Red Light Camera News

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Petition-to-put-Sugar-Land-red-light-cameras-to-a-4446191.php

Petition to put Sugar Land red light cameras to a vote headed for City Hall
By Carol Christian | April 18, 2013 | Updated: April 18, 2013 5:00pm 

 A Sugar Land-area resident opposed to red light cameras plans to present a petition Friday to put the cameras to a citywide vote.

H.F. Van Der Grinten said he will present a petition to amend the city charter at noon Friday on Sugar Land City Hall steps.

The petition, which calls for a ban on all photo enforcement of traffic lights, has more than 3,300 signatures, more than the 2,525 needed to call for a city referendum on the issue, he said.

Founder of the Houston Coalition Against Red Light Cameras, Van Der Grinten, a semi-retired ship master who goes by Captain Van, said he lives just outside Sugar Land city limits.

In a news release Thursday, Van Der Grinten said his main complaints with Sugar Land's red light camera program are that tickets are issued to vehicle owners rather than drivers, yellow lights are too short, and fines are too steep for rolling stop violations of a right turn on a red light.

He said he wanted to make the public aware that Sugar Land's enforcement of the red light camera program is "virtually voluntary" because two threatened punishments are not carried out.

One such threatened punishment, he said, is that the Fort Bend County Tax Assessor-Collector will withhold vehicle registrations for a vehicle owner who has an unpaid red light camera ticket.

But the tax office does not do that, an official confirmed Thursday.

"We do not have an agreement with any city to deny a vehicle registration because (a driver has) a red light ticket," said Laura Gutowsky, tax office chief deputy.

The other threat, Van Der Grinten said, is that unpaid fines will be sent to a collection agency.

Sugar Land spokesman Doug Adolph took issue with Van Der Grinten's contention that the threat is not carried out. In an email Thursday, Adolph said collection services are part of the city's contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc., which operates all aspects of the city's red light camera system.

"We have communicated to Captain Van and told him that the amount of fine assessed, the amount of the late fee (for late payments) and their required payment are all part of state law governing the operation of red light cameras," Adolph's email stated.

Adolph reiterated the city's finding that, since the installation of Sugar Land's red light cameras at current locations, accidents have decreased more than 58 percent at targeted intersections.

But Van Der Grinten said the city "cherry picked" data to support the claim that red light cameras help prevent accidents.

(Ban the Cams Note:  ATS WAS BUSTED RIGGING DATA over in Murrieta, CA to make RLC look "good".  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4078.asp)

Location to Sign the IOWA CITY RLC and Drone Ban Petition!

The City has come back and "invalidated" a 1000 Signatures.  They only need 400 Valid ones to push this to a vote.  If you live in Iowa City, IA and haven't signed.  PLEASE go over and sign the petition!  

The city doesn't want their employers (the voters) to decide this issue. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/BanTrafficCamerasAndDronesInIowaCity/510193785704831/?notif_t=group_activity

On Iowa City voter petition to Ban RLC:

Ma Ro Ha

We will have a table in College Green Park this Saturday, the 20th starting at 1pm to collect signatures for our Initiative to ban traffic surveillance in Iowa City. Please share this info with any of your friends who have not yet signed the petition. We only have until April 30th to make up for the signatures the city invalidated.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2997521.shtml?cat=500

Albuquerque drivers irked over red light ticket fines

Posted at: 04/13/2013 10:38 PM
By: Nikki Ibarra, KOB Eyewitness News 4

Some Albuquerque drivers are being bothered by a traffic company trying to collect unpaid red-light traffic tickets.

KOB Eyewitness News 4 spoke to some who said they either paid those tickets or never got any in the first place. Red-light cameras were taken out of the city over a year ago.

KOB FM’s Kiki Garcia has never received a traffic ticket in the mail, or a phone call, until now.

“I don’t remember ever getting flashed by the red light cam,” said Garcia.

KOB has learned Redflex, the company that used to monitor the city’s camera system, sold the accounts to Credit Watch.

“When you hear credit, you think credit score and you think somebody’s gotten your information and to think that you owe money to something you didn’t even know you did it’s a little off setting,” added Garcia.

KOB received more than dozen messages from viewers who’ve gotten calls from the company.

“Should I really be concerned? Is this hurting my driving record? My credit? There’s a lot of things to consider when you get a phone call like that,” said Garcia.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/murrieta/murrieta-headlines-index/20130416-murrieta-city-may-sue-over-red-light-cameras.ece

MURRIETA: City may sue over red-light cameras


BY NELSY RODRIGUEZ |

April 16, 2013; 09:16 PM |

Murrieta will consider suing American Traffic Solutions for continuing to collect data on city drivers after the City Council ordered the Arizona company to shut off the data-collecting cameras.

Council members used strong words to describe their anger after learning last week that American Traffic Solutions left the sensors inside the cameras active for months to collect the data without the city’s knowledge. The company announced on Thursday, April 11, that it had shut off the cameras but left the sensors active to collect raw data.

