Legislative News

Legislative News

New Jersey lawmaker challenges ticket camera advocates

By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor

An effort underway in New Jersey contests local governments’ use of ticket cameras.
 
Sen. Michael Doherty, R-Washington, is working on a bill that challenges whether the state’s red-light camera program is all about safety. Specifically, it would reroute ticket revenue from municipal budgets to the state’s Highway Safety Fund.
 
Doherty said that if local officials truly are concerned about safety they should support the bill.
 
“This legislation allows towns to keep the cameras that local officials say make their intersections safer, but not the ticket revenues their cameras generate,” Doherty said in a news release. “Every mayor and local official who is on record saying cameras are about safety, not money, should support this bill.”
 
The ticketing program used in 24 communities throughout the Garden State has come under increased scrutiny in recent months.
 
In November 2012, a New Jersey Department of Transportation analysis showed that intersections posted with the ticket cameras have seen an increase in wrecks. The collisions at the 24 intersections posted for at least one year are also more costly.
 
Specifically, the report showed that right-angle crashes at the intersections dipped by 15 percent (from 60 to 51) in the year since the cameras were posted. However, rear-end crashes increased during the same time period by 20 percent (from 286 to 343). In all, collisions increased from 577 to 582.
 
The “crash severity cost” at the affected intersections also jumped by about $1.2 million.
 
Doherty said that he questions whether local officials would continue to employ the ticket cameras if they no longer get a cut of the money.
 
“How many towns and local officials will continue to demand the opportunity to install red-light cameras ... if their share of ticket revenues is cut off? My guess is very few.”
 
Doherty has a separate bill that would simply prohibit municipalities from adopting ordinances to post red-light cameras. He has an online petition http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/petitions/red-light-cameras/tell-the-legislature-to-ban-red-light-cameras-in-new-jersey-sign-the-petition/11852 to rally support for the bill – S1952.
 
 

Legislative News

MO Law would route SCAMERA Revenue to School Districts like NC!

Ban the Cams note:  When the NC Supreme Court ruled that cities couldn't keep the majority of the SCAMERA revenue (90% had to go to the School Districts), many towns dropped photo enforcement.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2666.asp

Quote:  Add Rocky Mount to the growing list of North Carolina cities that have dumped red light cameras after the state's highest court insisted that profit from the devices must be given to the public schools. The city last week decided to allow its contract with Traffipax, a German ticket camera operator, to expire without renewal.

Like most North Carolina cities, Rocky Mount was eager to install cameras in September 2002, adding a total of five intersections to the program to ensure a steady stream of revenue. By 2005, The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, the red light camera industry trade group run by the public relations firm Blakey and Agnew, created data designed to show incredible accident reductions at intersections within the state that used red light cameras. The programs were all declared a success.

Added Quote:

This excitement ended in 2007 when the state supreme court upheld a ruling that found Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution applied to red light camera tickets. The provision states that "the clear proceeds of all penalties... shall be... used exclusively for maintaining free public schools" (read final opinion http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1132.asp). This meant that local governments had to turn over photo ticketing revenue to the schools and not the general municipal operating budget. Any city wishing to continue its photo ticketing program would have to pay for it.

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24627

Missouri bills would limit locals' ticket revenue stream
By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor
Multiple bills offered at the Missouri statehouse are intended to rein in overzealous law enforcement. They can be considered during the session that begins Wednesday, Jan. 9.

One bill is aimed at curtailing communities in the state that pad their budgets with speed trap revenue. This is the fourth time in the past decade the effort has come up in Jefferson City.

Sponsored by Rep. T.J. Berry, R-Kearney, the measure would revise an 18-year-old law to further limit the amount of total revenue a town can receive from traffic violation fines.

Similar versions died in committee during previous sessions.

Supporters who are hopeful their fortunes have changed say the effort isn’t intended to punish local governments. They want to rein in communities that use their police departments to “pester” nonresident drivers with unreasonable ticketing.

The community of Macks Creek in Camden County once spurred state lawmakers to act on the issue. In 1994, 75 percent of the small town’s budget reportedly came from traffic tickets.

The city’s five police officers were writing an estimated 2,900 traffic tickets, worth about $165,000 annually. The majority of those fines were handed down to nonresidents, USA Today previously reported.

In 1995, a Missouri law was enacted limiting the amount of traffic fine revenue municipalities can keep. Cities or towns that receive more than 45 percent of their total annual revenue from fines for traffic violations are required to turn over any amount in excess of that 45 percent to the Department of Revenue.

HB84 would reduce the amount to 35 percent for the state’s smallest towns.

Despite the current 45-percent revenue cap, advocates say other communities are adopting practices similar to those Macks Creek practiced nearly two decades ago.

Another bill once again up for consideration is intended to discourage communities from using red-light or speed cameras as a “money grab.” Sponsored by Sen. Will Kraus, R-Lee’s Summit, SB108 would require cities using the technology to route all fines collected to the local school district. Typically, the revenue is put into a city’s general fund.

Officials in Kansas City have said the change would make the city’s 18 camera locations no longer viable. According to a fiscal note, the state’s largest city would lose out on $4 million a year in camera revenue.

Both bills are awaiting assignment to committee.

Legislative News

Despite town using SCAMERAS as a TAX to "save" police and fire officials.  East Cleveland Layoffs!

Comment by Wrong on Red.com on East Cleveland really using scameras as a tax.  (Layoffs in East Cleveland, OH).

