Red Light Camera News

http://blog.motorists.org/judging-driver-behavior/

Judging Driver Behavior by Intuition or by Facts?
Posted on May 14th, 2013
By Gary Biller, NMA President

BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  LOOK AT THE CHART.  WHEN AMBERS WERE INCREASED FROM 4.0 to 5.5.  VILOATIONS BECAME NON EXISTANT ON STRAIGHT THRUS!  OVER TWO YEARS!

ANY RLC supporter (even if they wear a uniform),

ARE LYING OUT OF THEIR TEETH WHEN THEY TRY 

TO ARGUE AGAINST LONGER AMBERS!

Investigative reporter Noah Pransky of Tampa Bay TV station WTSP filed an explosive report earlier this week about the intentional shortening of yellow-light intervals at red-light camera intersections http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418  for the purpose of raising ticket revenue. Pransky noted that of the more than $120 million of photo ticket revenue collected across Florida in 2012, $50 million was directly attributable to red-light camera program operators setting yellow lights too short.

That is a startling number, particularly for those who aren’t familiar with the multitude of documented accounts of short yellow lights http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/yellow-lights that the NMA has gathered over the years. More alarming still is that the combination of red-light cameras and improper yellow-light timing creates the dubious double penalty of inflating ticket revenue while simultaneously making intersections less safe http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents.

A common counter claim against lengthening yellow-light cycles is that drivers will eventually adjust to the conditions and go back to their supposed natural instincts of playing “let’s beat the light.” Both Florida State Senator Jeff Clemens and Charles Territo, chief propagandist of camera vendor American Traffic Solutions, voice this in Pransky’s report.

That is not an uncommon position for pro-camera legislators and camera company employees to make. Some of the public jump on that bandwagon because it makes intuitive sense to them that motorists can’t help but push the margins, whether it be ignoring the speed limit or following an urge to zip through intersections at the first sign of a yellow light, safety be damned.

This view of kamikaze drivers is not only intuitively incorrect, it is factually wrong. Several studies have shown this:

“The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T + 0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase.”

The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response, Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal (November 1980)

“Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow.”

Determining Vehicle Change Intervals – A Proposed Recommended Practice,Institute of Transportation Engineers (1985)

“Drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration.”

Effect of Yellow-Interval Timing on Red-Light-Violation Frequency at Urban Intersections, Bonneson/Zimmerman, Texas Transportation Institute (January 2004)

Several communities, from Gwinnett County, Georgia, to Loma Linda, California, and places in-between, have put this to the test by analyzing intersection safety statistics in the months and years after lengthening their yellow lights by 0.5 to 1.0 seconds. Violation rates typically plummet 50 to 90 percent almost immediately, and have been shown to remain at those low levels years after the fact.

If you hear a state legislator or city official trying to justify the use of short yellow lights in conjunction with a red-light camera program on the basis of “it doesn’t matter, drivers can’t help themselves,” don’t let them get away with it. Your fellow drivers and your wallet will thank you.
 

Other Articles You Might Like:
 

• Help Us Stop Short Yellow Lights http://blog.motorists.org/help-us-expose-red-light-camera-corruption/  
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/  
• How To Turn A Red Light Camera Into A Cash Machine In Three Easy Steps http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-camera-cash-machine/
• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-do-not-reduce-right-angle-crashes/
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed http://blog.motorists.org/short-yellow-light-times-no-longer-going-unnoticed/

http://www.hernandotoday.com/he/list/news/county-still-seeking-removal-of-red-light-cameras-b82492388z1

County still seeking removal of red-light cameras
      
By Michael D. Bates | Hernando Today
 Published: May 15, 2013

BROOKSVILLE - The county is moving forward with plans to disable the city of Brooksville’s two red-light cameras on county-owned property and the matter is in the hands of the legal office.

 County attorneys were given the directive three months ago to find a legal way to remove the cameras at U.S. 41 and Wiscon Road and Cobb Road and Jefferson Street.

 County Attorney Garth Coller declined to comment on the progress because the matter may end up in litigation.

 County Commissioner Jim Adkins, leading the charge on the camera removal, said the process may be lengthy and called it similar to getting a tenant evicted from a home. It takes time and the necessary legalities must be addressed to prevent future problems.

 Adkins broached the idea back in February and the cameras remain functional, to the commissioner’s chagrin.

“They just need to do away with them and be done with them,” Adkins said Wednesday.

 Adkins said cameras strip motorists of a basic right to argue their case with Florida Highway Patrol or whichever law enforcement agency pulls them over.

“If I’m going to get a ticket, I want to be able to talk with someone right there at the time I get pulled over so we can discuss the matter,” Adkins said. “I may still get my ticket but at least I will have the chance to voice my opinion to my accuser, in a civil manner.”

Adkins said he is convinced that legislators are more interested in money generated from violations.

“It’s not about safety, it’s about revenue, Adkins said.

 In April, there were 1,481 paid citations from red-light camera violators. Of the $233,998 in revenue, $122,923 went to the state, $55,537 to the city of Brooksville and $55,537 to Sensys America, the camera company.

 Proponents of red-light cameras, now being used in 24 states, say it will cut down on traffic violators and is a boon to law enforcement.

 Brooksville Police Chief George Turner said the battle of the cameras is being waged between attorneys and he is simply enforcing the law.

 The cameras remain up and violators will be issued tickets, he said.

 Turner said statistics show the number of traffic accidents is down wherever cameras are employed and Brooksville is no exception. In 2009-10, the first year of usage, total crashes were down 35 percent, he said.

 There are eight intersections and 16 cameras employed within city limits, including the two on county-owned property.

 Not all crashes occurred at an intersection where a camera was present which suggests that their presence raises awareness of safe driving within city limits, Turner added.

“I think as a citizen, I’m supportive of red light enforcement whether it be by police officer or red-light camera,” Turner said. “I guess the easiest way not to get a ticket is to follow the law.”

Turner said there is much misinformation about red-light cameras, including criticism that law enforcement is somehow manipulating the cameras to trick drivers.

 That is not so, Turner said.

 Critics say they are only used to prop up government budgets and are a money grab. Cameras, they said, will not deter motorists from running red lights.

 The National Motorists Association, in a press release, said the cameras may actually make roads less safe.

“A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means,” the NMA said. “Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation.”

For all practical purposes, there is no “accuser” for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right, according to the NMA.

“There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle,” it said.

 Turner also commented on Judge Donald Scaglione’s announcement this week he would throw out any violations caught on camera of motorists not making a complete stop when making right turns at red lights.

 Scaglione cited the vagueness of the state law in determining the “right-on-red” law.

 Turner said he would follow the existing law that requires motorists to make a complete stop before turning right and cited a recent case where a mother and child were hit when a driver failed to follow that law.

 Both were uninjured.

Ban the Cams note:

Turner should read the local news one day.  Down in Tampa, multiple towns WITH RLC have been busted USING short ambers.  Nice "memory' he has eh.

by the way, Right turn on reds crashes are rare, Turner must have had to hunt to find that one.  You can go a billion miles before getting in a wreck making a right turn on red. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2693.asp

Most of Brooksville RLC tickets are more than likley right turns on red.  (Brooksville has their own definiton of a right turn, like many other Florida towns, in fact Ban the Cams recommends NO ONE MAKE A RIGHT TURN ON RED IN ANY FL town due to the fact has their own "defintion").

 

Tampa Reverse Course.  City Council will take action to address short yellow lights!

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/316967/250/Short-Yellow-Lights-Tampa-council-taking-action

Short Yellow Lights: Tampa council taking action

10:25 PM, May 16, 2013   |
 
Noah Pransky

TAMPA, Fla. -- Mayor Bob Buckhorn won't talk about Tampa's short yellow lights - among the shortest in all of Tampa Bay - but at least one councilwoman wants the city to take a closer look at the federal guidelines 10 News identified in its short yellow lights investigation.

WATCH AND READ THE INITIAL 10 NEWS INVESTIGATION

City councilwoman Lisa Montelione said she would ask staff to provide a red light camera (RLC) report for a June 20 council workshop.  She also wanted staff to review the USDOT guidelines for yellow lights that 10 News pointed out were being ignored across Tampa Bay.

