Red Light Camera News

RLC moratorium letter by Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court

• BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  Many reforms in SB 1342 which included needed due process reforms were GUTTED by the Clemens Amendment.  Read more:  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/the-sb-1342-reform-bill-has-been-gutted-by-camera-side-bill-not-worth-supporting-as-it-stands.html

• Clemens has since gotton defensive of what he DID.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4063.asp

http://blog.motorists.org/pinellas-county-circuit-court-clerk/

Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Posted on April 2nd, 2013 in Red-Light Cameras

Editor’s Note: A few weeks ago, Ken Burke, the County Clerk of Circuit Courts in Pinellas County, Florida, wrote a letter to the Mayor of St. Petersburg detailing his many concerns over the city’s red-light camera program. The letter created quite a stir, and we applaud Mr. Burke for speaking out. Given his “insider” status, his observations are worth noting. We’ve reprinted his letter in its entirety.

February 20, 2013

The Honorable Bill Foster
Mayor, City of St. Petersburg
175 5th Street N
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Dear Mayor Foster,

Since the inception of the Red Light Camera Violation program, the Clerk’s office has received a significant amount of inquiries from citizens who have received these violations. Many of these citizens have correctly pointed out flaws in the statute which create an unfair process.

Citizens are resentful because of this. Although red light camera violations may represent a minority of the traffic cases received by this office from law enforcement agencies, the amount of time spent with citizens dealing with issues deriving from this flawed statute is clearly disproportionate. These citizens are upset with the poor communication, insufficient information, and resulting unfair penalties. During a normal, non red light camera traffic stop, the driver of the vehicle is identified using the driver’s license. The driver acknowledges receiving the traffic citation by signing the bottom of the citation. If there is a disagreement with the citation, the driver contacts the Clerk’s office to set up a court hearing. Clerk’s offices play an integral part of the process but only after there is direct communication between the law enforcement officer and the driver.

The procedure for red light camera violations contrasts sharply with the above. There is no acknowledgement by the driver of receiving the citation at the time of issuance. Therefore, a significant number of red light camera violations are issued erroneously to the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver. In addition, because Pinellas County is a tourist destination there is the added complication of violators driving rental cars. The result is a delay in direct communication between the issuer and the actual violator. A number of people have communicated to the Clerk’s office that the first notification they received of a red light camera violation is the Uniform Traffic Citation rather than the Notice of Violation from the city, as the Notice of Violation has been mailed to the rental company and not the driver.

There are many issues that significantly distinguish the red light camera Notice of Violations from the usual Uniform Traffic Citations, such as the following:

• 1.The driver does not receive the citation at the time of the incident.

• 2.The driver does not have to acknowledge driving the vehicle at time of the incident.

• 3.The fine on the Notice of Violation is $158. If not paid within 30 days of the date of the violation, the city no longer accepts the payment.

• 4.If the driver does not pay within 30 days, the violation is in limbo. After the 30th day up until the time of issuance of the Uniform Traffic Citation (usually 60 days) there is no method for the driver to pay the fine. This creates a good amount of consternation on the part of the driver.

• 5.Once the fine becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation, it jumps from $158 to $264.

• 6.The driver cannot challenge the red light violation through the court system at the $158 fine level. The driver must wait until a Uniform Traffic Citation is issued at the fine rate of $264 before scheduling a court appearance.

• 7.There is language included on the Notice of Violation sent out by the cities instructing the alleged violator: “To contest this violation: If you choose to appear before an official of the county court or plead not guilty, do not respond to this Notice of Violation. You will receive a Uniform Traffic Citation within 60 days of the violation date via certified mail. Instructions will be provided to you by the county clerk’s office as to how you should proceed.” No where included in this language is it mentioned that the fine will be $264 instead of $158. Also, it is illegal for the Clerk’s office to render legal advice. The role of Clerk’s office is to facilitate a person who wishes to contest a matter by scheduling a court date-not to “give instructions on how to proceed.”

• 8.The registered owner of the vehicle receives the notice of violation, regardless of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offense. The owner has the option to complete an affidavit transferring liability to the driver. The driver will not receive a notice of violation with a fine amount of $158. The driver instead will receive a uniform traffic citation, which is a $264 fine.

After a red light camera violation becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation:

• 9.If the person receiving the Uniform Traffic Citation claims they were not the driver, and contact with the Clerk’s office is within 30 days of the issuance date, the Clerk’s office supplies the person with an affidavit form which they mail to the city. The issuing city voids the citation, notifies the Clerk’s office, and may reissue the citation to the violator named in the affidavit.

• 10.When the contact with the Clerk’s office is 30 days after the issuance of the Uniform Traffic Citation and the person indicates that they were not the driver, the Clerk’s office can set up a court appearance at the request of the person who was issued the citation.

• 11.No points are issued against a person’s driver’s record in the case of a Uniform Traffic Citation being issued for a red light camera violation. As this is different from other traffic moving violations, citizens do inquire about the need to take a driver’s safety course.

The above items demonstrate how flawed the statute authorizing the Red Light Camera Violation program is. Citizens are resentful because of this. The red light camera violations represent a minority of the traffic related citations received by the Clerk’s office from law enforcement agencies across the county. The time spent with citizens, however, dealing with the issues due to the problems with the statute represents a disproportional amount. There is a basic unfairness.

A residual effect of the Red Light Camera Violation program is the ill will people have for our area. A citizen visiting from Delray Beach communicated to me that he was in St. Petersburg for a photo shoot for an advertising spread for a department store. He is a self-employed photographer and has the say so on the location of the shoot. He relayed to me that he will no longer pick Pinellas County to bring his business. He estimated that he dropped $4,000 in the local economy for his day’s work. He had a rental car and resented the fact that he was never given the opportunity to pay the fine of $158 instead of $264. He was correct since there was initially no direct communication to him as driver, as it was the rental car company who received the violation. Once the rental company completed the affidavit, he as the driver of the car no longer had the opportunity to pay the $158.

It is up to us in government to represent the interests of our citizens. When a statute which is discretionary to implement is so flawed, it should not be implemented.

The purpose of my letter is to request the City of St. Petersburg impose a moratorium on the issuance of red light camera violations and for the city to work with the League of Cities to correct the unfairness in the statute. The original statute was heavily supported by the League of Cities when it was passed. There should be an effort by the League to now correct the flaws in the bill. I will be glad to work with the city to educate legislators on the needed corrective action.

Please know that I am reaching out to each city within the county that has implemented this voluntary program to make the same request and to offer my help with the solution.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

Ken Burke

cc:
Honorable Charlie Gerdes, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Jim Kennedy, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Bill Dudley, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Leslie Curran, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Steve Kornell, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Karl Nurse, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Wengay Newton, Sr., Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg
Honorable Jeff Danner, Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg

SIGNATURES REACHED in IOWA CITY, IA!  RLC BAN PETITION FILED WITH CITY!