(Ban the Cams Note:  Read more on what ATS did to rig a 86.9% "increase" here:  http://saferstreetsla.org/646/american-traffic-solutions-ats-lies-deception/ )

“I’m really appalled at the way this occurred,” Councilman Alan Long said after agreeing with Councilman Randon Lane’s proposal that council members consider legal options during a future closed session hearing. “I’m flat out angry that a company… that was asked to take down the cameras or turn them off (would) completely disregard our request, especially because it was such a contention, controversial manner.”

American Traffic Solutions representative Charles Territo said Tuesday, April 16, that the company turned off all components of the technology on Thursday after the city’s reaction.

Murrieta first introduced red light cameras in 2006. Several years later, the City Council, at the suggestion of the police department, considered expanding the program beyond the three intersections currently armed with cameras.

Residents responded with a petition drive for a ballot measure banning the cameras. American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management. Now with the judge’s ruling in place, council members are scheduled to discuss the cameras again on June 4.

Ban the Cams note:  THIS SAME JUDGE RULED WAS OVERRULED ON APPEAL on even allowing the vote to Ban RLC earlier in 2012.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4078.asp 

Quote:  Ottolia is the same judge who attempted to block the public vote on August 3 (view ruling), only to be shot down by the Court of Appeal.

The issue likely will draw further debate.

“I’d like to remind the council members that you are representatives of the people,” resident Jackie Fenaroli said. “You should honor the people’s wishes.”

 

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/fort_bend/opinion/opinion-red-light-camera-abuse-increasing-in-sugar-land/article_139fbbbe-a2b5-11e2-81a0-0019bb2963f4.html

OPINION: Red Light Camera Abuse Increasing in Sugar Land 
Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:35 am | Updated: 6:28 pm, Thu Apr 11, 2013.

by Sugar Land resident Van Der Grinten

The Sun’s blog posting on March 20 and the article published in the April 4 edition of the city’s press release on this subject must not remain unchallenged. Two new cameras are now operating at Highway 90A and Dairy Ashford. The count of operating cameras has increased from five to seven.

The mentioned claim of a 58 percent reduction in accidents is not supported by a proper statistical analysis and is being trumpeted by a city official as fact rather than an unjustified personal opinion. Here are 19 independent studies which prove that red light cameras do not reduce accidents and save lives:

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies

There is ample evidence that RLCs cause accidents to increase because of unnecessary sudden stop rear-end collisions. RLCs abuse the public because they turn traffic lights into an expensive guessing game and they are little more than a means of taxation by use of the method of random selection.

The public should note that red light camera fines have been virtually voluntary since 2010. The city does not want you to know this. The threats of vehicle registration denial and collection attorney notification by the RLC contractor in the name of the Sugar Land Police Department are totally false.

Captain Van Der Grinten, a semi-retired ship master, indicates that if he ever received a red light camera ticket fair and square he would be morally obliged to pay the fine, and he would do so. However, there are three reasons he would refuse to pay:

1. The ticket goes to the vehicle owner, not the driver. It comes in the mail long after the violation. If he knew he was not the driver and could not determine who was, he would refuse to pay.

2. If he violated the red light by less than one second he would refuse to pay because he has begged the city to increase the yellow time of the traffic light by one second thus substantially reducing the number of violations. The city has steadfastly refused to do so.

3. His study of 309 RLC tickets shows that 60% are for rolling stop violations on a right turn on a red light. These violations are only one tenth as serious as straight through or left turn violations. The TxDOT accident reports prove this fact. So if the fine would reflect the seriousness of the violation it should only be $7.50. He would be willing to pay this amount but not one penny more. Since the city refuses to reduce this fine for this violation, he would refuse to pay the demanded $75.

A petition drive is underway to amend the Sugar Land City Charter to ban red light cameras and to allow the public to determine whether or not RLC enforcement should continue. The goal is 2,600 validated signatures of city resident registered voters. The count as this edition goes to press is 2,613.

Ban the Cams comment:  Given what we just saw in Murreta, CA on one RLC vendor using citable "violations" compared to any trigger (even non citable) to  rig a 86.9%  "increase" after RLC were shut off.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4078.asp. 

Quote:  Beeber pulled the actual data from the city which showed ATS was taking its 2012 figures from a category called "Violations Citable." This does not represent the raw number of incidents. Rather, it is the number submitted to the city after an ATS employee has gone through and discarded images that are unclear and that otherwise cannot be turned into a citation. In February 2012, 263 such tickets were thrown out, meaning there were a total of 514 "Violations Recorded" in 2012 -- exactly the same number as recorded without the cameras in 2013.

ATS was using raw numbers in the after period to rig a increase.

ATS "version"                                                               WHAT REALLY HAPPENED 

This game can be played in reverse by the RLC side by only using "citable" violations after RLC were turned on too.  This might have happened in towns like Sugarland. 

It is another trick the scamera side use to decieve the public.

In Murrieta, CA, the above trick allowed ATS to rig a 86.9%"increase" in "violations".

WE believe this game is being played in other RLC towns where the RLC side has claimed 60% or greater "decrease" when RLC were put in. 

Great trick when you think about it.  Count  raw trigger in one period, compare it to "violations" citable (after they throw out triggers that they will not cite). 

WE HOPE OTHERS WILL REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED IN MURRIETA, CA and bring it up when the RLC side claims "reductions" in other articles.   Those "reductions" the RLC side claim might very well be RIGGED!

