Protest Letters

Australia letter writer BLAST more speed SCAMERAS!

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/letters-slam-the-brake-on-plan-to-introduce-more-speed-cameras/story-e6frercf-1226505588155#sidebar-end

LETTERS: Slam the brake on plan to introduce more speed cameras (AU)
•by: Our readers
•From: The Courier-Mail
•October 30, 2012 12:00AM
 Source: The Courier-Mail

THE Hawaiians had the right idea when private citizens manned their new speed camera program ("Snap happy", C-M, Oct 29). The community rebelled. We should too.

Not that I think one should resort to violence to make a point.

However, the locals just pulled up and had a quiet - but ultimately persuasive - chat with the camera operators, who immediately packed up and left.

The Governor got the message that the citizenry were a tad upset and didn't like being treated as criminals and the program was hastily shelved.

These speed-camera agendas are blatant revenue-raisers and do little for road safety, but are tantamount to persecution of motorists for minor technical breaches of arbitrarily set speed limits, which are generally set too low for the conditions.

If every "kilometre over" was the killer it is supposed to be, then we should have a death toll commensurate with the millions of fines imposed annually.

The road system is a dynamic environment where Murphy's Law always holds sway, yet motorists are somehow expected to be perfect in such an unpredictable environment.
Ralph Walton, Belmont

Gary Biller of the NMA comment on NCSR/ATS spin on Scamera Bans on 11/6/2012.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/07/4967741/ncsr-applauds-voter-support-of.html

Ban the Cams Note: ATS is the money behind NCSR.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp

Gary Biller comment on NCSR/ATS spin:

Interesting spin on November 6, 2012 ballot results.  NCSR, a front group financed by the for-profit camera company American Traffic Solutions, neglected to mention that four cities voted to shut down their ticket camera systems on the same day.  That includes League City, TX (77% opposed cameras); Monroe, WA (70.4% opposed); Murrieta, CA (57.2% opposed), and Newport Beach, CA (57.0% opposed).

In fact, since 1991 there have been 30 public votes on ticket cameras and in 27 of those contests, the public said "no" to photo enforcement.  Lengthening the yellow light cycles has proven time and time again an effective method to decrease red-light running violations by more than 50 percent.  

The cameras are designed to generate profits through ticket revenue, pure and simple, and actually increase accident rates.  Motorists understand that as shown by the 90 percent rejection rate via public vote.
 

Paul Henry:  Found: An honest government official in Roswell, Georgia.

"The cameras have made $1.6 million for the city since they were installed. Still, Transportation Director Steven Acenbrak says they should go.

"The data would tell you they were not very effective, from a crash standpoint," said Acenbrak. He says there continue to be just as many red light runners now, as before the cameras were installed. "

...Ding! Ding! Ding! We finally have a winner. If the automated for-profit devices are not reducing crashes, then what good are they from a safety standpoint??? 100 gazillion-trillion "violations" never caused any damage or injured anyone. Crashes are what damage property and injure people. Red light running crashes will never be significantly affected by automated for-profit law enforcement.

Note how this comes at a time when the city is losing money due to lower "violations". I suspect the crash data has been known for some time.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/263186/3/Red-light-cameras-in-Roswell-fail-to-stop-crashesSee More

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20121101/NJOPINION02/311010002/More-thievery-courtesy-of-red-light-cameras?nclick_check=1

More thievery, courtesy of red-light cameras
4:09 PM, Oct 31, 2012   | 

Opinion
Letters
On Aug. 13, a red-light camera caught my car going through a yellow light at Route 1 South and Avenel Street in Woodbridge. The fine was $140.

This camera was one of the cameras that had been deemed illegal because of the timing of the light.
When I called Woodbridge municipal court and explained the situation to them and asked for my $140 back, their response to me was, “good luck trying to get your money back.”
What about all the other people who the township of Woodbridge ripped off?
I am sure they would like their money back, too, especially in these hard economic times.
As far as I am concerned, the township and government of Woodbridge are all a bunch of thieves.

