Protest Letters

Orlando Sentinel does another love letter to the Scamera Industry.

The Orlando paper is known as being very pro scamera.  Even one member of the editorial board attended promoter meetings years ago.  http://www.banthecams.org/Did-You-Know/a-little-history-on-the-orlando-sentinels-rlc-stance.html

As I personally do, I leave comments on RLC article to bring attention to the SCAM.

Here is my post today on the Orlando Sentinel.  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-red-light-repeal-122911-20111228,0,2744282.story (And Unlike Bill Kroske of ATS (formerly now), I DON'T HIDE who I am.

My post:

Ah another love letter to the scamera industry.

What a "surprise" coming from this paper.

After all it was DIAZ of this paper who was going to promoter meetings just a few years ago.  http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-camera-bias-orlando-sentinel/

Quote:  "After some quick research, we discovered that George Diaz appeared at a symposium held by The National Campaign To Stop Red Light Running in late 2007.

As we covered on this blog previously, the organization is simply a front for corporate special interests — specifically the red light camera industry. It is directly funded by RedFlex, Affiliated Computer Systems (ACS), and Gatso — all red light ticket camera vendors.
 
This corporate special interest group even describes Mr. Diaz as “the paper’s point man on editorials pushing for red light camera legislation in Florida“.

But it doesn't take long to figure out that RLC are a FRAUD!

Read more: Orlando Sentinel does another love letter to the Scamera Industry. (and post I left)

Thanks to Citizens Against RLC for the link.

(Ban the Cams note:  Interesting letter on the fact that this victim of a RLC had to choose between a ticket or getting REAR ENDED Again in the SAME YEAR!).

Quote:  A larger vehicle was coming up close behind me. I have been the victim of a rear-end collision (at a different location, a few months ago), and I am to this day being treated by a chiropractor. The summons demands that I must choose between one of only two options.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20111213/NJOPINION02/312130009/Red-light-cameras-can-be-more-dangerous-than-good

Red-light cameras can be more dangerous than good
5:15 PM, Dec. 12, 2011  |   

Opinion
Letters to the Editor

Regarding red-light cameras on Route 1 southbound at Prince Street in Edison, there are four lanes at this point. All traffic in the fourth (outside) lane serves only to enter the large shopping center, and to feed southbound traffic onto the other three lanes a short distance thereafter.

Access to this shopping center by northbound traffic requires continuation north a short distance to make a U-turn to enter the southbound lane, just above the Prince Street entrance to the shopping center. There is no other entrance, and a large volume of traffic bound for Home Depot, Office Depot, Stop & Shop, Petco, McDonald's and others, resulting in frequent congestion at the entrance.

(Ban the Cams note:  Vendors prefer to put these devices up where there is high traffic flow.  Shopping centers are favorites).

There is no stop sign, and no sign stating “No Turn on Red” at the entrance — wisely so, to minimize rear-end collisions. The absence of these signs results in a better flow of traffic and in any case, they are not necessary, since there is no entry to Prince Street from any other location.

Read more: Red-light cameras can be more dangerous than good

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/nov/25/letters-red-light-cameras-hurt-knox-economy/

(Steve note:  If you get bored folks go read the astro turf post on this one from the Scamera side.   Favorite suspected Astro Truf post on this this one: 

Kasey  "Follow the laws and quit whining. Knoxville won't miss your business - and is probably a safer place if you stay away."

I have seen that "whining" comment from the other side more than once!)

Letters: Red-light cameras hurt Knox economy
Posted November 25, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.
Tim Kyker, Lenoir City

Yeah, I guess the Arizona red light company is squealing like a pig. After I received two right-on-red tickets — the second was for turning too slowly — I decided that this was a scam and stayed away from Knoxville. I never turn right on red anymore. I now have a complex about it.

Tennessee didn't do the math. The state gets $10 and Arizona gets $40? This company is getting rich off us dumb hillbillies, they think. I know many tourists and out-of-town people like me lost the desire to shop or eat in Knoxville. My $8.49 meal turned into $58.49 there weeks later when I got my citation. Some people make only $60 a day, and what about retired seniors and families on a budget?