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Petition-Filed-to-Ban-Traffic-Cameras-in-Iowa-City-200942191.html

Petition Filed to Ban Traffic Cameras in Iowa City
By Gregg Hennigan, Reporter

Story Created: Apr 1, 2013 at 4:30 PM CDT

(Story Updated: Apr 1, 2013 at 4:54 PM CDT )
IOWA CITY, Iowa – Iowa City residents opposed to red-light and speed cameras hope they can go where no other community in the state or the Legislature has gone by banning the devices.

They moved closer to that Monday by submitting a petition they hope forces the City Council to either adopt an ordinance outlawing traffic-enforcement cameras and other automated surveillance technology, like drones, or to send the matter to voters to decide.

But even if the petition is valid, there remains the major unresolved question of whether it was brought in a timely manner and therefore whether the City Council even has to act.

The petition effort was led by Iowa City residents Aleksey Gurtovoy and Martha Hampel, with the aid of the unusual pairing of the Johnson County Republicans and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

Gurtovoy said they filed signatures from 3,322 registered Iowa City voters with the City Clerk’s Office Monday. They needed 2,500.

Gurtovoy said the cameras do not improve public safety, raise privacy concerns and are a money grab by cities.

“There are so many downsides,” he said. “If it wasn’t for revenue, this wouldn’t even be on table.”

Although the City Council voted 4-3 a year ago to allow traffic-enforcement cameras, none are up yet and are unlikely to be for at least a year as the Iowa Department of Transportation develops rules for their use on state routes.

The ordinance proposed in the petition would ban not only traffic-enforcement cameras but also drones and automatic license-plate recognition systems. The City Council has only considered red-light cameras.

The city now has 20 days to verify the signatures on the petition, which it will do by comparing them with voter rolls, City Clerk Marian Karr said. If it is deemed insufficient, the petitioners could ask for 15 more days to collect signatures.

A sufficient petition could set up an interesting legal dispute.

Gurtovoy and Hampel, backed by ACLU of Iowa attorneys, maintain that what they are seeking is what the City Charter classifies as an initiative. Last year they filed three affidavits to start an initiative, but City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes said it was a referendum.

An initiative proposes a measure for the council’s consideration. A referendum requires the City Council to reconsider an existing measure, and a referendum petition must be filed within 60 days of the adoption of the measure in question or not until two years after an adoption.

The City Council adopted the red-light camera ordinance in February 2012, meaning a referendum would not be timely.

In both an initiative and a referendum, if the council does not take the requested action, the proposal goes to the public for a vote.

City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes said Monday that she would research the matter further and hopes to come to a determination soon.

“I have not spent any time on the ACLU’s review, and my plan is to take a look at that in more detail and see what I think,” she said.

The City Council would have the city's final say on whether it is a referendum or initiative. That opinion could be appealed to District Court.

While some state lawmakers have proposed bans or restrictions on traffic-enforcement cameras in recent years, those bills have gone nowhere. Alan Kemp, executive director of the Iowa League of Cities, said he was unaware of any city that had outlawed cameras either by a vote of a city council or the public.

Kemp and the ACLU of Iowa said they did not know of of any other Iowa town that allows citizens to petition for reconsideration of a law or put it up for a public vote.

Ban the Cams note:  The one thing the scamera side is afraid of are public voters deciding the issue in general.  The scamera side tends to do all sort of tricks to try to prevent any referendums in places they feel they will lose.  This has occured in places like  Texas, Washington State, and California.

Park Hill NY Neighbors want the tree replaced and the camera installation removed!

http://hudsonvalley.news12.com/news/decades-old-tree-cut-down-to-accommodate-red-light-camera-in-park-hill-1.4982984?qr=1

Decades-old tree cut down to accommodate red-light camera in Park Hill
Published: April 1, 2013 1:31 PM

 
Neighbors want the tree replaced and the camera installation removed. (April 1, 2013 1:32 PM)

Controversy is growing over a red-light camera in one Yonkers neighborhood.

Residents in Park Hill say they're unhappy that a decades-old cherry tree was cut down to accommodate the camera.

The city permitted American Traffic Solutions to install a red-light camera at the intersection of Rumsey Road and Spruce Street, but the company also cut down half the tree because it was blocking the camera.

Now, neighbors want the tree replaced and the camera installation removed.

City officials say a subcontractor never had permission to cut down the tree. They say they're working on possible solutions that include replacing the tree and re-thinking the camera's location.
 

Arizona: Longer Yellow Reduced Accidents (Chandler plays games to hide truth in Statistics.)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4064.asp

Arizona: Longer Yellow Reduced Accidents
Chandler, Arizona sees decrease in traffic collisions after increasing yellow times slightly.

Increasing the duration of the yellow signal at eight intersections in Chandler, Arizona reduced accidents, according to six years' worth of data collected by the city. In June 2007, the city increased the yellow at the intersection of Alma School Road and Ray by just 0.5 seconds. Officials were pleased to see a big drop in collisions, so timing was extended from 4.0 to 4.5 seconds at seven additional locations in November 2008.

Proponents of automated ticketing may grudgingly admit longer yellows have a benefit, but they insist it the effect fades over time. This has not proved the case in Chandler. Three years after the yellow was lengthened at Alma School Road and Ray, accidents had dropped 47 percent. Adding in the results for Alma School Road at Walmart, Knox Road, Motorola, Galveston Street and Erie Street shows an overall drop of 40 percent in accidents. Chandler omits full data from Alma School Road at Warner Road and Fire Station Number Two because the locations were reconstructed in 2007, skewing the "before" data.

The safety benefit of longer yellow timing is well documented. A 2004 study by the Texas Transportation Institute concluded the addition of one second in yellow to the minimum standard set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers produced a 53 percent reduction in violations. Fewer violations also translated into greater safety, with TTI scientists finding a 40 percent reduction in collisions attributable to the signal adjustment (view study http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp). Chandler's yellow time increase was much more modest than the one TTI studied.

The reduction in violations, however, creates a dilemma for cities like Chandler because two of the longer yellow intersections -- Alma School Road at Warner Road and Ray -- have red light cameras. Longer yellows reduce revenue, creating a conflict of interest between financial and safety interests. Chandler City Transportation Engineer Mike Mah used statistical techniques that marginalized the impact that the longer yellows had and came up with excuses to explain away the improvement.

"We had surmised back in March 2010 that perhaps the reduction in crash rate may be due to reduced traffic volumes, reduced economic activity, or heightened police enforcement," Mah wrote in a February 27 memo to the city council.

Instead of totaling the number of accidents at the intersections with full datasets -- there were 264 collisions before before and 158 after -- Mah took the change at each intersection and averaged the result. This technique exaggerates the influence of a small increase in accidents at one location, Alma School Road and Erie Street. There were 12 accidents in the before period and 15 in the after -- a 25 percent increase, but a difference of only three accidents.