Citizens in East Cleveland, Ohio hold the distinction of being the only city to vote in November, 2011, to retain red light cameras due to a full-court press by the mayor threatening layoffs if the revenue wasn't retained. Of course, the cameras are supposed to be there "for safety" and not a continued revenue source.

Well, it ended up to be an empty promise to citizens. Now the Mayor is planning to lay off 25 percent of the city's police force due to the budget deficit. In July the Council President stated they budgeted $1.7 mil from the RLC program, but at that time only "recovered" $115,000. So much for the "safety" program, especially since that amount of money would hire a full-time officer to catch drug dealers, drunk drivers, shooting and robbery suspects. I don't think a RLC has ever participated in capturing any of those criminals in the course of operation.

(Ban the Cams note:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp

In East Cleveland, city leaders went to the most extreme lengths of any contest to date to badger voters into supporting cameras using official resources. Off-duty police officers, in uniform and with their police cruisers parked on the curb, were ordered to go door-to-door to convince residents to vote to save the cameras. Last month, Mayor Gary Norton mailed layoff notices to thirty-six cops and fourteen firefighters, claiming the city would have to fire them if it lost the photo ticketing revenue.  )

This is why people have called Traffic Cameras the CRACK DRUG of towns!

http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/seeing-red-long-islands-controversial-red-light-cameras.html “Cameras are the crack-cocaine for cities. Once they get hooked on the money, they can’t get off,” says Tim Eyman, initiative activist with Voters Want More Choices, in Mukilteo, Wash.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_cuyahoga/east-cleveland-mayor-council-blame-each-other-for-police-layoffs-budget-mess

East Cleveland mayor, council blame each other for police layoffs, budget mess
City facing an estimated $8 million deficit

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_cuyahoga/east-cleveland-mayor-council-blame-each-other-for-police-layoffs-budget-mess#ixzz2HNorC5Il

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio - The animosity between East Cleveland city council and its mayor, Gary Norton, was palpable at the Wednesday night’s council meeting.

Norton laid out to council members and an audience of a dozen residents, layoffs to the police force if a budget cuts take place.

“This is about safety, not about politics at all. This is real, this is not make believe or imaginary,” said Mayor Norton.

Norton said the cuts would devastate manpower and eliminate the narcotics units.

“There will be no more house drug busts in the city of East Cleveland,” the mayor said He said 14 officers on the road would become two two-man cars.

Norton characterized the budget cuts at 25 percent while council said the cuts to the department’s budget at less than 10 percent.

After he made his presentation, Norton left the meeting, a move that rankled many council members.

One by one, the five members of council took turns blaming the mayor and his administration for blowing a hole in the city’s budget which now, council estimates, has an $8 million shortfall.

“If you have a credit card and you’ve maxed that credit card out, you get penalized. Well, he had that credit card for this community and he went way beyond it, $6 million to $8 million as we count right now and it might be more ,” said councilman Nathaniel Martin.

Council members said the mayor is once again using scare tactics, a scenario they say he has used in each December of his administration. Norton took office in December 2010.

Council member Chantelle Lewis said the current police budget is approximately $4.1 million and council is cutting that to $3.8 million. She said the mayor has proposed a police budget of $4.8 million.

Waving copies of police salaries, she said, “Do not sit here and believe the hype, that is not 25 percent, I don’t care who does the math because when you have data on the table, it definitely changes the conversation.”

East Cleveland was placed into a state of fiscal emergency by Auditor of State Dave Yost last October.

Reading from Yost’s report, councilman Martin reiterated council’s placing of the blame at the mayor’s feet, “Norton failed to control overtime” he added, “wasteful spending is the problem, not us, him.”

East Cleveland cut 38 officers from its force in a 2011 budget cutting move.
 

Legislative News

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/maryland-state-senator-brian-frosh-wants-to-stop-red-light-ticket-profits-for-camera-vendors-83682.html

Maryland State Senator Brian Frosh wants to stop red light ticket profits for camera vendors
By Roz Plater

January 3, 2013 - 11:10 pm

A Montgomery County lawmaker wants to make sure the companies that make red light cameras aren't making out like bandits.

Continue reading
 A portion of each $40 speed camera ticket goes back to the vendor. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the distribution can be as much as 40 percent.

Driver Kim Naylor said, "I think it's a kickback. I think it's not good...and they shouldn't do it. That's how I feel about it."

In fact, Maryland State Senator Brian Frosh says lawmakers never wanted the camera companies to get a per ticket bounty.

But somehow cities are using a supposed loophole, and Frosh wants it to stop. AAA supports him.

AAA spokesman Lon Anderson said, "When the original law was Senator Frosh and others thought they had written it so there was a firewall so no one could accuse it of being policing for profit."

Still, some districts argue that ticket revenues are dwindling, adding they simply could not afford the cameras if they had to pay rent or a flat fee.

Legislative News

SCHOOL BUS SCAMERAS, Baton Rouge, LA.

http://www.sunherald.com/2012/12/27/4378021/cameras-coming-to-baton-rouge.html

Ban the Cams note:

Please be wary that given what the scmaera vendors have done with RLC, the "definition" of a violations will likely become more petty.

Please share with Ban the Cams any stories of questionable tickets.

