Red Light Camera News

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/escondido-former-deputy-loses-license-because-of-red-light-camera/article_7ce7c445-bb7a-5a16-97b7-d476507afa22.html

ESCONDIDO: Former deputy loses license because of red-light camera error

By EDWARD SIFUENTES This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. North County Times | Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:00 pm |

 
Marcos Ramirez, 52, an Escondido resident, drove for months on a suspended driver's license with the risk of being arrested and his vehicle being seized.
 

But it was not his fault. He is not an illegal immigrant and he is no scofflaw.
 

Ramirez's license was suspended last year because of an error committed by Escondido's red-light camera program. The cameras at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Fig Street captured a motorist running a red light on April 7.
 

The Police Department sent out a citation, the case went to court, and his license was suspended when he failed to appear.
 

Ramirez never knew any of this was happening until his auto insurance agency told him in January that his policy would not be renewed because his license was suspended.
Part of the reason for the mistake may be because his name is so common among Latinos, Ramirez said.
 

"I'm just one of many people with the name Marcos Ramirez," he said. "But exactly because of that, you should do more due diligence because you are affecting someone's life for no reason at all."
 

When it comes to red-light cameras, Ramirez knows what he is talking about. He is a retired Sheriff's Department sergeant, a 26-year veteran. He was in charge of his department's red-light camera program in Vista and Encinitas before he retired last year.
 

Ramirez was trained by the Arizona-based company that operates many of the region's red-light camera systems.
 

(Ban the Cams:  ATS???   Wonder if any went to ATS junket???   http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3581.asp )

The Escondido Police Department realized its mistake when Ramirez formally complained and his case was reviewed last week, said Lt. Tom Albergo, who oversees the department's traffic division.
 

"By notifying us, we were able to correct things and it happened pretty quick," Albergo said.
Since he started overseeing the traffic division about a year ago, Albergo said, there have been about four other cases similar to Ramirez's, in which the wrong person was cited.

(Ban the Cams Comment:  WE have followed some of the "mistakes" committed by the scamera side.  MANY ONLY GET it  RESOLVED when the PRESS are involved.  We wonder how much of the "quick" review was because he was one of their "own".  There is a ole adage, don't bit the hand that feeds you!)

Read more: Former RLC Deputy FALSELY ACCUSED BY HIS OWN. ANOTHER RLC TICKET "MISKTAKE"!

More Kubosh Videos Coming!!!!

(This was just posted by Randall Kubosh).

Randall D Kubosh

 these is a lot more videos coming - I have put all the raw edited footage on youtube and am editing it right now to be published in reverse chronological order so Part 1 will be on top and Part 15 will be on bottom ... Randy

Paul Kubosh and Mike Kubosh interview about Anti - Red Light Camera Campaign in Houston (Part 2)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iftgN-055Ws" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(Part 2) Mike Kubosh and Paul Kubosh are interviewed by CBC Morning Show reporter, Anne Werner, about their Red Light Camera Campaign in Houston Texas - from the inception to the present day, how they got started, why they did what they did, how they got the red light cameras removed from the 4th largest city in the US, how they fought overwhelming resistence from city officials and the red light camera vendor, ATS and even a Federal Judge who supported the RLCs, (low sound volume so you may need to set the volume settings on high)

Paul Kubosh and Mike Kubosh interview about Anti - Red Light Camera Campaign in Houston (Part 1)

(Part 1) Mike Kubosh and Paul Kubosh are interviewed by CBC Morning Show reporter, Anne Werner, about their Red Light Camera Campaign in Houston Texas - from the inception to the present day, how they got started, why they did what they did, how they got the red light cameras removed from the 4th largest city in the US, how they fought overwhelming resistence from city officials and the red light camera vendor, ATS and even a Federal Judge who supported the RLCs, (low sound volume so you may need to set the volume settings on high)

Check out 8:00 into it.  YOU LOVE IT!  The city TURNED off the RLC when the Kubosh was going get a ticket to CHALLANGE the RLC SYSTEM!  (The intersection was blocked off).

ATS ARNOLD Operation "violations" still down due to LONGER AMBERS!

WrongOnRed
 

Arnold, Missouri's January 2012 Red Light Camera Citation numbers are just in, and the verdict? Still down after the yellow lengthening of course. Interesting to note, the highest number of citations is in front so an elementary school, where the signal ONLY operates 1 of 24 hours, 5 days a week. (61/67 @ Rockport Elem). It would seem the issue at this signal (which is not at an intersection, but the entrance to a school, is the fact drivers are not in the habit of the signal being in operation, and assuming it will be flashing yellow as it does the other 23 hours a day they have seen it. 