The right decision was made: no wrongful right-on-red enforcements. We are cautious drivers and don't need the added stress.

(Thanks to Kill Tn Traffic Cameras for the link!)

http://www.oakridger.com/letter/x301775912/Traffic-camera-generated-tickets-all-about-the-money

Traffic camera-generated tickets 'all about the money'
Letter to the Editor

Posted Nov 27, 2011 @ 06:24 PM

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — To the Editor:

Redflex is suing Farragut because the illegal fleecing of Tennessee citizens and hundreds, if not thousands, of visitors has been stopped by the state legislature as of July 1.

What never seems to come up is that many, if not most, of the "tickets" for improper-right-turn-on-red were actually perfectly legal under state law, which simply requires a "complete stop" (wheels stop turning) if for only an instant, and then yield to other traffic.

Farragut, Oak Ridge and other places couldn't detect that, so they made up their own rules to allow issuing thousands of tickets and raking in the money. What they did was decide you have to stop for three seconds or even five seconds or they give you a ticket ... even though you may not have violated any traffic law. If you did not meet their fabricated requirement, then you paid $50 and more than half of the money ended up going out of Tennessee to Redflex.

There was also some fiddling with the yellow light timing to maximize tickets. Real traffic safety studies had shown that increasing the yellow light time from three to four seconds would reduce the tickets by 50 percent with no impact on safety. You guess which was used.

Once again it is all about the money. No one cares if any actual law was violated or not.

Not sure what court fees are charged in Farragut, but in Oak Ridge if you appeared (in court) because you know you had come to a complete stop, if you had not met the Oak Ridge "made-up" three second rule you got to pay the $50 plus, I believe, $87.50 court costs -- for your two minutes in court.

If Redflex gets away with one of these suits they will make a killing suing cities all over Tennessee. But after all, it has always just been about the money.

Steven J. Mead
Oak Ridge

Jim Walker NMA Activist response to DC Camera Scam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/districts-holiday-speed-camera-photos-may-leave-drivers-feeling-less-jolly/2011/11/23/gIQAnyBYpN_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#weighIn

(This was a post left on the DC Scamera Article by the Washington Post).

jcwconsult
11/24/2011 11:20 AM EST

Anyone who thinks that the speed and red light cameras in the District and nearby Maryland counties are about safety is extremely naive. Speed and red light cash registers are about CASH, not safety. AAA Mid-Atlantic's warnings are just trying to prevent their clients pockets from being picked by these predatory cash registers.
 
IF the District and nearby Maryland counties actually cared about safety, they would use proven traffic safety engineering principles to set their main road posted speed limits at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions - the method that almost always results in the smoothest traffic flow, the greatest safety, and the fewest accidents. Most main roads would then be posted 10 or 15 mph higher than currently and safety would improve overall. The engineers would also then time the yellow light intervals for the ACTUAL 85th percentile approach speeds making them about 1.0 seconds longer, and this would drastically reduce the number of red light violations, likely by 60% to 80%. Ticket cameras ONLY produce the obscene amounts of revenue collected by the District and nearby counties when the engineering of the speed limits and yellow intervals on the lights is deliberately done improperly to collect maximum ticket revenues, at the expense of reduced safety overall. Most of the revenue comes from very safe drivers who are maliciously trapped into committing offenses that are NOT safety-related, such as driving at the normal safe speeds for the road types and being trapped into entering intersections with improperly short yellows during the first few tenths of a second of red.
 
The entire speed and red light camera industry is a scam, supported by biased research from organizations like the IIHS who have financial conflicts of interest in having more ticket cameras deployed. Even AAA has finally figured it out and now regularly warns its clients about the dangers to their wallets.
 
Readers can see the science and unbiased research on these issues on our website, research done by groups with NO financial conflicts of interest in the outcome of their reports. Ticket cameras have been put up for a vote in 23 cities and were voted out 22 times. Once citizens see the true nature of the revenue grab scams, they almost always say ENOUGH. The cameras only won in East Cleveland because uniformed police officers went door to door asking people to vote to keep them, with the threat of the city laying off 36 police officers, 14 fire fighters, and 10 other workers if the city lost the camera revenue. It was moral blackmail. 
 