FDOT mandates a 4.0-second yellow interval for a 40mph roadway, but Tampa says it has several lights set to 3.9 seconds because of its strict interpretation of an engineering formula.

An FDOT engineer confirmed for the city that the intersections of Hillsborough/Nebraska and 50th/Adamo are both not "the preferred 4.0 seconds shown on the (FDOT) chart." Meanwhile, USDOT standards suggest yellow light intervals at those key intersections should be in the 4.5/5.0 ballpark.

Last year, Tampa raked in $2.6 million from 15 RLC intersections.  In all, the citations raised $7.6 million, with more than half of the money going to the state.

Mayor Bob Buckhorn has repeatedly refused interview requests on the topic, as an administration spokesperson says lengthening yellow lights "is an engineering decision."

However, FDOT tells 10 News that any city that wishes to extend its yellow lights by an additional half-second to accommodate older drivers or large trucks, as recommended by the USDOT, would be allowed to.

Montelione said she was turned on to the story by a constituent who asked her on Twitter about the 10 News investigation https://twitter.com/tobythomson/status/334871274306281472.

A day earlier, Hillsborough County commissioners instructed staff http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316836 to analyze its six red-light camera intersections as well as the USDOT guidelines.

In St. Petersburg, where several small yellow-light "malfunctions" plagued red-light camera intersections and other lights are set well below federal guidelines, Councilman Charlie Gerdes said he would use the 10 News report to once again push for longer yellow lights.
 

10 NEWS' YELLOW LIGHT INVESTIGATION:

5/15/13 - Hillsborough Commission wants to review yellow lengths; Tampa mayor does not http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316836
5/14/13 - Legislators acting quickly following 10 News investigation http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316632
5/13/13 - Florida shortened yellow light lengths, driving up red-light camera revenues http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418

L.A. Jay Beeber to talk about short Ambers this morning at 8:20 PDT!!!!

http://www.kabc.com/common/page.php?pt=McIntyre+In+The+Morning+Podcast&id=861&is_corp=0

click the listen live button at the top

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/316836/250/Hillsborough-County-to-study-short-yellow-lights-federal-guidelines-City-of-Tampa-wont

Hillsborough County to study short yellow lights, federal guidelines; City of Tampa won't
11:28 PM, May 15, 2013   |

TAMPA, Florida -- The Hillsborough County Commission has instructed staff to study the lengths of its yellow lights at red light camera (RLC) intersections, as well as national standards identified by the 10 News Investigators as being ignored all across the region.

Meanwhile, the City of Tampa tells 10 News it has no intentions of altering its RLC intersections, despite the shortest yellow light intervals found in Tampa Bay.

10 News found state and local engineers reducing the time of yellow lights, especially at red light camera intersections. The results were increased citation rates.

WATCH AND READ THE INITIAL 10 NEWS INVESTIGATION http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418

FDOT mandates a 4.0-second yellow interval for a 40mph roadway, but Tampa says it has several lights set to 3.9 seconds because of its strict interpretation of an engineering formula.

An FDOT engineer confirmed for the city that the intersections of Hillsborough/Nebraska and 50th/Adamo are both not "the preferred 4.0 seconds shown on the (FDOT) chart." Meanwhile, USDOT standards suggest yellow light intervals at those key intersections should be in the 4.5/5.0 ballpark.

Mayor Bob Buckhorn, who is one of the most accessible politicians in Tampa Bay, has repeatedly avoided 10 News' questions about the short yellow light investigation. Instead, his administration has deflected questions to the city's traffic department, which says it plans no changes to its RLC intersections unless crash data or FDOT recommend it.

The City of Tampa and Tampa Police Dept. point to a 29 percent reduction in crash rates and falling citation rates as evidence their RLC program is successful and making intersections safer.

(Ban the Cams note:  Notice they don't bring up RLV crashes.  Just crashes in general.  A RLC can only "stop" a rlr crash. Also note ATS has been known to "help" towns do their RLC reports.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3703.asp 

"Red light camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) is furious that police in Kansas City, Missouri released a report last week evaluating photo enforcement intersections without giving the company a chance to modify the data. In many cities, ATS plays a key role in authoring such studies,"

Kansas City ordered their police to redo the report with ATS "collaboration". http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/kc-police-told-to-qcollaborate-or-at-least-consult-with-ats-before-releasing-more-info-on-rlc.html)

"Our transportation engineers feel that our crash statistics support how we have our lights timed," said Tampa's Public Affairs Director Ali Glisson via email.  "We are not seeing any crashes resulting from yellow lights being too short.

(Ban the Cams:  Did ATS write this for you by chance?????  They have written response for cities and officers before!  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/red-light-camera-company-runs-up-big-lobbying-tab-in-florida.html or http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-14/news/fl-red-light-cameras-20110814_1_red-light-camera-camera-programs-american-traffic-solutions

Quote: ATS circulated two pro-camera pieces and asked police chiefs and sheriffs in Florida to sign them, according to emails the company sent to several cities. One was a letter to state legislators in 2009 and the other an op-ed piece that ran in the Tampa Tribune in April 2010, days before key committee votes in Tallahassee on a camera bill.

"As law enforcement leaders, we completely support … red-light cameras,'' the op-ed piece said. "In our expert view, red-light ...cameras are a critically important public safety tool.''

Neither piece mentioned ATS or the company's role in spearheading it."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3581.asp

Quote:  Davis and other Lynnwood officials were concerned as the Everett Daily Herald newspaper widened its investigation into the operations of the automated ticketing program. ATS offered to write responses for the city.

"Our public relations department has great information on the safety aspects of the cameras and they are available to you to create an opinion editorial so the Herald can cover the safety message in next month's article," Claudia Garibay with ATS wrote in an April 26 email. "Would you like for the public relations manager Kate Coulson to get in touch with you and discuss ideas and information to provide the Herald?"

Coulson ensured whenever Davis conducted interviews with reporters that he used ATS-approved talking points and materials.)

WATCH AND READ LEGISLATORS REACT TO 10 NEWS INVESTIGATION, PROMISE ACTION http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316632

Last year, Tampa issued $7.6 million in RLC fines at 15 intersections, keeping approximately $2.6 million of the revenue for itself. The rest was split between the state, county, and camera companies.

FDOT tells 10 News it doesn't receive any direct revenue from RLC and it is now considering a 0.4-second increase to all Florida yellow light intervals to allow the state's aging population, and large vehicles, more time to react to the traffic signals.
 

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/316632/250/10-News-Investigators-Legislators-acting-quickly-on-short-yellow-light-investgation

10 News Investigators: Legislators acting quickly on short yellow light investgation
11:48 PM, May 14, 2013   |  

 
By:  Noah Pransky

ST. PETERSBURG, Florida -- After the 10 News Investigators revealed the Florida Department of Transportation is shortening some yellow lights across the state, thus creating more red light camera (RLC) revenue, a number of lawmakers are calling on state transportation leaders to act.

WATCH AND READ THE INITIAL 10 NEWS INVESTIGATION http://origin.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418 or http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/florida-quietly-shortened-yellow-light-standards-a-lengths-resulting-in-more-red-light-camera-tck.html

Tuesday afternoon, eight legislators gathered for a post-session forum hosted by Suncoast Tiger Bay. At least four of them told 10 News they saw the investigation and want Florida to fall more in line with national standards for yellow light lengths.

"I don't think it's fair that our citizens should be penalized for yellow lights that have been artificially reduced," said State Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg. "We know if you lengthen the yellow light by just one second, you'd significantly reduce the number of red light tickets.

Brandes, along with State Rep. Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater, and State Sen. Jack Latvala, R-St. Petersburg, all said they had made, or were going to make, calls to FDOT's secretary.

When Tiger Bay member and leading local RLC critic Matt Florell asked the group of Legislators if they would support a law that would increase the state's minimum yellow signal timing back to the federal standards, most of the group said yes.