Ban the Cams note:

ATS "version"                                                               WHAT REALLY HAPPENED 

http://saferstreetsla.org/646/american-traffic-solutions-ats-lies-deception/

American Traffic Solutions (ATS) – More Lies, More Deception

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Jay


American Traffic Solutions (ATS) must think we’re all stupid. This is the unscrupulous red-light camera company that sued to try to keep the citizens in the city of Murrieta, California from voting on a grassroots ballot initiative to ban their ticketing machines. When that was unsuccessful, ATS spent over $100,000 in a deceitful ad campaign designed to mislead Murrieta citizens and elected officials. Throughout, ATS continuously made false claims about the alleged safety benefits from their ticketing machines. For example, ATS asserted that collisions went down at camera intersections when, in fact, they actually went up by over 120%.

Now it has been revealed that although the City of Murrieta ordered ATS to turn off their ticketing cameras, sensors within the cameras remained on and the company continued to monitor drivers. If this violation of the public’s trust isn’t enough, ATS is now falsely claiming that red light running has increased by 86.9% since the cameras were turned off.

While this contention is clearly ridiculous on its face (drivers do not suddenly gain a death wish just because ticketing cameras are no longer spitting out citations), we are prepared to provide deinitive proof that ATS is lying about the increase in violations.

In order to come up with their bogus 86.9% figure, ATS compared photo enforcement data from the first three months of 2012 to data from the first three months of 2013 captured by the sensors that remained on at red light camera locations. According to ATS, the 2012 figures for January, February, and March were 201, 251 and 397 respectively, while the 2013 numbers were 506, 514, and 730. Using these numbers, ATS produced the chart below:

ATS Murrieta Data 300x250 American Traffic Solutions (ATS) More Lies, More Deception



But ATS is unquestionably comparing two different kinds of “violations” from 2012 vs 2013. To prove this, we reviewed the ATS generated “CrossingGuard Performance Reports” from January http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CrossingGuard-Performance-Report-Murrieta-Jan-2012.pdf , February http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CrossingGuard-Performance-Report-Murrieta-Feb-2012.pdf , and March 2012 http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CrossingGuard-Performance-Report-Murrieta-Mar-2012.pdf . These reports list the number of “Violations Recorded” (aka “Events”), the number of “Events” that are “Discarded” for various reasons and the number of Citations that are issued. You can click on each month above to see the actual reports.

Below is a combined report for the first three months of 2012. We highlighted and color coded the report to make it easier to read, but the numbers below are the actual numbers from ATS’ original reports.

CrossingGuard Report American Traffic Solutions (ATS) More Lies, More Deception
 

Note that the figures for January, February, and March of 2012 (201, 251 and 397) appear under the category of “Violations Citable”. These are the violations which remain after ATS discards violations for numerous reasons including: an emergency or “Exempt Vehicle” triggered the system, a police officer was directing traffic, the vehicle was from out of state, the driver or vehicle info from the DMV is incomplete, the picture of the driver doesn’t match the registered owner, the driver’s face is obscured, the vehicle’s license plate is missing, etc. In order to discard these types of violations and obtain the number of “Violations Citable”, ATS must review the information obtained from the video and photographs captured by the cameras.

But according to ATS, in the months of January, February, and March of 2013, the cameras were not capturing video or photographs. The Murrieta Patch reports http://murrieta.patch.com/articles/red-light-cameras-still-collecting-data-at-murrieta-intersections  that, “according to ATS, the cameras were disabled so no images were captured”. Also, ATS mouthpiece, Charles Territo, has been quoted http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/murrieta/murrieta-headlines-index/20130411-murrieta-red-light-cameras-still-collecting-driving-data.ece as saying “There is no review of any kind taking place. The city has canceled the program and (ATS) isn’t interested in reviewing the violations that were never going to be processed.”

So we know that in 2013, ATS could not possibly have the information needed to calculate the number of “Violations Citable”. Therefore, they must be comparing two different types of violations. The number of violations they’re reporting for the three months in 2013 are undoubtedly the total “Violations Recorded” (prior to any discards), not the number of “Violations Citable”.

It is only through this blatant deception that ATS is able to come up with their fraudulent 86.9% increase in violations. Make no mistake, this is not some accounting error on the part of ATS. Based on their long history of underhanded practices, it is obviously a deliberate attempt to deceive.

When we compare the same category of “Violations Recorded” between the two time periods, we find that the difference between the first three months of 2012 and the first three months of 2013 is a mere 4.6% as reflected in the chart below. This difference could easily be due to random fluctuations or differences in traffic volume.

Murrieta Violations American Traffic Solutions (ATS) More Lies, More Deception



Note also that the only period where the violations increased was January 2013 vs January 2012. February 2013 vs February 2012 shows no change and March 2013 shows a decrease from March 2012.

Furthermore, when we compare the “Violations Recorded” between the first three months of 2013 to the three months before the cameras were deactivated (September http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CrossingGuard-Performance-Report-Murrieta-Sep-2012.pdf , October http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CrossingGuard-Performance-Report-Murrieta-Oct-2012.pdf , and November 2012 http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CrossingGuard-Performance-Report-Murrieta-Nov-2012.pdf ) we find a reduction of 17.4%.
 