Citizens should call their local elected officials to demand the programs be ended, and remove any officials who support keeping the predatory ticket cameras.
 
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI (frequent visitor to the area to see family in Maryland)

GREAT Response back at ATS and REDFLEX "suit" against Law that hurts scamera vendor "take".

Steve Note:  I find it interesting sometimes reading the astro turf post by the scamera side. 

In reviewing some of the suspected astro turf post by the scamera side in this Article on the Scamera vendor suit http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/nov/17/redflex-sues-farragut-over-new-traffic-camera/ I saw one of the best response as of late to the claims of scamera vendors that their "contracts" should somehow PREVENT legislatures from Banning or even restricting the scam.

drichards1953 writes:

in response to narse:
you really dont get it.
but thank you for being a wonderful driver. I try to obey all traffic laws. It's a lot safer when everyone does. We dole out driver licenses way too easy. There should be a tougher test on the laws of the road and the rules of traffic.
but redlight cameras and speed cameras are not put in place to decrease accidents. This lawsuit proves that money is the all important issue behind their operation.

I find this very frightening, however I agree with Narse on this, in total. This may be a first.
I do believe that the legislature had and still has every legal and ethical right to change the laws governing so-called "red light cams". It appears that Redflex and ATS believe their contracts are above the laws of the state, which is very unlikely. Almost every supplier (service or otherwise) contract I can think of has provisions that accept the laws involved may change, and without much doubt the contracts with Redflex and ATS have such provisions. Law can be change and these changes can and do supersede contracts. The Redflax and ATS lawsuits are totally bogus.

Steve Note:  if we were to listen to the scamera vendors than what's next.  Drug dealers saying State (or even Federal) goverments can't ban a dangerours product because they have a "contract"?????

Wonder if you will see the Mexican Drug Cartel sue the DEA next for interferring in the cartel's "contracts"?????? 

(link from post by M. Welsh in See Red Cleveland - Ban the Cameras)

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2011/11/13/yellow-signals-time-lengthened-by-law.html

Yellow signal’s time lengthened by law

Sunday November 13, 2011 3:15 AM
 

I respond to last Friday’s letter “Traffic signal was yellow for short time” from Steve Sullivan, regarding the yellow light at Henderson and Gettysburg roads. George Speaks, Columbus deputy public-safety director, had said that the yellow light’s time was lengthened because a camera there was catching large numbers of red-light runners (“Report: Traffic cameras can be cities' ‘cash cow,’ ” Dispatch article, Oct. 27).

Sullivan would be interested to learn that exactly one month after his ticket, O.R.C 4511.094 took effect. This mandates municipalities must add an extra second to the yellow light cycle above the minimum standard at photo-enforced intersections. Sullivan’s early-red violation would not have occurred a month later.

This leads to a critical question: If inexpensive engineering adjustments can reduce red-light violations, why are they not implemented before resorting to cameras? Because genuine solutions don’t fill city coffers. To Redflex, yellow-light timing is driven by actuarial probabilities, and longer yellow lights are contrary to their business model.

Lengthening the yellow light reduces the split-second dilemma Sullivan faced: Is it safer to go, or to stop abruptly?

The majority of “violations” are petty and bankroll the resources required to capture rare dangerous infractions. The decision to increase the yellow-light time was not precipitated by Columbus’ benevolence, but rather our legislature’s wisdom.

MICHAEL WELSH

 Dublin
 

From a Poster on NM PIRG RLC Study:  "TURN THOSE DAMN THINGS OFF NOW"

I came accross a interesting post on the fallout over the PIRG RLC study.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s2347661.shtml

by MrNorton

"Mayor Richard Berry said his administration cut lots of fat from the system and made the red light program more streamlined."

Political BS is all that is.

As for the city council voting to get rid of the camera's we all know they have said all along our vote does not count or mean a thing to them.

Way I see it is our vote is telling them get rid of them and the 30 day notice to Redflex should have been the day we voted and won.

So stop the game playing Councilors, send that letter out NOW and back date it to the day we voted.

And don't accept any bribes or other garbage from Redflex or Mayor Berry that they are good for cutting accidents.