State Rep. Larry Ahern, R-St. Petersburg, pointed out he proposed a bill this year that did exactly that, including penalize municipalities that failed to follow the law.

Other legislators that told 10 News they wanted to address the short yellow issues include:  State Rep. Dwight Dudley, D-St. Petersburg; Jamie Grant, R-Tampa; State Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey; Dana Young, R-Tampa; and State Rep. Neil Combee, R-Auburndale.

FDOT tells 10 News that it doesn't receive any direct revenue from red light cameras and it doesn't issue citations. One of the agency's top engineers also says the agency is looking at adding three-tenths of a second to all yellow light minimums across the state to allow Florida's older population a little more time to react safely.

Find 10 News Investigator Noah Pransky on Facebook or follow his updates on Twitter. Send your story tips to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Ban the Cam note:  Hooper is taking ATS money.  http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/america-fundamentally/  Also check out http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/who-is-taking-money-from-ats-in-tallahassee-about-everyone-who-voted-to-keep-rlc.html.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/No-more-red-light-cameras-in-The-Woodlands-4515698.php

No more red light cameras in The Woodlands
Commissioner says project was problematic since the beginning
By Lindsay Peyton | May 14, 2013

Montgomery County officials have put a stop to red light cameras in The Woodlands.

County attorneys are still working to end the contract - but law enforcement stopped monitoring the cameras on March 31. It will take some time to take the cameras down.

"It's a process," said Precinct 3 Commissioner James Noack. "They haven't been removed, but we aren't enforcing them.

In 2007, cameras were placed at two intersections in the community, and in the past six years, the number has increased to 10.

Noack said the cameras, have not been earning their keep - and are actually costing the county money.

He said that the cameras have been problematic for the county since the beginning.

"Before you install the red lights, you're supposed to run a study of the intersection and see it there's a high number of incidents there," Noack said.

The precinct then must conduct a study should every year to see if the red light cameras are reducing the number of traffic violations.

Noack said that since he was elected to office in November, he has not found any proof of the studies. He said he could not say the studies were not completed - but he cannot provide the necessary evidence.

"We can't get our hands on that data," Noack said. "We don't know where the data is."

The lack of evidence cost RedFlex, the contracted operators of the camera enforcement system, $200,000 in fine reimbursements to drivers, Noack said.

He added that the cameras also require certain road signs.

They have signs indicating their presence, but they do not have the signs stating that those who run the stoplights will be fined for $75.

"None of the 10 intersections comply with statutes," Noack said.

Noack said the cameras cost the country $46,000 a month, which accounts for a large portion of his $5 million annual budget.

"When you add it up, that's over a half million a year," he said.

"We operate these intersections at a loss."

When the cameras do earn a profit, 50 percent goes to the state, Noack added.

Besides, Noack said the cameras do not necessarily reduce traffic violations.

"We don't have any proof that these intersections are any safer than the ones without cameras," he said.

The cameras also require extra staff time to monitor, which further increases their associated costs, Noack said.

The constable was spending 8 to 10 hours a week on hearings, deputies were spending 10 to 15 hours a week reviewing footage, and another staff member spent 20 hours a week on the project, Noack explained.

"It was very time consuming," Constable Ryan Gable said.

"We spent a huge amount of time dedicating a majority of my staff to just handling the administrative aspects of RedFlex."

Besides, Gable felt it was not fair to residents that his office reported the violations and he tried the hearings.

"I felt like there was a conflict of interest there," he said.

"I think there was a problem with the system, the way it was set up."

Jody Ryan, director of communications, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., commented on the county's stopping of the cameras.

"Montgomery County sent a purported letter of termination to Redflex seeking to terminate the contract effective March, 2013," Ryan said. "Redflex values our relationship with the county, and will evaluate our options."

Noack said restoring the funds spent on red light cameras to the county will be beneficial.

"I think we could deploy that funding for better purposes," he said. "There's all kinds of stuff we could do in Montgomery County."

Noack would like to see those funds redirected to building or working on roads.

"I just decided that it's better to use the law enforcement we have to patrol these intersections," he said.

"When you factor all those costs, it's burdensome.

"I'd rather use that money more wisely."

Gable said abandoning the cameras allows his staff to get out of the office and back on the street.

"It puts my personnel back doing proactive law enforcement," he said.

"It makes us more responsive to calls, keeping our children safe and our roadways safe."

He also believes that law officers have better judgment than cameras when it comes to reporting violations.

"We really thought long and hard about our situation," Gable said.

"I think it's going to benefit the county from a financial standpoint and possibly a safety standpoint."

County residents seem to support the decision, Noack said.

"Based on rough polls, 82 percent of the public are behind us on this," he said.

"The public doesn't support them, we're losing money, we don't have any proof of improved safety.

"Why keep them going?"

"I think it's the right thing to do."

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/05/new-report-casts-doubt-on-safety-claims-of-citys-red-light-camera-program/

New Report Casts Doubt On Safety Claims Of City’s Red Light Camera Program

May 14, 2013   Red Light Cameras


For years, opponents of Chicago’s red light cameras have argued the program was not based on improving traffic safety, but on generating tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue.

On Tuesday, a report released by the Chicago Inspector General’s Office http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/05/new-report-casts-doubt-on-safety-claims-of-citys-red-light-camera-program/red-light-camera-audit-final/ seems to back up critics’ claims and, according to one alderman, undermines the basis for the program’s existence.

“Our audit uncovered little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the [Red Light Camera] program is being executed to the best benefit of the City or the general public,” the report summarized.

“Specifically, we found a lack of basic record keeping 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.”

The inspector general’s office started an audit of the city’s extensive red light camera program earlier this year in response to revelations of an internal investigation by current vendor Redflex Traffic Systems. That investigation, headed by former Inspector General David Hoffman, alleges employees for Redflex may have bribed the former city official overseeing the city’s RLC program.

Read more at DNA Info Chicago.  http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130514/chicago/new-report-casts-doubt-on-safety-claims-of-citys-red-light-camera-program

 

Thanks to Allen and the NMA on sharing this:

http://capitolfax.com/RedLightCameraAuditFinal.pdf
 

Quote:

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.

The majority of these camera location decisions were made five or more years ago, when virtually none of CDOT's current leadership was involved with the program.  However, cameras installed years ago are still in operation today and have been throughout the two-year tenure of CDOT's current leadership. Yet the Department cannot produce documentation demonstrating how each camera location was chosen, or why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated pursuant to CDOT's relocation criteria. If the intent of the RLC program is to increase safety and reduce the number of dangerous angle crashes, it is troubling that CDOT cannot produce documentation or an analysis demonstrating how each camera location was chosen, including all of those currently in operation, was chosen.

 

Attachments:

File	Description
Chicago RedLightCameraAuditFinal.pdf

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=316418

Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tickets for you

11:39 AM, May 14, 2013   |

TAMPA BAY, Florida -- A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida's rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations -- and the revenue they create. The 10 News investigation stemmed from a December discovery of a dangerously short yellow light in Hernando County. After the story aired, the county promised to re-time all of its intersections, and the 10 News Investigators promised to dig into yellow light timing all across Tampa Bay.

Red light cameras generated more than $100 million in revenue last year in approximately 70 Florida communities, with 52.5 percent of the revenue going to the state. The rest is divided by cities, counties, and the camera companies. In 2013, the cameras are on pace to generate $120 million.

"Red light cameras are a for-profit business between cities and camera companies and the state," said James Walker, executive director of the nonprofit National Motorists Association. "The (FDOT rule-change) was done, I believe, deliberately in order that more tickets would be given with yellows set deliberately too short."

The National Motorists Association identifies itself as a grassroots group that's been advocating for drivers since 1982. It fought the national 55 mph speed limit and is now campaigning against red light camera technology, contending the technology primarily targets safe drivers who are victims of short yellow lights or safely roll through right turns.

Proponents of the technology hang their hats on a reduction of serious accidents at RLC intersections. They also point out that every electronically generated violation is reviewed by a local police officer or sheriff's deputy before a citation is validated and sent to a driver. But questions about the fairness and constitutionality of RLCs linger, with questionable motivations of the state's yellow light reductions likely to add fuel to the fire.