Clearly, ATS will do anything to push their profit driven agenda. And they’ve proven time and again that they simply can’t be trusted. The question is, have the people and their elected officials had enough, or will they continue to do business with this unethical company?

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/14/tp-murrieta-city-council-should-do-its-job/


MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DO ITS JOB

 By U-T San Diego Editorial Board 12:01 a.m.April 14, 2013
Updated4:24 p.m.April 12, 2013

The Murrieta City Council should take immediate action and ban red-light cameras — not just because voters last November overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to do just that, but because it’s something the council should have done in the first place.

Last November, 57 percent of voters approved a ballot measure to give red-light cameras the heave-ho. Last week, Riverside Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia overturned the ban, concluding that voters didn’t have the authority to change the law.

Judges overturn voter-approved ballot measures all the time. Just look at Arizona’s tough immigration law and, back in the 1990s, California’s notorious Proposition 187, which sought to limit services, from health care to education, to illegal immigrants. Proposition 8, the California ballot measure prohibiting same-sex marriage, also was approved by voters but is now being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial review is a critical component of our government. It exists under the premise that public opinion is not always right and just — and that someone needs to protect the minority from the potential tyranny of the majority.

In this case, the issue is not whether someone’s rights are being trampled on. It’s merely a matter of elected officials failing to act and passing the buck to the voters — the same voters who elected them to make these types of decisions.

Despite mounting public opposition, the Murrieta City Council stubbornly clung to its mistaken belief that red-light cameras prevent accidents — which study after study has shown they do not. Not only are they unreliable, but they lead to an increase in rear-end crashes, stemming from motorists abruptly stopping when the light is still yellow for fear of being caught by the camera.

In January 2011, after the Murrieta council voted to expand red-light ticketing, angry residents flooded council meetings and launched a petition drive, urging the council to adopt an initiative banning red-light cameras.

In November 2011, the city clerk declared opponents of red-light cameras had gathered enough signatures for this citizen initiative to be presented to the City Council. The council could have, and should have, adopted the ordinance outright — but instead voted 4-0 to send the initiative to the November 2012 ballot. Judge Ottolia didn’t like this at all; last August, he ruled that the ballot measure was unconstitutional because the council, and not the people themselves, should decide the fate of the red-light cameras. An appellate court overturned Ottolia’s decision and the initiative remained on the ballot, where it easily passed.

Now, Ottolia hss had his say again — and his implied message is loud and clear: It’s high time for the Murrieta City Council to do its job.

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

California: Firm Rigs Data In Bid To Keep Red Light Cameras
Analyst debunks claim that red light running increased in Murrieta, California when red light cameras were turned off.

Ever since November when voters in Murrieta, California rejected red light cameras at the ballot box
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3943.asp, American Traffic Solutions (ATS) has been on a campaign to turn them back on. The strategy has been two-fold: use the courts to overturn the public's decision, then convince the city council to reactivate the devices in the name of public safety. Anti-camera activists say they have caught the photo ticketing company manipulating data to achieve these ends.

On April 5, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia signed a writ of mandate prohibiting Murrieta from implementing the anti-camera ballot measure. Ottolia is the same judge who attempted to block the public vote on August 3 (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3861.asp), only to be shot down by the Court of Appeal http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3921.asp. To prevent the case from returning to the appellate judges, an ATS front group filed a separate suit against the city of Murrieta, which supports cameras, demanding the referendum be set aside. Despite the lack of an actual controversy between the parties, Ottolia issued his ruling accomplishing the goals of both ATS and the city.

Now it is up to the Murrieta City Council to decide whether to take the politically risky move of re-activating the red light cameras, which are no longer under contract. To sway council members, ATS issued a press release on Thursday with the bold claim that Murrieta's red light cameras recorded "nearly double the number" of "red light running events" after the cameras were turned off in comparison to the number of incidents when the cameras were active. According to ATS, there were 201 incidents in January 2012 compared to 506 a year later. In February, 251 incidents with cameras increased to 514 without cameras. In March, 397 with cameras rose to 730 without cameras.

"With cameras operational, drivers changed their behavior," ATS spokesman Charles Territo said in the statement. "This data shows just how much of a red-light running deterrent they were for drivers in Murrieta."

Safer Streets LA http://saferstreetsla.org/ Executive Director Jay Beeber says the company is trying to pull a fast one. Beeber pulled the actual data from the city which showed ATS was taking its 2012 figures from a category called "Violations Citable." This does not represent the raw number of incidents. Rather, it is the number submitted to the city after an ATS employee has gone through and discarded images that are unclear and that otherwise cannot be turned into a citation. In February 2012, 263 such tickets were thrown out, meaning there were a total of 514 "Violations Recorded" in 2012 -- exactly the same number as recorded without the cameras in 2013.

Territo told the San Diego Union-Tribune on Monday that the photographic element of the camera system is shut down and the "violations" number comes solely from sensors. No employee has reviewed any images. Had ATS used the equivalent comparison of "Violations Recorded" in 2012 to 2013, the numbers work out to essentially a wash.