Read more: Arizona: Longer Yellow Reduced Accidents (Chandler plays games to hide truth in Statistics.)

No honor among theves.  NJ goverment entities involved in suit over RLC loot.

http://www.nj.com/suburbannews/index.ssf/2013/03/union_county_suing_springfield.html

Union County suing Springfield for part of revenue from red-light camera tickets

Union County suing Springfield for part of revenue from red-light camera tickets
By Frank Mustac / Independent Press Suburban News
on March 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM, updated March 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM  
 
SPRINGFIELD — A progress report on a lawsuit involving red-light cameras filed by Union County against Springfield Township was delivered to Township Committee members by the municipality’s attorney.

The legal briefing was presented in closed session without the public present during the March 27 committee meeting. Committee members were to vote on a resolution regarding the matter, but when asked, township officials did not release any information about the case or what if any action was taken by the committee.

A complaint filed in Superior Court in February 2012 by attorney for Union County Robert E. Barry indicates the county alleges essentially that Springfield Township violated state statute when it set up a red-light camera pilot program and withheld money collected from traffic tickets issued to motorists through the pilot program.

Of the $85 amount of each ticket, $55 should be shared equally between the county and township, the complaint goes on to say.

An answer to the complaint filed in March 2012 by the attorney representing the township denied the the allegations, stating that the county’s claims are “barred by applicable statute of limitations” and “by unjust enrichment.”

Springfield installed red light cameras at two intersections, one at Morris and Maple avenues, and the other at Springfield Avenue/Meisel Avenue and Morris Avenue.

At least one of the roads, Meisel Avenue, is a county road.

The discovery period for the case ended in October 2012. It is unclear from the court papers made available at Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth whether the case went to arbitration or to trial.

J.P. Sheriff Normand:  "I'm about sick and tired of Redflex and the whole program at this juncture."

http://www.fox8live.com/story/21812114/sheriff-newell-normand-clears-the-air-on-red-light-cameras

JP sheriff clears air on red light cameras

Gretna, La. — Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said he is tired of all of the headaches resulting from the parish's red light camera program, which was suspended three years ago.

Normand appeared before the Jefferson Parish Council Wednesday afternoon to discuss millions of dollars in fines linked to the program.

In 2010, the council pulled the plug on the red light cameras. And since then the parish has been tied up in court, fighting lawsuits filed by drivers and even Redflex, the company that ran the cameras. Redflex has said the parish had no right to suspend the program and has sued the parish for millions of dollars.

Sheriff Normand is custodian of the fines paid by drivers, money that is now in escrow because of the ongoing legal battles.

"The fact of the matter is there's a large sum of money that we've been holding on to for a long time," Normand said to reporters after addressing the council.  In fact, Normand said it is about $20 million.

Recently, the council went on record saying it intends to refund drivers who paid fines. But those refunds will not happen anytime soon.

"As soon as the litigation is resolved, it's our intent to issue refunds," said Council Chair Chris Roberts.

"There was this notion that the Sheriff's Office was the party that would have to make the payments back to the individuals and that's not the case…We're simply the collector of the fines," Normand said.

Roberts said there was no parity in the system.  "There's approximately 100,000 tickets that were not paid, and for those individuals that did pay it seems to me that we were very arbitrary in how we enforced the program, and that's a problem.  The contract stated that Redflex was responsible for collections that obviously didn't occur," Roberts said.

Normand did not hold back in expressing his distaste for the problems which have arisen from the red light camera program.  "At this point, quite frankly, I'm probably not unlike other parties.  I'm about sick and tired of Redflex and the whole program at this juncture. We're called upon to do a lot of things in the collection of records, this and that, you know, court appearances," he said.

And when it comes to impacting the way people drive, Normand is not convinced that the traffic cameras have been very effective.  "I haven't seen any empirical data to support long-term significant drops in intersectional collisions as it relates to those cameras and the tickets that are issued, the same would hold true quite frankly with speeding," Normand said.

Even though the Sheriff's Office received a portion of the fines, the sheriff said he will follow the council's direction when it comes to the planned refunds.

"I'm tired of messing with this particular issue, let's just put it behind us," Normand said.

Normand said his office gets 12 percent of every ticket issued in Jefferson Parish, the District Attorney's Office gets 12 percent and the parish gets 76 percent. However, he said once lawsuits were filed against the red light cameras he did not include that amount in his operating budget.

Quote:

So in summary, I have identified at least five significant problems:

The devices do not (and cannot) reduce the red light running crash rate in Florida or anywhere. Red light running, like rear-end crashes, is an inevitable outcome of inattentive or impaired driving.

The for-profit aspect of the law has several detrimental issues, with a notable one being devices are not always used where the most red light running crashes take place.

The system allows for the wrong person to be ticketed, and that person is then required to prove his or her innocence, which has not always worked in Florida without media involvement.

The devices are inaccurate. They activate when no traffic is moving, and a city auditor has documented an 80 percent error rate in the activations.

The law itself contains several provisions that are inconsistent with American justice.

The best solution is to ban these devices. However, this is usually viewed as an extreme measure by the well-funded device lobby and the small army of taxpayer-funded local officials who march to Tallahassee to defend automated for-profit devices -- or more accurately, their revenue from the devices.

http://www.floridavoices.com/myturn/red-light-camera-problem-florida-and-two-solutions

The Red Light Camera Problem in Florida and Two Solutions

Local officials and the companies that sell and operate them love red light cameras, which are not called cameras in the law. Nearly everyone else, not so much.

Why? Is Florida a hotbed of red light runners crashing into others? If you look at our traffic crash data over the past several years, you'll see that is not the case.

My background is law enforcement. I worked for two years as a Florida deputy sheriff and the remaining 23 years of my 25-year career with the Florida Highway Patrol, where I worked as a trooper, traffic homicide investigator, and squad sergeant, and retired as an investigations lieutenant. I currently operate a small lobbying firm in Tallahassee that specializes in issues involving liberty.

Read more: The Red Light Camera Problem in Florida and Two Solutions

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/03/tribune-problems-with-redflex-go-back-years/

Problems With Redflex Go Back Years

March 27, 2013  

The Redflex scandal http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/03/redflex-scandal-grows-federal-investigation-has-begun/ shouldn’t be a surprise to insiders at City Hall.

At least that’s what the Chicago Tribune is contending in a story http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-25/news/ct-met--chicago-red-light-burke-20130325_1_redflex-marty-o-malley-red-light-camera which claims problems with Redflex Traffic Systems and the city’s red light camera contract were being pointed out as far back as 2006.

It seems after Redflex was awarded a contract expanding the size and scope of the city’s red light camera program in 2007, one of its biggest competitors, American Traffic Solutions, began complaining about what they perceived as special treatment for Redflex.
In 2006, ATS hired the law firm of Alderman Ed Burke, the powerful head of the city’s Finance Committee, to help the company bid on the new contract. But when ATS first met with the city, they were told Redflex had already been awarded the exclusive contract without going through the bidding process.

