 |
 |
 |
 |
Legislative News
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3470.asp
Florida House Votes to Ban Red Light Cameras
Florida House approves bill banning red light cameras and requiring slightly longer yellow times.
Less than a year after the Florida legislature enacted legislation authorizing the use of photo enforcement, the state House of Representatives wants to reverse course. By a 59 to 57 vote yesterday lawmakers approved a bill repealing the provisions of the Mark Wandall Act.
"The unequivocal data that I've seen is that these intersections have become more dangerous not less dangerous with the advent of red light cameras," bill sponsor Representative Richard Corcoran (R-New Port Richey) said. "All the data I've looked at has shown overwhelmingly that these intersections become less safe."
Corcoran cited several studies, including from the Virginia Department of Transportation and the University of South Florida, that showed automated ticketing failed to reduce traffic collisions (view studies). Corcoran was challenged on this point by members of his own party.
"I would ask the sponsor of the bill to verify his data," Representative Rich Glorioso (R-Plant City) said sarcastically.
Glorioso and Representative Shawn Harrison (R-Tampa) each cited alternative figures from a Florida report that they claim proved red light camera use resulted in a dramatic reduction of accidents.
"Are you aware of the National Coalition of Safer Roads study that's floating around on this side of the chamber?" asked Representative Shawn Harrison (R-Tampa). "In Temple Terrace traffic violations have dropped 65 percent since cameras went in two years ago. Accidents dropped sixteen percent."
Glorioso and Harrison neglected to mention that the National Coalition for Safer Roads is not a disinterested, independent organization. Instead, it is a front group for American Traffic Solutions (ATS) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3431.asp , the number one provider of red light cameras in Florida. ATS paid Storm King Strategies LLC, a lobbying firm that focuses on the transportation sector, to create the group so that the firm's marketing material would appear to come from an unbiased source.
"I think it's safe to say most of the special interests are opposed to this [legislation]," Corcoran said. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2592.asp
Lawmakers also adopted House Bill 149, legislation that would increase the duration of yellow times at intersections by between 0.2 and 0.3 seconds, on average. It does so by requiring cities to abide by a minimum yellow time standard based on the posted speed limit, plus ten percent. The Institute of Transportation Engineers formula would be used and the result would be rounded up to the nearest half-second. No red light camera tickets could be issued unless the yellow times met these requirements.
Representative Larry Ahern (R-St. Petersburg) originally introduced legislation that would have required to be based on actual 85th percentile speed of traffic, not the speed limit which is usually far less. On average, the original version would have increased yellows by a second, matching the signal times required under the law in Georgia and Ohio.
Both bills will now be considered by state Senate. Red light camera lobbyists have been working overtime to ensure that the upper chamber does not allow these bills to reach the governor's desk. A copy of the repeal legislation is available in a 120k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: House Bill 4087 (Florida Legislature, 5/2/2011 http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/fl-hb4087.pdf
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=45441&SessionId=66
CS passed; YEAS 59, NAYS 57 on Monday, May 02, 2011 4:32 PM
See how your rep voted here: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/floorvote.aspx?VoteId=12236&BillId=45441&SessionId=66
LA mayors lobbying BIG TIME TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE ON RLC!
This Quote says it all: "All because Rep. Arnold wants to put red-light cameras to a vote of the people!"
Ban the Cams note: The scamera side likes to always "point" to the "public" "support" of photo enforcement. But when JUST SIMPLY LETTING THE PUBLIC VOTE THEMESELEVES, the SCAMERA INDUSTRY SHOWS THEIR TRUE COLOR, IT IS JUST ABOUT MONEY!
These "mayors" don't represent the public, they represent themselves and the camera companies!
http://www.thedeadpelican.com/2011/redlight3a.htm
RED LIGHT CAMERA BILL FACES HEAVY OPPOSITION FROM MAYORS, LOBBYISTS!
**Exclusive**
April 28, 2011--12:00 AM CDT
Rep. Jeff Arnold has filed a bill that will require red light cameras to be approved by the vote of the people. Sources tell THE DEAD PELICAN that Arnold is encountering heavy opposition to the bill. (See the bill here).
Chair Woman, Regina Barrow has been asked to schedule the bill at the first meeting of the Municipal committee, THE DEAD PELICAN has learned. The lobbyists have already started lobbying the committee VERY HARD!
