Taking on the Government

http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2012/03/06/light-timing-a-crucial-issue.html
 
Light-timing a crucial issue
By MIKE MCGUIRE, Palm Coast
  March 6, 2012 12:05 AM

In regard to a recent letter http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2012/02/21/if-its-really-about-safety.html about delaying the green to promote safety at intersections, especially where there are red-light cameras, there are already "all-red" periods being used at many intersections, although they are usually only one second or so.

Some 20 years ago, rules were changed to permit governments to reduce yellow-light timing in order to provide more green-light time and promote traffic flow. It became apparent quickly that this was a safety hazard. Without this extra time, opposing traffic was more likely to be in the intersection at the same time.

The decision by traffic management in many cases was to "give back" some of the shortened yellow for use in a short "all-red" phase. While this "all-red" did enhance safety, you still had the "pass though" traffic either having to jam on their brakes, or go through on red. This explains the increased rear-end accidents at red-light camera intersections.

In addition, the cities and their accomplices from the camera vendors are very happy to have "all red" because it replaces yellow light times, and thus there are still plenty of needless violations. Although camera vendors will tell you that longer yellow lights have little effect on the number of signal violations, when Georgia enacted legislation that required an extra second of yellow lights (above the minimum) at camera intersections, the camera vendors fled the state.

The writer's point about the "T-bone" crashes is a good one. The average right-angle collision takes place more than five seconds after the light has changed; the average red-light camera ticket is given out to a violation of less than two seconds after the light has changed. The lack of correlation is obvious to anyone who does not look at the cameras as anything but a cash cow.

McGuire is an activist with the National Motorists Association
 
 
Mike McGuire
C 386 871-4901

http://uptownmessenger.com/2012/03/owen-courreges-the-ever-evolving-traffic-camera-racket/

Owen Courreges: The ever-evolving traffic-camera racket
 Posted by Robert Morris at 11:54 am  2012. 

Owen Courreges
 

The new motto of the City of New Orleans may as well be “do as I say, not as I do.” In a stunning and blatant show of hypocrisy and cronyism, the city has announced that it will forgive all traffic camera tickets issued to city employees to date.
Andy Kopplin, chief administrative officer to Mayor Landrieu, announced that the tickets would be forgiven because it would not be fair to go after city employees when the city had not laid out a clear policy.

Did you hear that, folks? Ignorance of the law is now an excuse.  Apparently, I can claim, as an attorney, that any tickets I’ve received should be dismissed because the city never laid out a clear policy on whether lawyers can speed and run red lights with impunity. I presume that all professions can now benefit from this novel, exculpatory doctrine.

I’m kidding, of course. One of this nation’s core principles is that nobody (at least in theory) is above the law.  No sane individual has ever confused working for the city with having a “get out of jail free” card. The idea that any city employee believed that the law didn’t apply to them is as odious as it is stupid.

And yet, here we are. The official position of the Landrieu Administration is that city employees are entitled to the presumption that they are exempt from certain laws.

Like any bureaucracy, the city prefers to combine bad new with good news. Thus, it should come as little surprise that the city coupled its “city employees get off scot-free, neener-neener neener” announcement with proposed reforms to the traffic camera ordinance. http://uptownmessenger.com/2012/03/new-traffic-cameras-near-schools-on-camp-freret-jackson-annunciation-carrollton-and-prytania/

In total, the city announced three proposed changes: First, speed camera tickets would only be issued when the alleged violator is going more than ten miles over the speed limit, as opposed to the current five. Secondly, the speed limit on Jackson Avenue, which has one of the most prolific speed cameras, would be raised from 25 mph to 35 mph (the default limit for divided streets).

The first proposed change is somewhat substantive. Raising the speeding threshold helps ensure that fewer innocent drivers will be ensnared by speed cameras.  On the other hand, the city’s current policy is to trust American Traffic Solutions, a private Arizona corporation, implicitly. Regardless of the threshold, the city refuses to check the data. While I don’t normally believe in corporate conspiracies, I also don’t believe that law enforcement should ever rely exclusively on the word of private citizens or entities. The unverified assertions of American Traffic Solutions are no more “evidence” at ten miles over than they are at five.