"One month was higher, one was lower, and one was exactly the same," Beeber explained. "The small differences could easily be due to random fluctuations or differences in traffic volume."

Anti-camera activists hope the company's effort to influence the city council with questionable numbers backfires.

"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."

Ban the Cams not only encourages a appeal of this "judges" ruling, given that his last ruling was overturn, a appeals court NEEDS TO RESTORE the DEMOCRATIC process.

But Ban the cams ENCOURAGES everyone to remember what ATS did by trying to DECEIVE the public.  TELL ANYONE YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DID!  TELL ANY REPORTER YOU COME ACROSS WHAT ATS DID IN MURRIETA, CA.

ATS Lawsuit on RLC BAN: "about warding off anti-camera initiatives and protecting company profits than about safer streets."

(QUOTE of the WEEK!)

http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20130413-editorial-heed-voters-keep-murrieta-red-light-cameras-off.ece

Many residents will find it odd that a state which allows nearly everything to land on the ballot would bar voters from weighing in on what methods cities use to enforce traffic laws.

But even the court’s interpretation leaves the council with the power to end the photo-enforcement program — and the council has direct guidance from voters to do just that.

Turning the cameras back on would only encourage residents’ suspicions about the motives behind the legal challenge to Measure N. The post-election lawsuit came from Safe Streets for Murrieta, a group that opposed the measure. But the group also received substantial funding — $105,000 — from red-light camera companies, including American Traffic Solutions, which operates Murrieta’s cameras. That fact suggests the issue is more about warding off anti-camera initiatives and protecting company profits than about safer streets

http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20130413-editorial-heed-voters-keep-murrieta-red-light-cameras-off.ece


EDITORIAL: Heed voters, keep Murrieta red light cameras off

The Murrieta City Council should respect voters' wishes and shut down the city's red-light camera program.

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE |

April 13, 2013; 06:00 PM |
 
A court ruling does not change the central fact about Murrieta’s red-light cameras: The city’s voters in November rejected the photo enforcement program. The City Council should take its cue from that result, and keep the cameras turned off. Any other course would violate residents’ clearly expressed wishes.

The choice rests with the council thanks to the latest skirmish in the battle over the city’s red-light cameras. A Riverside County Superior Court judge this month struck down a successful initiative banning the cameras in Murrieta. The city’s voters in November approved Measure N by a sizable margin, with more than 57 percent in favor of ending the camera enforcement. The cameras have been off since December, when the city certified the election results.

The Murrieta council is slated to discuss the issue in closed session at next week’s meeting. The council’s choice should be obvious, however. Voters made their wishes clear, and the city’s elected officials should abide by that decision. This is not a case where the City Council has to guess at the public’s opinion about city policy.

The court concluded that state law gives authority over red-light cameras to city councils, not voters, and that the cameras are not subject to the initiative process. Many residents will find it odd that a state which allows nearly everything to land on the ballot would bar voters from weighing in on what methods cities use to enforce traffic laws.

But even the court’s interpretation leaves the council with the power to end the photo-enforcement program — and the council has direct guidance from voters to do just that.

Turning the cameras back on would only encourage residents’ suspicions about the motives behind the legal challenge to Measure N. The post-election lawsuit came from Safe Streets for Murrieta, a group that opposed the measure. But the group also received substantial funding — $105,000 — from red-light camera companies, including American Traffic Solutions, which operates Murrieta’s cameras. That fact suggests the issue is more about warding off anti-camera initiatives and protecting company profits than about safer streets.

American Traffic Solutions already gave Murrieta residents the impression that profits came first when the city renewed the vendor’s contract in 2011. The company proposed new locations for the cameras that were not trouble spots, but which had the capacity to generate a lot of tickets. Murrieta pays the company a flat fee, rather than a share of ticket fines. But fewer tickets would mean less revenue to pay for the cameras, which could make sustaining the program less fiscally attractive to the city.

Yes, Murrieta says that the cameras, in place since 2006, reduced the number of red-light violations and improved traffic safety. But that evidence is disputed by camera opponents, whose analysis says that collisions increased at photo-enforced intersections since the city installed the cameras.

Murrieta residents, however, are fully capable of weighing the conflicting evidence and making a decision about traffic enforcement. Their choice was to scuttle the cameras. And regardless of whether Measure N is binding, the City Council should not ignore that unambiguous voter mandate.

Baytown Redlightcameras on Longview admission that RLC did not really improve safety.

Ban the Cams note:  It seems Longview, TX officials were busy trying spin a tall tale as why the RLC "improved" safety when the RLC intersections DID NOT REALLY CHANGE!  The quote was "limited changes".

(The non RLC intersections had drops, which meant that the NON RLC intersections were SAFER than the RLC intersections!)

hilarious. So the cameras made accidents go down everywhere around town except for where the cameras actually are? I can actually see the guy being interviewed sweating in the article.

Article location here:  http://www.news-journal.com/news/police/data-shows-mixed-results-from-longview-red-light-cameras/article_911c712c-967a-5aaf-9091-2bcdead41f59.html

Investigation reveals speed camera "scam", "legalized extortion"

Even AAA is coming out against red light and speed cameras. This is unprecedented and a very LOUD opposition. See news videos below. Very angry AAA reps and drivers. The truth is out.
 