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F81903531%2FPhoto-Enforced-Red-Light-Camera-Statistics-for-the-City-of-Arnold-January-2012&h=TAQGidIz3AQGZ6w85_K0L7wtXzdn8-a4Vdc9gMsKBGKBrNw

(Ban the Cams note:  Wonder how many "violations" of temporary light by that one were just when the light JUST turned ON!  Yellow is Flashing for most of the day than, SURPRISE RED LIGHT without any warning!  Be interesting to find out wouldn't it???  I think someone in DC years ago played that game on K Street I think!  Yellow in Flash mode at night than when light turns on  sudden red and RLC ticket.)

SCAMERA VENDORS HAVE PLAYED these "DOG and PONY" shows in front of the press before pretending to be "grass roots"!

Ban the Cams comment:  Lest you think the CT Dog and Pony show by ATS was a "aberration", THINK AGAIN!

The Scamera vendors have PLAYED THIS GAME BEFORE!

See the predecessor the Scamera vendors used before:  "National Campaign to stop RLR" (2007)  aka was funded by scamera companies!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show

 The term has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.[2]

 (for article on CT see, http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/ats-paid-puppets-qadvocacy-solutionsq-attempts-to-end-ct-press-conference-on-scameras.html)

http://blog.motorists.org/stop-red-light-running-exposed-as-corporate-lobbying-group-2/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Stop Red Light Running” Exposed As Corporate Lobbying Group
Posted on October 19th, 2007 in Red-Light Cameras 
 

The use of red light ticket cameras has spread to almost 300 cities across the United States. The ticket camera promoters publicly proclaim that these cameras improve traffic safety. Privately they tout the cameras’ revenue generating potential to state and local officials.

By masquerading as a public interest organization named “Stop Red Light Running” the ticket camera merchants attend trade shows and put on “dog and pony” events complete with victims, (courtesy of the MADD playbook) and local officials who tout the wonders of red light ticket cameras. On the public podium its all about safety, in the backrooms the name of the game is how much revenue can be generated.

Where’s the press? Why isn’t it pointed out that the “Stop Red Light Running” organization is nothing more than a public relations/lobbying organization funded by ticket camera companies? http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/biggest-supporters  There are numerous independent studies http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies that document the fact that red light ticket cameras increase accidents, injuries and property damage, but the average news article tells readers just the opposite and regurgitates the self-serving claims of ticket camera merchants and the cities that use this equipment.

One exception to this “asleep at the switch” pattern was the Washington Post’s review and analysis of Washington D.C’s camera enforcement program. The city proclaimed great safety benefits through the use of ticket cameras and, by the way, raked in tens of millions of dollars. However, when Washington Post reporters dug into the actual records they found traffic safety had declined http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/687.asp in general and specifically at camera enforced locations.

When cameras took North Carolina by storm the press dutifully parroted the safety motivations for installing red light cameras http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/. But, when the cameras were shut off because the cities couldn’t keep the fine money (constitutional requirement that fines must go to local school districts) no media sage was asking “why aren’t the cameras kept on for safety purposes?” The obvious answer is there was no safety purpose, the red light cameras were/are just a politically expedient way to rip off motorists.

The overwhelming majority of red light violations can be traced to poorly designed, improperly maintained, and incompetently operated traffic signal systems. To exploit these correctable shortcomings to raise revenue is unethical if not criminal.

ATS paid puppets "Advocacy Solutions" attempts to end CT press conference on Scameras.  WHOLE EVENT A SHAM!

Quote: 

After a string of pointed questions, Christopher D. Hunter of Advocacy Solutions, the Rhode Island-based government affairs firm hired by the National Coalition for Safer Roads, tried to end the press conference.

"I think we're going to wrap up," he said.

He was shouted down by reporters.

NCSR is an ATS FRONT GROUP!

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/15465/red-light-cameras-new-technology-raised-old-questions

Red-light cameras: New technology raises old questions
February 16, 2012
By Mark Pazniokas
 

Are speed traps about safety or revenue? It's been a question since the first cop wrote the first speeding ticket, and it was the challenge Thursday for advocates of a high-tech version of the old speed trap: automated red-light cameras.