FDOT CHANGES THE RULES

Yellow light times are calculated by a complex formula that takes into account variables such as the size of an intersection, the incline/decline of the roadway, driver reaction time, and deceleration rate. But ultimately, the proper intervals come down to a driver's approach speed.

When the Florida legislature approved 2010's Mark Wandell Act, regulating red light cameras across the state, FDOT had a long-standing rule that mandated yellow light calculations factor in either the posted speed limit or 85th percentile of drivers' actual speed -- whichever was greater.  The point of the law was to calculate safe stopping times for the majority of drivers on any given roadway.

But in 2011, FDOT struck the "whichever is greater" language from its Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM), reducing minimum yellow light lengths and allowing communities to re-time their signals at RLC intersections.

The 10 News Investigators found a number of communities shortened their already-safe intervals to the new minimums. In some cases, FDOT mandated longer yellow lights, but seemingly only at intersections that hadn't been in compliance for years.  Around Greater Tampa Bay, the yellow interval reductions typically took place at RLC intersections and corridors filled with RLC cameras.

FDOT's change in language may have been subtle, but the effects were quite significant. The removal of three little words meant the reduction of yellow light intervals of up to a second, meaning drastically more citations for drivers. A 10 News analysis indicates the rule change is likely costing Florida drivers millions of dollars a year.

"I think it's immoral to do that," Walker said. "You're basically punishing safe drivers with deliberately improper engineering. That's not moral to me."

But FDOT claims it had no financial motive to shorten yellow lights; the agency doesn't receive any direct payments from RLC fines.  The state's portion of each $158 citation is split between its General Revenue Fund ($70), the Department of Health Administrative Trust Fund ($10), and Spinal Cord Injury Trust Fund ($3).

FDOT Traffic Operations engineer Mark Wilson said the agency was merely cleaning up language in its TEM to match federal guidelines. But 10 News found Florida's rules were already in compliance with federal guidelines, and there are no federal suggestions discouraging the use of "whichever is greater." FDOT is also ignoring numerous other federal guidelines (see below) that encourage longer yellow intervals.

The 10 News Investigators showed Wilson the emails from FDOT engineers in Tampa Bay, obtained through public records requests, instructing Pasco County officials in February 2012 to reduce the yellow light intervals on U.S. 19 from the already-short 4.5 seconds to the bare minimum 4.3 seconds. Wilson said he was not aware of the instructions and the engineer, who has since retired, misunderstood the purpose of the rule change.

"Those are (only) minimums. So some of the engineers said, 'Well, it's got to be that exact number.' That's not true. It has to be at least that number," Wilson said.

Wilson added that original language of the Mark Wandell Act required communities to perform engineering studies before installing RLCs, in order to comply with federal recommendations and determine drivers' actual approach speeds. But the requirement never made it into the final bill, allowing communities to install RLCs without any consideration of drivers' actual speed or the time it would take them to stop safely.

FLORIDA IGNORING NATIONAL STANDARDS, OPTING FOR SHORTER YELLOWS

Numerous U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) documents provide guidance to municipalities on how to install and operate RLC intersections. But FDOT and Florida communities are by-and-large ignoring those recommendations when it comes to yellow light intervals.

A USDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHA) report said cities should not use speed limit in the yellow interval equation because it results "in more red light violations and higher crash rates." And if drivers' average speeds cannot be calculated, it's recommended engineers use the "speed limit plus 10 mph" variable to producing more conservative, and safer, yellow intervals.

Another report stresses the importance of using 85th percentile speed to calculate yellow intervals, while slide 28 on this report indicates when yellow light times are lengthened, severe crashes drop.   

USDOT also recommends an extra half-second of yellow time at intersections with lots of trucks or elderly drivers to allow them to react safely. And despite the fact that Greater Tampa Bay is home to five of the nation's 12 oldest counties (by median age), it's also home to some of the shortest yellow lights.

"I'm not a law-breaker," said Pasco County retiree Shirley Nagle, who got a red light violation on U.S. 19 after more than five decades without a traffic citation.

Nagle entered the RLC intersection about half a second too late in February, and was issued a $158 ticket, which soon became a $262 fine after she didn't pay it immediately. She told 10 News that she spent 32 years working in the New Jersey courts system and would never break the law. She was just proceeding through the intersection because she thought it was the safest option for her.

"It's terrible," she said of Port Richey's RLCs and short yellow lights. "I think they're cheating the people!"

Wilson told 10 News that FDOT would likely approve any city's request to add a half-second to yellow light times to allow older drivers more time to react and safely stop, but none have.

Wilson also says FDOT is in the process of increasing the "Perception Reaction Time" variable in its statewide yellow light formulas from 1.0 to 1.3 seconds. That would add the 1/3 of a second to yellow light intervals statewide, to better accommodate Florida drivers.

SHORTER YELLOWS: WHO'S DOING IT?

FDOT's revised TEM provides bare minimum yellow light intervals for RLC intersections, based on speed limit. While the formula can fluctuate if the approach grade isn't flat, no consideration is mandated for drivers' actual approach speed:

Ban the Cams note:  NMA recommended minimum Amber times.

http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/

25 MPH -- 3.0 Seconds
30 MPH -- 3.5 Seconds
35 MPH -- 4.0 Seconds
40 MPH -- 4.5 Seconds
45 MPH -- 5.0 Seconds
50 MPH -- 5.5 Seconds
55 MPH -- 6.0 Seconds

But 10 News found numerous communities using , or skirting, the minimums:

•Port Richey, New Port Richey, and FDOT collaborated to reduce yellow light times along U.S. 19 from 4.5 seconds to the bare minimum, 4.3 seconds.
•An FDOT analyst instructed New Port Richey to reduce its yellow light interval for the Main St. RLC (at U.S. 19) from 4.0 seconds to the bare minimum, 3.0 seconds.
•Hillsborough County shortened the yellow interval on Bell Shoals Road (at Bloomingdale) in Valrico from 4.0 seconds to the bare minimum, 3.6 seconds.
•Tampa has yellow lights below the state's 4.0-second minimum for 45mph zones at Hillsborough/Nebraska and Adamo/50th. Those RLC intersections turn red after just 3.9 seconds; city engineers claim the complex yellow light formula allows them to go below the TEM minimums.
•St. Petersburg had yellow intervals that were shorter than FDOT minimums, but alert resident Matt Florell pointed them out and the city fixed them. Florell said thousands of citations were issued inappropriately, while a city engineer said four intersections had slight "malfunctions," where the yellow lights were only off by 0.1 seconds. Either way, ticketed drivers were not notified of the issues and no refunds were offered.
•Oldsmar had a similar issue, where its intersection at Tampa Rd. and SR-580 (State St.) was improperly timed.  The yellow light was just 3.0 seconds instead of 4.3 seconds. When the problem was addressed last fall, citations plummeted by 90 percent. But no notices, or refunds, went out to ticketed drivers.
 

FDOT's new rules didn't shorten every RLC intersection's yellow lights; many cities and counties had lights that were so far out of compliance the new minimums actually increased the intervals.  Tampa and Hillsborough County both increased some intersections in recent years, but most in their jurisdictions remain at the bare minimum.

St. Petersburg city councilman Charlie Gerdes has also been pushing his city to lengthen its yellow intervals, about half of which are at the state minimum, but Gerdes has had trouble getting the entire council to follow him on the issue.
 

Read more: Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tck!

Thanks to Wrong on Red.com on the link!

Murfreesboro, TN group NEEDS LOCALS HELP IN FIGHTING TO LET VOTERS VOTE TO BAN RLC!

https://www.facebook.com/#!/MurfreesboroCAPE?fref=ts

Murfreesboro CAPE: Citizens Against Photo Enforcement
 

If you've been following C.A.P.E. closely, and wish to help us either through public demonstrations or in-person petition drives (with our paper petitions), please email your information and how you'd like to help to: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (your information will remain confidential and not shared outside of C.A.P.E.)

http://www.swrnn.com/2013/05/10/murrieta-local-activist-speaks-out-on-banned-red-light-cameras/

Murrieta: Local activist speaks out on banned red light cameras
By Michelle Mears-Gerst, on May 10, 2013, at 12:16 am

After years of controversy Murrieta City Council voted Tuesday, May 7 to end the city’s red-light camera enforcement program.

