Red Light Camera News

Pasadena: "It was strictly designed to bring in revenue and didn't do anything for public safety."

Pasadena, CA DUMPS RLC!

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_20271105/red-light-scofflaws-will-catch-break

Red-light scofflaws will catch a break (Ban the Cams:  Yep from petty policing since most "violations" are techincal fouls to begin with!  Wonder how many were stop line "violations" or split seconds).

By Rick Orlov and C.J. Lin, Staff Writers

dailynews.com
Posted:   03/27/2012 11:01:28 PM PDT

 The city of L.A. s red-light camera program will end Saturday, March 31, 2012, but Metro is retaining its cameras along the Orange Line busway, like here at Victory Boulevard and Mason Avenue in Woodland Hills. (Dean Musgrove/Staff Photographer)Los Angeles' much-maligned red-light traffic camera program officially ends this week, after the Police Commission on Tuesday ordered a halt to collecting fines from violators caught on film.

Eight months after city officials ordered the cameras turned off, the commission voted 3-0 to formally stop collecting unpaid tickets as of Saturday.

People who already paid their tickets, however, will not receive refunds, officials said.

The program faced sharp criticism from the public and City Council members last year, amid questions on their effectiveness and ability to generate revenue for the city.

"It was completely wrong," said Councilman Dennis Zine, who was among the council members calling for an end to the program. "It was strictly designed to bring in revenue and didn't do anything for public safety."

Read more: Pasadena: "It was strictly designed to bring in revenue and didn't do anything for public safety."

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=104799

3/27/2012 9:56:00 PM
Man who failed to serve traffic tickets sentenced 
 

Scott Orr
The Daily Courier

PRESCOTT - A man whose job it was to serve red-light-camera traffic tickets to offenders, but who did not fulfill this obligation, was sentenced to two years' probation Monday after he accepted a plea deal.

Patrick Ellis, 55, worked for Palmer Investigative Services in Prescott, where he was to serve citations on offenders in 2011. He didn't do that, instead falsifying paperwork to say he had.

He faced 13 counts of tampering with a public record and forgery.

Ellis pleaded guilty to seven counts of tampering with a public record; that is a class 6 "undesignated" felony, meaning it could be converted to a misdemeanor by a judge.

Dr. Robert Palmer, head of Palmer Investigative Services, said Ellis' actions had cost his company a lucrative contract with Redflex, operators of Prescott Valley's traffic cameras.

He said his company's "stock-in-trade" is its integrity, and Ellis had damaged that.

Palmer also described a victim who had lost her car, her job, and her driver's license as a result of not receiving a citation Ellis claimed he served.

Ellis' attorney, Matthew Springer, said it was "unfair" of that victim to blame his client for her problems because she didn't keep her date with the state's Motor Vehicle Division.

Springer said Ellis was not trying to make a personal profit with the scheme, but that "people do not like to be served with speeding tickets."

Ellis claimed he'd spoken to Palmer "way before that and he said they were losing the (Redflex) contract."

Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Tina Ainley imposed two years' probation.

http://warondriving.com/post/20066969050/arizona-intersection-law

Will AZ Ditch “Imaginary” Lines in Intersections?

Arizona has long been an easy target for flashing bandits installed by Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS). One of the chief reasons for this is that those two private (foreign - Redflex) vendors get to make up almost all the rules, including where an intersection starts.

Arizona is one of only two states who don’t clearly define an intersection and it leads to a lot of dangerous practices by both Redflex and ATS, such as painting confusing “imaginary” lines in intersections.

The city of Tucson is one of the worst offenders in this category and has even been reprimanded by the Federal Highway Administration for illegal intersection lines.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2990.asp

The East Valley Tribune’s article points out that intersection lines could be clearly defined, if new legislation passes in the form of HB 2557, which is working its way through state legislature.  http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/cop_shop/article_4f3821e6-7860-11e1-97b7-0019bb2963f4.html#user-comment-area

The article also points out that since Tempe, AZ has ditched their photo ticketing program, accidents have dropped. Maybe Arizona will join the rest of the country in defining just where an intersection starts instead of leaving that up to the scamera profiteers, just as they typically do with all their traffic laws in the last decade.

NMA Jim Walker talks with L.A. Tarone on RLC and other motorists issues.

http://media.wilknewsradio.com/a/53436567/jim-walker-traffic-comsultant-talks-to-l-a-tarone.htm?q=Tarone

Tue, 20 Mar 2012|

Jim Walker, traffic consultant for the National Motorists Association, talks to L.A. Tarone and takes listener phone calls.

Download:  http://itmpodcasttrack.com/podcast_track.mp3?iTunes=play&stationId=3146&episodeId=5753060&url=http://podcast.wilknewsradio.com/wilk2/3379019.mp3?rhidownloadlink=true

http://nj1015.com/the-red-light-camera-scam-safety-or-shakedown/

The Red Light Camera Scam – Safety or Shakedown?
By: Ray Rossi 

You know it’s all a shakedown!

You just need concrete proof!

Well here it is!

Last month a group calling itself the “National Coalition for Safer Roads” was found to be run by American Traffic Solutions…the company that sets up and operates all the red light camera systems around the state.

