Red Light Camera News

(Thanks to WiseupWinnipeg for the link!)

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/09/22/15445456.html

News Columnists / Tom Brodbeck
Red-light cam disgrace
Crashes increase 18% at intersections where devices installed

By TOM BRODBECK, Winnipeg Sun

Last Updated: September 22, 2010 10:02pm

Rather than becoming a safer intersection, Talbot and Watt has become far more dangerous since the installation of red-light cameras. (BRIAN DONOGH/WINNIPEG SUN) The average number of collisions at Winnipeg’s 12 original red-light camera intersections has jumped 18% since the devices were installed in 2003, according to Manitoba Public Insurance data obtained by the Winnipeg Sun.

Despite claims by politicians and police brass that intersection cameras are making our streets safer by reducing collisions, the MPI data shows after six years of use, crashes at the intersections are actually going up, not down.

There was a combined 204 collisions in 2003 at the original 12 intersections where red-light cameras were first installed. Between 2004 and 2009, the average number of annual collisions rose to 241 — an 18% increase.

The numbers represent all collisions at the intersections where an insurance claim was made.

And it’s not just a few intersections driving up the average, either. The average number of collisions between 2004 and 2009 rose at nine of the 12 sites.

Crashes fell slightly at two intersections and they remained virtually flat at one.

One of the worst intersections was the corner of Talbot Avenue and Watt Street, where there w ere 25 collisions the year red-light cameras went in. That number dipped slightly to 23 the next year but then jumped to 31, 29, 33, 42 and 40, respectively, in each of the following five years. Rather than becoming a safer intersection, Talbot and Watt has become far more dangerous.

The same goes for the corner of Isabel Street and William Avenue. The number of crashes at that location in 2003 was 21. But that number jumped immediately the next year to 36 and annual crash numbers were 22, 35, 34, 30 and 33, respectively, in each of the next five years.

It’s not as though the numbers are trending down in more recent years, either.

The average number of annual crashes in 2008 and 2009 went up or remained stable at eight of 12 locations compared with 2003.

Even the four sites where collisions went down in 2008 and 2009, the decreases were minimal. No matter how you slice the numbers, crashes have been going up at the vast majority of intersections where cameras were installed in 2003.

We know studies in the U.S. have shown that intersection cameras have increased collisions in some cities for a number of reasons, including motorists unnecessarily slamming on their brakes early because they think they may be ticketed for entering an intersection on an amber light.

Others race through hoping to beat the red light to avoid a ticket.

The question now is, how come the city has not been on top of this over the past seven years, analyzing the collision data and being straight with the public on whether these devices are truly making Winnipeg streets safer?

The answer is obvious. This program is about money, not safety.

If it were about safety, these numbers would have been made available by the city in their annual reports to the province on photo enforcement. They have not been made available. If the Winnipeg Sun had not obtained them from MPI, these statistics would not even be in the public domain.

Instead, the city has been using police-reported collisions in their annual reports on photo enforcement, which has shown a decrease in crashes.

Police-reported collisions are incomplete because many crashes aren’t reported to police. The MPI data is far more accurate because it’s based on insurance claims.

In fact, a 2006 city auditor report on photo enforcement blasted city officials for failing to use MPI data in their reports. Despite that, the city has ignored that recommendation and refused to include the MPI data in their annual reports to the Manitoba Legislature.

And now we know why. If they did include them, it would clearly show the public red-light cameras are making intersections less safe. That might cut into the $5 million a year photo enforcement raises for city hall.

Mayor Sam Katz has always sworn up and down that photo enforcement is not about the money and that it’s entirely about safety.

He may have a tough time explaining these numbers.

For more, visit Brodbeck’s blog

Raise a Little Hell at winnipegsun.com. Reach Tom by e-mail at

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

Red-light camera shocker! Village finds devices aren't wonder cure
In Tranist
By Marni Pyke | Daily Herald StaffContact writer

Published: 9/19/2010 12:01 AM.

Construction slowdowns on I-290 between work and home were driving me mad so I switched to Route 83 last month. It's slightly better but the relentless array of red-light cameras add a whole new level of tension.

Red-light cameras. It's been a while since I wrote about them, but two intriguing developments this week makes the issue column-worthy.

Elk Grove Village, one of the biggest advocates for the controversial technology, is actually removing cameras from the intersection of Busse Road and Devon Avenue. Officials say crashes are down since the devices went up so they intend to study the intersection for 12 months. If crashes rise, they'll reinstall the cameras, if the trend continues downward, the technology will be gone for good.