The New Mexico Public Interest Research Group is all the proof needed.

Turn those D A M N things off NOW.

Thanks to Ilya Pistryakov on Ban Traffic Cameras in WA State for the link!

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/red/opinion/letters/131291274.html

Data shows traffic camera program not working

Oct 06 2011

When Redmond started its red light camera pilot program, Redmond Police Chief Ron Gibson told the city council, “collision data alone probably does not justify the use of cameras ... we don’t have that many collisions in Redmond.”

Well, now we do.

The police department reported last month that collisions are up 36 percent at the camera intersections since the cameras were installed.  Additionally, rear-end accidents are up 33 percent. The point of the program is to reduce collisions. It’s not working.

This result is not unexpected. Cities across the country are dumping this program because they have not seen an improvement in safety. In the last three months, two of the nation’s largest cities — Los Angeles and Houston — have cancelled their camera program.

Redmond is a late adopter to a 1990s technology that isn’t working.

Has driver behavior at these intersections changed? Very little. The city’s report shows that the camera company has identified only seven percent fewer potential violations at two key intersections during the pilot period.

The city has issued $1.2 million in tickets in six months. What has this program brought to Redmond? It has brought 36 percent more accidents, little change in driving behavior, clogged intersections as people are afraid to make legal right turns, the signatures of 6,000 residents who demand a vote on the program, and now legal fees the city is paying with taxpayer funds to keep those same signatures in the city’s vault so they can’t be validated.

The program has also brought the city’s elected officials the self-inflicted poor public relations and distractions that come with their handling of their citizen’s initiative.

The city will be making a decision as early as next week on cancelling this program.

I know they sincerely want your input and they read and respond to all e-mails. Please let them know you want the camera contract cancelled at mayor This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Scott Harlan, Redmond

(thanks to Kill Tn Traffic Cameras for the link!)

http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/oct/03/constitutionality-cameras-questioned-ar-1353495/

Constitutionality of cameras questioned
By:
Published: October 03, 2011

People need to be aware that red-light cameras have been ruled unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. In their declaration, their finding revealed that a prior law had allowed the yellow light to be decreased to 2 seconds to accommodate the cameras and collect more revenue. Also among their findings was that increasing the caution light time by one second, probably where it was before, the amount of accidents would decrease by 40 percent.

I personally timed the yellow lights and that is how long they stayed on, about 2 seconds. In a busy intersection, as in Colonial Heights, the driver must watch three or four directions at one time, and cannot concentrate solely on the light. That gives him little reflex time and even less as you get older, so it does discriminate against the elderly and is a valid argument as our reflexes get slower with age.

It is amazing what people will do in the name of the law and safety. Let’s throw them out and elect new officials. Let’s clean house this election. If you wonder where the jobs went, ask Bill Clinton and the people who voted for our trade agreements. Never figured out why the unions support either party. Have they never put 2 and 2 together?

Yes! He had a balanced budget but since GATT, we have less and less jobs. Thank you, Democrats and Republicans who created massive unemployment and sent jobs and money overseas. I thought it was funny how a decent wage for the majority is inflationary, but creating billionaires and extravagant bonuses and salaries for politicians and CEO isn’t. Never could figure that out! Maybe you can. A billion dollars here and there would create a lot of jobs if we didn’t send it overseas.

Curtis Nichols

Blountville, Tenn.

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/sep/18/evert-dale-red-light-cameras-drain-our-economy/

Evert Dale, Redding

Red-light cameras drain our economy

In the Sept. 8 article "Police adjust tactics," http://www.redding.com/news/2011/sep/07/fewer-officers-patrol-roads-police-adjust/ it is noted that although there are two fewer traffic officers and no community service officers, the accident rate has declined. How can this be?

It's the economy.

Compare driving across town today and four years ago. The reduced traffic and economic activity are startling.

The red light tickets went from 516, in 2007, the start of the red light program, to 4,478 in 2010.

At $500 each, 4,478 tickets equal $2,239,000. The $500 is composed of the ticket plus various fees.

This money goes to the company in Arizona to pay for the cameras, and our enforcement and court system.