Joseph Piccoli
MILLTOWN

Reader comment on Monroe,  WA 2nd SCAMERA VOTE (1st vote BANNED the scameras). SCAMERAS HELP PUT FORD DEALER OUT OF Business

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

• The city of Monroe has spent over $100k (and counting) on attorney fees alone fighting Monroe Initiative #1 in court to not allow it to go for a binding public vote.
• The city of Monroe has probably spent another $200-$300K over the past 2-3 years in administrative costs running the program for police time reviewing tickets, court costs, etc.
• The city of Monroe has lost untold tens of thousands of dollars in lost sales tax revenue when people such as me spend our money in municipalities that don't fleece the shoppers on the public roads. Ever wonder why the Ford dealer on Main Street just a couple of blocks west of their school speed trap went out of business?

The city of Monroe sent how much of that money collected as referenced in the article to Redflex? Answer nowhere in sight and certainly not volunteered by the city of Monroe for the article.

It is simply amazing that this totally in the bag mayor and city council have not worked out a financial settlement with Redflex over a year ago when the city's own non-binding initiative written by the city and promoted by the city failed miserably, by about a 68% vote. That means over 2 out of 3 voters said get rid of the cameras and NOW.

But better yet, and this especially applies to every council member and the current mayor, is this simple question. Why did you not do an advisory election before installing the cameras and binding the city to a contract with Redflex especially when that binding contract you signed with Redflex occured AFTER the public vote in Mukilteo that voted cameras down by 70% in early November 2010?

I think we all know the answer. The current mayor, Robert Zimmerman and every council member onboard in October-November 2010 was 100% in the back pocket of Redflex. 100%.
And as for the current mayor, Robert Zimmerman. Well, we all know how well he faired in the primary elections of 2012, don't we. And I think we all know why, too.

I guess when you sleep with dogs, you really do get fleas.

October 5, 2012 12:09 pm |  
 

Ban The Cams note:  WE HAVE SEEN PEOPLE FALSELY TICKTED EVEN WITH COPS IN THE VIDEO DIRECTING TRAFFIC THROUGH http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/MI92368/ !!!!!!!!!!  Heck we even seen people CITED FOR GETTING OUT OF THE WAY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES!  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204944/Driver-gets-60-fine-moving-yard-red-light-let-police-van-999-pass.html

So what you have in many cases are putting people in a Catch 22.  Do the right thing and risk a RLC "ticket", or IGNORE POLICE OFFICERS DIRECTING YOU, Emergency vehciles, or construction workers to avoid a RLC "ticket".

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/hernando-letters-road-work-a-red-light-camera-and-a-no-win-situation/1254876

No-win situation with this red light

If the purpose of using red-light cameras is to improve safety, then I am all for it. However, recently, I was driving through a very busy intersection at the corner of Broad Street and Cortez Boulevard in Brooksville, where a construction worker waved me to pass through a red light while his crew was surfacing the road. I did as the road worker directed me.

A few weeks later, I received a citation in the mail. I brought the ticket to an officer at the Brooksville Police Department to explain what had happened.

Clearly, if this program is all about public safety, then I strongly believe that a police officer should have been on location directing traffic for this very purpose. The officer showed me the video and argued that the construction worker was not within the video frame. It came to my word versus his word. Consequently, I clearly had less authority here, and yes, I paid the ticket.

My point, why wasn't law enforcement directing traffic on this multi-lane intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 50 during this precarious situation? Instead, traffic control was left to a road crew employee whose concern was to complete the last patch to the intersection before the sun set. Thankfully, there was not an accident as I cautiously drove through the red light.

If law enforcement is about safety, then law enforcement should have been there to direct traffic. The red-light program did nothing for this situation.

Cathy Canfield, Brooksville

Why RLC ARE NOT REALLY LAW ENFORCEMENT!  OFFICERS ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT!  NOT A CAMERA COMPANY!

Paul Henry
Two things can be learned from this story:
1. Automated law enforcement cannot prevent people from breaking other laws, and
2. It is very easy for another to hack your mail delivery. Once this happens, unlike a regular ticket, you'll never know you were issued a ticket from an automated for-profit device until your license is suspended.

Two things to think about:
...1. Let's say a police officer had made the red light running stop. During the encounter, lawful cause was found to investigate Mr. Holmes. Perhaps an illegal firearm was found and he was arrested. These are all things no automated device can ever do. Another terrorist, Tim McVeigh, was stopped by an Oklahoma State Trooper and prevented from further acts of terror.
2. Even if none of the above had happened, the ticket would have been signed for and delivered to the person accused of running the light.