Meanwhile, Lombard is nixing its one remaining red-light camera, at North Avenue and Route 53.

"We didn't see any significant statistical differences (in crashes)," Deputy Police Chief Dane Cuny said.

Originally, Lombard had cameras at two intersections. The statistics showed crashes decreased at North and Route 53 but increased at another location at Finley and Roosevelt roads.

The conflicting results convinced village leaders to yank the devices.

A Daily Herald investigation in 2009 found the vast majority of violations are for turning right on red without making a full stop - a maneuver considered much less dangerous than driving straight through. And believe me, there's nothing like receiving a $100 citation for a rolling right to make a driver see red.

"Over 95 percent of our violations were for right turns on red," said Cuny. Lombard police reviewing video of violators are instructed to be lenient toward rolling rights unless they pose an obvious hazard.

Read more: Red-light camera shocker! Village finds devices aren't wonder cure

Lady Lake rejects red-light cameras

BRAD BUCK
Staff Writer
 

LADY LAKE -- No red light cameras for Lady Lake.
Instead, Lady Lake police will probably be more visible at traffic signals around town.
Police Chief Ed Nathanson went on a fact-finding mission to provide commissioners with information about red-light cameras and how they could improve motorists' safety.
Town commissioners Tuesday night voted against buying a red-light camera system to spot motorists who run red lights.
"With or without red light cameras, when an officer observes a vehicle running a red-light, violators will be dealt with accordingly," Nathanson said Thursday in the wake of commissioners' refusal to buy the camera system.

Read more: Lady Lake, FL rejects red-light cameras

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/17/1828763/miami-banks-on-traffic-cameras.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=6341734#Comments_Container

Ban the Cams note:  For South Florida Voters, REMEMBER THAT State Sentate Canidate Miguel Diaz de la Portilla is a ATS LOBBYIST.  SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE RLC, DON'T VOTE FOR THIS TURKEY!  (hit the "read more" and his name is highlighted down the list).

Miami banks on traffic cameras to close budget gap
 

Miami will install red light cameras at its intersections, a move city leaders believe will bring in enough money to finally balance a large budget shortfall.

BY CHARLES RABIN
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
With a decision Thursday to install red light cameras at dozens of city intersections, Miami leaders believe they finally solved the final piece of a massive budget shortfall.

Though a final budget approval is two weeks away, Thursday's vote, which is expected to create $8 million in revenue in 2011, ended a hectic three weeks in which the city cut salary and pensions, hiked fees and installed penalties to close a $105 million hole.

The camera initiative will cost those running red lights $158 a pop. Commissioners say they hope the devices -- controversial in many cases -- will make a city with a poor driving reputation safer.

``Our goal is to have zero revenue generated by this in the future,'' said Assistant City Manager Johnny Martinez -- meaning fewer fines.  (Ban the Cams note: BOY IS THIS GUY FULL OF IT!  IT IS PART OF THEIR BUDGET!  If it generate 0 FINES they WILL TAKE THEM DOWN!)

Miami, reeling from a depressed real estate market and sky-high pensions, slashed $79 million in salary, pension and healthcare costs at the end of August. On Tuesday, commissioners came up with another $8 million by hiking license and garbage fees, and by charging for vehicle impoundments.

Read more: S. Florida VOTER ALERT: State Senate Canidate Miguel Diaz de la Portilla is a ATS SCAMERA LOBBYIST!

Below are pictures of the skelton of the Brooksville, FL misguided RLC program. 

THANK YOU BROOKSVILLE FOR LISTENING TO YOUR CONSTIUENTS AND BUSINESS LEADERS!  I have enjoyed being able to go back to the Publix to shop!  (Been there 3 times this month!  GREAT BAKERY!)

BYE BYE SCAMEAS!  Jefferson @ Ponce De Leon!  9.1.2010

Before:  Jefferson @ Ponce De Leon 4.30.2009 BKV RLC SCAM

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=408394

Lombard to get rid of its lone red-light camera
By Marie Wilson | Daily Herald

   .
Lombard, the town that houses the headquarters of the area's predominant red-light camera company, will soon be without any red light cameras itself.

The village board is scheduled today to terminate its contract with RedSpeed, which operates cameras at North Avenue and Route 53.