See:  http://www.banthecams.org/3143-ats-looking-to-play-same-game-of-a-safetya-with-school-bus-will-try-a-ordinancesa-to-get-around-leg.html

Quote:

Suspected scams to be attempted:

1.         Citing for stopping too close, passing the bus while still yellow but too close, or passing in front of bus (not really passing bus) but too close DUE TO THE “DEFINITION” of a pass.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2436.asp  Quote: "When the machine detects a vehicle moving within 50 feet of the bus a second after the bus driver activates a red flashing light, then the vendor will mail a $300 ticket to that car's owner."

2.       Citing for going the other direction where legal (because of grass median or median curb) but the vendors “count” it as a pass.    http://www.banthecams.org/Taking-on-the-Government/school-bus-scamera-cites-innocent-motorists-thousands-cited.html   or http://www2.turnto10.com/news/i-team/2012/may/14/i-team-questionable-traffic-tickets-ar-1036475/

"But he admits up until our report aired, and defense attorney started protesting, hundreds if not thousands of tickets had been issued to motorists on the northbound lane of Cahir Street when they shouldn't have been ticketed."

3.       Citing for going the other direction on a multilane highway with grass median or barrier, but because it is where a median cut is, they count it as a violation.  (even though most people would agree that this isn’t a violation.

4.       FRAUD. http://www2.turnto10.com/news/i-team/2012/feb/06/i-team-school-bus-cameras-ar-922782/  For example, when a bus driver deploys the stop arm when the school bus is empty and its driver is on a break.
 

"In an instant like this, they're having their coffee break. There are no kids on the bus. I've seen these buses there every day for six years and for the guy to go out and have his coffee break, it cost me $300," said Marc Brassard.

Of course of real interest is the fact that more kids are killed by the BUS than the cars!

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-155-the-numbers-tell-the-sto  or reprint:  http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/the-numbers-tell-the-story-again-school-bus-scameras.html

 Quote:  "Nationally, NHTSA fatality numbers for school bus/pedestrian fatalities exhibit a similar pattern over the last few years:
 Pedestrian Fatalities and Cause

 Pedestrian Fatalities and Cause

Year	Other Vehicles	Bus	Total
2009	8	13	21
2008	1	20	21
2007	2	16	18
2006	3	19	22
Total	14	68	82

 

So, from 2006-2009, 83 percent of school bus/pedestrian fatalities were caused by the bus.

At some point more of this scam will be exposed just like the RLC most likely. 

You see many of these school bus scameras are PER TICKECT fees and REQUIRE a set number of “violations” per day.  http://www2.turnto10.com/news/i-team/2012/feb/06/i-team-who-benefits-school-bus-cameras-ar-923653/ 

Quote:  under its contract with Johnston, SmartBus Live can review the "viability" of each bus route and it requires at least two tickets to be generated each day by buses equipped with its cameras or else the company will put the camera on another bus route.

Legislative News

Big Brother in YOUR car.  Feds Accelerate Black Box Regulations

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3985.asp

Feds Accelerate Black Box Regulations
US Transportation Department mandates black box in all automobiles beginning in 2014.

Automobiles manufactured after September 1, 2014 must have an electronic data collection device that stores driving information for federal investigators. The US Department of Transportation earlier this month published its proposed rule mandating the installation of event data recorders (EDRs) or black boxes in cars, insisting the devices are meant for crash investigation purposes, and not for invading privacy.

"By understanding how drivers respond in a crash and whether key safety systems operate properly, NHTSA and automakers can make our vehicles and our roadways even safer," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "This proposal will give us the critical insight and information we need to save more lives."

Most car manufacturers expecting the rule have already been shipping cars with data recorders. The devices keep track of variables such as vehicle speed, brake activation and whether seat belts are in use. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began setting standards for the data collection in 2006 in what started as a voluntary program. The agency estimates the new rule will increase the cost of an automobile by $20, imposing $26.4 million in compliance costs for manufacturers. Some motorist advocates are troubled by the potential for mission creep.

"Event data recorders are no longer just devices designed to gather information to improve safety technology in vehicles, which has been NHTSA's justification for wanting EDRs installed as standard equipment on all makes and models," National Motorists Association http://www.motorists.org/ (NMA) President Gary Biller told TheNewspaper. "The technology has morphed all too quietly into a means of monitoring driving habits and pinpointing driving locations. Driver liabilities, usage taxes, and even auto insurance rates can be determined by a simple wireless transfer of information from your car. Yet only 13 states at last count have laws on their books that govern the ownership of information gathered by EDRs."

In 2007, black box data was put to political use against New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine (D) whose official Chevy Suburban was involved in a serious injury crash. The black box revealed Corzine's SUV was traveling over 90 MPH and that the governor was not wearing a seatbelt. Despite the evidence, an appellate court in 2008 cleared the police officer who (view case http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2452.asp) caused the crash and initially attempted to blame another motorist for the incident. NHTSA does not have authority to impose regulations regarding privacy. The rule seeks to minimize the impact by mandating information be stored for a brief snapshot of vehicle activity, but the agency does not discount the NMA concerns.

"This proposed rule does not address certain other issues generally within the realm of state law, such as whether the vehicle owner owns the EDR data, how EDR data can be used/discovered in civil litigation, how EDR data may be used in criminal proceedings, whether EDR data may be obtained by the police without a warrant, whether EDR data may be developed into a driver monitoring tool, and the nature and extent that private parties (including insurance companies, car rental companies, and automobile manufacturers) will have or may contract for access to EDR data," the proposal explains.

The states of Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington regulate black box use. The public has until February 11 to comment on the proposed regulation.

