Privatized Traffic Enforcement = Bad Idea

Highlights From

“Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead

The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law

Enforcement and How to Protect the Public”

Full report http://banthecams.org/attachments/1926_Caution%20Red%20Light%20Camera%20Ahead.pdf

·         Some contracts, including those in the California cities of Bell Gardens, Citrus Heights, Corona and Hawthorne, potentially impose financial penalties on the city if traffic engineers extend the length of the yellow light at intersections with red-light cameras.

·         Some contracts require municipalities to strictly issue tickets on all right turns that do not first come to a complete stop, or enable vendors to impose financial penalties on cities that choose to alter their enforcement standards—including the contracts that Ventura and Napa Valley, California have with camera vendor Redflex.

·         Walnut, California signed a contract with Redflex that raises the possibility of a financial penalty if the city waives more than 10 percent of the potential violations identified by the private camera system.

·         Contracts between camera vendors and cities can include penalties for early termination—or fail to provide provisions for early termination—leaving taxpayers on the hook even if the camera program fails to meet its objectives.

·         In 2011, camera vendors employed nearly 40 lobbyists in Florida, whose agenda included killing a bill that would have required municipalities to adopt longer yellow light times to increase intersection safety, and killing a separate bill that would have banned red-light camera systems.

·         This focus on profit can be clearly seen in Redflex’s annual report to shareholders, where executives describe how “tighter contract language” and “more aggressive collection efforts in key markets” are important tactics the company will deploy to increase return for its investors in the coming year. It also appears prominently in the contract that Tallahassee, Florida, originally negotiated with Affiliated Computer Services in 2009, which states: “Only sites [for camera system placement] that validate out to a mutually agreed number of violations per day to meet the required financial obligations to pay the capitalized investment of the Vendor will be selected unless otherwise mutually agreed by the City and Vendor.”

“Cameras should be considered/installed only after engineering solutions have been proven ineffective where there is a red-light-running problem.” – Federal Highway Administration Guidance for Implementing Red-Light Camera Systems
 

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview