Red Light Camera News Seeing Red: Long Island’s Controversial Red Light Cameras
Seeing Red: Long Island’s Controversial Red Light Cameras
By Shelly Feuer Domash on October 6th, 2011
While making a left turn onto Uniondale Avenue from Jerusalem Avenue, a busy intersection in Uniondale, John Bohannon of Wantagh saw a pedestrian talking on a cell phone.
“[She was] sauntering across in front of me, oblivious to traffic,” he says. “I had to stop even though she was a jaywalker, walking against the ‘Don’t Walk’ sign.”
advertisement Bohannon had two choices: “Run her down and go on my merry way or stop and let her cross while the cameras flashed away. The light was red, a very bright sixty-dollar red.”
The inevitable ticket came, with the pedestrian clearly shown on the attached photo, he tells the Press. He chose not to fight it, however. A colleague of his in a similar situation got just $10 off of his fine after launching a lengthy and costly protest.
Charlie Sellitto of Bellmore has another tale.
“I was close enough to an 18-wheeler that the light could not be seen over the truck,” he explains. “I got another one that showed I was entering the turn when the picture was taken.”
Sellitto, too, decided not to fight because it was just easier to pay.
Former Nassau District Judge Samuel Levine did, though. His wife Lee was driving his car. She says the yellow light was too short and did not want to stop for fear of a rear-end collision. Although Levine did not win at his hearing, he still continues to battle what he describes as “serious civil rights, constitutional law and public safety problems” regarding the now 100 locations where 252 red-light cameras watch drivers throughout Nassau and Suffolk counties. And more are on their way.
Almost every Long Islander has, or knows someone who has, their own bitter and frustrating story. Are red light cameras a necessary evil that will reduce the number of accidents? Or are they just a money maker for the municipality and the private companies that install them? Can grassroots groups be successfully heard against the money and power of the large corporations who manufacture them?
One thing’s certain. Though many taxpayers here on Long Island may know little, if anything about the issue (other than seeing more and more bright lights flashing at intersections across the Island), the Press has learned that the two companies hired by Nassau and Suffolk counties to administer the red-light camera program—and rake in millions of dollars—have a sketchy, well-documented history of controversy behind them, spending huge amounts of money to fight local residents who oppose the cameras, millions on hiring lobbyists and contributing to the campaigns of politicians who are in favor of the cameras.
(Ban the Cams note: Notice the "late" time is .0002. This man was cited for "running a red light" not 5 seconds into red. but .0002 seconds. This is a classic technical foul (MOST RLV crashes are PLUS 5 second affairs).
RED LIGHT GREEN LIGHT
Nassau and Suffolk counties were granted the authority to begin installing the cameras under a pilot program authorized by the state legislature in 2009. They were both limited to 50 sites, and the cost of the summons was not to exceed $50. Since then, Nassau County has added a $15 surcharge and a $25 late fee. Suffolk has also added a $25 late charge. (Both note an additional $4 bank fee for payments made over the phone or online.)
Both counties then put out requests for proposals. Nassau County chose Scottsdale, Ariz.-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and Suffolk picked Fairfax, Va.-based Affiliated Computer Services (ACS).
advertisement The first camera was installed in Nassau on Aug. 6, 2009. By March 2011, all 50 camera sites were operational. Suffolk’s first camera site went live in June 2010; all its 50 locations were operational by April 2011.
According to Christopher Mistron, head of Nassau County Department of Public Works (DPW) Traffic Safety Board, Nassau currently has a total of 152 cameras at the 50 intersections it targeted. James Peterman, chief deputy commissioner of Suffolk’s DPW, says his county has 100 cameras at its 50 chosen corners.
As of Aug. 10, 2011, Suffolk had issued 210,141 citations, with approximately 3,000 of those contested. The courts found only 37 defendants not guilty. Nassau has issued more than 480,000 violations, with 1,884 hearings and 388 dismissed.
The cameras’ mechanics are simple. A high-resolution, high-speed digital camera is activated by sensors located at the intersections. They are designed to respond only when a vehicle is detected by the sensors after the light has turned red. The camera then snaps two photos: one of the car and one of the license plate. Tickets are issued for cars making left-hand turns while the traffic signal is red, going straight through a red light and making a right on red without a full stop.
Mistron, who returned Press requests for comment from Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano, says the program has been successful in increasing public safety.
Comparing the number of accidents for the year prior to the cameras’ installation with figures the year afterward, he says, there was a 15.53 percent yearly overall reduction in accidents, a 30.46 percent reduction in side-impact crashes, and a 16.5 percent reduction of roadway fatalities countywide from 2009 to 2010.
“The use of red light cameras has been successful in changing drivers’ behavior to recognize that red means stop,” he says. “Accidents have decreased. There has been a severity shift of accidents away from the higher-side impact, injury-producing accident. Prior to the cameras’ usage, side-impact accidents accounted for 36.07 percent of all accidents. After the installation, the percentage of all accidents is 29.69 percent.”
Mistron adds that making a left turn from the middle of an intersection will not automatically result in a ticket—a popular complaint from motorists.
“If you are at an intersection, possibly you and the car behind you can turn,” he says.
Nassau’s contract calls for ATS to make the initial observation for any violation. The company then “match[es] up the plate with the DMV records so the county knows who the car is registered to,” Mistron says, adding that ATS does not make the final determination of a violation.
The information is sent to the county’s traffic and parking violation bureau, where staff members review the images and videos to determine if a violation occurred. If so, says Mistron, “The vendor becomes our mail house, since we don’t have the mail capabilities within the county that could print and send tickets, provide the lock box, or location where the fines are collected. They take care of that for us. They have a flat leasing agreement; one ticket or a thousand, they get the same. That was determined and decided early on.”
The program has brought Nassau—and ATS—a windfall.
According to county documents, for the first full year of service in 2010, the revenue from these red-light cameras totaled $14,938,680.00. ATS made $4,406,523.14, giving Nassau a $10,532,156.86 profit. Records also show that the county is considering changing their agreement with ATS, looking at different ways to finance the cameras, including splitting all fees. Nassau is currently lobbying lawmakers in Albany to approve 50 more devices.
When Miston is asked where the more than $10 million in proceeds have gone, he says, “The Legislature had dedicated funds for social programs, youth board and health department.” A full “breakdown” and “detailed accounting” of these funds originally provided by Mangano’s Press Secretary Katie Grilli-Robles did not account for $2.5 million in 2010, nor for more than $2 million brought in the previous year. Shortly before press time, Grilli-Robles provided a subsequent breakdown that raises additional questions.
Although a request by the Press for revenues from Suffolk County’s red light camera program was still not fulfilled as of press time for this story, all expenses associated with the installation of the red light camera equipment (more than $10 million) have been paid by ACS, explains Suffolk’s James Peterman, and no county funds have been used except that of the time spent on the program by county employees. The vendor receives a share of the fines collected based upon the number of citations paid each month. Suffolk, too, is petitioning the state legislature for an additional 50 cameras.
The fees are calculated using a two-tier structure, continues Peterman. The first 90 citations paid per month per camera are considered Tier 1; the $50 fine split $37 for ACS and $13 for Suffolk. More than 90 citations per month per camera are considered Tier 2 citations, with the split $17 to ACS and $33 for Suffolk. All fees are deposited directly into a Suffolk County Treasurer’s account, and then ACS bills the county for its portion of the revenues, he explains. The vendor is responsible for the installation, operation and maintenance of the cameras. Each camera is remotely checked daily and physically inspected at least once a week by the vendor’s technicians, he adds.
Each recorded violation is reviewed by the staff of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, says Peterman. Though none of the reviewers have law enforcement background, he explains, “New York State law does not require red light violation reviewers to have a law enforcement background. In Suffolk, as in many municipalities, including Nassau County, reviewers are fully trained civilian employees.”
Mistron insists that the goal of these cameras is to change the behavior of Long Island motorists.
“We want to reduce crashes and accidents,” he says. “The main thing is to change people’s behavior and basically to get people to understand that red means red.”
Critics, such as Jay Beeber, founder of the grassroots Safer Streets L.A.—whose motto is “Stop LA’s Red Light Camera Rip-Off”—agree to disagree with this assessment, pointing to a host of studies as evidence. Instead of installing the cash cow cameras, they say officials should be fixing problem intersections through engineering solutions, such as lengthening the time a traffic light is yellow, or amber.
“People who support [the cameras] say it will change driver behavior,” he tells the Press. “It does, and it does so in many cases in negative ways.”
Beeber and other red-light camera opponents allege that the number of rear-end accidents at those intersections actually jumped—some as high as 90 percent—after their installation. Critics also accuse ATS and ACS with a slew of unethical behavior, from creating fictitious and misleading pro-camera online groups and personas to lobbing threats and lawsuits against municipalities, officials and individuals who oppose their installation.