The second proposed change, raising the speed limit on Jackson back to accepted norms, is a good idea but ultimately a very minor change. Traffic camera opponents like myself have also complained about yellow-light times, and yet the city ignores these pleas and throws out a token change. For example, the yellow-light time at Louisiana and St. Charles Avenue is only 3.6 seconds, well below engineering standards for two intersecting four lane streets.

The third proposed change, alas, is not a change at all.  The city basically reiterates its inane proposal to shift traffic camera ticket appeals from Civil District Court (a state court) to Traffic Court (a local court) The problems with this notion are obvious.

First of all, Traffic Court is a criminal court – it does not handle civil violations. Secondly (and most importantly), alterations to the appeals process for camera tickets avoids the central issue; namely, that the city does not provide meaningful review of camera tickets in the first place. There is no reason why the citizens of New Orleans should have to go through a kangaroo court to challenge a camera ticket.

Accordingly, I put this proposal to the Landrieu Administration: Instead of the changes proposed, enact these reforms:

1) Require the city to provide record evidence as to accuracy and calibration of all camera radar devices at any hearing challenging a speed camera ticket.

2) Require all yellow light times at all camera intersections to be four seconds or longer, or in accordance with generally-accepted traffic engineering standards, whichever is longer.

3) Require the Administrative Hearing Center to create a record in every proceeding that satisfies the Louisiana Administrative Procedures Act, and require that the City pay a citizen’s court costs in any successful appeal of a camera ticket in Civil District Court within 30 days.

Do these proposed reforms sound extreme to you? Well they do to the Landrieu Administration, and that’s  the problem. The city is apparently of the opinion that its members are a chosen class, and only the rest of us are fit to deal with the cold, stone-faced visage of bureaucratic indifference.

I think they’re wrong. The reality is that these reforms are being pushed by the state legislature, which has been giving the stink eye to traffic cameras for years.  Just this year, Senate Bill 102 would prohibit cities and parishes from turning unpaid camera tickets to collection agencies.  Senate Bill 85, proposed by Senator Martiny, would require municipalities to cease collecting fines until voters approve traffic cameras.

Hence, city officials are merely scrambling to respond from pressure from the state. Their recent change of heart is not principled, but rather a desperate ploy to maintain a revenue stream.

This is wrong and we deserve better.  Revenue from enforcement should at least pay for due process. Anything less is the wellspring of corruption.

Owen Courrèges, a New Orleans attorney and resident of the Garden District, offers his opinions for UptownMessenger.com on Mondays. He has previously written for the Reason Public Policy Foundation.

Example of the long term problem of micro managment:  LITTER JOBSWORTH FINES GRAN £75 FOR DROPPING THREAD

Ban the Cams note.  Though this is not photo enforcment related.  It could have easily been.  Witness a litter ticket in the UK mailed:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/340.asp

Heck even ATS has toyed with yard litter scamera in Baton Rouge LA: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2846.asp.  Heck they even cite for putting your trash cans out too earlier.  Quote:  "Residents will also be ticketed for putting out garbage cans before 4pm or failing to retrieve them before 6am."

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/305478/Litter-jobsworth-fines-gran-75-for-dropping-thread

 LITTER JOBSWORTH FINES GRAN £75 FOR DROPPING THREAD

The threat that fell of a glove

Friday March 2,2012

By Mark Reynolds

A GRANDMOTHER was given a £75 littering fine by a “jobsworth” council official – after a strand of cotton fell from her glove to the pavement.

Smartly-dressed Valerie George, 71, was shopping and did not notice the thread drop to the floor.

She was stunned when the environment officer stopped her and, after she protested her innocence, took her to the spot and showed her the curled up strand of cotton.

He then gave her a £75 on-the-spot fine for dropping litter.

Valerie, a mother-of-five, said yesterday: “I couldn’t believe my eyes. I’m just an ordinary grandmother out shopping, not a litter lout throwing rubbish around.”

Last night embarrassed council officials confirmed they had issued the fine.

However they said they would rescind it and she would not be forced to pay it out of her £105 weekly pension. But a furious Valerie, who had been shopping in her home town of Brynmawr, near Ebbw Vale, south Wales, when she was stopped, said: “I wouldn’t have paid it anyway – I would rather have gone to court.

Quote:

It is ridiculous. I had caught my watch on my glove and a piece of cotton had come off

Valerie
 

Read more: Example of the long term problem of micro managment: LITTER JOBSWORTH FINE GRAN FOR DROPPING THREAD!