Sources say that Courson Nickel lobby firm (who works for the City of Baton Rouge and Redflex Camera company) has hired other contract lobbyists to kill the bill. The lobbyists are known to camp out in the house chamber in order to influence members, sources tell THE DEAD PELICAN.
Mayor Kip Holden is putting additional pressure on the Baton Rouge delegation to kill Arnold's bill. Holden is a vocal supporter of the camera program. THE DEAD PELICAN saw Holden over a year ago at a hearing where he opposed another measure by Arnold banning the red light cameras!
MITCH TURNS UP THE HEAT!
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has allegedly asked Arnold to drop the bill, but Arnold has refused to do so.
Landrieu has told the Orleans Delegation that this is the "single most dangerous bill for the City of New Orleans." He has even accused Arnold of "picking the pocket of the City."
All because Rep. Arnold wants to put red-light cameras to a vote of the people!
DEVELOPING....
HB 149, Longer Amber Bill might of had it's guts ripped out!
Ban the Cams has just been made aware of a "amendment" that seems to stip the requirement of longer ambers based on mph. THIS WOULD ESSNETIALLY MAKE HB 149 USELESS AT FORCING LONGER AMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We wonder which scamera vendor lobbyist suggested this "change". The scamera lobbyist know full well that LONGER AMBERS KILL THE PROFITABILITY OF RLC!
This is what was stripped from line 117 thru 122:
114 1. The minimum yellow signal display duration on traffic
115 control signals shall be based on the speed limit or the actual
116 85th percentile approach speed, whichever is greater. The 85th
117 percentile approach speed is the speed at or below which 85
118 percent of free-flowing traffic is traveling. The minimum yellow
119 signal display duration shall be 3 seconds for traffic control
120 signals on streets with a speed limit or actual 85th percentile
121 approach speed of 25 miles per hour or less. The minimum yellow
122 signal display duration shall be increased one-half second for
123 each increase of 5 miles per hour in the speed limit or actual
124 85th percentile approach speed, whichever is greater, above 25
125 miles per hour, not to exceed 6 seconds.
This was what was replaced:
3 Amendment
4 Remove lines 117-122 and insert:
5 percent along with the standards set forth in the Institute of
6 Transportation Engineers Traffic Engineering Handbook, sixth
7 edition, published in March, 2009. The minimum yellow signal
8 display duration shall be 3 seconds for traffic control signals
9 on streets with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour or
10 less. The minimum yellow signal display duration found after the
11 evaluation or reevaluation under this paragraph shall be raised
12 to the nearest half second not to exceed 6 seconds.
BAN THE CAMS STRONGLY URGES THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE be PUT BACK IN REQUIRING:
The minimum yellow signal display duration shall be increased one-half second for each increase of 5 miles per hour in the speed limit or actual 85th percentile approach speed, whichever is greater
We also suggest that Left and Right turns be made the same length as the straight thur signal to prevent 3 second ambers for left at 5 second striaght thru lights!
Without that LANGUAGE, HB 149 IS JUST FLUFF! NO REFORM WHATSOEVER!
http://www.wdsu.com/news/27710898/detail.html
Proposal Would Zap Automated Traffic Cameras
Lawmaker: I-Team Findings Demonstrate Potential For Abuse
POSTED: 7:00 pm CDT April 28, 2011
UPDATED: 12:05 am CDT April 29, 2011
NEW ORLEANS -- A state lawmaker who is sponsoring legislation to outlaw automated traffic cameras unless voters approve them said information developed through an I-Team investigative series supports his arguments.
State Rep. Jeff Arnold, a Democrat from Algiers, has introduced a bill in the Louisiana House of Representatives that would prevent the imposition of unmanned speed and red light cameras.
After learning that selected officers were being paid thousands of dollars on the side to help manage New Orleans' photo safety program, he said probes are likely to expand beyond the city attorney, Inspector General and NOPD.
"I think (U.S. Attorney Jim) Letten is probably going to open his own investigation into what's going on in Orleans Parish, given the fact that police officers are not allowed to contract with the city," he said. "How do you have a police officer creating a company and contracting with the city?"
Arnold was referring to NOPD Commander Ed Hosli, who is an executive with Anytime Solutions, the company that received payment from the city to review camera citations. It was Anytime Solutions that selected officers to do the work, then paid them $35 to $55 per hour for the details.
"The problem here is the money," Arnold said. "When you have this much money involved, it breeds corruption."
Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas has now terminated the arrangement between the department and Anytime Solutions. Beginning Friday, on-duty officers in the motorcycle division will administer the traffic camera program.
Ban the Cams note: Les you think the scmamera vendors only have motorists in their money sites, they have bike riders too! (In fact the former mayor of London proposed this a few years ago! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1259.asp)
http://gothamist.com/2011/02/28/bike_license_assemblyman_envisions.php
Bike License Assemblyman Envisions Cameras in Bike Lanes, Too
This afternoon we spoke with State Assemblyman Michael DenDekker, a Queens Democrat who has introduced legislation that would require every bicycle in New York State to have a license plate. The registration and inspection fee would cost $25 for "private" (i.e. non-commercial) bicyclists and $50 for commercial bicyclists, with a $5 fee every subsequent year to renew the license. Reached by phone, DenDekker elaborated on the bill, and said he looks forward to the day when cameras in bike lanes will help identify scofflaw cyclists and hold them to the same standard of accountability as drivers. (We're assuming motorists and police officers in bike lanes would continue to be exempt from any enforcement.)
Where did this idea come from and why? I had various constituents contact me concerning bicyclists in the Woodside/Jackson Heights area that don't obey the traffic rules, that are driving down streets the wrong way, driving on sidewalks and actually being very reckless. And their concern is that when they do this there is no way to report them because there is no way to identify the bicyclists, per se, so that has been the reason for it. It's just natural now that we're investing so many resources into making this the new mode of transportation, which I'm all for, we're just going to need to regulate and register the bicycles so we know who everybody is who is sharing the road with us.
Did you consult with the DOT or with any cyclist groups before introducing this? No, I did not discuss this with any cyclist groups. It's a piece of State Legislation and as far as the DOT, I consulted them only for numbers concerning the amount of money that we were spending on lanes and how many more bike lanes they were projecting in the future, as well as how they believe that this form of transportation would be 10 or 20 years out.
Do you have support for this in the Senate or among your colleagues in the Assembly? We just introduced the bill last week, we'll have to see. Some people are going to be for it and some people are going to be against it and it will bring up debate and discussion. I'm always willing to talk and negotiate any idea.
Is there anything in there about what the penalty would be if someone was riding a bike without a license plate? No, there is no penalty aspect to this yet but, again, we have penalties currently for people who are riding without a helmet, not riding with proper lights, not riding in the right direction, and those aren't being enforced either, which I believe speaks to a lack of manpower in the police department and maybe the priority of how people feel about trying to enact every piece of legislation that's currently out there.
Although we do come out with alternatives to enforcement issues, putting cameras in bus lanes, for example, it's the same kind of thing we may be able to do someday with bicycle lanes. We would put cameras in bicycle lanes to make sure that bicyclists are wearing their helmets and have their lights on and are riding in a manner which is accustomed to the lane or if they're being reckless and endangering and hurting others. I believe it also gives more credibility to bicyclists, making them more a part of the road.
(Ban the Cams note: I wonder when Pedestrians will be next! Don't laugh, see what one sherriff is doing in Pinellas County, FL with Real ID. It is not to far a stretch to see them reading ITS cameras. Real ID allows a camera to read YOUR FACE, think of it as a personal license plate on a person! http://www.banthecams.org/201104071073/Sheriff’s-Dept.-Confirms-Real-ID-Drivers-Licenses-Now-Part-Of-Facial-Recognition-System.html It might be scifi for now, but if they can read the driver (or just ID) data base to see if you are "wanted", what makes you think they can't "reprogram" it for Jaywalking, or just littering because you missed the trash can?????)
So eventually, if the bicyclist had a license plate and there was a camera in the bike lane, it could be the same effect as when a driver goes through the red light and a camera catches it? It would be similar to that, that's correct. This is just the beginning aspect of this piece of legislation, I'm sure there will be a lot of public debate on this, and that's good because that's what we need. We need to discuss it and figure out what the future is of bicycles in the State of New York, not just in the city.
They're sharing roadways now and it's very important that they have that credibility and respect, just like we have for motorcyclists, for example. I think it will be a positive thing and actually be better for bicyclists in the long run. Especially those that are law-abiding and ride according to the law, they should be happier. And possibly the money that is being spent on license plates could be used to make improvements for more bicycle lanes and more areas to park bicycles.
