Ban the Cams! Latest News

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/317547/8/Investigation-launched-into-FDOT-over-short-yellow-lights

Senator Jeff Brandes launches legislative investigation into FDOT, short yellow lights at red-light camera intersections
5:44 PM, May 20, 2013   |  

ST. PETERSBURG, Florida - The head of Florida's Senate Transportation Committee has informed FDOT he was launching a legislative investigation into red-light cameras (RLC) and short yellow lights, following a 10 News Investigation.

WATCH: INITIAL SHORT YELLOWS INVESTIGATION http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418
READ: SUMMARY OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES IGNORED http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316882

State Sen. Jeff Brandes , R-St. Petersburg, penned the following letter http://www.wtsp.com/assetpool/documents/130520060003_FDOT%20RLC%20Brandes%20Letter%205-20-1.pdf to FDOT Secretary Ananth Prasad on Monday:

Secretary Prasad,

Traffic infraction detectors have been installed on numerous municipal, county, and state roads, and their impact on the daily lives of Floridians has been a point of disagreement in the legislature. Recent information has emerged that alleges impropriety by several municipal and county governments in the implementation of traffic infraction device programs.

In response to these developments I have been actively working with my staff in the Senate Committee on Transportation to investigate this issue. It is my intent to investigate the following:

•Any changes of timing of yellow-lights at intersections before and after the installation of traffic control devices;
•Crash data at intersections with traffic control devices installed, specifically with regards to "right-turn on red" violations issued compared to actual crashes;
•Traffic control device contracts between municipal and county governments and private traffic control device companies.
The potential for adverse impacts on the residents of Florida resulting from the misuse of traffic infraction detectors is a very serious issue that cannot be ignored. I stand committed to addressing any shortfalls in public policy in this regard, and I look forward to continuing our open dialogue and mutual cooperation as we work toward a policy that best protects the safety of Floridians.

Kind regards,
Jeff Brandes

Brandes first promised action last Tuesday, the day after the 10 News investigation aired.  He spoke to Prasad that afternoon, and spent the rest of the week preparing legislative staff to investigate.

Brandes also spoke about the investigation on the FOX Business Network Friday afternoon.  MSNBC has referenced 10 News' investigation numerous times as well.

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

Murfreesboro Cape on WGNS Radio.  RED Light Cameras need to go away!

Radio link:

http://bw-2e2c4bf7ceaa4712a72dd5ee136dc9a8-bwcore.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/File4013.mp3

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-227-the-true-red-light-camera-violation/

NMA E-Newsletter #227: The True Red-Light Camera Violation

Already bruised by an ongoing bribery scandal http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-11/news/ct-met-redflex-scandal-fallout-20130412_1_corruption-scandal-redflex-officials-red-light-camera-contract, the City of Chicago’s red-light camera program took another body blow recently, thanks to the city’s own Office of Inspector General (IGO).

The IGO conducted an audit of the Chicago’s red-light program http://capitolfax.com/RedLightCameraAuditFinal.pdf to “determine if red-light camera installations were made based on the Chicago Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) stated primary criterion of reducing angle crashes to increase safety.”

The audit sought to answer nine specific questions posed by members of the Chicago City Council, including the following:
 

• Has the City installed, and is the City installing, red-light cameras in locations with the highest number of angle crashes?
• Has the City used, and is the City using accurate data in determining the location for red-light cameras?
• Is CDOT following its own prioritization steps for red-light camera relocations?
• Which City departments, consultants, and/or employees of Redflex are involved in the decision to install or relocate red-light cameras, and how?
• What is the total cost of the camera system, including installation and annual maintenance?

The findings, or lack thereof, are stunning. In its cover letter to Mayor Emanuel and other city officials summarizing the results, the IGO states the following:

Our audit’s findings can be summarized in two simple points.

First, CDOT was unable to substantiate its claims that the City chose to install red-light cameras at intersections with the highest angle crash rates in order to increase safety. Neither do we know, from the information provided by CDOT, why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated, nor what the City’s rationale is for the continued operation of any individual camera at any individual location.