SEEING RED
As more and more local and state governments approve red light cameras, so do more and more grassroots groups across the country form to protest their installation. And many of them have gotten positive results.
Nationwide, approximately nine states and 12 cities have passed laws banning the use of red-light cameras. In many areas, the debate comes down to whether citizens have the legal right to vote on these initiatives and tell their elected officials how they feel about these new cameras. Critics say that if the politicians can make their own decisions on the new cameras, their choices are all too often based on campaign contributions and pressure from lobbyists funded by red-light camera companies. Among other gripes, opponents accuse the camera companies of being akin to drug dealers, offering officials all sorts of incentives to sign on. Then, they argue, once a municipality gets a taste of the revenue stream, they can never have enough, even if it means adding more and more cameras.
advertisement “Cameras are the crack-cocaine for cities. Once they get hooked on the money, they can’t get off,” says Tim Eyman, initiative activist with Voters Want More Choices, in Mukilteo, Wash.
Should Long Islanders one day wish to end this growing red-light camera habit—through a referendum, perhaps—they will undoubtedly face a tough battle.
Gary Biller, executive director of the National Motorists Association, charges that ATS uses an extensive and expensive public relations campaign—sometimes utilizing questionable practices and deceptive tactics—to get their way. Those allegations are echoed by groups from California to Missouri.
“ATS finances what you can gently refer to as a front group for themselves,” he says. “It is called the National Coalition for Safer Roads. They seem to be very adept at issuing a whole myriad of press releases in favor of red light cameras, particularly when the tide seems to be turning against red light cameras.”
The former head of the lobbying group Storm King Strategies LLC, which specialized in the transportation industry, is now the executive director of the National Coalition for Safer Roads. On its website, the group lists a myriad of supporters, from government agencies to police departments to individual police chiefs. Linking them all is ATS.
It’s this cross-pollination of red-light camera manufacturers, lobbyists and advocates without their full disclosure that is one of the controversial tactics irking opponents, something they say is occuring across the country.
ATS spokesman Charles Territo tells the Press the company is the leading provider of red light cameras, with 300 communities of the 650 that utilize them. He admits that ATS is a supporter of the site Biller mentioned above.
He asserts, however, that ATS also has many other supporters.
Recently, ATS suspended one of its executives after it was found that he was filling blogs with pro-red-light camera postings and urging residents to contact their local officials in support of them. He did so under a false name.
“The former vice president with ATS was caught astroturfing a number of websites around the country with pro camera comments,” explains Biller. “He was blanketing the Internet. It is a phenomenon where you blanket the comment section of internet articles with cookie cutter comments that were their talking points. That issue itself wasn’t so bad, but he was putting himself under another name and indicating he was a local resident in some incidences.”
ATS tells the Press they eventually fired the executive; critics wonder what would have happened if he wasn’t caught.
In California, Safer Streets L.A.’s Beeber also took on ATS, discovering similar tactics, as well as other misleading techniques when public sentiment arose against the camera program there.
“They run ads under the name National Coalition for Safer Roads and never tell anyone they are funded and created by the camera companies,” he tells the Press. “They have huge number of lobbyists, and hire people to search online and type up positive information on cameras.
advertisement “In L.A., when we had a big debate, they bussed in their employees to speak in favor of cameras, and no one said they were an employee!” he blasts. “We caught them in so many lies.”
Territo defends ATS’ actions in Los Angeles, explaining to the Press: “We brought those people whose jobs were on the line to show their jobs were impacted by the decision the council made and who lived in the city of Los Angeles. We were very open about who they were, open about who they worked for.”
In the end, Beeber won. In late July, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to kibosh the program, following a unanimous recommendation from the city’s police commission a month earlier.
A similar scenario unfolded with another activist more than 1,000 miles away. Last year, Eyman began a campaign to leave the decision whether to use red light cameras up to the public through a ballot in Mukilteo, Wash.
Once again, ATS fought back. Among other tactics, it sent a memo (obtained by the Press) to the mayor expressing its intentions to squash the vote: “We would like to get the Eyman initiative stopped before it goes to a vote. It is a bad [precedent] to have a vote over police powers, and weakens the elected positions. We have hired a strong Seattle attorney firm…but they need a Mukilteo resident to use for the filing.”
The courts in Mukilteo ultimately refused to block a public vote initiative and the citizens got their chance to have their say. Residents voted a 71-percent majority not to allow the cameras into their community, says Eyman.