Burke’s firm found problems with how Redflex was awarded the contract and threatened to hold public hearings in the City Council if the contract was not opened to a competitive bidding process.

In a series of letters to top mayoral aides, Burke accused the administration of illegal procurement practices, “unfathomable” failures to meet minority hiring requirements, and labeled the relationship with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. “suspect since its inception.”

Ultimately, after a year of back and forth between Burke and the Mayor’s office, the Daley Administration relented and allowed for other company’s to bid on the contract. Ultimately, Redflex still won out, somehow, mysteriously, winning the bid with a perfect score.

It’s probably no coincidence, Ald. Burke is now calling for hearings on the entire Redflex controversy. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-13/news/chi-ald-burke-calls-of-hearings-on-redflex-bribery-questions-20130313_1_red-light-camera-contract-million-bribery-scheme-camera-program

The story is a juicy, behind the scenes look at how the sausage is made when it comes to awarding multi-million dollar contracts in the Windy City.

Here’s the full story, “Warnings about Redflex go back years.” http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-25/news/ct-met--chicago-red-light-burke-20130325_1_redflex-marty-o-malley-red-light-camera

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4063.asp

Florida: Politician Takes Camera Cash, Guts Camera Reform Bill
Politician who took $1000 in red light camera donations torpedoes photo ticketing reform bill.

An attempt to rein in the use of red light cameras in the Florida state Senate has fallen flat. A senator who has taken money from red light camera vendors converted a bill that would have cracked down on abusive practices by municipalities into legislation that will enable them to issue even more photo citations. A dispute erupted on Facebook over the weekend as to whether state Representative Jeff Clemens (D-Lake Worth) gutted the legislation because he took $1000 in campaign cash from American Traffic Solutions.

"Joe, I've supported red light cameras since I was mayor in 2007," Clemens wrote in response to Joe Jordan on the social media website. "My support pre-dates any contributions I've ever received. So, in essence, they donated to my campaign because I believe in them as an enforcement tool, not vice versa. Please don't cast aspersions. We may disagree, but that doesn't make me corrupt."

As introduced, Senate Bill 1342 would have made substantial changes to the way red light cameras are used in the state. The first section of the bill focused on due process, ensuring the person driving the ticketed vehicle would have the same rights as the vehicle's owner to defend himself without, as under current law, having the violation be converted into a formal citation that carries license points. It also would have prohibited right-turn-on-red tickets issued by a camera. It would have clarified that the burden of proving guilt falls on the municipality and prohibited the vehicle owner from being compelled to testify against himself.

The second section of the original bill would have increased the minimum duration of the yellow signal at a camera intersection by ten percent. A 35 MPH intersection would have seen yellow increase from 3.6 to 4.0 seconds and a 45 MPH intersection from 4.3 to 4.7 seconds. Compliance would be enforced by imposing a $500 fine and mandatory refunds for cities caught ignoring the statute.

Last week, Clemens ripped up all of those protections for motorists and replaced them with protections for red light camera companies. The amended version of SB 1342 now states that dropping a traffic citation in the mail constitutes "notice" of the violation, regardless of whether the citation is ever actually received. It also states that the red light camera is automatically presumed to be reliable. An existing law discourages issuance of right-on-red tickets with cameras, but Clemens would eliminate any hesitation by allowing to be issued in nearly every case by allowing the private vendor to issue tickets in nearly every case. The vendor just needs to be able to claim that the vehicle appeared to be traveling at 10 MPH or more before turning.

Politicians who serve photo enforcement companies are often richly rewarded. Former Florida state Rep. Ron Reagan, who was responsible for passing the state's red light camera law, received a job at the National Coalition for Safer Roads, a front group funded and operated by ATS. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp

Ban the Cams note:  You can see the dispute on this site.  https://www.facebook.com/jjordan

Also see:  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/jeff-clemens-who-stripped-rlc-reform-bill-sb-1342-of-real-reforms-like-due-process-gets-defensive.html

Note the conversation got nasty after this article between Clemens and Alexander of Liberty Underground.

CT:  Red light cameras Fail to make cut

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/03/28/news/doc515318f13fbf9348454874.txt


Red light cameras, ban on smoking in cars, fail to make cut

Published: Thursday, March 28, 2013

By Hugh McQuaid, ctnewsjunkie.com

Legislation allowing red light traffic cameras, and banning smoking in vehicles with children, will have to wait for yet another year. The Transportation Committee will hit its deadline for legislative action Wednesday and neither bill will move forward.

Both concepts have come up in previous legislative sessions and ultimately failed to gain traction.

Although the committee’s deadline to pass its own legislation is Wednesday, Rep. Antonio Guerrera, the committee’s co-chairman, said the committee finished approving bills last week. Neither piece of legislation made the cut this year, he said.

On red light traffic cameras, Guerrera said there were too many questions among lawmakers to move it out of committee.

The legislation would have given municipalities with populations of more than 48,000 people the option of installing the cameras to photograph the license plates of vehicles running red lights. The towns would then be able to issue tickets to the owners of those cars. The bill would not force any towns to install the cameras.

Guerrera said the committee likely will need more information regarding how the cameras have been implemented in other states before it approves them for cities in Connecticut.

“In the future we may have to look at it as kind of a study. Let’s get a grasp on what works and what doesn’t work. What are the pitfalls we’re hearing about and what are the good aspects,” he said.

Jeff Clemens who STRIPPED RLC REFORM BILL SB 1342 of REAL REFORMS like DUE PROCESS, gets defensive over taking ATS money.

Read more:  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/the-sb-1342-reform-bill-has-been-gutted-by-camera-side-bill-not-worth-supporting-as-it-stands.html

• THE RIGHT TURN ON RED RLC TICKET PROHIBITION HAS BEEN REMOVED!
• LONGER AMBER TIME REQUIREMENT (ADDED YELLOW) HAS BEEN REMOVED!
• MOTORISTS RIGHTS provisions Gutted!

Ban the Cams was alerted to this back and forth on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/jjordan

Citizens are UNDERSTANDABLY getting upset on REAL RLC REFORM BEING UNDERMINDED by men of the "people" (ATS).

Jeff Jorday.

We seriously need a massive removal of politicians in Florida. The corruption seems to know no bounds. Today, Florida Senator Jeff Clemens, who has received donations from ATS (American Traffic Solutions Inc.) just gutted the Red Light Camera reform bill. Be sure to let him know how you feel on his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JClemensFl
THE SB 1342 REFORM BILL has BEEN GUTTED. BILL NOT WORTH SUPPORTING AS IT STANDS!