Second, our audit uncovered little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the City or the general public. Specifically, we found a lack of basic recordkeeping and an alarming lack of analysis for an ongoing program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue.

That pretty much says it all, but there are some gems contained in the body of the report:

The IGO could not determine if field evaluations for potential RLC installations were done in accordance with appropriate traffic engineering standards to ensure that signal timing is set properly.

The IGO requested the traffic engineering standards used by CDOT and any documentation to show that RLC installations and signal timing were completed in accordance with the standards. CDOT did provide the IGO with the standards but did not provide any documentation supporting that signal timing is set to the required minimum standards or regularly monitored for adherence to those standards.

Other than the site survey provided by Redflex, CDOT management said they were not aware of any involvement by other City departments, consultants or other individuals in the decision process of where to install cameras.

The report also reveals that Chicago has paid Redflex more than $100 million over the life of the program, yet it can’t document costs associated with the purchase, maintenance, repair or miscellaneous fees for any camera location or specific camera.

The IGO dug deeper and did manage to determine that the city’s annual maintenance cost is $13,800 per camera—56 percent of the cost to purchase a brand new camera. That’s like buying a new $30,000 car and then agreeing to spend another $15,000 a year to maintain it. Eight years later (that’s how long Chicago has had cameras), you could have paid for a new car four times over, but you’re still driving an eight-year-old car.

It defies logic.

But every red-light camera program conceived defies logic. Until you realize that the stated goal of such schemes (public safety) is not the true goal (money). Then it starts to click. The game is rigged, and the cheaters protect the game through their disdain for transparency and accountability coupled with their pervasive indifference to the public good.

This is the true red-light camera violation; we shouldn’t shrug it off by saying, “Oh well, it’s Chicago. What did you expect?” We expect, and deserve, better from those we entrust with our public safety and our precious resources.

 

Posted in: Legislative News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Iowa-City-Moving-Toward-Banning-Traffic-Enforcement-Cameras-207484871.html

Iowa City Moving Toward Banning Traffic Enforcement Cameras
By Gregg Hennigan, Reporter

IOWA CITY – Iowa City Council members indicated Tuesday night they would put a stop to plans to install red-light cameras in town – at least for now.

Meeting in a work session, no City Council member voiced objections to a recommendation from city staffers that the ordinance allowing traffic-enforcement cameras, like red-light and speed cameras, be repealed.

The move comes in the face of a petition that sought to force the council to either ban the cameras, along with drones and automatic license plate readers when a peace officer at the scene does not write the ticket, or let voters decide the issue in a referendum.

The City Council voted 4-3 to in February 2012 in favor of an ordinance allowing traffic-enforcement cameras.

Iowa City residents Martha Hampel and Aleksey Gurtovoy later started the petition process. A petition was declared valid last week, but City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes, City Manager Tom Markus and other city officials offered the surprising recommendation that the camera ordinance be repealed and the other parts of the ordinance proposed in the petition be approved.

Their reasoning was that the city has not installed any cameras yet and probably wouldn’t until next year as it waits for the state to create rules on their use. The City Council can take up the issue again two years after the ordinance is repealed, at which time the guidelines and political fate of cameras should be clearer.

“Referendum or not, the state is looking at it, and at some point will tell the cities what they can do,” said Mayor Matt Hayek, a supporter of red-light cameras. “It renders our proceeding with something like that of dubious value.”

But the city’s action may not be totally satisfactory to opponents.

Rita Bettis, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, which supported the petition effort, wrote a letter to the City Council this week saying she disagrees with Dilkes’ interpretation of the validity of the portion of the petition dealing with the traffic-enforcement cameras. She also questioned the city’s planned use of license plate readers to identify parking violations.

Dilkes said the traffic camera part of the ordinance proposed in the petition is requesting a referendum (something for the council to reconsider) and the timeline for reviewing that has passed.

The sections on drones and license plates readers are an initiative (something new to be considered) and are valid, she said.

Bettis, who did not immediately return a phone message Tuesday, wrote that the City Charter does not contemplate a hybrid initiative-referendum and the proposed ordinance must be wholly one or the other. In her opinion, it’s an initiative.