ATS is fighting to stop other cities in Washington from similar public ballots, though their argument is losing legal steam.
In August, Washington Superior Court Judge Ira Uhrig found that attempts by ATS to stop the city of Bellingham from putting an initiative on a ballot were illegal and violated state law. He imposed a $10,000 fine against ATS, in addition to requiring the company pay for the legal fees of the initiative’s sponsors.
“[O]ther courts have ruled that this is an issue that should be decided by the legislature, not through local initiatives, and we believe that precedent will prevail in an appeal,” argues Territo.
“They don’t play nice,” blasts Eyman. “They don’t care about citizens, the city council, or judges. They just go ahead like a bull in a china shop. They are the schoolyard bullies.”
Activists in Texas were facing other problems with ATS. According to Byron Schirmbeck, director of SaferBaytown.com, ATS was allegedly paying a Baytown police officer on the executive board of the police officers union to publicly support their initiatives.
“Whenever there is an initiative vote, they set up little fake front groups,” says Schirmbeck, adding, “ATS spent over $200,000 in Baytown, Texas for advertising. They violated the Texas ethics commission on political advertising by not putting on political disclaimers.”
“They don’t think the rules of the constitution apply to them,” explains Eyman. “Ethics and ATS are two words that should never appear in the same sentence.”
ATS also made its mark in Arnold, Mo. When Matt Hay, founder of wrongonred.com, was running for re-election as a councilman, he says ATS, through various donors, contributed approximately $17,000 to his opponent, a sum Hay says is unheard of for such a small city election. He has no doubt why.
“One of my goals was basically to get the cameras removed from the city of Arnold,” he says.
Strangely, the day after Hay officially launched his anti-camera website wrongonred.com, a site with a similar address popped up, wrongonred.org,, though it touted a very different message.
It was plastered with disparaging remarks about Hay, he says, including “For the truth about red light cameras in Missouri visit www.wrongonred.org. Matt Hay and his merry men who believe lawbreakers are the victims would love you to go there.”
The website, which records indicate was registered the day after Hay’s site went online, showed no indication it was sponsored by ATS, though Territo, the company’s spokesman, admits he personally created the site, after he was questioned by the Press, explaining: “It is the first pro-camera site that we ever operated. I made it on a whim. It has not been updated.”
Tiffany Sherwood, cofounder of BanCams.com, has found at least 18 pro-camera websites spread across the country that are registered to Advarion, Inc., of Houston, Texas. She claims Advarion has been known to do work for ATS; Territo denies this.
But when specifically asked about one particular site that is registered to Advarion entitled KeepNassauSafe.com, Territo knew about it, saying that it was not up and running. Numerous calls to Advarion from the Press for comment for this story were not returned.
Since ACS, Suffolk County’s vendor, does not list their red-light camera lobbying fees separately from their parent company’s other subsidiaries, there is no way to tell what they have spent. But that company is far from scandal-free.
ACS was accused of vandalizing red light cameras after they lost their bid to ATS in Washington, D.C.—not the first time ACS had been involved in questionable behavior.
In 2006, they were charged with a violation of a Canadian law that prohibits giving, offering or agreeing to give or offer any reward, advantage or benefit in consideration for receiving any favor in connection with a business relationship. The charges were based on allegations that ACS had bribed police over a six-year period in order to land a $90 million contract. A judge later ruled that although the officers involved might have used poor judgment in accepting the gifts, their actions weren’t criminal.
“Generally what happens is they play a political game: schmooze as much as possible,” says Casey Raskob, an attorney who works with the National Motorists Association. He claims the camera companies often go in at the local level and offer things like trips or meals to officials who are not used to getting these perks.
“Someone is throwing free money at you. But then a town tries to get rid of them, only to find they are sued by companies like ATS,” he tells the Press. “It is like getting into bed with the devil. There is no free money, no free candy. They won’t just go away.”
Houston did successfully rid themselves of red light cameras, however. Despite ATS threatening a $25 million lawsuit, a referendum passed in the city calling for the removal of all cameras. Houston shut down the entire program in August.
Just how these multi-million-dollar tickets are officially classified is another volatile issue in the red light camera debate. Instead of constituting a criminal penalty, violations are classified as civil infractions.
“Because they make it a civil matter, they sell it to the public by saying it won’t go on your license,” says Eyman.
This action, he adds, in effect strips accused offenders of their constitutional rights.