The vote was unanimous, 4-0 to end a program with American Traffic Solutions. Councilwoman Kelly Bennett was absent.

Community activist Diana Serafin who has been fighting to remove the cameras from the beginning said,  “I am not going away. We are going to continue to make our intersections safe, that is the goal.”

The red light cameras have been the subject of discourse within Murrieta almost from the moment they were installed. Multiple court hearings have been heard on the cameras and Measure N passed in November 2012.

Measure N was placed on the ballot to allow the residents to have a say in the future of the cameras. Registered voters approved the ban of cameras  by 57 percent.

The red light cameras were at three intersections in Murrieta: Nutmeg and Clinton Keith, Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood and Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita.

“The cameras didn’t work; the price of the tickets were also unreasonable,” said Serafin. “We need longer yellow lights, synchronized lights and a second or two where all intersections are red.”

Serafin has been an advocate for safer  intersections in the city stemming from three intersection accidents over her lifetime – none of which was her fault. One accident resulted in 91 facial stitches, and three plastic surgeries.

“I want to work with city officials to improve the synchronization of lights. Timing the lights so traffic flows instead of stopping at every corner, take away the drivers frustration and need to race a light,” said Serafin.

Before Measure N was voted on, the initiative was challenged by a campaign committee Safe Streets for Murrieta. This committee was backed by American Traffic Solutions.

Shortly after the elections on Nov. 6, ATS claimed the measure was unconstitutional.

The city requested the cameras be turned off mid-December after the votes of Measure N were certified. However ATS did not remove the equipment at the three intersections in Murrieta while the courts were reviewing ATS’s claims of the measure being unconstitutional.

On April 5, a judge overturned the election results, again ruling that voters did not have the authority to turn the cameras off.  Judge Ottalia said  the city council was responsible for traffic regulation not the citizens.

Although the city ordered the cameras to be turned off ATS kept them on and released a newsletter stating the red light running at the three intersections increased. City officials  and local residents were outraged since they assumed the cameras were turned off.

Ban the Cams note:  The results were RIGGED by ATS.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4078.asp  They compared "violations citable" to raw data in the after RLC were shut off period.  The raw data is NOT reviewed, the violations citable is reviewed and a number of triggers are thrown out.

After the vote on Tuesday the audience of close to two dozen cheered.

“This is a victory for our city,” said Serafin.

Michelle Mears-Gerst is a local writer and regular contributor to SWRNN.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/315906/250/Tonight-at-11-Yellow-Light-Trap

Does it seem like some yellow lights are getting shorter and shorter?

10 News Investigator Noah Pransky found proof that some are intentionally shortened. Why? Money, of course.

See how it's costing innocent drivers money, points, and higher insurance! Tonight at 11 on 10 News.

Video:  http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/315906/250/Tonight-at-11-Yellow-Light-Trap

REDFLEX STARTS TO REMOVE RLC VOTED OUT IN LEAGUE CITY, TX!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4098.asp

League City, Texas Red Light Cameras Bagged
Redflex begins removing the remaining red light cameras in League City, Texas.

Red light cameras in League City, Texas were covered with bags this week, but not by vigilantes. Australian camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems had no choice but to shut down the devices.

Last November, 77 percent of voters approved a measure banning the use of automated ticketing machines http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3943.asp -- the fifth city in the Lone Star State to do so -- but technically the measure has not yet taken effect. City officials last year re-wrote the immediate ban initiative circulated by citizens and replaced it with a measure that would only take effect on October 29, 2014, when the city's contract with Redflex expired. The change proved politically untenable, so on April 23, the council voted to pay Redflex $350,000 to end the contract on July 1.

"The city will cease issuance of red light tickets immediately and the seven cameras still in operation will be turned off and removed by Redflex within 90 days," the council resolution stated.

In November, voters also knocked the two most vocal red light camera supporters off of the city council, easing the way for passage of the take-down resolution last month. Since the beginning, League City's camera program generated $4,941,261 in revenue.

Ban the Cams note:  WE wonder when the TX legislature will finally pull the plub on RED LIGHT CAMREAS.  Multiple towns have voted to take the RLC down.  In fact the vendors fear voters being even able to have these votes by the fact that the vendors have used the courts to stop votes or even Overturn RLC ban.  ATS in Houston is a notible example of this.

RLC really about the money.  County wants to end RLC due to losing money.  No safety improvment either!

http://impactnews.com/articles/county-looking-to-stop-red-light-cameras/

County looking to stop red light cameras
by Brian Walzel

May 9, 2013

As program costs mount, officials question legality of cameras, deal with Redflex
Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner James Noack, sworn into office in January, is setting his sights on eliminating the photo-enforced intersections, or red light cameras, throughout The Woodlands. He said the program has proven to be a financial albatross for the county while the legality of the cameras has come into question.

The red light camera program was implemented in 2007 under then-commissioner Ed Chance when just two intersections, Woodloch Forest Drive at Woodlands Parkway and South Panther Creek Drive at Woodlands Parkway, began to be monitored. Since then, the program has grown to include cameras at 10 intersections throughout The Woodlands.

But as the program has expanded and the number of monitored intersections has increased, so have the costs.

“There has been a series of bad decisions that led up to the installation of these cameras and how they have operated ever since,” Noack said. “I just want to cease operations of the red light cameras and work with our law enforcement.”

Financial situation
Under the program agreement, the county pays Redflex Traffic Systems, which owns the cameras, a base amount each month for the operation of the cameras. Drivers who are ticketed for running a red light at a camera-controlled intersection must pay a $75 civil fine, which, Precinct 3 Constable Ryan Gable said, does not affect a driver’s insurance or their driving record.

Any money left over after the payment to Redflex is split between the county and the state. Money the county receives, Noack said, must be allocated to traffic safety costs.

“In the six years these cameras have been in operation, only twice has there been a profit,” Noack said. “To me, it’s just another way of taxing our citizens.”

According to Precinct 3 financial documents, the county has received $1.4 million over the term of the program, while paying out nearly $1.4 million to Redflex and $131,000 to the state.

Gable, who is in charge of reviewing video of possible violations, said the monetary value of the time he and his staff have allocated to reviewing 26,000 potential violations between August 2012 and March 2013 is about $42,000.

In addition to the financial strain, Gable said he believes it is a conflict that he determines whether a driver is issued a fine while he also serves as the judge during the review and appeal process.

“There is a conflict between me and my agency reviewing the red light camera videos and determining if someone should be held liable and guilty,” he said.

Gable said if a violator does not pay their fine, Redflex and the county could impose a civil penalty. However, Gable said he was unaware of any case of a civil suit brought against a violator.

“I don’t think it’s ever happened,” he said.

Gable also said it was possible a hold could be placed on a driver’s record so that he or she would be unable to renew their car’s registration until the violation was paid.

Although Gable was unsure if that component was still in place and being utilized.

Contract in question
On Feb. 4, County Attorney J.D. Lambright contacted Reflex, notifying the company of the county’s intention to terminate the contract effective April 1. The letter to Reflex stated “the county’s expenditures (both actual funds and in-kind) in operating the photo red light enforcement program continue to exceed the funding available for the photo red light enforcement program.”

Two weeks later, Redflex responded with a letter to Lambright’s office stating the county’s claim was “ineffective.” Then on March 28, Lambright sent notice to Redflex stating Texas law does not permit counties to enter into multi-year contracts, so the contract is null and void.

“So, none of the cameras at these intersections are in compliance with the law,” Noack said.

In a prepared statement, Redflex Director of Communications Jody Ryan said the company is interested in continuing its relationship with Montgomery County.

“Since 2007, Redflex Traffic Systems and Montgomery County have been working together to make roadways safer through the use of traffic safety cameras,” Ryan said in the statement. “Studies show that traffic safety cameras modify driver behavior, and when implemented drivers slow down, stop on red, and roadways become safer. Redflex Traffic Systems is interested in meeting with the county to resolve outstanding concerns and find a collaborative approach to continue this valuable public safety program.”