Dilkes said that would render the referendum process meaningless because someone would only need to add provisions to a proposal seeking to repeal something in order to bypass the deadlines that go with a referendum.

Bettis also took issue with Dilkes’ opinion that “peace officer” includes parking enforcement attendants. The petitioners’ proposal says a peace officer must be present to write a ticket. The city’s plans for using license plate readers for parking violations would include staff placing tickets on vehicles.

Bettis argued that city and state law considers peace officers to be sworn law enforcement officers. But Dilkes countered that the laws include officers authorized to regulate parking violations in the definition of “peace officer.”

An ordinance is expected to be before the City Council at its next meeting.

Posted in: Taking on the Government  | Add a Comment(0)

Drivers threaten to show up to court or pay stop sign scamera ticket. Problem: "no such court exist"

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/14/57607.htm

Franz Kafka Heroes Challenge Traffic Tickets

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (CN) - A class action claims the City of Center Point and Redflex Traffic Systems illegally ticket drivers by threatening them with a court appearance if they refuse to pay fines, though "no such court exists."

     Redflex owns and operates the traffic cameras for Center Point, which photographs cars believed to run red lights or stop signs or speed.

     Such traffic-enforcement systems have been challenged, usually unsuccessfully, in courts all over the country.

     This one is a bit odd, though. It claims that the law that made the traffic cameras legal also gave ticketed drivers the right to appeal - but there are no courts authorized to hear the appeals, the two named plaintiffs say.

     Rhonda Lashon Stubbs and Celeita Snow sued the city and Redflex in Jefferson County Court.

     Stubbs's Lexus, license plate IMNGOD, was ticketed twice, allegedly for running the same stop sign on different days. Snow's Mercedes Benz was issued 14 citations.

     Snow says she repeatedly requested hearings on her tickets, and the city granted them, then "postponed" them, but never set a new date.

     It can't, she says, because there is no court that can hear it.

     "Ms. Stubbs paid the Notice of Violation because the Defendants left her with the false impression that the administrative hearing would be binding and would be conducted by the 'Municipal Court,'" the complaint states. "Currently, however, the Defendants strenuously argue that no such court exists. By leaving the Plaintiff with the false impression that she would appear in front of a 'court,' the Notice of Violation carried the full imprimatur of the State of Alabama and misled and intimidated Ms. Stubbs and the Class members into paying the 'fine.'

     "Similarly, the Notice of Violation sent to Stubbs and other members of the Class did not explain that the $100 'fine' could not be collected unless the City filed a later, separate civil suit. Neither Ms. Stubbs nor any other Class member was informed that the Notice of Violation was not judicial in nature but was actually a non-binding collection notice."

     In fact, the plaintiffs say, a state judge has told the city that its system is illegal.

     The complaint states: "On August 17, 2012, an order was entered by Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge David N. Lichtenstein in City of Center Point v. Kenneth Crowder, CV-2012-0929 whereby this Court found that the Alabama District Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of any matters concerning fines, adjudications, or other action pursuant to Ordinance 2011-02. Therefore, the 'appeal' rights granted in the statute are defective as contrary to the Alabama Constitution.

     "As a result of deficiencies in the Statute and Ordinance - as pointed out by Judge Lichtenstein - no meaningful appeal lies from any decision of the hearing officer appointed by the Mayor. Act 2011-580 grants rights of appeal and the Due Process Clause requires the opportunity for meaningful review; absent that, the Statute and the Ordinance are unconstitutional as applied and are due to be stricken."

     Every member of the class, in other words, becomes a hero, or victim, of his or her own Kafka novel.

     The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, costs, and damages for civil rights violations, suppression of material facts, and unlawful debt collection practices.

     Their lead counsel is Samuel M. Hill.

     Franz Kafka (1883-1924) wrote novels and stories in which the hero, often named Josef K., is summoned to appear at a court he cannot reach, for a crime uncertain.

     Center Point, pop. 23,000, is a suburb of Birmingham.