A copy of the proposed rule is available in a 300k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Event Data Recorders NPRM (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 12/12/2012)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/us-blackbox.pdf

Legislative News

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_22201393/greeley-lawmaker-again-proposes-ban-photo-radar-red

Greeley lawmaker again proposes ban on photo radar, red-light cameras
Posted:   12/16/2012 12:01:00 AM MST
December 16, 2012 7:21 AM GMTUpdated:   12/16/2012 12:19:30 AM MST

By Lynn Bartels
The Denver Postdenverpost.com

 Scott Renfroe A Greeley lawmaker wants the legislature next year to outlaw photo radar and red-light cameras, saying the devices have more to do with bringing in money for local communities than improving public safety.

State Sen. Scott Renfroe said he is bringing back his bill after the session opens Jan. 13 because of public support and a report that questions the effectiveness of red-light cameras.

A Democratic-controlled Senate committee killed a similar measure by Renfroe in the 2012 session. Democrats maintained control after the November election, but that hasn't deterred Renfroe.

"This is an issue we need to bring up and talk about," the Republican lawmaker said. "Hopefully, lawmakers will listen to the citizens and not just the cities that like the revenues."

Under state law, drivers caught on camera running red lights pay a maximum fine of $75, while drivers caught speeding on photo radar usually are fined $40. Offenders are not assessed any penalty points on their licenses.

If cities were merely trying to make money off the devices, "you would see these cameras everywhere," lobbyist Mark Radtke of the Colorado Municipal League testified in February.

(Ban the Cams note:  you mean like Denver is by "citing" for even touching the stop line but stopping???  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3687.asp

As on the cash grab, THE DENVER AUDITOR CALLED IT A CASH GRAB!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3668.asp "Denver, Colorado city auditor suggests photo enforcement program may be a cash grab that should be scrapped.")

The group opposes the bill, saying it's up to cities and their police departments to decide how to enforce traffic laws.

Nine Colorado cities currently use red-light cameras or photo radar to catch speeders or drivers who run red lights, the Municipal League said.

For the first eight months of this year, Denver collected $4 million from photo-radar enforcement and $1 million from red-light enforcement, according to the Office of the Manager of Public Safety.

The city of Littleton does not employ photo radar but uses red-light cameras at four intersections, said police Cmdr. Trent Cooper.

"We've seen a decrease in accidents where we've had them installed," Cooper said.

But Renfroe disagrees that the cameras reduce accidents, and he pointed to a University of South Florida study released this year. Researchers there disputed a widely cited report that concluded red-light cameras save lives, saying the data-gathering methods were flawed.

The researchers also told The Tampa Tribune that cities should try extending the time for yellow lights before turning to cameras.

That's what Renfroe said police departments in Colorado should do.

A legislator's disdain for photo radar and "red radar" is nothing new.

The Colorado legislature in 1999 — the same year Denver started its photo-radar program — tackled a measure by then-House Majority Leader Doug Dean, R-Colorado Springs, who wanted to severely limit their use. He made many of the same arguments Renfroe is making now.

The Republican-controlled legislature that year agreed to add restrictions, including a provision that cities had to post warning signs when photo radar was in use.

Lynn Bartels: 303-954-5327, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or twitter.com/lynn_bartels

Librarian Barbara Hudson contributed to this report.

Legislative News

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24549

Maryland delegate proposes penalty to camera company for bogus tickets

By Reed Black, Land Line Now staff reporter
 

In Maryland, a state lawmaker figures that if drivers have to pay a penalty when they’re caught by a speed camera, the private company that operates the camera should have a pay a penalty if it issues a mistaken ticket.

For each mistaken ticket, Delegate Jon Cardin is proposing a $1,000 penalty for both the camera company and the city it’s operating in.

Cardin says there have been lots of bogus tickets issued, some of them to truckers.

“We had a situation where a speed camera on Cold Spring Lane in Baltimore City was giving violations out to truckers who were obviously incapable of going beyond a 35- or 40-mile an hour speed limit just based on the fact that the road wouldn’t permit that,” Cardin told “Land Line Now.”

“And you could obviously see that they were not going over the speed limit based on the two double time stamped pictures,” he added.

Cardin hopes the Maryland legislature will take up his bill when the session begins next month.

Legislative News

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24436

11/16/

New Jersey bill would change ticket camera rules

By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor

A bill in the New Jersey statehouse that addresses red-light camera use is described as a “more fair system” for motorists.

Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has introduced a bill to increase yellow times at intersections outfitted with the devices by one full second. Another change would reduce the fine amount for turning right on red from $85 to $20.

Currently, running a red light and turning right on red without coming to a full stop can result in $85 fines.

Concern about the so-called “automatic ticketing machines” has spurred lawmakers to call for changes.

The push has intensified following a decision over the summer by the New Jersey Department of Transportation to suspend the doling out of tickets in about 80 percent of towns around the state that employ the money-making devices.

At the time, concerns were raised about whether the cameras at 63 of the 85 intersections statewide had adequate yellow light timing.

Despite assurances shortly thereafter from the state DOT that all yellow times are set in accordance with state law, O’Scanlon and more than a dozen other state lawmakers are pursuing changes to lessen some of the criticisms heaped on the program.

Included in the bill is a provision to give an additional one-half second leeway from automated tickets for vehicles entering an intersection once lights turn red.

O’Scanlon said the changes sought in the bill would help ensure that the ticket cameras are not viewed solely as revenue enhancers.