Ban the Cams note:  This is his thoughts on the article below.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/288723/42/Red-light-camera-captures-Holmes-before-shooting

Paul Henry on Manatee County, FL RLR "epidemic"

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120911/ARTICLE/120919925/2055/NEWS?p=3&tc=pg

Here is how the operation works-
 For-profit company comes in and tells the local officials they have a red light running problem (epidemic?), and the solution is not only free, it will generate revenue. Oh, and it's only about safety, so don't mention that "r-word".
 
Local officials sign contracts after for-profit company shows that they have (number) of "violations" at several intersections. Crash data is not a factor- it's OK to use devices at intersections where there have been no red light running crashes.
 
Devices are installed at no cost to the taxpayer! Of course, like those 99 cent smartphones, there is a contract. Usually $3,000~5,000/month per device. If not enough "violations" are collected, the city is in the red. Not to worry, though, thanks to "cost-neutral" language, the city can pay the money when more "violations" come in. This actually happened in Hallandale Beach, who paid out more than they took in during 2011 once officer costs were factored in.
 
The remaining revenue is good to go for anything. Mayor needs new golf clubs? Unlike all other moving violations in Florida, nothing in the state law prohibits that.
 
Research this issue and you'll likely agree (unless you work for the automated device company or are a city/county official) that:
Automated for-profit law enforcement is a bad idea and it is un-American.

(Ban the Cams note:  This is one of two letters to the editor on the same link.)

(Ban the Cams note II:  David Kelly's NCSR is nothing more than a FRONT GROUP for ATS!  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp : 

Documents show the group coordinating this effort, NCSR, is controlled exclusively by the photo ticketing firm American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

As previously reported, NCSR is the creation of David Kelly, the head of the public relations firm Storm King Strategies, and ATS is just one of Kelly's many clients.  )

http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20120817/NEWS/120819649/-1/news/red-light-camera-supporter-s-objectivity-questioned-

Red-light camera supporter’s objectivity questioned
Posted: 08/17/12 04:26 pm                       

I read with interest the letter from Mr. David Kelly, head of the National Coalition for Safer Roads, supporting the installation of red light cameras in the Aug. 8 issue. After reading the letter, I looked up the organization on its website.

While there may, in some respects, be truth to what Mr. Kelly says, it’s also quite true that his organization’s sole purpose is to support and justify the installation of red light cameras. Any reasonable person would strongly suspect his organization is funded largely via the companies that make the cameras. If that is true, then I do not believe that he could possibly be objective.

There are several reasons all of us should view with skepticism the installation of these cameras. My primary objection is that politicians in general, and even departments of transportation, tend to forget that drivers are human beings driven by their emotions who will quite naturally react negatively to a hostile driving environment, but positively to a good one. I know I react negatively, and will be far more likely to stretch the yellow light too far, when angry at a signal’s poor performance and inability to adapt to heavy traffic.

Installing red light cameras is economically not only self-supporting, but can often make a profit. Thus, it is easier for a municipality to install them rather than doing what they should do, which is to spend dollars to improve traffic flow with proper signal configuration and timing, as was obviously done some months ago on the section of Route 202 near Smithbridge Road.

My second objection is that there have been documented cases where the cameras proved to cost more than they generated, where the yellow light was then shortened to increase revenue. Thus, it is quite clear to me that two requirements must be met prior to the installation of such cameras:
First, the latest technology must be installed at all intersections near the one for which cameras are proposed, and all reasonable efforts must be made to coordinate signal timing, enable it to adjust to traffic volume, and optimize traffic flow. After that, all yellow signals must be set to the proper length for the prevailing speed of traffic, as long as 4 seconds when traffic is legitimately moving at speeds of 45 mph or more, and it must be kept there. Often, merely lengthening the yellow light eliminates most noncompliance.

The real point here is that all of us who drive are too often subjected to disastrously poor driving conditions because motorists are almost never seen as a political constituency even though nearly all of us drive. I say improve the signals, and ensure easy driving first, and discuss speed cameras only after a proper job of serving the driving public in that manner has first been done.