“You are assumed innocent until proven guilty,” explains Eyman. “You lose the right to face you accuser. In the criminal process the police officer who gave you the ticket has to show up. You can’t do that with a robot.”
Former Nassau County Judge Levine agrees, arguing that violators are not getting their constitutional right of due process of law. This right includes a presumption of innocence, the ability to confront the accusers and to cross-examine live technicians and witnesses. The motorist is also not getting, according to Levine, a fair hearing with validly appointed judges, and assistance of counsel if the motorist is poor, as well as proper rules of evidence, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction, an appeal process, and the protection of defendant’s privileges and constitutional rights. All of these rights would be available if a police officer issued the ticket, he explains.
Many cities are beginning to question the use of cameras, but according to Highway Safety Research and Communications, as of August 2011, 541 communities are using them.
SHOW US THE MONEY
With millions of dollars at stake for the industry, spending money on politicians, lobbying and lawsuits have become a routine part of doing business, especially for ATS.
When asked by the Press how much they actually spent on influencing politicians and hiring lobbyists, Territo replies, “I have no idea.” He adds, “We would spend less on lobbyists if there weren’t legislators looking to outlaw the use of cameras; and as far as political contributions, we support candidates who support what we do and recognize the benefits of red light safety cameras.”
advertisement ATS has vowed to continue challenging all public initiatives and to persist in their fight to increase the number of cameras. Published reports reveal that ATS spent as much as $1.5 million lobbying public officials and contributing to political campaigns in Florida alone. Here in New York, between May 2005 and June 2011, the company spent more than $372,000 on lobbying fees. The company also donated $8,250 to candidates within the Empire State.
Yet party politics are playing out on a more local level. The first 50 red light locations were considered part of a pilot project. Nassau and Suffolk counties have now requested an additional 50 cameras for each county. The state senate approved them, but it has been held up in the Assembly.
Assem. Charles Lavine (D-Glen Cove) says he is not happy with the way Nassau has been handling the program, stressing that the county was supposed to submit annual reports.
“When we won the ability to have the program, it was based on a contingency, and the contingency was that the legislature wanted to make sure that the cameras were being employed fairly and effectively, and because it is a five-year experimental program, as of close of business in Albany this year, they had only submitted one report, while the program been in existence for two years at that point,” he tells the Press. “I am not sufficiently interested in continuing the program on a permanent basis unless and until Nassau County satisfies the requirement that they submit those several annual reports.”
Mistron, Nassau’s Traffic Safety Board head, acknowledges that Nassau has not submitted any reports to the state legislature yet, but insists that the first one is due out soon.
Deputy Assembly Speaker Earlene Hooper (D-Hempstead) tells the Press she introduced new legislation that would ensure 25 percent of the proceeds from the cameras would go into “a locked box” that would be utilized solely for the purpose of youth programs, especially in the 18th Assembly district.
Hooper says that so far, she has no way to determine that Nassau’s red-light revenues are being used for safety initiatives. She wants a 60/40 cut from any such monies, with the 60 percent going to her district.
“I don’t know if the 50 are operating now. We don’t know where,” she says, referring to the original 50 corners. “We want accountability. A review will indicate where the summonses are being issued, and where the money, revenues are being put into.”
She said she has seen no reports, either, and adds that her district could not afford cameras that weren’t there for safety.
“This could lead to a person getting ticketed for the first time and fined over a period of time, and that can lead to the suspension of their driver’s license,” she laments. “They might not be able to pay $65. There is no way to determine if these cameras are going to be put in Hempstead or Garden City, Muttontown or Freeport, Kings Point or Roosevelt.”
Some on the other side of the aisle are equally frustrated.
“The Senate has passed the measure, the Assembly hasn’t, and now in August, when the legislative session has expired, they come up with arguments that they never raised during the legislative session?” blasts state Sen. Charles Fuschillo (R-Merrick).
Suffolk, according to Peterson, is also preparing its first annual report.
Lavine says he supports the cameras, but “these things ought to be implemented to save lives, reduce property damage and reduce medical injuries by placing [them] at most dangerous intersections. If however, they are not being placed at the most dangerous intersections, but are rather being placed at the busiest intersection, in order to be revenue producers, then they are nothing more than a tax. And if the county executive wants to engage in additional taxation, they ought to do that on their own without the help of the state legislature. That is one of the reasons why we want to see their reports.”
With the intervention of politics and money, the future of red light cameras on Long Island is temporarily in limbo. In the meantime, they hang above our intersections like Big Brother, watching the drivers of Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