“If you do all of those things, you will minimize red-light running dramatically,” O’Scanlon previously told “Land Line Now.”

The bill – A3285 – is awaiting consideration in the Assembly Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee.

The state is in the first year of a two-year regular session so lawmakers could address the issue sometime early next year.

Legislative News

Big Brother Sugar Land, TX.  WE KNOW WHERE YOU DRIVE!

http://www.khou.com/news/Sugarland-Council-approves-installation-of-license-plate-cameras-177552431.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_465166856852775_83874575_465567423479385

Sugar Land Council approves installation of license plate cameras

by Sherry Williams / KHOU 11 News
khou.com
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Updated Tuesday, Nov 6 at 11:33 PM

HOUSTON – The Sugar Land City Council has approved the installation of 80 license plate recognition cameras after the first of the year.

The cameras cost $1.3 million and will be placed on major roads that lead into and out of the city. Locations mostly include Highway 6, Highway 90-A, Dairy Ashford and W. Bellfort.

If the first phase goes smoothly, the city will put up another 125 cameras at some point in the future.

The cameras are designed to only capture a vehicle’s license plate and enough of the car or truck to tell what kind it is, authorities said.

“If a crime occurs we can go back and capture that information and hopefully catch a criminal,” said Sugar Land Assistant Police Chief, Erick Robins.

City officials said no one will sit at a command center monitoring the cameras. All images will go into a database and that will be erased every 10 days.

“It’s a passive system,” Assistant Chief Robins said. “We won’t share this information with any other entities.”

(Ban the Cams note:  OH PLEASE don't give the public that line of BS.  Sooner or later they WILL share the data with someone else.  HECK witness this misues of the SCANNERS in the UK!   http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2907.asp  Quote: "The right oil for your car is: Castrol Magnatec 5W-30 A1," the advertisement reads for eight seconds as a Jaguar with the license plate 1DFL drives past.

The roadside digital billboards, seventeen feet wide and eight feet high, are owned by Clear Channel Outdoor. Castrol's campaign added the license scanning technology which ties into the official UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database. The agency provides private registration information to just about any company willing to pay the desired fee. According to Castrol, this particular campaign does not store any information about what vehicles or drivers pass the sign.)

However, the American Civil Liberties Union has doubts.

“Just as the City of Houston didn’t like red-light cameras, I think the people of Sugar Land may want to consider what this means in terms of the ability to track everyday citizens’ every move in and around Sugar Land,” said ACLU Spokeswoman Dotty Griffith.

Legislative News

Ban the Cams note:  Wonder if they are using Toll by Plate https://www.tollbyplate.com/index, that system at least sends a bill for the toll charges and not fine you unless you don't pay the toll bill.  The UK system looks like it just sends a FINE  if you forget to pay (no bill sent for the tolls until a fine is incurred).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228416/The-180-car-toll-fine-Motorists-face-tough-penalties-fall-foul-new-pay-drive-scheme.html

The £180 car toll fine: Motorists face tough penalties if they fall foul of new pay-as-you- drive scheme

• Ministers launch draft plans yesterday for scheme to replace traditional toll booths with automated system
  
• Toll roads will be monitored by cameras that log number plates of all vehicles
  
• Fixed penalty notices will be sent automatically to the homes of drivers who fail to pay in time

By Ray Massey
PUBLISHED: 18:25 EST, 5 November 2012 | UPDATED: 23:38 EST, 5 November 2012
 

Motorists face fines of up to £180 if they fall foul of a new tolling system described as a ‘Trojan horse’ for pay-as-you-drive charging on major roads.
Ministers launched draft plans yesterday for a scheme to replace traditional toll booths with an automated system.

Toll roads will be monitored by cameras that log the number plates of all passing vehicles and fixed penalty notices will be sent automatically to the homes of drivers who fail to pay in time.
 
Motorists will have to pay tolls in advance – or within a set time limit – on the internet, by mobile phone or in shops.

The authorities will also have the power to confiscate vehicles for crushing if the owner has three unpaid fines.

The system will initially operate from October 2014 on the Dartford Crossing linking both halves of the M25 between Essex and Kent, but ministers acknowledge it is just the first.

The draft regulations are essentially enabling legislation for pay-as-you-drive tolling schemes.

AA president Edmund King said: ‘One suspects this is a Trojan horse for use nationally.

‘It’s an expandable system that could eventually be rolled out on other strategic roads in England.’

Details are set out in a consultation document, The Road User Charging Scheme (Enforcement) (England) Regulations, published yesterday by the Department for Transport.
It says: ‘One of the largest challenges in operating a barrier-free or “free-flow” operated road user charging scheme is gaining a high level of payment compliance when there is nothing to stop a vehicle and oblige road users to pay the charge at the booth.

‘Enforcement provisions are considered necessary in order to ensure that road users continue to pay the required road user charge under a barrier-free operation.’

Fines will start at £60 if the toll charge is paid in full within 14 days of a penalty notice being served.
This rises to £120 if it is paid in full after 14 days but before a ‘charge certificate’ has been served. The maximum £180 fine applies after the charge has been served.

But the regulations also allow authorities to ‘immobilise, remove, store or dispose of vehicles where there are three or more outstanding penalty charges’.

A registered keeper will have 28 days to appeal, but only after paying the outstanding charges.

The scheme is being put out to tender this winter. The consultation closes on January 28 and a contract awarded next autumn.