Unbelievable news stories. It will shake your confidence in the justice system.
AAA calls red light cameras and speed cameras a "sham"," a war on drivers"," predatory"

ATS up to old Houston, TX trick.  ATS left RLC "sensors' on after Murietta, CA voters BANNED RLC.

Ban the Cams note:  ATS is taking a page out of what they did in Houston, TX to try to save their RLC contract ordered unplugged by the voters.

Seems ATS never really turned their RLC off.

ATS played the same game in Houston TX.  http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7933831  (note article is on the IIHS garbage "study" that was rebuked in a peer review later.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp  Quote:  The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the "before" period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities "before" to improve in the "after" period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.)


Quote:  “By the way, the company that operates the red light cameras in Houston says since the cameras stopped recording, Houstonians are running 18 percent more red lights. While the cameras are not recording, the sensor is still counting the number of cars that run the red lights”
 

Ban the Cams note:  You mean ATS "defintion" which includes in many towns right turns on red, and even stopping over the stop line.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/murrieta/murrieta-headlines-index/20130411-murrieta-red-light-cameras-still-collecting-driving-data.ece


MURRIETA: Red-light cameras still collecting driving data

Cars pass through the intersection at Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita roads under a red-light camera in 2011. The cameras were deactivated in December 2012. Murrieta city leaders were surprised to learn Thursday, April 11, that the sensors in the devices were still active and monitoring traffic.

BY NELSY RODRIGUEZ |

STAFF WRITER |

April 11, 2013; 05:44 PM |


The company that operated Murrieta’s now-deactivated red-light cameras announced Thursday, April 11, that data collected since January indicates red-light running is growing at the intersections where cameras once captured images.

The announcement from American Traffic Solutions, however, was met with shock and fury from Murrieta’s top administrators. They said they were unaware that — while cameras have been turned off since voters banned their use — the sensors within the cameras have remained on and continue to monitor driving.

“I’m absolutely livid; you cannot imagine,” City Manager Rick Dudley said. “I’m sure people will look at us and say, ‘You must have known,’ but no we had no idea. I don’t know if you can hear the anger that I’m feeling — and I’ve calmed down a lot — but it just never dawned on me that they would do that, and that they would do it without telling us.”

Dudley said the city will order the sensors shut down within 24 hours.

ATS spokesman Charles Territo said the sensors can operate independently of the cameras, so leaving the sensors on while turning the cameras off was not in violation of the city’s order.

“There is no review of any kind taking place,” Territo said. “The city has canceled the program and (ATS) isn’t interested in reviewing the violations that were never going to be processed.”

City Attorney Jeff Morris said if the company is splitting hairs on the order, their actions “definitely violate the spirit.”

“The stipulation was that it was to be off,” he said.

Murrieta Police Capt. Sean Hadden also expressed dismay at the announcement that the sensors remain on, adding that the department had been researching ways to illustrate the effects the cameras had on drivers.

“I’m floored,” Hadden said. “We had no idea that they’ve been collecting data.”

The red light cameras went up at three intersections in 2006. In November 2012, voters approved Measure N, which banned the use of the devices in the city.

In the months leading up to the election, ATS and another camera company — Redflex — contributed more than $100,000 to Safe Streets for Murrieta, a campaign launched to defeat the measure.

Residents passed the measure with 57 percent of the vote. The city ordered the cameras disabled in December but left them mounted at the intersections.

The measure was challenged in court by Safe Streets for Murrieta. Last week, a Riverside County Superior Court judge agreed with camera supporters and overturned the election results, saying that the authority over the cameras rests with the City Council.

Council members are scheduled to discuss the red-light camera issue during a closed session hearing on Tuesday, April 16.

Unbeknownst to city administrators, police officials and the public, ATS continued operating the sensors. It announced Thursday that raw data suggests the number of incidents that would have qualified for a secondary review — a check to see if a red-light violation occurred — doubled at the intersections.

According to the data, sensors picked up 506 such events in January, 514 in February and 730 in March. The 2012 figures for those months were 201, 251 and 397, respectively, the company reported.

“The data released today is nothing more than an effort to warn Murrieta drivers about the increase in the number of potential red-light runners at previously enforced camera intersections,” Territo said.


Ban the Cams note:  THE RLC WERE LEFT ON in hopes the town will ignore their voters. 

By the way what was the breakdown of "violations"????

Funny they don't like to bring this up in public.

www.banthecams.org/attachments/1553_ATS%20Mukilteo%20survey.pdf

www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3553.asp

Quote: "In another set of emails from April, Kroske derided Mukilteo Public Works Director Larry Waters because he had stated in writing to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) that there was no accident data that would justify installing red light cameras.

"I cannot believe this idiot sent this to WSDOT," Kroske wrote. "I may have torpedoed the project. Hold up any further work on the submission until I hear from the mayor or city manager. With the engineer on record against it, I expect it will be difficult to get approval from WSDOT."

Waters noticed that ATS data showed 16 straight-through violations over the course of a 16 hour test at 13 intersection approaches. Over the same period, there were 3343 "slow right turns" that were eligible for ticketing. Studies show rolling right turns rarely cause accidents (view study)."

