No Traffic Cameras In Lorain, Ohio

Cambridge residents have issues with speed cameras

2011-10-03T07:03:00.000-07:00

CAMBRIDGE After apparently receiving many complaints from city residents about the recent use of speed cameras, council members considered raising the speed limit in certain school zones and adding flashing lights in all school zones at Monday night's council meeting.

City commissioners in March selected Optotraffic, a Maryland-based company that provides photo enforcement solutions for red light and speeding violations, to provide speed camera services to Cambridge. The city and Optotraffic decided to use two portable cameras throughout all school zones in the city for year-round enforcement.

In July, the mayor and council designated specific school zones and speed limits for all school zones. The speed cameras are in effect from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday. From 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Sandy Hill school's zone on Glasgow Street and Maple Elementary school's zone on Egypt Road have a speed limit of 15 mph. Between 6 and 7 a.m. and 4 and 8 p.m., the speed limit is 25 mph in these zones.

Two speed cameras were set up from July 15 to Aug. 14 on Glasgow Street and Egypt Road during a warning period to make drivers aware these speed cameras were going to be in effect. The speed cameras then became effective Aug. 15. Tickets are issued to those traveling 12 mph or more over the posted speed limit.

After apparently several city residents expressed confusion, anger and resistance toward these cameras, Commissioner Gage Thomas said the Traffic and Safety Committee had discussed the possibility of installing flashing lights at the speed limit signs in all school zones as a warning that drivers are entering a school zone.

Department of Public Works director Oden Wheeler said flashing lights could be installed at the speed limit signs in each school zone and could be turned on and off at the city's discretion.

The flashing lights that DPW was looking at possibly installing, said Wheeler, are solar lights. He said the cost to purchase one pole is $3,075, which means it would cost about $6,100 per school zone. That does not include installation costs, he said.

Wheeler said DPW looked at the possibility of a barricade light, but the lights are hard to see during the day. The barricade lights would operate all day, said Wheeler, and are battery operated. He said it would cost less than $1,000 per school zone to purchase and install.

Thomas recommended revisiting the discussion to use flashing lights in school zones in six months. The motion passed with a four to one vote, with Commissioner Robert Hanson voting no.

After several city residents apparently expressed outrage at the speed limit in these school zones being as low as 15 mph even when school is not in session, Thomas said the Traffic and Safety Committee reviewed the possibility of raising the speed limit to 20 mph in the Maces Lane, Glasgow Street and Egypt Road school zones.

Thomas said after review, the committee recommended that the speed limits not be raised to 20 mph.

Commissioner Donald Sydnor said "the speeds have been set." He said laws are made for lawbreakers and if "you're going the speed limit than you'll be fine."

Cambridge Police Chief Kenneth Malik said raising the speed limit to 20 mph would defeat the purpose of the speed cameras, which is for the safety of the children. He said raising the speed limit would allow driver to travel 31 mph through a school zone before being issued a ticket if the speed limit was raised to 20 mph.

Commissioner Robert Hanson made a motion to increase the speed limit in the Maces Lane, Glasgow Street and Egypt Road school zones to 20 mph. The motion failed in a 3-2vote, with Commissioners Thomas, Sydnor and Frank Stout voting against the motion.

http://www.stardem.com/article_25f4a575-f1af-5c0d-8fe8-cde894d3b800.html

Brooksville shouldn't turn to red-light cameras to make ends meet

2011-10-03T07:01:00.000-07:00

The city of Brooksville is again looking in the wrong direction to bolster its bottom line. Council members are resurrecting the misguided idea of using red-light cameras for traffic enforcement.

Despite protests to the contrary, this is not about enhanced safety. Statewide, more than half of all accidents are caused by careless driving or failing to yield the right of way, but nobody has figured out a way to automate enforcement of those road rules to turn a quick buck. Instead the focus is on the lucrative tickets from red-light cameras, even though running a red light caused less than 2.7 percent of the fatal crashes in Florida last year.

The city has used this tactic before but abandoned the cameras in 2010 amid questions about the validity of the safety data. The potential cash-grab is back with the council scheduled to consider a proposal Monday under which the city and camera vendor, Sensys America, would split the revenue from as many as 240 tickets monthly so that each pockets $4,500.

But this number mattered more during the previous debate: 97 — the percentage of red-light camera tickets issued to non-city residents during the prior two years. A council majority wisely said they feared red-light cameras were counterproductive to economic development and the notoriety of the enforcement could push visitors away from the downtown business district. The council shouldn't stray from that logic.

Another consideration, not part of the prior debate, is the legality of the ticket-writing operation. Defense lawyers have successfully questioned some camera vendors' shoddy chain of evidence practice. Others have undermined the cameras' use by noting the unequal fines between tickets issued by cameras as compared with those written by police officers. The result is that some camera systems are falling far short of the revenue projections promised to the local governments.

Meanwhile, in Tallahassee, the state House of Representatives passed legislation in May banning red-light cameras, but the measure did not come to the Senate for a vote. It is imprudent for Brooksville to charge ahead with reinstallation of the cameras (and, more dangerously, accounting for new revenue that may not materialize) since the Legislature will try again in 2012.

"Unequivocally, I can tell you there will be all sorts of legislation filed dealing with red-light cameras," said Rep. Richard Corcoran, R-New Port Richey, who sponsored the 2011 bill banning them.

There is no question that it was a difficult budget season in Brooksville where the city had to pare more than $400,000 to make ends met. But using red-light cameras to tap the pockets of out-of-town motorists shouldn't be the first remedy used to avoid a repeat.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/brooksville-shouldnt-turn-to-red-light-cameras-to-make-ends-meet/1194744

Pasco man gets ticket in mail for going through green light

2011-09-30T05:52:00.000-07:00

Randy Rice got quite a surprise recently when he received a $158 ticket through the mail from the New Port Richey Police Department for running a red light.

"Living paycheck to paycheck like I am, you come home on a Friday, imagine that," said the New Port Richey resident.

The ticket stated that he had run a red light at the intersection of U.S. 19 and Main Street on Sept. 2. The piece of paper included two dark photos of his car and license plate.

Rice said he didn't remember running a red light, so he went online to take a close look at the pictures. When he pulled up the website, he discovered the cameras also captured video. What he saw shocked him.

"I saw clearly the light was green," he said.

The video shows Rice's blue Hyundai SUV in the far left lane of traffic going through a green light. The camera flashes twice as he rolls through the intersection.

"Right away now I'm thinking, well, What do you do?" he asked. "Do you fight city hall or what?"

The back of the citation included language Rice found to be intimidating. It clearly states that anyone who decides to fight a ticket is subject to $500 in extra fines and court costs. But Rice decided the video evidence would clear him, so he called a customer service number listed on the back.

"A lady answered the phone, and said, 'Yes sir, you're absolutely in the right here.' "

He was relieved to get his ticket dismissed so easily, but Rice was concerned there could be a problem with the cameras. It also bothered him that the police department didn't catch the mistake before the ticket was mailed.

"If one person is falsely accused, and they pay it without looking into it, just assuming that the city is doing the right thing, then that's a big problem with me," he said.

The video shows Rice's blue Hyundai SUV in the far left lane of traffic going through a green light. The camera flashes twice as he rolls through the intersection.

"Right away now I'm thinking, well, What do you do?" he asked. "Do you fight city hall or what?"

The back of the citation included language Rice found to be intimidating. It clearly states that anyone who decides to fight a ticket is subject to $500 in extra fines and court costs. But Rice decided the video evidence would clear him, so he called a customer service number listed on the back.

"A lady answered the phone, and said, 'Yes sir, you're absolutely in the right here.' "

He was relieved to get his ticket dismissed so easily, but Rice was concerned there could be a problem with the cameras. It also bothered him that the police department didn't catch the mistake before the ticket was mailed.

"If one person is falsely accused, and they pay it without looking into it, just assuming that the city is doing the right thing, then that's a big problem with me," he said.

The police department looked into Rice's case.

Lt. James Steffens said there is a comprehensive system in place to screen each ticket. The city's red light cameras are operated by a company called American Traffic Solutions, based in Phoenix.

ATS downloads all the alleged infractions taken by the cameras. ATS employees do an initial review of the photos before sending it along to law enforcement. Once the ticket reaches the police department, another officer inspects the photos before the ticket is sent out to the driver.

Steffens believes Rice's ticket somehow slipped through the cracks.

"We have to be the best we can be each and every day," he said. "When we do make an error, a human error, we have to make sure it doesn't happen again."

New Port Richey installed red light cameras in June. The department has received approximately 13,000 alleged infractions from ATS. Officers have rejected more than 6,000 of those tickets. Steffens said it's a sign the system works.

"We haven't had this happen before. We're very cognizant of the sensibilities involved here," he said.

Charles Territo, vice president of communications for ATS, confirmed Steffens's assessment of the case.

"There are always humans involved in this process," Territo said. "Where there are humans, there's the potential for error."

Territo reviewed Rice's video. He said it appears Rice's tire may have crossed the white line and triggered a sensor in the left turn lane.

"The camera did what it was supposed to do, it sensed a vehicle was close to a lane where it could potentially violate a traffic law," Territo said.

But screeners at ATS, or the police department, should have caught the mistake.

"That's why the video is sent to the offender," he said. "That video can be used to either show innocence or guilt, and in this case it's clear the video was used to exonerate the driver."

Rice is glad he took the time to investigate the ticket, but he's not happy the ticket found its way to his mailbox in the first place.

"If they're going to enforce these red light tickets, then they need to be perfect in my opinion," he said.

nshepherd@wfla.com (813) 225-2703

http://www2.tbo.com/news/pasco-news/2011/sep/28/1/pasco-man-gets-ticket-in-mail-for-going-through-gr-ar-261590/

Eyman files suit against city concerning traffic-enforcement cameras

2011-09-29T06:01:00.000-07:00

State initiative advocate Tim Eyman wants a judge to decide the next step of Redmond's first-ever, citizen-driven initiative concerning the city's controversial traffic-enforcement program.

Eyman, a co-sponsor of the initiative, hired an attorney, who filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court earlier today, ordering Redmond's city clerk to forward the petition she received earlier this month to the county auditor.

"Redmond Mayor John Marchione and the City Council have made a conscious decision to violate the law," according to Eyman's sworn declaration filed by Seattle attorney Daniel Quick.

Quick asserts that state law requires the city to forward the signatures to the county auditor to validate the signatures. In the motion and memorandum, he cited RCW 35.21.005, which states: "Within three working days after the filing of a petition, the officer with whom the petition is filed shall transmit the petition to the county auditor for petitions signed by registered voters, or to the county assessor for petitions signed by property owners for determination of sufficiency."

The lawsuit was filed after the mayor announced last week that the city has no plans of turning the 6,050 signatures over to the county auditor to be validated for a possible ballot item in a special election next February. Marchione said last week that city officials believe the petition is not legally subject to initiative, based a court ruling earlier this month in Bellingham.

Eyman said he is "cautiously optimistic" that the county's chief presiding judge will sign an order ordering the city to forward the initiative petitions to the auditor.

"I think proving harm literally is an impossible task," Eyman said. "What's the harm in letting the initiative to proceed?"

Union Hill resident Scott Harlan, another co-sponsor of the initiative who led the signature campaign to put the issue on the ballot, said the city needs to follow state law."It is unconscionable for the city to have done what they have done," Harlan said.

"You cannot have a city sort of sit on these (signatures) and set a precedent down the road."

A hearing on the motion will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 1:30 p.m. at the King County Courthouse in Seattle. The hearing is set for the same day as a scheduled City Council study session, where council members will deliberate the future of the city's pilot traffic-enforcement program, which features three red-light cameras an one school-zone speed camera.

City officials contend that a public vote by be a moot point if council members vote to end the contract with camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) before the Dec. 1 deadline.

Elected officials were advised by City Attorney Jim Haney that they were not required to forward the petition based on a recent state Court of Appeals decision Bellingham, Marchione said last Wednesday afternoon. The three-judge panel Court of Appeals ruled Bellingham's initiative to ban the cameras can stay on the November ballot, but it will not be legally binding.

But in Bellingham, the court is still allowing the issue to be put before the voters, while Redmond is trying to block a public vote, Eyman said.

"Even in the case they are citing, the court is allowing the vote to happen," Eyman said. "They don't have a legal leg to stand on."

Eyman added that the Bellingham case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Marchione said last week that the cost of the special election, estimated at $70,000-80,000, is another reason for not forwarding the petition to the county.

In Eyman's sworn declaration, he wrote "Mayor Marchione should not be allowed to blatantly violate state law in order to avoid the costly inconvenience of democracy."

The city has yet to be officially served with notice of a court hearing on the potential initiative petition, according to Redmond's deputy administrator Jane Christenson. The city did release the following statement:

"Following the City's legal review, we are advised the proposed Redmond initiative is virtually identical to the City of Bellingham initiative deemed invalid by a recent Court of Appeals ruling and not subject to the initiative process. Despite the court's ruling on the petition's validity, the Council and Mayor have heard the perspective of our residents who signed it, and will consider this along with all the data and other feedback we have received as part of our pilot traffic/school zone safety program review at a study session scheduled for October 11. The city's evaluation on whether or not to continue the pilot program will be completed by December, well before the proposed referendum can be held in February."

News of the lawsuit comes as the city continues its evaluation process of the pilot program, which began with a one-month warning period last February.

The Redmond Police Department will release the latest traffic violation data at today's (Sept. 27) City Council public safety committee meeting at City Hall at 4:30. Council members will discuss the matter at its Oct. 11 study session and vote on the issue as early as the Oct. 18 business meeting or as late as Nov. 29, which would require a special session by the council. The city has until Dec. 1 to submit its plans to extend the program or not to the camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), according to the camera contract.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/sound/article/Eyman-files-suit-against-city-concerning-2193539.php#ixzz1ZLWa4IQK

Redmond Traffic-Cam Violations Down, Collisions Up

2011-09-29T05:56:00.000-07:00

New data released Tuesday indicate the number of violations at Redmond's camera-enforced intersections is declining, but the frequency of collisions is also increasing.

According to the new numbers, which were presented at a Redmond City Council public safety committee meeting, the total number of violations declined by 43.7 percent between March and August of this year. Collisions at the three intersections with red-light cameras, meanwhile, increased from 14 in January through August of 2010 to 19 during the same time period this year.

The city's controversial camera enforcement pilot program has been in place since February. It includes red-light cameras eastbound on Redmond Way at 148th Avenue NE, which is just east of the Redmond/Kirkland line on Rose Hill; eastbound and westbound on NE 40th Street at 156th Avenue NE; and westbound on Union Hill Road and northbound on Avondale Road where those two roads intersect. A speed zone camera is also located at Einstein Elementary, 18025 NE 116th St.

Fines for camera-enforced violations are $124.

Part of the decrease in violations that was reported Tuesday can be attributed to a camera malfunction at Redmond Way and 148th Avenue Northeast, where the number of violations declined from 871 in March to 384 in August. The camera malfunctioned in May, June and July but was working properly in August, according to the Redmond Police Department.

The speed camera near Einstein Elementary on Northeast 116th Street was also turned off during the summer months when school was not in session.

Anti-camera activist Scott Harlan says he believes the 43.7-percent reduction in violations has been skewed by both the camera malfunctions and the police department's rate of rejecting potential violations, which increased from a monthly average of 501 rejections between March and June to an average of 551 rejections per month between March and August.

"While the police department has clearly been fine-tuning its review process for the better, those dramatic changes in the review process skew all of the earlier citation data reported as part of the program," Harlan said in an email he sent to the city council and members of the local media.

Department officials have said previously that officers who review videos of potential violations use the same discretion they apply while on patrol. Police spokesman Jim Bove said that process has not changed since the camera program began, although different people have had the duty of reviewing the videotapes.

“Nothing has changed, but the thing to understand is it’s not always the same person doing it,” Bove said.

City council member Hank Myers, who is also chairman of the public safety committee, said he is pleased the number of rejected violations is increasing.

"I think we're getting a little more sophisticated in determining what a violation is," he said.

Myers also said the violations have brought in approximately $630,000 through August. Much of that money is being used to pay for court costs, however, and the city will not find out how much it will receive until the end of the year.

The city council must decide whether to renew its contract with camera vendor American Traffic Solutions before Dec. 1. Council members are scheduled to begin discussing the matter at an Oct. 11 study session.

The entire report presented at the committee meeting is attached to this story and can also be viewed by clicking here.

http://kirkland.patch.com/articles/redmond-traffic-cam-violations-down-collisions-up

Eyman files suit against city concerning traffic-enforcement cameras

2011-09-28T05:38:00.000-07:00

State initiative advocate Tim Eyman wants a judge to decide the next step of Redmond's first-ever, citizen-driven initiative concerning the city's controversial traffic-enforcement program.

Eyman, a co-sponsor of the initiative, hired an attorney, who filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court earlier today, ordering Redmond's city clerk to forward the petition she received earlier this month to the county auditor.

"Redmond Mayor John Marchione and the City Council have made a conscious decision to violate the law," according to Eyman's sworn declaration filed by Seattle attorney Daniel Quick.

Quick asserts that state law requires the city to forward the signatures to the county auditor to validate the signatures. In the motion and memorandum, he cited RCW 35.21.005, which states: "Within three working days after the filing of a petition, the officer with whom the petition is filed shall transmit the petition to the county auditor for petitions signed by registered voters, or to the county assessor for petitions signed by property owners for determination of sufficiency."

The lawsuit was filed after the mayor announced last week that the city has no plans of turning the 6,050 signatures over to the county auditor to be validated for a possible ballot item in a special election next February. Marchione said last week that city officials believe the petition is not legally subject to initiative, based a court ruling earlier this month in Bellingham.

Eyman said he is "cautiously optimistic" that the county's chief presiding judge will sign an order showing the city's refusal to process the initiative petition. Eyman said the city would have to prove that there was harm in turning over the petitions.

"I think proving harm literally is an impossible task," Eyman said. "What's the harm in letting the initiative to proceed?"

Union Hill resident Scott Harlan, another co-sponsor of the initiative who led the signature campaign to put the issue on the ballot, said the city needs to follow state law."It is unconscionable for the city to have done what they have done," Harlan said.

"You cannot have a city sort of sit on these (signatures) and set a precedent down the road."

A hearing on the motion will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 1:30 p.m. at the King County Courthouse in Seattle. The hearing is set for the same day as a scheduled City Council study session, where council members will deliberate the future of the city's pilot traffic-enforcement program, which features three red-light cameras an one school-zone speed camera.

City officials contend that a public vote by be a moot point if council members vote to end the contract with camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) before the Dec. 1 deadline.

Elected officials were advised by City Attorney Jim Haney that they were not required to forward the petition based on a recent state Court of Appeals decision Bellingham, Marchione said last Wednesday afternoon. The three-judge panel Court of Appeals ruled Bellingham's initiative to ban the cameras can stay on the November ballot, but it will not be legally binding.

But in Bellingham, the court is still allowing the issue to be put before the voters, while Redmond is trying to block a public vote, Eyman said.

"Even in the case they are citing, the court is allowing the vote to happen," Eyman said. "They don't have a legal leg to stand on."

Eyman added that the Bellingham case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Marchione said last week that the cost of the special election, estimated at $70,000-80,000, is another reason for not forwarding the petition to the county.

In Eyman's sworn declaration, he wrote "Mayor Marchione should not be allowed to blatantly violate state law in order to avoid the costly inconvenience of democracy."

The city has yet to be officially served with notice of a court hearing on the potential initiative petition, according to Redmond's deputy administrator Jane Christenson. The city did release the following statement:

"Following the City's legal review, we are advised the proposed Redmond initiative is virtually identical to the City of Bellingham initiative deemed invalid by a recent Court of Appeals ruling and not subject to the initiative process. Despite the court's ruling on the petition's validity, the Council and Mayor have heard the perspective of our residents who signed it, and will consider this along with all the data and other feedback we have received as part of our pilot traffic/school zone safety program review at a study session scheduled for October 11. The city's evaluation on whether or not to continue the pilot program will be completed by December, well before the proposed referendum can be held in February."

News of the lawsuit comes as the city continues its evaluation process of the pilot program, which began with a one-month warning period last February.

The Redmond Police Department will release the latest traffic violation data at today's (Sept. 27) City Council public safety committee meeting at City Hall at 4:30. Council members will discuss the matter at its Oct. 11 study session and vote on the issue as early as the Oct. 18 business meeting or as late as Nov. 29, which would require a special session by the council. The city has until Dec. 1 to submit its plans to extend the program or not to the camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), according to the camera contract.

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/red/news/130669183.html

The beginning of the end for this city council. Give them Hell at the polls!

2011-09-27T05:24:00.000-07:00

MIDFIELD, Alabama -- The Midfield City Council on Monday night chose the company that will install and operate red light cameras in the city.

The council awarded the professional services contract to American Traffic Solutions of Scottsdale, Ariz.

Mayor Gary Richardson said that, for city roads, he hopes the company can immediately begin installing the cameras, which will snap photos of the vehicle tags of people who run red lights so the city can send them a traffic ticket.