The system will be fully operational by autumn 2014.

Legislative News

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3932.asp

Voters in Three States Take on Traffic Cameras
Five cities in California, Texas and Washington state will vote November 6 on whether to ban photo enforcement.

The issue of red light cameras and speed cameras is heating up at the ballot box. Residents in in five cities in California, Texas and Washington state have battled for the right to have a say in whether automated ticketing machines are installed in their community. The November 6 results could raise to 25 the total number of municipalities nationwide that prohibit cameras.

The most hotly contested race this cycle has been in Murrieta, California where city council members gathered for a press conference on Tuesday in a desperate attempt to preserve the program. As the officials spoke, initiative sponsor Diana Serafin and a fellow volunteer stood across the street waving while holding a "Honk! Vote Yes on N" sign, urging passing vehicles to vote in favor of the ban on the automated machines that mail out tickets that cost $500 each. Motorists honked loudly in support of the anti-camera measure while the officials spoke.

About an hour's drive west in Newport Beach, the city council actually favors the ban. A city councilman proposed the initiative as a means of ensuring future councils will not be able to install automated ticketing machines without first obtaining permission from the electorate. Measure EE makes a number of changes to the city charter with the camera prohibition taking top billing. The council drew inspiration from nearby Anaheim where 73 percent of voters enacted a ban in 2010.

Anaheim and Newport Beach are unique in having councils propose the charter amendment. Elsewhere, photo ticketing companies and city leaders fought the ballot measures at every step of the way. In League City, Texas, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia turned to the courts in an attempt to thwart the vote. City officials did succeed in re-writing the text of the initiative so that the ban would not take effect until 2014. As a result, campaign mailers recently hit residents' mailboxes targeting the councilmen who support Redflex.

"Mike Phalen voted to extend his term of office and pay himself for six more months with your tax dollars without voter input," one mailer stated. "Mike supports more red light cameras."

Byron Schirmbeck, director of saferbaytown.com http://saferbaytown.com/, helped organize the effort to put the issue on the ballot. He believes the council's underhanded efforts will backfire.

"I think that with the universal hatred for the cameras the election is a foregone conclusion," Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. "If the anti-camera candidates take the seats from the pro-camera council members and there is enough of a margin in the vote against the cameras, the council will take steps to squeeze Redflex out before the end of the contract."

In Washington state, red light cameras and speed cameras return to the ballot for a re-match in Longview and Monroe where council members have ignored the the message sent by the electorate in a vote on banning cameras last year.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp

"A whopping 68 percent of Monroe voters rejected automatic ticketing cameras last November, yet the mayor and city council dug in their heels and refused to listen," initiative co-sponsor Tim Eyman told TheNewspaper. "Because of their obstruction, there is now a second vote. It's appalling that Monroe's politicians are representing red-light camera companies, not their own citizens."

A lawsuit filed by camera vendor American Traffic Solutions converted last year's votes from binding prohibitions to an "advisory" measure. In Longview, 59 percent voted to ban both red light cameras and speed cameras, though the message was muddled by a city-sponsored initiative on school zone cameras that passed. The city has since unplugged the red light cameras while expanding the number of speed cameras.

Camera companies and city officials have an uphill task in convincing voters to save cameras within the next two weeks. Throughout nine states, voters in all but one case have favored automated ticketing bans by as much as 86 percent. View a complete list of automated ticketing bans.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3655.asp

Legislative News

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121005/NEWS01/710059870

Monroe to ask voters about traffic cameras again

A second advisory vote is part of a legal battle between the city and traffic-enforcement camera critic Tim Eyman.
 
By Rikki King, Herald Writer
 

MONROE -- Voters in Monroe again will be asked whether they think the city should use traffic-enforcement cameras.

That part of the general-election ballot is advisory, though. And the vote will serve little purpose because city officials already have decided to ditch the cameras as soon as they can.

Monroe voters in 2011 resoundingly voted "no" when asked whether they wanted the cameras.

They're being asked again because of the complicated, ongoing legal battle between city officials and Tim Eyman and crew.

Multiple camera-related ballot measures were floated in 2011, one of which included annual advisory votes.

The legality of what happened still is being settled. The two sides have been in court on and off for the past year.

The case is scheduled for more hearings in the state Court of Appeals on Nov. 1.

City officials expect the legal wrangling to be resolved before the end of November, city administrator Gene Brazel said this week.

The ongoing litigation prevented him from commenting further, he said.

"I can say that the city respects the opinion of the Monroe citizens and because of this, (the camera question) has been placed back on the ballot this year for their advisory vote," he said.

Eyman disagrees.

"It should have just taken one vote," Eyman said. "One should have been enough, but here we are."

The crux of the argument now is this: Eyman and the anti-camera camp maintain that the city should have pulled the plug on the cameras a long time ago.

City officials maintain that doing so would open Monroe up to potential expensive litigation for breach of contract with the vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona.

The current contract ends in late 2013. Monroe Mayor Robert Zimmerman earlier this year said there was "zero" likelihood the city will renew the contract.

Together, Monroe's speed-zone and red-light cameras yielded $435,730 in fines between August 2011 and June 2012, police data show.

The vote this time mirrors the question asked earlier: Should Monroe continue to use traffic enforcement cameras?

There are no minimum vote or turnout requirements for advisory measures, Snohomish County elections manager Garth Fell said.

"The results simply indicate public feeling on an issue and can be used by the jurisdiction as they see fit," he said.