A traffic officer could be put on red-light duty and save most of the $2 million. Even the officers' salary would be spent locally.

From the sheer number (4,000 red-light tickets) it is obvious the public is being gouged with little benefit, and with a $2 million hit to our community.

Perhaps our City Council and grand jury should revisit this issue.

© 2011 Record Searchlight. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
 

(Thanks to Kill TN Traffic Cameras for the link!)

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/aug/29/letters-redflex-cameras-all-about-revenue/

Letters: Redflex cameras all about revenue
Posted August 29, 2011 at 3:46 p.m.
Grimes Slaughter, Oak Ridge

Redflex Traffic Systems has been operating in Oak Ridge more than two years. I have proven that Redflex is fabricating red-light violations to increase revenue.

Driving west on the Oak Ridge Turnpike at the Lafayette-New York intersection, the signal turned yellow as I approached, so I proceeded at 35 mph. The signal turned red as my vehicle exited the far side of the intersection. I received photos of my vehicle at the threshold, and another 310 milliseconds later in the intersection. Both pictures showed red traffic lights.

I revisited the intersection and measured the distance from where the light turned red back to the location where the first picture was taken. It was 96 feet. At 35 mph a vehicle requires 1,870 seconds to travel this distance. Therefore, the first picture was taken 1.87 seconds before the red phase and the second taken 1.56 seconds before the red phase. The clock was triggered 2.37 seconds before the red phase.

Back to the photos. Supposedly in "color," they are almost completely monochrome, except the traffic signal shows as a brilliant red. All of this "evidence" was fabricated by the Redflex system. I know with absolute certainty that the traffic signal was yellow at the times and places of these photos.

This incident raises some disturbing questions: How many others are targeted for this treatment? We will never know, because the Redflex system operation is hidden from all except Redflex.

Why would fabrication of evidence be programmed into the system? The answer is: revenue. This system has extracted more than $2 million from the general motoring public during its more than two years of operation. This fraud must be stopped.

In Civil Rights Lawyer Randall Kallinen own words on Houston.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/368762987488/

Randall Kallinen

As a civil rights lawyer it is my legal opinion that any new RLC tickets issued will violate several Constitutional rights of the recipient as the People have voted and the City accepted both the petition and then certified the vote. Judge Hughes is flat wrong in his opinion and he shall be overturned by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110812/OPINION05/108120303/Red-light-cameras-You-ll-sorry?odyssey=nav%7Chead

Red-light cameras? You'll be sorry
11:54 PM, Aug. 11, 2011  |

Red-light cameras will do more harm than good.

Thank you, Iowa City Council members Connie Champion, Regenia Bailey and Susan Mims for your wise insights to the following concerns ("City moves on red-light cameras," Aug. 2).

When I lived in Chicago, there was evidence of the following costs of $100 for each ka-ching.

1. Ka-ching: There is an increase of rear-end collisions from people braking to avoid fines.

2. Ka-ching: Bikers, according to Iowa law, (see this link: ) are supposed to dismount and walk their bikes across busy intersections.

3. Ka-ching: People texting and/or talking "blindly" cross at lights even when they are red for them.

4. Ka-ching: Considering the volume of students and other pedestrians in the downtown area, drivers can be "stuck" at an intersection while lawfully and thoughtfully yielding to slow-moving vehicles and/or pedestrians.

5. Ka-ching: There is no recourse for the driver who is charged. Remember taxation without representation? Who is the driver's advocate? It costs more to contest a camera fine than to pay the fine. Is that justice?

6. Ka-ching: Unfortunately, there are some pranksters who deliberately "delay" crossing so that the driver is "stuck" at the crossing when the light changes to red. Law-abiding drivers, who commence moving at a green or recent amber light may be delayed or "stuck" as the light turns red.

7. Ka-ching: Notification to drivers by mail is delayed and in some circumstances the driver has no knowledge nor recollection of the alleged violation.

8. Ka-ching: In multi-lane roads, it is difficult to determine which car triggered the camera.

9. Ka-ching: The cameras may provide more income to the city but they do not prevent accidents and have been the cause of more.

So, you'll be sorry.

