Taking on the Government

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/772.htm

The 'Inconvenient Truth' on Speed Limit Infringement?
The ABD calls upon Justice Minister Ken Clarke to provide evidence that minor speed limit infringements are causing casualties before almost doubling speeding fines from £60 to £100.
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory explains:

“The vast majority of speeding fines are for low level infringements by sober, otherwise legal drivers. Despite previous challenges from the ABD, the government seem totally unable to provide any evidence that such drivers are causing or even involved in more than a handful of accidents. Tellingly, neither can the campaigning organisations calling for more enforcement. Of course, a number of casualties do involve drivers travelling above speed limits (around 5-6%), however nobody in government seems to know, or even more concerningly, be at all interested in finding out how many of these 'speeding' drivers are sober, licenced drivers travelling within a few MPH of the limit and how many are also drunk, drugged, unlicenced, in stolen cars or travelling at reckless speeds well above the limit. For all we know most 'above speed limit' casualties could fall into the latter category.”

The simple question to Mr Clarke is: 'How many people are killed or seriously injured annually by sober liicenced drivers travelling above but within 20% of a speed limit?'. Until you collate this information you have no evidence to justify continued and increased hounding of such drivers. There is no excuse as estimated speed, alcohol, licence details etc are recorded after each and every fatal or serious accident. All it would take is a few days work for a data input clerk to collate them but perhaps the truth is too inconvenient?

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3704.asp

More Texas Cities Could See Red Light Camera Referendum
Ballot votes could put a stop to red light cameras in Cleveland, League City and Port Lavaca, Texas.

The effort to give voters a say in whether red light cameras are used in their community is spreading across Texas. Already, voters in College Station http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2950.asp, Baytown, Houston http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp and Dayton http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp have rejected the use of automated ticketing machines. Yesterday the city council in League City voted to put the issue on the November ballot, and voters in Port Lavaca turned in sufficient signatures last week to force an election.

In League City, city leaders are looking to head off a public signature drive by asking voters not whether the camera program should be terminated immediately, but whether it should be continued when the contract expires in the year 2014. The cameras have been highly controversial in the Gulf Coast town where the devices have failed to reduce accidents http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3381.asp, according to official data. City Councilman Dennis OKeeffe even won his seat last year by running on a "No Red Light Cameras" platform. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3441.asp

In Port Lavaca, cameras have been equally controversial, especially after the city and vendor Redflex were caught issuing red light camera tickets to drivers who had a green light (view story with video http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3594.asp). The city ignored an anti-camera petition last March http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3424.asp, so organizers have returned with a true referendum that strictly follows the rules laid down in the city charter, which places no time limit on a vote to repeal a city ordinance. As such, once the signatures are certified, the ordinance authorizing the cameras would be suspended pending the outcome at the ballot box.

"We predict the city will once again abuse the city charter by claiming this is a matter that would be a breach of public safety and deny suspension of the ordinance until the election," the group Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras http://www.facebook.com/groups/352118962300/ said in a statement. "If the city does so we will know the city will do anything they can to save a failed program that has increased accidents and issued fraudulent tickets for drivers for going through green lights. If the council was truly concerned about a breach of public safety they would have never authorized the cameras and would have saved the additional accidents the cameras have caused."

Byron Schirmbeck, director of saferbaytown.com http://saferbaytown.com/, spearheaded the successful referendum effort in Baytown. He told TheNewspaper that the next likely target will be Cleveland, a city of about 7600 about forty-five miles from Houston.

http://blog.photoenforced.com/2012/01/follow-us-on-google.html

Follow Us on Google+
by Jeff Cohn | Thursday, January 26, 2012 |

PhotoEnforced.com has just started using Google+ in an attempt to engage further with readers and red light camera database contributors.  Please feel free to post links and articles that might be helpful to our database or for changing laws.  You can find PhotoEnforced.com Google+ here and don't forget to add us to your circles.  I also encourage you to follow Jeff Cohn Google+ https://plus.google.com/100111747368084248659/posts https://plus.google.com/116723826847931912227/posts as well.  PhotoEnforced.com Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/PhotoEnforced and PhotoEnforced.com Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/PhotoEnforcedcom/50572892670 should also be followed if you use them for actively as well.

I am pretty impressed with what I’ve seen so far in the launch. Its faster and less cluttered than FaceBook. One of the key points for me though is that it is very intuitive and more flexible for filtering views. I think Google+ will eventually become the platform for business networking and Facebook will become the standard for friends and family networking. 

Google+ is not a Facebook killer but simply a supplement. If you are a heavy Google users for search, email and advertising like we are then enjoy it for the future.
 