JOHN M. BAXTER
Chester County

http://triblive.com/opinion/2140643-74/safety-red-accident-camera-cameras-data-legislature-philadelphia-rates-revenue

Revenue over safety
. 
By Tribune-Review

Published: Friday, July 13, 2012, 12:01 a.m.
Updated 11 hours ago

Revenue over safety

Well, folks, ticket money won out over safety. Philadelphia will have the accident-increasing red-light cameras for another five years, as can Pittsburgh.

Philadelphia police data showed that red-light cameras increased accident rates when they were first installed. Philadelphia police data showed that was still true last fall after many years of operation.

Truly unbiased data from every red-light ticket camera in the country show an increase in crashes, injuries and fatalities.

Does the Legislature care about increasing accident rates at red-light camera intersections so cities can make more money? Evidently not.

I have sent dozens of examples to the entire Legislature of how red-light cameras increase accident rates and how using safer, longer yellow-light intervals on traffic lights produced fewer violations and more safety, so they can’t plead ignorance of the facts.

Yet the greedy, unprincipled politicians spout the lies of the camera makers and are more than willing to trade your safety for campaign contributions and out-of-control budget revenue.

Does the Legislature really care about maximizing safety and minimizing violations? Evidently not.

This is a sad day for Pennsylvania.

Tom McCarey

Berwyn

(Thanks to CameraFraud for sharing the link!)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/opinion-talk/letter-editor/ph-ho-cf-letters-smith-0614-2-20120615,0,2944673.story

Letter: Turn off speed cameras when road construction ends
June 15, 2012 | 10:43 a.m.

The fairly recent practice of placing speed cameras in construction zones, for the purpose of protecting construction workers, is difficult to argue with. I have noted however, that these speed cameras continue to operate long after the workers have gone for the day. It could be argued that this practice is less about worker safety and more about being a revenue enhancer for the state.

One such location is on Route 29, north of Route 100. In my daily travels, I have personally observed numerous vehicles slam on their brakes upon reaching the speed camera zone.

On Thursday, May 31 at 9:45 p.m., long after construction workers had gone for the day, a 25-year-old motorcyclist was killed at this location when traffic in front of him suddenly slammed on their brakes. He was not able to stop in time.

It is sad to think that a practice appropriately intended to save lives, when used in excess, may in fact have contributed to this death. I hope the state of Maryland spends their extra revenue well.

Francis X. Smith

Finksburg

Comment by reader on Kill TN Traffic Cameras  on TN Ruling against RLC vendors ATS and Redflex on Right turns!

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jun/08/knox-chancellor-nixes-attempt-to-overturn-red/

Jason Amber

‎"Ultimately, what's really at stake is whether or not a contract in Tennessee is worth paper it's written on." -Charles Territo

Thank you Mr. Territo. That comment exactly illustrates the policy red light companies use to push your unjust system of revenue collection on American citizens during the worst of economic times - attempt to sound rational while ridiculing people even when you are WRONG. Because after all no "rational" person wants to be "unsafe" do they? Tissue?

One Motorists view of the RLC "hearing"  Thugs R US.  "judge" not really a JUDGE!

(Ban the Cams note:  We came across this on Facebook just recently.  This is one persons view of the "hearing". 

WE ARE MOST CONCERNED BY THE COMMENT THAT THE ATTACK WAS 

FILMED AND THE FILM IS MISSING that is in the possession of the police.  Most police officers are decent people doing a tough job, the individual officers mention below might not be.) 

Sid Non-Vicious LeRoux

Just as I got the fraud pretending to be a judge overseeing my "hearing" for a red light camera ticket to admit he wasn't a judge nor was it a "court", I was attacked by a fat psychopathic cop, even as the magistrate was talking to me and telling them to get out of the way so I could see and hear him.