Officials also claim the cameras are not legal since the required traffic studies have not been completed and the proper roadway signage is not in place. Noack said signage alerting drivers of the presence of an upcoming red light camera, as well as a sign notifying them of a potential fine, must be located at the approach of each intersection.

“Some of these cameras have been installed without the proper studies,” said Woodlands Township Director Mike Bass. “Some of the violations may not be totally enforceable.”

In July of last year, the county turned off five of the cameras after it was determined the intersections that they monitored had not undergone the required traffic study. The county then refunded more than $135,000 in fines over the next two months. Shortly after, the traffic studies were completed and the cameras were turned back on.

Despite the county’s efforts to terminate the contract, which was renewed by the commissioner’s court in 2011 for six more years, the 10 red light cameras in Precinct 3 in The Woodlands were still operational at press time.

“We don’t know why these intersections were selected,” Noack said. “We don’t want there to be a red light camera there just for the sake of generating revenue. These should, in theory, improve safety.”

Safety issue
Noack said although the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, the Montgomery County Constable’s Office and the Texas Department of Traffic Safety all keep accident data, a report has not been compiled regarding the effectiveness of the cameras.

“There is no evidence that I have seen that shows our intersections are safer,” he said.

A July 2010 report issued by the Texas Transportation Institute, titled “Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras,” examined reports from about 20 cities and counties of different sizes and samples that have used red light cameras.

The TTI concluded that “if installed at locations with significant red light running crashes and/or violations, over a group of intersections, red light cameras substantially reduce red light violation rates and reduce crashes that result from red light running.”

Ban the Cam note:  The TTI study quoted above is likely the Walden report.  Numerous problems have been found with the report.  http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/critique-of-troy-d-waldens-evaluation-of-photographic-traffic-signal-enforcement-systems-in-texas.html by H.F. Van Der Grinten and http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/texas-dottti-camera-report-a-fraud-again.html  by Greg Mauz. 

Quote:  Author of both studies, Troy Walden is a retired police officer, receiving data from other cops, whose cities/police departments profit from red light ticket cameras. 

Noack said no reports exist that show crash data in The Woodlands before and after the red light cameras became operational.

Meanwhile, Bass expressed concern about removing cameras that may, in fact, be needed.

“If a traffic study says a particular intersection would benefit [from a red light camera], then maybe it needs one,” he said. “I’m also concerned they would be removed just to reduce costs and leave someone with a public safety issue.”

Noack said if the cameras are removed, the responsibility of monitoring the intersections would fall to law enforcement.

“We have law enforcement to depend on, and we will then at least be able to study these intersections and understand where we are having issues,” he said.

The Woodlands Township pays the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office for its own district and additional police officers. Bass is concerned without red light cameras, the costs to the township could go up.

“Who is going to be responsible for the enforcement of the intersections?” Bass said. “It will fall back on the township and the sheriff’s office we contract with. It may reduce [the county’s] cost, but it may increase [the township’s] cost.”

http://www.swrnn.com/2013/05/10/murrieta-local-activist-speaks-out-on-banned-red-light-cameras/

Murrieta: Local activist speaks out on banned red light cameras
By Michelle Mears-Gerst, on May 10, 2013, at 12:16 am
After years of controversy Murrieta City Council voted Tuesday, May 7 to end the city’s red-light camera enforcement program.

The vote was unanimous, 4-0 to end a program with American Traffic Solutions. Councilwoman Kelly Bennett was absent.

Community activist Diana Serafin who has been fighting to remove the cameras from the beginning said,  “I am not going away. We are going to continue to make our intersections safe, that is the goal.”

The red light cameras have been the subject of discourse within Murrieta almost from the moment they were installed. Multiple court hearings have been heard on the cameras and Measure N passed in November 2012.

Measure N was placed on the ballot to allow the residents to have a say in the future of the cameras. Registered voters approved the ban of cameras  by 57 percent.

The red light cameras were at three intersections in Murrieta: Nutmeg and Clinton Keith, Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood and Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita.

“The cameras didn’t work; the price of the tickets were also unreasonable,” said Serafin. “We need longer yellow lights, synchronized lights and a second or two where all intersections are red.”

Serafin has been an advocate for safer  intersections in the city stemming from three intersection accidents over her lifetime – none of which was her fault. One accident resulted in 91 facial stitches, and three plastic surgeries.

“I want to work with city officials to improve the synchronization of lights. Timing the lights so traffic flows instead of stopping at every corner, take away the drivers frustration and need to race a light,” said Serafin.

Before Measure N was voted on, the initiative was challenged by a campaign committee Safe Streets for Murrieta. This committee was backed by American Traffic Solutions.

Shortly after the elections on Nov. 6, ATS claimed the measure was unconstitutional.

The city requested the cameras be turned off mid-December after the votes of Measure N were certified. However ATS did not remove the equipment at the three intersections in Murrieta while the courts were reviewing ATS’s claims of the measure being unconstitutional.

On April 5, a judge overturned the election results, again ruling that voters did not have the authority to turn the cameras off.  Judge Ottalia said  the city council was responsible for traffic regulation not the citizens.

Although the city ordered the cameras to be turned off ATS kept them on and released a newsletter stating the red light running at the three intersections increased. City officials  and local residents were outraged since they assumed the cameras were turned off.

Ban the Cams note:  ATS RIGGED THAT DATA.  They compared "violations citable" in the before period, to raw data triggers (THAT WERE NOT REVIEWED) in the after period. 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4078.asp

"It is only through blatant deception that ATS is able to come up with their fraudulent 86.9 percent increase," Beeber said. "Make no mistake, this is not some accounting error on the part of ATS. It is obviously a deliberate attempt to deceive and we need to let the press know exactly what ATS is doing or they will take their bogus numbers and print the story without any fact checking."

After the vote on Tuesday the audience of close to two dozen cheered.

“This is a victory for our city,” said Serafin.

Michelle Mears-Gerst is a local writer and regular contributor to SWRNN.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Monroe-won-t-renew-red-light-camera-contract-4502608.php

Monroe won't renew red light camera contract
 
Updated 9:23 am, Thursday, May 9, 2013
MONROE, Wash. (AP) — Red light cameras are on their way out of Monroe.

Mayor Robert Zimmerman sent a letter Wednesday to Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems saying the city would not renew its contract later this year when it expires.

The Daily Herald reports (http://bit.ly/15Oa18M) Mukilteo activist Tim Eyman led opposition to the cameras since they were installed in 2011. He calls them a "money grab."

Citizens voted against the automatic ticket system in advisory elections, but courts said they were not binding.

http://www.saintpetersblog.com/another-point-of-view-on-senator-brandes-red-light-camera-reforms

Another point of view on Senator Brandes’ red-light camera reforms


By Peter Schorsch on May 9, 2013
 
The following is a very thorough guest post by Matt Florell of St. Pete Polls.

On May 2nd at 2:42 PM this tweet by @ChrisSpencerFL appeared on my Twitter feed and it caught my attention, “Highway Safety Package including red light camera fixes by @JeffreyBrandes and @JakeRaburn passes FL leg, goes to Governor #sayfie”. I immediately went online and searched for the bill and found HB 7125.

I read the most recent version of the bill text, which was called “Engrossed 1″ at that time, and I liked what I saw. This bill had a provision that prevented all right turn on red violations from being issued by red light camera enforcement. If you take the time to look at the statistics you’ll see that right turn on red enforcement has nothing to do with safety. Collier County banned right turn citations after two years of their red light camera program because as their Sheriff stated, it resulted in “no proven safety benefit”.

I emailed some friends around the state that are against red light cameras and the consensus was that this was a great bill. Then later that day, one of my friends from North Florida noticed that a new “Engrossed 2″ version of the bill had just been posted and it didn’t have the same changes as the previous version. In fact, it had a whole different set of red light camera changes taken from some of the dozens of previously filed amendments that were put together and debated only in the Senate just two days before, and most of them were not good changes.