Ban the Cams note:  A lot of this is to get around the speed scameras in use in parts of China. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2658.asp  Of Course if you pull over drivers acting dangerously, than you don't really have this problem do ya?

Ban the Cams note II:  Speed Cameras "violations" are being used to line the pockets of police there too.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1801.asp

Quote:  The city, located in Jilin Province, also allows each issuing policeman to keep 10 percent of the revenue from tickets he issues, according to Xinhua's Outlook Weekly magazine.

http://jalopnik.com/5890345/chinese-porsche-driver-punished-after-altering-license-plate-with-toothpaste

Chinese Porsche Driver Punished After Altering License Plate With Toothpaste

According to the China Car Times http://www.chinacartimes.com/2012/02/27/porsche-driver-toothpaste-alter-license-plate-2200rmb-fine-loses-license/ altering your license plate is a fairly common practice in the People's Republic, but we have to imagine most people aren't using toothpaste to do it.

Qingdao police pulled over a Chinese Porsche owner this past week when they noticed the sevens on the man's license plate didn't look quite right. Upon further inspection they noticed that what appeared to be sevens were actually number ones with toothpaste applied to alter them.

It was quickly revealed that the driver had good reason to try and disguise his true identity—he was only six points away from losing his driving license. Unfortunately for this toothpaste artist the discovery of his minty fresh modification to his license plate carried a $349 fine and added another six points to his driving record resulting in a loss of license.

[via Autoblog]  http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/03/porsche-driver-busted-for-using-toothpaste-to-alter-license-plat/

(Ban the Cams note:  also see

1.  http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/12/new_orleans_police_officers_ma.html

2.  http://www.wwltv.com/news/4investigates/More-than-half-of-tickets-issued-to-city-employees-have-been-dismissed-132757433.html)

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/new_orleans_forgives_all_old_t.html

New Orleans forgives all old traffic camera tickets to city employees
Published: Friday, March 02, 2012, 5:01 AM
 By Gordon Russell, The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune

When it comes to paying for tickets generated by New Orleans' traffic cameras, some of the biggest scofflaws are city employees driving taxpayer-financed vehicles. As of September 2011, at least 400 city vehicles had racked up fines totaling $547,580, according to records provided by City Hall in response to a public-records request.

And five of the 20 vehicles that owe the city the most money are city vehicles, the records show.

All that is about to change. But not before the slate is wiped clean, said Andy Kopplin, chief administrative officer to Mayor Mitch Landrieu.

Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

Previously, the Landrieu administration had highlighted a memo issued Oct. 13, 2010, by Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas. It said NOPD officers -- who comprise a large number of the ticket recipients -- must pay traffic-camera tickets unless the officer was responding to a call for service.

But because many officers had been operating under informal guidance that such tickets didn't have to be paid, and because it's difficult to sort out which tickets were received before the policy was clarified, the city decided to forgive all tickets to date, Kopplin said.

Under the new policies, the only employees who will be allowed to receive waivers for tickets they accrue while driving city cars will be public safety workers, which include police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers. For an employee to receive a waiver, his or her supervisor must sign a form saying that he or she was responding to an emergency.

In all other cases, employees will be responsible for the tickets, Kopplin said. Once a ticket is considered delinquent, meaning payment is 60 days overdue, the employee will have 30 days to pay it. If the employee doesn't, "disciplinary action will be taken," according to Kopplin.

"They will be responsible for their actions as drivers," he said.

If the tickets still aren't paid, Kopplin said, the fine will be taken out of the budget of the department the employee works in. He emphasized that he expects that will happen only in rare instances, if ever. It's intended as a management tool to encourage supervisors to take unpaid tickets seriously.

Kopplin said city employees who believe they've received a ticket unjustly will have the same avenues of appeal as the general public.

The Times-Picayune has been seeking a list http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/12/traffic_camera_scofflaw_names.html of all vehicle owners who have accrued at least $500 in unpaid traffic fines to the city. But the Landrieu administration denied the request on privacy grounds, and the newspaper sued. The city prevailed at the district and appellate courts; writs to the state Supreme Court are pending.

Separately, the newspaper has sought a list showing which cars the city owns and which employees they are assigned to. The Landrieu administration has also refused to provide that information, citing privacy laws.