Annamarie Marcalus

Iowa City
 

City's cameras are 'a money thing'.  Or:   The Indians were right when they said man (Politicians) speaks with forked tongue.

Thanks to Kill TN Traffic Cameras for the link! http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/killtncams

http://www.timesnews.net/article/9033699/city39s-cameras-are-39a-money-thing39

City's cameras are 'a money thing'

Published July 9th, 2011 6:06 pm
 

The article “State Law Spurs Changes to Red Light Camera Fines” talks about the city’s loss of money as a result of a new state law and that Kingsport just went live with two new red light cameras in the Allandale community. In another paragraph, City Manager John Campbell says the city plans to determine the actual court costs associated with processing tickets and tack on that amount for those who do not pay within 30 days. And in another paragraph, to help offset the loss of revenue Campbell said Kingsport would be looking at staffing commitments in the police department and would step up its traditional traffic enforcement efforts.

Most of the article as per John Campbell dealt with how the city would make up the loss of revenue due to the new law. Then near the end came the kicker from Campbell: “We’ve always looked at this as traffic education and enforcement and not a money thing.” The Indians were right when they said man speaks with forked tongue.

Doug Salyer

Kingsport

I just wrote this up for a friend of mine who got a red light camera ticket here in Tallahassee. It is definitely not legal advice and I am not a lawyer!

[name]
[address]
[phone number]
[date]


Sir or Ma'am,

       On [date ticket was received] I received by mail a Florida Uniform Traffic Citation from the [name of agency issuing ticket] #[citation number] alleging a violation of Florida State Statute(s) 316.074 and/or 316.075 under State Statute 316.0083 and based on photographic and/or video evidence obtained from a camera near the intersection of [intersection where alleged infraction took place]. I submit that I am not guilty of this infraction and unless the [name of agency issuing ticket] can produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that I was the person who drove a vehicle through a red light at that place and time then they have no case due to lack of evidence. Based on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution the burden of proof rests with the accusers and therefore it is not my responsibility to prove my innocence, rather it is the responsibility of the [name of agency issuing ticket] to prove my guilt which (based on the evidence provided to me) they clearly have not done.

       My assertion that the burden of proof lies with the officer issuing the ticket (in this case [issuing officer's name and number]) is not unprecedented. There is currently a lawsuit before the Florida Attorney General's Office challenging this very thing. A presumption of my guilt by this court would violate my right to due process and, if a fine is levied against me, may violate the equal protection clause of both the U.S. And Florida constitutions (based on the ruling by Broward County Judge Fred Berman on June 15th of this year) due to the disparity between the fines for camera-issued tickets and personally issued tickets.

       I further posit that this red light camera ticket is in direct violation of Florida State Statute 316.002 with regards to Law Enforcement Officers being required to witness traffic violations and I would direct the court to the case of the State Of Florida vs. Warren Gschwendtner where it was upheld that an Officer must witness the defendant commit a violation of 316.75 in order to issue a ticket for said violation. Unless the [name of agency issuing ticket] can produce an officer who witnessed me violating Florida State Statute(s) 316.74 or 316.75 then I move that (based on the aforementioned reasons and legal precedent) this charge against me must be dismissed.

       Than you in advance for your consideration in this matter.


Sincerely,



[Your name]

[Notarization]

(Thanks to Camerafraud for the link).

Candid about speed camera problems

In February, I received a ticket from Forest Heights stating that I had exceeded the speed limit while traveling on Route 210 (Indian Head Highway). I noticed the camera on the highway, but I thought that I was within the speed limit. The ticket stated that I was slightly above. I am a responsible, 67-year-old retired teacher who makes it my business to stay within the speed limit, so I was very surprised but willing to pay the ticket.

You can imagine my shock when I received another ticket three days later stating that I had exceeded the speed limit at the same location, on the same day, but seven minutes later. I was shocked and upset because that was not possible. I only go through Forest Heights to the thrift store on Indian Head Highway, and that is a straight ahead, four-mile trip through lights. It would take much longer to turn around and get back to the location even if I didn’t go into the store, which has never happened. I knew that I was being ripped off, but I didn’t file a complaint or request a court hearing because I didn’t know what to expect and I didn’t have money for possible court costs.