Legislative advocates of the automated ticketing system said safety was their only concern as they stood in front of a backdrop provided by the National Coalition for Safer Roads, a nonprofit group financed by a vendor of red-light cameras.

American Traffic Solutions helped create the national nonprofit group last summer, not long after it hired two of Connecticut's top 10 lobbying firms, Brown Rudnick and Capitol Strategies.

Legislators line up for red-light cameras.

"It's not about revenues. I want to make that very clear. It's about saving lives," said Rep. Tony Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, the co-chairman the legislature's Transportation Committee.

Advocates say the threat of a ticket every time someone runs a red light is a stronger deterrent than the off-chance a police officer will witness and pursue a violation.

But Guerrera and other advocates, including the House and Senate majority leaders, were unprepared to explain precisely how they propose to define in statute what amounts to a public-private partnership on automated traffic enforcement.

Fines? They are discussing penalties ranging from $50 to $75, less than the $124 proposed last year. Will the vendor get a flat fee for providing the equipment and services or a cut of the tickets? That is uncertain.

The press conference was dominated by questions about revenue and the relationship that municipalities would have with American Traffic Solutions or any other vendor.

"I understand some of those concerns," Guerrera said. As far as revenue for the vendors, he said, "They have a right to recoup their costs."

After a string of pointed questions, Christopher D. Hunter of Advocacy Solutions, the Rhode Island-based government affairs firm hired by the National Coalition for Safer Roads, tried to end the press conference.

"I think we're going to wrap up," he said.

He was shouted down by reporters.

Read more: ATS paid puppets "Advocacy Solutions" attempts to end CT press conference on Scameras.

(Thanks to www.stpetecameras.org)

http://algonquin.patch.com/articles/lauzen-to-hold-press-conference-in-geneva-to-oppose-red-light-cameras

Lauzen to Hold Press Conference in Geneva to Oppose Red-Light Cameras
Kane County Board chairman candidate Chris Lauzen will hold a press conference on Thursday in GOP opponent Kevin Burns' home court. Lauzen will announce his opposition to red-light cameras.

By Rick Nagel February 14, 2012

  
Kane County Board candidate Chris Lauzen is holding a press conference Thursday to announce his opposition to red-light cameras—and his venue of choice is an intersection where his Republican primary opponent serves as mayor.

The Illinois state senator sent a press release Tuesday inviting members of the media to a press conference at 2 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 16, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Randall Road and Williamsburg Drive. This location is across the street from the southern edge of Geneva Commons in Geneva.

Lauzen's opponent in the primary is Mayor Kevin Burns of Geneva, who has supported the use of red-light cameras in the community. Geneva has two red-light cameras on Randall Road, at the intersections of Williamsburg Drive and at Fargo Boulevard.

According to the press release, Lauzen's fellow state senator, Dan Duffy, will speak against red-light cameras as the lead sponsor of legislation that would restrict and eliminate these devices. Peter Breen, chairman and founder of BanRedCams.com, will also speak and endorse Lauzen based on his opposition to red-light cameras.

Read more: Lauzen to Hold Press Conference in Geneva to Oppose Red-Light Cameras

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/feb/15/dw_red_light_update_021612_167525/?counties&police-courts

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

Originally published February 15, 2012 at 7:42 p.m., updated February 15, 2012 at 11:35 p.m.
 

The battle over Port Lavaca's red light cameras continues.

After submitting a signed petition to vote on eliminating the devices in Port Lavaca, the Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras are still waiting for the red lights to be turned off, said Carl Baugh, the organizer of the group.

Five of the cameras were installed at intersections along state Highway 35 in December 2008. The cameras record drivers running red lights and have been a point of contention for the past two years.

The City Council says the cameras are there for safety. Baugh maintains they were installed for profit.

Baugh submitted a petition a few weeks ago for a referendum to change the city charter and remove the cameras. The petition needed 200 notarized signatures to be accepted. The petition was presented to the Port Lavaca City Council at its meeting on Monday with more than 200 signatures, Baugh said.

After the city accepts the petition, Baugh said the city charter states the cameras must be turned off until the council has either voted the cameras out or place a referendum about the red light cameras on the ballot.

The council went into closed session to discuss the petition before asking City Attorney Anne Marie Odefey to review the case.

Baugh said the city charter requires the council to either vote on the issue or vote to place the issue on the election ballot once the petition has been accepted, but the cameras have stayed on.