Regular ballots are mailed Oct. 18.

Rikki King: 425-339-3449; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Legislative News

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3911.asp

New Jersey Governor Reverses Course on Red Light Cameras
Chances of legislative action to curb red light cameras increases with support of New Jersey governor.

The days may be numbered for red light camera programs in New Jersey. Governor Chris Christie (R) announced his support for legislation that would curb the program while taking questions from callers on New Jersey 101.5 radio's "Ask the Governor" show on Thursday.

"The fact is, we need to make some changes to the program, and those changes can only be made legislatively," Christie said. "I can't by executive fiat do anything other than suspend the program -- which I did once -- to verify that it was in compliance with current law, which it was... Believe me, this wasn't my idea in the first place, so I got no stake in this thing."

Only two months earlier, Christie appeared on the same program to say he had no problem with automated ticketing machines
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3852.asp. Since then, he has heard loud and clear from members of the public and the legislature interested in shutting down the program.

"I get the emails all the time," Christie said.

He refused to support an outright camera ban without sitting down with the original proponents of photo ticketing to hear their side of the issue.

"I also as governor can't go off and say things like 'let's abolish it' without taking time to really hear from the folks who wanted it in the first place," Christie said. "So we're engaged in that process, we're engaged with Declan O'Scanlon, who's doing a good job with this, and we're going to try to fix it."

Assemblyman Declan J. O'Scanlon Jr. (R-Monmouth) on Thursday introduced legislation that would significantly lengthen the amount of yellow warning time given to motorists at camera intersections. In achieving this goal, O'Scanlon departs from the approach taken in the states of Ohio and Georgia where one second is added to the existing yellow timing at photo enforced intersections. Instead, O'Scanlon's proposal modifies the existing statutory formula to set a minimum yellow time of 4 seconds. If the speed of traffic exceeds 35 MPH, the yellow must be at least 5 seconds, 5.5 seconds above 40 MPH and 6.0 above 45 MPH. The bill would serve as a de facto prohibition on camera use at intersections with average speeds over 50 MPH because it would require yellow time in excess of 6 seconds, in violation of federal regulations.

O'Scanlon's bill would also limit the number of tickets issued for split-second, technical violations by setting a 0.5 second grace time after the light turns red before a ticket may be issued -- a provision taken Virginia's red light camera law. He would also reduce the cost of a ticket to $20.

"He's all over this issue, cares about it deeply," Christie said. "We're willing to work with him. And hopefully the Democratic legislature will be willing work with him, too, so we can get a solution to the problem."

Christie also addressed pending legislation that would fine drivers $20 if they were pulled over with an unrestrained dog in the vehicle.

"It's the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life," Christie said. "This will tell you everything you need to know about the New Jersey state legislature under the Democrats. They're actually spending their time on this... Let's make sure that our dogs wear seat belts. This crap makes us the laughingstock of the country.... I will veto that so fast... I don't want my name anywhere near something that stupid."

A copy of O'Scanlon's red light camera legislation is available in a 45k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Assembly No. 3285 (New Jersey Legislature, 9/27/2012)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/nj-a3285.pdf

Legislative News

More on School Bus Scam being pushed in FL.

http://flaglerlive.com/44562/school-bus-cameras-florida/comment-page-1/

From Red Lights to School Buses: Florida Looks For Traffic Spy Cameras’ Next Perch
FlaglerLive | September 27, 2012

They’re big, they’re lumbering, and if you get stuck behind one your travel time increases. School buses are on the road again and grumbling drivers are right behind them. Most drivers adapt. Others are in too big a hurry to stop. They break the law. They pass the bus picking up or dropping off children, and gamble that the chances they will get caught are slim.

It’s not a serious problem. Traveling by school bus remains by far the safest way to take children to and from school. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 58 percent of fatalities involving students during school hours take place with teen-agers driving. Another 23 percent of student fatalities take place with adults driving. Just 1 percent of fatalities involve travel by school bus. More specifically, some 450,000 public school buses travel  4.3 billion miles a year, transporting 23.5 million children to and from school and school-related activities. On average, 20 school-age children die each year in school bus-related crashes or incidents. Five  are injured inside the bus, five are struck by other vehicles, and ten are struck by the school bus itself. So other drivers causing Injury are the exception, not the rule.

Over an 11-year period in Florida (from 1999 to 2010), four students pedestrian have been killed by a vehicle illegally passing a stopped school bus, according to the Florida Department of Education. That’s out of almost 300,000 school bus stops in the state, and 15,000 school buses operating daily.

Read more: More on School Bus Scam being pushed in FL.

Legislative News

Canton, OH says NO to SCAMERA to solve Budget problems!

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1334619226/Canton-Council-rejects-traffic-cameras

Canton Council rejects traffic cameras

By Ed Balint

CantonRep.com staff writer

Posted Sep 18, 2012 @ 12:02 AM

CANTON —

City Council rejected the mayor’s traffic camera proposal 7-5 Monday night.

Following heated discussion and debate, both in the Democratic caucus meeting and on the floor, the quest to push through speeding and red-light cameras fell flat for the second time in the roughly five years since Mayor William J. Healy II took office.

 The plan was a key component in Healy’s plan to erase a $3.7 million deficit he projected for the 2013 general fund budget.

 According to the mayor, traffic cameras would generate an estimated $1 million annually for the general fund, which supports the police and fire departments, the offices of elected officials and some other areas.