"I never have been and never will be a big fan of red light cameras because I don't see their point," said Trustee Bill Ware.

Lombard officials will notify RedSpeed Friday of the decision, said Village Manager David Hulseberg. The company will then have 60 days to remove the cameras and underground sensors that determine whether drivers stop before the white line.

The sensors at the intersection already have not been working for about a month because of road work by the Illinois Department of Transportation, Hulseberg said.

A representative of RedSpeed did not return calls for comment Wednesday.

Lombard officials have long said they intended to use red light cameras as a safety tool.

"We want to change driving habits," Lombard Police Chief Ray Byrne told the Daily Herald in March 2008. "I want to cut down on accidents. This is not intended as a revenue generator."

However, the cameras have not brought in significant revenue for the village, Ware said.

"We're not making any money off it because our village is different ... our police department has a different thought process," Ware said.

Read more: Lombard (IL) to get rid of its lone red-light camera

http://kmox.cbslocal.com/2010/09/15/arguments-made-in-st-louis-red-light-camera-case/

Arguments made in St. Louis’ red light camera case

9/15/2010
10:32 am
 ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – Three people suing St. Louis City over those red light cameras would like a verdict sooner rather-than later.
Attorney Russell Watters made his arguments in the cases Tuesday.

“The ordinances set up by the city of St. Louis does not call for point to be assessed as a result of what we consider traffic tickets,” said Watters.

Watters calls that a violation of state law and the Missouri constitution.

Watters is challenging the fact that paying the city’s tickets doesn’t add points to an offender’s driving record.

For now, each side has until mid-October to file arguments. The city of St. Louis is seeking an extension.

Copyright KMOX Radio

For those who are in Palm Beach County, FL, the county is consider RL SCAMERAS.

I would recommend you go out and speak out against it.  Even one voice helps!

The hearing is being held Tuesday 9/14. 

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_c_palm_beach_county/west_palm_beach/palm-beach-county-to-consider-red-light-cameras#viewSingle103369553

Camerafraud had this observation:  "Tennessee town wants out of scamera contract. ATS will charge them $750,000. Town wants to stop the gimmick of ticketing right turns on red. ATS will charge them $33,000 if they do that. When you make a deal with the devil..."

BAN THE CAMS NOTE:   THAT IS $33,000.00 PER MONTH for ATS to STOP CITING FOR NON DANGEROUS RIGHT TURNS ON RED

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=13146369

Mt. Juliet Votes Against Eliminating Red Light Cameras
Posted: Sep 13, 2010 5:53 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 14, 2010 12:20 AM EDT
Mt. Juliet Debates Red Light Cameras
2:47 
 by Mark Bellinger

WILSON COUNTY, Tenn. - Mt. Juliet commissioners have voted against a resolution that would have gotten rid of the city's red light cameras.

Mt. Juliet Mayor Linda Elam introduced the resolution at Monday night's meeting, but she was the only one to vote for the measure. Two other commissioners voted against, and two others abstained.

Elam maintained the cameras were not being used as advertised when the city commission approved them last year. The cameras have captured hundreds of violations including a few accidents.

Police said it's indisputable proof the drivers are breaking the law. Since January, cameras have been capturing drivers running red lights at five intersections.

"I voted for the cameras, and it's a vote I very much regret now," Elam said.

Elam said too many people are being ticketed for not stopping completely after turning right on red.

"The people are outraged by these cameras. They don't feel they're fair and I feel they're over enforced on right turn on red specifically," said Elam.

The reason commissioners did not vote for the resolution: getting rid of the cameras would not have been cheap. The city signed a three year contract with American Traffic Solutions last year. Officials in the city finance department said it would cost $750,000 to get out of it.

Read more: Mt Juliet Refuses to Get RID of ATS SCAMERAS. COST TOO MUCH to break contract!

(Ban the Cams note:  This will be one town to watch, any bets they will DROP the SCAMERAS soon!)

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_16059616

Grand Terrace owes red light fees
Error may cost city
Ryan Hagen, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/12/2010 08:35:12 PM PDT

Grand Terrace has until Oct. 2 to make up late payments of $72,203 stemming from a series of miscalculations or face an additional $27,500 in late fees.
City Council will decide Tuesday whether to borrow money from the city's facilities fund to repay Redflex Traffic Systems, which has operated two cameras each on two intersections in Grand Terrace since 2007.