"Right now, they're in violation of their city charter for not pulling those cameras. The police are issuing fake tickets on an ordinance that should be suspended right now," Baugh said.

On Wednesday, Port Lavaca Mayor Jack Whitlow and Odefey received certified letters from Baugh demanding that the cameras be turned off until the issue has been resolved.

Whitlow said the council has 30 days to have the petition formally reviewed by Odefey before they respond. He said Baugh had misread the city charter and the City Council is not required to turn off the cameras.

"He's reading it a little bit wrong. It's really easy to misinterpret the charter. That's why even we look at it pretty closely," Whitlow said.

Odefey said via email that she had no comment as city attorney "because of the legal nature of (the) matter" and the pending lawsuit from Texas Traffic Coalition.

This is the second petition Baugh has submitted to the council in his quest to put the issue of red light cameras to a vote. The first petition contained more than 1,500 signature, but it was rejected after the Texas Traffic Coalition filed a lawsuit against the city. The lawsuit stated that the city could not put the matter to a vote because red light cameras were a matter of "health and safety," something only the City Council could decide.

 (Ban the Cams comment:  The "Texas Traffic Coalition" is a CHICAGO REDFLEX FRONT GROUP  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3445.asp.  AKA the REDFLEX MAFIA.   

Quote: According to the March 3 Texas Secretary of State filing that created the Texas Traffic Safety Coalition, the group consists of three directors: David Goldenberg, Gregory Goldner and David Smolensky. All three are officers of Resolute Consulting, a public relations firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Redflex is one of the firm's satisfied clients.

 http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/the-redflex-mafia/)

After the City Council voted the matter down, Baugh went back to square one. While the council's vote was frustrating, he has been working to get the cameras removed from Port Lavaca for the past two years. He said he isn't going to stop until the matter is put to a vote.

"All I want is a vote. If it's voted out or voted in, I'm going to go with what the people decide, not what these elected officials have decided to do on their own," Baugh said.

Port Lavaca, TX Charter Violations (TX town likely playing games trying to PREVENT DEMOCRACY!)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/352118962300/doc/10150540223282301/

·         PL charter violation

By Carl Baugh in Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras · Edit Doc

Mr. Mayor and City Attorney,

This letter makes a demand of the city and city attorney to immediately follow and implement the provisions of the city charter applicable to our referendum petition as certified by the city secretary on 2-8-2012.

As officers of the city you have a legal obligation and duty to properly discharge your duties and obligations under the city charter. As of today's date the city, city attorney's office and mayor’s office are derelict in their duty. The Port Lavaca police department is also issuing fraudulent red light camera tickets as the ordinance authorizing these civil violations has been suspended by virtue of the city charter. Each notice of civil violation issued without a supporting city ordinance creates another potential class action lawsuit member exposing the city to significant financial exposure. The inaction of the city attorney and council to properly discharge their obligations under the city charter are encouraging illegal activity by the Port Lavaca Police Department in their continuance of issuing civil violation red light camera tickets without a supporting ordinance.

Facts;

Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, (PLCARLC), circulated a valid petition for a referendum of ordinance S-1-08, (authorizing a civil penalty for violating a steady traffic signal light), on a form authorized by and provided by the city secretary. PLCARLC submitted the petition to the city secretary's office in a timely manner and the petition was certified by the city secretary as sufficient on 2-8-2012. Section 5.10 of the Port Lavaca city charter clearly and plainly states;

"When an authorized referendum petition is certified by the City Secretary as sufficient, the ordinance sought to be reconsidered shall be suspended, unless such suspension will create an immediate breach of public health and safety; and such suspension shall continue until the Council repeals the ordinance or the ordinance is upheld by election."

There has been no declaration, statement or even suggestion by the city that suspending the ordinance would cause an immediate breach of public health and safety and that this is the reason for the city's delay in suspending the ordinance as required by the charter. The fact that accidents have increased at the red light camera intersections since installation would be evidence that the public safety is best served by suspending the ordinance not defending it in defiance of the city charter.