Then we noticed that only hours after the bill passed both houses, almost too quickly, ATS(American Traffic Solutions) the largest red light camera vendor in the state of Florida put out this press release applauding the passage of HB 7125 and the Brandes amendment that “enhances the state’s red-light safety camera program”. Here is a good place to note that at one point ATS had over a dozen paid lobbyists in Florida and has paid out over $2 million for lobbying in Florida in the last several years. They have also created and funded fake grassroots organizations to push their agenda.

Here is a list of most of the provisions related to red light cameras that are in HB 7125. Line references below are from the 226 page “Enrolled” version of the bill. I have left out the mostly administrative changes and instead focused only on the major changes. But first, some terminology. A “Notice of Violation” is the mailed notice for running a red light, the legal equal of a parking ticket, which is a non-moving violation that does not cause injury or death. Most traffic violations such as red light violations were made civil non-criminal infractions decades ago. They on face value don’t have constitutional protections such as the presumption of innocence or the ability to confront witnesses, but they do carry the same beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof for conviction as do criminal cases. Even traffic infractions such as speeding have requirements built in to safeguard the motorists of Florida. These include certification and regulation of law enforcement equipment like radar guns, which must be certified by a third party every 6 months. The red light camera law specifically transfers this burden of proof from the government to the vehicle owner. It also automatically withholds points and bans auto insurance increases, which is illogical for a hazardous moving violation issued for safety concerns- something nearly every local official has claimed is the sole purpose of the devices. A “Uniform Traffic Citation” is what the notice of violation becomes if you don’t pay it right away, and it is then handed over to the county court system to process at a higher fee.

1. Starting at line 501
“Local Hearing Officers”, this provision allows municipalities to have city employees or city designated persons act effectively as a judge for red light camera notice of violation appeals. This could be similar to how codes enforcement appeals work, or it could allow outsourcing of the hearings to county courts, but there are very few guidelines in the bill on how these hearings would run. As written, these hearing officers are not required to have any legal training to perform the task of judge. For example, a city meter reader could be a hearing officer. Prior to the Wandall Act going into effect in July 2010, this was how most cities had handled red light camera tickets, and it proved to be a very inconsistent and unfair process that lead to lawsuits around the state which the cities lost.

2. Starting at line 523
“no ticket if stopping after the line”, this is effectively a meaningless provision that was no doubt added to give the impression that it was a positive change. The truth is that most installed red light camera equipment in Florida is incapable of ticketing people going less than 10mph. I have never seen an example in this state of a red light camera ticket for a person that stops just after the stop line, and I have seen a lot of citations from Florida.

3. Starting at line 542
“60 days to appeal”, this one line change moves the appeal date from 30 to 60 days from notification. This change would have more meaning if the definition of “notification” was not changed a few lines later.

4. Starting at line 546
“mailing constitutes notification”, in this one line, the meaning of the word “notification” is changed from when you actually receive the citation to the date that the for-profit red light camera vendor mails you the citation. This means that if ATS mails a citation to you from Arizona on Monday, your 60 days to appeal starts from that day, not on Friday when you actually receive the citation in the mail. Also, if your citation is lost in the mail, that doesn’t matter, you are still on the hook for the ticket even though you have no idea you had already been “notified”. As a result, you may be fined hundreds of dollars and possibly have your license suspended through no fault of your own.

5. Starting at lines 723 and 737
“affidavit notifications”, possibly the only really good part of the bill, this allows the person receiving the affidavit to pay the lower $158 notification fee instead of a the higher $264 uniform traffic citation fee under the current law.

6. Starting at line 754
“procedures for notification appeal hearing”, this section goes over the rules for the notification appeal hearings. Here is where formal rules of evidence are thrown out. This means that in the notification appeal hearing you are not allowed to question the chain of evidence, the accuracy of the camera equipment, the timing of the light signaling or any other evidence-based testimony that might help your case. This is also where the hearing officer is allowed to assign an extra $250 fee for simply appealing the notification of violation. This means that the total fine for losing a notification appeal hearing can be higher than the current total fine for appealing a citation in a real traffic court. While the extra fees are only supposed to cover the actual appeal hearing costs, there is are no audit or oversight processes put in place for this.

7. Starting at line 824
“withholding of license plate renewal”, this new section states that you won’t be able to renew your license plate registration if you don’t pay the notification. This is a new and severe penalty for non-payment of a civil violation. Another problem with this new punishment is that unlike a drivers license suspension, it affects all vehicles that are owned or co-owned by the accused. This means entire families or entire business fleets could be grounded by a single ticket that has gone unpaid or was wrongly issued.

In summary, you would be able to appeal notices of violation at the city level, but the trial will not be overseen by an impartial judge, you will have less tools to fight the ticket, you will have less of a chance of winning, and if you lose it could cost you more than appealing a citation in front of a real judge that will allow you to have full legal trial rights. If you do appeal at the city level you might have to pay as much as $408, and if you don’t pay that fast enough you won’t be able to renew any of your vehicles’ registrations. All of these will be the new penalties for the civil infraction that is a red light camera violation.

So why don’t we trust municipalities to act as impartial judges and do the right thing with their new red light camera courts? Because cities like St. Petersburg, Oldsmar, Bradenton and several others around the state have proven they can’t be trusted to not abuse red light cameras for profit by just setting their yellow signals too short. In Oldsmar and St. Petersburg alone almost $500,000 in citations were issued to people who only ran the red light because the yellow was too short, and both cities have refused to issue any refunds even though the violations were caused by their own signaling problems. These cities were proven to be in the wrong and they still refused to do the right thing and refund these faulty citations, why should we trust them to run a fair court system with no independent oversight?

What is missing from this red light camera reform bill is a provision to remove the assumption of guilt of the accused. There have been dozens of news articles in Florida of people that were sent tickets with misread license plate numbers, or even people who were next to people that ran red lights but were ticketed themselves, people who received tickets for going through a green light and even people being ticketed for running a red light as part of a police escorted funeral procession. The law still assumes all accused are guilty and must prove their innocence. In some cases having to drive hundreds of miles and risk hundreds of dollars in additional fines to do so, an unfair burden especially for the poor. Our country was founded on the principal of innocent until proven guilty, and the strengthening of this law that assumes the opposite is a step in the wrong direction.

Also missing is a provision to force municipalities to use minimum safe yellow signal times. Several municipalities in Florida have been caught with short yellow signal times, and the result in every case has been higher numbers of red light camera citations and no refunds for those caught in the unsafe trap set by the municipalities. Those municipalities have been proven guilty of this, but have never faced any penalties for their offenses. According to the red light camera law, local governments can do no wrong and require almost no oversight.

So that is all of the disturbing stuff about the bill, but what is also disturbing is how this bill got passed with only one legislator voting against it on the last full day of the regular legislative session this year. As I mentioned above, Senator Brandes’ new red light camera provisions were only discussed and debated in the Senate, then they were sent to the House early in the morning on the last full day the legislature was in regular session this year. On the last full day of session, the bills are voted on rapidly, one after the other, to try to get through them all before business has to be concluded for the day. This “Engrossed 2″ version of the HB 7125 was not even available for viewing on the state’s website until hours after it had already been voted on and approved by both houses, only the amendments were listed individually, and those amendments were only a handful out of the dozens that were associated with the bill. There were no House committee hearings on these provisions, and the general public had no opportunity to view exactly what was being voted on in the House ahead of time.

When speaking off the record to a member of the Florida House, the Representative said this bill was described as a standard omnibus transportation bill with some red light camera reform elements to it. When this representative finally found out what they had really voted on, they became livid at how the bill had been misrepresented and how they had been tricked into voting for it based upon an inaccurate description and a very different older version of the bill that had already been approved by the House the week before. This isn’t the way laws should be passed in our state Legislature.

I sent a message to Jeff Brandes on Facebook on the morning of Saturday, May 4th asking about the red light camera changes in HB 7125, and this is the response I received, “All we did was give you 60 days to pay the notice of violation before it becomes a UTC and add due process rights for the notice. We also changed the right on red to say that as long as you stop, even if is beyond the white bar you will not receive a ticket.”