(Thanks to Camerafraud for the link)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/02/examiner-local-editorial-if-traffic-cameras-increase-safety-wheres-proof

Examiner Local Editorial: If traffic cameras increase safety, where's the proof?

Examiner Editorial
 
Although regional officials claim that speed/red light cameras increase traffic safety, they are strangely unwilling to provide the raw data to document the effectiveness of the equipment on which they are spending millions of tax dollars.

In January, for example, The Washington Examiner asked officials in D.C. and Montgomery County how they determined whether speed/red light cameras resulted in fewer accidents, injuries or deaths at each specific location where they were deployed. If the cameras really do increase traffic safety, as officials insist, the before/after data should confirm it with concrete numbers.

A month and a half later, we're still waiting. District officials told us they determine that the cameras increase traffic safety "by comparing statistics, where available, from one fiscal year or calendar year to another." That's fine, but they still failed to provide the data they claim to have. Montgomery County didn't even bother answering the question. Freedom of Information Act requests for this elusive data have since been sent to both jurisdictions.

According to the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the city collected $54.8 million in red light/speed camera fines from motorists in 2011. Of that amount, $29 million went to American Traffic Solutions Inc. to install and monitor 47 red light cameras and 46 fixed and portable speed cameras, while the city kept $33.7 million. Montgomery County collected $10.6 million in citations and another $1.2 million in late fees from its speed camera program in 2011. Drivers who opted to pay online were also hit with a $3 per ticket processing fee. (Prince George's speed camera program was only implemented last September.)

It's obvious that speed/red light cameras are successful in raising revenue, but officials insist raising revenue is secondary to enhancing traffic safety. If a traffic camera in use on a busy highway or intersection results in fewer accidents because drivers are slowing down or stopping earlier to avoid a ticket, then it is doing its job and a decrease in ticket revenue is a sign of success. But that's not how local officials see it.

As Examiner reporter Ben Giles reported this week, Del. Carolyn Howard, D-Prince George's, testified before a Maryland House of Delegates committee that she overheard an unnamed official state "that speed cameras were going to be moved so they could generate more revenue. That was not the purpose of the bill when it was passed," Howard reminded her fellow lawmakers. Her bill, making it illegal to move traffic cameras solely to maximize revenue, is needed precisely because money, not safety, has become the program's real goal. If that is not the case, officials owe it to taxpayers to produce the data that proves it.

Greg Mauz turns up the heat.  Chancellor Sharp Letters on Walden "study".

see PDF for Greg's reply to Sharp on 12/28/2011, Chancellor Sharp's reply on 12/16/2011, and Gregs intitial complaint on 9/28/2011.

Attachments:

File	Description
Greg Mauz Chancellor John Sharp letters for 2011.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3728.asp

Voter Initiative Appealed to Washington Supreme Court
Sponsor of Longview anti-photo ticketing referendum appeals to Washington Supreme Court.

The private citizens in Longview, Washington who forced a vote on photo enforcement want the ballots that were cast last November to count. Although 59 percent approved an outright ban http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3634.asp on automated ticketing machines, lower court rulings stripped the initiative of its force of law, leaving only one provision creating an advisory vote. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3579.asp On Monday, initiative sponsor Mike Wallin presented his case in a brief to the state supreme court.

Wallin's attorney, Richard M. Stephens, reminded the high court that the state constitution provides a great deal of deference to the referendum power. As the court has interpreted in the past, initiatives are to be "liberally construed" while avoiding "a hyper technical construction which deprives them of effect." Longview and its automated ticketing vendor, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), have argued state law gives the "appropriate legislative authority" or the city council enact a photo ticketing ordinance, and the state appeals court believed this meant the public could not overturn the city council's decision. Stephens insisted that reading stretches the law.

"The statute describes the basic minimum requirements for establishing automated traffic cameras," the initiative sponsor's attorney wrote. "However, the statute is silent on how a decision to stop using these cameras must be made. There is no legislative restriction on how discontinuation of traffic cameras must be implemented, namely, no reference to adopting an ordinance or otherwise. Additionally, doubts about the scope of the initiative power must be resolved in favor of allowing the citizens to initiate the legislation."