On 2-13-2012 the city council, acting on faulty statements from the city attorney, misapplied charter section 5.11 "action on petition" which states;

"(a) Within thirty (30) days after the date an initiative petition has been certified to the Council as sufficient, the Council shall request a formal legal opinion from the City Attorney on the legality of the proposed ordinance. If the City Attorney issues a written opinion that the proposed ordinance is clearly and facially invalid, the Council shall not be required to call an election on such initiative. Otherwise, within forty-five (45) days after an initiative or referendum petition has been certified to the Council as sufficient, the Council shall:

(1) Adopt the proposed initiative ordinance without any change in substance; or

(2) Repeal the referred ordinance; or

(3) Shall, at the first meeting for which timely notice may be given, order a special election to be held at the earliest time permitted by this Charter and state law on the proposed or referred ordinance.

(b) The election on a proposed or referred ordinance shall be held on the next available uniform election date after the date of the Council's action and for which notice may be timely given in compliance with state law and this Charter. Such election may coincide with a regular City election should such election fall within the specified time. However, special elections on initiated or referred ordinances shall not be held more frequently than once each six (6) months and no ordinance substantially the same as a defeated initiative ordinance shall be adopted by the Council or initiated within two (2) years after the date of the election. No referred ordinance repealed at an election may be readopted by the Council within two (2) years from the date of the election at which such ordinance was repealed. Copies of the proposed or referred ordinances shall be made available at each polling place."

City council voted to delay action on this petition until the 30 days described in 5.11 to allow for the city attorney to issue a legal opinion. This is a blatant and willful misapplication of the clear language of the city charter. The 30 days refers to a delay for a legal opinion on an INITIATIVE ORDINANCE, and has no effect or bearing on a REFERENDUM petition like the one certified by the city secretary on 2-8-2012. Section 5.10 requires no action by the council or city attorney to suspend the ordinance. The ordinance IS suspended by the clear and plain language of the charter at the very time the city secretary certifies the petition which was on 2-8-2012. The only action 5.11 requires of council in regards to a referendum petition is a vote to repeal the ordinance with 45 days or to place the issue on the ballot.

Considering these facts PLCARLC demands; the city immediately issue a directive to the Port Lavaca Police Department to cease the issuance of red light camera tickets as the ordinance authorizing the civil penalty is suspended, to declare any notices of violation issued after 2-8-2012 to be invalid, and to make a clear and public statement that the ordinance is suspended until the election on the referendum or the council votes to repeal the ordinance.

Carl Baugh,

Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras

(Thanks to www.motorists.org for the link!)

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/293262

Red-light camera decision in voters’ hands  (TX towns Allows vote!)
By Christopher Smith Gonzalez
The Daily News
Published February 15, 2012
 
LEAGUE CITY — The future of League City’s red-light cameras will be on the November special-election ballot, the city council decided Tuesday night.

At its Jan. 24 meeting, the council had decided to ask residents what should be done with the traffic cameras once the contract with the camera provider runs out in October 2014.

But that was a nonbinding referendum, Councilman Dennis OKeeffe said. What the council unanimously approved Tuesday night is asking residents to vote on a charter amendment to prohibit further deployment of red-light cameras on the city’s roads, he said.

That means the cameras will stay or go by city charter, OKeeffe said.

The city signed a five-year contract for the cameras in 2009 and agreed to pay Redflex Traffic Systems a monthly maintenance fee of $38,960 to operate the cameras.

The cameras are at three intersections along FM 518 — at Marina Bay Drive, Interstate 45 and state Highway 3.

The city would have to pay Redflex almost $1.3 million if the council decides to cancel the contract in February, Kristi Wyatt, the city’s spokeswoman, said.

Council members have cited the cost associated with breaking the contract with Redflex as the reason for asking voters what should be done when the contract runs out instead of voting to bring cameras down now.

OKeeffe had expressed reservations in the past with placing the cameras on the ballot but he said he is more comfortable with the idea now.

“The city is exposed to less liability if the votes make the decision on the future of the photographic traffic enforcement systems,” OKeeffe said.

The council also approved scheduling public hearings regarding the red-light camera ballot proposition. The first of those meetings will be on or before March 30.

The intent of the meetings is for residents to weigh in on the cameras and the ballot language, OKeeffe said.

Councilman Dan Becker asked the city attorney to take care in crafting the ballot to make sure there are no misunderstandings on what residents are voting for.

“The language should be crafted where yes means yes and no means no,” Becker said. “In other words, if you are for red-light cameras you are going to vote yes and if you are against red-light cameras you are going to vote no.”