Redflex charges $12,513 to maintain the cameras, which tape and ticket anyone breaking traffic laws. Various codes dictate that about 34percent of the revenue from those tickets goes to Grand Terrace. The county, the state and the courts also get a cut.

There are two cameras at Barton Road and Michigan Avenue and two cameras at Barton Road and Mount Vernon Avenue.

According to the city's contract with Redflex, if the city makes less than $12,513 in fines, it must pay all of that revenue to Redflex, but does not owe more than it collects.

"The city became delinquent in contractor payments due to reporting and computational difficulties to determine the amount due to the contractor," Finance Director Bernie Simon wrote in a report to the Council.

Unsure how much money it owed to Redflex, the city set aside too little in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The city realized the error in May 2009, then decided in September that it could break even by June 2010 because of anticipated increases in revenue from fines.

Instead, fine revenue decreased and debt increased.

City officials were not available to clarify how they misunderstood the amount owed to Redflex or why they expected fine revenue to increase.

Redflex initially waived the city's late fees, but when the city missed the June catch-up date, the company announced it would charge 1.5 percent interest on all payments, retroactive to when they first became overdue, if it did not receive payment by Oct. 2.

http://bancams.com/state-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-november-vote/

State supreme court clears the way for November vote

The people can vote on those obnoxious red-light cameras and speed cameras-  ruling provides 2 benefits

Today, the state supreme court rejected the plea of Arizona’s red-light camera company, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), to prevent Mukilteo voters from voting on our initiative in November.  The two sentence ruling (we don’t have it yet, but it is available) gave the voters two huge victories:

1)  They rejected the request for expedited review — since today is the day the county will print ballots and voters pamphlets, then that means it’s guaranteed that no matter what the voters in Mukilteo will see Mukilteo Initiative No. 2 on the November ballot.

2)  They will hear the case later — this means they will eventually make a definitive ruling on whether local voters have the right to vote on local initiatives.  The state supreme court has been adamant, issuing two unanimous 9-0 rulings that when it comes to state initiatives, that the voters have a right to vote and no legal roadblocks are allowed to block a vote on statewide initiatives.  But the courts have issued a mixed bag of decisions when it comes to local initiatives, sometimes preventing local initiatives that turn in enough signatures to not be voted on.  By agreeing to hear the case, the High Court has given themselves the opportunity to make clear that local voters have the same right to vote on local initiatives as state voters do on state initiatives.

Today’s supreme court ruling clears the way for a groundbreaking November vote on those obnoxious red-light cameras and speed cameras.

WHY THIS IS A BIG DEAL: It’ll be the first time in Washington that a city has ever allowed its citizens to vote on whether they want red-light cameras and speed cameras (over 20 cities have them and more are being added every year).  If they’re rejected by Mukilteo voters in November, it’ll have statewide implications for new cities thinking of putting them up, expansion of cameras in existing cities and it’ll encourage efforts by activists forcing public votes on cameras in other cities, and will likely spur the Legislature to address the cities’ Big Brother, profit-making scheme.

WHAT MUKILTEO INITIATIVE NO. 2 DOES:

*  Reverses the decision by the Mukilteo City Council to install red-light cameras and speed cameras

*  Requires a majority vote of the people for the city to conduct for-profit cameras surveillance on the citizenry with red-light cameras and speed cameras.

*  Removes the profit-motive for cameras by limiting the fines to the cost of the least expensive parking ticket in Mukilteo (Everett Herald reports that’d be $20)

We have great legal representation, from Groen Stephens Law Firm. But we still need your help to pay for the legal fees. Please make a generous donation, every bit counts. To continue the fight, please make a donation online through our fellow co-sponsor of the initiative, Washington Campaign for Liberty  http://wacfl.com/traffic-camera-initiative-fundraising/

We appreciate everything you have done to help us push back Big Brother and create a safer driving experience, people like you really make a difference. We have successfully passed many milestones along our journey to end photo-fraud statewide and we are anxious to report the next victory, thank you for your contribution.
 

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/port-richeys-police-chief-needs-a-crash-course-on-public-records/1120520

Port Richey's police chief needs a crash course on public records
In Print: Friday, September 10, 2010

The city of Port Richey needs a more transparent cover on its financial ledgers. Specifically, Police Chief David Brown must quit trying to hide financial data regarding the red light cameras on U.S. 19 from City Council members.

At the Aug. 30 Council meeting, Brown told Council members he couldn't answer the question of how much the city will pay monthly to the private company providing red light cameras. The information is confidential, Brown told the Council, citing the city's contract with American Traffic Solutions.