Karena Bowers Morrison

Massive removal and replacement with true grassroots statesmen & women is an EXCELLENT plan of action!!
March 21 at 5:10pm ·

Joe Jordan

Clemens, Jeff (DEM) 11/16/2011 $500.00 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS 7681 EAST GRAY ROAD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 RED LIGHT CAMERAS
Clemens, Jeff (DEM) 11/01/2012 $500.00 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC. 7681 EAST GRAY ROAD SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 TRAFFIC SAFETY
March 21 at 5:11pm..

Karena Bowers Morrison

Follow the money... and you will understand the lack of principles in our politicians. *sigh*
March 21 at 5:14pm..

Petro Szkoruda

I guess every politician has his price, I guess they could buy me for ten cents on the dollar considering what they probably from special interests. Ha!
March 21 at 5:51pm..

Chris Pearl

I guess some of my money just went to him. I just got a ticket a week ago. Fuckin SHAM and then some!
March 21 at 6:27pm · 1..

Dan Tucker

Like I said, there is far too much CORRUPTION in Tallahassee... and these criminals feel they are protected by their R or D badge.
March 23 at 11:39am..

Jeff Clemens

Joe, I've supported red light cameras since I was mayor in 2007. My support pre-dates any contributions I've every received. So, in essence, they donated to my campaign because I believe in them as an enforcement tool, not vice versa. Please don't cast aspersions. We may disagree, but that doesn't make me corrupt.
8 hours ago via mobile..

Chris Pearl

Should I fight mine? Im now considering it. I have the right to face my accuser. Is the camera going to show up and speak against me?
7 hours ago via mobile..

Jeff Clemens

Chris, if you feel strongly about it, fight it.
6 hours ago via mobile..

Joe Jordan

Chris Pearl did you get it in St. Petersburg? Thanks to Ken Burke's letter, there is a partial moratorium on RLCs in St. Pete; here's an article covering the news: http://pinellaspark.wtsp.com/news/news/169373-moratorium-red-light-tickets-st-petersburg

Ban the Cams note:  Given that Jeff CLEMENS AMENDMENT STIPPED AWAY NEEDED DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS, Clemens advice is of dubious value.  Do you really think a hearing officer is likley going to rule against a city he works for????

This was what the due process reforms that CLEMENS AMENDMENT STRIPPED AWAY WOULD HAVE FIXED! 

Currently you have risk a $264 plus ticket to dare challange it in court!  http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/fixes-for-flawed-red-light-camera-law-are-underway-state-senator-says/1276663

• Drivers cannot challenge the $158 ticket in court until it becomes a Uniform Traffic Citation, which increases the fine to $264.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4050.asp gives a overview of what the reforms were in the companion House bill 1061.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the burden of proving guilt shall rest upon the governmental entity bringing the charge under this section," House Bill 1061 clarifies. "A person appearing in any hearing under this section may not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself."

Others could potentially allow a legal challenge revealing every detail of the procedures and even the personnel involved in the issuance of automated tickets.

"In any hearing involving a traffic infraction detector used to enforce the traffic laws of this state, each person so charged has the right to confront the witnesses against him or her," the bill states. "Any evidence obtained from a traffic infraction detector must be authenticated in court by the person receiving or processing the evidence, any person having reviewed such evidence in order to make a decision to issue a notice of violation, and any person who issued the notice of violation or traffic citation."

The proposal essentially codifies recognition of the Supreme Court case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which the photo enforcement industry has feared since it was handed down in 2009 (view case). A number of California red light camera cases were won on the basis of related evidentiary challenges until the legislature re-wrote the rules of evidence to bypass the high court ruling.

Attachments:

File	Description
jjordan vs clemens over ats money 3.23.2013.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4062.asp

Louisiana: Jefferson Parish To Refund Red Light Camera Tickets
Scandals move Jefferson Parish, Louisiana to refund all Redflex red light camera tickets.

Officials in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana are moving forward on plans to refund $4.7 million in red light camera tickets. Council Chairman Chris L. Roberts put forward the motion on March 13 to put an end to "a long chapter of questionable dealings" with Redflex, the Australian company that issued the tickets. On Wednesday, Sheriff Newell Normand said he would follow the council's lead on the issue.

"It doesn't move me one way or the other," Normand told the council. "Whatever the parish decides to do, I will join with the council and the administration relative to those issues if you so desire to enter into a rebate program... I would go along with whatever your desire is."

Sheriff Normand clarified that the red light camera program began under his predecessor and that he would not be directly involved in any refunds.

"The sheriff's office is simply the collector," Normand explained. "We do not hold any of the information as to the recipients of the tickets and therefore not in a position to be able to rebate. That would really fall on the parish, and the parish holds those records in the parish courts."

About 284,000 tickets were issued in the program until it was suspended over ethical concerns on January 27, 2010 -- long before the Chicago scandal http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4046.asp broke. In light of the early revelations of impropriety, a third of recipients threw their photo tickets in the garbage.

"To my knowledge, Redflex has taken no action or made any attempts to collect on the approximately 100,000 violations that were issued but not paid," a parish attorney's office spokesman said. "Since this action began in early 2008 until today, there hasn't been any attempt to collect those fines."

The situation seemed so unbalanced that the council unanimously approved the refunds.

"It draws into question whether the basis for this program was established in a fair and legal way," Roberts said. "I have hard time keeping money from those that did reply when we know that many others just ignored it and nothing was done about it. Then we find out the firm that was in the middle of this potentially could make millions and is paying consultants a percentage of tickets that were issued."

Redflex had paid a 3.2 percent cut of the firm's profit on each ticket issued to lobbyist Bryan Wagner, a former New Orleans city councilman, who in turn shared the funds with the wife of District Judge Robert Murphy. Roberts expects a long legal process before any checks can be mailed to those who paid a red light camera ticket.

CameraFraud National:

"Red light cameras are all about money -- consider this New Jersey county is suing a town because it wants a cut of the fines. So much for "it's about safety."

http://www.nj.com/suburbannews/index.ssf/2013/03/springfield_officials_tight_li.html

Springfield officials tight-lipped about red-light camera lawsuit by Union County
 By Frank Mustac / Independent Press Suburban News
on March 26, 2013 at 5:45 PM, updated March 26, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-Ledger  

SPRINGFIELD — A lawsuit involving red-light cameras pitting Union County against Springfield Township is one of the items listed on the agenda for the Township Committee's March 27 meeting.

The township attorney will discuss the matter with committee members in closed session, and the issue cannot be talked about in public until the attorney gives the OK, said Anthony Cancro by email on March 26. Cancro is the township administrator.

Mayor David Amlen, in a separate email also received on March 26, said the “ongoing litigation,” referred to in the agenda as “Litigation — County vs. Springfield (Red Light Camera)” is “over the disbursement of funds collected from red-light camera tickets.”

The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in the municipal building.

Back in 2011, Springfield installed red-light cameras at the corner of Route 82 and Maple Avenue; and at the intersection of eastbound Route 124/Route 82 and westbound Route 124/Meisel Avenue, according to media.nj.com http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/other/AffectedRLRintersections.pdf.