(In a statement, DenDekker also explained that private bicyclists under the age of 18 would be issued license plates that would bear a distinctive identifying mark to be determined by the New York State Commissioner of Transportation. "Each year, more and more bicyclists take to the streets of our state," DenDekker concludes. “Now is the time to institute regulations by which the bicycling - and pedestrian - communities can safely coexist.”)
Ban the Cams note: Thanks to New Yorkers Against RLC for the link! http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Yorkers-Against-Red-Light-Cameras/143362609025142
WHO PAID THOSE SCAMERA OFFICERS TO LOBBY AND SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN REGISTERED TO LOBBY?????
Of equal question on these articles on committee vote to ban RLC: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-red-light-cameras-debated-20110420,0,5850022.story and http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/bill-repeal-red-light-cameras-clears-final-house-committee
WHO IS PAYING FOR THOSE OFFICERS TO BE THERE TRYING TO SAVE THE SCAM? Most people don't have the time or resources to go there. And could Wandall's "expenses" be paid by someone else or some other company?????
Ban the CAMs only had a day notice of the ban bill being on the agenda. Yet these "officers" had "time" to take off of work and drive up (or maybe fly) to Tallahassee and LOBBY??
WERE THOSE OFFICERS PAID TO BE THERE! IF SO WHERE THEY REGISTERED Lobbyist????
In Wandall's case she acts more like a lobbyist than a local citizen: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3076.asp
"No person shall provide compensation for lobbying to any individual or business entity that is not a lobbying firm," Florida Statutes section 11.045 states. "'Lobbying' means influencing or attempting to influence legislative action or nonaction through oral or written communication or an attempt to obtain the goodwill of a member or employee of the legislature."
(And I doubt most officers would spend their own money going there if they werent' be reimbursed by someone!)
APRIL 20, 2011 Bill to repeal red-light cameras clears final House committee
A Florida House budget panel voted narrowly on Wednesday to keep an alive an effort to outlaw red-light traffic cameras.
The Legislature passed a law last year regulating the cameras. But Rep. Richard Corcoran, R-Trinity, cited a slew of examples from cities and states across the country where he said the cameras were not preventing accidents.
"This isn't exactly what we thought it was," said Corcoran, a freshman lawmaker who has been tapped to be House speaker in 2017. "Let's step back and figure out a way from scratch where we can make these intersections safer for our families."
Courts have thrown out many red-light camera tickets, he added, saying the problems with implementing last year’s bill are "overwhelming." Corcoran argued intersections could be made safer using other measures, such as changing the timing of traffic lights and improving signage and road painting.
After about an hour and a half of discussion, the appropriations committee sided with Corcoran -- even though law enforcement and other advocates cautioned that getting rid of the cameras would put drivers' lives in danger -- and cost Florida municipalities some $71 million in revenue from camera tickets.
http://www.wwl.com/Should-voters-have-say-in-red-light-cameras-/9653081
Posted: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 7:01AM
Should voters have say in red light cameras?
Chris Miller Reporting
Cameras used to catch vehicles running red lights and speeding have been in use in New Orleans and other parts of the metro area for a number of years now, and the technology remains controversial. In cities like New Orleans, officials say the cameras are a proven means of getting drivers to slow down and stop for red lights. Even so, they catch enough violators that the fines can add up to millions of dollars. New Orleans leaders say the cameras resulted in $15 million worth of fines in 2010.
Some drivers, and some Louisiana lawmakers, say the money is all the cameras are about, and not public safety. State representative Jeff Arnold (D-Algiers) is sponsoring legislation in the upcoming session that would require a local voter option -- voters in a jurisdiction would get to decide if they want the cameras or not.
"All of these tickets that are being issued off the cameras a civil violations," said Arnold. He says that makes it much harder for a driver or vehicle owner to successfully argue against the citation in court.
"If you're going to take away the right of citizens to have the right of due process, I think you ought to at least ask them for that right, first," said Arnold.
Morning commuters in New Orleans told WWL First News Tuesday morning that they think the red light cameras are more about sending people fines than they are about public safety. So if they don't like them, would they like to see a state law against them, or wold they prefer to give voters a say?
"I certainly would support a public vote," said a biker as he stopped for gas. "Public referendums are very effective in my opinion."
"A vote would be better," said another driver who opposes red light and speeding cameras.
And a woman told us she fueled up her car, "if they did put it to a vote, I think the voters would do the smart thing and say 'no way' for the cameras."