He is wrong. Either Brown hadn't read the contract which he contended contained provisions for confidentiality, or worse, he tried to deny access to public records. That would make his roadblock to Council inquiries an intentional attempt to sidestep Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law.

Council members and the city manager should not tolerate such ignorance or insubordination. They need to remind Brown that, as a police officer, he has sworn to uphold all the laws of Florida, even public records laws.

Brown's attempt to stifle Council questions also contradicts his own previous statements about the motives for the cameras. "Port Richey was the third Florida city to install red light cameras in May 2008. It was not a financial decision then and it is not a financial decision now,'' Brown wrote in an October 2009 letter to this newspaper.

Eleven months later, it's not only obviously about the money, but so much so that Brown wanted to keep the numbers a secret from the city's elected leaders.

One problem: The information is public record, as Times staff writer Drew Harvell reported after reviewing city budget documents. The city estimates it will pay $4,750 per camera per month to the private company. Over a 12-month period, projections show the city netting $492,000 from the red-light cameras, with the state taking $796,800 and vendor ATS collecting $228,000. The company confirmed the costs and acknowledged the information is public record.

Now, the chief of police should do likewise and apologize to Council members and the city residents they represent.
 

(Thanks to Camerafraud Facebook for the link!)

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cerabino-traffic-camera-firm-stops-at-nothing-says-902093.html

Cerabino: Traffic-camera firm stops at nothing, says vote is racist Palm Beach Post
Frank Cerabino

Updated: 8:59 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2010

Post a Comment E-mail Print ShareLarger Type Small Type
Bet you never imagined that asking voters whether or not they want red-light surveillance cameras is racist.

That's the contention of American Traffic Solutions, the Arizona-based company that operates photo enforcement cameras in West Palm Beach and elsewhere.

I'm guessing you'd be hard-pressed to imagine a racist component to holding an election that includes a ballot question on red-light cameras.

Then again, you're not a lawyer in search of any excuse to stop people from voting on traffic cameras.

Voters are unkind to red-light cameras. If you give them a chance, they'll vote them down all the time.

It's much easier selling this money-making scheme to cash-strapped city commissions and state legislators.

Two cities in Texas have camera referendum questions on their Nov. 2 general election ballots. And American Traffic Solutions is trying to stop those votes.

New spin on Voting Rights Act

Why? Because voting on cameras during a general election would be racist.

To get to this conclusion, the traffic company lawyers had to lean on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, landmark legislation that outlawed discriminatory voting practices aimed at disenfranchising black voters.

"Because the camouflaged referendum has been improperly placed on the ballot, a potential for racial discrimination exists," wrote company lawyer Andy Taylor. "More specifically, minority voters may lose their ability to elect candidates of their choice in local, statewide and federal offices."

OK, Andy. You're going to have to spin this one a little tighter. I don't see the connection with minority voters. Go on, sir. Show us some magic

"The city has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the safety cameras program - a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner - will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election," he wrote.

That's a beauty.

Try to follow this legal 'logic'

Do you follow? The argument is that the people who are against red-light cameras are those least sympathetic about black issues. And a speed-camera question just brings out the bigots, and therefore, it unduly influences the turnout of the election - against black people.

So in all those other votes on the ballot, black people get unfairly thumped because of all those camera-hating racists who showed up to vote.

There's an inconvenient flaw with this line of thinking.

No evidence exists to call camera-haters racists. It's far easier making the opposite argument, considering that the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union have both opposed red-light cameras.

But what's ultimately hard to swallow is the notion that the for-profit surveillance camera business is on the front lines of racial justice.

Instead, legal ploys like this do little but show the lengths that the traffic-camera business will go to push a product that a growing number of people don't want.

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

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3253.asp

Texas: ATS Labels Anti-Traffic Camera Initiatives Racist
Traffic camera firm invokes 1965 civil rights bill to stop votes in Baytown and Houston, Texas that would ban red light cameras.

The citizen-led groups that want the public to decide the future of red light cameras are racist, according to lawsuits filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) in a pair of Texas cities. The Arizona-based photo enforcement firm filed in a state court in Baytown on Thursday and then an ATS-funded front group filed an identical case in a federal court in Houston on Friday. Residents in both cities signed petitions placing a ban on automated ticketing machines onto the November 2 ballot, but ATS cites the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a reason to block these votes.

