legislative News

Big Brother kicks ya when your down.  Uses camera to hit panhandlers.  (Could motorists be next for being charitable???)

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20130122/NEWS01/301220009/Larimer-County-Sheriff-s-Office-trains-camera-panhandling-hotspot?nclick_check=1

Comment on Article by local:

Bryson Russell · Colorado State University
Wow, maybe the fluoride in the water is getting to the Sheriff. There's only a little flawed logic here...
The fact that you got a federal grant for this needless device is mind boggling. At least the "camera on a stick" deters the absolutely heinous crime of panhandling, we don't want to be nickel and dimed to death (I know corny pun). Great, so you got a federal grant, good for you.
1: Is the federal government going to be enforcing these strict panhandling laws? No, our Sheriff's department is.
2: What's to stop the panhandlers from moving a block down the street, and doing the same thing? Nothing
3: How does a person who is broke, asking for money supposed to pay a thousand dollar fine?
They won't be able to! Then the panhandlers will have to ask for more money so they can pay off their fines, which leads to a panhandling epidemic!
4: When the panhandlers are not able to pay off the fines, they will have warrants out for their arrest.
The panhandlers will then be arrested and housed by departments that we pay for, prosecuted by officials we pay for and then go straight back to panhandling to pay off court costs...

Way to think this one through. I am also troubled by the amount of geese in this town. Although I know that it's not really that big of a deal, more so an inconvenience. When the geese impede traffic they are breaking the law. Something must be done, goose traps or goose monitors seem appropriate.

Larimer County Sheriff's Office trains camera on panhandling hotspot
Mobile device at Timberline and Mulberry aims to help enforce new restrictions.

A robotic eye in the sky has replaced panhandlers as a fixture in the median at the intersection of East Mulberry Street and Timberline Road.

Last week, the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office perched a mobile camera unit at the popular panhandling hangout just east of Fort Collins’ city limits.

It’s intended to deter the practice and is one of the early steps to enforce new county panhandling restrictions that took effect this month.

“It’s a big camera on a pole. We’ve had it for a couple of years,” said Capt. John Manago of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s a force multiplier for us. We’re able to see more with fewer people.”

More importantly, Manago said, it’s a highly visible deterrent that keeps panhandlers away from one of their favorite haunts, where asking for money is newly prohibited. So far, the camera has worked to shoo away panhandlers, but it doesn’t deserve all of the credit.

“The combination of the weather and the camera being there has worked as a deterrent,” Manago said. “But we know the weather’s going to change. It’s going to get nicer, and then we’ll get a better indication of how effective the camera is.”

The camera runs on a gas-powered generator and feeds an online video stream back to the sheriff’s office, where deputies can monitor remotely whether panhandlers are setting up shop in the forbidden zone.

The county’s new panhandling restrictions took effect Jan. 7. Since county commissioners adopted the restrictions in December, the sheriff’s office has been contacting panhandlers who are in violation to educate them about the change. Manago said the camera is an extension of that education campaign because it aims to curb violations before they result in tickets, which can carry a fine of up to $1,000.

“I think we’ll keep this phase going at least through January,” Manago said.

It costs the sheriff’s office little to administer the camera, which it obtained several years ago through a grant. The only associated costs are for keeping fuel in the generator and the rare occasion that manpower is deployed to cart it around.

Manago said the camera has a singular mission.

“We got some calls from citizens asking why the camera is there,” he said.

“I don’t blame them for wondering. The only reason it’s there is the panhandling issue.”

Legislative News

http://warondriving.com/post/41148694234/ohio-red-light-camera-ban

Ohio Legislature to Introduce Camera Ban

We have it on good authority that an Ohio legislator will be introducing a full ban on photo ticketing across the entire Buckeye state. [language]

Despite public outcry in multiple Ohio cities, most recently in Cleveland http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8737539, the red light and speed camera scam has been allowed to operate at the discretion of corrupt city councils and mayors.

East Cleveland may be the worst example. The mayor threatened to cut police and fire personnel if the council got rid of their cameras. Just over a year later, the cameras are still flashing away, but police officers were cut anyway http://www.callandpost.com/index.php/news/community/3249-no-money-more-problems-.

The Campaign for Liberty model legislation language http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1352p.pdf will be used in an organized push for an all-out ban.