April 13, 2011 9:51 AM
HB149 passed the Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Subcommittee 14-2 on Wednesday. Now in the Economic Affairs Committee
Committee Location:
315 Knott Building
Committee Mailing Address:
404 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
(850) 487-5167
Senate VOIP 5167
The Senate companion (672) is stalled. We need to put the pressure on the Community Affairs committee to hear it and pass it. Bill:
Committee Location:
315 Knott Building
Committee Mailing Address:
404 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
(850) 487-5167
Senate VOIP 5167
Keep the pressure up. We are making progress.
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2011/Apr11/041111/041111-04.shtml
By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor
State lawmakers in South Carolina and North Carolina are moving forward with efforts to put a stop to the use of cameras to enforce speed limits and traffic-light violations.
In an effort to apply the brakes on a potential speed trap, the South Carolina Senate voted to approve a bill that is intended to put a stop to one town’s use of speed cameras.
A year ago, lawmakers approved legislation that requires tickets based solely on photos to be issued in person within an hour of the alleged violation.
Since then, a community in Jasper County has posted cameras on Interstate 95 to nab speeders. According to reports, the town of Ridgeland has issued more than 8,000 tickets since last summer. An officer is posted nearby inside an RV and the tickets are mailed to the registered owners.
In response, Senate Transportation Chairman Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, offered a bill that would ban tickets based on photos. Police would also be required to directly hand tickets to divers within an hour of a violation.
The bill – S336 – has moved to the House where it is awaiting consideration.
In North Carolina, a bill on the move would put a stop to the use of red-light cameras throughout the state.
Existing law authorizes more than 20 communities throughout the state to use red-light cameras. Violators face $50 fines. However, most of the communities discontinued their programs after a court ruling specified that most of the revenues must be used for education.
The Senate Transportation Committee voted to advance a bill – S187 – to the full Senate that would make it illegal to operate any red-light cameras. About a half-dozen communities still use the enforcement tool.
Communities found in violation of the ban would face misdemeanor charges.
OOIDA leadership is encouraged to see legislative efforts to apply the brakes to use of the enforcement tool. The Association believes 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,” OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer said.
Spencer said communities would be better served to pursue “intelligent traffic lights that actually monitor traffic and are triggered by traffic flow.”
To view other legislative activities of interest for North Carolina, click here. http://www.ooida.com/Legislative_Watch/2011/NC/NC_new.shtml To view other legislative activities of interest for South Carolina, click here. http://www.ooida.com/Legislative_Watch/2011/SC/SC_new.shtml
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3451.asp
California: Second Shot at Red Light Camera Tweak
California state Senate committee advances revised legislation that would slightly modify red light camera operations.
The California Senate Appropriations committee voted 9-0 on March 29 to advance legislation that would alter the way red light cameras operate in the state. State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3102.asp re-introduced legislation that had stalled last year tweaking some of the more controversial aspects of automated ticketing programs.
"There is not consistent agreement about what current law actually requires to operate an automated traffic enforcement system," Simitian wrote in his bill summary. "Furthermore, the processes by which an alleged violator may learn about and contest a citation are sometimes unclear and, in certain cases, appear to be misleading."
The bill requires actual red light camera citations to appear on standardized, state-approved forms. Currently, red light camera vendors issue notices that look like tickets to registered vehicle owners to trick them into disclosing the identity of the driver -- California law requires that only the actual person behind the wheel receive the ticket. The legislation would require a clear and prominent statement on such vendor mailings that there is no penalty for failure to respond.
Simitian cited the experience of Vera Gil, a constituent, as the motivation for trying once again to modify existing statutes. Gil faced significant problems in trying to clear her name after a private firm mailed her a red light camera ticket for an offense she did not commit. Simitian added a number of brand new provisions to the current proposal designed to force municipalities to certify that their goal is not revenue raising.
"Prior to installing an automated traffic enforcement system after January 1, 2012, the governmental agency shall make and adopt a finding of fact establishing that the system is needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety," Senate Bill 29 states. "A governmental agency that proposes to install or operate an automated traffic enforcement system shall not consider revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to install or operate a system within its local jurisdiction."