TX Statewide RLC Ban petition being created to urge TX Legislature to BAN RLC!

Baytown Redlightcameras


Please sign the new petition for a statewide red light camera ban. We will be using this to pressure the Texas Legislature for a statewide ban. http://www.campaignforliberty.org/petitions/ban-the-red-light-cameras-in-texas/

When Due process gets in the way of RLC loot, just strip Due Process in one MO town!

Ban the Cams note:  The RLC industry cannot have beyond reasonable doubt in RLC tickets.   To many "violations" can be dismissed because they GOT THE WRONG PERSON, DRIVER, or even car! 

California shows to what lenght the RLC industry will go to keep the scam running.  http://www.banthecams.org/4113-why-the-rlc-industry-cannot-be-financially-viable-where-there-is-due-process-and-voter-democracy.html

Heck even the prohibition against testify one spouse can get in the way of RLC loot!   Hard core criminals have more constitutional protections than one accused of a RLC ticket.

We are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty.  But this simple concept cannot exist with RLC.   

http://stpeters.patch.com/articles/st-peters-aldermen-may-change-ordinance-to-ticket-owners-if-vehicle-runs-red-light

St. Peters Aldermen May Change Ordinance to Ticket Owners if Vehicle Runs Red Light
The board will vote on the proposed change at the April 11 meeting.

By Joe Barker

St. Peters may soon begin ticketing vehicle owners caught running a red light even if they aren't behind the wheel.

During Thursday's meeting of the Board of Aldermen the board will be to change a red-light camera ordinance. The change would ticket the registered owner of the car that runs the red light instead of just the person behind the wheel.

According to the Suburban Jornals, the proposed change came after St. Peters Police officials asked City Attorney Randy Weber to recommend changes.  St. Peters police Major Jeff Finkelstein told the Journals the department asked the city attorney to look for changes because police found it hard to enforce the current law. St. Peters, which has had cameras since 2006, currently relies on on a photograph of the driver.

The Suburban Jornals reports that Weber's proposal is based on an appellate court case, Creve Coeur vs. Nottebrook. As a result of that case, the Creve Coeur red-light ordinance puts the liability on the owner of the vehicle, even if the owner wasn't operating the vehicle at the time of the incident.

The proposed amendment, which will be voted on Thursday at the regular meeting, does prevent the owner from being ticketed if the vehicle or its license plates or tags had been reported stolen.

St. Peters added cameras to the McClay/Jungermann intersection in January. Currently the city has red-light cameras at:

•Mexico Road at Cave Springs Boulevard
•Mexico Road at Jungermann Road
•Mexico Road at Spencer Road
•Mid Rivers Mall Drive at Suemandy Road
•Mid Rivers Mall Drive at Grand Teton Road eastbound
•Mid Rivers Mall Drive at Grand Teton Road westbound
•Mid Rivers Mall Drive at Willott Road
•Jungermann Road at McClay Road
 

http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/columnists/article_a9ba262a-a16b-11e2-840b-001a4bcf6878.html

Bwally's World
 Opinion: Correlation between driver safety and red light cameras imossible to prove
Studies proving safety causality are inherently flawed

Ben Wallace Daily Reveille

Posted on April 9, 2013
 by Ben Wallace

Baton Rouge’s Red Light Safety Program, which includes the infamous red light camera system, is an invaluable money well that will never run dry as long as humans and not robots operate vehicles.

The Louisiana Regular Legislative Session began Monday, and Rep. Jeff Arnold, D-New Orleans, introduced House Bill 217, which would allow voters to decide whether to keep the traffic cameras through municipal elections, The Advocate reported.

“I think this is the fairest way of handling it for both the citizens and the municipalities who have come to depend on the bankroll coming in,” Arnold said, adding that he has proposed variations of the bill for the past several years. “I think it has very little to do with safety.”

And that’s the issue.

Supporters of red light cameras argue that the cameras dramatically cut down the amount of red light-related traffic accidents, especially fatal ones. Opponents, however, say the cameras exist mostly so local governments can make money without working. They also say the amount of car crashes actually increases in intersections with cameras because rear-end collisions arise due to drivers slamming on their brakes to avoid running red lights.

There is no question the city makes gobs of money through its contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc., the privately owned company that manages the city’s red light cameras.

Drivers paid more than $13.3 million in fines from 2008-12, The Advocate reported. The ATS kept almost $5 million, leaving the remaining $8 million to the Baton Rouge Police Department.

Talk about easy money. The city simply signed a contract with ATS, and now BRPD rakes in about $2 million a year, on average, in free cash. The only cost the city deals with involves processing claims from drivers who say they’re innocent.

Beyond the money, the waters of this issue become murky, if not opaque.

Making a direct correlation between the cameras and reduced traffic fatalities is nearly impossible. What about improved safety features on cars? Or safer driving in general?

Many studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing traffic accident fatalities, claim that the life-saving effects of red light cameras range somewhere between those of oases in deserts and guns in a knife fight.

“A 2011 Institute study comparing large cities with red light cameras to those without found the devices reduced the fatal red light running crash rate by 24 percent and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 17 percent,” according to a post on the IIHS website.

Feel free to judge the statistics presented in that discombobulating sentence yourself.