“It’s disappointing,” Healy said. “I’d much rather collect money from those breaking (traffic laws) than raising taxes (on the entire public).”

The legislation would have given the safety director the authority to enter into an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems.

 Opposing the cameras were Council members James Griffin, D-3; Mary Cirelli, D-at large; Greg Hawk, D-1; Kevin Fisher, D-5; John Mariol II, D-7; Edmond Mack, D-8; and Frank Morris, D-9.

 During the caucus meeting, Morris asked to postpone the issue to allow more time to review the draft agreement with Redflex, which council members received in recent days.

“I’m getting beat around like a tennis ball on this from my constituents,” Morris said.

 Several residents spoke out about the cameras. A few in support. A few against.

 Minus the traffic-camera revenue and without a dramatic boost in the local economy, Healy said “the odds are incredibly high” the city administration will lay off some police officers and firefighters early next year.

 Still, the city’s budget picture is better than originally forecast by Healy. The mayor said the $3.7 million may now stand closer to $2 million. He cited a larger-than-anticipated carryover and the implementation of some portions of his budget plan, including paying street lighting costs with capital improvement dollars.

 Council members who opposed the measure said too many questions were left unanswered on precisely how the five-year contract would work with Redflex Traffic Systems.

 Both Councilman Kevin Fisher, D-5, and Councilwoman Mary Cirelli, D-at large, said they considered traffic cameras to be in conflict with the constitution.

“You are guilty until proven innocent,” Fisher said.

 Cirelli also complained that contracting with Redflex would equivocate to outsourcing because of the company’s Australian operations. The company also has offices in the United States, including Arizona.

Mack said the burden of collecting unpaid traffic citations could fall on the city. He also said the city risked owing hundreds of thousands of dollars or more if Redflex sued the city over the contract.

 Canton City Council meeting
 
Monday meeting
 
PUBLIC SPEAKS  Heard resident Kathy Conde ask City Council where the outrage is over the mayor’s improper use of a government-related credit card.

 Conde is the wife of A.R. “Chip” Conde, a Republican mayoral candidate who challenged Healy in the last election.

 Kathy Conde, a longtime Democrat, said she was speaking for herself, not her husband, adding that she was “embarrassed” to be a Democrat “in this city and in this county.”

Healy improperly used a Canton Community Improvement Corp. credit card for personal purchases 16 times between July 7 and Aug. 7. Healy said he got the credit card mixed up with his personal ones, calling it an “embarrassment.”
 

Legislative News

Bill to rein in red-light camera abuses (NO NOT REALLY)

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-to-rein-in-red-light-camera-abuses-3860401.php

Bill to rein in red-light camera abuses
LEGISLATION
Kevin Fagan
Updated 11:34 p.m., Wednesday, September 12, 2012 
 

In the latest shot against what many say are the abuses of red-light traffic cameras, a state senator's bill to clamp down on how the devices are used has landed on the governor's desk for approval.

The bill by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, would prohibit cities or counties from using the cameras purely to raise cash, make it easier to get wrongfully issued tickets dismissed and forbid the creation of so-called "snitch" tickets that threaten drivers with penalties based on sketchy information.

It comes on the heels of mounting protests throughout California against red-light camera tickets, which at $480 a pop are the most expensive in the world.

Emeryville and Yuba City ended their use of the cameras this summer, and they were preceded in recent years by more than 30 other California cities, including Berkeley, Los Angeles and Cupertino. The typical reason for taking down the devices is that they were too time-consuming to oversee.

A cash cow
A new book on how to fight the tickets called "You Don't Have to Pay...," written by a Stanford University facilities manager, has been selling since spring, and in the East Bay the Red Light Camera Protest Group http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/  has been drawing growing crowds since it began staging demonstrations in the winter.

Few are saying that traffic safety and management are not worthy goals, but critics of the cameras say their main benefit appears to be the $130 million they pour into state, city and county government coffers annually from citation fines. Those penalties are nearly double those anywhere else in the nation or world.

"Look, the red-light camera can be a worthwhile tool for public safety, but it can also be abused - which it has been," said Simitian. "So let's put some reasonable boundaries around it."

One activity the proposed law would prohibit is the blatant issuance of "snitch tickets," which are notices sent to drivers when a camera has incompletely identified alleged traffic violators.

Snitching not required
The notices look like real tickets and say the recipient must identify the violating driver, but in actuality the recipient is under no legal obligation to do so - and cannot be fined without the full information. Simitian's new rules would mandate that such notices be clearly labeled "Courtesy notice: This is not a ticket."

Gov. Jerry Brown has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill, which was approved 34-0 by the Senate on Aug. 27.

Simitian's proposed law, however, is not without opposition.

Attorneys, led by the California Traffic Defenders law practice in San Francisco, say that although they consider much of the bill useful, one provision actually weakens the ability to fight the tickets.

The bill specifies that computer printouts, photos and video associated with cameras would no longer be considered "hearsay" evidence, as they are now - which, critics say, will make it easier for courts to find drivers guilty. Under current law, such items are presumed to be correct but can be dismissed as hearsay if no witness, such as an administrator running the cameras, comes forth to vouch for them.

"Normally, legally, you have a right to confront your accusers, but there is no way to cross-examine a computer," said Ben Prince of California Traffic Defenders. "Doing away with the hearsay rule actually makes it easier for these cash cows to make money for cities and counties.

"It's presented as more of a fair shake for drivers, but it is not."