Most localities will have no problem filing such a statement, but the legislation would also impose a requirement that signs be placed within 200 feet on an intersection approach that has an automated ticketing machine. Current law requires signs, but not specifically on the approaches that are photo enforced. To keep track of performance, Simitian's bill would require cities to file a report on the number of right-hand turn tickets issued at each intersection. Private vendors and cities currently conceal this information. Right-hand turning tickets now account for an estimated 70 to 90 percent of citations issued, even though studies show such turns are not dangerous. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3437.asp Reports would also have to include accident figures from before and after camera installation.
A copy of Senate Bill 29 is available in a 160k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Senate Bill 29 (California State Legislature, 4/5/2011) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-sb29.pdf
Posted By FLTAC
Written By Paul Henry
Today the Florida Senate’s Transportation Committee heard Senator Garcia’s SB 672, the bill to ban red light cameras. The room was packed with citizens and members of various law enforcement agencies and local political people.
After Senator Garcia introduced it, there was some discussion among the Senators regarding it. Sen. Joyner asked what financial impact the bill would have. Sen. Garcia stated around $70 million less revenue. This was backed up when a government representative stood up and stated it would be $70 million to the state, and $75 million to the cities and counties.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110406/ARTICLES/110409772?p=all&tc=pgall
Red-light camera ban zips through panel vote
StarNews file photo
By Patrick Gannon
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.
( page all of 2 )
A bill to ban red-light cameras from the state breezed through the Senate Transportation Committee Wednesday morning with no opposition.
Related Links:
Carolina Beach tweaks timing for traffic signals
New video technology active on all intersection red-light cameras
No officials from the city of Wilmington, which operates 13 red-light cameras, attended the committee hearing. No committee members spoke against the proposal.
The full Senate may consider the bill as early as Thursday, said Sen. Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick, who supports the bill. It would then go to the House for consideration.
Sen. Don East, R-Surry, the bill's primary sponsor, said as a former city cop in Winston-Salem he has always opposed the cameras. Now he wants to ban them.
"When you get a traffic infraction, you ought to be able to cross-examine someone," East said after the committee meeting.
East also said some studies show the cameras don't prevent accidents at intersections and may even increase them. Both East and Rabon said they had heard no opposition from Wilmington.
Calls to several city officials weren't immediately returned Wednesday morning.
The bill would make it illegal to operate a traffic-control photographic system in North Carolina. A violation would be a Class 1 misdemeanor and the forfeiture of any camera equipment used for traffic control.
Thirteen red-light cameras work at intersections in Wilmington, issuing $50 tickets to motorists who run red lights or turn right on red without making a complete stop.
The city issued 16,469 citations in 2010 for red-light violations, according to city data.
While some other cities in North Carolina discontinued their camera programs in the wake of a court ruling requiring most revenue to go to schools, programs in Wilmington and several other municipalities, including Cary and Raleigh, endured.
Although studies differ on the safety benefits of red-light cameras, Wilmington officials have long maintained that the program is about reducing crashes at busy intersections.
Banning cameras from Wilmington would impact funding for New Hanover County Schools, as most of the revenue from the cameras goes to the schools.
The Senate committee also approved a bill aimed at protecting motorcyclists from unsafe movements by other vehicles.
The House has already passed that bill, which increases penalties for drivers who make unsafe movements and cause a motorcycle rider to crash or to have to change travel lanes or leave the road.
Motorists who cause a motorcycle to crash could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of at least $500. The maximum penalty would be 45 days of community punishment and a fine determined by the court.
Drivers who cause a motorcyclist to swerve out of his lane or off the highway could be charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor, with a fine of $200 to $1,000, plus 30 days of community punishment.
Reps. Danny McComas, R-New Hanover, and Dewey Hill, D-Columbus, are co-sponsors of the motorcycle safety bill.
It would take effect Dec. 1.
Patrick Gannon: (919) 836-0889
On Twitter: @StarNewsPat
From SNITKER and LIBERTY UNDERGROUND RADIO- THE RED LIGHT CAMERA BAN GETS THROUGH ROUND ONE, BUT THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER
by Florida Tenth Amendment Center on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 4:46pm
SB 672 Made It Out Of The Transportation Committee. Your calls made it happen
THE RED LIGHT CAMERA BAN GETS THROUGH ROUND ONE, BUT THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER
Your calls last week paid off. SB 672 the bill banning the use of red light cameras here in the state of Florida made it out of the Transportation committee on Tuesday with a vote of 4 to 2.