Last month, according to this report, this same group obtained a great deal of exposure for red light cameras through the “National Stop on Red Week” publicity campaign.

Several police departments around the country participated, with most news reports treating the issue as a public service announcement.

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

The piece then goes on to say that “…for Stop on Red Week, NCSR released a glossy, 18-page manual for elected officials and police chiefs to use to celebrate the benefits of red light cameras.”

“Each new city that signs up for a photo ticketing contract represents millions in revenue for ATS.”

And according to this from NJ Spotlight, last July, they conducted a poll of 600 registered state voters, and they found that 77 percent support the use of these cameras at New Jersey’s busiest intersections to catch those who run red lights.  (Ban the Cams Comment:  Funny, in Houston where a poll said people "supported" RLC http://www.khou.com/home/Poll--Red-light-cameras-cruising-to-victory-drainage-fee-going-down-106342859.html, the voters banned it http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp. But hey ATS just SUES THEN! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7313022.html)

Read more: The Red Light Camera Scam – Safety or Shakedown? (Scam a lam a ding dong anyone?)

RLC SCAM GAME:  rewrite the "truth".  "Engineer" tries to "justify" short ambers BEFORE RLC INSTALL. 

(Look below to see some of the players in this little "paper".  Retting, Scamera Salesman in ATS Springfield!)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3749.asp

Academic Paper Justifies Signal Time Shortening in Missouri
Springfield, Missouri shortened yellows prior to the installation of red light cameras on advice of camera salesman.

A paper presented at the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) annual meeting two years ago offered a justification for shortening the duration of yellow warning times at intersections prior to the installation of red light cameras. Until then, the relation between signal-time shortening and automated enforcement has been anecdotal. Springfield, Missouri's former traffic engineer, Earl E. Newman, provided a formal, twenty-page defense that revealed the idea ultimately came from a red light camera salesman.

Springfield set out to hire American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to run a red light camera program in 2006. As ATS began testing to find the most promising intersections to place cameras, the company noted that the yellow warning period was significantly longer at intersections maintained by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) in comparison to city-owned locations, even though the city and state used the same ITE formula to set the signal time.

"To the vendor's credit, the vendor immediately advised staff to review the data because there was a remarkable difference between red light running at MoDOT intersections compared to city intersections," Newman wrote.

Springfield and ATS specifically targeted the fifteen highest volume intersections in the city for camera enforcement -- locations that averaged over 50,000 vehicles per day. Eleven of these busy spots were found on state-controlled roads. Testing in December 2006 found the four city locations averaged 13.1 violations per approach with a 3.9 second signal time, while the MoDOT signals with an average 1.1 seconds of longer yellow had 78 percent fewer violations -- 2.78 per approach.

"Eighteen of the twenty-three approaches to MoDOT signals had five or fewer violations in the testing before retiming," Newman wrote.

Springfield was not interested in applying the successful MoDOT timing to the problematic city intersections. Instead, the city turned to Richard Retting, who is now on the payroll of automated enforcement company Brekford Corporation http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3543.asp, for advice.

"It would have been a simple solution for the city to simply lengthen all yellow intervals to match MoDOT," Newman wrote. "Advice was sought from Richard Retting, formerly of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an ITE member and recognized expert on red light running and applications with red light camera enforcement. Richard advised the city and MoDOT to use the ITE recommended equation and find agreement on the assumptions so the yellow times would be determined in a consistent manner for all signals within the city of Springfield."

That meant a net shortening of the yellows in Springfield. Before Retting's intervention, all but two of the MoDOT intersections had yellows of 5.0 seconds or longer up to a high of 6.0 seconds. After retiming, the eleven MoDOT locations were shortened dramatically. At Chestnut and Campbell, the timing tumbled from 5.0 seconds to 3.7 seconds. Kansas and Kearney dropped from 6.0 to 4.8 seconds. The four city locations increased a half-second from 3.9 to 4.4 seconds.

Although Newman portrayed the changes as successful on the basis of safety, his data show total crashes increased 6 percent at the signals with cameras. Red light camera violations did decrease with the longer yellow at city locations, but Newman only provides numbers for two of the eleven intersections with shortened yellows, making it impossible to quantify the full impact of the changes.

A copy of the ITE paper on yellow time shortening is available in a 600k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Yellow Signal Timing. Lessons Learned from a Red Light Camera Program (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 8/11/2010) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/mo-shortenyellow.pdf

So much for "public" support of RLC!