RLC bills stalled for now in Florida Legislature.  The battle continues!

http://www2.hernandotoday.com/news/hernando-news/2012/feb/15/hanewso1-traffic-camera-bills-are-stalled-ar-358886/

Traffic camera bills are stalled
By JEFF SCHMUCKER | Hernando Today
Published: February 15, 2012 Updated: February 15, 2012 - 12:00 AM

TALLAHASSEE --
Bills that would eliminate red light cameras or make it easier to challenge them in court have gained little to no traction in the Legislature — leaving small hope for supporters that they'll make progress this session.

In years past, bills to eliminate red light cameras have made it onto the House floor but have gone nowhere in the Senate.

This session, House Bill 4177 was introduced, which would repeal the use of red light cameras statewide.

Under another bill, HB 343, drivers receiving red light camera tickets would no longer be required to perjure themselves or be further penalized by requesting a court hearing — making it the state's responsibility to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the plaintiff was responsible for the traffic infraction.

That could be a difficult task considering the cameras don't capture footage of the driver.

However, both bills have failed to make it out of committee and onto the House floor.

With roughly four weeks remaining, state Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Seminole, a co-sponsor of HB 4177, said it's unlikely lawmakers will seriously consider the matter this session.

Following the release of a University of South Florida report that questions the validity of safety claims concerning the cameras, Plakon said he hopes lawmakers will reconsider.

"I hope legislators read that study because there have been so many different voices on this topic, and at least these USF researchers are health professionals with no dog in this fight other than looking for good science. And there's plenty of bad science throughout the use of these red light cameras."

USF researchers question methods used in past studies that found red light cameras reduced accidents and saved lives — claiming instead that the length of yellow lights likely plays a bigger role.

Researchers also questioned the purpose of the red light tickets and whether cities and lawmakers are using them more to raise money than save lives.

Red light camera supporters, local and statewide, have instead argued that the cameras deter drivers from running the lights.

Brooksville Vice Mayor Lara Bradburn added that revenue is far from her goal, considering she hopes to see fewer tickets issued as drivers learn not to run red lights.

* * * * *

Local opponents have mirrored USF researchers' doubts about officials' goals when they installed the cameras in 2009, and again a year later when city council members reversed course and discontinued using the traffic recording devices — only to approve reinstalling them this March.

Under the current red light camera bill, motorists receive a fine of $158 — with the state taking an $83 cut.

The municipality with the cameras receives the remaining $75 — minus whatever fees it pays to the red light camera vendor.

* * * * *

Along with the ticket, generally vehicle owners receive copies of photos showing their vehicles committing the offense.

Owners have a choice of paying the ticket or challenging it before a civil traffic judge — where the fine increases by roughly $100. Penalties could also include up to $500 in additional court costs and points against the offender's license.

Whether or not the bills make their way to the House floor, at least Hernando County commissioners made it clear Tuesday they have no intention of seeing red light cameras installed throughout the county.

County Commissioner Jim Adkins said he believes the cameras are used as a revenue grab and have nothing to do with safety. He was supported by Chairman Wayne Dukes and Commissioner John Druzbick.

"I believe there are other ways to address that issue," Dukes said.

http://www.cbs12.com/news/lights-4738804-red-.html

Royal Palm Beach, Haverhill put brakes on red-light cameras

February 13, 2012 10:58 PM

By AL PEFLEY / CBS12.com

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. -- Several local cities are using red-light cameras. But The town of Haverhill and the village of Royal Palm Beach have decided to stop using them.

In some cities, drivers could get a $158 dollar ticket in the mail if they're caught on camera running a red light. But the village of Royal Palm Beach put a halt on the cameras and sent a letter last month to the company that installed the cameras, terminating its agreement with them.

"We concluded that we would back off and not go forward with the red light program until the legislative field, landscape was settled, and it was determined whether it's legal, whether its not legal," said Fred Pinto, Royal Palm Beach Councilman.

For now, the red-light cameras remain in place. But they're not working, the village of Royal Palm Beach is not using them, and no tickets or warnings are being sent to violators.

The same goes for the town of Haverhill, which also has stopped using the red-light runner cameras.

"The landscape from a legal standpoint is very uncertain. Its very uncertain what the outcomes are going be of some of the challenges in the courts," said Pinto.

He feels the red-light cameras are a good thing.