Thug threw me through 2 sets of doors face first and then in to a glass window full force while twisting my elbow and shoulder out of joint as violently as he could. Right before I got the faux judge to admit he wasn't a judge, I had objected to him setting another "hearing" for my red light camera ticket and demanded a jury trial as is my right under the 7th amendment. The friggin fool claimed in front of the entire court that the 7th only applies to criminal cases! I pointed out his error a...nd the entire court laughed at him, followed closely by more laughter upon me saying "You aren't really a judge, are you?" and him responding that he wasn't. Obviously the laughter and loss of legitimacy was what instigated the assault and battery. On the way to his supervisor's office to file a complaint against him, my friend James Cox starting filming and the terrorists went berserk. In the chaos my things dropped to the ground and I tried to pick them up and they used that as an excuse to arrest me for "resisting without violence." Lots of violence done to me. My left shoulder is painful to lift above parallel, wrists are swollen from being tortured with the cuffs, scrapes here and there and elbow twisted badly and sore. After my arrest I was taken in to a back room and a black female cop decided to start lifting up my clothes and shit to take pictures of my body because I complained about the other cop assaulting and injuring me and asked for medical attention, and the bruises weren't highly visible yet. When I asked her why she was assaulting me, she laughed at me. Cox was arrested also for "Resisting without violence" [filming them attacking me] and they have not returned his audio and video devices, are sending him all over the place chasing after it. Police are total ****.)

(Ban the Cams note:  Thanks to Paul Henry for sharing the link).

LETTER: Cameras at red lights aren't the solution

TuscaloosaNews.com

May 20, 2012 10:19 PM

Dear Editor: While some may believe that red-light cameras will lead to fewer accidents around town, residents of many cities have found just the opposite. We must remember how people surprise us as they adapt quickly to change. Without red-light cameras, some drivers will run the red light as others quickly learn to wait an extra second or two after their own light turns green. With red-light cameras, the prospect of flash bulbs levying fines causes drivers to brake hard on a yellow light in order to avoid a ticket. This increases rear-end collisions at red-light camera intersections.

Houston, Plano, Peoria, Ariz., Tempe, San Diego and many other cities have already been through all this, most disconnecting the unpopular red light cameras after hurting the credibility of their local leaders. Soon after the cameras go up, accidents typically go up and the lawsuits against the city begin. In San Diego, the red-light camera contractor received a portion of every ticket. A lawsuit proved the cameras were ticketing drivers in violation of state traffic laws. In one city, police reviewing camera footage found 40 percent of the “violations” actually were not.

Peoria City Councilman Ron Aames said, “To me, the red-light cameras are kind of like a fool's gold. They sound like something that would really have an effect on accidents, on driver behavior, on safety, but they don't.”

We all know running red lights is a problem, but cameras aren't the solution.

Sam Thompson

Tuscaloosa

Marysville, CA RLC so called "justice" means vistor will NOT RETURN TO SPEND MONEY IN FUTURE!

(seems to be a right turn)

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/police-116336-courthouse-staff.html

Letter: Marysville visitor won't return
May 18, 2012 08:19:44 PM
I received a red-light camera violation taken at Ninth and E streets while driving a relative's vehicle. I was driving on E Street by mistake as I am from Michigan and simply turned on the crash derby street by mistake.

The violation came in the mail while my relatives were vacationing. I did not learn of it until they returned. I visited the police station and the courthouse as to learn more about the violation. The letter only informed me to wait for another mailing. The staff at the police station never offered to assist me until requested assistance. Perhaps police staff thought I liked sitting in a police station doing nothing.

A few days later, I visited the courthouse where I asked how I may talk to someone regarding the violation. Courthouse staff rudely informed me I would have to pay the fine in order to be scheduled. The letter I received and the police did not inform me of the amount of the fee. I left the courthouse wondering what happened to justice for all, swift justice, the Constitution and if California is still part of the United States. The second letter included no fee. Before leaving for the airport, I left a check for my relatives to pay the mystery fee amount.

Police and courthouse staff, please accept my apology for bothering you with my notion of justice. I promise to never return to Marysville, California.

Marilyn Peterson

St. Joseph, Mich.

http://oskynews.org/?p=45612

Traffic Enforcement Camera Ban?

Osky News
Editors Note: The views and opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily the views or opinions of Osky News.  

There has been a lot of debate on traffic enforcement cameras in Iowa. It was one of the most debated hot button issues this past legislative session. I support the traffic camera ban for multiple reasons.