(Thanks to Paul Henry of Florida Opponents of RLC for sharing this).

http://lobbytools.smugmug.com/Other/Poll-Graphics/i-smdHVMC/0/O/Red-Light-Camera-Poll-v4.png

 About Paul Henry
Paul has a law enforcement background, having served as a Florida Deputy Sheriff and State Trooper for over 25 years until he retired. He worked many levels and positions within the FHP, from road patrol trooper to traffic homicide investigator, then sergeant with homicide squad oversight. His last 5 years were as a lieutenant in criminal investigations, where he investigated numerous internal, ID Theft, commercial vehicle theft, and driver license/title fraud cases. Paul is best known for the September 2003 capture of Florida's most wanted fugitive Walter Rhodes, who was involved in the 1976 murders of Trooper Phillip Black and Constable Donald Irwin in South Florida. Rhodes had absconded from parole and was hiding in Washington State under a false identity. After retirement, Paul wished to pursue his automotive hobby and be left alone, but saw an increasing amount of waste in government as well as the government's increasing involvement in our private lives and liberty, so he became politically active. Paul is the founder of the non-partisan citizen's group Floridians Against REAL ID, and authored two bills for the 2012 Florida legislative session: REAL ID partial repeal and Motorist Rights (red light cameras). Paul is the REAL ID and Red Light Camera issue lead for The Tea Party Network, a communications network for over 80 Tea Party groups. Paul works as the Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs with the Florida Campaign for Liberty and lives in the Tallahassee, Florida area.

COP ON DUTY, PULLING OVER SUSPECTED DRUNK (COP DOING HIS JOB), HIT WITH RLC TICKET!!!!!!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/red_light_for_scofflaw_patrol_cops_lFw2emuHNbF3RpexnmshZM?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Local

Red light’ for scofflaw patrol cops
By BRAD HAMILTON

Last Updated: 12:41 PM, March 25, 2012

Posted: 1:52 AM, March 25, 2012

NYPD brass is cracking down on cops who go through red lights while on patrol by forcing officers to fork over $50 fines if they get caught on camera and can’t prove they were on legitimate police business.

A Manhattan cop said he was hit with a summons three months ago after he ran a red light to stop a vehicle with a potential drunken driver.

The motorist was sober but tired, so no ticket was issued, and the cop didn’t make a note of the stop in his memo book, he said.

When the precinct received the red-light summons, his supervisor grilled him — then ordered him to pay the fine.

“They didn’t believe me,” the cop said. “Where was the proof? I had to pay it out of my own pocket.”

His union blasted the policy.

“We were trained in the Police Academy that the greatest single deterrent to crime is police omnipresence, which translates into catching the bad guys by surprise,” said Pat Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.

“If that means circling a block with suspicious activity or passing a light for the sake of catching a perp off guard, then so be it.”

Police spokesman Paul Browne claimed there was no crackdown, saying marked cars have always been exempt from red-light tickets.

"Initially, the operators of unmarked police cars had to document they were responding to a job," he said in a statement.

"However, for about a year unmarked police cars have been exempt too."

Interesting take on RLC SCAM

http://westernsprings.suntimes.com/opinions/sassone/11491534-452/scifi-reality-red-light-camera.html

SciFi reality: red light camera
By Paul Sassone Columnist March 23, 2012 7:18PM

Life is like ...

What?

Today, I’m feeling that life is like a science fiction story. One of those cautionary, twilight-zoney tales about how human beings come to depend more and more on machines as their servants until one day machines take over and human beings become the servants of machines.

Has that already happened?

Submitted for your approval, the red light camera.

I hate them. You hate them. Everybody hates them, except for money-hungry municipal officials.

They’re all about revenue, not safety. They cause accidents rather than prevent them. There are so many reasons to criticize red light cameras.

To those reasons I add another:

They aren’t human.

Red light cameras are computers, machines. They measure as computers and machines. That is, they operate in micro-seconds. Human beings can’t.

Neither can human beings react and move in micro-seconds. Humans need time to react. Computers neither need — nor give — such time.

Neither do computers take into account the environment. A computer can’t tell — and doesn’t care — what traffic is like near an intersection. Is it heavy? Is traffic so close so that if a car stops fast at a changing light the car behind it will crash into it? Was the traffic light obscured by a turning semi? Isn’t slowing to 1 or 2 mph really the same as stopping before turning?

Read more: Interesting take on RLC SCAM

CA BILL WOULD CHANGE FINE FOR RIGHT TURNS, REQUIRE 1 PLUS YELLOW!

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23409

California bill would overhaul ticket cam rules
By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor
 

A California state lawmaker introduced a bill that is intended to curb the worst abuses of red-light cameras throughout the state.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley, the bill would reduce the base fine on “rolling right turn” tickets from $100 to $35. Another provision would add one second to the state-established minimum time for yellow lights outfitted with ticket cameras.

Cook said the time requirement would address concerns about communities that shorten yellow times to boost coffers.

He cited Union City’s yellow light intervals. The community, which is located between Oakland and San Jose, was forced to refund more than $1 million to ticketed motorists because their light intervals were 1.3 seconds below the state-established minimum requirement.

Cook said the changes he is calling for will benefit safety on the state’s roadways. He cited a Texas Department of Transportation study that showed increasing yellow light intervals by one second reduced wrecks at intersections by 40 percent.

“My bill provides significant financial relief to California motorists who make minor traffic violations while also reducing accidents at camera-equipped intersections,” Cook said in a statement. “If red-light cameras are truly about improving public safety, then I can’t understand why anyone would oppose my bill. The numbers don’t lie.”

A separate provision addresses a rule change to give California communities leeway in setting speed limits and, as a result, reducing yellow light intervals.

Since Jan. 1, 2012, cities throughout the state have the option to round speed limits down after a traffic study, regardless of 85th percentile travel speeds.

Critics of the rule to authorize lower speeds say it provides communities an opportunity to set up speed traps. They point out that yellow times on roads posted at 30 mph are 0.4 seconds less than at 35 mph.

Cook’s bill would require yellow times at affected intersections to be rounded up to the nearest 5-mph increment.

The bill – AB2128 – is awaiting consideration in the Assembly Transportation Committee. It is scheduled to get a hearing on April 9.

Thanks to Camerafraud for the link!
 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/street/2012/03/20/puyallup-council-talks-red-light-cameras-may-look-to-change-or-end-program/
Puyallup council talks red-light cameras, may look to change or end program
 

Post by Sara Schilling / The News Tribune on March 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm
 
March 20, 2012 11:29 pm
 

Puyallup may put the brakes on red-light cameras.
 

The City Council on Tuesday was set to consider a five-year extension of the city’s contract with its camera vendor. But council members instead opted for a 30-day extension and called for a study session to talk more about whether to keep, modify or do away with the city’s photo enforcement program.
The study session will be held next month.
 

Some council members said they oppose red-light cameras, which critics sometimes say merely are cash cows rather than safety tools.
But some council members also were wary of making a decision about the future of the photo enforcement program without more information.
“I don’t want to make a knee-jerk decision on this,” said Councilman John Palmer.
 

The city has used the cameras for about five years. Today, there are 13 at six different intersections. They belong to the vendor American Traffic Solutions.
A Puyallup Police officer reviews the images before a ticket is issued. The $124 tickets are treated like parking tickets and don’t go on people’s driving records.
Deputy Police Chief Bryan Jeter told the council that the cameras are making intersections safer and are a “force multiplier” for the police department.
“We can’t be at every traffic signal,” he said. “(The cameras do) change driving behavior. We are confident in that.
 

 Ban the Cams:  Did ATS teach you that at their Junket???? 
 

ATS front group pulled that same "force multipler" claim over in Baytown! 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3225.asp  Quote:   "group funded by ATS and related contractors took out an advertisement in the local newspaper entitled "Open Letter to Fellow Baytonians" claiming that red light cameras "saved lives" and acted as a "force multiplier""
 

Wonder if this is part of the press "points" ATS produces for the cops and city officials!  Force "multipler".
 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3581.asp  Quote:  Coulson ensured whenever Davis conducted interviews with reporters that he used ATS-approved talking points and materials. It did not help, as Davis did not think the Herald's May 2 online article was fair. Reporter Scott North had described city officials as "a bit prickly" when responding to questions about the photo enforcement program that had generated $4.7 million in less than a year and a half, which did not sit well with Davis.
 
 "Force Mutiplier",  more like Fraud Multipler Puyallup!
 

Borough President:  RLC USED TO FILL CITY COFFERS!

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/bp_staten_islanders_to_catch_b.html

CameraFraud National made this observation:
Local New York official admits the truth on scameras: "The measures, he said, were not aimed at improving public safety or the quality of life, but only to keep filling the city's coffers in the face of rising pensions costs."

BP: Staten Islanders to catch break under new pension law
Published: Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 12:10 AM     Updated: Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 6:30 AM
 By Tom Wrobleski Staten Island Advance

 
Staten Island Advance/Anthony DePrimo

Borough President James Molinaro said the city has been feeling the pinch for years, and had dipped into the pockets of New Yorkers through increased property taxes and fees, and by slamming motorists with red-light cameras and hitting restaurant owners with health violations, in order to fill the gap.

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.  --- Borough President James P. Molinaro said last night that new pension legislation signed in Albany would lead to billions of dollars in savings for New York in coming years, freeing up funds for police and fire protection, senior and youth programs and parks.
Giving a "State of the Local Economy" address to around 200 business and community leaders at the JCC of Staten Island, Sea View, Molinaro said Gov. Andrew Cuomo's pension reform law, set to take effect April 1, will save the city $21 billion, and the state $80 billion, over the next 30 years.

"Just like Nixon went to China, the governor saw what was happening to the state," Molinaro said, "and said something has to be done. And he did it. And he's to be commended for it."

Molinaro attended the bill-signing ceremony last week.

Without pension reform, Molinaro said counties across the state would have gone bankrupt trying to pay their pension costs.

Molinaro said the city has been feeling the pinch for years, and had dipped into the pockets of New Yorkers through increased property taxes and fees, and by banging motorists with red-light cameras and hitting restaurant owners with health violations, in order to fill the gap.

Read more: Borough President: RLC USED TO FILL CITY COFFERS!

(Ban the Cams note:  Some AZ towns have trigger lines that are 2 CAR LENGTHS PAST THE STOP BAR.  It essentially acts like a short amber!  See:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2990.asp

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/committee-oks-new-definition-for-intersections/article_e0ea7367-bd5d-5f62-abbb-f3fd45e80bad.html

Committee OKs new definition for intersections
HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services azdailysun.com | Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:00 am |

.PHOENIX -- Arizona drivers may get a bit of leeway in trying to make the light without getting nabbed by a camera for running a red light.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 8-4 Tuesday to recraft in state law exactly what constitutes an "intersection." HB2557 redefines it in the state's traffic code to include a much broader area.

That change is significant.

It specifically means the pavement sensors that trigger red light cameras to record violations have to be moved. More to the point, it means driving activities that now result in citations would no longer be illegal under state law.

Tuesday's vote came despite opposition from the city of Phoenix which provided statistics saying their red light cameras as currently operating have reduced deaths and injuries at intersections.

But Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs said the testimony of a Phoenix police commander, while interesting, is meaningless. The Gilbert Republican said the only evidence that would convince him the change will make a safety difference would have to come from traffic safety engineers, which is an entirely different specialty.

The move is a victory for Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, who has waged a campaign against all forms of photo enforcement for years.

Under Arizona law, an intersection is defined as an area within what would be imaginary lines extended from each curb. That creates a box, with communities that use red light cameras putting their sensors just inside that box.

But Antenori told colleagues only Alaska uses that same definition. His legislation would bring Arizona into conformance with 38 other states.

As approved, HB2557 says the intersection starts at any painted "stop" line or at the first crosswalk line a vehicle would encounter going into an intersection, whichever comes first.

From a practical standpoint, that means if a driver already is in the crosswalk when the light turns red, there would be no violation.

Under current law, the driver might be in the crosswalk when the light changes but then would trigger the red light camera after entering the box that now defines the intersection.

Antenori said that's only fair.

"Many motorists do not know where the intersection begins and ends," he said. "And many are already under the impression that the stop line is the intersection line."

The result, Antenori said, is they get a ticket -- unfairly, he believes.

Read more: Committee OKs new definition for intersections (AZ)

http://saferstreetsla.org/404/mrca-stop-sign-cameras-crosswalk/

MRCA Stop Sign Cameras: The Crosswalk to Nowhere
Posted on March 16, 2012 by Jay

Back in 2010, about the time I began studying red-light cameras, I posted a critique of the MRCA’s stop sign camera scam on my other blog, The Freedom Minute http://www.freedomminute.com/, entitled The $100 Stop Sign Scam http://wp.me/pl9oQ-58. (It’s now $175) That post generated more comments than all other posts combined and it’s still going. I posted the following two pictures taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park http://www.lamountains.com/parks.asp?parkid=34 at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana.

Here’s what I wrote back then: “You can plainly see that the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here. And since there’s no common sense reason to stop, other than if you don’t, you’ll get a $175 ticket; many motorists only slow down rather than come to a complete stop.” 

Well apparently the MRCA got tired of taking the heat about the placement of this stop sign and camera, so they now moved it up the hill further into the parking area.

As you can see, it’s still pretty much in the middle of the road, not at any intersection. But in order to try to justify ticketing drivers $175 if they slowly roll past the sign, the MRCA painted a crosswalk there. Of course there’s no valid reason to have a crosswalk at that location, other than the MRCA needing an excuse to generate millions of dollars in revenue from unsuspecting park visitors.

But if you are unconvinced that revenue generation is their only motive, just take a look at this series of pictures.

In the first, you can see that the crosswalk really doesn’t lead to anything on the other side of the road.

And for years, there was no need for a crosswalk in this location. The next two pictures show the area in 2010 and how it appears today in 2012.

Read more: MRCA Stop Sign Cameras: The Crosswalk to Nowhere

Texas Town Ignores Anti-Red Light Camera Petition
Texas activists plan to fight back after Port Lavaca refuses to put anti-red light camera initiative to a public vote.

(Ban the Cams:  TTSC (Chicago) and Redflex, ONE IN THE SAME! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3445.asp)

The city council in Port Lavaca, Texas voted unanimously last week to ignore the certified request from its residents to hold a public vote on whether the red light camera program should continue. After meeting behind closed doors, the council made the decision to side with Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company that operates the cameras. Redflex filed suit on March 4 to block the election, although the company disguised its involvement in papers filed with the Calhoun County court.

"The Texas Traffic Safety Coalition hereby brings this original petition for declaratory judgment against defendant the city of Port Lavaca and shows as follows," the lawsuit began. "Plaintiff Texas Traffic Safety Coalition (hereinafter 'TTSC') is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas. TTSC is a non-profit organization whose mission is to make the roads and intersections in the state of Texas safer for drivers, passengers and pedestrians."

As TheNewspaper reported http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3445.asp last year, the Texas Traffic Safety Coalition incorporation papers filed with the Texas secretary of state named three directors: David Goldenberg, Gregory Goldner and David Smolensky. It is not a grassroots group. In fact, all three of those individuals are officers of Resolute Consulting, a public relations firm retained by Redflex. This arrangement allows Redflex to disguise its involvement in the suit.

Redflex argues that the referendum must be rejected because the topic of red light cameras is not a subject matter that can be put to the judgment of voters as a matter that affects public safety, health, peace and welfare in the city. Redflex also argued that the red light camera ordinance "affects the city budget" and therefore cannot be put to a vote.

"In the event the ordinance was repealed as directed by the petition... the city would be forced to breach its contract with its vendor resulting in significant legal liability greatly exceeding $1,000,000," Redflex attorney Matthew R. Beatty argued. "Funding for that liability and costs associated therewith, such as attorneys' fees and court costs, would come directly from the city's budget handcuffing its ability to meet other budgetary obligations and putting the city in a perilous financial condition."