"Because the camouflaged referendum has been improperly placed on the ballot, a potential for racial discrimination exists," Houston lawyer Andy Taylor wrote on behalf of ATS. "More specifically, minority voters may lose their ability to elect candidates of their choice in local, statewide and federal offices."

The company used the same argument in Baytown.

"The city has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the safety camera program -- a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner -- will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election," Taylor wrote.

The ATS claim may come as a surprise to the diverse groups behind anti-camera petition efforts elsewhere in the country. In East Cleveland, Ohio the group Black on Black Crime led the effort to gather signatures for a referendum. In Cincinnati, the anti-camera coalition included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Green Party. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also battled cameras in Iowa and Rhode Island. Baytown initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck http://www.saferbaytown.com/ suggested the traffic camera industry was disguising its true aim with the racism charge.

Read more: ATS SUES IN HOUSTON TOO, Spreads Mud with help of PRO CAMERA Houston Chronicle.

http://baytownsun.com/news/article_599b2e80-b89f-11df-bac6-001cc4c03286.html

Red light camera firm files lawsuit over election 

Posted: Saturday, September 4, 2010 10:39 pm

MARK FLEMING | 2 comments

American Traffic Solutions, the company that owns and operates the cameras and sensor systems used to enforce red light compliance at several Baytown intersections, filed a lawsuit against the city Thursday seeking to overturn the city’s decision to call an election on an amendment to the red light camera ordinance.

In addition to repeating previous claims the amendment to the ordinance constitutes a repeal of the ordinance and violates state code, the lawsuit also claims the city is violating the federal Voting Rights Act.

City Attorney Ignacio Ramirez defended the city in a hearing Thursday in which ATS sought a temporary restraining order against the city, according to Patti Jett, public affairs coordinator for the City of Baytown. The temporary restraining order to stop the election was not granted, she said. Another hearing has been scheduled on the matter.

In its suit, American Traffic Solutions presents several claims to justify stopping the election, including:

• A claim the amendment to the city’s red light ordinance constitutes a repeal of the ordinance. Under the city charter, there are tight time limits on how soon a petition can be presented calling for a referendum to repeal an ordinance, but not limits on when a petition can be presented to amend an ordinance. An earlier attempt to repeal the red light camera ordinance was rejected by the city on that basis.

• A claim the proposed ordinance includes a definition of “law enforcement officer” that would not allow Baytown police to enforce the law.

• A claim the proposed ordinance seeks to override state law in restricting the use of photo-enforcement equipment.

• A claim the election violates the Voting Rights Act.

The claim of violation of the Voting Rights Act is also being used in a contest to a pending election in the City of Houston regarding its red light camera program. Unlike the Baytown case, the Houston lawsuit is in federal court and was filed by a political action committee supporting red light cameras, rather than by American Traffic Solutions.

The Baytown lawsuit says the Voting Right Act violation comes from the city allowing a referendum petition outside of the 20-day window allowed by law. The suit says “no approval [from the Department of Justice] was sought (or received) to bypass the previously-approved twenty-day limitation on referendum petitions.”

Further, the suit maintains, “By permitting an unauthorized ballot proposition to be placed before the voters, the City has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the Safety Camera Program — a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner — will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election. This change in voting practices and procedures results in the potential for minority voting strength to be diluted through the inclusion of an unauthorized ballot measure.”

In response to a written question asking if the company had previously used the Voting Rights Act as a legal strategy to block elections, ATS Vice President for Governmental Relations and General Counsel George Hittner said, “ATS’ complaint is not based on the premise advanced in your question. ATS’ claims in this lawsuit are based on the calling of a costly and voidable election.”

In response to a written question asking if the company had any studies or other evidence supporting its contention regarding the political leanings of potential voters, Hittner provided the identical answer, “ATS’ complaint is not based on the premise advanced in your question. ATS’ claims in this lawsuit are based on the calling of a costly and voidable election.”

When asked how many of its clients the company has sued, Hittner replied, “None. However, we are required by law to file this challenge before the election occurs for the simple reason that an election contest is not available as a possible remedy after the election occurs.”

Speaking for the city, Jett said the election is still on as of this time.

She was unable to say whether the city had the legal authority to cancel the election at this time even if it chose to do so, as the state deadline for calling November elections has passed.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3250.asp

Red Light Camera Firms Raise Stakes in Court Battle
Redflex and American Traffic Solutions step up legal battle against one another.

While red light camera firms are facing significant legal peril as vehicle owners in California http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3249.asp  and Florida http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3006.aspare fighting citations in court through class action lawsuits, the stakes are even higher when the companies themselves battle one another in the courtroom. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now reviewing a number of issues brought in the suit filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) against its Australian rival, Redflex Traffic Systems.

ATS had sued Redflex for advertising speed camera operations using radars that were illegally imported into the country. As reported by TheNewspaper in May, lost the case on all counts before a jury http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3154.asp with the judge expressing the view that the ATS argument was "weak at every point." Nonetheless, ATS has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Redflex is attempting to recover the $4.3 million it spent on the litigation after the firm's lead attorney, E. Jeffrey Walsh, claimed he had spent 12,782 hours on the case. Redflex insists it is entitled to attorney's fees because ATS filed the lawsuit in bad faith.

"ATS chose to use the courtroom as a forum to embarrass Redflex by, under the guise of proof of willfulness, accusing Redflex officials of lying to federal and state authorities," Walsh wrote in a July 27 filing. "ATS provided salacious fodder for bloggers and other media personnel who attended the trial and damaged Redflex's reputation and integrity... ATS unleashed a crusade against Redflex, its biggest competitor in the photo traffic enforcement industry, to damage it."

Read more: Red Light Camera Firms Raise Stakes in Court Battle

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3249.asp

California: Red Light Camera Programs Face Class Action Suit
Experienced class action law firm takes on red light cameras in California.

A team of experienced class action lawyers is taking on California's red light camera industry, and photo enforcement companies are expressing unease. Last month, the law firm of Pearson Simon Warshaw and Penny, LLP filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that tickets issued throughout the Golden State since January 1, 2004 should be refunded where the photo enforcement contracts violated a state law mandating flat-rate compensation to companies like Redflex Traffic Systems. Redflex referred to the case as a particular business risk in an August 25 filing with the Australian Securities Exchange.

"The level of litigation industry‐wide has continued to be widespread with the majority of suits testing the constitutionality or administrative legitimacy of road safety enforcement programs," Redflex explained. "A number of class action lawsuits involving others in our industry and Redflex have been filed challenging the pricing models used in several states alleging violation of cost neutrality laws as well as the admissibility of business records in court. We continue to aggressively defend against these claims."

An aggressive defense will not come cheap. The firm spent $4.3 million to fend off a lawsuit filed by competitor American Traffic Solutions (ATS), even though the Australian firm won the case. Should this class action make it to trial, Redflex and co-defendant ATS could end up financially responsible for contracts in the fifty-nine jurisdictions identified as having the questionable language.

In the city of San Mateo, for example, Redflex is paid $120 for each $446 ticket issued at each red light camera intersection up to a monthly cap of $6030 per intersection. This so-called cost neutrality arrangement allows the city to have a guarantee that the cameras will never under any circumstances lose money. The class action suit argues that such clauses violate a state law prohibiting per-ticket compensation arrangements for automated ticketing contracts.

"Through their employees and agents, RTS, ATS and the Doe defendants, as defined below, entered into illegal contracts with public entities in California, operated automated traffic enforcement equipment in California and caused tickets to be issued to plaintiff and class members throughout California," attorneys Bruce L. Simon and William J. Newsom wrote in the court filing.

The suit does not ask that existing convictions be overturned, but that Redflex and ATS pay damages for the amount of revenue the companies have collected from their unlawful business practices. The appellate divisions of both Orange County (view ruling) and San Mateo County (view decision) courts have already ruled "cost neutral" contract provisions are illegal, but the decisions have not been published. Only a handful of cities like San Mateo and San Carlos have dropped the cost neutral provisions. Contractors in these cities would still be sued for the amount of revenue generated prior to the contract revisions.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare all cost neutral contracts illegal and issue an injunction against all programs operating under such arrangements. It also asks for a full refund of all fines paid, plus appropriate punitive damages

Ban the Cams note:   I find it funny that the scamera side uses the "if you have nothing to hide, than you should have nothing to fear" BS argument YET THE POLICE CHIEF OF PORT RICHEY CLEARLY WANTS TO HIDE A RLC CONTRACT FEE! 