"We believe that ultimately at the end of the day it does make streets safer," said Pinto.  (Ban the Cams Comment:  SURE, JUST ADMIT IT!  You DID RLC FOR MONEY!  Now that there are concerns over money you are having second thoughts.  (Suits or is there more???)  As for the "safety" claim.  Why don't you check out the USF report that found IIHS MANIPULATING THE STATISTICS!  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp  Quote:  "The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the "before" period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities "before" to improve in the "after" period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.")

Read more: Royal Palm Beach, Haverhill put brakes on red-light cameras

http://www.b-townblog.com/2012/02/13/breaking-burien-city-council-terminates-red-light-camera-program/comment-page-1/

BREAKING: Burien City Council Terminates Red Light Camera Program

Burien City Council members agreed Monday night (Feb. 13) to terminate the city’s three-year-old red light camera program.

Although Jack Block Jr. said he favored renewing the contract with Redflex – but limiting the vendor to 25 percent of program revenues – the rest of the council favored ending the program.

City Finance Director Kim Krause earlier told council members that city staff was “unable to quantify the effect cameras have had on traffic patterns and behavior,” an assessment that Police Chief Scott Kimerer agreed with.

City Manager Mike Martin said the contract will lapse with no further council action when it expires on May 1.

Read more: BREAKING: Burien City Council Terminates Red Light Camera Program (Redflex).

Port Lavaca, TX Update

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/352118962300/10150536897202301/?notif_t=group_activity

Carl Baugh
our petition was verified by city secretary and entered into the record at tonight's city council meeting. Now we wait on a written recommendation from the city attorney on which way the city will go... for the people? or for the red light camera company?? to be determined....

Port Lavaca, TX news:  Backroom dealings trying to PREVENT DEMOCRACY!

This just came across on a post to Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras.

Carl Baugh

 Anyone wanting to have their voices heard on the red light camera issue can join me tonite at city hall were they are going to have another back room deal going on in hopes to keep this off the ballot to be voted on by the people. The time is 6:30pm tonight so come one or all and hold our elected officials accountable.

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/California-s-red-light-camera-fines-are-worst-in-the-U-S/1715-482313-784.aspx

California's red light camera fines are worst in the U.S.
by Gregg Laskoski on Feb 6, 2012 03:11 PM

California has the most expensive red-light camera tickets in the world; and the tickets are so steep, according to Kevin Fagan, reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, that one camera in Oakland generates more than $3 million annually.

According to Fagan and the traffic-watch site TheNewspaper.com, anyone in California photographed violating a red light pays a fine of $480 and no other jurisdiction in the U.S. has a tab that high. The second-highest fine in the U.S. is $250, Fagan says.

California's Dept. of Finance estimates that red-light cameras bring in more than $80 million annually to the state and $50 million to cities and counties. Not all $480 from each ticket goes to the cities or counties that authorize the cameras; more than half goes to the state or to the companies tht run the devices.

While the fine is the same whether a camera or not a live police officer issues the ticket, the camera draws considerably greater criticism because it can issue far more tickets than a single cop at any intersection.

Roger Jones is one local resident who asked: "Is there a limit to how much 'gotcha government' we have to put up with?" He began crusading against the red-light cameras after he got a ticket from one in 2009. "Just because you can do it (issue tickets) doesn't mean you should," Jones noted.

His organization, the Red Light Camera Protest Group, pickets in Fremont and calls for the elimination of red-light cameras and a reduction in the fine. "I think we'd all be better off without them," Jones said. "There are better ways to address the problem."

His foremost suggestion is to increase yellow-light durations, giving people more time to stop safely - and to avoid tickets.

He first pushed the city of Fremont in 2010 to tack 0.7 of a second onto the yellow light at Mission Boulevard and Mojave Drive, pushing it to five seconds, the city noted a 62 percent drop in red-light camera tickets there. But, they're at it again...

http://thegazette.com/2012/02/12/research-finds-blues-on-red-light-cameras/

Updated: 12 February 2012 | 12:52 am in Gazette Guest Columnists
 

Research finds blues on red-light cameras

By Wilfrid Nixon

Every January, the Transportation Research Board (part of the National Academies) holds an annual meeting. One of the presentations I heard this year discussed whether safety and mobility on our roads would improve if the yellow-light time in traffic light systems were lengthened during rain events, and if so, how much that yellow light interval should be changed.

It turns out, this research paper is pertinent for the current discussion on traffic cameras in the Iowa Legislature.

Determining the length of time for the lights in traffic signals involves various parameters, two of which are perception time and reaction time. Perception time is how long it takes us to notice something (in this case, how long it takes us to notice that the lights have changed from green to yellow). Reaction time is how long it takes us to act on the change we have just perceived.