Initiative sponsor Carl Baugh, director of Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras http://www.banplcams.com/, has lined up legal representation and intends to fight the city in court.

"This is no longer about red light cameras, this is about the people's right to petition their government and participate in the political process," Baugh said in a statement Sunday. "If the city is allowed to unilaterally deny our rights for a red light camera petition without recourse, what rights will they deny us next?"

CT Anti RLC site:  Stop the Cameras!  www.stopthecameras.org

http://stopthecameras.org/red-light-camera-fact-sheet/

Red Light Camera Fact Sheet

Red light cameras are sold to the public as a way for police to catch dangerous red light runners and protect the public. What they are, in fact, is a way for private companies to make millions by ticketing the public en masse, often for barely perceptible infractions, while violating fundamental civil liberties — with no demonstrable safety benefit.

Red light cameras don’t make us safer

Supporters of red light cameras cite a study by the insurance industry that claims the cameras save lives and reduce injuries. But independent studies and reviews of the statistics in individual cities often find no safety improvements and sometimes report that accidents and injuries increase after cameras are installed.

For example, the Kansas City Police Department recently concluded that accidents and injuries increased http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/24/3389558/kc-police-officials-request-more.html at intersections where red light cameras were deployed. Claims that the city of Los Angeles’ now-defunct traffic-light program improved safety were unsupported http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@ctr_contributor/documents/contributor_web_content/lacityp_011808.pdf, according to a 2010 audit of the program. A 2011 municipal audit in Denver http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/co-denveraudit.pdf concluded that no safety benefit had been demonstrated for red light cameras and recommended removing them if no safety improvements could be shown.

Red light cameras are about revenue

The vast majority of tickets issued from red light traffic cameras are for minor, technical violations of traffic rules that don’t threaten public safety, usually for a rolling stop before a right turn on red or even, in some places, for stopping slightly over the white stop line at an intersection. For example, over a three-year period in Temple Terrace, Florida, 93 percent of the tickets issued were for right-turn violations http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/red%20light-cameras-hunting-down-drivers-in-temple-terrace-hillsborough/1055120. When the city of Knoxville stopped issuing tickets for right-turn violations based on camera evidence but continued ticketing for other violations, the number of citations dropped 90 percent.  http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/nov/11/red-light-cam-vendor-sues-knoxville/ 

(Ban the Cams note:  ATS IS SUING KNOXVILLE OVER NOT BEING ABLE TO CITE FOR RIGHT TURNS, claim was "contract"! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3636.asp)

Revenues are important not only to the cities but to the private vendors that operate the camera systems and which are often paid a percentage of the fines from tickets. The Denver audit http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/co-denveraudit.pdf noted that red light camera systems “were sold as public safety enhancements but are widely viewed as a cash grab.” A study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Caution---Red-Light-Cameras-Ahead.pdf warned that “Contracts between private camera vendors and cities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety.”

Red light cameras violate our constitutional rights

Red light cameras take video that shows license plates but can’t identify the driver, so the ticket is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Unless the owner can prove that someone else was behind the wheel, the owner must pay. Contesting a ticket usually involves a trip to court and a day off from work, but the accused party never gets to confront an accuser. In Los Angeles http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/local/la-me-red-light-cameras-20110728, the courts declined to pursue ticketed vehicle owners because there was no proof they had been driving when the offense occurred.

Also of great concern is the way that the contracts with private vendors allow those vendors to set public policy on traffic enforcement. Some contracts forbid municipalities to take measures, such as lengthening yellow lights, that would improve safety but cut into revenues by reducing the number of violations. According to U.S. PIRG http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Caution---Red-Light-Cameras-Ahead.pdf, many contracts require cities to ticket for right turn violations, set ticket quotas, allow vendors to veto camera locations or impose large penalties for terminating the contracts.

Voters are rejecting red light cameras

Fifteen states already forbid red light cameras, and there are movements in many others to ban them. Across the country, communities that once embraced red light cameras are scrapping them.

■The city of Los Angeles http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/local/la-me-red%20light-cameras-20110728 abandoned its seven-year-old traffic light camera system in July 2011 after a public outcry and reports showing no improvements in safety.
■In November 2011, voters in Albuquerque http://www.koat.com/news/30563116/detail.html called for the removal of red light cameras that had been in operation for seven years.
■In November 2010, voters in Houston http://www.chron.com/default/article/Houston-voters-reject-redlight-cameras-by-wide-1619320.php rejected the city’s four-year-old red light camera program by a wide margin in a referendum.

Red light cameras punish the poor

Even if red light cameras were evenly distributed, the fines amount to highly regressive taxation by citation. A fine, whether for $50 or $150, is more painful to a poor person than a rich one. A police officer may use discretion to avoid taking half the weekly paycheck of a poor, working man or woman for a minor traffic infraction, but a camera never will. In addition, it is often difficult for people with low-paying jobs to get time off to challenge a ticket.