In cities such as Philadelphia and Los Angeles, news organizations reported that accidents actually increased in intersections with the traffic lights.

Again, attributing the increase in accidents directly to the traffic cameras is nearly impossible. What about the driver scrolling through Twitter on his phone? Or reading a text message? Or staring at a digital map because he has absolutely no idea where the heck he’s going (we’ve all done it)?

A fine for running a red light in Baton Rouge is $117. That’s worth at least 20 late-night meals at McDonald’s. Or 50-something packs of gum. Or one carnivorous date-night at Texas de Brazil.

The fines and the cameras should disappear until a study that would be practically impossible to conduct can prove a definitive and direct correlation between reduced fatalities and red light cameras.

In order for that to happen, though, citizens have to get mad.

To start, I suggest calling up your state representatives and begging them to support Arnold’s bill.

It would at least give voters, not lawmakers, the opportunity to decide for themselves if they think the program provides more safety than annoyance.

Ben Wallace is a 22-year-old mass communication senior from Tyler, Texas.

"Collisions and injuries are rising much faster at cameras than at 445 other intersections."

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/916832--red-light-cash-soars-even-higher

Red light cash soars even higher
 
Regional government earned about $2 million last year from red-light tickets, up from $1.6 million the year before.

Mathew McCarthy/Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — The region is hauling in record cash as tickets and collisions soar at 16 intersections where cameras snap drivers running red lights.

With no additional cameras, regional government earned almost $2 million last year from 9,257 red light tickets, up from $1.6 million earned from 7,528 tickets in 2011, new figures reveal.

Automated cameras captured 23 per cent more red light runners, nabbing 25 violators per day on average. In 2011, the same cameras nabbed 21 violators per day.

Each ticket carries a $325 fine upon conviction. There are no demerit points and insurers are not notified. Signs warn motorists about the cameras.

Council responded to the financial windfall in January, hiking budgeted camera revenues by $350,000 to help limit the regional tax increase to 2.7 per cent.

“It does beg the question that you rightly raise about how much is about safety and how much is about budget?” Waterloo Coun. Sean Strickland said. “I don’t think that we’ve put into place red-light cameras as a method to increase revenues and reduce our tax base … From my perspective it’s about safety.”

Council installed 12 cameras in 2008 and added four more in 2010, citing traffic safety. A Record analysis found cameras have made intersections more perilous, with collisions up 31 per cent and injuries up 51 per cent where they operate. Traffic stayed steady.

“We’ve never talked about ‘Let’s put red-light cameras in to try and increase our income.’ Absolutely not,” Kitchener Coun. Jim Wideman said. “If we save one life it’s worth it all. We simply can’t prove that we haven’t saved a life by having red light cameras.”

Critics see a government cash grab aimed at drivers who misjudge yellow lights. They argue that red-light running is more safely reduced by engineering steps that include longer yellow lights, rejected by regional government, better lanes, better paint, brighter signals and better synchronization of signals.

Red-light revenues go to multiple agencies. The province takes victim surcharge fees and other costs.

A German-based firm called Traffipax is paid to install and operate cameras. The City of Toronto is paid to process tickets. In 2011, it’s estimated each ticket returned a profit of $76 for regional taxpayers after all expenses.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Red Alert

Analyzing collision records, The Record studied 16 intersections before and after camera activation, for an average of almost three years of operation.

Before cameras, the intersections saw 70 people injured in 213 collisions. After cameras, the intersections saw 106 people injured in 280 collisions. Traffic stayed steady.

After cameras were installed, intersections saw 43 more rear-end collisions, 23 more turning collisions, seven fewer angle collisions and six fewer collisions in which someone ran a red. Only four of 16 intersections saw collisions or injuries drop after cameras were activated.

Collisions and injuries are rising much faster at cameras than at 445 other intersections

http://signon.org/sign/revoke-the-red-light.fb23?source=c.fb&r_by=5963213

Revoke the Red Light Cameras in Chicago
By stephen hinton (Contact http://signon.org/contact_creator.html?petition_id=31362)

To be delivered to: Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago

Petition Statement

Revoke the red light cameras in the city of Chicago. They represent an underhanded way to once again extract money from your unsuspecting citizen. To make matters worse, to challenge any tickets, the working class would have to take off work, for the appeals office is only open Monday - Friday during business hours--no late hours or weekends. Revoke the red light cameras!

Petition Background
In Chicago today, we the citizens are being heavily taxed and penalized by red light cameras. Many times they are invalid and all the time they are too costly. To challenge these tickets, one must take off from work because ticket court is only open during business hours Monday thru Friday.

California Residents:  HELP STOP THE DEVILS BILL, SIGN THE PETITION!

Safer Streets L.A.

Just 92 more and we top 3000 signatures! Help stop AB666, the Devil's Bill which would take away your right to a trial if you get a red light camera ticket and make you responsible for the fine, even if someone else was driving.

Go to http://stopab666.org/ and sign the petition. It WILL make a difference.

Then commit to sharing this with at least two friends who will share it with two of their friends and so on and so on. If you commit to do that, we could easily top 10,000 signatures. Think how they will react to that. Sign the petition now and share this now with two people.