Traffic Enforcement Cameras Increase Rear-End Crashes, Not Reduce Them
Nearly all proponents of installing traffic enforcement cameras pertaining to red light violations cite public safety as their chief concern. It has been documented that rear-end collisions increased by fifteen percent when red light cameras were installed in the evaluation of red light cameras in seven different cities. According to The Federal Highway Administration, their study found that, overall, rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent . If the primary purpose for installing red light cameras is to ensure safety of those drivers that may be victims of reckless drivers, according to surveys they are failing to prove their premise.

The Vehicle Driver Is Not The Same As The Owner For One In Four Citations Issued
For many surprised vehicle owners in municipalities where traffic enforcement cameras are enacted, they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Opponents of traffic enforcement cameras rightfully argue that the traffic enforcement cameras issue citations to innocent owners of cars who have committed no law violation, but rather, someone else who may have been driving their car.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the registered owner is the driver only 72% of the time. Without consideration for any other shortcomings, over 1 in 4 tickets are issued to the wrong person!
Innocent vehicle owners should not be compelled to pay for an infraction that they didn’t commit, nor have to fight against such nonsense.

Traffic Enforcement Cameras Are Unconstitutional
There are many rights and guarantees that are secured and afforded to us in our State of Iowa and U.S. Constitution. Within these rights is the right to due process. This is a right that is being violated through traffic enforcement cameras implementation process.
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gives the accused the right to be confronted by witnesses against him. With photo enforcement, the driver is never confronted by a police officer ticketing him. The accused are not being provided with the opportunity to cross-examine or subpoena all camera equipment operators along with anyone who handled the evidence or the officer who issued the citation. Those accused are not being provided with the opportunity to examine the design and operation of the equipment itself.
There have been many states that have already banned traffic enforcement cameras due to their finding the devices to be unconstitutional.
This right that is afforded to us through our Constitution alone is enough to declare the cameras are wrong. Proponents have no answer to this objection. Therefore, they ignore the objection and ignore the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend.

There Is A Lot Of Money In The Traffic Enforcement Business
It has been well documented that cities that have introduced traffic enforcement cameras are cities that are facing very high budget deficits. In the state of Iowa, these cameras get final approval from the city council. City councilmen are elected and for political reasons it is not popular to raise taxes. In order to avoid raising taxes while still being able to make up for overspending, traffic enforcement cameras are a win-win for politicians.
In other states, there are traces of foul play where the owners of the traffic cameras are laying huge sums of money at the feet of influential lawmakers to enact or continue legislation which legalizes or continues legalization of their money making scam.
A few speed camera companies and insurance companies combined, gave almost $1,000,000 in campaign contributions to politicians in Maryland, over the years to implement speed cameras. Cameras have been called a wise and courageous move for crooked politicians.
It seems to me like the most likely reason for municipalities to install traffic cameras is the culprit behind most scams, money and greed. The public is just sick and tired of being scammed out of money and those who govern our lives claiming that it is “for our own safety and well being.” The public is tired of the nanny state trying to micro-manage our lives and lying to us. The general public is catching on to what crafty politicians are up to and see that behind all of the smoke and mirrors, there is money being made by these crooks hand over fist and it is coming from the public.
In conclusion, traffic enforcement cameras should be banned in our state because; 1. They do not promote safety, but rather jeopardize it. 2. Traffic enforcement cameras are inaccurate in identifying the drivers of the vehicle cited in one in four citations issued. 3. Traffic enforcement cameras violate our constitutional rights. 4. Big cash revenue to companies in the business leads to the politicization of the issue and promotes corruption.

Jennifer Doland
Oskaloosa, Iowa

Why RLC will keep vistors away.  Port Lavaca Vistor hit by RLC scam!

(Ban the Cams note:  This was posted on our blogs on "
Redflex Front Group files suit against city to PREVENT THE VOTERS FROM BANNING RLC!"

We thought that sharing it with everyone here was the right thing to do.

I just sent this email to the Chamber of Commerce in Port Lavaca, Texas:

I recently traveled from my home in Oregon to tour the Texas Gulf Coast. When I returned home, I found a red light camera ticket in the mail from your city. It clearly shows me turning right on red with no cross traffic and no one in the crosswalk, which I believe is legal in Texas. The only options I have to respond are to pay the erroneous ticket, or return to Port Lavaca for a hearing. Attempts to contact the issuing agency have been unsuccessful - the phone numbers supplied reach the private company that supplies the cameras. Needless to say, I am not coming to your town to argue this erroneous ticket. I will also not visit your city again because of this extortionary treatment I have received. I don't believe this is the impression you want visitors to have about your city. 

Sincerely, David Stone

http://www.silverbelt.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=79&story_id=3580

(Thanks to Camerafraud for the link!)

Moss: No misconceptions about Redflex (TERMINATE "the Redflex contract as soon as possible."

Posted: Wednesday, Apr 11th, 2012

 
Dear Editor:

Last week’s Letter to the Editor submitted by Councilwoman Mary Ann Uhl spelled out nine “misconceptions” about Redflex. Her attempt to justify Globe’s photo radar cameras was done so against the backdrop of the recent Municipal Election. She expressed bewilderment about how so many residents could be dissatisfied with Mayor Shipley’s leadership.

Those who try to explain the election results as a ‘voter referendum’ on Redflex are missing the real message sent by voters on March 13. The landslide defeat of three incumbent City Council Officials should not be solely attributed to controversial policy decisions, such as photo radar or the private prison proposal. The vast majority (65 percent) of Globe residents who voted last month rejected a leadership style that disrespected constituents and failed to represent the majority.

It is astounding that Councilwoman Uhl has chosen to publicly re-litigate the Redflex debate, just three weeks after such a decisive voter preference was expressed. Her attempt to advocate for Redflex and defend Mayor Shipley, NOW, after the people have spoken loud and clear, exemplifies the absolute tone-deaf leadership that was just voted out of office.

Mayor-Elect Wheeler, along with Councilman-Elect Mariscal and Councilman-Elect Humphrey, voiced strong opposition to Redflex during the campaign. Voters rewarded them with a landslide victory! In a spirit of respect for the democratic process, Mayor Shipley and City Manager Graves should be working closely with Mr. Wheeler, on behalf of Globe residents, to begin to address issues of concern that were debated during the campaign.

This includes terminating the Redflex contract as soon as possible.

There should be no misconception as to what most citizens expect from the current Mayor and Council during this two-month transition to new leadership for the City of Globe.

Jim Moss

Globe Resident and Business Owner

Quote on arbitrary speed limit enforcement from the Association of British Drivers. 

“An arbitrary limit allows sloppy policing. Officers don`t have to determine if there has been dangerous driving, as they just ticket everyone.”
 

Paul Taggart
Hawke's Bay Today (NZ)  http://www.hbtoday.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3668248&thesection=localnews
2006-01-12

Thanks to the Association of British Drivers (www.abd.org.uk) for the link!

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/readerletters/9546731.No_excuse_for_propaganda_on_back_of_speed_cameras/?ref=twtrec

No excuse for propaganda on back of speed cameras
2:14pm Wednesday 22nd February 2012 in Letters 

The speed camera lobby has finally shown its true colours of misguided propaganda and money raising.

A year ago, Jeremy Clarkson, of BBC’s Top Gear, inspired his MP to raise an Early Day Motion in Parliament that all speed cameras have a speed limit sign on the back to make the cameras easier to see, reduce traffic speed and cut the number of penalty notices issued.

He said this on the back of research which showed many people caught by cameras claimed not to be fully aware of the speed limit and were not driving dangerously.

Unfortunately, MPs were distracted and the motion was not passed.

With this idea, Essex and Southend councils had an opportunity to show the public they were not all about money-raising, and that they could reduce the number of people caught by cameras by educating them about the legal speed limit with a big, clear sign on the backs of the cameras.

But what did they do? Put useless propaganda on the backs of the cameras saying: “No excuse for speeding.”

Brighton Council was reported as being happy a reduction of the limit from 40mph to 30mph on the A270 was correct, even though it resulted in a 10,000-fold increase in the number of speeding fines.

 I do not believe cameras are an effective way to improve road safety.

The focus of councils and police on speed is costing lives, because they are leaving the critical elements of driver training and re-education, re-engineering of badly designed roads and junctions, and genuine prosecution of dangerous and offences, neglected.

Rob Moore
Gayton Road
Southend