Longview also argued that it filed suit against Wallin before his initiative was certified because it would, if passed, have impaired its contract with ATS. Longview had no choice but to act quickly because of the cost involved in setting up an election.

"The city argues that it had standing, so long as the court looks at events two steps into the future, not at the time it filed suit," Stephens wrote. "The timing is crucial, as the city is well aware.... Additionally, the city's claim of additional financial burden begs the question: How much extra cost warrants a burden sufficient to justify judicial intervention in the initiative process before the election? Is it the extra cost of ink for inserting another paragraph of text? Or is it the few additional minutes it takes to tabulate the results?"

Stephens also argued that Wallin was entitled to a judgment under the state's anti-SLAPP law which seeks to discourage "strategic lawsuits against public participation." Longview's suit intentionally sought to prevent the public from having input on the question of cameras.

"By seeking declaratory relief before the signature gathering phase of the initiative was completed, the city adversely affected Wallin's efforts to obtain the requested signatures needed to place an initiative on the ballot in the next general election," Stephens wrote.

The Washington Supreme Court has been considering the issue of referendum votes against speed cameras and red light cameras since May 2011. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3489.asp

Thanks to Camerafraud for the link!

(Ban the Cams note:  There is a video on this, but we were unable to get the code.  If you go to the link you can watch it).

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120226/NEWS01/202260346/One-man-s-how-guide-beating-fines

One man's how-to guide for beating fines

11:00 PM, Feb. 25, 2012  | 

Mark Henderson, 28, of Lafayette, owes more than $13,000 in unpaid traffic camera violations. Thus far, Henderson hasn't paid even a penny for his 116 violations, and he claims to have avoided the fines without any repercussions.

Henderson has endured credit score dings because of his refusal to pay the fines, but he said getting the damage fixed is easier than many people think. His method hinges on the fact that Redflex is a private, for-profit business that doesn't have the same power as law enforcement.
Here's Henderson's step-by-step guide to avoid paying any Safe Light, Safe Speed citations.
 

1. A citation is mailed to you for either speeding or running a red light at one of the many intersections in Lafayette monitored by the devices
2. Simply don't pay the fine, and don't let the possible penalties on the ticket scare you. "There is no reason to think this is anything more than an empty threat to scare people into paying the tickets for their business," Henderson said.
3. Wait for Redflex to pass your personal information to an out-of-state collection agency that Henderson calls a "quasi law firm." Henderson ignored so many of the notices the firm sent him that he claims they altogether stopped trying to collect his debt.
4. Monitor your credit score closely and wait to see if the collection agency uses the citation debt to damage your score.
5. If your credit score is damaged, call one of the big three credit rating agencies, or perhaps even all three, to get in touch with someone who handles contract disputes.
6. Explain to the spokesperson that you never entered into a contractual agreement with either LCG or Redflex and that neither Redflex nor the collection agency had your permission to use your social security number (Henderson claims the SSNs are illegally taken from the DMV).
7. If you didn't give consent to use your SSN and didn't personally enter into a contract saying you would pay the fine, the damage to your credit score will be fixed "in a matter of 15 minutes," Henderson said.
 

"Because of the ignorance that has been forced on these people, they would rather lose the money from the ticket, cut their losses and protect their credit score than get dinged and fight it for a guaranteed win," Henderson said.
 

Follow That Story
Red-light-camera report Denver Police touted based on wrong information

By Michael Roberts

Fri., Feb. 24 2012 at 1:05 PM 
 

​Update below: Given all the attention garnered this week by the first Kyle Dyer interview http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/02/kyle_dyer_dog_bite_interview_ratings.php since she was bitten by a dog on live TV, another 9News story has fallen through the cracks. The station aired a piece http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=251163 admitting that an October story about red-light cameras had included incorrect info provided by the Denver Police Department, which so loved the results that it staged a Twitter survey to laud it.  http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/denver_police_twitter_survey_fox31_9news.php

As we reported last fall in the post linked above, Lieutenant Matt Murray, who oversees the DPD Twitter account https://twitter.com/#!/denverpolice, asked via tweet for followers to compare the fairness of a Fox31 report from the previous April to a new one by 9News' Anastasiya Bolton.

 
Lt. Matt Murray.                            Anastasiya Bolton. 