On top of that inequity, red light cameras are not evenly distributed. They’re placed by design, and often by law, only in large cities.The people who live in those large cities, typically living on lower incomes than people in the camera-free suburbs, are most likely to be driving there.
 

Wentzville, MO RLC GONE WHEN CONTRACT EXPIRES!  Alderman calls Police "safety" claims "INCONCLUSIVE"!

http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/news/wentzville-board-adopts-new-animal-control-law/article_37fad0d5-6413-55fb-8e54-3aa89dfe676a.html

Wentzville board adopts new animal control law

By Raymond Castile > This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. stltoday.com | Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 12:00 am |

Wentzville has a new animal control ordinance, doing away with the old laws that placed special restrictions on pit bulls.

The Board of Aldermen on March 14 voted 5-1 to enact the new law.

During the same meeting, the board voted unanimously to allow its red-light camera contract to expire in 2013.

The board had been examining the animal control issue for months. In the fall, pit bull owners and supporters packed board meetings, calling on the city to repeal its breed-specific laws.

The old ordinance did not allow pit bulls, pure or mixed, to be outside a home or kennel unless the dogs were leashed and muzzled. It required the dogs to remain in a locked pen, or inside a house with the windows closed.

The new law eliminates the pit bull section. It does not mention specific breeds, applying the same rules to all animals, including cats and other pets. The law emphasizes owner responsibility, punishing owners who fail to control their animals by allowing them to roam the streets, attack people or become nuisances.

The law allows owners to use electronic underground fence systems to contain their animals in their back yards without requiring a leash or tether. This provision bothered Alderman Vann Sample, Ward 2, who argued in a previous meeting that electronic fences do not ensure public safety because dogs could them. On March 14, Sample cast the lone dissenting vote against the ordinance.

The city's red-light camera system is set to disappear after its contract with Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. expires Sept. 30, 2013.

The board decided not to renew the contract, which the city signed in February 2007. The city has two red-light cameras, both installed in fall 2008 — one at the intersection of Interstate 70 and the South Service Road, and another at Meyer Road and Wentzville Parkway.

Since the cameras became operational, they have generated $222,100 in net revenue for Wentzville. The cameras average 90 tickets monthly at $100 each. Redflex receives $48.50 per ticket. In 2011, the city received $64,020 in net revenue after Redflex's cut of $57,230.

Police Chief Lisa Harrison, in a report to the board, said the camera on the congested I-70 overpass was of immeasurable benefit. With impending construction near the intersection, the camera would be instrumental in alleviating congestion, she said. Without that camera, traffic during construction would be "beyond unbearable and extremely unsafe," Harrison said.

Without a camera at Meyer Road and Wentzville Parkway, the intersection would become deadly, she said. The intersection has two uphill approaches with low visibility, she said.

Because many people assume all the city's intersections have red-light cameras, losing the system could have an impact beyond the two intersections, Harrison said. If word gets out that the city no longer has any cameras, city-wide accidents could 'skyrocket," she said.

But the aldermen did not agree. Sample said he objected to money from tickets going out of state instead of staying in the city. He said accident statistics Harrison provided to illustrate the system's effectiveness were "inconclusive."

Alderman Rick Stokes, Ward 3, agreed with Sample. "I say scrap it," he said.

Alderman Nick Guccione, Ward 3, said he did not like removing the "human factor" from law enforcement, preferring that police officers on the scene determine whether someone ran a red light. Guccione said the cameras "criminalized citizens."

http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2012/03/16/opinion/doc4f63d8b4d474c253044925.txt?viewmode=fullstory

No support for red light cameras

Published: Friday, March 16, 2012

From the Office of State Sen. Kevin Witkos

Last week, the General Assembly’s Transportation Committee held a public hearing to gather input from members of the public, lawmakers, lobbyists and other interested parties on its final bills that will be considered during this year’s legislative session. Among the many bills that were discussed, I submitted testimony in opposition to one that would allow red light cameras to be installed and used to monitor intersections and issue fines to those who run red lights. At a time when red light camera laws are being repealed or defeated by popular referendum throughout our nation, why is Connecticut moving in the opposite direction?

Officially, the bill is called H.B. 5458, An Act Concerning Municipal Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Devices At Certain Intersections. Like many of the bills that are proposed each year, this one may not be fully understood by simply reading its title. While an “automated traffic enforcement safety device” might sound like a useful tool, it is really just a nicer way of saying “red light camera.” After studying this issue for some time, I will share three of my concerns with you here, including the intense lobbying effort, matters of safety versus revenue, and the system of issuing fines.

First, I am concerned over the large amount of dollars that has been spent lobbying in favor of this legislation.

In 2011 alone, red light camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) spent approximately $84,000 to lobby in support of automated enforcement in our state.

However, we also must keep in mind this company’s close relationship with the non-profit advocacy organization called the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR), which has been pushing for this change in law in recent years. When you look at the funding, ATS has long had close financial and personnel relations with NCSR. In fact, ATS provided start up funding to NCSR and continues to do so. Many ATS executives also serve on the board of directors for the NCSR. The next time this group issues a study or report in favor of red light cameras, we should remember these facts.

As a police officer, I am dedicated to improving the safety of drivers, pedestrians and anyone who might find themselves near traffic.