For state roads, cameras can be installed within 30 days of receiving the necessary permits from the Alabama Department of Transportation, said David Jackson, senior business development director for ATS.

ATS will install the camera equipment for free, Jackson said. However, the company will receive a fee of $47.50 for each of the first 100 citations issued each month, and $20 per citation beyond that.

The Midfield City Council last month was prepared to award a contract to ATS but delayed action to get proposals from other companies and to make a cost analysis. Since that time, the council also reviewed a proposal from Redflex Traffic Systems, another Arizona company.

The Midfield council in June adopted the ordinance that allows the red light cameras to be installed at city intersections.

Motorists captured on camera as running red lights in Midfield will be able to appeal the tickets to a municipal court judge. Those who don't like the results in city court can then appeal to Jefferson County Circuit Court.

Red light camera supporters claim they help cut down on intersection accidents and promote safety. Opponents argue the cameras are nothing more than an effort by cities to generate more revenue.

Midfield is one of two cities in Jefferson County that have received state approval to install red light traffic cameras. Center Point is the other.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/09/midfield_city_council_approves.html

A40 road users unhappy with speed cameras at crossing

2011-09-27T05:22:00.000-07:00

A SURVEY carried out at a crossing where newly installed speed cameras have caught a huge number of motorists has been panned.

Denham Parish Council carried out a survey of pedestrians using the new crossing on the A40, which was put in place earlier this year.

It was installed after the footbridge which had previously allowed pedestrians to cross the road had to be taken down for repairs after a lorry collided with it.

Since then, safety measures have been put in place including reducing the traffic from three lanes to two, changing the speed limit from 50mph to 30mph, and the installation of two new speed cameras on the road.

This in turn led to more than 1,000 drivers being caught exceeding the new limit in the first four days of the cameras being in place, with drivers saying that there were insufficient signs telling them of the new limit.

To determine the future of the site, Bucks County Council asked Denham Parish Council to carry out a survey at the crossing to ask people what they thought.

In the latest parish council newsletter, a statement from the council says: "The survey revealed that the overwhelming majority of users of the crossing, including school children and the elderly, liked it and wanted it to remain. These statistics have been presented to the County Council and will form part of the decision making."

However, drivers who regularly use the road are unhappy with the survey.

Mick Morgan, who travels on the road every day, said: "The survey doesn't reflect what drivers want. If the current crossing stays then so will the speed cameras, which means that more money will be made for the county council.

"Of course pedestrians are going to want the crossing to stay, but drivers don't, and it is terrible that they haven't been asked. They should have asked everyone who is affected by the crossing, not just one section of people."

Margaret Skelton of Denham Parish Council, said: "We were asked by the county council to do a survey of people at the crossing, and that was the survey that the parish council undertook.

"We carried out the survey on behalf of Bucks County Council."

A decision on the crossing is set to be made at the end of October.

http://www.buckinghamshireadvertiser.co.uk/south-buckinghamshire-news/local-buckinghamshire-advertiser-news/2011/09/27/a40-road-users-unhappy-with-speed-cameras-at-crossing-82398-29494223/

City Officials Slap Citizens in the face; deny their right to petition!

2011-09-23T06:07:00.000-07:00

It's time to clean house on Redmond elected officials!

Redmond elected officials are not giving the green light to a citizen-driven petition calling for a vote on Redmond's traffic-enforcement camera program.

Mayor John Marchione said the city has no plans of turning the 6,050 signatures over to King County to be validated for a possible ballot item in a special election next February. Elected city officials were advised they were not required to forward the petition, based on a recent state Court of Appeals decision in Bellingham, Marchione said Wednesday afternoon in a conference room at City Hall.

"Our attorney has advised us that this particular topic is not subject to the initiative process and therefore the state law does not apply in this case," Marchione said. "We have no intention of turning these into the county, but we are weighing their input with all the other input we have received."

Marchione said City Council members will use the petition effort as public input when they consider extending the one-year pilot program by Dec. 1.

Union Hill resident and Redmond businessman Scott Harlan, the main organizer for Redmond's first-ever citizen-driven initiative, said city leaders are "obstructing the initiative process that their citizens have engaged in."

"They are not even getting this out of the starting gate," Harlan said. "It's an insult to the entire population of registered voters. There's plenty of time after it gets certified for the lawyers to take over."

Harlan claims Redmond is breaking state law RCW 35.21.005, which requires city officials to forward the petition to the county within three business day of receipt so the county auditor can validate the signatures.

The law states, "Within three working days after the filing of a petition, the officer with whom the petition is filed shall transmit the petition to the county auditor for petitions signed by registered voters, or to the county assessor for petitions signed by property owners for determination of sufficiency."

Harlan said he and his supporters will consider taking legal action against the city.

"That would be the most likely of scenarios," he said.

Marchione said he did not want to speculate when asked if the city was prepared a potential lawsuit.

Deputy city administrator Jane Christenson said if Harlan and his supporters sue, "they will have to show that the initiative is valid and that the city therefore has a duty to process it. We are advised that would be unlikely given the rest of the rulings in the Bellingham case."

SIMILAR TO BELLINGHAM

Marchione said the legal advice of City Attorney Jim Haney is based on a ruling in Bellingham earlier this month by the Division 1 Washington Court of Appeals, which covers all of Western Washington between the Canadian border and the King-Pierce county lines, meaning Redmond and Bellinham are in the same court jurisdiction. The three-judge panel ruled Bellingham's initiative to ban the cameras can stay on the November ballot, but it will not be legally binding.

After the Transportation Safety Coalition conducted a successful petition drive to get the initiative on the ballot, Bellingham's camera vendor American Traffic Solutions, the same vendor contracted with Redmond, went to court to seek an injunction to block the vote.

The Appeals Court ruled no injunction was necessary, since the initiative was not legally binding and therefore posed no threat of damage to ATS.

"The initiative that was filed in Redmond was almost identical or substationally identical to what was filed in Bellingham and the Appeals Court in Bellingham affirmed only city council has the authority to make the decision on traffic safety cameras," Marchione said.

Based on the Bellingham ruling, Haney advised the city to hold onto the signatures, according to Marchione.

Marchione said the city has no plans of putting the matter to a vote because of the cost of the special election, which is estimated at $70,000-80,000. In addition, the City Council is currently conducting its own review of the pilot program, with a final decision coming this fall, the mayor said.

"The Council may make a decision by December first that would render this moot," he said. "There's a lot of different directions we can go in our deliberations in November. I think we are all very conscious of spending that kind of money for an advisory ballot when we are gathering public input."

Bellingham is one of several cities that have gone to court over ths issue. In all of the cities, the initiative process has been sparked by Tim Eyman, the state's initiative guru. When Harlan heard about the city's camera pilot program, he contacted Eyman for advice. Backed by Eyman, Harlan and supporters collected 6,050 signatures ,Äî nearly double the amount needed to qualify for an upcoming ballot. The petition was turned into the city Sept. 14. Marchione released the city's plans for the petition on Wednesday after Tuesday night's executive session, which includes topics of litigation.

EVALUATING THE PILOT PROGRAM

Redmond has yet to enter the courtroom, concerning the use of traffic-enforcement cameras. City officials knew there would be a public backlash about this issue, so they decided to conduct a pilot program before accepting a long-term contract, which makes the city unique to others grappling with the issue, according to Christenson.

"There's a lot of back and forth about litigation with ATS and others," Christenson said. "We're not in that ballpark because we purposely established a one-year pilot program as the mayor said, which we are going to decide on Dec. 1."

The city continues its evaluation process at next Tuesday's public safety committee meeting, when the Redmond Police Department will release the latest traffic-enforcement traffic data. Council members will discuss the matter at its Oct. 11 study session and vote on the issue as early as the Oct. 18 business meeting or as late as Nov. 29, which would require a special session by the council, Marchione said.

"We purposely entered into a one-year pilot program because we knew there would be reaction after the first year and we wanted the opportunity to reassess," Christenson said.

Even though the signatures will not be sent to the county for validation, Marchione said the opinion of the petition signers will be considered by "all seven council members."

But for Harlan, one of a handful of people who testified for the initiative at Tuesday's council meeting, said that is not good enough.

"This is an insult," he said.

Harlan said the council can end all this camera controversy by just voting "to kill the contract" with ATS.

"Ultimately, that's the way I think this will end up, but I can't count on it," he said.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/sound/article/City-puts-a-halt-to-traffic-enforcement-camera-2184770.php#ixzz1YmSit43H

Bluff City offering refunds for traffic camera citations

2011-09-23T05:51:00.000-07:00

BLUFF CITY — All motorists cited for speeding since July 1 by the watchful eye of the camera facing the southbound lanes on U.S. Highway 11E in Bluff City will get a refund and their discretions will be erased, Interim City Manager Judy Dulaney said Tuesday.

“We’re trying first to identify all the people who received tickets and paid their fines,” Dulaney said. “If anybody had a citation within that time it will be dismissed, but we’re working right now to locate those who have already paid the fines. We’ll be going through a data system to identify everyone that was cited on the southbound lanes from that time until I had the camera shut off.”

Dulaney, who said she called the Johnson City Press Tuesday to get the word out about the refunds and dismissals, shut down the camera last week. She said the speed limit signs that were placed too close to the camera remained in place only because she presumed new legislation allowed the distance to be grandfathered in at a much later date.

“I’ll take responsibility for it,” she said. “I’m an open person. I figured it was grandfathered in, but then I learned what was going on and took care of it. There was no intention on my part to do anything wrong.”

A grandfather clause in some cases exempts those already engaged in an activity before legislation is passed to alter that activity.

State legislation that went into effect on July 1 does not permit traffic enforcement cameras to be placed on public roads and highways unless the reduced speed of 10 mph or more is posted within this parameter. In this case, the speed on the southbound lanes on U.S. 11E leading to the camera is reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph, but the 45 mph sign is posted only three-tenths of a mile from the cameras.

Acting Police Chief Greg DePew confirmed the distance last week, as did the Press.

The fact the speed limit signs had not been moved drew the ire of state legislators, including state Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, who told the Press that every ticket generated from July 1 should be thrown out and that the city needed to take immediate action or he would contact the attorney general.

Bluff City’s contract with American Traffic Solutions to operate the two speed cameras expires in 2014.

“I can’t say right now what we’ll do,” Dulaney said when asked about the camera’s operation and moving the speed limit signs.

Meanwhile, she expressed her displeasure with comments given to the Press Monday by Bluff City Mayor Irene Wells.

Wells said she felt left out of the loop regarding Dulaney and other aldermen, saying she was “not included in their little network” and that her office had been taken from her.

“I was a little discouraged by the mayor acting like that,” Dulaney said. “We’ve never had an office for a mayor, and she is informed of what’s going on. She gets all the material at the same time the aldermen do.”

Dulaney also said she was going to meet with City Attorney Paul Frye regarding several issues, including making sure Wells legally is Bluff City’s mayor.

Wells, who was a sitting alderwoman, was appointed mayor at a special called meeting on June 28 by two of the city’s five aldermen. Three were there; two were not.

The charter states, “Except as otherwise provided in this charter, all questions and actions by the board shall require a vote of at least a majority of the total membership of the board.”

So is Wells the legal mayor? You bet.

Wells’ presence made the meeting an official quorum. She voted for herself — as an alderwoman. Once the voting was done, she was mayor. As mayor, she can only vote to break a tie.

Don Weaver, Bluff City’s first-ever city manager, was one of the aldermen who voted for Wells. Vice Mayor J.C. Gentry was the other.

Weaver handed in his resignation on June 30. It was not accepted, and he was fired the next day instead.

Weaver said Monday he had drawn up a resolution toward the end of his tenure to move the speed limit signs to the proper distance. He also questioned — Monday and again Tuesday — how it is that Dulaney can function as “her own boss.” Dulaney is Bluff City’s city manager, city recorder and finance director.

Article X, Sec. 1 of the city charter sanctions the move.

“As for Mr. Weaver saying he had a resolution — first of all, it would have to be an ordinance — and we couldn’t have changed anything until a TDOT study was done,” Dulaney said. “Again, all I can say is I never had any intention of doing anything wrong.”

Read more: http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?id=94472#ixzz1YmOg9Oza

Drivers beware: Grace period over for fine warnings from red light cameras in Palm Beach County

2011-09-23T05:46:00.000-07:00

CHECK OUT AN INTERACTIVE MAP OF ALL THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS BELOW

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. -- Beware drivers: the grace period for ticket and fine warnings from recently installed red light cameras officially came to an end Friday.

The grace period was in place for 60 days at intersections in Palm Beach County. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division was issuing warning notes to drivers who sped through intersections at Lantana and Jog Road traveling east and west, and also those traveling in three directions at the intersection of Powerline Road and Palmetto Park Road.

"The intent is for them to do some red light enforcement without an officer present, they are there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while our officers have to be a lot of different places," explained Dan Weisberg, Director of the Palm Beach County Traffic Division. "They've been shown to be somewhat effective at reducing red light violations where they're deployed."

Even now, new red light cameras are being installed at Atlantic Avenue and Jog Road, Hypoluxo Road and Military Trail, and Lake Worth Road and Military Trail. -- and these will not have a grace period.

All intersections with red light cameras have warning signs for drivers as they approach the light. Violators who are caught by the cameras going through a red light will be mailed $158 tickets. If not paid in 30 days, the tickets go up to $264.

Weisberg said the intersections where cameras are placed are carefully selected.

"Specifically we look for locations that had patterns of angle accidents, people that t-bone sometimes, or a left-hand turn accident, those would typically be accidents where one of the two bodies must have run a red light," he said.

INTERACTIVE RED LIGHT CAMERA MAP (Produced by the Sun

Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_c_palm_beach_county/drivers-beware%3A-grace-period-over-for-fine-warnings-from-red-light-cameras-in-palm-beach-county#ixzz1YmNy4H1F

View Red light cameras in South Florida in a larger map

16 cameras have racked up more than $9 million in fines in less than two weeks

2011-09-23T05:42:00.000-07:00

But it's about safety. Officials plan to install 450 traffic cameras in total. These are ATM's.

New traffic cameras bringing big fines
Posted: Friday, September 23, 2011 - By Adam Williams
The 16 cameras have racked up more than $9 million in fines in less than two weeks. Officials plan to install 450 traffic cameras in total.
Alberto Font
Transit officials on Wednesday monitor feeds from Costa Rica’s 16 new traffic cameras, installed in six different locations throughout the Central Valley. Roadway Safety Council officials say the cameras were installed to reduce traffic deaths. Motorists say the fines – upwards of $600 – are unfair.

In just 11 days, new traffic cameras in the Central Valley recorded 14,662 drivers exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 kilometers per hour. Each speeding violation carries at least a ₡308,000 ($616) fine, and motorists have racked up $9 million in violations since the installation of the cameras on Sept. 8.

The 16 new “eyes in the sky” have angered many drivers. Located at six spots along principal roadways that connect San José, Cartago and Alajuela, drivers say that the speed limits set in the vicinity of the cameras were intentionally lowered to accumulate fines.

“The cameras don’t make sense. No one drives 60 kilometers per hour on the General Cañas Highway,” Alex Morales, a blond-haired taxi driver, said on Monday. “The limits were set low so that the government could collect more money from fines, and the fines are too expensive. It’s completely unfair.”

Lowered limits and excessive fines are the primary complaints about the new Central Valley cameras, designed by the Roadway Safety Council (COSEVI). On the General Cañas Highway that connects Alajuela to San José, one of the country’s busiest roadways, the limit drops from 80 km per hour to 60 km per hour between Hospital México and the Hotel Crowne Plaza Corobicí. On both sides of the highway, towering gray cameras monitor to make sure the reduced limits are honored.

According to COSEVI, 100 vehicles have been clocked driving 20 km per hour over the limit on at least two occasions thus far. Fifteen of the drivers had at least four violations, totaling nearly $2,500 in fines.

“We are a poor country. People can’t afford to pay these types of fines,” Morales said. “I’m a taxi driver. If I get a fine, I won’t be able to pay it, which means I won’t be able to drive, which means I won’t be able to work or pay my bills. I can’t afford a ₡300,000 fine.”

Silvia Bolaños, director of COSEVI, has heard the complaints. When the cameras were installed, she expected disgruntled motorists to bemoan the new regulations and fines. Bolaños said COSEVI and other institutions involved in the creation of the program felt the fines were necessary to “send a message” and reduce the amount of traffic deaths in Costa Rica. Through the first six months of 2011, 164 people died on national roadways.

“In May, June and July, there were 30, 32, and 31 deaths on national roadways. That’s an average of one death a day,” Bolaños told The Tico Times from her office in La Uruca, a northwestern district of San José. “The primary objective of our role at COSEVI is to reduce the number of Costa Ricans who die on national roads each year. With the camera project, the objective isn’t to generate infractions, but to reduce speeds in high-risk areas.”

Bolaños, who stepped into her new role in June, pulled out a map of the Florencio del Castillo Highway, which connects San José to the eastern city of Cartago. The map was marked with locations of traffic accidents and fatalities in 2010 and 2011. A spot in front of Terramall, on the way to Cartago, was a flurry of yellow dots.

“Six pedestrians were killed at that spot in 2010,” Bolaños said. “There are bus stops, a pedestrian bridge and a large number of pedestrians near the mall. We decided to put a camera there to reduce drivers’ speeds and prevent further accidents from happening.”

The Central Valley cameras are the first step in COSEVI’s much larger plan. Bolaños said more cameras would be placed throughout the country, particularly in high-risk areas with elevated occurrences of accidents. An estimated 450 cameras will be installed at 150 locations throughout the country.

As for the complaints that the speed is too low, Bolaños said the limits were established according to a camera pilot project conducted during the first six months of the year. From January to June, cameras observed 1.7 million motorists on national roads. Of that figure, more than 825,000 exceeded the speed limit, while nearly 425,000 exceeded it by more than 20 km per hour. More than 20,000 vehicles were recorded driving over 120 km per hour, and 335 exceeded 150 km per hour.

“These are alarming speeds for a country that doesn’t have the road infrastructure or appropriate police security to deal with these speeds,” Bolaños said. “A lot of motorists have criticized the speeds of the camera project, but people want to have Third World speed limits in a country that doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it.”

Bolaños said it would be “irresponsible” of COSEVI to fail to intervene to reduce the number of national traffic deaths. In 2010, 187 people died in traffic accidents, the No. 1 cause of death in Costa Rica.

To provide some leeway for motorists, violations are issued only when a driver exceeds 20 km per hour over the posted limit. Someone driving 97 km per hour in an 80 km per hour zone, for example, is not subjected to a fine. There is a 3 km per hour margin of error.

Making Money

Through 11 days, $820,000 in fines were accumulated per day. How that money is to be collected will undoubtedly be the next large obstacle in the camera plan.

Currently, cameras record the license plate numbers of automobiles clocked driving 20 km per hour over the limit. Employees of COSEVI monitor the screens, record license plate numbers and search the public registry for vehicle owners. License plate numbers, names of registered drivers, dates of infractions and ticket numbers are then sent to the official government daily La Gaceta, which publishes the names monthly in a print and online edition at www.gaceta.go.cr.

A list of the ticketed drivers will also be published monthly in the daily La Nación and online at www.ticotimes.net. The list of drivers fined in September will appear in the Sept. 26 edition of La Gaceta and Sept. 28 edition of La Nación.

Bolaños said COSEVI hopes to soon begin sending ticket alerts to drivers via text message.

Motorists have 10 business days to appeal fines. If drivers fail to pay, they will be charged when they renew end-of-the-year vehicle circulation permits, or marchamos. A marchamo may not be renewed without payment of the fine.

As for the money collected from the fines, Bolaños said COSEVI receives less than half of the funds.

Most of the money will be distributed among several other government agencies, such as the Child Welfare Office, the Red Cross, local municipal agencies and the Traffic Police.

“There is a large fiscal deficit in this country and not a lot of funding available to improve things like roadways and security,” Bolaños said. “If we want to develop projects to improve highway safety and the quality of life in this country, we have to have resources to do so.”

Morales said that he doesn’t think he’s been caught speeding by the cameras, as he’s made sure to slow down when in the monitored areas.

“I drive like a grandfather now,” he said. “I know some people who ride with me aren’t happy to see me driving slow, but I tell them, ‘Unless you plan to pay me ₡300,000 for this ride, I’m not going any faster.’”

Camera Locations

The 16 new cameras are located at six different locations. 1. Florencia del Castillo Highway connecting San José and Cartago. Cameras are close to Terramall, and the speed limit drops from 80 km per hour to 60 km per hour near cameras.2. General Cañas Highway connecting Alajuela to San José. Cameras are located between Hospital México and the Hotel Crowne Plaza Corobicí. Limit drops from 80 km per hour to 60 km per hour.3. Highway to Río Segundo, close to the Cervecería Costa Rica in Alajuela, near Intel bridge. Speed limit drops from 80 km per hour to 60 km per hour.4. Florencio del Castillo Highway in La Lima de Cartago. Cameras are located in front of Tomza gas station. Speed limit is 80 km per hour.5. Circunvalación highway between the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales and the Y Griega; Ruta 39 in Zapote. Limit is 80 km per hour. 6. Four cameras in Alajuela on road near Mall Internacional. Limit is 80 km per hour. Fines: * Driving 20 km per hour over limit: ₡308,000 ($616)* Driving 120 km per hour: ₡411,000 ($822)* Driving above 150 km per hour: Up to three years in prison* 3 percent monthly interest on late payments

http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/Top-Story/New-traffic-cameras-bringing-big-fines_Friday-September-23-2011

Chideock: Speed camera fiasco totals £1.8million and counting

2011-09-22T06:10:00.000-07:00

THE tally – so far – for the Chideock speed camera fiasco is more than £1.8million, with the bill being footed by the Highways Agency.

It was more than four years ago when Cornish lorry driver Alan Dawe appealed against his speeding offence and in the process discovered a mistake made by the agency in which they named a local road Seatown Road in the Traffic Regulation Order when no such street exists.

The ruling that he was innocent on the technicality opened the floodgates for refunds and now Dorset’s Road Safe has issued the total for the decade from 1997 to 2007.

In all 23,108 people got their £60 repaid at a total cost to the taxpayer of £1,386,480.

Just less than 1,000 people fined at the pre-2000 rate got back £40, totalling another £38,000. There were 127 who donated their fine to charity and 121 who declined the money. With £370,981 in administration costs the total bill is £1,818,288 but a spokesman for the Highways Agency said there may still be more claims to come. The spokesman said: “The Highways Agency is paying because we made the original mistake in the traffic order. We’ve said publicly that’s our error.

“£1.8million is what has been paid so far but we haven’t shut the door, there may still be claims to come.”

John Wallis of Lyme Regis never expected to see his £60 back after being caught doing 40mph on the night of the 2005 general election. He was in his 70s at the time and it was his first speeding ticket.

He said: “I was the presiding officer out at Bettiscombe and I had to take the box back to Bridport and I had been working since six o’clock that morning and this was 11 at night and there was nothing on the road and I was doing 40 so they clobbered me. When I was caught I just thought tough luck, what else can you say?

“You had to ring a number and they asked you if you wanted a refund or if you wanted to make a donation to the road fund. I declined to do that.

“They are paying this money back but still taking it now the speed cameras are back in operation but legally this time.”

The review followed a test case held at Dorchester Crown Court when Mr Dawe won an appeal against his conviction for ‘speeding’ through Chideock in October 2008.

It paved the way for the original traffic order to be officially reviewed.

http://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/localnews/9262866.Chideock__Speed_camera_fiasco_totals___1_8million_and_counting/

Traffic Light Cameras: Encroaching Upon Our Safety, Freedom

2011-09-22T06:08:00.000-07:00

We have a way of letting things that are wrong creep on us, encroaching dangerously to threaten our freedom as Americans. The federal government's $14.5 trillion budget deficit is one example.

Another are those traffic-camera scams pervasive in cities and states throughout the country. From Chattanooga, Tenn., to Washington, D.C., to Chicago, to the West Coast and in many places in between, they will tell you it's all about safety -- not money.

Yet the truth is, it's all about money, not safety.

Consider only that the tickets from red light cameras and speeding traffic cameras are designed to give the vehicle a ticket. But a car can't drive itself, and running a red light or speeding is according to all definitions a moving violation. To get a car moving, it takes a driver, and only a driver can be ticketed.

Or that's the way it should be. Laws have been changed in many municipalities and states, however, through lobbying efforts pushed hard by traffic camera companies, to make camera tickets no different than a parking fine -- establishing the car as the offender. The fines are guilty until the vehicle owner says they are guilty and pays the fine.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/216875/20110920/traffic-light-cameras-scam-safety-red-light-camera.htm

Raleigh to halt red light cameras

2011-09-22T06:05:00.000-07:00

RALEIGH -- The city's 8-year-old red-light camera program could come to an end next week after a divided City Council voted not to extend the contract with the company that operates the cameras.

City traffic engineers say the cameras have helped reduce serious T-bone crashes by discouraging people from running red lights. But critics say the cameras are inherently unfair because vehicle owners automatically receive tickets in the mail without the opportunity to challenge them on the spot.

The cameras photograph vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red, and the pictures and notice of a $50 fine are sent to the vehicle's owner, based on the license plate. It's a civil infraction, like a parking ticket, with no effect on driving records or insurance rates.

The city began installing the cameras at historically dangerous intersections in summer 2003, and now has them at 15 intersections citywide.

The council voted 4-3 Tuesday to extend the cameras contract with ACS Xerox - one vote short of the five needed for approval. Mayor Charles Meeker did not vote because, he said, one of his law office colleagues has done work related to the program.

The contract expires Sept. 30, and the cameras will stop working at midnight that day unless the council reconsiders, said Mike Kennon, thecity's transportation operations manager.

Councilman Bonner Gaylord was among the three dissenters, arguing that the camera system violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Gaylord also noted that vehicle owners can be fined even if they weren't the ones behind the wheel.

Gaylord was joined by Eugene Weeks and John Odom. Council members Mary-Ann Baldwin, Thomas Crowder, Nancy McFarlane and Russ Stephenson voted to extend the contract.

The city has tried to make it easy to contest the citations if people feel they have received them in error, Kennon said. In addition to the photos, the system also creates a video, made available to drivers online, that would show mitigating circumstances, such as being part of a funeral procession or being forced to move to make room for an ambulance or fire truck.

Not a money-maker

Over the first five years of the program, drivers contested about 20 percent of camera citations; only about 2 percent of those appeals were successful, Kennon said. The addition of the video has probably cut those numbers even further, he said.

"If you get a citation in the mail, it's more than likely you ran the light and deserved it," Kennon said.

The program was not meant to be a money-maker for the city. The citation fees not needed to cover the cost of the program are turned over to the Wake County public schools - more than $521,000 since the cameras were put up.

Raleigh is one of four communities that use red-light cameras in North Carolina, along with Cary, Knightdale and Wilmington. Earlier this year, a bill that would have outlawed them in those places passed the state Senate but stalled in the House.

During debate over the bill, Sen. Josh Stein of Raleigh said the cameras had produced significant results. At Dawson and Morgan streets downtown, for example, police recorded 42 crashes in the four years before the cameras were installed, Stein said, and only one in the four years since.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/09/22/1507463/raleigh-to-halt-red-light-cameras.html

MURRIETA: Red light camera ban petition submitted

2011-09-22T05:59:00.000-07:00

A petition with more than 6,000 signatures calling for a ballot initiative to ban red light cameras in Murrieta has been submitted.

Murrieta resident Diana Serafin has spent the past six months collecting signatures in an effort to scrap the city's 5-year-old traffic camera program. If the petition she turned in Tuesday is successful, voters will decide in November 2012.

The petition needs 4,470 valid signatures, 10 percent of the city's registered voters. Serafin submitted 6,352, though after combing through the documents she discovered about a quarter of them are probably invalid, either from people who aren't registered to vote in Murrieta or duplicates, she said.

Serafin believes she has 4,823 good signatures, just enough to force a vote. The petitions have been sent to the Riverside County registrar of voters, which has 30 business days to inspect them.

"I'm feeling really good, I really am," Serafin said. "I think we're going to make it."

Even before the names are reviewed, Serafin's drive has been successful in temporarily blocking cameras from being installed at two intersections.

In January, the City Council renewed its contract with Arizona-based American Traffic Systems and decided to add cameras to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, at offramps from interstates 215 and 15.

Those cameras have been put on hold while the petition moves forward, said police Cpl. Jay Froboese, who runs Murrieta's red light camera program.

That means it could be more than a year before cameras are patrolling the intersections. But if the registrar decides Serafin doesn't have enough valid signatures, they could be installed as early as next month, Froboese said.

Traffic cameras monitor intersections for cars that drive through red lights, using sensors to detect vehicles and taking a few seconds of video of the vehicle and its license plate. The video is reviewed by a police officer, who decides whether to issue a ticket.

Fines for violations can cost more than $400.

Proponents of the cameras say they cut down on serious crashes that can occur when a driver runs a red light. Murrieta police said they saw drop-offs in head-on and broadside collisions, though rear-end crashes ticked up.

Camera opponents decry them as a money-making venture for cities that violate drivers' basic freedoms and offer no real increases in safety. Murrieta has tried to deflect that critique by pledging to donate any proceeds from the tickets, after American Traffic Systems takes its cut, to charity.

Murrieta would not be the first city to ban the cameras through voter initiative. Last year, Anaheim residents voted overwhelmingly to bar the devices.

Last month, American Traffic Systems sued to keep an anti-camera initiative off the ballot in Bellingham, Wash., according to the Bellingham Herald.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_sredlight22.3a43101.html

Judge tossing out some traffic light camera tickets

2011-09-22T05:49:00.000-07:00

GREEN COVE SPRINGS – Traffic citations from the city’s red light cameras for turning right without fully stopping have all been dismissed when contested in court, according to the city attorney.

Lawyer L.J. Arnold III reported to city council Thursday, Sept. 20, that he has appeared in Clay County Judge Richard Townsend’s court to represent the city in each of the legal challenges mounted by motorists cited for intersection violations caught by the cameras.

In every case where the citation was issued for an improper right turn, Arnold said, the judge has dismissed the charge.

"State law isn’t precise enough in defining what the cameras must depict to make a valid case against drivers in such cases," Arnold said. To date, the traffic cameras in Green Cove Springs are the only ones in Northeast Florida, although there are many in Central and Southeast Florida.

The city has cameras at three intersections along U.S. 17: at Ferris St. (State Route 16), Houston Street and Harbor Road. Controlled by computers, the cameras photograph vehicles that run the red lights at those intersections.

They snap images of the license plates and the vehicle owners receive citations in the mail calling for $158 fines. No cases of vehicles running red lights have been dismissed in court, Arnold said.

The camera fines are $98 less than for citations issued by police officers, they impose no points against an owner’s driver’s license and they entail no report to insurance companies.

The cameras are also programmed to take pictures of vehicles making right turns at red lights without first coming to a full stop. Most owners pay the fines – even the right-turn ones – by mail, according to Arnold. But those who have taken their camera-caught right turn citations to court have had them dismissed.

"It will take time for the legal system to iron out the details of these traffic camera cases," Arnold said.

Some motorists have complained that times of the amber-colored caution lights have been shortened at the camera-equipped intersections, leaving drivers insufficient time to come to a safe stop.

In a separate interview, Green Cove Springs Police Chief Robert Musco said state Department of Transportation regulations forbid altering the times for the amber lights.

"The D.O.T. specifies that, at 30 miles-per-hour intersections [such as the three on U.S. 17], the amber lights must be lit for 3.2 seconds."

Local merchants have complained that the traffic cameras might drive business away from the Clay County seat city.

The real issue, Musco has said, is "since when did it become OK to run red lights?"

Clouding the debate is chagrin on the part of some critics over the money the city is earning from the cameras. The city council Thursday night altered its 2010-’11 budget to account for an extra $436,204 to be produced by the cameras in the four months they will have been up and running by the budget’s end in October.

At the same time, the council adopted a 2011-’12 budget that includes no increase in taxes from the current fiscal plan.

The council also drafted a letter to be sent to automobile insurance companies asking them to reduce their rates for Green Cove Springs residents because, as they put it, with the red light cameras in operation, driving is now safer in the city.

http://www.claytodayonline.com/content/3797_1.php#rating

Traffic Cam Scam

2011-09-20T10:32:00.000-07:00

Traffic light cameras are annoying at the best of times, but while some people manage to escape the fines, most of us simply pay up without thinking about it or questioning whether the charge is valid. Tricky scammers are taking advantage of that lazy human tendency, making a handful of money and stealing identities in the process.

Scare tactics
The scam is simple. A no-good type picks your phone number at random and, once you answer, tells you that you have an overdue red light camera fine. The only way to avoid a significant late fee, a court case, or even jail time is to pay the bill right then and there over the phone. If you don't pay up, you're threatened with a warrant for your arrest.

Of course, there was no camera, no photograph, and no overdue bill. The scammer really has no ability to arrest you, fine you, or take you to court.

Taken off guard
The voice at the end of the phone line identifies itself as that of a police officer, possibly even giving you a (phony) identification number. As well as trusting you to be lazy and not do your fact checking, the scammer is working on the element of surprise. It's scary to be told you may be facing a jail sentence over something you have no recollection of doing, and you'll be more inclined to overlook a few simple signs that should tell you that the phone call is anything but legitimate.

After convincing you to pay the fraudulent fine, the "traffic cop" will ask for your credit card information, including the security code. That's required information for paying any bill from a remote location. Alarm bells should start ringing as the questions continue, though, as the caller asks for your billing address, date of birth and Social Security number. Surely, the police would have some — if not all — of this information on file. They have your license plate in the photo from the red light camera, after all.

That's not our style
No American police agency currently conducts business like this; in fact, no agencies anywhere conduct business like this. The police do not use the telephone to chase down or collect overdue fines or tickets. They use the postal service or, in more dire cases, a process server or law enforcement officer.

Even if things did get to the third-party debt collector stage, all correspondence would be carried out in writing, creating an official paper trail that can be traced back and audited if necessary.

The police (and most other authorities) will not ask you for personal information over the phone unless you initiated the call. Dialing the cable company to pay your bill by credit card is one thing — you dialed the numbers, and you can be relatively certain you are connected to the right party. But even with Caller ID, there is no real way to verify incoming calls; if questioned, scammers can come up with a quick excuse. Perhaps they are "calling from a different office" or "a new number that hasn't been set up yet."

Other variations
While this red light camera scam is relatively new (originating in Texas, by the way), it's very similar to another popular identity theft attempt. In that instance, you'll receive a call informing you that you have missed jury duty and — you guessed it — must pay a fine or be slapped with a late fee, along with possible jail time or a court case of your own.

Just like the traffic camera scam, there is no missed jury duty, and the "court official" on the other end of the phone is after your money and your personal information.

Throwing you off the scent
In a particularly nasty twist, you might receive a second call a few days later. The operator made a mistake — it wasn't your car in the photograph, or it wasn't really your name on the jury duty list. Gushing apologies, the caller will fall over himself to reassure you that your credit card will not be billed and that he is very sorry for wasting your time and causing you undue stress.

This second call, of course, is a distraction. You are so happy that you aren't really in trouble that you don't think back over the phone calls too closely and don't think to check your bank account to double-check the transaction. By the time you do check, it's often too late.

Common sense prevails
Fortunately, this simple scam has an equally simple method of prevention. Never, ever provide personal or financial information over the phone, email, text, or mail when solicited by a stranger. At the same time, find out as much as you can about the caller. Get a contact number, name, account number, job title, and any other relevant information that will help you identify them later. Tell them a story about wanting the information in case you need to call back later, if you must. (Hint: They're not going to want to give their details freely.)

If you believe you may have been sucked in by this scam, call your credit card company immediately and cancel your card(s). Look carefully at your statements to see if there are any fraudulent transactions, and report those as soon as you can. Consider getting fraud alerts placed on your credit report by contacting your credit bureau, too; these can be free and well worth your time, if you're concerned.

If you've handed over your Social Security number, slap yourself on the wrist and report that to the authorities, too. You will, unfortunately, need to take further steps to protect yourself from more serious fraud and identity theft.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/traffic-light-camera-scam-steals-your-identity.html

Learn from this city; too expensive to get out of the contracts. Solution: don't sign them in the first place

2011-09-20T06:05:00.000-07:00

San Bernardino, facing having to pay $1 million to get out of its red-light traffic enforcement camera contract, decided Monday to instead continue the program by eliminating some intersections, adding new ones and upgrading the technology at other intersections.

The City Council approved, 5-2, a new deal with American Traffic Systems that expires the same date as the old contract, July 2014.

"Ultimately it came down to the fact that when we looked at the cost of getting out of it, the penalties associated with that, it was much better for the city to proceed with renegotiating," City Manager Charles McNeely said after the meeting.

The new contract moves some cameras out of intersections where violations have been reduced, provides a larger call center for the public and a better computer system for officers who review tickets.

The council had voted in March end the contract, based partly on a memo from the city attorney's office that said the city's cost would be about $115,000. American Traffic Systems countered that the city's cost would be $1.9 million, the value of the remainder of the contract.

That higher figure shocked council members. The city negotiated it down, but only to $1 million.

In a public spat over the discrepancy, the city attorney's office said the figure was miscalculated because the Police Department provided incorrect definitions of "approaches" and "intersections" in the contract. The Police Department blamed the city attorney's office, saying it incorrectly interpreted the contract.

McNeely said Monday the city no longer has any confusion about its terms.

Chas Kelley and Wendy McCammack voted against the new deal.

Kelley said the cameras should not be used as money-makers, and he worries that the council in 2014 will renew the contract for the revenue.

Fred Shorett voted for the new contract but said he would not support a renewal.

The city expects the cameras to cost San Bernardino $552,238 and bring in $662,348 in 2011-12, according to a staff report. The camera company projects the city's cost (not including personnel and administration) in 2012-13 and 2013-14 at $835,740 annually. The company projects annual city revenue for those years at $2,391,830, based on the city historically receiving $69.69 for each ticket.

Here is where cameras are being pulled or added:

Out: University Parkway at Kendall Drive, Tippecanoe Avenue at San Bernardino Avenue, Hospitality Lane at Waterman Avenue, westbound 30th Street at Waterman.

Added: Eastbound and westbound Baseline and Mt. Vernon Avenue, northbound and westbound Baseline at Waterman, northbound and southbound Mill Street at Pepper Avenue. They are expected to be on in January.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_ncouncil20.3c8a25a.html

Petition Targets Kansas City's Red-Light Cameras

2011-09-20T06:00:00.000-07:00

Another city who sees only the ATM value of the cameras.

http://youtu.be/vn0LqZ4DYUc

Louisiana: Legality of Municipal Red Light Camera Contract Questioned

2011-09-20T05:57:00.000-07:00

Automated ticketing machines may not be legally operating in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Red light cameras and speed cameras may not be legally operating in Lafayette, Louisiana, according to current and former city officials. Councilman William G. Theriot was first to suggest that the city-parish President Joey Durel did not have the authority to unilaterally extend the contract with Australian automated ticketing vendor Redflex Traffic Systems when the agreement expired in June.

"I think a lot of people want to have a say so in what's involved in it," Theriot told KATC-TV. "Secondly if it is extended, we don't know if the terms were negotiated or what was involved."

When city staff in Los Angeles, California attempted to renew a photo ticketing contract, massive public opposition swayed elected leaders into deciding to drop the program. By having a purchasing clerk sign a renewal contract with Redflex, Durel avoided public notice and controversy, quietly keeping alive the program that is expected to generate $1.3 million in revenue this year. Durel and his staff contend that such renewals are routine business matters and do not require the attention of the full council.

A legal analysis of the situation offered on Saturday by a former assistant city attorney disagreed. Lester J. Gauthier Jr, now in private practice, sent a written opinion to council members arguing that the contract extension was invalid. The original four-year contract with the Australian photo ticketing vendor was adopted on June 5, 2007. It stated that the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government (LCG) had the option of extending the contract annually. Lafayette's home rule charter expressly states that the government decision to "grant, renew or extend a franchise" requires an ordinance approved by the council.

"Thus it is my considered opinion that the granting, renewal and any extension of the franchise agreement by and between LCG and Redflex required council action by ordinance," Gauthier wrote. "I do not believe that the Redflex contract with Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government has been properly extended."

Gauthier further argued that a purchasing clerk does not have the authority to sign a contract or extension, even when the item is approved by an ordinance.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3590.asp

Peoria will deactivate red-light cameras on Oct. 3

2011-09-17T09:10:00.000-07:00

Peoria's red-light cameras will stop snapping photos of violators Oct. 3.

The city will not renew its contract with Redflex Traffic Systems after learning from police that crashes at monitored intersections actually increased during the three-year pilot program.

Collisions at the four intersections with red-light cameras saw an average uptick of 29 percent, Peoria police said in a Tuesday presentation to City Council.

Red-light violations did drop during the pilot period from 2008 to 2010, an average of 64 percent, Police Chief Roy Minter Jr. said.

The goal of the pilot program, which began in January 2008, was to decrease crashes and violations.

"We're disappointed that's not what we ultimately saw in the data," Peoria police Cmdr. Doug Hildebrandt said.

Council members decided to let their contract with Redflex expire at the recommendation of police and at the urging of Councilman Ron Aames, who also made a presentation.

Peoria is the fourth Valley city not to renew its photo-enforcement contract in the past year. Tempe shut off its speed and red-light cameras in July and Avondale terminated its contract last year. Glendale also opted not to continue a two-year pilot program without adding permanent cameras.

In the West Valley, Surprise and El Mirage continue to use cameras. Figures released to The Republic show Peoria did not profit from photo-enforcement violations in the city.

Last year, Peoria received nearly $300,000 from red-light citations but ended up with about a $3,194 loss when staff costs and payments to the Scottsdale-based Redflex were factored in.

Police have said the goal was never to make money but to make Peoria streets safer.

"Our interest was to see a reduction in violations, which would indicate we changed driver behavior," said Peoria police Lt. Doug Steele, who spent months reviewing photo-enforcement data.

Steele's analysis found the number of drivers running red lights decreased from more than 18,000 in 2008 to about 5,000 last year. Some of the drop coincided with an increase in yellow-light times at some Peoria intersections. The city extended the time in which the lights at some intersections remain yellow, which police said contributed to a decrease in violations.

The police chief concluded his department had not achieved its most important goal: to reduce crashes. After the police presentation, Aames showed a slideshow of his own.

The councilman said he mostly agreed with police, although he displayed his own figures and said the cameras didn't impact driver decisions.

Increased yellow-light times, rather than driver behavior, contributed to a decrease in violations and "flagrant red-light runners" simply disregard the cameras, Aames said.

"To me, the red-light cameras are kind of like a fool's gold," Aames said. "They sound like something that would really have an effect on accidents, on driver behavior, on safety, but they don't."

Councilwoman Joan Evans said she hoped police would consider lengthening the timing of yellow lights at other intersections.

And she requested they continue to monitor the four intersections that currently have red-light cameras, 83rd Avenue and Union Hills Drive, 91st Avenue and Bell Road, 83rd Avenue and Thunderbird Road, and 75th Avenue and Thunderbird Road.

Photos will no longer be taken as of next month, but it's not immediately clear when Peoria's red-light cameras will come down.

Redflex spokesman Tom Herrmann said Peoria's rise in crashes at intersections with red-light cameras didn't match other cities' experiences.

He cited a Februaryreport by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, funded by auto insurance companies, which estimated red-light cameras helped usher in a combined 35 percent drop in fatal crashes over five yearsin more than a dozen U.S. cities.

"The experience in Peoria is a mystery because it's contrary to our experiences elsewhere," Herrmann said. "I don't doubt their statistics. I just wish we had a clear explanation for why that happened. Hopefully, we can re-establish the relationship with the city."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/09/14/20110914peoria-deactivate-red-light-cameras-brk.html

Bluff City switches off traffic cams, speed limit sign was too close to intersection under law

2011-09-16T05:55:00.000-07:00

BLUFF CITY, Tenn. — Bluff City has shut down its speed cameras as a question about compliance with a new state law is resolved.

The Johnson City Press has reported Bluff City officials had been violating the statute for more than two months because speed limit signs are too close to a traffic camera location at an intersection (http://bit.ly/oTafxa ). Under the new law, the signs must be at least one mile from the cameras.

City Manager Judy Delaney said Wednesday the city was switching off the cameras until the issue was fixed. Delaney also said she sent the public works department to remove the 45 mph sign that was three-tenths mile from the camera on U.S. 11E.

State Rep. Matthew Hill, a Jonesborough Republican, said every ticket issued on data from that camera since July 1 should be thrown out.

___

Information from: Johnson City Press, http://www.johnsoncitypress.com

Scrap traffic cams: city finance boss

2011-09-16T05:51:00.000-07:00

City council's finance chairman says Winnipeg should get rid of red-light cameras when the existing operating contract expires, pending the results of a review of the controversial devices.

St. James-Brooklands Coun. Scott Fielding said the city should scrap the automated photo-enforcement program in 2013 and spend the $5.5 million to hire 50 new police officers instead -- and use the revenue from any speeding tickets they hand out to pay for more policing.

"I think we can do a much better job of policing with 50 more officers," Fielding said Thursday following a finance committee meeting where councillors learned photo-enforcement revenue is once again failing to meet budget projections.

By the end of 2011, photo-enforcement revenue is expected to be $2.2 million under budget, according to a financial status report for the city accounts as of June 30. The city budgeted to collect a total of $10.9 million worth of red-light camera revenue this year.

This target was reduced by $100,000 from 2010, when the city planned to rake in $11 million. The year before that, in 2009, photo-enforcement revenue wound up $3.8 million shy of its $14-million target.

"People seem to know where the locations are," Winnipeg chief financial officer Mike Ruta surmised to the finance committee. The city will conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of its photo-enforcement program before it decides whether to renew its contract with provider ACS Public Sector Solutions in 2013, he said.

River Heights-Fort Garry Coun. John Orlikow, who was first elected in 2009, said he finds it disturbing to see the photo-enforcement budget fail to meet projections twice in the three years he's had the opportunity to peruse finance reports.

Fielding went even further, noting officers in mobile cars can do more than just catch speeders, but nab the occasional person wanted on an outstanding warrant following a traffic violation.

"This is not just about money or safety, but a style of policing. I like the idea of people on the street," he said.

The Winnipeg Police Service has always maintained red-light cameras were installed to promote safety, as opposed to generating revenue for the city. In fact, it appears to do both.

After analyzing 14 years' worth of Winnipeg collision data, the Ottawa-based Traffic Injury Research Foundation declared in July "there is strong evidence" photo-enforcement cameras have cut down the number of often-fatal collisions known as T-bone crashes since the city installed the devices at 48 intersections.

The City of Winnipeg-commissioned study found the number of collisions at red-light-camera intersections dropped 46 per cent after the devices were installed, from a monthly average of 10 or 11 to a monthly average of five to six.

The same study, however, concluded rear-end collisions increased at red-light-camera intersections after the devices were installed, increasing 15 per cent to 32 to 34 per month from 27 to 28 per month, due to the "kangaroo effect" of motorists slamming on the brakes.

The Traffic Injury Research Foundation and the Winnipeg Police Service conclude red-light cameras have had a positive net effect on safety in Winnipeg.

The study was unable to determine the effectiveness of mobile-enforcement cameras operated by officers. The technology used to determine whether vehicles slowed down -- devices entirely separate from the cameras themselves -- did not capture data consistently, researchers conceded.

Fielding nonetheless said he's inclined to favour mobile cameras. He said he will back off his position in 2013 if the city review concludes automated photo enforcement remains worthwhile.

But he also noted the city gets to keep more of the revenue officers collect from mobile cameras. A portion of the red-light camera ticket revenue is shared with the province, he said.

The last time the city's photo-enforcement revenue exceeded budget projections significantly was 2008, when fines were increased and the city placed mobile cameras near construction sites. That year, photo-enforcement revenue was $2.3 million in the black.

bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/scrap-traffic-cams-city-finance-boss-129938923.html

6,000 signatures collected against traffic cameras

2011-09-16T05:47:00.000-07:00

Scott Harlan and his supporters took a historic step closer to putting the controversial issue of traffic-enforcement cameras to a vote of Redmond residents Wednesday afternoon.

See photo Harlan, joined by Washington initiative activist Tim Eyman and a handful of supporters, delivered nearly twice the number of needed signatures to the Redmond city clerk in an effort to get the city's first-ever citizen-driven initiative on the ballot of next February's special election. Now it's up to King County to validate the signatures.

Standing near the front steps of city hall, Eyman announced to a small gathering of media that Harlan and fellow volunteers gathered 6,050 signatures, well over the 3,845 signatures needed to get the initiative on the upcoming ballot. If Redmond Initiative No. 1 - "Let The People Decide on Red Light Cameras in Redmond" is put on the February ballot and passed, it would ban the use of traffic-enforcement cameras unless approved by council members and the voters. A February special election would cost the city between $70,000-80,000.

"More people signed this petition than voted for the mayor in the last race," Eyman said. "It's really mind boggling the number of people that were willing to sign the petition."

The announcement capped nearly six months of signature gathering by Harlan and his team of 15-20 volunteers. Harlan's initiative effort here in Redmond is one of many across the state fueled by Eyman, the state's ballot-measure king.

Harlan, a Union Hill resident, said he hopes his efforts send a message to city leaders that Redmond residents oppose the use of these cameras as Redmond City Council members move closer to a decision to extend the one-year pilot program or not.

"Hopefully a key criteria in whether or not they vote to extend the pilot program is the public's perception of the program," Harlan said. "We have displayed the public's view that they want to vote on the program overall."

City Council member Hank Myers, chair of the public safety committee, said he is taking notice.

"I can't speak for other members, but if this really is referendum No. 1 in the history of Redmond it shows the amount of work going out to get this thing qualified," Myers said. "As an individual member, I'm impressed by that."

When asked Monday if he would vote to extend the camera program, Myers said, "I don't know what I would do at this point."

Myers said he wants to analyze more data before he makes a final decision.

Eyman, Harlan and other supporters plan to attend Tuesday's council meeting and show council members the signed petitions and state their case.

"I think there is a symbolic point to be made and we've made it," Harlan said. "There is no way to ignore the fact that six thousand signatures have been put in front of you."

The program, which features red-light cameras at three busy intersections and one school-zone speeding camera, began Feb. 1 with a one-month warning period and has generated nearly $600,000 in fines and more than 7,000 citations since March, according to city documents.

Nearly 95 percent of the violations are for illegal right-hand turns at red lights - "that's an incredibly expensive driver's education program," Harlan said.

City clerk Michelle McGehee is required to turn in the 1,908 pages of signatures to King County within three business days. From there, the county will verify the number of valid signatures. Harlan said he and his supporters gathered well over the required number of signatures knowing that some of the people who signed the petition live outside the city limits, making their signature invalid.

Once the signatures are validated, council members would have to approve a resolution to put the initiative on the February 14, 2012 ballot, according to McGehee. The deadline to submit the resolution to the county is Dec. 30, she said.

Harlan's delivery of the signatures comes just weeks before the council is set to decide whether to renew to the city's contract with the camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

The council will have a study session on the matter at its Oct. 11 meeting and then will vote whether to extend the program or not shortly thereafter, according to council president Richard Cole. The city must notify ATS by Dec. 1, Cole said.

Cole said the council's decision on the ATS contract is a "separate process" from Harlan's efforts.

"We will evaluate the program, look at the efficiencies and consider the pros and cons," Cole said of the council's decision-making process. "We would have done that without the signatures."

Cole said he has been lobbying for traffic-enforcement cameras for years and said he feels they make the community a safer place for drivers and pedestrians.

But if the data suggests otherwise, he said he will reconsider. Accidents have actually increased from 11 in 2010 to 14 in 2011 between January and June at the three intersections, according to city documents.

"Safety cameras are a good idea, however, when we see more data in October and the data shows they are not working, then I would re-think my decision," Cole said.

Mayor John Marchione released a statement on Wednesday, explaining the city's decision-making plan for the program.

"As I indicated on this issue last month, the Traffic Safety Program has always been a one-year pilot program and the city continues to gather data and community input to make the best decision by Dec. 1 of this year," Marchione said. "Residents have been very forthcoming with their opinions and the Council and I continue to listen to the wide variety of views being expressed. As part of our open, transparent pilot evaluation process, we welcome residents' opinions at mayorcouncil@redmond.gov. This fall we will review our residents' feedback, along with Mr. Harlan's efforts, in the context of recent court rulings in this area as we consider next steps for Redmond."

EYMAN LEADS STATE-WIDE ANTI-CAMERA EFFORT

Redmond is not the only city in the state facing Eyman's wrath against the cameras.

Last year, Eyman led an initiative in his hometown of Mukilteo, where 71 percent of the voters said they wanted to ban the cameras. The camera measures are headed for the November ballot in Longview, Bellingham and Monroe; Wenatchee is in the signature-gathering process. Redmond is the only city that has not gone to court concerning the issue as Redmond city officials follow how other court cases unfold.

The most recent court ruling came last week in Bellingham as a three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled Bellingham's initiative to ban the cameras can stay on the November ballot, but it will not be legally binding.

Cole said that decision will "carry a lot of weight" as other cities, like Redmond, grapple with the camera issue.

Eyman said as long as the issue can be put to a vote of the people, a strong point will be made to city leaders. Eyman said a public vote concerning traffic-enforcement cameras has been held in 18 cities across the nation and in each of those elections, residents voted against the cameras.

"It's really hard for elected officials to ignore a public vote," Eyman said. "As long as the voters get a chance to vote, 99 times out of a 100, the voters will get the policies that they voted for."

Below is a Google map showing with green markers, indicating all the registered voters who signed the petition for Redmond Initiative No. 1. Courtesy of Scott Harlan.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/sound/article/Anti-camera-activists-collect-more-than-6-000-2173451.php#ixzz1Y7SagRDS

Mesa next on list for ban on traffic cameras

2011-09-16T05:45:00.000-07:00

PHOENIX — As Peoria becomes the fourth Valley city to get rid of traffic cameras, a group fighting the cameras is trying to convince Mesa to join the ban.

Shawn Dow with camerafraud.com said Thursday he will stop at nothing to get Mesa to end its traffic camera contract with American Traffic Solutions.

"We will file recalls for those people who are eligible for recall and, if they're running for re-election, we will run people against them," Dow said. "There is no need for this council to renew this contract."

Peoria's red-light cameras will stop snapping photos of violators on Oct. 3.

The city won't renew its contract with Redflex Traffic Systems after learning from police that crashes at monitored intersections actually increased during the three-year pilot program.

Peoria police said in a Tuesday presentation to City Council that collisions at the four intersections with red-light cameras saw an average increase of 29 percent.

Red-light violations did drop during the pilot period from 2008 to 2010, an average of 64 percent.

The pilot program began in January 2008. Its goal was to decrease crashes and violations.

The Arizona Republic says Peoria is the fourth Phoenix-area city not to renew its photo-enforcement contract in the past year — joining Tempe, Avondale and Glendale.

http://ktar.com/6/1452312/Mesa-next-to-ban-traffic-cams

Photo radar on the way out in Sherwood Park

2011-09-15T06:10:00.000-07:00

Edmonton City Hall stands behind local speed-camera program

Sherwood Park will halt photo radar by next fall, but don't expect Edmonton to hit the brakes any time soon.

Strathcona County council voted 5-4 on Tuesday to replace its mobile photo radar cameras with five new enforcement officers by next September. The decision won't affect speed cameras at intersections.

Coun. Brian Botterill, who introduced the motion, said photo radar isn't an effective deterrent.

"Drivers will get a $200 fine and it's not like they're not feeding their family. It's almost more of a nuisance," said Botterill. "If you get a demerit, you can possibly lose your licence or your insurance will go up."

Botterill has seen photo radar placed in "arbitrary" speed transition zones, or even in areas accident-free for more than a year. Additional enforcement officers, who work for the county, will nab distracted and impaired drivers and hand out demerits for speeders, he said.

Retired Mountie Coun. Peter Wlodarczak was among the councillors who voted against the measure. Wlodarczak, head of the Strathcona RCMP detachment between 1998 and 2001, just after the technology was brought in, said photo radar is an essential component in traffic enforcement. "Knowing it's there, you slow down," said Wlodarczak. "There will be a void in enforcement without it."

The city will extend its contract for photo radar for the next eight months, then on a month-to-month basis until the new officers are trained. The county expects to lose more than $500,000 a year in ticket revenue, plus incur about $900,000 in first-year costs to expand and train the force.

Strathcona RCMP have also talked about eventually adding an additional six officers in subsequent years, Botterill said.

Botterill said any revenue losses should be made up through property taxes, since traffic enforcement is about safety, not revenue.

Bob Boutilier, transportation general manager at the City of Edmonton, said the city has no plans to follow suit. Edmonton's high-speed thoroughfares make traffic enforcement a safety challenge, and manned photo-radar vans are a cost-effective tool, Boutilier said. Edmonton police are left to target problem areas, and don't use the technology as a "cash cow."

"The deployment strategy is based on complaints," Boutilier said. "It's directed specifically where we see a problem, not at areas where we want to make money."

Edmonton's photo-enforcement program - which includes 14 vans and about 40 intersection cameras - brings in $20 million a year. The province collects the revenue and keeps more than 20 per cent, then returns the rest to the city. The city allocates the remaining funds back to traffic and policing programs.

Boutilier said $10 million goes into the traffic-enforcement unit, while the rest funds general policing, camera systems, a University of Alberta chair in urban traffic safety, and an annual traffic safety conference.

"This is not about generating revenue," he said.

There are differing opinions about photo radar on Edmonton city council, with a consensus on the superiority of manned enforcement.

Coun. Kerry Diotte called Strathcona County's decision "a bold move and a smart move," and said photo radar doesn't catch outstanding warrants, stolen property, or expired licences. "It's a real benefit to have real police officers as opposed to camera enforcement, I think, and it's worth looking at for Edmonton," Diotte said.

Mayor Stephen Mandel said he supports photo radar and is awaiting a proposal from police Chief Rod Knecht about expanding manned enforcement.

"You catch a different group of people. Conventional radar opens up new and different doors," he said.

bwittmeier@edmontonjournal.com twitter.com/wittmeier

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Photo+radar+Sherwood+Park/5406080/story.html

Valley cities putting the brakes on Traffic Cameras

2011-09-15T06:07:00.001-07:00

Red light camera debate moves to Redmond

2011-09-15T06:05:00.001-07:00

REDMOND, Wash. -- Tim Eyman is taking on red light cameras in Redmond now. This afternoon he presented signatures on a petition and asked that it go to a vote. He's doing this in other communities too with mixed success.
It's not just here in Redmond as you mention. Bellingham, Monroe, Mukilteo and Wenatchee are just a few cities where the political initiative business is booming to either take the cameras down or stop them from being installed.

A flash light after going through a red light is a bad sign for a driver. It means a $124 ticket will be showing up in the mail in about four weeks.

A traffic light at the intersection of Redmond Way and 148th, for example, has seen traffic violations drop dramatically from nearly 1,200 warning tickets issued in February after the camera was installed to less than 200 violations in May.

"The majority of violations are right turn on red, but I would point out that those were the most hazardous and pedestrians," said Redmond Police Chief Ron Gibson.

But a drop in citations is less clear at another busy intersection where Redmond has installed cameras. The location at NE 40th and 156th near Microsoft is down one month and up the next.

"95 percent of the infractions at intersections are for California Stops, that's an incredible expensive driver's ed program," said Redmond resident Scott Harlan.

Harlan is filing the initiative to put the cameras to a vote. For the record: a California stop is not making a full stop while making a right turn on red.

With the help of frequent Initiative sponsor Eyman filing of signatures with clerk's office. A group of Redmond residents filed more than 6,000 signatures to make a vote happen.

And this is just the latest battle over the cameras.

But if voters can put the cameras out of business, could they block other forms of law enforcement.

"The system is already set up to weed out any frivolous ideas, but when it comes to these cameras, as Harlan says there's no doubt that these cameras are admittedly controversial and we think the voters should have the final say," said Eyman.

But in Bellingham, Monroe and Longview it's been a legal issue complete with court action.

Lawsuits seem unlikely here as Redmond is still in a one year long pilot program and could abandon the initiative. These Redmond intersections don't see a lot of collisions but since the cameras went in, the number of accidents is actually up.

http://www.king5.com/news/Red-light-camera-debate-moves-to-Bellingham-129847008.html

The Red Light Camera Circus

2011-09-15T06:02:00.001-07:00

The city secretary adjusts her spectacles and looks down at her speakers list — number 17 is up next — and the crowd packed into the sweaty Houston City Hall chambers starts to shift to their feet. Suited Republicans, scraggly-haired hippies and sign-clutching members of the National Black United Front have been standing and sitting in unison for the past hour, as if they're playing Simon Says with someone who knows just two commands. Mayor Annise Parker has warned that cheering and clapping will result in a swift kick from chambers, so they silently stand to show their support instead.

Most of the crowd is here because of number 17 — "Mr. Paul Kubosh," the secretary reads aloud slowly. The name carries the power of a curse word to most of city council, but especially to Mayor Parker, who looks warily annoyed. This man, along with the two Kuboshes following him on the public speakers' list, have made her life extremely complicated.
Kubosh walks briskly to the podium. He signed up to speak for three minutes, but like the 38 other people listed to talk about red-light cameras, was only granted one. Kubosh plants his palms on the podium and leans forward toward city council , his gray suit stretched across his back. It's stained with sweat from the protest he led outside City Hall just before the meeting started.
"Let me make sure that you folks understand," Kubosh says in a low growl. "This will never go away." It's August 2, 2011, and Kubosh is talking about the red-light camera issue, one he and his brothers have been fighting since long before the cameras went up in 2006.
The Kuboshes thought the fight was over in November, when they led a petition drive that ended with 52 percent of the city voting down the cameras. Parker unilaterally turned the cameras off, only to be greeted by a $25 million threat from the camera vendor American Traffic Solutions for killing its contract years before its end. The scare tactic worked on the mayor, who used to be city controller. With her mind on revenue for her cash-strapped city, she flipped sides, and on came the hated cameras — until finally, she defected again and turned them off.
Now, the city is headed for a high-stakes court fight (it's already had its PR disaster) and nobody really knows where the mayor stands. About 186,000 Houstonians of all colors and political persuasions are livid that their vote didn't count. Just as many wonder: However did we get to this point ?_____________________
Walking through the periwinkle bail bonding office near downtown's municipal courts, you're bound to bump into a Kubosh. The three ample brothers, plus their diminutive, sunny mother, plus Paul's children, who range in age from 8 to 15, make a consistently full house.
But the social hub is the office of Michael Kubosh, the bail bondsman and jokester of the family. Michael has short, snowy hair and a choppy white beard. Suspenders loyally hold up his pants, and he speaks with a deep, buttery lilt, like he's at a never-ending audition for a role in a spaghetti Western. Today, he's being temporarily kicked out of his mahogany office with hanging moose heads by his brother Paul, whose office next door is apparently too disarrayed to host visitors.
Paul Kubosh, a gentle-mannered Texan until he gets riled up, has always loved public speaking. It's why he became a traffic attorney: Considering Houston drivers, he knew he'd always have an audience. Back in 1995, Kubosh heard that red-light camera companies were trying to bring the cameras to Texas. He and his brothers took a trip to San Diego three years later out to see how the program there was working. The Kuboshes were shocked.
"They just went out and cut the yellows down, all over the place," Kubosh said. Shorter yellow times mean more red-light running — which also means more tickets. A Texas Transportation Institute study that would come out in 2004 found that adding just one second to a yellow light decreased red-light camera violations by 53 percent. Shortening the yellow by the same amount resulted in a 110 percent increase in violations. "We started seeing what we believed was the sinister side of it," Kubosh said. "We started realizing it wasn't about safety."
Kubosh became obsessed with keeping the cameras out of Texas. He and his brothers testified against the cameras in Austin for years, claiming that simple engineering changes would make traffic safer. Members of the Legislature seemed to agree and voted automated traffic enforcement down each time. But in 2003, in an obscure part of a transportation bill, one word slipped past the Kuboshes' watchful eyes. A representative amended the bill to allow municipalities to regulate traffic civilly in addition to criminally. Just one word gave red-light cameras the green light.
Kubosh sued and tried to get a judge to declare the cameras unconstitutional, but to no avail. Then-mayor Bill White, who did not return Houston Press requests for comment, welcomed the cameras to Houston in 2006 when he signed a five-year contract with ATS.
Here's the deal, according to the 200-page monster of an agreement: Each camera costs the city at least $3,000 per month. The cameras record violations that are sent to ATS, whose workers review them to weed out the dismissible ones like legal right turns on red and police wave-throughs. ATS then sends them to the Houston Police Department, awaits its approval of the violations and mails out $75 tickets with photo evidence. No driver's license or insurance points are assessed: only a fine. To get constituents revved up for being ticketed, the contract also mandates up to $120,000 per year in public awareness campaign expenses. One of ATS's objectives, expressed in the contract: "to limit antagonism, opposition or concerns about the program."

http://www.houstonpress.com/2011-09-15/news/the-red-light-camera-circus/

Bluff City camera shut down due to legality

2011-09-15T05:59:00.000-07:00

One of Bluff City’s two speed cameras on U.S. Highway 11E has been temporarily shut down amid concerns it might have illegally been issuing tickets for the past 2½ months.
Interim City Manager Judy Dulaney said she disabled the camera monitoring traffic on the highway’s southbound lanes Wednesday after she learned it might be in violation of the state’s new traffic camera law because the device is too close to a drop in the speed limit.
“I’m not going to take a chance on that,” Dulaney said, explaining her decision. “The city wants to do what’s right.”
Responding to complaints concerning the amount of citations issued and the revenues the cameras generate, the state legislature this spring passed a comprehensive law regulating speed and red light camera systems. One of the new law’s restrictions, which went into effect July 1, bars localities from setting up a speed camera like Bluff City’s within one mile of where the speed limit drops by 10 mph or more.
This causes problems for the city’s camera system because the device is less than a third of a mile from where the speed limit on U.S. 11E’s southbound lanes drops from 55 mph to 45 mph on the way to Piney Flats.
Dulaney said Wednesday that city officials thought the new law did not apply in their case because the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions to operate the cameras does not expire until Jan. 1, 2015.
City officials could extend the length of the 45 mph zone to meet the regulation, which a former city manager thought about doing, but there was no hurry because they thought they had been grandfathered in under the new state law.
However, Dulaney started to question that line of thinking Wednesday when she learned about comments State Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, made regarding the cameras earlier that afternoon. In an interview with a Johnson City newspaper, Hill said the camera system violates the law and he called on the city to shut it down or move the signs and refund any tickets issued since July 1.
He further called on Sullivan County Mayor Steve Godsey to extend the length of the 45 mph zone or shut down the camera system on his own if city officials did not immediately fix the problem.
“The way I read the law when we voted on it this spring, that restriction applies to the city,” Hill said when asked Wednesday whether Bluff City had been grandfathered in because of its contract with ATS.
But Hill conceded that if the city was grandfathered in, he didn’t have any problems with the camera’s location: “If they’re abiding by the law, then they’re abiding by the law,” he said.
Not wanting to take any chances, Dulaney said the city’s southbound camera will stay off until she can get a final answer from the state attorney general’s office on whether the city was grandfathered in.
“Until I can get something in writing, then it will stay down,” Dulaney said, adding that the city is prepared to issue refunds to anyone who received an improper citation because of this situation.

gmclean@bristolnews.com
(276) 645-2518
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/sep/15/one-bluff-citys-two-speed-cameras-shut-down-due-le-ar-1310612/

Council eyes camera contract

2011-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

A Lafayette City-Parish councilman is questioning the validity of the contract with the company responsible for speed and red-light traffic cameras here after learning the city-parish administration renewed the contract this summer — without telling either the Council or the public — and without renegotiating the contract's terms.
District 9 Councilman William Theriot brought up the contract during a wrap-up budget hearing Tuesday.
Theriot said he was researching the budget proposed by City-Parish President Joey Durel when he began examining the Lafayette Consolidated Government's contract with Redflex Traffic Systems.
He said LCG's initial contract with Reflex stated the agreement would last for four years, starting in June 2007. He said he wasn't aware of any decision to renew or renegotiate the contract this past June.
"I am under the assumption we no longer have a contract with Redflex?" Theriot asked during the hearing.
Dee Stanley, who is LCG's chief administrative officer, told Theriot that Durel extended that contract this summer. He said Durel was able to do so as city-parish president without needing council approval.
Theriot asked Stanley and Durel if the contract was renegotiated in any way, to which Stanley replied he did not believe there were any changes.
Stanley noted that Theriot was not on the council when it approved the initial contract, and he said it was no secret that the contract had a renewal option.
"With a hot-button issue like this, I'm just very surprised that this did not come before the council," Theriot said.
Theriot said he interpreted the contract as saying it needs to be renewed by Lafayette Consolidate Government. He questioned how "LCG" is defined and if that definition includes only the city-parish president or if it also includes the council.
City-Parish Attorney Mike Hebert could not say definitively during the hearing if the city-parish president is able to renew that contract without the council's approval.
He said he would need to read the full contract before rendering an opinion and said he would define "LCG" in this context in response to Theriot's request.
"It's very typical that a contract that has a renewal option in it does not come back before the Council," Hebert said during the hearing. "We have numerous contracts of that type throughout the government, but I'm not prepared to give a definitive opinion now."
When The Daily Advertiser asked Hebert on Tuesday evening to notify the newspaper of his official opinion on the matter, he said LCG's "legal opinions are subject to attorney-client privilege and we typically cannot release them under our rules of ethics."
The Redflex issue arose during a discussion about amendments to Durel's proposed budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year. Durel's budget uses a significant amount of money collected from speed and red light cameras in order to cover operating costs and recurring expenses despite past thinking that those funds should be given to only traffic safety improvement projects.
Councilman Jay Castille, District 2, previously proposed an amendment to remove a bulk of the funds collected by traffic cameras from the Traffic and Transportation Department and give those funds to the Lafayette Police Department's traffic enforcers.
Castille wants to then refund, at the same amount, all of Durel's proposed funding for the Traffic and Transportation Department but instead use dollars from the general fund to cover those personnel and operation costs.
Theriot objected to that amendment both when Castille first proposed it in late August and again during Tuesday's hearing.
Durel repeatedly asked Theriot during Tuesday's hearing what his questions about the Reflex contract had to do with the tasks at hand that day.
"I think this is a good discussion to have, but it may be for another time," Durel said. "I don't see what this discussion has to do with the budget itself."
Theriot said the Council needs to know about the Redflex contract before deciding how to vote on Castille's amendment concerning Redflex fines being used to cover operating and personnel costs within the Traffic and Transportation Department.
"In my opinion, it does make a difference," Theriot told Durel.
Theriot, who appeared flabbergasted by Durel's renewal of the contract without alerting the Council, continued his back-and-forth with a visibly frustrated Durel.
"What would make you say 'yes,' [to the proposed amendment]" Durel asked Theriot.
"There is no answer that would cause me to support that," Theriot replied.
"That's what I thought," Durel concluded.
No other Council members joined the discussion between Theriot, Durel, Stanley and Hebert as they examined the contract's validity.
Several LCG officials were unable to provide The Daily Advertiser with copies of the RedFlex contracts by press time after the newspaper made the request Tuesday afternoon.
Theriot, however, didn't stop rocking the administration's boat there.
Durel proposed giving nearly a half million dollars to the Cajundome in his 2011-12 budget, but Theriot previously backed an amendment to eliminate all of that funding.
He said giving the Cajundome LCG dollars forces local taxpayers to "subsidize something the people of Lafayette do not own." The state of Louisiana, through the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, owns that facility, according to the Cajundome's website.
Theriot also questioned the initial agreement between LCG and the Cajundome, saying he "felt as though that agreement was no longer active."
Stanley said the issue has been thoroughly discussed in the past, and previous administrations have taken the stance that the agreement doesn't expire until 2012. He said giving the Cajundome such subsidies shouldn't cause a legal problem.
"We need to make sure we're not doing anything we shouldn't be doing," Theriot said.
Theriot then moved his focus to the Lafayette Utilities System and LUS Fiber. "A lot of people are very concerned" about LUS Fiber he said as he questioned LUS Director Terry Huval about the project.
Huval told Theriot that LUS Fiber does not currently have plans to take an additional authorized loan from the LUS side of the utilities budget but wouldn't rule out that option in the future.
Huval said LUS Fiber repaid LUS nearly $445,000 during the current fiscal year, but will not have to make any such loan payments during the 2011-2012 fiscal year because of a loan restructuring.
Huval said the internal loan from LUS to LUS Fiber steams from assets built by LUS "both for its own purposes and to provide wholesale broadband services between 1997 and 2007."
The Local Government Fair Competition act prohibits LUS from simply transferring those assets to LUS Fiber and requires LUS Fiber to repay the LUS side for that infrastructure, Huval said.
"The internal loans council member Theriot was describing are loans that must, and will, be paid over the life of the fiber system," Huval said in an email. "Over half of the internal loans were due to the transfer of LUS's fiber assets."
Earlier in the hearing, Councilman Don Bertrand, District 7, proposed moving back to the general fund money set aside in the current budget for a roundabout at the intersection of Bendel Road and Coolidge Boulevard.
In early August, both Durel and Bertrand faced a group of Bendel Gardens residents who were angered by the plan and its lack of transparency. After that public outcry, Durel said the plan was "a dead issue to be dealt with by others in the future."
An enabling ordinance, however, remains in place and would allow future politicians to spend $150,000 on a feasibility study and to perform design work for such a roundabout.
Bertrand said he is backing an ordinance to overturn that initial enabling ordinance, which would ensure the roundabout is truly a dead issue.
That ordinance is scheduled for consideration later this month and for final adoption in early October.
The City-Parish Council will consider all of the proposed amendments to Durel's budget and ultimately approve funding for all LCG departments during a final hearing at 5:30 p.m. Sept.27 in the Council Auditorium at 705 West University Ave.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20110914/NEWS01/109140351/Council-eyes-camera-contract

Police Commission Votes to end use of Cameras

2011-09-14T05:59:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles City Council today voted down a plan to leave some red light traffic cameras in place for data collection.
Following a unanimous vote by the Police Commission, the council voted in July to end its use of cameras to catch drivers running red lights at 32 intersections around the city. The cameras issued $400-plus tickets, but the Los Angeles County Superior Court refused to enforce the tickets.
In July, the council also asked the Department of Transportation to extend the length of yellow lights at traffic intersections. Today's vote to get rid of the electronic sentries was 10-3.
Councilmen Bernard Parks and Mitchell Englander sought to keep cameras at four intersections to test whether extending the length of yellow lights would lead to fewer red-light violations. Parks introduced a motion that would have kept the cameras up at four intersections for two months at a cost of $15,000, which he said would not break the city.
Parks said he thought LADOT "would want raw data and objective data versus speculative data."
But Pauline Chan, a senior engineer for LADOT, told the council that adding time to yellow lights to see if fewer violations occurred likely would not help improve traffic safety -- the reason city officials gave for installing them in the first place.
Looking at collision data would be the most effective way of figuring out how to reduce wrecks at red-light controlled intersections, Chan said.

"I believe that looking at four intersections ... over a very short period of time, because of monetary restrictions, would have probably very limited use and probably would not help us evaluate traffic safety impacts of extending the signal timing," Chan said.
Parks countered that looking at crash data would not be preventative.
"If we're going to wait for people to crash in the future, that's after the fact," he said.
Councilman Dennis Zine, a former traffic cop, urged the council to deny Parks' motion.
"The life support of this particular program needs to come to an end," he said.
"When are those 32 cameras going to be taken down?" he asked. "It's been over a month. Nothing has taken place. We need to have complete closure."
Chan said LADOT and LAPD could ask American Traffic Solutions, the contractor that manages the cameras, to remove the cameras immediately. Additional poles and cabinets to support the cameras would have to be removed by the city, she said.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_18886119

Camera Company funds community group touted as promoting safety

2011-09-13T05:55:00.000-07:00

MONROE, WA) -- A campaign to convince Albuquerque, New Mexico voters to support those controversial red light ticketing cameras on the October 3rd ballot has been bankrolled by the same company that profits millions from the fines, a New Mexico TV station has discovered.It is the same red light camera company that Monroe’s city leaders signed a contract with for the cameras to be deployed on Monroe streets.KOB-TV Channel 4, New Mexico's first TV station discovered from campaign finance reports that Redflex, the company that operates the cameras, donated $45,000 to the initiative “Safe Roads Albuquerque.”Safe Roads Albuquerque recently mailed a flyer asking voters to support the red light cameras. The station reported that all but $50 donated to the campaign came from Redflex.This would appear to be consistent with what citizen activists in Monroe and other cities are saying: namely there is virtually no local grass roots support for the cameras, and whatever support there is for the cameras must be generated by city councils who are more interested in money than safety issues, they say, and the camera companies themselves.In every city in Washington State where voters have had a chance to express their opinion they have registered an overwhelming no vote on the cameras.Redflex took in $17.5 Million in the last five years from red light runners in Albuquerque, according to the KOB-TV report. MONROE SUES VOTERS OVER CITIZEN SPONSORED INITIATIVEIn Monroe, the mayor and city council decided to sue local voters who are opposed to the cameras, rather that let Monroe Initiative No. 1 be voted on by the public.The lawsuit asks a judge to find Monroe’s Initiative No. 1 invalid on grounds it is beyond the scope of what a local initiative can legally do.Defendants are Tim Eyman’s group, VotersWantMoreChoices, as well as the Monroe based Seeds of Liberty, BanCams.com and Washington Campaign for Liberty.On the Monroe council’s move to go to court rather than give voters a say on the cameras, local anti-camera activist Brian Kohn – a co-sponsor of Monroe Initiative No. 1 - said he was, “Disappointed to say the least. These individuals, the council and mayor of Monroe were elected to represent the citizens of Monroe. These very same citizens, over 1,000 registered voters, have demanded, and legally earned a binding up/down vote on automated ticketing cameras in Monroe. This mayor and council, to a person have instead chosen to listen to their attorneys and represent the Arizona red light ticketing company.””The initiative (Monroe Initiative No.1 ) isn't asking voters "are ticketing cameras good or bad," it's asking "who should decide: the people or the politicians?" The outpouring of support for Monroe Initiative No. 1 shows that the people want to be the decision-makers on ticketing cameras in Monroe,” said another anti-camera activist Tim Eyman.REDFLEX DOES NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS ABOUT FUNDING NEW MEXICO'S MEASUREKOB-TV in New Mexico tried to contact Redflex on the initiative funding story but did not get a response. The station also put a call into Safe Roads Albuquerque with no return call forthcoming and when a KOB-TV reporter e-mailed the organization, the message was returned back to sender.While Monroe city officials have decided to fight their own citizens in court over the camera vote issue, other cities around the country are getting rid of the controversial cameras or are in the process of getting rid of them.In August in Bellingham, The Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS), which supplies various cities with the red light ticket cams, was itself given a red stoplight by a Whatcom County Superior Court judge.Judge Steven Mura ruled that ATS should be denied a request to keep a citywide initiative off the Bellingham ballot because ATS had not demonstrated it would suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the initiative goes forward to the voters.The initiative, similar to two initiatives filed in Monroe, would restrict those red light cameras in Bellingham. ATS did not want voters to be able to vote on the issue.The Bellingham city council voted on July 11 to send the initiative to voters. The measure would require the removal of any red light cameras in the city and would also require voter approval of any plans to re-install them as well as limit the amount of fines the camera tickets can generate.City leaders in Los Angeles just got rid of their red light cameras after many citizen complaints and citizens refusing to pay the tickets generated by the cameras.In San Bernardino County, California the city council in Grand Terrace voted in July to issue a termination notice to Redflex. In March, the San Bernadino council voted to pay $110,000 to get out of its contract with ATS before the 2014 expiration date.Here in Monroe, anti-cameras forces accused Mayor Robert Zimmerman recently of sending in a political appointee “attack dog”, in the form of conservative former city councilman Chad Minnick, a Zimmerman supporter, to either deep six or water down an opposition argument to a measure the city council itself has on the upcoming ballot regarding the red light camera issue.An August 26 story on that in the Chronicle is located here MONROE LEADERS SPONSOR THEIR OWN RED LIGHT CAMERA BALLOT MEASUREIn response to angry citizens, the Monroe city council recently passed a resolution (Resolution No. 2011/019 ) that will be on the upcoming general ballot to ask voters what they think should be done with the cameras – not now, but in the year 2013.As far as is known, there appears to be no local voter demand for a measure that asks what to do about the cameras two years from now. The anti-camera forces point to that as one reason the city council came up with Resolution No. 2011/019 – to confuse voters since the council knew that the original Monroe Initiative No. 1 would be on the ballot.The language of the Monroe councils’ Resolution also contains a line that could be seen as inflaming the issue further.The resolution states that whereas the city’s camera program has generated a significant amount of public interest and commentary, it also adds the line that says “much of which has come from individuals and organizations outside of Monroe,” as if to signal to thye general public the anti-camera movement is as much, if not more, about outside agitators as any real opposition from city residents.The outside agitators angle has proven historically to be an often-effective governmental and corporate strategy to deflect attention and/or blame in controversial public uprisings, or to cast doubt on the validity of an opposing view held about a hotly contested public issue such as the red light cameras.The theme of outside agitators has been a long-standing theme in the South as it pertains to the civil rights struggle for at least the last 175 years, according to civilwartalk.com.In the decades prior to the Civil War, the term "outside agitators" more frequently referred to abolitionists; those who wanted to abolish slavery.During the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam war protests government officials time and again pointed to “outside agitators” as the real reason for civil unrest about the unpopular war.A recent National Review Online editorial here argues that traffic cameras improperly presume guilt.“There are certain questions that are germane to establishing the severity of an offense: Was the accused keeping up with traffic? Were the roads wet? Was the speeder reacting to a dangerous or reckless driver?” the report says.

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/HOW-BADLY-DOES-MONROE-S-RED-LIGHT-CAMERA-COMPANY-WANT-THEIR-PRODUCTS-ON-CITY-STREETS-BR-It-is-willing-to-finance-citizen-voter-initiative-768256

Another lawsuit against traffic camera company

2011-09-13T05:51:00.000-07:00

A Jefferson Parish District Court judge has ruled that all lawsuits brought against an Arizona company that runs the Parish's red light cameras will proceed as one class action.Twenty Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Robert Pitre issued the ruling last week and ordered that notifications be sent out to all motorists who have paid a red light camera fine in the past.The order consolidates a number of lawsuits brought by motorists against Redflex Traffic Systems, which owns, operates and issues fines with the cameras in Jefferson Parish.Jefferson Parish began using the cameras in 2007 but stopped them in 2010 after questions arose as to the nature of Redflex's contract with the parish.Metairie attorney Joseph McMahon III was one of the motorists who filed a suit against Redflex. McMahon is also challenging the red light cameras in Orleans Parish and in Lafayette, La.In 2010, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance said McMahon and his lawyer, Anthony Maska, failed to show that Jefferson Parish's system is unconstitutional. Maska and McMahon took their case back to the state court and it has been consolidated with the other cases.In both Orleans and Jefferson Parish, the red light cameras have generated millions in revenue for government projects. Jefferson Parish is holding some $20 million in escrow until the court cases are settled.Notices were sent out to all motorists who paid $110 fines for running a red light at an intersection with a traffic camera, regardless of whether they've filed a legal complaint.Tickets for running a red light in Orleans Parish cost $145 while speeding tickets can range from $80 to $240. The Times-Picayune reported that the city has collected $9.4 million in revenues from the tickets and a proposed 2011 budget projects $18 million in revenue next year.In November 2010, the New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 to move oversight of the city's red light and traffic cameras to the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) from the Public Works Department (PWD).The measure came as a response to the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling that it was against the city charter for the PWD to administer traffic infractions. The city council said that the provision is retroactive and all previously issued tickets must be paid, with anyone who's already paid fines having now right to recover the funds.

http://www.louisianarecord.com/news/238200-class-notices-sent-to-motorists-who-paid-red-light-camera-fines

Police dodge traffic fines

2011-09-11T18:26:00.000-07:00

MORE than 100 police issued with fines for breaking road laws have escaped punishment because they refused to admit they were driving.

The 138 incidents of running red lights and speeding by up to 40km/h over the limit involved officers who were not actively pursuing criminals and not rushing to crime scenes.

Victoria Police said it was unable to identify the driver in all the incidents - leading to fines being scrapped - despite admitting officers signed a log book each time they used a vehicle.

As debate rages about the accuracy of speed cameras, documents released under Freedom of Information reveal 1477 infringements were issued to police for non-operational offences in the past five years.

But 61 per cent of those were then dropped by Victoria Police. Ordinary members of the public who appeal against a fine are let off in only 3 per cent of cases.

The statistics show Victoria Police failed to recoup $109,280 by not enforcing fines against its officers.

The revelations prompted criticism from Police Minister Peter Ryan.

"Except ... where duty requires, police officers should have to comply with the road rules like all other drivers," Mr Ryan said.

On one occasion a Victoria Police vehicle was detected speeding 40km/h above the road limit. The driver should have been banned from driving for six months, had six demerit points added to their licence and paid a $519 fine.

Instead, Victoria Police said it was "unable to identify" the driver.

A further 769 offenders - breaking road rules in their squad cars but not in the pursuit of crime - were simply told not to do it again.

Officers escaped receiving 916 demerit points - enough to ban 76 cops.

Rose Sutera, whose son Anthony died at the hands of a speeding driver in Mill Park last year, said police should not speed unless fighting crime.

"It's a disgrace and just wrong," Ms Sutera said.

"Why is it one rule for them and another for us?"

Victoria Police said the figures were "disappointing".

"Police officers are expected to set an example in obeying speed limits," a spokeswoman said. "It is disappointing a number of police officers have been detected when not exempt from the road rules."

But the force argued police officers had been "penalised accordingly".

"Police, as with all members of the community, are able to apply for an official warning under strict criteria," the spokeswoman said.

"This includes an admission of guilt, a speed under 10km/h over the limit, and a good driving record with no infringements issued for the previous two years.

"Warnings are an officially recorded sanction - once you receive an official warning motorists are not eligible to apply again."

In dozens of incidents where the driver was detected speeding between 10km/h and 40km/h above the limit, Victoria Police said it was unable to identify the driver and no one was penalised in any way.

kailaj@heraldsun.com.au

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/police-dodge-traffic-fines/story-fn7x8me2-1226133908813

Council has barking dogs, red light cameras on agenda

2011-09-09T06:08:00.000-07:00

By Joanna Clay
September 9, 2011
An ordinance for enforcement against barking dogs and a ban on red light cameras have hit the Laguna Niguel City Council's radar, City Manager Tim Casey said.
Mission Viejo Animal Services is contracted out to both Laguna Niguel and Aliso Viejo. However, while it has the authority to impose citations for barking dogs in Mission Viejo and Aliso Viejo, it does not yet in Laguna Niguel.
Casey said multiple residents have inquired as to why Laguna Niguel handles issues with barking dogs differently.

He calls the current process an "older generation approach," which involved both parties seeking mediation after not being able to sort it out themselves. If they refused mediation, the city left it to the complaining party to consider civil action against the offending dog owner.

Mission Viejo's ordinance, which was adopted in 2008, gives dog owners five warnings prior to citations, which begin at $300 and go up to $550. Mission Viejo has reported the program to be successful, noticing that compliance continued after warnings and citations.

Laguna Niguel's citations would be less, starting at $100 and going up to $500.

Councilwoman Linda Lindholm said she'd like the process to be a method of last resort.

The ordinance for Laguna Niguel has not yet been adopted, but it could be on the agenda for the next City Council meeting, which is Sept. 20, Casey said.

Red light cameras

The council also recently discussed an ordinance that would ban red light cameras in the city and voted 3 to 1 in favor of the ban. Councilman Joe Brown dissented, asking for additional research.

The city has never installed the system, but it has been evaluated from time to time, Casey said.
"We've never really felt compelled to recommend consideration or installation," Casey said in a phone interview. "(The purpose of) this particular ordinance was to adopt a stronger position that we don't think these types of systems are appropriate or necessary in Laguna Niguel."

A future repeal of the prohibition would require two steps by the City Council and would give the public opportunity for input.

The staff report discussed various studies that contend that red light traffic enforcement systems can increase rear-end collisions at or near intersections, are revenue generators rather than effective safety devices, and that there is a financial incentive to issue more citations. It also mentions that courts have questioned the operation and calibration of the technology.

The ordinance will be officially adopted at the Sept. 20 meeting.
For more information, visit the city's website at http://www.cityoflagunaniguel.org.

http://www.coastlinepilot.com/news/tn-cpt-0909-lncity-20110909,0,368995.story

Residents question lone red light camera

2011-09-09T06:05:00.000-07:00

Friday, September 9, 2011
BY ALICIA ROBINSON and LAURIE LUCASSTAFF WRITERSarobinson@pe.com llucas@pe.com
On Day Street at Canyon Springs Parkway, directly in front of a sign that reads "Welcome to Moreno Valley," is something city officials there already have decided is not welcome: a red light enforcement camera.
There are no such cameras anywhere else in the city, after the council voted last year to get rid of them. But Day Street is the boundary with the city of Riverside, which has cameras at 20 intersections.
So why does the Day Street camera on the Moreno Valley side remain? The question moved Thomas Ketcham to email council members in each city seeking an answer.
A Moreno Valley resident who works in Riverside, Ketcham said Wednesday he's seen the camera fail to go off when someone blatantly runs a red light, but other times it flashes for no apparent reason.
"I see these things and they don't work," he said. "If the city of Moreno Valley did away with all red light cameras, why is this one still on city property?"
Riverside Councilman Andy Melendrez, one recipient of Ketcham's email, said last week that drivers often blocked the intersection trying to get through lights, so city traffic officials contacted Moreno Valley officials, who agreed in August 2009 to allow the camera. Riverside does not pay Moreno Valley for the camera.
Moreno Valley traffic engineer Eric Lewis said two residents had griped about repeated red light running at that corner, complaints which Moreno Valley passed on to Riverside.
"Riverside owns and administers the contract with (camera company) Redflex," Lewis said. "We have no contact with them whatsoever. It's part of Riverside's overall program. We have no enforcement."
Complaints about costly fines for drivers and low revenue for the city led the Moreno Valley City Council to dump its red light camera program in January 2010, after an 18-month trial period.
Redflex Traffic Systems subsequently removed its equipment from Frederick Street at Centerpoint Drive, and Perris and Alessandro boulevards.
Wraymond Sawyerr, who owns a Juice It Up franchise on the Riverside half of Day Street, said at least one longtime customer stopped coming in after getting a ticket from the camera.
"I feel that the Riverside City Council is shooting themselves in the foot because this is their area and they need the tax (revenue)," he said. "It eliminates sales on this side because of the camera."
Michelle Moreno, a Moreno Valley resident who stopped in Sawyerr's shop Wednesday, said she doesn't think the Day Street camera deters shoppers, but "I think it makes you go different ways. I know my mother-in-law refuses to drive down this street now."
Riverside's contract with Redflex expired in August; city officials are in negotiations with the company over a renewal.
Moreno Valley Mayor Richard Stewart said when his city agreed to permit Riverside's camera, officials considered it "routine and noncontroversial," but today they might have a different opinion.
The Day Street/Canyon Springs intersection can be a traffic nightmare, but the camera may be confusing to Moreno Valley residents since it's the only one, he said.
"When the contract expires, I imagine we wouldn't let it get approved (again)," Stewart said.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/morenovalley/stories/PE_News_Local_D_wredlight09.415a2e2.html

Washington employees market red light cameras for private company

2011-09-09T06:02:00.000-07:00

The distinction between employees for a private photo enforcement firm and taxpayer-funded public servants blurred in the city of Lynnwood, Washington. Emails between city officials and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) suggest a cozy relationship developed where both sides were willing to perform the duties of the other in terms of marketing and public relations.Lynnwood Police Sergeant Wayne "Kawika" Davis, for example, used official government resources and time to come up with a marketing plan to sell for the privately held firm at a conference held at the Tulalip Resort Casino in June."Ray, I really believe this is a great venue for ATS exposure," Davis wrote in a May 19 email to ATS project manager Ray Pedrosa. "I have some ideas that really could market ATS in WA, ID, OR and Canada. I know you are already in some of these areas; however, there is a lot more business to be had. Is there someone in marketing that you mightturn me on to?"ATS was equally generous in inviting municipal employees from across the country to attend a complimentary seminar in Arizona discussing "tips and tricks for speaking with the media" regarding red light cameras and "when to panic, when to relax" regarding efforts in the state legislature to restrict automated ticketing. Airfare, lodging and wages during such events is considered official business and paid by taxpayers. ATS picked up the rest of the tab, for which municipal employees expressed gratitude."I had another wonderful time in AZ," Sergeant Davis wrote in a May 9 email to ATS spokesman Kate Coulson. "ATS is the greatest host, and put on a great conference. I really get irritated at the media, and I find it hard to keep my mouth shut, so I don't."Davis and other Lynnwood officials were concerned as the Everett Daily Herald newspaper widened its investigation into the operations of the automated ticketing program. ATS offered to write responses for the city."Our public relations department has great information on the safety aspects of the cameras and they are available to you to create an opinion editorial so the Herald can cover the safety message in next month's article," Claudia Garibay with ATS wrote in an April 26 email. "Would you like for the public relations manager Kate Coulson to get in touch with you and discuss ideas and information to provide the Herald?"Coulson ensured whenever Davis conducted interviews with reporters that he used ATS-approved talking points and materials. It did not help, as Davis did not think the Herald's May 2 online article was fair. Reporter Scott North had described city officials as "a bit prickly" when responding to questions about the photo enforcement program that had generated $4.7 million in less than a year and a half, which did not sit well with Davis."I will need to wait some time before I call Scott North about this," Sergeant Davis wrote in an email after reading the article. "Because if I call him now, it won't go well!"A set of ATS emails is provided in a 1.6mb PDF file at the source link below. Pictured: ATS entertainment as provided after conference in photo taken by Davis.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3581.asp

Court of Appeals has denied a last-ditch attempt to block a public vote on an initiative

2011-09-09T05:58:00.001-07:00

BELLINGHAM - The Washington Court of Appeals has denied a last-ditch attempt to block a public vote on an initiative sponsored by opponents of traffic enforcement cameras.
On Thursday, Sept. 8, a three-judge appeals panel rejected an emergency motion for reconsideration filed by an attorney for American Traffic Solutions Inc., without additional comments.
ATS attorney Vanessa Soriano Power had argued that since the court had already agreed with ATS that the anti-traffic camera initiative would not be legally binding on the city, the court should issue an injunction ordering Whatcom County officials to remove it from the November ballot.

But the appeals court declined to take that step in their original Tuesday, Sept. 6, ruling, and they did not change their minds on Thursday.
"We're disappointed in this order but overall pleased that the court has affirmed that the initiative is invalid," ATS spokesman Charles Territo said.

Also on Thursday, the City Council held a 15-minute closed session to discuss the legal situation. They emerged from that meeting to announce that they would follow the recommendation of City Attorney Joan Hoisington and continue to take no action in the lawsuit that ATS had filed to block the initiative.

Although the city was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, city attorneys stayed out of the case and let ATS attorneys battle Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for the Transportation Safety Coalition, the group that had launched the successful signature drive to get the initiative on the ballot.
On Tuesday, initiative backers said they were pleased that the public will get a chance to weigh in on the traffic camera issue. They believe that an overwhelming vote for the initiative - and against the cameras - will put pressure on the city to curtail their use.

At this point, the city appears to have a contractual obligation with ATS to operate the cameras for at least one year, but city officials could drop the arrangement after that.
Among other things, the contract would obligate Bellingham to pay Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions $4,750 per month for each traffic-enforcement camera, a total of about $342,000 per year for the six cameras envisioned, according to the contract the city signed on May 6, 2011.

Traffic ticket revenues from the cameras were expected to be well over that amount, and Mayor Dan Pike and a majority of council members initially contended that the deal with ATS would provide much-needed revenue for the city while improving traffic safety. Opponents argued, among other things, that motorist reaction to the cameras would cause more accidents, and the cameras would have no way of detecting who was driving an offending car. 0 && apregistry.story.credit.islocal=>0 -->
Reach JOHN STARK at 715-2274 or john.stark@bellinghamherald.com .
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/09/08/2175815/final-effort-to-block-bellingham.html

Damascus man beats speed camera ticket

2011-09-09T05:55:00.000-07:00

Victory is rare instance of judge deciding for the driver
by Susan Singer-Bart, Staff Writer
More News

Of the 333,704 speeding tickets issued in the last year in Montgomery County as a result of speed cameras, 24 were overturned in court.
Last week, Paul Layer of Damascus became the 25th person to be found not guilty in court following a speeding citation from a camera.
A camera in the work zone in the 27000 block of Ridge Road near Faith Lane clocked Layer speeding on May 30. According to the $40 citation, he was driving more than 42 mph in a 30 mph zone. The camera was behind barrels marking lanes closed to traffic in the construction zone where Woodfield Road extended meets Ridge Road north of Damascus.
After he received a speeding ticket in December from a camera in that spot, Layer, a constitutional lawyer for the federal government, did a little research and decided the camera was illegal. State statute is specific about the placement of speed cameras and warning signs, he said. The law is worded in such a way that a speed camera is only allowed in a work zone if the speed limit is 45 mph or greater, Layer said. The Ridge Road camera is in a 30 mph zone.
The county attorney disagrees, according to Capt. Thomas C. Didone, head of the Montgomery County Police Department Traffic Division. Layer argued before Montgomery County District Court Associate Judge Audrey A. Creighton on Aug. 29 that the May 30 ticket was not legal for three reasons: the camera is not in an appropriate speed zone, a sign warning about the cameras was more than 20 feet from the camera instead of the required six feet, and police could not prove the camera was calibrated correctly. Lanes in the area have shifted in recent months because of construction. “I asked,’When did they reposition the camera to target vehicles in the new, relocated lane?’” Layer said in an interview. “They claim it was done on a certain date without any evidence.” Police told the judge a contractor was asked if the camera had been recalibrated and took his word for it. They did not produce any documentation the recalibration had been done, Layer said. “They can’t just come in and say, ‘This guy told me it was done’ — that’s classic inadmissible hearsay evidence,” he told the judge. The judge agreed and found Layer not guilty. “The judge ruled as she has discretion to rule,” Didone said.
The law does not require police to produce documentation to show the camera was calibrated, he said. “There’s no precedent, he’s not right,” Didone said. Police inspect cameras and download data daily, he said. Layer said he supports the speed camera program in general.
“The state has put in parameters for local jurisdictions to follow and in this case they didn’t follow it,” he said. Layer contested the ticket he received in December and was told Feb. 9 that it had been voided because his license plate was not clearly visible. The license plate was clear enough to track Layer down to mail him the citation, so he suspects it was voided to stop him from challenging the camera. hile waiting in court last week for his case to be called, Layer heard other people contesting tickets based on the same camera and they were found guilty, he said. He was sorry he had not gone first to develop his case to help them out. I felt bad for everybody nailed by this camera under these circumstances,” Layer said. “It’s just wrong.”
The Gazette was unable to obtain the court documents for Layer’s case.
ssingerbart@gazette.net

http://www.gazette.net/article/20110907/NEWS/709079664/1022/1022/damascus-man-beats-speed-camera-ticket&template=gazette

Bring Traffic Cameras; Expect lawsuits

2011-09-08T06:08:00.000-07:00

BELLINGHAM - A traffic-enforcement camera company is suing to keep an anti-camera initiative off the ballot, and city leaders want to remain neutral, the mayor said.

The City Council on Monday, Aug. 1, held a closed-to-the-public executive session in which council members discussed the lawsuit with the city attorney. Afterward, council President Stan Snapp said that, in the session, council members provided direction to staff, but he didn't specify what that direction was.

Mayor Dan Pike, in an interview, said the city won't fight or aid the lawsuit against the initiative.
Read the lawsuit filed by American Traffic Solutions (PDF). "We're not going to take a side either way. We're not going to support it or oppose it," he said. "Any other way we go we have a liability issue." Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions on Friday, July 29, filed the lawsuit in Whatcom County Superior Court asking a judge to block the initiative from reaching the ballot. The initiative would require the city remove any cameras, and it would require voter approval if the city wanted to re-install them. It would also limit the fine amounts. ATS and the city signed a contract for four red-light cameras at intersections and two speed cameras in school zones. The company's lawsuit, filed by Seattle-based attorneys at the firm Stoel Rives, says traffic cameras are outside the scope of initiatives. The company's argument: State law reserves decision-making on the cameras with the City Council, and the initiative would interfere with that power. It involves matters that are administrative, not legislative, and thus not subject to initiative. Lastly, the initiative unconstitutionally interferes with an existing contract. "If passed, the proposed Initiative would likely have the effect of forcing the City to terminate its binding contract with ATS," a legal filing states. "ATS would not only lose the value of the Contract, it would also be harmed by having to uninstall equipment and take other related actions, all without the direct ability to recoup its costs as budgeted over the life of the Contract." Johnny Weaver, member of the group backing the initiative, said "we're dealing with a corporate bully that's taking us to court." His group, Transportation Safety Coalition, helped establish a site where people can donate for their legal defense.

"Seven thousand people signed that thing, so it's not like we're just going to give up," Weaver said. Initiative activist Tim Eyman, who is supporting the initiative, said his group is stretched fighting for similar initiatives in other cities, and it can't afford to donate to Weaver's group for legal defense. But he said he'll direct donors to the group. "On the grass-roots side, these guys never ever raised any money or spent any money to collect an extraordinary number of signatures," he said of the group. The company's "huge shock and awe, last-minute lawsuit" leaves Weaver's group with very little time to organize a legal defense, Eyman said. After the county auditor confirmed the initiative had enough valid signatures, the City Council on July 11 voted 7-0 to inform staff that it intended to take no action on the initiative, sending it to the November ballot. The city could have filed its own lawsuit seeking to keep it off the ballot. In a letter Friday, attorney Vanessa Soriano Power, who represents ATS, said she intends to present a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to the court at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 3. Court documents show that a hearing on the motion has been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 17. It's been assigned to Judge Ira Uhrig.

The case number is 11-2-01991-4.
Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/08/02/2125395/lawsuit-seeks-to-keep-bellingham.html#ixzz1XMkZ20d7

Bellingham voters will decide fate of traffic cameras in November

2011-09-08T05:52:00.000-07:00

BELLINGHAM - Voters this November will decide whether Bellingham should have red-light cameras and school-zone speed cameras.
After holding a closed-to-the-public session on Monday, July 11, to discuss legal options with the city attorney, the City Council decided to forward the initiative restricting the cameras to voters. The council voted 7-0 to inform staff that it planned to take no action on the initiative. Under city law, that means it goes to voters. "We are still very, very excited," said Johnny Weaver, a member of the group backing the initiative, Transportation Safety Coalition. "Neither (camera company American Traffic Solutions) nor the city should be making a decision like this without a vote by the people."

"We are now confident that when the people vote, the council will honor the vote of the people," he added. The council's other options were to approve the initiative, send it and an alternative version to voters, or authorize filing a lawsuit seeking to disqualify it from the ballot. "I'd recommend that we take no action on this, allowing it to go its natural course on the ballot," council member Terry Bornemann said before the vote. Council member Barry Buchanan said he thinks the city should maintain a position of neutrality, and deferring to voters is the right decision. The initiative would require removing any cameras that have been installed, and it would require voter approval of any plans to re-install them. It would also limit the fine amounts to the same as the least expensive parking ticket, currently $10. Before the council vote, City Attorney Joan Hoisington laid out in public a summary of the council's option. The council didn't publicly debate the options. The council in November voted 6-1, with Seth Fleetwood opposed, to allow cameras in the city. Transportation Safety Coalition formed to oppose the cameras by backing an initiative. The group needed 3,880 valid signatures from registered voters to qualify for the ballot. They submitted a total of 6,775 signatures, more than enough to qualify. The county auditor on June 30 certified they had enough. The initiative is similar to others in Monroe, Wenatchee, Redmond and Longview. In Wenatchee and Longview, city leaders decided to legally fight to keep them off the ballot. In Wenatchee, a superior court judge agreed that the power to decide on the camera rests with legislative bodies - in these cases, city councils - not citizens through the initiative process. The lawsuit in Longview, filed before the local initiative was certified to have enough signatures, was recently dismissed, and the city will discuss its next steps. In Monroe, the city council voted to authorize the mayor to sue to block it from reaching the ballot, but the mayor hasn't filed the lawsuit yet. Initiative supporters are still gathering signatures in Redmond. Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike said he didn't want to go that route, and he wanted to let voters consider the initiative. Tim Eyman, the initiative activist who supports the cities' anti-camera initiatives, mailed Pike a "Let the Voters Decide" T-shirt as thanks.
"Really, the decision by the mayor and the City Council in Bellingham may have blazed a trail of respect for the citizenry," Eyman said. "The biggest thing the City Council and Pike showed is that you don't have to sue your own citizens. You have a choice." "Suing your citizens is very expensive, both financially and politically," he added. On Monday, Hoisington said staff would return to the council for appointments to committees that write the pro and con arguments in the voter guide. Putting the initiative on the ballot won't cost the city any more money, because it already has various items on the ballot, said Debbie Adelstein, chief deputy auditor for Whatcom County. The Auditor's Office billed the city $4,380 for the costs of checking the initiative signatures, she said. The city will move forward with plans to install the cameras. It has already signed an agreement with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions for four red-light cameras and two school-zone cameras. A city official previously said they'd likely be installed around early October. The contract says "the city shall make every effort to adhere to the project time line mutually agreed to by the parties," but it also says the parties can mutually agree to change the timeline for implementation. Under the contract, the first month after the cameras are activated would be a warning period in which no tickets are issued. Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/07/12/2098679/bellingham-voters-will-decide.html#ixzz1XMh98iy1

Largest Camera Company fight community to be there when voters are against

2011-09-08T05:46:00.000-07:00

BELLINGHAM - Unwilling to settle for a partial victory, American Traffic Solutions has asked the Washington Court of Appeals to reconsider its Tuesday, Sept. 6, ruling that a citizen initiative to block installation of traffic enforcement cameras can remain on the November ballot.
In the earlier ruling, the three-judge appeals panel - Marlin Appelwick, Ronald Cox and Michael Spearman - agreed that the citizen initiative has no legal force because it infringes on the city's authority to install the cameras. Bellingham has that authority under state law approved by the Legislature. But the judges also denied an ATS request for an injunction to knock the measure off the November ballot. Since the initiative has no legal power, it cannot harm ATS or undo the firm's contract with the city, and therefore poses no threat of harm to ATS, Appelwick wrote on the panel's behalf.
Bellingham traffic camera initiative not legally valid, appeals court says

Because Whatcom County Auditor Shirley Forslof says noon Friday, Sept. 9, is the deadline for getting the ballot to the printer, ATS attorney Vanessa Soriano Power has asked the court for an emergency reconsideration of the injunction issue, with a final ruling before the printing deadline. It was not clear whether the court would grant that request. In a motion filed with the court on Wednesday, Power argued that in past cases, state appeals courts have acted to keep initiatives from the ballot when they were found to be legally invalid. "If an injunction is not entered, the people will be asked to participate in an illusory vote," Power's motion says. "Citizens will be asked whether they want to 'enact new law' that in reality has, as the court has already ruled, no legal force. ... An injunction would preclude such an illusory vote." The Bellingham City Council has scheduled a closed session for 12:30 p.m. Thursday to discuss the situation. State law allows a closed session to discuss pending court cases. Mayor Dan Pike said he did not support the last-ditch effort by ATS to keep the initiative off the ballot. "We want to let it go forward and let the community have a voice," Pike said. ATS officials have asked the city to join them in the effort to get the initiative off the ballot, Pike said, but he doubts that the City Council will agree.
Pike also said he thinks there is a chance that a majority of voters favor the cameras, and the vote on the initiative will reflect that, but "the actions of ATS have made it less likely."
Pike declined to discuss what legal steps the city might be able to take to get out of the existing contract with ATS, if the anti-camera initiative stays on the ballot and gets overwhelming support. "Let's go ahead ... and see what the outcome of the vote is before we contemplate any further steps," Pike said. "I'm not advocating that we abrogate that contract."
Among other things, the contract would obligate Bellingham to pay Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions $4,750 per month for each traffic-enforcement camera, a total of about $342,000 per year for the six cameras envisioned, according to the contract the city signed on May 6. Traffic ticket revenues from the cameras were expected to be well over that amount, and Pike and a majority of council members contended that the deal with ATS would provide much-needed revenue for the city while improving traffic safety. But a citizen group, the Transportation Safety Coalition, argued that the safety benefits were dubious, and cameras could not determine who was driving an offending car. They gathered thousands of signatures to meet the legal requirement for an initiative measure intended to force Bellingham to remove any traffic-enforcement cameras, although none have yet been installed. The measure also would have required voter approval of any plan to re-install them and limited the fines imposed under the program to the equivalent of the lowest-cost parking ticket, currently $10.
Reach JOHN STARK at 715-2274 or john.stark@bellinghamherald.com . Read his Consumer Protection Blog at blogs.bellinghamherald.com/consumer.Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/09/08/2174287/ats-still-seeking-to-kill-bellinghams.html#ixzz1XMgr6ax2

Traffic Cameras: Money Pit for Some, Gold Mine for Others

2011-09-08T05:44:00.000-07:00

In October 2008, Aventura made history when it became the first municipality in South Florida to install red-light cameras. Now, as the third anniversary of Aventura’s “Intersection Safety Camera Program” approaches, more than 65 Florida cities have red-light cameras.
That trend disturbs traffic attorney Bret Lusskin. “The idea of government surveillance and cameras flashing away all night is terribly Orwellian for me,” says Lusskin, founder of the Ticket Cricket law firm.
But Eric Soroka, Aventura’s city manager, has no plans to remove the nine cameras that snap photographs at five intersections in Aventura. “People take red-lights more seriously now,” he says.
Soroka credits motorists’ newfound respect for traffic lights with a 15-percent drop in car accidents throughout the city between January 2008 and August 2010. At intersections with red-light cameras, accidents fell by as much as 60 percent during that period, according to statistics provided by the Aventura Police Department.
Aventura’s traffic education comes at a cost -- to drivers. As of last month, more than 62,368 tickets had been issued. Between September 2009 and July 2011, Aventura collected nearly $3 million in fines. About $100,000 per year in red-light ticket fines are funneled to Aventura’s charter school, with the rest of the money going to the city’s general fund.
But the cameras aren’t there just to make money for Aventura, Soroka insists. “The intended purpose is to improve safety at intersections,” he says, adding that the fines are a tiny portion of Aventura’s $47 million annual budget.
Lusskin argues that red-light cameras are not about safety, but revenue, especially for American Traffic Solutions (ATS), an Arizona-based company that operates traffic-camera systems in 300 municipalities across North America. Lusskin claims ATS enticed Florida cities with promises of easy funds through traffic tickets just as the state sank into a recession. “The whole background on it is quite nefarious,” he says. “They [ATS] waited for the opportunity when all municipalities were strapped for cash in 2007.” As a result, ATS is Florida’s largest provider of red-light cameras, a fact that has Lusskin fuming: “They really are an evil company.”
But ATS did not take the initiative to approach Aventura.
Aventura City Commissioner Bob Diamond says his wife was almost killed in a car accident at an Aventura intersection caused by a motorist who ran a red light. After reading that car accidents were slashed by half in New York following the installation of cameras, Diamond contacted ATS and other traffic-camera companies. “My only interest,” he recalls, “was saving lives.”
ATS spokesman Charlie Territo asserts that his company is making Florida safer even as it complicates the work of traffic attorneys. “In South Florida, 97 percent of the violations issued are eventually found guilty,” he says. Territo claims an even more impressive record in Aventura. Of the 19,325 tickets issued from July 2010 to May 2011, only 330 were found not guilty, he reports. “These violations come with video and pictures of the violations, irrefutable evidence that the driver of the vehicle has broken the law,” he says.
Except that it’s not the driver of the vehicle who is ticketed. It’s the owner. That is because red-light cameras photograph the license plate of a vehicle, which then mails the ticket to the owner or lessee. “Technically speaking, you’re not violating the law by running a red light. It is the registered vehicle,” Lusskin maintains. He also claims that 90 percent of camera tickets go to vehicles that fail to make a full stop before turning right on a red light.
Tickets for right turns on a red light are given only to vehicles traveling in excess of ten miles per hour, Territo insists. He adds that car owners can contest a charge by providing the name and address of the driver at the time of the infraction.
Commissioner Diamond contends the subject of revenue rarely came up during his five-year quest to get red-light cameras in Aventura. Interpretations of the law, however, were a constant sticking point. In 2006 he asked state Sen. Gwen Margolis to introduce a red-light camera bill in the Florida legislature. “A year and a half later, she told me: ‘I can’t get it through. There are right-of-privacy concerns,’” he recounts. That answer frustrated Diamond, a former judge: “There is no right of privacy when you are driving a car!”
While Margolis tried again, Aventura officials installed their cameras and took a cue from Gulf Breeze, Florida, issuing tickets not as traffic violations but as code infractions. Automobile owners wishing to contest the tickets had to appear before a city-paid special master. From January to July of 2009, Aventura issued 15,875 code violations with fines ranging from $125 to $500.
Though the state had yet to legalize red-light cameras, at least 11 other Miami-Dade County municipalities, including Miami Shores, North Bay Village, and North Miami, followed in Aventura’s footsteps and installed ATS cameras.
That chapter ended in February 2010, after Lusskin sued Aventura on behalf of Richard Masone, a Hallandale Beach resident cited twice for turning right at a red light without making a full stop. Lusskin argued that state law only allowed sworn police officers to issue red-light tickets. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Jerald Bagley agreed.
Five months later, the state legislature finally passed a red-light bill, called the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, thanks in part to a $1.5 million lobbying effort by ATS. (The law was named after a Bradenton resident who died in a car crash caused by a red-light runner in 2003.) Under the new law, red-light camera tickets start at $158. After 30 days, fines increase to $277 each. Traffic judges, not special masters, now decide the fate of contested tickets. Cities, however, only collect between $45 and $75 for each ticket; the rest of the funds flow into the state’s coffers.
With a cut as high as 53 percent going to the state, red-light cameras are bringing in less money for municipalities. The City of Miami installed ATS red-light cameras last year in hopes of collecting $8 million from tickets. Instead Miami received less than $3 million.
Under the new state law, cities are also required to pay a fee, not a percentage, to red-light-camera companies. In Aventura’s case, that fee amounts to $4750 per month for each camera covering four lanes of traffic, unless the camera costs exceed the fines collected from a camera.
Even with ATS’s fees as high as $513,000 a year, Aventura still manages to make a profit. From September 2010 to July 2011, the city collected $867,126 from red-light cameras. That figure, however, pales in comparison to the $2 million in fines Aventura collected earlier, between September 2009 and August 2010.
Territo attributes the revenue decline to compliance. In Aventura, he says, there has been a 49-percent reduction in red-light-running between 2008 and 2010, adding that 89 percent of those violators live outside Aventura.
Still, red-light cameras continue to cause legal chaos throughout Florida, says Ted Hollander, an attorney with the Ticket Clinic law firm. Broward Judge Fred Breman, for example, ruled that police officers couldn’t legally issue red-light tickets if cameras are also doing so. “The interpretation in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties depends on what judge or magistrate you get,” says Hollander, whose argument that red-light cameras are unconstitutional was recently rejected by a Broward court.
Hollander also claims there’s no clear-cut evidence that red-light cameras prevent accidents. Instead they may actually cause more accidents. He points out that a 2008 study from the University of South Florida warns that rear-end collisions increase in places with red-light cameras because some drivers slam their breaks when approaching intersections.
But Karen Morgan, manager of public policy for AAA Auto Club South, says evidence shows red-light cameras do improve roadway safety. According to a June 2011 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, cities that installed red-light cameras saw injury-related crashes decline by up to 29 percent.
Nevertheless, AAA urged then-Gov. Charlie Crist to veto the red-light camera bill, fearing the law was more about revenue than safety. “AAA is supportive of the use of red-light cameras, but not without certain safeguards,” Morgan says. Among the safeguards spelled out in a May 2010 letter to Crist is a requirement that all ticket money be used for public-safety purposes.
With the law already passed in the legislature, though, Morgan says AAA is now working to improve it: “We would rather work with the legislature and put safeguards in it -- but not get rid of it.”
Many U.S. communities are opting to get rid of cameras. According to an Associated Press report last month, more than a dozen cities and nine states outright ban the use of red-light cameras. This past May, Florida’s House of Representatives approved a bill revoking the Wandall Act. The measure failed to pass the state Senate.
Cities all over Florida are finding out that red-light cameras are more money pits than gold mines, attorney Hollander says. Hialeah, Davie, Fort Lauderdale, and Pembroke Pines are just a few of the South Florida municipalities planning to ditch red-light cameras because they cost more than they generate. “If it’s all about safety, why are these cities pulling the plug when there is no money?” Hollander asks.
Charlie Territo of ATS argues that more and more cities are seeking out red-light cameras. “This is an industry that has seen tremendous growth over the last five years,” he explains. “As the benefits of the programs become more well known, we expect legal challenges to become fewer and fewer, and we expect support for cameras to increase.”

http://biscaynetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=952:traffic-cameras-money-pit-for-some-gold-mine-for-others&catid=50:community-news&Itemid=223

Tickets fall 73 percent after traffic camera law

2011-09-08T05:42:00.000-07:00

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- In Knoxville, traffic citations fell by 73 percent after a new state law took effect that prohibits using traffic cameras to issue tickets for right-turn-on-red violations.
Knoxville police issued 4,826 tickets in June but only 1,308 in July, after the law took effect, according to the Knoxville News Sentinel. (http://bit.ly/qT1I4a)

House Transportation Chairman Vince Dean was one of the bill's main sponsors. The East Ridge Republican has said traffic cameras can't recognize legitimate reasons for being in the intersection after the light turns red.
Failing to stop before a right turn on red is still illegal, but an officer must witness the violation in order to issue the $50 ticket.
Knoxville Police Capt. Gordon Catlett said he expects the new law to result in an increase in rear-end collisions.(of course they do, it's lost revenue so they have to say that).

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/Tickets_fall_73_percent_after_traffic_camera_law_129411693.html

Another court blow for Victoria's traffic cameras

2011-09-07T05:56:00.000-07:00

Semi-retired businessman Graham Docker's win in the Ringwood Magistrates' Court comes on top of police officer Faye Pitman this week beating her EastLink speeding fine in the Dandenong court.
Barrister and traffic camera law expert Michael Kuzilny expects the Pitman and Docker wins to prompt thousands more motorists to contest fines in court.
"These two cases come as a breath of fresh air to Victorian drivers because it shows courts, for a change, are starting to listen and if there is reasonable doubt, defendants are starting to win cases," he said.

Ringwood judicial registrar Angela Soldani ruled in favour of Mr Docker, 65, after he defended himself and successfully argued there was no proof the camera that snapped him had been tested for accuracy as the law demanded.
"This creates sufficient doubt as to the reliability of the images taken and I therefore dismiss the charge," Ms Soldani said in court on July 15.
Prosecutors in speed and red light camera cases produce the photograph taken by the traffic camera, as well as a certificate to say the camera has been tested.
The serial number of the camera appears on the certificate but doesn't appear on the actual photograph.
Mr Docker argued this meant there was no proof the camera that took the photo of his vehicle as it turned right from Stud Rd into Ferntree Gully Rd, in Scoresby, was the same camera certified as accurate.
"You can't say that that camera is the camera that is referred to in the certification document," he said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/another-court-blow-for-victorias-traffic-cameras/story-fn7x8me2-1226130929747

Knoxville red-light camera tickets fall sharply because of new state law

2011-09-07T05:52:00.000-07:00

Knoxville traffic citations fell 73 percent from June to July as a result of a new state law regulating red-light camera use, figures show.
Beginning July 1, when the law took effect, the Knoxville Police Department stopped issuing $50 violations for improper right turns recorded by cameras at 15 city intersections.
KPD Capt. Gordon Catlett, who oversees the photo enforcement program, said violations decreased from 4,826 in June to 1,308 in July.
Catlett said KPD officers continue issuing violations for drivers captured on camera running straight through a red light or improperly turning left.
Only right turns on red are exempted from the cameras' $50 gaze.
"The real story is going to be in about four months when people realize they don't have to stop before making a right turn and we see an increase in rear-end collisions," Catlett said.
In Farragut, Traffic Enforcement Manager Ben Harkins deemed the new statute "a bad law." Farragut also ceased July 1 issuing $50 right-turn-on-red violations based on camera evidence.
Records show Farragut issued 2,504 red light camera violations in April, May and June, an average of more than 800 violations a month. Farragut has a contract with RedFlex Traffic Systems to provide eight cameras at four intersections.
"We're still sending out more than 300 violations a month on the left turn and straight-through violations," Harkins said Tuesday.
"We have reduced the number of people running red lights," Harkins said. "Now that the public knows we have to have an officer out there to enforce (stopping for righthand turns), we're going to be less safe."
The new law was the result of an outcry across the state about the cameras. Opponents of the devices argued the cameras were merely a revenue generator for cities and had little to do with safety.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/sep/07/new-laws-effect-no-more-tickets-for-illegal-on/

Red Light Ticket Class Action Lawsuit Notices To Be Sent

2011-09-07T04:22:00.000-07:00

METAIRIE, La. -- A class action lawsuit over red light cameras is officially on the books in Jefferson Parish.

There have been a number of challenges to the red light statute in Jefferson Parish even after the cameras were turned off nearly two years ago.

Sources tell WDSU that residents should begin receiving notices in the mail if they received a red light camera ticket and paid it in Metairie. The notices will be sent automatically and no action will need to be taken on the driver’s part.

Also included in the paperwork is information about how to opt out of the class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit names the defendants as Jefferson Parish and Redflex Traffic Systems -- the Arizona based company which runs the cameras.

The lawsuit claims that the red light camera program is illegal because it violates the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana State law.

The suit seeks to reimburse all fines paid.

By remaining a class member, drivers won’t be able to file their own lawsuit.

Those who take part in the class action won’t be responsible for any costs or attorney fees.

Read more: http://www.wdsu.com/news/29098687/detail.html#ixzz1XGVv20We

Look it up!

2009-12-14T15:05:00.001-08:00

http://www.photoenforced.com/

Texas City Councilman Arrested for for Opposing Red Light Cameras

2009-04-29T15:51:00.000-07:00

Duncanville, Texas mayor silences anti-camera councilman by having him arrested.

Duncanville City Council, 4/7The mayor of Duncanville, Texas had a member of the city council arrested last Tuesday for speaking out against the use of red light cameras during an official meeting. The incident took place during the discussion of whether the city should spend $59,000 to make street repairs. Mayor David Green recognized Councilman Paul Ford to speak on the contract item.

"Thank you," Ford said. "I want to let you know that earlier this evening during briefing, Mayor Green threatened me that if he told me to stop talking and I didn't, he'd have me arrested, and I want to let you know what I told Mayor Green."

Green became outraged and shouted, "Mr Ford, you are out of order. You are not recognized Mr Ford. You need to cease right now."

While Green yelled, Ford continued his brief statement without stopping.

"Unlike those thousands of people who are getting red light camera tickets, I will have the opportunity for a jury trial. It will be a jury of my peers and I will confidently put my fate in their hands. And now I'm going to discuss agenda item number three. I will vote against it, and here's why."

Before he had a chance to explain that the city could find the money for those necessary street repairs by cutting the city manager's salary from $179,000 to $160,000 and reducing payments to local chambers of commerce by $40,000, Police Chief Robert Brown grabbed Ford. Ford repeated several times the statement: "Chief Brown, I will not leave voluntarily, but if you believe I am violating the law by discussing this agenda item, I will submit to arrest."

Brown did not respond. Mayor Green had the audio of the city council video tape turned off as Brown dragged the councilman out of the chamber. Ford ended up hospitalized from injuries sustained during the arrest.

Ford's comments referenced an earlier, private briefing of city council members where the mayor complained that Ford had attempted to "take control" of past meetings. To stop this, Green announced that he would instruct the city manager to remove any council member who disrupted a meeting. Over the past few council sessions, Ford raised the mayor's ire by insisting that the city code be amended to allow motorists the option of a jury trial when contesting red light camera citations and by his pointing out that only five percent of the 43,955 red light camera tickets issued in the city went to motorists accused of the straight-through violations most consider to be "red light running."

"I'm not the one who brought the red light camera scandal to Duncanville," Ford responded at the private meeting. "I'm the one who brought it to light, but I'm not the one who imposed it on us... I recognize that there probably is no city employee in this room who will stand up to you guys... Unlike those people who are getting red light camera citations, I will have an opportunity for a jury trial when you arrest me for whatever it is that you've discussed, whether it's disrupting a public meeting or disorderly conduct. I will have a jury trial, and it will be a jury of my peers, not yours. In other words, people who are not getting money from this city. And I will with conscience place my fate in their hands."

Mayor Green's expulsion of an elected member of the city council violated standard rules of procedure. Under Robert's Rules of Order, the binding code of conduct for most municipal organizations, Green would not have any authority to have Ford removed for making off-topic comments that lasted less than thirty seconds. The use of force to remove a member is considered an extreme measure and a last resort.

"Although the chair has no authority to impose a penalty or to order an offending member removed from the hall, the assembly has that power," the Rules state.

Under this set of procedures, a mayor would first have issued a warning to an unruly member and, if ignored, put the question of what to do about it to the entire city council. A majority vote would be required to have a sitting member removed from the chambers after that member is given an opportunity to speak in his own defense. Under Duncanville's city charter (2.15), only the full council can change the rules of procedure, not the mayor acting alone.

Ford has been released from the hospital but the mayor had a warrant issued for his arrest. Ford announced yesterday his intention to turn himself in. Since March, Ford has attempted to gather 1300 signatures to create a referendum on the red light camera program in Duncanville.

Vehicles not People

2009-03-01T12:52:00.001-08:00

This Guy is Awesome!

2009-01-05T09:22:00.000-08:00

We Can learn A Lot From Southern Ohio

2008-11-21T16:43:00.000-08:00

Cincinnati, Ohio put it on the books this month. No Red Light Cameras here. Mayor Charlie Luken vetoed a camera ordinance saying, “Let’s be honest with the public– we didn’t think about this until we came up with a budget problem.”

A majority of voters approved an amendment to the city charter prohibiting local officials from ever installing either red light cameras or speed cameras.“This election is further proof that people do not want to have traffic cameras,” Weitzman told TheNewspaper. “Politicians in cities across the country need to take note of this if they plan on getting re-elected.” A would be mayor may put them in but after just a short time citizens will be against the administration and the leaders who came up with the idea. It's political suicide to implement them.

A diverse group of political activists from all ends of the political spectrum banded together to form the “We Demand a Vote” coalition to stop the idea. Members include regional chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Republican Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and others. The group received more than 10k signatures on a petition to put the subject of cameras on the ballot before the devices even had a chance to issue a single ticket. Political leaders quickly backed-off their support of cameras after seeing public opinion on the matter.

The citizens in many communities are led to believe the cameras will stop red light running and make traffic safer but the studies don't lie. Red Light cameras are purely for revenue generation and do not make cities safer.

Source

Cameras Need Violators to Fufill Contract with Camera Company

2008-11-21T16:16:00.000-08:00

Red Light Flaws

2008-11-21T16:07:00.000-08:00

Unconstitutional or Not?

2008-11-21T16:01:00.000-08:00

Beating the Camera

2008-11-21T15:57:00.001-08:00

City Council Views a Dog & Pony Show

2008-07-29T14:38:00.000-07:00

At Lorain City Council meeting last night, Nestor Traffic Systems presented a sales spiel about how wonderful these red light cameras are. It was an hour long presentation and after a little research proved to be the presentation of their lives.

You see Nestor is having severe financial problems. They had some major losses to the tune of 33.8 million dollars and are currently $27.2 million in debt. It's so bad, the NASDAQ is threatening to drop them from their stock exchange because they've gone below their lowest threshold of stock value at one dollar. It gets worse, Nestor stock is at 3 cents today. That wasn't a misprint. What can anyone get for 8 cents these days, ok you got me, Nestor stock, baa boom.

But what we have to remember, the city is having financial problems so any port in the storm might be appealing to generate revenue, even with a company ready to fold. But we have to view ourselves in future tense, how will this bode in the long run? We have such a wealth of information laid out by those who have been there and done this already. Please review the links on the left.

One after another cities, getting sued, having to pay back millions of dollars in fines, total state bans of these things. Is it any wonder this company is on the verge of bankruptcy? Must we dredge in the mud, knowing where it will eventually take us? Can we learn from others mistakes?

The presenter last night kept mentioning the City of Akron. Funny he didn't mention they are being sued in federal court over their system and it's legality. I imagine this company is named in the suit. Kind of an important detail as well as the financials. But then our City should be checking these companies out too. They have an obligation to determine solvency if they are considering a relationship that will involve millions of dollars. According to the plan, they will be collecting the money generated from tickets and paying us our portion.

So please review the information provided here. Think of Lorain in terms of the future. Think of yourself in the future paying bogus ticket after ticket. Waiting in line at the grocery store complaining to your neighbors about these cameras and then finally deciding to do something about them like so many other cities have. And realize right now we don't have to go down that path and repeat the history of so many cities. We don't have to enter this blindly in the name of revenue. Lets save ourselves the heartache and say no to this poor excuse for a money grab.

Anti-Camera Petitions Earn Huge Public Support

2008-07-28T20:14:00.000-07:00

Anti-red light camera voter initiatives in Washington and Cincinnati, Ohio gather thousands of signatures.

Josh Krekeler, We Demand a VoteVoter initiatives that would limit red light camera use in Washington state and Ohio will almost certainly be placed on November ballots. Although election officials must verify the authenticity of each signature turned in, referendum supporters succeeded in gathering far more signatures than is generally needed to qualify

As of yesterday, a total of 10,421 residents had signed a petition calling for vote to ban red light camera use in Cincinnati, Ohio. Only 6,150 signatures were needed. (view petition)

"We're very encouraged by the public's response to the red light camera issue," campaign co-chairman Josh Krekeler said in a statement. "Most people know about the city's plan and generally agree that it's a flawed approach to safety."

Krekeler is part of a diverse coalition of Republicans, Green Party members and supporters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- eleven groups in total -- who banded together under the label "We Demand a Vote" to fight the city's automated ticketing plan.

Washington's statewide initiative would not actually ban red light cameras. Instead, it the proposal is designed to put the financial pinch on cities that use photo enforcement to boost local budgets. Initiative 985 is a traffic congestion relief measure put forward by frustrated commuters as part of the Voters Want More Choices coalition (view details). On July 3, the group turned in 300,684 signatures, even though only 225,000 were needed.

"Qualifying an initiative for the ballot is one of the toughest things to accomplish in politics," said group leader Tim Eyman. "Such a huge number... guarantees our common sense transportation reform initiative will be on the ballot."

The initiative also would force city and state traffic engineers to synchronize traffic lights at busy intersections. It would pay for engineering and road improvements that measurably reduce congestion -- with the state auditor's office keeping track of performance -- by directing all profit from red light cameras, tolls and several other existing motorist taxes into a new congestion relief fund. It would also open high occupancy vehicle (HOV) carpool lanes to general purpose use during weekends and off-peak hours.

If the experience of North Carolina is any guide, diverting red light camera profit into a congestion relief fund would spell the end of photo ticketing in the state. After the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution required all profits from photo tickets to go to the public school system, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, High Point and Raleigh shut down their red light camera programs.

Experience also shows that because these measures will face a welcome reception among voters. Photo enforcement has lost every time the question has been put to a vote of the people. A 2006 initiative in the city of Steubenville ended with three out of every four voters rejecting camera ticketing. Between 1991 and 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Batavia, Illinois and Peoria, Arizona also rejected the systems by significant margins.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2466.asp

5 Proven Ways To Stop Light Running

2008-07-23T18:31:00.000-07:00

November 5th, 2007 Posted in Helpful Information, Red-Light Cameras
While most cities choose to take the easy way out and install red-light ticket cameras to profit from this problem (without solving it), there are several proven ways for communities to stop red-light running at their intersections.

1) Increase the yellow-light time
This is an easy way to reduce red-light violations. It has been effective from Virginia to California in preventing accidents and saving lives.
• A study by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute illustrates the positive safety impact of even a modestly longer yellow light.
• The Virginia Department of Transportation noted a significant decrease in violations at an intersection in Fairfax County when the yellow light was lengthened by 1.5 seconds.
• Critics of longer yellow lights claim there is no long-term benefit because the public will grow accustomed to the longer lights, but research shows this is not the case.
2) Add an all-red clearance interval
A yellow light allows drivers who cannot safely stop to pass through the intersection before the light turns red. Occasionally, even safe and attentive drivers may misjudge the time it takes to make it completely through an intersection.
Adding an all-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after the yellow-light phase reduces unnecessary accidents. AAA of Michigan and the city of Detroit partnered to make intersections safer and they found an all-red clearance interval to be effective.
3) Make traffic lights more visible
There are a number of reasons motorists might have difficulty seeing traffic lights at intersections. Making traffic lights more visible decreases red-light violations and intersection accidents. Here are three simple things that can be done to help all motorists see traffic lights better:
• Make the lights bigger. With AAA of Michigan’s help, Detroit installed several new lights that were 50 percent larger. This small change helped to decrease both accidents and injuries at problem intersections.
• Add metal backers to lights. This is especially important for lights that face either east or west and can be easily affected by glare from the sun during certain parts of the day.
• Remove any other obstructions. If an intersection has above average red-light violations or accidents, transportation officials should make sure that no signs, trees, transit stops, or buildings obstruct motorists’ view of the traffic lights.
4) Improve intersections for motorists
Anything about an intersection that confuses or frustrates motorists increases red-light violations. Communities can do all of the following to make intersections safer:
• Repaint lane markings at intersections, especially turn lane markings. This alone had a major impact in the Detroit trial project mentioned above.
• Improve signage. Signs should clearly indicate that a signal is ahead and which lane(s), if any, are for turns only.
• Add traffic lights at certain intersections, especially those that rely on only one light suspended in the air to direct all traffic.
• Build new turn lanes, especially on roads where development has added a significant amount of new traffic volume.
• Provide advance warning lights at high-speed intersections to notify motorists of pending light changes.
5) Retime Traffic Signals
Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters. This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations.
An informational report from the Institute for Transportation Engineers concluded that the process has a benefit to cost ratio of 40:1. Another study in Oakland County, Michigan showed that retiming the traffic signals had a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 and 55:1 respectively for each of the two phases of the project.

http://www.motorists.org/

Judges crack down on controversial traffic cameras in Ohio

2008-07-23T18:10:00.000-07:00

COLUMBUS - Judges, angry motorists and some sympathetic state lawmakers are coming down on Ohio cities that use high-tech cameras to catch drivers who speed and run red lights.

A judge in northeast Ohio ruled this summer that a camera program used to catch speeders in Girard, near Youngstown, was unconstitutional and ordered the city to stop using it. A driver later sued Toledo, saying a $95 ticket she got for running a red light was improper because, among other things, no police officer was present as a witness.

"I made a right turn on red. I gave ample time to stop. I did not run through it," said the driver, Ann Lewicki, 24.

Also looming is a possible vote this fall in the state legislature on a bill that would restrict the use of cameras to the point where critics say it won't be worth installing them.

"It seems to me that the legislature, for whatever reason, is going to destroy something that works and saves lives," said George Speaks, deputy director of public safety in Columbus, which began using cameras at four intersections in March to catch drivers who run red lights. The number of citations fell from 1,408 to less than 700 over five months, proving that the cameras are a deterrent, he said.

The cameras are used in about 200 U.S. cities, including eight in Ohio. Akron, which experimented with a pilot program last year, intends to launch a permanent speed-surveillance program in school zones by the end of August, city officials said.

Most cities use the technology for red-light enforcement, not speed enforcement, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group in Arlington, Va.

At least two states - Wisconsin and New Jersey - have banned the cameras, and the National Motorists Association opposes their use, saying intersections could be made safer by lengthening yellow lights and improving lane markings.

Supporters point to the Federal Highway Administration, which studied the use of red-light cameras at 132 intersections in seven cities for a 2005 report. The cameras reduced front and side crashes by 25 percent. However, the same report noted a 15 percent increase in rear-end crashes.

The cameras work by snapping photos of vehicles and their license plates. In Columbus, like many cities, the fine is mailed to the vehicle's registered owner. The ticket is considered a civil violation, not criminal, so no points are recorded on a driving record.

If the vehicle's owner was not the driver, there is an appeals process.

Cleveland and Toledo are among a smaller group of cities that use the cameras to also target speeders. Cleveland's program, which began in December, generated $2.3 million in revenue as of July.

That bothers state Sen. Jeffry Armbruster, a Republican from North Ridgeville who chairs the Senate's Highways and Transportation committee. He calls Cleveland's camera program little more than a high-tech speed trap.

"Cities are doing this just for money," Armbruster said. State regulation is needed to set some standards and avoid an abuse of power, he said.

A bill pending in the Senate bans cities from using cameras to ticket speeders unless a police officer is present to witness the infraction. Also, cities that use cameras for red-light enforcement must remove the devices from intersections if accidents increase over a two-year period, and the bill gives the Ohio Department of Transportation authority to define the type of intersections that are dangerous enough to warrant camera monitoring.

Critics say the bill violates a city's home-rule authority, and the provision requiring an officer to be present is cost-prohibitive because it duplicates services.

"I think cities should be able to run their programs in any manner they see fit," said Speaks, the Columbus public safety official.

But cities are running afoul of the state constitution, argues attorney Sam Kaplan, who represents Lewicki in her lawsuit against Toledo. Among other noted problems, Kaplan said there's no provision in state law allowing cities to decriminalize traffic offenses by treating them as civil matters.

In his July ruling against the city of Girard, Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge John Stuard agreed. Girard scrapped its camera program and will return $175,000 collected in fines, said city public services director Jerry Lambert.

Steubenville, a city in eastern Ohio, suspended its traffic-camera program this summer, pending the outcome of a lawsuit there. The city's cameras nabbed about 3,000 speeders and red-light runners during the brief month that it operated, said city law director S. Gary Repella.

"Frankly, we were shocked that so many people weren't obeying our laws," he said.

And that's the point, said Sean Mentel, an attorney for Scottsdale-Ariz.-based Redflex Traffic Systems, which supplies Columbus with its traffic cameras.

"I think there's no disputing the safety benefits of these programs," Mentel said. "The legal issues, that's something for Ohio authorities to decide."

http://media.www.bgnews.com/media/storage/paper883/news/2006/08/21/State/Judges.Crack.Down.On.Controversial.Traffic.Cameras.In.Ohio-2222317.shtml

Stop-Light Cameras: Safety Feature or Revenue Stream?

2008-07-23T18:05:00.000-07:00

Recently, cameras positioned to catch potential red-light runners have come under fire from cities and local municipalities. From Dallas, Tex. to Mill Creek, Wash., city governments are discovering that red-light cameras don't make as much sense.

In Mill Creek, for instance, the cameras do not catch enough red-light runners to make the cameras worth the cost. In Dallas, where the cameras have in some intersections accounted for a 50% reduction of drivers running red lights, the city has idled over one-fourth of its cameras. The system is too expensive to maintain and the revenue has come in at least $8.6 million short of the city's initial projection.

This raises the question: What is the purpose of the cameras? Are they meant to actually improve safety, or are cities simply using them to increase revenue through fines? Or both?

As we previously reported, several studies have shown that stop-light cameras can actually increase accidents because drivers who spot the cameras tend to slam on their brakes and end up getting rear-ended. Couple this with a Tennessee judge who ruled that the city of Chattanooga had to refund paid red-light tickets because the yellow lights were improperly timed, and one begins to see the problem.

Even though numerous studies have shown that longer yellow lights decrease traffic accidents, the yellow lights had been reduced from 4.5 seconds to three seconds without any authorization.

We have to ask: Do cities simply see traffic-light cameras as a means to pad floundering budgets? Let us know what you think. Have you ever gotten a ticket from a traffic-camera?
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/04/stop-light-came.html

Warner Mendenhall fighting traffic light cameras

2008-07-23T17:53:00.001-07:00

Six US Cities Tamper with Traffic cameras for Profit

2008-07-23T17:44:00.000-07:00

Six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the amber cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. The local governments in question have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.

The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information from reports from around the country. This isn’t the first time traffic cameras have been questioned as to their effectiveness in preventing accidents. In one case, the local government was forced to issue refunds by more than $1 million to motorists who were issued tickets for running red lights.

The report goes on to note these are just instances that have been identified, and there may be more out there, and urges visitors to send in their own findings.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html

Red-light cameras bring backlash

2008-07-23T17:40:00.000-07:00

By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

ATLANTA — State Rep. Barry Loudermilk recently introduced a bill to ban red-light enforcement cameras in Georgia. Among his objections to the traffic control devices: the absence of human involvement.

"If you run a red light and a police officer witnesses you running it, he walks up to you and checks your identification. He's citing you, not your car," says Loudermilk, a Republican from northwest Georgia. "He's a witness. He sees you commit the act. He conducts something of an investigation.

"With a red-light camera, it's like convicting a gun for murder. You have to prove your innocence instead of the government proving your guilt. That might seem trivial to people. But it's a slippery slope with the Constitution."

Loudermilk, a third-year legislator and businessman, says another concern is that a red-light camera violator is treated differently from a driver nailed by a police officer for running a light. The first simply pays a civil fine. The second is charged with a criminal misdemeanor. He acknowledges that his bill probably won't pass, although he says support is growing.

"A lot of people do object to red-light cameras," he says. "There's as many opinions about why they shouldn't be here as why they should be."

Loudermilk's complaints are part of a nationwide debate about whether the cameras are an appropriate tool to discourage drivers from running red lights and endangering other motorists and pedestrians:

•Legislatures in at least six states — Connecticut, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Virginia — are debating action to permit red-light cameras. In Virginia, which allowed an experimental camera program in six communities and Virginia Beach to expire in 2005, the House of Delegates this month gave preliminary approval to a measure that allows cities that have at least 10,000 residents to use the cameras.

•Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox ruled last month that cameras cannot be used to ticket drivers. Only police officers who witness violations can write tickets, he ruled.

•Red-light cameras are the subject of litigation in at least three states. In Ohio, an Akron woman's lawsuit alleging that cities using the cameras have turned red-light violations from a criminal to a civil offense is headed to the state Supreme Court.

Oral arguments in the Minnesota Supreme Court over Minneapolis' suspended camera program are scheduled for next month. In North Carolina, Charlotte and several other cities ended their camera programs this year after the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that most proceeds from signal violations must go to local schools. The case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.

•New Mexico state Sen. William Payne, who calls Albuquerque's 15 cameras a "money-generating trap," introduced a bill this month that would require communities using the devices to install warning signs and beacons on streets leading to intersections where they are positioned.

He says Albuquerque has issued 80,000 $100 citations in the past 18 months. Those fines went directly to the city as civil fees rather than to the state as motor vehicle violations, he says. Payne, a third-term Republican from Albuquerque, says he's also concerned because of studies showing that rear-end crashes rise when traffic cameras are installed, although more deadly side-impact crashes go down.

An increase in rear-end crashes in some communities immediately following the installation of red-light cameras is usually temporary, says Jeff Agnew, spokesman for the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, an advocacy group funded by traffic-camera firms.

Public opinion surveys repeatedly find about 75%-80% support for cameras, says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an industry group. But he acknowledges, "This is a very contentious issue because there are very strong opponents of red-light cameras."

Aaron Quinn, communications manager for the Waunakee, Wis.-based National Motorists Association, which defends drivers' rights, is one of them. He says there are "more appropriate" ways to reduce red-light crashes, including having traffic lights at all corners of intersections show red for one second, creating a margin of error in case of red-light runners.

"We feel municipalities put in the cameras basically for revenue-generating purposes," says Quinn, whose group helped repeal the federal 55-mph speed limit.

DC Lawyers Bring Class Action To Stop Traffic Cameras

2008-07-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

Two lawyers in Washington, DC have filed suit against the city in Superior Court to return all fines paid by persons who received a ticket via a camera photo.

The two litigators are seeking to represent the entire "class of automobile owners" ticketed since the red-light camera program began July 31, 1999, and since the photo-radar program started Aug. 6, 2001. "There is no proof that the owner is driving the car and the only way to get out of the ticket is to submit an affidavit identifying the person who was driving your car," Mr. Ruffin said.

Judges in other jurisdictions, such as Denver and San Diego have invalidated the camera programs. A lot of money is at stake in D.C.

The District has collected $26,451,367 from radar cameras since the program began through last month, according the data available on the Metropolitan Police Department's Web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov). The city has mailed out 510,667 citations, and 356,315 motorists have paid the fines. The red-light cameras have generated $20,983,495 for the city in nearly five years of enforcement, with 242,748 motorists having paid the fines out of 361,464 tickets issued.

Update: Kirk Parker notes in the comments section that the conservative Weekly Standard has a five part series on what's wrong with the DC red light cameras:

Red-light cameras are all over Washington--and coming to a city near you. The science behind them is bad and the police are using them to make money, not save lives. It's much worse than you thought."

What's Wrong With Red Light Cameras Five Part Series

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/04/17/595/79127

SCAM Uncovered. Red light and speed camera are for PROFIT

2008-07-23T17:28:00.001-07:00

Watch and be aware. The city makes a contract with the camera company and they make money off these cameras. The contract gives a quota of the number of tickets to be issued or violations found so they make a certain amount of money. What the city then has to do is adjust the length of the yellow light to catch more offenders who are expecting a certain time on the yellow light create a speed trap and making the contract with the camera company fulfilled.