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/01/photographing-cops-in-maryland-risky.html

Friday, January 27, 2012
Photographing Cops in Maryland a Risky Proposition (Photo Journalist arrested for taking picture in 2011)

Police departments in Maryland can photograph motorists with impunity.  But as one photo journalist learned, police in Montgomery County have a serious double standard when it comes to citizens photographing cops. 

Photo Journalist Mannie Garcia of Kensington shot a video of Montgomery County Police on June 16, 2011 making an arrest.  According to Garcia's account http://wheaton-md.patch.com/articles/photojournalist-says-his-wheaton-arrest-violated-his-civil-rights ""When an officer came up to me, I let the camera go, I opened up my hands, and I said, 'I'm Mannie Garcia, and I'm with the press.' Then two things happened at about the same time: he grabbed me by the neck and says, 'That's it, you're under arrest'; and he pulled my arm behind me, put me in a choke hold, and started dragging me across the street."

Police charged him with "disorderly conduct".  The account in the police report differs wildly from that of the reporter.  Garcia lost his white house press credentials due to the charges, which need to be renewed every year.  He was eventually acquitted of all charges against him in December, and stated that he might seek a civil rights suit against the county http://wheaton-md.patch.com/articles/photojournalist-says-his-wheaton-arrest-violated-his-civil-rights.  The card containing the video he was taking the video was never returned.   Garcia claims the incident is an example of a "catch and release" http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2012/01/garcia.html policy used by police to stop photographing off arrests by journalists by charging with offenses such as trespassing, resisting arrest, or disorderly conduct.

In 2010, two citizens were charged under Maryland wiretapping laws http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2010/06/citizens-arrested-for-filming-police.html for filming police officers. An attorney general's opinion was issued that filming police is not illegal.  No worries though, plenty of other charges they can make up.  Meanwhile, surveillance of Maryland drivers by police continues to expand with no end in sight.

Speed Scamera Humor:  Rémi strikes again. This time it’s as a gatso speed camera.

(Thanks to www.warondriving.com for sharing this!)

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120121/OPINION03/701219995

Guest commentary / Red-light cameras

Haugen's obstruction leaves voters little choice
By Tim Eyman
 

Nobody hates our initiatives more than Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island). She's the state Senate's transportation chair and she's constantly whining about our 1999 $30 car tab initiative. (Hypocrisy alert: she voted for the bill to repeal the motor vehicle excise tax after I-695 was overturned by the courts.)

Wouldn't it have been better for "leaders" like her, way back before that initiative, to have recognized the widespread public disgust with outrageously expensive car tab taxes and done something legislatively meaningful about it? If they had, there wouldn't have been an Initiative 695 (and I doubt I would have seen the need to become a political activist).

So what exactly is Haugen waiting for when it comes to seriously responding to the public's overwhelming rejection of those obnoxious automatic ticketing cameras? Recent local initiatives in very liberal communities like Mukilteo and Bellingham have rejected them with 71 percent and 68 percent votes. And very conservative communities like Monroe and Longview said no with 68 percent and 59 percent votes. Middle of the road Redmond didn't even wait for a public vote -- the submission of a record number of voter signatures convinced the mayor and city council to abandon the program.

Haugen created this monstrosity in 2005. With all these recent public votes against her Frankenstein, what's her response? "No, no second thoughts. I don't think I opened up Pandora's Box," Haugen told The Herald.

Clueless, truly clueless.

Will she give other communities the opportunity to choose whether to keep the cameras or not? From The Herald: "Haugen said she'd fight against … requiring a vote before cameras can be used. 'I don't agree with that,' she said."

Initiatives are necessary when politicians take the ostrich approach, sticking their head in the sand hoping that ignoring the problem will make it go away. It doesn't work that way (RE: Initiative 695).

The Herald has done a stellar job exposing the corruption this program breeds. The red-light camera company executives who impersonate local citizens to promote their product, the police officers who prostitute themselves to maintain the cameras' cash flow, and the city councils that can't objectively review the cameras' failure because (when faced with internal emails) they've admitted they're hooked on the money.

And so how has Haugen reacted to these revelations and disclosures? "When told a preponderance of studies reviewed by The Herald didn't reach those same conclusions, Haugen said: 'I've seen your stuff, and I don't necessarily agree with it.'" Haugen is obviously someone who doesn't let facts get in the way of her corrupt enterprise.

The Herald Editorial Board opines that it's not a good enough justification to end the program because the citizens hate it. I disagree. Government must retain "the consent of the governed." This program doesn't have it. And there are numerous reasons why.

Liberals hate the program because the government is giving police powers to huge, out-of-state corporations like Goldman Sachs in order to generate profits. Conservatives hate the program because basic civil liberties and constitutional rights like due process are violated. And most obscene of all is the perverse incentive the program creates: the more lawbreakers there are, the more money they get, making corruption inevitable.

Politicians like Haugen should represent the citizenry, not the profiteers. Of course the city politicians and red-light camera companies like automatic ticketing cameras -- they get all the money from them. It's not "free enterprise" as Haugen claims; it's taxation-through-citation, just another way for politicians to pick the pockets of the people.

For years, Haugen has gone out of her way to block any meaningful camera-limiting legislation from consideration. Whether the bills are pushed by Democrats or Republicans, Haugen has prevented even allowing hearings on them. It is a one-politician filibuster. It is all about her own hubris and arrogance and greed.

For government, cameras are like crack cocaine -- once they get hooked, they can't get off. Looks like Haugen is a street cop who prefers to look the other way as long as she gets her cut.

The next time Mary Margaret Haugen whines about initiatives, she should look in the mirror to see why they're necessary.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Tim Eyman (425-493-9127, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com) is a longtime initiative activist who has filed an initiative called "Let The People Decide on Red Light Cameras."
 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/traffic-cameras-are-about-money-not-public-safety/2105861

Traffic cameras are about money, not public safety
By: Barbara Hollingsworth | 01/17/12 8:05 PM
Local Opinion Editor
 

Public safety is invariably invoked by local officials to justify the proliferation of red light and speed cameras in the Washington metropolitan area:
 

"Our goal is to save lives, and speed cameras will give us another resource that will complement our existing enforcement measures." - Montgomery County

"The goal of the District's automated photo enforcement program is straightforward: to reduce traffic violations and, as a result, decrease the number of crashes, prevent injuries, and save lives." - District of Columbia

But such conventional wisdom is wrong, James Walker, spokesman for the Wisconsin-based National Motorists Association, told The Washington Examiner. By interfering with the free flow of traffic, cameras actually create additional traffic hazards.

In Los Angeles, KCAL-TV fact-checked the city's claim that red light cameras improved safety at intersections, reporting that accidents actually increased at 20 of the 32 intersections it investigated.

Last summer, L.A. officials pulled the plug. Fort Collins, Colo., likewise experienced an 83 percent increase in accidents after red light cameras were installed.

Even though they raise millions of dollars in revenue, speed cameras are now prohibited or severely limited in 19 states. Walker says that's because when people learn the locations of the cameras, they temporarily slow down to avoid a ticket.

But the very act of slowing down and then speeding up again greatly increases the risk of an accident -- the very thing that the cameras are supposed to prevent.

"When D.C. first put in its red light cameras, the accident rate almost doubled," Walker said. "Why? The yellow lights were too short. It was deliberate disengineering.

"If the city timed all the yellow lights correctly, it wouldn't issue enough citations to pay the $4,000 or so per month to operate the cameras. Wherever the yellow light has been extended .7 seconds, the revenue has collapsed, and in many cases, the cameras were removed. With an added second, the drops in red light violations are in the 60 to 90 percent range."

That's what happened in Fairfax County in 2001. When the Virginia Department of Transportation increased the yellow light at the Route 50/Fair Ridge Drive intersection by just 1.5 seconds in March 2001, red light violations nose-dived 94 percent, and remained 90 percent lower nearly four years later.

Lengthening the yellow light cycle and adding an all-red "clear phase" at busy intersections can dramatically improve safety without red light cameras, which are prohibited or limited in 20 states, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.

Though photo enforcement remains popular with public officials because it is a cash cow, generating millions of dollars in annual revenue, backlash against the one-eyed camera cops is steadily growing in the 500 cities nationwide that still utilize them.

Houston voters rejected red light cameras in a November 2010 referendum. After a federal judge ruled the referendum invalid, the political blowback was so strong that all but one City Council member voted to shut down the city's 70 cameras for good -- even though the vendor threatened to file a $25 million breach-of-contract lawsuit.

"It takes a long time to explode a myth," Walker says. "But if they posted speed limits correctly, they wouldn't issue enough tickets to pay for the cameras. Almost every traffic engineer understands the scientific principle that the speed limit should be the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic under good conditions."

Known as "the pace," this optimum safe speed results in "fewer conflicts, less passing and less tailgating, while maintaining a normal flow of traffic," he said.

But few jurisdictions embrace the pace. That's because photo enforcement is about money, not public safety.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120118/BLOG48/701189969

Eyman aims to stop automated traffic enforcement
By Scott North and Rikki King

Wednesday, January 18, 2012 | 2:00 am

Tim Eyman versus the red-light camera companies.

It's hard not to break into a smile imagining all the reporting fun we'll have this year if the Mukilteo initiative activist gets enough signatures to force a statewide vote http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120110/NEWS01/701109895 on what he insists on calling "automatic ticketing cameras."

Imagine all the opportunities for Eyman to parade about with his head encased in a cardboard box http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111030/NEWS01/710309944 tricked out to look like a red-light camera. Imagine all the money out-of-state companies will spend on ads aimed at convincing voters that the scariest places in the free world are intersections not monitored by the benevolent robotic gaze of what they've dubbed "red-light safety cameras."

A lot of people have strong feelings about Eyman and his initiatives. A lot of people are equally passionate about red-light cameras. It promises to be a heck of a clash. Think "King Kong vs. Godzilla."  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056142/

The face-off also may present the first real opportunity for people in Washington to debate the public policy questions raised by red-light cameras.

Pitched with promises of safer streets, the Legislature opened the door to the devices in 2005 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120117/NEWS01/701179949#Sen.-Mary-Margaret-Haugen-defends-traffic-camera-law-she-helped-pass%0A, adopting rules for cities statewide. The law didn't include an off switch. So far the courts have ruled against local initiatives to stop existing camera programs.

Mukilteo voters rejected the cameras before they ever went into use. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110807/NEWS01/708079940 Monroe voters in November made it abundantly clear http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111109/BLOG48/711099785 they want the devices gone, but because the city has a contract in place, that likely can't happen until 2013. Lynnwood's camera program, meanwhile, has brought the city millions of dollars in ticket revenue but provided scant evidence http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110701/BLOG48/707019953 of improved traffic safety.

Through Lynnwood we've learned about the sometimes-shady practices http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110525/BLOG48/705259809 of camera company executives, and we've seen the effect that camera revenue windfalls http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/708199929 can have on a municipal budget. We've also seen how the intersection of private, out-of-state enterprise and local public safety programs can lead to behaviors that raise eyebrows, if not reprimands http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20111228/NEWS01/712289821.

If 2011 is any indication, we'll see people try to reduce the red-light camera question into a binary equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma: Support them and you hate freedom; oppose them and you advocate anarchy. It's more complex than that. There are real issues to grapple, including the implications of for-profit policing and the damage caused by drivers who apparently think laws against running red lights are advisory.

The technology that makes the cameras possible and the business contracts that put them up in intersections around the state arrived before people had enough information to make an educated decision. In fact, they weren't even consulted.

A statewide vote would change that. Here's hoping the guaranteed-to-get-ugly battle between media-savvy adversaries doesn't distract us from the real debate about traffic safety and civil liberties.

(Thanks to www.warondriving.com for the link).

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=8503438

License plate scanner raises privacy concerns

Thursday, January 12, 2012, By Nannette Miranda

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=8497141

 

News Team SACRAMENTO (KFSN) -- A new crime-fighting tool is stirring up controversy in California. Authorities and even private security companies are using high-tech cameras to track license plates. But some feel they're going way too far. Privacy experts say laws have not caught up to technology.

More and more law enforcement agencies and even private security firms are mounting high-tech cameras atop their vehicles, scanning license plates for stolen cars.

It has become a valuable tool for Arden Fair Mall near the State Capitol: a stolen car means someone is up to no good in 80 percent of the cases. Its first "hit" led to an arrest.

"We tracked him into one of the stores here. When he was arrested, they patted them down and inside of his pants he had several pairs of shoes that he shoplifted while inside the mall," said Steve Reed, an Arden Fair Mall security guard.

Police officers and deputies have had similar success out on the streets.

But a California Watch investigation raises questions over how else the information gathered by this 21st-century tool is being used.

It found a Livermore-based company called Vigilant Video has compiled a database containing more than a half-billion license plate scans from across the country.

The California Public Interest Research Group works on privacy issues and says the database raises red flags because it shows where and when people have been, even the innocent ones.

"Whenever an individual's information is stored or compiled in one place, folks should be concerned, especially if they don't know about it," said Pedro Morillas, legislative director, Calif. Public Interest Research Group.

The investigation also raises questions about police access to the database. They're not supposed to use information from license scanning to solve other crimes, but if it's now someone else's database, it's the perfect loophole to gain access.

Read more: License plate scanner raises privacy concerns

Thanks to www.motorists.org for the link!

Former Lynnwood, WA Official:  SCAMERA program OUT OF CONTROL MONSTER.  Has turned city in to "HEROIN ADDICT" on Scamera Revenue!

http://heraldnet.com/article/20120120/NEWS01/701209928

Published: Friday, January 20, 2012

Former Lynnwood official critical of city’s reliance on traffic camera revenue

Former Lynnwood councilman Jim Smith says the city developed an 'unhealthy reliance on ticket revenue,' which harmed the police department's budget.

By Rikki King, Herald Writer
 

LYNNWOOD -- Lynnwood started using traffic-enforcement cameras in 2007 for safety reasons, but that motive now provides "emotional and political cover" to justify an unhealthy reliance on ticket revenue, according to one former city leader.

Jim Smith served on the City Council for 24 years. At his last council meeting in December, he urged the council to phase out enforcement cameras.

"The red-light cameras started with a decent idea when it started, and it was small and controlled, but now it's become a monster, totally out of control," he said.

Smith was on the council when Lynnwood's camera program started five years ago. He supported the cameras because they were sold as safety measures. He later voted against expanding the program, and he eventually became one of the few voices at Lynnwood City Hall against the cameras.

Smith also was one of the first city leaders to admit that Lynnwood's sagging budget had become dependent on cash from the cameras.

The city of Lynnwood long has been besieged by controversy surrounding its robust traffic-enforcement program. The city uses cameras to ticket people who allegedly roll through red lights and speed in school zones. City Council members must decide by Feb. 13 whether to renew the multi-million dollar camera contract.

City and police officials for years insisted that the program was all about safety, not revenue. Yet crash data and police officer emails showed a different story behind the scenes. Police Chief Steve Jensen in August admitted that without the money from red-light cameras, he likely would have to lay off officers.

Jensen and Lynnwood Mayor Don Gough didn't return requests to comment for this story.

When the cameras went live, many city leaders didn't realize how much money could be made, Smith said. It took at least a year before that became evident.

The program raked in about $4 million in 2010.

Meanwhile, the economy ran aground, and the city's other revenue streams dried up.

The city's dependency on camera cash grew over time, Smith said.

"It's not how it was supposed to be," he said. "It was supposed to be totally for the sake of public safety. Now the cameras can't just be cut off. It's like a heroin addict; you have to wean them off slowly with other means."

Read more: Frm. Lynnwood, WA Official: SCAMERA program OUT OF CONTROL MONSTER. Turned city into "HEROIN ADDICT"

Owen Courreges: The mayor’s optical illusion.  "denial of due process is a feature of the automated traffic enforcement system, not a bug."

(Thanks to "Four Citizens" Against Red Light Cameras for the link!)

Quote:  As I noted then, “the problem (of photo enforcement) is twofold:  One, that the Administrative Hearing Center ignores basic rules of evidence and procedure and acts as a rubber-stamp for the city, and; two, that the city refuses to pay cost judgments from camera tickets appealed to Civil District Court, thus guaranteeing that a citizen who challenges the city’s illegal determination will be out twice the face value of the ticket (which is the filing fee for such an appeal).”

http://uptownmessenger.com/2012/01/owen-courreges-the-mayors-optical-illusion/

..Owen Courreges: The mayor’s optical illusion
Posted by Robert Morris at 11:43 am  city government, crime, Featured, opinion, public safety, state government, transportation .Jan 16
2012.
 

Owen Courreges
 

Mayor Mitch Landrieu claims that he is genuinely concerned about the due process rights of those accused of automated traffic camera violations. So does Council President Jackie Clarkson.

Indeed, when State Representative  Jeff Arnold (D-Algiers) began making noise about the issue last May, he was openly lauded by Landrieu as “a steadfast advocate for due process rights for those accused of an automated camera violation.”
Landrieu was announcing his support for a bill brought by Councilwoman Clarkson on behalf of the Administration.  The proposed ordinance would shift camera ticket appeals (but not the initial hearing) from Civil District Court to Traffic Court.  According to Landrieu this would “allow residents to have a venue to make their case before an elected judge” and would “also be more accessible since the fees associated with filing in Traffic Court are considerably less.”

When I heard about this proposed change, my first reaction was puzzlement.  Traffic Court is a criminal court, whereas camera tickets are civil violations.  How can Traffic Court be made to handle civil appeals falling under the Administrative Procedure Act?

The short answer is, it can’t. The proposed ordinance was withdrawn a few months ago after being repeatedly deferred. According to Mike Sherman, Landrieu’s chief liaison with the City Council, the realization came when city officials discovered that appeals from Traffic Court (a criminal court) must be heard in Criminal District Court.

I’m sure that this was a shocking revelation.

Of course, a less charitable interpretation is that the Administration incompetently proposed an ordinance that was obviously in contravention of state law and all common sense, and has yet to propose anything to replace it.

Or, if we want to be even less charitable, we might assume that Landrieu knew the ordinance was illegal all along and only pushed it to shut Rep. Arnold down and quell concerns over the lack of due process at the New Orleans Administrative Hearing Center, the mockery of justice that issues determinations on parking and camera tickets for the city. The ordinance was deferred for a decent interval, and then withdrawn.

Whether shrewd or stupid, the ordinance proposed by Landrieu and sponsored by Clarkson essentially represents an admission on behalf of the city that the Administrative Hearing Center doesn’t give citizens a fair shake, and that the city gives the shaft to anybody who appeals camera tickets to Civil District Court.

This admission comports with my column from a few weeks ago. As I noted then, “the problem is twofold:  One, that the Administrative Hearing Center ignores basic rules of evidence and procedure and acts as a rubber-stamp for the city, and; two, that the city refuses to pay cost judgments from camera tickets appealed to Civil District Court, thus guaranteeing that a citizen who challenges the city’s illegal determination will be out twice the face value of the ticket (which is the filing fee for such an appeal).”

This being the case, why doesn’t Landrieu move to reform the Administrative Hearing Center, which is under the Department of Public Works and headed by-­ one of his own hand-picked appointees?

And if not that, why won’t Landrieu at least agree to pay any award of court costs from a camera ticket appeal within, say, 30 days?

These are obvious, simple fixes. However, they both have one thing in common: ­ they would cost the city money and would likely make the automated traffic camera program unprofitable. Providing a legitimate, fair civil hearing is expensive. The city would have to actually produce record evidence, which it currently refuses to do. Witnesses could be called and cross-examined. Hearing Officers would be truly independent and hired according to merit.

Likewise, paying cost judgments from camera appeals in a timely manner would be expensive if the city failed to reform the Administrative Hearing Center. This is because as the situation stands currently, the Administrative Hearing Center doesn’t produce an evidentiary record that can withstand an appeal. The only reason why the city isn’t inundated with camera appeals is because they refuse to pay court costs, and under state law, you can’t enforce a judgment against a municipality.

Mayor Landrieu has all but admitted that the automated traffic enforcement program is all about revenue.  In a bid to frighten citizens already concerned about the city’s budgetary woes, his office has ominously claimed that the elimination of traffic cameras could “‘impact essential city services and could result in additional furloughs and closing of city facilities.”

Read more: Owen Courreges: The mayor’s optical illusion. "denial of due process is a feature of" SCAMERAS!

Parma Ohio Resident looking form committee to gather petitions to BAN THE CAMERAS!

(This was recently posted on See Red Cleveland---Ban the Cameras http://www.facebook.com/#!/ban.the.cams.cleveland)

Daniel Serban
Hello, I am a local business owner in Parma, we are looking for other residents of Parma to join in to form the committee to gather petitions to ban the cameras in Parma. If you are fed up and frustrated, let's do something about it. Contact us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Thank you!

If you live there and can help please send Daniel a email!

Parma, Ohio is a suburb of Cleveland, OH.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma,_Ohio

(Thanks to Four Citizens Against RLC for the link!)

Are traffic cameras just high-tech speed traps?

On Politics

Posted: Thursday, January 12, 2012, 2:28 PM
 By Andrew Boyd, The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune

Check out this link and watch the video!  

Thanks to www.wrongonred.com for sharing this!

http://publicola.com/2012/01/09/eyman-files-five-new-initiatives/

Eyman Files Five New Initiatives
This Washington   January 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Erica C. Barnett

Initiative hawker Tim Eyman has filed five new initiatives for 2012 aimed at reducing taxes, making it harder for legislators to raise taxes, fighting red-light cameras, extending the time for initiative backers to collect signatures, and granting new powers to the state auditor’s office.

The first proposal, the so-called “Son of 1053″ initiative, would extend 1053′s mandate that any tax increase must be approved by a two-thirds majority of both the state house and senate for two more years. (Currently, the legislature has the authority to overturn 1053 starting in 2013). “The people insist that tax increases receive either two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval and fee increases receive a simple majority vote. These important policies ensure that taxpayers will be protected and that taking more of the people’s money will always be an absolute last resort,” the initiative says.

The second proposal would roll back any non-voter-approved vehicle license fees, including two separate $20 fees approved by the King County Council and Seattle City Council last year, so that no state resident would pay more than $30 for car tabs. Eyman says the proposal isn’t aimed specifically at Seattle, though he acknowledges that Seattle and King County have the highest fees in the state.

King County’s $20 fee, which raises about $25 million a year, has enabled Metro to preserve bus service at more-or-less existing levels. Seattle’s license fee, which brings in about $6.8 million a year, pays for things like street and bridge maintenance, sidewalks, pothole repair, trees, and street cleaning.

The third initiative would require cities to remove automatic red-light cameras, which photograph drivers who run red lights, unless voters have explicitly said they want the cameras.

Read more: Eyman Files Five New Initiatives (REQUIRE THE VOTERS GET A SAY ON RLC!)

UPDATE:  CITY TEARS DOWN WARNING SIGN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/01/09/south-peg-highway-a-trap-wiseup?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=South+%E2%80%99Peg+highway+a+trap%3A+WiseUp

South ’Peg highway a trap: WiseUp

It took the city just over a day to move in and tear down a controversial roadside sign urging drivers to slow down or risk being snared by lurking traffic cops along a stretch of Highway 75 in St. Norbert.

City crews tore down Wise Up Winnipeg’s night-reflective sign protesting police traffic-enforcement near the St. Norbert Bridges at 6 p.m. Monday — just hours after the group officially unveiled it.

The sign, warning motorists to lay off the gas, had been placed with permission on the edge of a homeowner’s Pembina Highway lawn, and loudly asked drivers to keep within the 60 km/h speed limit.

Wise Up charged police and the city have been doing traditional speed enforcement as much as six hours per day there in recent months because it’s so lucrative.

The group states it gets more complaints about it than any other enforcement zone because the signage and speed limit don’t make sense to drivers.

Dube couldn’t say what gave the city the power to rip the sign down, but repeated earlier demands officials immediately boost the speed limit to 70 km/h along the lonely stretch of double-lane highway.

Read more: UPDATE: CITY TEARS DOWN WARNING SIGN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/01/09/south-peg-highway-a-trap-wiseup?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=South+%E2%80%99Peg+highway+a+trap%3A+WiseUp

South ’Peg highway a trap: WiseUpWinnipeg
 

Winnipeg Sun

 First posted: Monday, January 09, 2012 08:03 AM CST | Updated: Monday, January 09, 2012 09:14 AM CST
 

To get the city to wise up, the group is unveiling a night-reflective sign closer to the road, at a 1 p.m. press conference Monday. (HANDOUT)

A south Winnipeg speed trap is getting a night-reflective sign this morning courtesy of WiseUp Winnipeg.
 
The anti-photo radar lobby group says a one-mile stretch of highway on the way out of the city is chronically enforced by police.
 
WiseUp spokesperson Todd Dube says the city has stepped up its enforcement in the past several months — to about six hours per day, every day.
 
But it's not just a speed trap, he says — WiseUp gets more complaints about it than any other enforcement zone because the signage and speed limit don't make sense to drivers.
 
“International signing practices stipulate dual speed-limit signs (median and shoulder) for multi-lane divided roadways such as this,” says Todd Dube, WiseUpWinnipeg founder. “At this particular stretch, the City has only one sign, which is posted more than three times the distance off the road vs. the maximum (2 meters) outlined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) - Canada, which the City ironically claims to adhere to. The critical importance of signage distance off the road is to optimize driver recognition and ensure visibility by headlight beams in the dark."
 
To get the city to wise up, the group is unveiling a night-reflective sign closer to the road, at a 1 p.m. press conference Monday.
 
Dube also said WiseUp is calling on the city to zone the stretch at 70 km/h.
 
"It is apalling when citizens have to start taking Public Works matters into their own hands to promote vigilance against abusive public policies and enforcement," adds Dube.
 

Thanks to www.motorists.org for the link!

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/09/1975072/fife-state-sued-over-ticket.html

Fife, state sued over red-light ticket

An Eatonville man is suing the City of Fife and the state Department of Licensing, contending they hurt his credit by sending a red-light camera ticket to the wrong address.

 
ADAM LYNN; Staff writer
 
The News Tribune     

Published: 01/09/12  6:59 am | Updated: 01/09/12 11:58 am

An Eatonville man is suing the City of Fife and the state Department of Licensing, contending they hurt his credit by sending a red-light camera ticket to the wrong address.

Anthony J. Abuan seeks unspecified monetary damages in his lawsuit, which his attorney, Joseph Diaz, filed in Pierce County Superior Court last month.

The trouble began Jan. 1, 2009, according to the lawsuit, when a red-light camera captured a photo of a vehicle registered to Abuan making an illegal right turn at 54th Avenue and 20th Street in Fife. Fife court officials, relying on information provided by the Department of Licensing, mailed a $124 ticket to Abuan’s home address, the lawsuit states.

But Abuan doesn’t get mail at his home. He gets it at a post office box. The ticket was returned to sender, his lawsuit states.

The Licensing Department keeps both a person’s mailing address and the address of the vehicle owner’s primary residence on file, spokeswoman Christine Anthony said last week. The mailing address is supposed to be sent to jurisdictions issuing traffic infractions, she said.

Anthony declined to speak specifically about Abuan’s claims, saying the department does not comment on pending lawsuits.

Abuan contends he didn’t learn about the ticket until he tried to refinance his home in July 2010 and got dinged by the credit ratings bureaus for an unpaid ticket, the lawsuit states.

“The original $124 fine for the red light traffic infraction was also increased to $149 through the City of Fife’s imposition of an additional $25 penalty for the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the notice of infraction,” the lawsuit states. “The $149 judgment was then increased by the collection agency assigned to collect the debt.”

What’s worse, Abuan contends, is that he could not qualify for a favorable interest rate on his refinance and his credit was ruined.

“The reporting of the City of Fife traffic infraction judgment to the consumer reporting credit bureaus cause the plaintiff’s credit score to drop significantly, causing him substantial monetary damage,” the lawsuit states.

Abuan contends the city and the Licensing Department were reckless and negligent, violated his constitutional right to due process and caused him embarrassment.

It could not be determined late last week whether Abuan eventually paid the ticket or sought to challenge it.

Efforts to reach his attorney and Fife city officials were unsuccessful.

Anti Camera Site Highlight.  FIRE REDFLEX

It is important to know folks that we are NOT ALONE in this FIGHT AGAINST THE SCAMERAS!

Others are fighting too.

Check out this site.  http://fireredflex.com/

Fire Redflex

The Dark Side of Photo Enforcement

Governments: Learn the truth about the company you have hired or are considering hiring!

Citizens: Learn about the company your government has entrusted with law enforcement and access to your personal information!

Falsified court documents, drunk speed van drivers, machine malfunctions, contract performance issues, and other information about Redflex and photo enforcement that they don't want you to know about:
 
 

Ethics and Fraud - http://fireredflex.com/ethics.html

Ineffeective and Less Safe - http://fireredflex.com/lesssafe.html

Camerass Coming Down - http://fireredflex.com/cameras.html

Public Resistance - http://fireredflex.com/resistance.html

Comment from a law enforcement officer:  "I'm completely against the whole idea of"photo enforcement".

Shared by Ilya Pistryakov, NMA Activist, WA State.

A law enforcement officer wrote the following on my blog:

Never received a ticket by one, but I'm completely against the whole idea of "photo enforcement".... And I'm a former Police Officer.  Since inception, these cameras have been either ineffective at reducing actual accidents (some studies have shown minor accidents actually increased after their installation), or even worse, been riddled with accusations (with merit I might add) ranging from corruption (with contractual deals being made to "split" the revenue with the cities and the contracting companies that monitor them), to being deliberately placed contrary, and inspite of state law (as is the case here in Seattle). Seems to me, the one thing they ARE effective at is pitting people against their own local government (who is supposed to be operating in the best interests of the people), and enhancing distrust... especially with law enforcement, which admittedly, I'm particularly against and sensitive to.

Now, I personally worked in Patrol Services for about five years, and it was obvious that if there was an intersection or stretch of roadway that was showing signs of being (or becoming) a problem (speeding, increased accidents, etc) we would increase our visible presence, and increase enforcement (making stops, issuing citations). It always worked. But the funny thing was, and I don't really know why this is, but those "problem areas" changed quite a bit. In my opinion, enforcement does work... if it's being done by an actual Police Officer. You see, if a driver sees the infamous "flash" after they've already gone through an intersection illegally (failing to stop, speeding, etc) it has done nothing to protect the other drivers and pedestrians who were just subject to that additional risk. So if it's not actually protecting people, what the hell is the point? Oh yeah... to make money. On the other hand, if you approach an intersection and you see a marked Police vehicle or an clearly visible Police Officer... Everyone becomes more attentive to traffic laws.

Side note here, in my experience, in general, just pulling people over and not writing a ticket was far more beneficial than giving them a ticket.

Huh? I'll explain.

1. The experience itself is quite stressful on the average motorist, and they will probably drive more carefully after it, regardless of there being a financial penalty.

2. They leave the experience not only being a more careful and educated driver, but they now harbor more positive feelings for law enforcement...

Always seemed win-win to me.