I spoke with someone from the Philadelphia office on the phone and expressed my frustration and disbelief at something that could not possibly have happened. After paying the two tickets, I drove back to Forest Heights once more to test the camera. I drove so slowly on the areas before, after and past the camera, that the cars behind me kept honking their horns for me to speed up. I purposely kept the speed between 20 mph and 30 mph. You guessed it, I received another ticket. It was absolutely the only time that I ventured into Forest Heights, after receiving the first two tickets.

I have no intention of going into Forest Heights again, so I am sending this letter to everyone that I think might have an interest in this situation or may be experiencing the same thing. I will absolutely go to court if I receive another ticket. You must check the company that is responsible for generating the extra income for you. Something is definitely not right.

I know that the economy is poor and that Forest Heights is suffering many of the same problems that most small districts are facing, but you cannot do this to people. It is not fair and it is dishonest.

Patricia J. Smith, Fort Washington

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/opinion/article_f6343927-2c69-50f5-bd53-15fe8d4be21a.html

Red-light cameras don’t improve safety; they increase dangers

Posted: Sunday, June 5, 2011 1:02 pm | Updated: 1:22 pm, Sun Jun 5, 2011.

Letters to the editor

Red-light cameras don’t improve safety; they increase dangers
Dear editor,

In my efforts to bring awareness of the dangers and corruption of red light cameras in Texas, I have found no shortage of politicians who rush to defend the program.

It came as no surprise to me to see an opinion piece by [former Cleveland] Councilman [Glen] Dodson wanting to correct “misconceptions” about the program while using several misconceptions of his own or outright ignoring basic facts to further his desire to keep the red-light camera revenue rolling in for Cleveland.

At least he was honest in saying that the city needs money and the cameras bring in that needed revenue.

Here are the undeniable facts about ticket cameras:

Ticket cameras are against public sentiment. Over the more than 20 years of photo enforcement, there hasn’t been one single public vote anywhere in the country that approved ticket cameras.

Every single time, in every single town that has been allowed to vote on the future of ticket cameras, the cameras have been voted out. The most recent examples were last November in Houston and Baytown. Despite millions of dollars being spent by the camera company to block and sway our vote the cameras were defeated by a wide margin.

The largest independent studies confirm ticket cameras are associated with an increase in accidents not a reduction. A US DOT [Department of Transportation] funded study at North Carolina Urban Transit Institute is the largest camera study ever done. Their conclusion was, “The results do not support the view that red-light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”

Locally Baytown saw an increase of 40 percent in total accidents, 75 percent increase in injury accidents and an 83 percent increase in rear end accidents.

Houston and League City also saw increases in accidents after cameras were installed. In Cleveland, there were more accidents at Loop 573 at Hwy. 105 in just the first 30 days of camera activation than in the entire 18 months before the cameras went up, according to the only official red-light camera crash data, which can be found on TXDOT’s website.

Read more: Red-light cameras don’t improve safety; they increase dangers

(Thanks to Stacey-Brian Wesche for the link from We Hate Lakeland Red Light Cameras)

http://www.theledger.com/article/20110521/EDIT02/110529933/1037/edit02?Title=Too-Many-Red-Light-Cameras-&tc=ar

Too Many Red-Light Cameras

Published: Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 2:43 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 2:43 a.m.
 

I recently drove on U.S. 27 toward Orlando from Winter Haven and hence through the Haines City limits. Going north, I noted not one, or two, or three, or four, but five red-light cameras at Haines City U.S. 27 intersections, one right after the other and within a very short distance of each other. Then, of course, on the return trip south, there again, not one, or two, or three, or four, but five more red-light cameras. That gives city officials 10 chances to catch "offenders" in one round trip.

I do not condone red-light runners, but 10 red-light cameras in such a small area seems to be overdoing it. This appears to be a grand moneymaker for Haines City, but a daunting situation for the traveling public. I'm betting they are already counting the money they will make when Legoland opens and tourists begin driving down and back from the Disney area. Shame on Haines City.

JEANNE GAYHART

Winter Haven

(Thanks to www.stpetecameras.org for the link!)

http://geneva.patch.com/articles/with-speed-traps-and-red-light-cameras-sometimes-public-perception-matters

With Speed Traps and Red-Light Cameras, Sometimes Public Perception Matters

It takes years to build a reputation for quality law enforcement. So why blow it on a speed trap? In this line of work, as with any, publicperception does count.

By Jeff Ward

When you feel the need to begin a column with the caveat, “I’ve been a staunch defender of law enforcement for the last six years,” you know what comes next. Though an Elgin Courier-News reader did ask, “Does the Police Department mail you a check every week or do you have to pick it up in person?” there’s a real danger in that somewhat disingenuous opening statement. 

Does your previous support for someone entitle you to subsequently hold their feet to the fire?

The truth is, I really do have a sense of the difficulties involved in being a police officer. The considerable damned-if-you-do-or don’t aspect of the job makes it patently unreasonable to  expect any officer will always be able to walk that razor’s edge.

That said, I will reissue my “no one put a gun to anyone’s head” refrain and remind folks that if you choose a law-enforcement career, then you also choose whatever baggage comes along with it. It’s in that regard that police officers often can be their own worst enemies.

Let me give you an example. My 8:15 a.m. Easter Sunday dog walk took me just east of First Baptist Church of Geneva’s Peck and Keslinger Roads campus. As you might imagine, it was a quiet morning, but as I finished my loop, I noticed a GPD squad car ensconced behind the east-side brick wall of the Keslinger Road electrical substation.

Despite my fear of imploding churches, I infrequently attend FBCG west services, and the fact that some folks think it’s appropriate to waltz in 20 minutes late always astounds me. So if our officer's intent was to nab tardy congregants, I’d be the first one to shake his or her hand.

But I’m sure you’ve leapt to the same conclusion I have. And since we’re talking disingenuous here, let’s discuss this concealed squad car’s timing and location.

On most days, the congestion and claustrophobic feel of Keslinger between Peck and Randall Roads makes it virtually impossible to go too fast. It’s not a particularly dangerous stretch of highway. Ah! But at 8:15 on a Sunday morning, you actually have a shot at acceleration. Add the eastbound downhill approach and a 45 to 40 mph speed limit downshift, and you have yourself a reasonable speed trap.

When you add the officer was sitting within a hundred yards of a well-attended church on Easter, I couldn’t help but think, really? Is catching one or two Sunday speeders worth the collateral damage inflicted on your department’s reputation?

To be clear, I haven’t been subjected to a suburban moving violation in decades, and I too despise folks who say, "Don’t you have something better to do?” or, “I guess you gotta make your monthly quota.” But, as my mother used to say, “sometimes you bring these things upon yourself.”

It’s the same scenario with our red-light cameras that have nothing to do with traffic safety and everything to do with raising revenue. Though Geneva is better with its limited application of these heinous devices, most ticketed drivers won’t make that distinction.

Thankfully, the GPD doesn’t engage in the latest  police force revenue raising tactic, “administrative” towing fees. For example, the city of Elgin will hit you with a $500 fee on top of the $175 tow if you’re stopped for driving without a license, driving with a suspended or revoked license, a DUI,  or a loud sound system.

And they’ll slap you with that half-a-grand penalty even if there’s another licensed driver in the vehicle! We’ve, indeed, come to the point where you might want to ask, “Who’s going to protect us from the police?”  Kane County Sheriff Pat Perez told me, “We looked at that and felt it was kind of excessive.”

The good news is, if you are stopped by the Geneva Police, you stand an 84 percent chance of walking away with a warning. No other suburban police force can boast of being that reasonable. But unless I write about it, or you get stopped by the GPD, few people understand that Geneva police officers are far more concerned with education than they are with revenue.

While I would discourage anyone—especially police officers—from spending too much time worrying about what other people are thinking, unless you’re Lady Gaga, you might not want to go out of your way to provide ammunition either.

Therefore! May I humbly suggest that Geneva dispense with its red-light cameras and that our police officers briefly consider public perception before embarking upon a speed-enforcement course of action—aka speed traps. Doing away with those two practices might incur some short-term costs, but it would pay off in far-greater public relations dividends down the road.