However, I believe the push to pass this legislation is not based on improving safety but rather increasing revenue for ailing municipal budgets.

I am concerned that these cameras would be used not where most of the accidents occur but rather where there is the most traffic – and the greatest opportunity to gain revenue.

When the city of Chicago began operating red light cameras, some controversial issues came up. For example, the length of a yellow light depends on where you drive.

Suburban Chicago has yellow lights that last 4.5 seconds, but urban Chicago has yellow lights lasting 3 seconds, the bare minimum under federal safety guidelines.

This small shift makes it harder for drivers to stop in time and results in a higher number of tickets being issued. In addition, one highly traveled intersection brought in over $1 million during the length of one year.

However, 98% of these tickets were issued to those who did not allegedly come to a complete stop before turning right on red. These examples show how manipulation can affect everyday drivers in a negative manner.

Read more: No support for red light cameras

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20175647/group-protests-red-light-cameras

Group protests red light cameras in Fremont
By Rob Dennis
The Arguscontracostatimes.com
Posted:   03/14/2012 05:54:39 PM PDT
March 15, 2012 1:31 PM GMT Updated:   03/15/2012 06:31:19 AM PDT

FREMONT -- Red light camera opponents will protest Saturday at the intersection of Mowry Avenue and Fremont Boulevard.

The Red Light Camera Protest Group of Alameda County will begin the demonstration at noon.

The group wants to bring attention to the camera programs active in Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, Hayward, Fremont and Newark.

Protesters also emphasize the importance of extending yellow light times, contending this strategy will reduce red light running but is being ignored by cities.

HOW THE MCRA STOP SCAM REALLY PLAYS OUT!

http://saferstreetsla.org/422/drivers-roll-stop-signs-franklin-canyon-park/

Why Drivers Roll Through Stop Signs in Franklin Canyon Park
Posted on March 16, 2012 by Jay

The MRCA loves to characterize drivers who are slapped with $175 fines for slowly rolling through intentionally misplaced stop signs as dangerous scofflaws who “blow through stop signs”.  But as this video of an actual violation caught on the illegal stop sign cameras in Franklin Canyon park shows, drivers are not blowing through stop signs, nor are they likely to injure anyone.  Watch the video.  You’ll see how the driver slows down and rolls up to the intersection where he actually pauses for a moment before continuing.

That person got a $175 ticket. Did he deserve it? Technically, he violated the stop sign.  But is it really a violation when the stop sign is placed so far in front of the intersection that drivers can not possibly see any cross traffic if they stop right at the sign?  In addition, the markings on the pavement that are supposed to indicate where to stop are so worn away they can’t clearly be seen, especially with the mixture of sunlight and shadow cast across the roadway. 

This picture was taken as I was stand directly over the markings and you still can’t see them well. So how can drivers be expected to see them?

Plus, the stop sign serves no purpose where it is placed. In the picture below, you can see The fencing on the right and the concrete wall on the left prevents this from being a pedestrian crossing. So why place the sign there?

It’s no wonder the L.A. Weekly reported http://www.laweekly.com/2012-03-15/news/stop-sign-camera-traps-MRCA that 70,000 tickets generating over $2.4 million in fines were given out at these tricky stop sign camera locations. 

Now here’s the driver’s view when stopped at the sign in the video.

There’s no way you can see if there’s any cross traffic approaching (there actually can’t be any cross traffic because the roadway that intersects just ahead is a one way street heading in the opposite direction away from the intersection) so you have to roll up a few feet to see if it’s safe to proceed. But instead of placing the stop sign a few feet further up and painting a clear stop line on the pavement, the MRCA is content to create a situation where drivers are encouraged to roll past the stop sign to where they can actually see the cross street. The only possible explanation is that the MRCA wants lots of violators so they can generate lots of fines.

And it’s not just the stop sign depicted above that’s placed in an unusual and confusing location.  See my post http://saferstreetsla.org/404/mrca-stop-sign-cameras-crosswalk/ about the stop sign cameras in Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park http://www.lamountains.com/parks.asp?parkid=34 at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana.

And look at this other location in Franklin Canyon Park.

It’s another location where the stop sign and camera are placed well before the intersection, encouraging drivers to slowly roll past so they can see if anyone is approaching from their left. Clearly these are not isolated incidents but a concerted effort on the part of the MRCA to shakedown visitors to their parks.

The MRCA isn’t interested in safety. If they were, they’d make sure the stop signs were located directly at the intersections and that the pavement markings were clearly visible. But they’re not interested in safety. It’s all a big con job. They’re interested in generating as much income from unsuspecting park visitors as they can.

Anyone who is involved in or facilitates this scam should be ashamed of themselves. I often wonder how they can sleep at night or look their family members in the eyes when they describe what they are a part of. It’s unfortunate that some people have no conscience at all.

Related posts:

1.CBS2 Reports on MRCA Stop Sign Camera Scam  http://saferstreetsla.org/320/cbs2-reports-mrca-stop-sign-camera-scam/
2.MRCA Stop Sign Cameras: The Crosswalk to Nowhere  http://saferstreetsla.org/404/mrca-stop-sign-cameras-crosswalk/