Springfield officials did not say if the lawsuit is related to a recent preliminary legal settlement http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/red-light_camera_company_to_pa.html reached with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, the makers of red-light cameras installed in 18 New Jersey towns also named in the settlement. The towns named include Rahway, Roselle Park and Union.

American Traffic Solutions will set up a $4.2 million fund to pay plaintiffs in a suit that alleges motorists tagged by the company's cameras were not given ample time to apply the brakes, according to the NJ.com report http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/red-light_camera_company_to_pa.html.

Neither Springfield Township nor Union County were named as a party of the settlement case.

Funds generated by red-light cameras prompted a dispute between Greenwich and Pohatcong townships http://www.nj.com/warrenreporter/index.ssf/2013/01/greenwich_and_pohatcong_twp_ye.html in Warren County that led to the cameras being shut off last fall.

Though the townships reached an agreement http://www.nj.com/warrenreporter/index.ssf/2013/02/pohatcong_to_share_some_of_its.html on sharing the funds and resolving the issue, red-light cameras at one intersection remain off. Instead of turning the cameras back on, the DOT is pursuing safety improvements.

Murfreesboro CAPE: Citizens Against Photo Enforcement: TN SB 108 to add "fee" to RLC ticket "review"

https://www.facebook.com/#!/MurfreesboroCAPE

Sen. Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) is sponsoring a bill that would increase fines from red light cameras by establishing a fee for processing photo enforcement violations.

More on the RLC "fee" here:  http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB0846&ga=108

Quote:  This bill requires each court clerk with an automated citation system to charge and collect an electronic citation fee of $5.00 for each conviction of an offense that is the basis for the citation. Such fee would be paid by the defendant for such an offense that results in a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a judgment of guilty. This fee would be in addition to all other fees, taxes and charges and would be assessable as court costs. $1.00 of the fee would be retained by the court clerk to defray expenses related to the establishment and maintenance of an automated citation database and $4.00 of the fee would be transmitted monthly to the law enforcement agency that prepared the electronic traffic citation.

Truth Justice and the American Way  (on Quincy, FL RLC debate.  RLV crashes almost non-existant)

Ban the Cams note:  (Quincy, FL NON Existant RLV Crash "problem"  2 in 2009.  NONE IN 2010 or 2011)

http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/truth-justice-and-the-american-way/


Posted on March 25, 2013    
 
Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Most people can remember this fellow… and what the flag behind him represents

This title came to mind after reading a news story about how Quincy, Florida was considering using automated for-profit red light enforcement. Haven’t heard of Quincy? You’re not alone. This small north Florida town of about 8,000 is outside of Tallahassee. It serves as an excellent example of what is wrong in America today, since between 2009 and 2011, my DOT crash data shows there were a total of 2 red light violation crashes there. The two were in 2009. There were none in 2010 or 2011.

Let’s look at the three things in the title and apply them to our current and proposed Florida laws:

Truth

Will the politicians be truthful and tell the people that there have been no red light violation crashes in recent years? Not in my experience. Instead, they’ll list how many “violations” were recorded by the for-profit company (to include right turns), or infer every side-impact crash was caused by a red light violation- of course without producing any actual numbers. The may get a police supervisor to claim red light violations cause most of their crashes at intersections, again, without any facts to support the claim.

Each of these tactics has been used by one level/agency of Florida or local government regarding automated for-profit law enforcement.

Then there are the vendors. ATS vice-president Bill Kroske was less than truthful when he falsely impersonated local residents to drum up support for his company’s products. Redflex tried to cover up outright bribery in Chicago and it appears the same tactic was used in other cities.

Justice

This one is easy for the local politicians. The law is already in place to ensure there will be no justice, and to steer vehicle owners into paying the fine. This is done by preventing them from getting a court hearing from the mailed ticket, reducing the fine about $100, keeping points off the record, making the owner guilty until they prove their innocence, and of course not having anyone in court to verify the integrity of the evidence.

The American Way

There is a lot of latitude on this one, seeing as how for-profit companies and government interests have tried to redefine it. However, we still have a number of people that recognize something as un-American, though they may not choose to use that exact phrase. The prior two areas, notably justice, combine to show us that automated for-profit law enforcement is un-American. We are indeed a capitalist society, but in this case there is an easily identifiable difference between greed and capitalism.

Will Quincy adopt automated for-profit law enforcement? I have no doubt they will. We’ll also likely hear soon how bad a problem they have with people passing a stopped school bus, again even though there have been no crashes.

This is why it is important to restore the rights of motorists, which HB 1061 will do. Senate Bill 1342 did so until last week when Sen. Jeff Clemens (D-ATS) gutted the bill in the interest of local governments and for-profit companies.

Sen. Jeff Clemens gutted the Motorist Rights bill on 3/21/13 via an amendment.
 Call him at 850-487-5027 and let him know his actions are not appreciated.
 
 

http://business.time.com/2013/03/22/is-it-time-to-stop-green-lighting-red-light-cameras/

Is It Time to Stop Green-Lighting Red-Light Cameras?
By Brad Tuttle

March 22, 20130

The number of local red-light camera contracts awarded around the country has exploded, from 155 in 2005 to 689 last year. The pitch to install the cameras is that it’s a win-win for municipalities, simultaneously saving them money while making intersections safer. But as red-light cameras spread, so does the skepticism.

For more than a year now, grassroots groups around the country have been trying to get red-light cameras removed http://business.time.com/2012/02/16/big-brother-backlash-citizens-unite-to-bring-down-ticket-generating-red-light-cameras/ from intersections, or to at least stop towns and counties from expanding red-light programs. This isn’t just a bunch of drivers annoyed that they got tickets either. The worst accusations claim that the cameras might, in fact, increase the number of accidents at traffic lights—read-end collisions in particular—and that the systems for awarding contracts and handing out tickets are corrupt to the core.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced that in June the city will be dropping its contract with Redflex, a Phoenix-based firm that operates 384 cameras in the city, due to what the Chicago Tribune http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-06/news/ct-met-redflex-red-light-cameras-investigation-20130306_1_redflex-holdings-internal-investigation-red-light described as “a $2 million bribery scheme involving the former Chicago official who oversaw the red light program for a decade.” Four Redflex executives resigned as a result of the scandal.

Despite the controversy, the Orlando Sentinel  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-red-light-contract-orange-20130311,0,6778946.story reported earlier this month that Redflex is currently the frontrunner to be awarded a contract to operate red-light cameras in Orange County, Fla., which is seeking a $16 million expansion of its red-light program.

Putting aside the questionable manner in which cities and counties hand out red-light contracts, the larger issue is whether or not the traffic tickets generated by these cameras are fair, and whether or not the cameras actually make intersections safer. Consumer advocates have questions on both fronts, claiming that the cameras are installed for the sake of easy revenues, not better driver safety.

Drivers in California have been particularly angry about the red-light programs, which are known to dish out tickets for as much as $480 http://business.time.com/2012/02/16/big-brother-backlash-citizens-unite-to-bring-down-ticket-generating-red-light-cameras/ a pop.

That might be deemed a reasonable cost if the cameras were clearly improving safety. But do they? Last fall, a study by the New Jersey Department of Transportation revealed that accidents actually increased at intersections where the cameras were installed, apparently in large part because drivers had a tendency to brake hard at lights in order to avoid being captured on camera rolling through a “yellow-red” signal. According to the Star-Ledger http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/red-light_cameras_lead_to_more.html:

Rear-end collisions at the intersections were up by 20 percent, from 286 the year before the cameras were installed to 343 the year after, according to the report made public yesterday. Overall, accidents increased from 577 crashes the year before the cameras were installed to 582 the year after.

Nearly 500,000 drivers who received tickets via red-light cameras in New Jersey are now eligible for tiny refunds (a measly $6, after lawyers’ fees), thanks to a class-action lawsuit involving lights turned from yellow to red too quickly. The issue of too-short yellow lights isn’t limited to New Jersey. At the end of 2012, Collier County, Fla., voted to end its contract with a red-light camera company amid accusations of shortened yellow lights. The Naples News reported that in a recent hearing a Florida Highway patrol officer told commissioners that there was no change in the number of traffic crashes before and after the cameras were installed in Collier County, and that adjusting the timing of yellow lights would make the ticket system fairer.

A Wall Street Journal columnist http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323494504578340451308563608.html recently focused on longer yellow lights—rather than more red-light cameras—as a means of making intersections safer:

Virtually all now understand that the best way to decrease crashes at problem intersections is a longer yellow. In Tampa, hundreds appear to have received tickets because a busy yellow was set at three seconds when the state minimum is 4.5. In Georgia, after a new state law adding a second to the yellow, several towns canceled their camera programs as no longer profitable.

Is that what these programs are really about? Being profitable? Not at all, defenders of the programs say. In a USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/03/18/red-light-cameras-lawsuits/1985537/ citing data indicating that there was a 24% decrease in accidents at Philadelphia intersections with red-light cameras, one expert said the following:

“Red-light cameras are a proven, effective enforcement tool, and they’re making intersections safer,” says Anne McCartt, senior vice president of research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “It’s human behavior 101: When drivers know there’s a high likelihood of a ticket, they’re less likely to run red lights.”

BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  THE PHILADELPHIA PROGRAM HAD MORE ACCIDENTS.  IT seems the RLC side used a "reportable" definition to exclude accidents.  http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/red-light-cameras-effect-on-accidents-is-debatable.html  or http://www.philly.com/philly/news/132503968.html

Quote:  The cameras were intended to reduce accidents and save lives, and officials at the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which runs the red-light camera program, say that goal has been met.
 

They dispute the police numbers, citing their own analysis showing accidents down at most red-light intersections.
 

According to police data, there were 1,982 accidents in the periods measured after the cameras were installed, compared with 1,765 during the same-length periods before cameras.

The number of fatal accidents decreased by one, from nine to eight, with the cameras, the data show.

Drivers are also probably more likely to slam on the brakes when they see a video camera posted at a traffic light, especially if they know the light barely stays yellow before turning to red. And the cars behind the vehicles screeching to a halt aren’t likely to think this system makes intersections safer.

Who’s eyeballing Oregon’s red-light cameras? 

Law that requires annual reports on red light camera effectiveness is loosely enforced.

http://watchdog.org/76296/oregons-red-light-cameras-operate-with-little-accountability/

Who’s eyeballing Oregon’s red-light cameras? 

By Shelby Sebens | Northwest Watchdog

PORTLAND – Red light cameras at intersections across Oregon have their eyes on you.

But who has eyes on them?

As camera programs continue to ticket red light runners, a state law intended to keep them in check lacks teeth, a review of camera evaluation reports by Northwest Watchdog found.

By law, communities that operate red light camera programs must submit an evaluation report of the programs by March 1 on odd-numbered years, but many provide them late and with little depth.

The law requires the reports to show the effect of the use of the cameras on traffic safety, the degree of public acceptance and the process of administration of the use of the cameras.

What they don’t have to report: how much revenue each jurisdiction earns from the cameras.

Three weeks after that due date in 2013, some of the biennial reports haven’t shown up on the state library’s website. Four of the 10 local governments that run red light programs are missing reports.

You can view the various jurisdiction reports by clicking the links on the right-hand side of this page. Who’s eyeballing Oregon’s red-light cameras? 

Law that requires annual reports on red light camera effectiveness is loosely enforced.

State officials say Portland has submitted a hard copy and officials are in the process of getting a report online. Salem also submitted a report the day after Northwest Watchdog started asking for the missing evaluations.

Officials said sometimes there is a delay between receiving the reports and putting them online – especially if they’re not formatted electronically, which the law requires.

As of Friday afternoon, Portland’s report for 2013 was online.

Reports were still missing from the communities of Medford and Newberg as of Friday.

Possibly more troubling is there doesn’t appear to be a set report review process. Legislators get an executive summary of the reports, but there is no formal review. Officials from Beaverton, who have filed their report, said they sent it to legislative administration, but haven’t received a response.

The debate over red light cameras has heightened http://watchdog.org/71543/red-light-camera-use-growing-despite-public-opposition/ across the country. More cameras continue to be installed despite a growing public uncertainty over the effectiveness of the traffic devices. Some question whether they actually improve traffic safety or are a cash grab by cities.

Proponents say the cameras decrease the number of crashes and injuries at intersections while also dissuading people from running red lights. Critics have pointed to an increase in rear-end collisions and inconclusive data on other crash reductions.

Legislative Administrator Kevin Hayden said his staff works with cities to make sure the reports are formatted correctly and puts them online. They then send a summary to lawmakers.

“To my knowledge there has not been a detailed evaluation of how well they’re working and what problems might have cropped up,” said Marie Dodds, director of government and public affairs for Triple A Oregon/Idaho. Dodds said the agency has concerns about red light cameras and hears complaints from motorists who feel they were wrongly ticketed.

“They’re not often as black and white as we’d like to think,” she said, adding that the effectiveness can depend on the intersection. “It is not a solve-all solution. Having a red light camera is not necessarily going to do what you want it to do.”

That was Pablo Bravo’s experience. The Beaverton resident got a red light ticket after his tires crossed the intersection turning right a third of a second after the yellow switched to red. He says he saw the yellow when he was crossing and didn’t have time to stop.

Not all reports list crash data, and the ones that do reflect inconclusive results.

Salem’s report shows a 31 percent decrease in crashes at intersections with cameras and a reduction in red light violations, but the report doesn’t detail the types of crashes and whether they can be attributed to red light violations.

Beaverton Police Lt. Adam Spang compiled Beaverton’s report for the state, which found a 41 percent decrease in crashes with injuries at intersections with the cameras since they were first installed in 2001. But there’s a big caveat. The data from 2001-2010 included crashes where red light running was not a contributing factor, as well as crashes that occurred outside of intersections.