In the Fox31 piece, which is no longer at its previous link and didn't show up in a website search, reporter Heidi Hemmat portrayed photo radar as a revenue-generating scheme whose citations aren't valid unless they're presented to drivers by hand rather than through the mail. In contrast, Bolton's report was much more sympathetic. For instance, she said the DPD had generated just over $279,000 from red-light cameras between January and August of 2011, which she characterized as a mere "drop in the bucket" compared to the department's overall budget. This statement infers that Denver Police's insistence that the red-light camera program is more about safety than money is true.

Murray left little doubt about which of these packages was his favorite. During his chat with Westword, he said of Hemmat, "When you look at how many times she's done stories on photo radar, at what point does it become an ax to grind? And the numbers in the 9News story... How did Heidi leave those out?"

By the way, the results of Murray's Twitter survey showed that respondents felt 9News' piece was more fair than Fox31's -- but the former ran neck and neck with "Who cares? I hate photo radar!!!" Here's the graphic showing the breakdown:

 
​Problem is, the numbers Murray faulted Hemmat for excluding were wrong -- really wrong. As Bolton reported this week, another 9News staffer asked the Denver Police for red-light-camera data and got a much bigger figure. So Bolton went back to the cops to ask about the disparity. Turns out the cameras generated $279,000 in the month of August 2011 alone -- and the total for January through August was actually well over $1.2 million.

In the new report, DPD spokesman Sonny Jackson -- who appears to be speaking from the 9News studio, as if he's been called to the principal's office -- characterizes the error as a simple mistake and apologizes for it.

Still, the delight with which the police department embraced the report last October can't help leaving viewers to wonder why no one at DPD noticed that Bolton's drop-in-the-bucket thesis was based on a sum that was much, much lower than the actual one.

We've left an interview request with Murray and will update this post when we hear back from him. In the meantime, the October report by Bolton, which was admittedly based on incorrect data, remains online here http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=222817, and at this writing, there's no editor's note or acknowledgement that there's any problem with it.

Update, 1:05 p.m.: The Fox31 report mentioned above is now back online http://kdvr.com/2011/04/28/photo-radar-tickets-may-not-be-worth-the-paper-theyre-written-on/; it got lost in the cyber-shuffle as a result of a website reboot. Heidi Hemmat notes that rather than asking the Denver Police Department for red-light-camera revenue numbers, as it appears 9News did, she got her figures from the Colorado Department of Revenue -- and while it's something of an apples and oranges comparison, it does appear the DOR's numbers are higher than even the updated DPD figures. In 2010, the department told Hemmat the photo-radar program generated more than $3.6 million, as opposed to the $1.2 million red-light camera total for the first eight months of 2011.

Read more: Red-light-camera report Denver Police touted based on wrong information

FIGHTING FOR THE VOTERS!  LIBERTY MAN WARNS MONROE CITY COUNCIL (RLC REFERENDUM).

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/LIBERTY-MAN-WARNS-MONROE-CITY-COUNCIL-BR-Monroe-Initiative-1-must-reach-the-people-in-April-918682

LIBERTY MAN WARNS MONROE CITY COUNCIL
Monroe Initiative #1 must reach the people in April
February 24, 2012

Ty Balascio (right) of Seeds of Liberty gathering petition signatures in Monroe.

(MONROE, WA) -- Think of Ty Balascio of the group Seeds of Liberty based in Monroe as a good angel sitting upon the collective shoulder of the Monroe city council kindly reminding them to stay on that righteous path and do the right thing for the people they represent. Do the right thing.

Late Thursday night Balascio fired off an email to Monroe city council members.

It was a heavenly nudge, sort of.

“After successfully defending the initiative against the City’s lawsuit, the instruction from Judge Bowden is clear – Section 3 of this initiative shall go to the voters,” wrote Balascio.

“Nearly every member of the 2011 Council and Executive stated on record “if this initiative is legal, it goes on the ballot.” The answer to that question is now clear.

The Council meeting on Tuesday, February 28th 2012 is the last opportunity to submit a resolution in time for the April deadline. Failure to do so constitutes not only another dereliction of procedural duty, but contemptibly goes against a direct court order. Seeds of Liberty, the over 1000+ followers of this cause, and the over 2300 voters who signed this initiative will be watching. Please don’t let us down again.”

About the only thing Balascio left out was a heavenly reminder to “get out of town by sundown” if you don’t do the right thing this time.