As a post I left on the St. Pete Times (I DON'T hide who I am unlike ATS Front Groups do), I WONDER IF THE CHIEF EVER HEARD OF THE SUNSHINE LAW!

 http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/police-chief-says-port-richeys-budget-for-red-light-cameras-is-confidential/1118774

Police chief says Port Richey's budget for red-light cameras is confidential
By Drew Harwell, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 

PORT RICHEY — The question seemed simple enough: How much will the city pay per camera each month to the company that provides red light cameras?

Council members asked Police Chief Dave Brown.

That's confidential, he answered during Monday night's meeting, pointing out that the contract with American Traffic Solutions, an Arizona company, forbids discussing it.

"We entered into this contract," council member Terry Rowe said, "yet we can't talk about it?"

City officials, according to budget estimates, expect to issue about 9,600 camera citations next year, totaling $1.5 million in fines. A large chunk must be paid to the state and ATS. Knowing the exact amount would help city leaders with their budget. 

(Ban the Cams, SO MUCH FOR SAFETY, IT REALLY IS ONLY ABOUT MONEY, but you know that already don't ya!)

"I don't believe there is anything such as confidential when it comes to city finances," council member Bill Colombo said Tuesday. "That's the first time I've heard anything like that."

Read more: Port Richey Police Chief "forgets" about FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW! Claims RLC Contract "confidential"

Ban the Cams note:  This closes the door on the imaginary "loophole" some in the photo enforcement industry and cities use to try to get around CA state law on RLC FINES.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3158.asp

Quote:  "Senate Bill 949, strike down ordinances specifically designed to boost municipal profit margins. The state Senate approved this bill 28 to 0 last Friday sending a warning to jurisdictions like Alameda County, Long Beach, Oakland, Riverbank and Roseville which have set up their own traffic ticketing and red light camera ordinances that bypass the requirements of state law."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15916964?nclick_check=1

Bill bars Calif. cities from keeping traffic fines
The Associated Press
Posted: 08/27/2010 05:09:07 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—A bill approved by the state Senate on Friday would prohibit local governments from keeping some of the money collected in traffic tickets written under local ordinances.
The bill sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday would bar local authorities from enforcing their own ordinances that regulate moving violations, such as speeding, if they are already regulated by state law.

Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat from Long Beach, cites at least half a dozen such recent ordinances by cites and counties struggling with budget problems.

She says the patchwork of local ordinances could lead to confusion among drivers and throw off traffic safety statistics, costing the state millions of dollars in federal aid.

Her bill, SB949, was approved on a 33-0 vote.

(Ban the Cams note:  Don't think this is a "mistake" by anymeans!    Here is one out of TX:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2827.asp

Quote:  "The shortened yellow helped boost violations, allowing American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to issue $222,587 worth of tickets in the month of April alone. Of this amount, ATS took a 55 percent cut, even though Texas law specifically bans per-ticket contract arrangements. Baytown cited a grandfather loophole clause in the law as the reason it has continued the practice.")

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12976216

Only 2 seconds to beat a yellow light? What the heck?
Posted: Aug 13, 2010 2:04 PM EDT
Updated: Aug 13, 2010 5:50 PM EDT
 
Now you see it, now you don't: the 2-second yellow left turn arrow at Kolb & Speedway
 

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Two seconds to beat a yellow light?  You're kidding, right?

That's what KGUN9 News was wondering.  The question arose after City of Tucson crews began tinkering with the lights at Kolb & Speedway, as part of the process of installing a new set of ever-popular speed and red light cameras.  When the crews left, the timing of the lights had changed.

In particular, when the left turn arrow now switches from green to yellow, it stays yellow for only about two seconds before turning red.  For a typical motorist, if you're entering the intersection at normal traffic speed just as the arrow turns yellow, you might not have time to clear the intersection before it turns red and the camera snaps a picture of your smiling face.  Even if you make it through, any cars behind you would definitely be hosed.

No fair!  What is up with that?

KGUN9 News' Allen Kath put that question the city.  The response from spokeswoman Linda Galindo:  don't worry about it just yet.  Galindo said the traffic unit is "aware of the issues with the yellow light @ Speedway/Kolb.  They are calibrating & it will be resolved before the 30-day grace period is up."

Galindo is referring to a 30 day notice period during which the traffic cameras are operational, but toothless - the city is not issuing citations.  That grace period ends for this particular camera on September 17.

Bottom line: don't panic yet.  KGUN9 News will keep on top of it for you.  In fact, the newsroom can't help but notice the situation with this particular light, which sits astride the route many KGUN9 News employees take to get to work.