The overall decrease in crashes is a sign the cameras are working, Spang said, but added that the city will look more closely at its data to ensure the accident reductions can be attributed to the cameras.

“I say the cameras are making an impact. They always have,” he said.

Most jurisdictions have seen a significant decrease in the number of red light violations, the reports show, meaning people are using more caution at those intersections.

Beaverton, which was the first community in Oregon to begin a red light program, has issued 25,799 tickets that resulted in a conviction since 2001, with the annual average decreasing by 36 percent since the program began. Salem reports the overall number of red light violations has decreased by 13 percent since the program’s inception there in 2008.

Another component of the program that’s lacking is the requirement for gauging public acceptance.

While some cities have held recent public opinion surveys, others just reference media polls. Albany’s last public survey was in 2005.

Baltimore Sun REPORTERS WERE BLOCKED ACCESS TO MEETING ON BALTIMORE SPEED SCAMERAS!!!!!

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/baltimores-new-camera-vendor-calls-for.html

Baltimore Calls for "Media Restraints"

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Baltimore City released a draft report on the city's speed camera program which included a recommendation to "Restrain media access to future task forces to enable "frank, productive conversations".  The Sun also reported that members of the press were not allowed in as members of Baltimore's speed camera task force visited Brekford's headquarters.

See the full report on the Baltimore Sun website http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/sun-investigates/bs-ci-speed-camera-transition-20130320,0,4068755.story and see the video of the report and of Sun reporters being blocked access to Brekford's facility. http://www.baltimoresun.com/videogallery/74935527/News/Speed-camera-task-force-visits-new-vendor,-releases-report-%5BVideo%5D

Baltimore City's speed camera program was recently rocked by revelations's that the city's former contractor, Xerox Corp, issued hundreds of speed camera citations due to erroneous speed readings http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html.  Some of these included citations issued to completely motionless cars http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/baltimore-camera-cited-non-moving-car.html or large trucks accused of traveling twice their actual speeds http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/10/trucking-company-questions-accuracy-of.html.  The Baltimore Sun's detailed coverage of the situation and of city's Speed Camera Task Force meetings was one of the things which forced the city and Xerox corp to make the admissions.  The city replaced Xerox corp with speed camera contractor Brekford Corp at the beginning of this year http://www.mddriversalliance.org/search/label/Brekford%20Corp.

RLC vendors attempt to ELMINATE DUE PROCESS to save business in California!

Ban the Cams note:  With many towns dropping (LA, San Diego for example) RLC due to the fact that the programs are NOT improving safety and are now becoming unprofitable.

The RLC industry is NOW DESPERATE to stop the finanical bleeding by pushing bills that DENY BASIC DUE PROCESS protections AFFORDED ANYONE ACCUSED of a CRIME in COURT!

Groups are protesting this denial of BASIC DUE PROCESS!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4056.asp

California Committee Would Give Photo Ticket Points To Non-Drivers
California Assembly Judiciary Committee considers bill to eliminate due process for red light camera tickets.

Owners of vehicles registered in California could have their license suspended for red light running violations, even if they never get behind the wheel of their cars. Under a bill considered by the state Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, red light camera tickets would be turned into administrative violations that hold the owner responsible for $500 and license points for violations committed by others.

"The registered owner of the vehicle shall be liable for payment of any civil penalty assessed for the automated violation if the registered owner is unable to identify the person who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the automated violation," Assembly Bill 666 states.

A license point -- four points is sufficient to trigger a license suspension -- would be imposed on the owner if he is unable or unwilling to reveal the identity of the driver. This would apply to husbands unwilling to turn in their wives, and wives unwilling to turn in their husbands. Ordinarily, California's evidence code Section 970 prohibits the state from forcing a married person from testifying against his spouse, but this protection would not apply to AB666.

Under current state law, a large percentage of tickets end up being dismissed because the state must positively identify the driver before imposing a penalty -- something that is difficult to do from photographs that often are unclear. Photo ticket recipients are also entitled to full due process of law in an actual courtroom. Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) introduced the bill on behalf of the traffic camera industry to replace the system with a streamlined administrative process.

Wieckowski's bill establishes hearing system where a vehicle owner's guilt or innocence would be determined by an employee of the city or county that set up the red light camera program. The hearings would not follow the evidence code, but they would instead operate under rules set by the city. The hearing officer would not be a judge, or even a lawyer necessarily. Anyone who has undergone between 8 and 20 hours of training would qualify.

"Training programs may include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication," AB666 states.

The bill also does away with the possibility of legal challenges by declaring the existence of a red light camera ticket as sufficient evidence for conviction.

"The issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than the notice of automated violation or copy thereof, including the photograph of the vehicle's license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle," AB666 states.

A coalition opposed to the legislation, Stop AB666 http://stopab666.org/, has called for a "Day of Protest" against the bill today.

Source: Assembly Bill 666 http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/ca-ab666.asp (California Legislature, 3/19/2013)

BREAKING NEWS.  THE SB 1342 REFORM BILL has BEEN GUTTED BY CAMERA SIDE.  BILL NOT WORTH SUPPORTING AS IT STANDS!
 

• THE RIGHT TURN ON RED RLC TICKET PROHIBITION HAS BEEN REMOVED!

The Language needed:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1342/BillText/Filed/PDF

Line 306 thru Line 310
Neither a notice of violation nor and a traffic citation may not be issued under this section for a right-on-red violation.

• LONGER AMBER TIME REQUIREMENT (ADDED YELLOW) HAS BEEN REMOVED!

The Language needed:

Line 412 thru 414
The minimum yellow signal display duration on traffic control signals shall be based on the posted speed limit plus 10  percent along with the standards set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation’s Traffic Engineering Manual.

BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  Idealistically 1 PLUS ITE is best.

• MOTORISTS RIGHTS provisions Gutted!

THIS BILL IS NO LONGER A REFORM BILL WITHOUT THOSE PROVISIONS!

 

THE BILL IS NOW A SHAM!
 

GUTTED by a representative Clemens THAT IS TAKING MONEY FROM ATS!

UNLESS THE REFORM REQUIRMENTS ABOVE ARE REINSERTED.  THIS BILL IS NOT WORTH SUPPORTING.

DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL UNSESS THE REQUIREMENTS above are put back in and Clemens (ATS) Amendment is REMOVED!

Quote from Paul Henry:

The bad news is the Clemens amendment to the Lee amendment passed (Sen. Clemens withdrew his other amendment), so Motorist Rights have been gutted- among other things such as right on red and yellow light timing. The bill as it stands now is nothing like what it started life as. Sen. Lee said outright the devices were only about money. It was good to hear a politician say this.

 There is hope Motorist Rights and the other provisions can be re-inserted at one of the two upcoming committee stops.