As a reminder of the April deadline Balascio sent along a PDF file showing the deadlines for elections this year, just so no one would forget.

ON THAT MONROE INITIATIVE

You may recall that Monroe’s leaders sued Balscio’s group and others because it didn't like the citizen’s initiative they filed – Monroe Initiative NO. 1 – to knock out those controversial red light cameras.

The people spoke (nearly half of active Monroe voters signed it) and Monroe’s answer was to file a lawsuit using the people’s money to, in essence, sue the people.

Welcome to the Democracy exported to Baghdad.

In late January a judge agreed with Balsico’s group and against Monroe on one portion of the suit.

As activist Tim Eyman put it in one of his many missives-at-large:

“Their anti-initiative effort failed today as Snohomish County Superior Court Judge George Bowden found that their action was a SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and imposed a $10,000 fine on the city, awarding that $10,000 and the cost of our attorneys' fees to our lawyer Dick Stephens, and green-lighted the initiative for a public vote.”

Read more: FIGHTING FOR THE VOTERS! LIBERTY MAN WARNS MONROE CITY COUNCIL (RLC REFERENDUM).

Greg Mauz:  Camera Enforcement is Illegal 3.2012

Ban the Cams note:  Greg Mauz goes line by line on why Camera Enforcement is Illegal.

Quote:

Amendment V

…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Problems include:  unfair trial ($$ biased), guilty until proven innocent, illegally reverses burden of proof from State to defendant, inadequate notification (mail), and NO driver ID (except CA, AZ)  –  30% ticketed are innocent, while 70% are <1 second red (invisible RLV-entrapment).

Greg Mauz is an honest (no $$$ conflicts) traffic safety researcher with 25 years experience and volunteer Activist with the Best Highway Safety Practices Institute.  He is the leading researcher/author on red light ticket cameras with 9 Camera Enforcement Reports.  See [real] research at www.bhspi.org/mauz or www.banthecams.org  or call 325-896-2595.

Attachments:

File	Description
CAMERA ENFORCEMENT IS ILLEGAL 3.2012.pdf

ACLU wants CT plate scan data PURGED after two weeks to prevent Government mischief!

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/hartford_cty/conn-police-keep-plate-scan-data

Conn police keep plate-scan data
Updated: Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012, 11:27 PM EST
Published : Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012, 2:25 PM EST

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Police departments are keeping the data from millions of license plate scans that show when and where Connecticut drivers have been — a practice that is raising privacy concerns.

The Capital Region Chiefs of Police Association, a group of 10 towns, has compiled a database of more than 3.1 million scans, including 2.1 million license plates that were read in 2011 by machines placed on the backs of patrol cars.

Police use the scans to find vehicles that have expired or stolen registration tags or are linked to criminal activity.

But the database also can be accessed by the public and can be searched to show where and when a car has been scanned.

The American Civil Liberties Union obtained the database through a Freedom of Information request and provided a copy to The Associated Press. It's proposing legislation that would allow police to keep the data for two weeks only and would restrict the use of readers to law enforcement.

"Once that data is shared, the police department loses all control of the data," said David McGuire, an attorney for the ACLU of Connecticut. "You could figure out where someone works or when they leave for work. You could use the person's travel to deduce whether they are a churchgoer or attend a political rally or an AA meeting."

Read more: ACLU wants CT plate scan data PURGED after two weeks to prevent Government mischief!

ATS Front Group Refuses to Debate Greg Mauz and Henry Bentley.
 
Ban the Cams note:  Greg has actually sent CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT the Challange to ATS Front Group National Coalition for "Safer" Roads.  The attach PDF is the receipts Greg kept on it.

Attachments:

File	Description
Greg Mauz and Henry Bentley Challange to ATS on 9.30.2012.pdf

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/02/maryland-police-photograph-thousands-of.html#more

Thursday, February 16, 2012
 

Maryland Police Photograph Thousands of Cars Daily

Police in Montgomery County and elsewhere in the state have established a massive network of surveillance cameras and automated license plate readers http://www.gazette.net/article/20120215/NEWS/702159557/1020/montgomery-county-police-cameras-take-pictures-of-thousands-of-cars&template=gazette which photograph and record data about thousands of motorists daily, most of which have committed no violation. The fact that the systems are under no oversight or regulation from the state has attracted concern from some civil liberties groups.