I sent him a few replies over the next couple days explaining that they did a lot more than that, and I outlined the other changes that his amendment made. I asked him what the reasons were for adding these other provisions, but as of Monday night I had still not heard back from him. I read in a Fox13 TV Tampa Bay article that he would be releasing a statement on this soon.

Then, on Tuesday morning I received a phone call from Senator Brandes’ chief of staff asking if I could meet with the Senator in 45 minutes at his office. By this time, I had already spoken to half a dozen reporters about HB 7125 and there were several news pieces about the bill running on local TV, newspapers and radio.

I arrived at his office on 4th St. N. in St. Petersburg and went into the conference room with the Senator and his chief of staff and started to go over all of the questions I had about the bill and why Brandes had pushed it through the way he did. I’m not going to try to cover every question in detail, but here were the main points.

My first question was about why the banning right turn on red provision that had passed the House in the same bill the week before was removed. This was because that provision carried with it a $28 million hit to the budget, and the budget had already been approved in the Senate and House without that part in it. So even though the House wanted to remove the ineffective targeting of right turn violations, it would remove too much money from the state’s budget. The reason that the “no ticket if stopping after the line” exclusion provision that was included in this bill was allowed to stay in was because it carried no financial hit. In other words, it never happens, as I detailed in part one of this article.

I next asked about the local municipal hearings. Brandes stressed that this allows communities to get together and contract with the county and pay the county courts to handle the notification appeals. He also said that most municipalities should be assigning fees of $40-$50. I asked why the limit in the bill was five times that high, at $250 and Brandes replied that they had to set the limit somewhere and that some people had asked for a $1000 limit. I think the fee is set much too high to prevent abuse by municipalities, and while it would be nice to think that the county courts would handle the notification appeals, there are no incentives for municipalities to give up the revenues from running their own appeal hearings and being able to control the process so that they can deny appeals at a higher rate, meaning that they would keep more of the red light camera money.

Denial of vehicle registration renewal was the next topic. Brandes said he hates suspending drivers licenses, and since there had to be a penalty for non-payment of notification of violation appeals fees the only option left was to prevent renewal of registrations.

On the provision that removes the rules of evidence from the notification appeals, he said that was done to keep the hearing costs down.

I mentioned the problem with the accused being considered guilty until they are proven innocent, and he said that is allowed under civil violations, and that red light camera violations would have to be turned into Uniform Traffic Citations in order to change them to a presumption of innocence, and that could only be done with a much more complex bill that completely overhauls the existing red light camera laws. He said that is unlikely to happen in the current environment in Tallahassee, and had no chance of being done this session.

I asked about why minimum yellow signal times couldn’t be included in the bill. Brandes said due to the rules of the Senate and the fact that those provisions were in another bill that failed to clear committees, he couldn’t add it to this bill.

When asked why this amendment was sent back to the House on the last full day of session with no time for debate, he responded that that is sometimes the only way to get things like this passed in the Legislature.

We discussed other elements of the bill as well, and went over the abuse of red light camera programs by cities that have short yellow signals, and some other related and unrelated topics.

One of the topics we talked about was the current lobbying power of groups in favor of red light cameras in the state. ATS(American Traffic Solutions) has people working in Tallahassee whose only job is to ensure red light cameras stay legal and profitable in Florida. The Florida League of Cities also lobbies in favor of red light cameras as one of the few newer sources of revenue allowed to cities. Those together with the other groups that work to the same goals, there is a virtual flood of lobbyists and money bombarding the members of the Legislature while they are in session. He said that on the other side there are only a few citizens and a lone lobbyist that he has talked to about red light cameras. That lone lobbyist is Paul Henry, a retired Florida State Trooper and traffic crash investigator who frequently talks to legislators in Tallahassee and testifies before committees about red light cameras and other issues.

Brandes said that his goals with the bill were to allow appeals at the notification level, extend the notification time period to 60 days, and fix the affidavit problem that raises the cost of the fine if the registered owner isn’t the driver. This bill clearly succeeds at those goals, but I think that the additional powers given to municipalities with very little oversight is ripe for abuse, just like municipalities are currently abusing their red light camera systems.

The high appeal fees, removal of the rules of evidence and use of potentially biased hearing officers makes this new notification appeals process a bad option for just about anyone wanting to appeal their red light camera ticket. Compared to the traffic court proceedings that I have witnessed, the people appealing in a notification hearing could very well end up with higher costs and a higher likelihood of their appeal being rejected. His response to this is that anyone who thinks the process wasn’t done fairly can appeal or sue. But after recently hearing about the hundreds of lawsuits the city of St. Petersburg is currently involved in, and the resources that they are willing to commit to even small cases to ensure that they don’t lose a single one, that would only be a viable option for someone that has a lot of money and years of their life that they are willing to commit to the process.

After I had spent almost 90 minutes talking to Senator Brandes, I had a better understanding of how things work in Tallahassee, and the reasons why he did what he did. I don’t agree with several of the points he made, and I think the bill’s provisions will end up hurting more people than they will help, mostly due to unchecked abuse from municipalities. But I really do appreciate his taking time to talk to me about my concerns, and especially his offer to have more discussions with me as he works on this topic in the future.

I understand that given the current environment in Tallahassee, red light cameras laws aren’t going to be significantly changed at the state level anytime soon, and that hopefully new laws will at least be able to stop the abuses by municipalities of these programs in the near future.

 

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130509/NEWS01/130509006/Iowa-City-Council-to-consider-ban-on-red-light-cameras?Local+News


Iowa City Council to consider repealing red light camera ordinance

May 9, 2013   | 

Written by Lee Hermiston

Iowa City Press-Citizen


A group of petitioners seeking to ban red light cameras in Iowa City may have gotten their wish.


On Thursday, Iowa City Clerk Marian Karr said a supplemental petition submitted by Martha Hampel and Aleksey Gurtovoy had the necessary signatures forcing the city council to consider the issue.


“It was just verified today,” Karr said.


In February 2012, the Iowa City Council approved a resolution to direct city staff to investigate the installation of red light cameras at certain intersections in the city with the goal of reducing collisions that result in property damage and person injuries. Gurtovoy, Hampel and others opposed the measure and sought a referendum opposing the cameras on the November 2012 ballot. However, they did not file their petition by the deadline and the group set their sights on 2013.


The red light camera opponents filed a petition with 3,322 signatures on April 1. However, the city clerk’s office determined the petition had only 2,106 valid signatures, short of the necessary 2,500.


The group was given an opportunity to submit an amended petition and did so on April 30. On Thursday, Karr filed a certificate of sufficiency noting the supplemental petition containing 1,235 signatures, 437 of which were verified.


The Iowa City Council has 30 days to consider the petition and is scheduled to do so during Tuesday’s work session. City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes drafted a memo Thursday outlining her legal interpretation of the camera opponents’ request and the council’s possible responses.


Dilkes said the portion of the petition that seeks to ban red light cameras in the city is “quite clearly a ‘referendum.’” A referendum seeks to overturn an existing measure. However, Dilkes also found that the portion of the petition that refers to banning the use of drones, automatic license-plate recognition systems and other kinds of traffic surveillance systems is an initiative.


“The petition is in part a referendum and in part an initiative,” Dilkes said in the memo.
State law dictates that if the council does not adopt a proposed initiative, it must go to voters. Dilkes said the council has a range of options, from adopting the petitioners’ proposal to leaving the red light camera ordinance in place and sending the matter to voters.


Dilkes, however, recommends in the memo that the council repeal the current red light camera ordinance and adopt an ordinance similar to what has been proposed. Dilkes notes the Iowa Department of Transportation is still in the process of developing rules that will govern the cameras and that they are the subject of “political opposition” from the governor’s office.


“It is difficult to know when, if ever, the city’s ordinance will be viable,” Dilkes wrote.
Dilkes could not be reached for comment Tuesday.


Only discussion will take place at Tuesday night’s work session, but if the city council follows Dilkes recommendation, it could take up red light cameras again in two years.