All of us have different perception and reaction times, and those times may change depending on the time of day, how much coffee we have had, whether the kids are screaming in the back, etc. Unfortunately, traffic light systems cannot yet take all those factors into consideration, so their timing is designed according to standard perception and reaction times.

One of the things traffic engineers strive to avoid when designing signal timings is the creation of a “dilemma zone.” This occurs if a driver, even though following the speed limit, can neither get through the light before it turns red, nor stop before the stop line at the intersection. Some people, in general the elderly, have slow perception and reaction times. They may do all the right things, but, through no fault of their own, get ticketed by a camera system.

During rain events, the size of the dilemma zone increases as the system doesn’t account for the weather.

Of course, this is not the only argument against red light cameras. Many studies have shown that if you want to improve mobility and safety at a signalized intersection, you should increase the time of the yellow-light phase. If this time threatens to become too long, then an “all red” phase (where all lights at the intersection are red) can be used.

We should not allow red-light cameras in Iowa, but if we do, they should be allowed only after the timing of the lights have been adjusted to a longer yellow period, and a study explores whether such an adjustment has improved safety. A red-light system would be approved only if no safety improvement had been observed.

I suspect under such a system we would have no need for red-light cameras.

Wilfrid Nixon is Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Iowa. Comments: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(Thanks to Camerafraud for the link!)

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-08/news/bs-ed-speed-cameras-20120208_1_red-light-camera-system-city-intersection

City red light cameras are a form of highway robbery
February 08, 2012

I read with interest the letter detailing abuses of the speed camera system in Maryland ("Speed cameras nail the innocent, too," Feb. 4).

Abuses unfortunately also extend to the red light system. Some time ago I received a citation from Baltimore's Department of Finance, Bureau of Revenue Collections demanding $75 for committing an illegal turn on red at a city intersection.

However, turning on red is perfectly legal at that intersection, and the photograph on the citation shows my vehicle not even yet in the intersection, with the brake light on to boot. It was in fact stopped. Only then was the legal turn on red completed.

I tried to obtain a court date and exercise my right to contest the charge, but at that point the fun was only starting. The phone number listed to secure a court date, is — surprise — never answered. The Baltimore city website did not even list the citation number. In the meantime, I received a stern, follow-up warning that if I didn't pay by a certain date, the fine would increase to $100 and eventually the vehicle's registration would be jeopardized.

I kept at it, however, and called the Maryland District Court, and was given the name of an actual human being at the Department of Finance that I could talk to. The person there advised me that I might get an court date in four to six months, and that it would probably take place before my auto registration was suspended for non-payment. As for the warning notices, I was advised to ignore them. I still don't have a court date.

But the story doesn't end there. My wife, who works at a high school nearby, has observed other cars stop at the same the red light, have their picture taken by the camera, and then go on to complete what the drivers think is a perfectly legal turn.

It's difficult to believe that the red light camera system here and elsewhere in the state isn't "rigged." It is also difficult to believe that our state and local governments have descended to the level of committing or sanctioning obvious and systematic acts of extortion to squeeze yet more money out of the public.

I am forced to ask why Her Honor the Mayor or His Excellency the Governor don't simply instruct police to randomly stick their guns in people's faces and relieve them of their wallets? What's the difference?

Drage Vukcevich

http://warondriving.com/post/17354589521/california-red-light-cameras-infowars

Red Light Cameras in California Taking Major Heat

Even after American Traffic Solutions http://warondriving.com/american-traffic-solutions was expelled from the city limits of Los Angeles this summer, red light cameras are still a hot topic of conversation in the Golden State.

SFGate.com, which is the online version of The San Francisco Chronicle, posted an article this week http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/04/MNGJ1N2VRO.DTL&ao=all about just how much of a revenue generator dangerous red light cameras are for municipalities in California who still use the system.

Many communities in the state have ditched their camera programs when the alleged safety benefit is never realized, the tickets become impossible to collect on and the public revolts.

TheNewspaper.com is also getting some nice recognition for the wealth of facts and figures available on their site and the alternative perspective from the soundbite info given out by local network news.

InfoWars, which has a higher Alexa rating http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/infowars.com# than MSNBC.com, also covered the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWYZUz2yk-E&feature=player_embedded

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gWYZUz2yk-E?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>