According to the Gazette, a single automated license plate reader can record 1000 plates per hour and the Montgomery County Police have the capability to store and track more than 864,000 tags per day along with the date, time, and location of the reading.  There are no laws limiting the amount of time data on innocent motorists can be retained.  According to the Gazette

Opinions on data retention vary. While the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland recommends erasing any plate not sought by police within 24 hours, Capt. Thomas Didone, director of the county’s traffic division, prefers one year.

Policies for how long the data is stored vary widely. Gaithersburg retains their data indefinitely, while Rockville reported that they did not know how long their data was kept.  State police reportedly delete data after 24 hours.  Police state the devices are used to identify stolen vehicles, or vehicles with expired registration or insurance. However since the data is retained even if there is no current flag, this personally identifying information about the travels of individual motorists could be used for any other purpose weeks or months later.

The use of Surveillance cameras has also increased dramatically, with many cities deploying these in large numbers. The Gazette reports some concern over the lack of regulation over how such systems could be used and the lack of regulation:

State Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park does see a decline in privacy, but blamed government surveillance as much as social networks such as Facebook, where millions of users post photos of their friends and family every day.
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he said there was an understandable increase in government surveillance, but speculated that we are entering a phase where people want to recapture a sense of privacy.
“We should never allow the speed cameras to lower everyone’s resistance to total government surveillance of people at all times,” he said. “We do not want to establish the expectation that everything you do can be subject to government surveillance and recording. That does get right back into the Orwellian nightmare.”

Supporters of such systems and the retention of such data for long periods of time argue that there is no "expectation of privacy" in public places.  However one could ask whether we should have the "expectation" that everyone will be watched by government agencies at all times and our movements recorded indefinitely with no oversight, even if there is no probable cause for believing a violation of the law has taken place.

On the other hand, there have been multiple instances of motorists and other citizens detained or arrested for photographing police in public spaces. http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/01/photographing-cops-in-maryland-risky.html   In another recent instance, a lawsuit was filed http://www.wtop.com/?nid=46&sid=2522408 claiming that police illegally seized and deleted video from a citizen who had photographed an arrest with his cell phone.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/Road.Rant

Plain Dealer's Road Rant on cleveland.com

Looking for people who regularly drive Chester Avenue past the traffic cameras at East 71st Street. Anyone out there? If so, drop me a note so we can get in contact. The intersection AGAIN led the city in camera citations... and it wasn't even close

Big Brother Emission???  ODBIII makes Car Tattle to Government!

http://epautos.com/2012/01/30/obd-iii-the-motor-law-realized/

OBD III: The Motor Law Realized

January 30, 2012

By eric

You know that “check engine” light on your dashboard? What if instead of just telling you that the car’s computer has detected some fault with the emissions control system, it told the government – via roadside readers and satellite uplinks?
It’s called OBD III – and it’s right around the corner.

All new cars builtsince the mid-1990s have OBD II – or On Board Diagnostics II. This system standardized diagnostics by specifying that every new car come equipped with an OBD port (usually located somewhere near the driver’s side kick panel, on the underside of the dashboard) into which a technician (and your state’s emissions test station) can plug a scanner that downloads stored “trouble codes.” It is these trouble codes that also trigger the yellow “check engine” malfunction indicator light on your dash.

Mostly, these codes involve problems with the emissions control system rather than the engine itself. They’re often intermittent and minor. This is why it’s possible to continue driving the car with the “check engine” light on and everything still seems ok.

And it’s why the Power That Be want OBD III.

In the words of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturer’s Association (SEMA), the vast umbrella organization representing automotive industry parts and equipment suppliers, OBD III is “A program to minimize the delay between detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD-II system and repair of the vehicle.”
And how will that be accomplished? Rather than merely store trouble codes, OBDII (III) will immediately transmit those trouble codes to The Man – who will then proceed to first warn you (via letter or e-mail) to have the car repaired, stepping up to more aggressive enforcement if you fail to do so in the form of “citations… court and/or DMV penalty at next registration.”

It would also be possible to send the info directly to any nearby cop, who would then pull you over immediately – saving the government some time while making some more money off motorists.

Read more: Big Brother Emission??? ODBIII makes Car Tattle to 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.