The next stop is the Community affairs Committee. SB 672 has not been placed on the agenda. Contact the Chair of the Community Affairs Committee Senator Mike Bennett and ask him to place SB 672 on the agenda.
Read more: THE RED LIGHT CAMERA BAN GETS THROUGH ROUND ONE, BUT THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER
We have had another victory. THE HB149 BILL HAS PASSED.
Thank to all who have participated.
We are making progress.
Keep the pressure up
Together we can stop this abuse.
http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/03/30/1602417/traffic-camera-ban-clears-state.html
Traffic-camera ban clears state Senate, on way to likely passage in House
By PATRICK DONOHUE
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
843-706-8152
Published Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A bill targeting Ridgeland's use of speed cameras on Interstate 95 soon will be debated in the S.C. House of Representatives after the state Senate unanimously approved it Wednesday.
Introduced in January by Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, the legislation would ban speeding tickets based in any way on photographic evidence.
Grooms said its passage signifies the strong objections many South Carolinians and their elected representatives have to automated traffic enforcement.
"There are many things you can say about South Carolina, but we absolutely do not want to gain the reputation of being the nation's speed trap," Grooms said.
Grooms said he has been assured by House leaders the bill will "move quickly" through that chamber.
It "will receive an overwhelming vote," Grooms said. "If it's not unanimous, it will only be a few members of the House who vote against it."
Read more: SC BAN: Traffic-camera ban clears state Senate, on way to likely passage in House
Ban the Cams note:
I am including this article to HIGHLIGHT THE PROPER WAY TO DEAL WITH DANGEROUS DRIVERS who injury or kill people due to RECKLESSNESS, NEGLIGENCE, or extreme Carelessness!
People like Melissa Wandall were understandably furious that the driver who killed her beloved husband just got off with a "fine".
In a rare moment, I will agree with Ms Wandall on this on this one point. People who act with complete DISREGARD FOR OTHERS SAFETY SHOULD BE PUNISHED.
Where we differ is that using terrible accidents (like her husband) as a trojan horse to micro mangage DRIVERS IS PATENTLY WRONG!
Photo enforcement, is not a safety device (It NEVER WILL BE), it is a revenue device. It doesn't stop dangerous drives, in fact it doesn't even PULL THEM OVER!
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/03/aaa_lawmakers_seek_new_auto_ma.html
March 29, 2011
AAA, lawmakers seek new auto manslaughter law
AAA Mid-Atlantic, lawmakers and relatives of highway traffic victims gathered in Annapolis today to call on the Maryland Senate to pass a bill that they said would close a "loophole" in the state's law for dealing with drivers who kill others through negligence behind the wheel.
The advocates urged senators to join the House in approving a measure that would create an intermediate misdemeanor offense of negligent homicide between the traffic ticket charge of negligent driving and the felony offense of automotive manslaughter.
Prosecutors told the House they have difficulty securing manslaughter convictions of people whose serious negligence on the road has killed people unless there is evidence they were drunk or engaged in a street race. They said courts have ruled that charge can be applied only in cases of gross negligence.
The House unanimously approved a bill creating an offense that would allow jail time in fatalities involving serious negligence that might not qualify for the manslaughter charge. Before this year, the legislation had been bottled up in a House committee for many years.
Proponents jubilation at House passage of the bill has been tempered by comments from Sen. Brian E. Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, expressing concerns that the law could be used to jail people over unintentional driving errors.
But proponents argued that a simple traffic charge -- which can be resolved by mailing in a fine without a court appearance by the defendant -- isn't appropriate in a case where someone is killed through a driver's negligence.
“This much-needed legislation addresses a critical loophole that traffic safety advocates, including AAA and the families of victims have been trying to fix for nearly 15 years,” said AAA spokeswoman Ragina C. Averella. “It’s a loophole so large that negligent and irresponsible Maryland drivers who kill have been escaping through it for years."
The bill that passed the House was sponsored by Del. Luiz R. S. Simmons, who took part in the news conference.
“It is cosmically absurd to give little more than a traffic ticket to someone who takes the life of a pedestrian or another driver by the reckless operation of a motor vehicle,” the Montgomery County Democrat said.
The bill has strong support from bicyclists' groups and families of people who were killed by drivers who faced nothing more serious than traffic charges.
Among them was Adiva Sotzsky of Rockville, whose husband Harry was killed while riding his motorcycle in 2004 by a trucker who eventually paid a $500 fine for a traffic citation.
“It is embarrassing that Maryland has this massive loophole in its law. When you look at the statutes and accompanying penalties in other states, this bill is more than fair and sensible. It provides a measure of justice for all concerned,” she said.
But Frosh said in an interview last week that drivers found to be negligent in the deaths of others can face costly civil penalties. He said his view is that in most cases, jail terms should be reserved for those who intentionally caused harm.
The bill would allow as much as a three-year term for a criminal negligence conviction.
UPDATE: Legislation would eliminate traffic light camera tickets for going right on red
By Nate Morabito
Published: March 30, 2011
JOHNSON CITY, TN --
UPDATE: March 30, 2011 9:45 am
Rep. Matthew Hill took this legislation off notice Tuesday to put his support behind a similar bill that he says is intended to accomplish his same goal when it comes to red light cameras.
"This other bill (House Bill 1500) is a very comprehensive bill and I am willing to let it have some time because it has a component that says red light cameras will not be able to ticket people for going right on red," Hill said. "That of course was the ultimate goal of my legislation."
According to HB 1500, sponsored by Rep. Vince Dean (R-East Ridge), traffic citations cannot be issued for failure to make a complete stop at a red signal before making a permitted right hand turn that is based solely upon evidence obtained from an unmanned traffic enforcement camera.
"I'm willing to put my trust in that legislation," Hill said. "I've ended up hearing from people on both sides of the legislation I sponsored and so I think that's taking everybody into consideration. (Dean's bill) would have the same desired effect. I think I could have eventually gotten the votes for my bill, it's just that we are doing the same thing with (his) legislation. I didn't give up. We found a better way to address the legislation."
Hill says HB 1500 can be considered a compromise. In addition to eliminating right-on-red tickets, the proposed legislation would also limit fines from traffic enforcement cameras to a maximum of $50. It would also require governments to justify, through a traffic study, the need to install a camera.
Libertarians move forward on legislation to ban red light cameras
March 30th, 2011 8:24 am ET .
Karl Dickey West Palm Beach Libertarian Examiner.SubscribeSponsor an Examiner ....View all of Karl's articlesPrintEmailShare on FacebookShare on Twitter.Do you like this Article?
The Libertarian Party of Florida in association with several other organizations have been able to influence Florida legislators to move forward with a bill to effectively ban the use of red light cameras in Florida. Yesterday SB672 passed the Transportation Committee in the Florida Senate with a vote of 4 - 2.
Libertarian Party of Florida Chair, Vicki Kirkland said this morning, "We are proud of the hundreds of our members who contacted their state legislators and members of the transportation committee to move this legislation forward. There is a growing wave of opposition to the cameras by citizens for both safety and constitutional reasons and it is inspiring to know we are having a positive impact."
A multitude of studies have been done over many years finding the red light cameras to make intersections less safe and the cameras have also been found to be unconstitutional. There are only two studies that have found otherwise and they have been funded by organizations with a vested interest in having the cameras installed. The cameras have been banned in fifteen other states and a large number of municipalities and counties across the nation.
Banning Red Light Cameras URGENT ALERT!
SB 672 is the Senate bill that would ban the use of red light camers in Florida. SB672 is now scheduled to heard in the Senate Transportaion Committee next Tuesday(3/29) at 1:00PM in room 37 Senate Office Building. http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/TR/ExpandedAgenda/1322
It is extremely important to call and e-mail the members of the TransportationCommittee before next Tuesday and tell them to support SB672 and ban red light cameras!
Call and e-mail the following Senate Transportation members:
Lisbeth Benacquisto (850) 487-5356 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. District 27 Consists of parts of Charlotte, Glades, Hendry, Lee, and Palm Beach
Larcenia Bullard (850) 487-5127 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. District39 Monroe, and parts of Broward, Collier, Hendry, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach
*Co-Chair Greg Evers (850) 487-5000 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. District 2 Consists of Holmes, Washington, and parts ofBay, Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa,and Walton counties
**Rudy Garcia (850) 487-5106 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Distric 40 part ofMiami-Dade Senator Garcia is the Bill Sponsor, ask him to stand tough!
Arthenia Joyner (850) 487-5059 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. District 18 parts of Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas
* Chair Jack Latvala (850) 487-5075 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. District 16 parts of Hillsborough, and Pinellas
Ronda Storms (850) 487-5072 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. District 10
page 6 of 8
