Saturday, March 9, 2013
Town With only 2,100 Residents Racks up $1.5M in Fines in One Month All Because of Two New ‘Scam’ Traffic Cams
Elmwood Place is a village in Ohio with only about 2,100 residents. In September of last year, the town just north of Cincinnati had two traffic cameras installed to nab speeding drivers, mostly as they made their way to I-75 .
According to the Associated Press (AP), the cameras issued 6,600 tickets and racked up fines to the tune of $1.5 million in just one month. What’s more, locals said it deterred some from visiting their businesses (or at least angered customers) and even reduced the congregation of a church.
“I had two customers say they’ll never come back,” David Downs, who owns the small business St. Bernard Polishing Co. where one speed camera is located, told TheBlaze in a phone interview Friday. “They can go across the river to another small business …in a more friendly town.”
Downs went on to explain that his business, which he has owned for 25 years, is located in the zone where the speed limit drops from 35mph to 25mph.
The AP reported Rev. Chau Pham, who leads the congregation at Our Lady of Lavang Catholic Community Church, saying about 70 parishioners were ticketed one Sunday in September 2012. He also said that much of the church’s Vietnamese parishioners are from outside the village and a third of them have stopped coming because of the cameras.
These men and larger companies like Procter & Gamble Co. and J.M. Smucker Co. with establishments in the area brought on a lawsuit against the cameras, according to AP.
Thursday, Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled the camera system in the village violated due process of Ohio’s constitution and were ”a scam.” He called hearings for those fighting the tickets “a sham.”
“Remember Optotraffic has a financial stake in this game,” Ruehlman wrote in his ruling of the company running the cameras. “I use the term ‘game’ because Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech 3 Card Monte. It is a scam the motorists can’t win.”
Fox News reported the plaintiff’s attorney Mike Allen saying he thinks this might be the first ruling against speed cameras — red light cameras have seen unfavorable rulings in the past — in the country.
“This could be a major turning point for people that are aggrieved by these kind of things,” Allen told Fox News.
AP reported that the town, like many small villages around the country, is short on money and might have seen the cameras as a revenue booster. It also noted Police Chief William Peskin saying his staff only consists of auxiliary officers and one full-time officer. In 1998, Peskin said, there used to be nine working full time.
“I understand that the village needs money, but do it right,” Downs said. He claimed that the village hadn’t posted a public notice about the cameras among other issues regarding where they were installed and the court process to contest them.
Not everyone completely disagrees with the cameras. The AP reported local roofing company owner Dave Siegel saying, although he disagreed with the high cost of the fines, he felt the cameras were effective and were protecting children.
“I think people are slowing down, and that’s a good thing. I think it’s here to stay. And others will do it,” Siegel said according to the AP.
Going forward, Downs said he expects the judge’s decision will be appealed. But he said their lawyer is ready to take the case all the way to the state level. He also told TheBlaze that although the cameras are off now, they will remain installed until “they completely shot dead.” In the mean time, Downs said he has noticed a physical police presence on the roads today.
“The police are out in force running radar today,” Downs said, noting he saw some hiding in between other cars. “And that’s fine.”
Downs said he agrees with police officers giving tickets to those breaking the law but the speed cameras, he said, were unfair.
“We were getting tickets two weeks after the fact,” Downs told TheBlaze. “How are you supposed to learn? One person got five tickets in one day.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/08/town-with-only-2100-residents-racks-up-1-5m-fines-in-one-month-all-because-of-two-new-scam-traffic-cameras/
Traffic camera ban sought by some Ohio lawmakers: Road Rant
Traffic camera.jpg View full size Legislation introduced at the Statehouse could prohibit Cleveland and other Ohio communities from red-light and speed enforcement cameras. Plain Dealer file
Some state lawmakers want to ban the controversial red-light and speed cameras that ticket thousands of motorists a month in Cleveland and more than a dozen other towns in Ohio.
Legislation introduced last month would prohibit communities, counties and the State Highway Patrol from using photo-monitoring devices to enforce traffic laws.
State Rep. Zack Milkovich, a Democrat from Akron, said the cameras siphon money out of people's wallets. Milkovich is a cosponsor of the bill, which has bipartisan support.
"They're oppressive to folks just trying to put food on the table," said Milkovich, who added that he regularly hears complaints about the devices. "It's a little bit too much."
Cleveland officials believe the proposed legislation is unconstitutional given a city's right to home rule, said Maureen Harper, the communications chief for the mayor's office.
The city's photo enforcement program began at the end of 2005. Annual reports and court records show that Cleveland's cameras clicked out more than a half-million tickets during the first six years of the program, through December 2011. Fines and fees collected on those citations amount to more than $47 million.
Camera-generated tickets in Cleveland start at $100. Violations qualify as a civil offense and don't go on a driver's license record.
More than a dozen other Ohio cities currently aim cameras at traffic, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The list includes East Cleveland, Parma and Parma Heights in Cuyahoga County, as well as Akron in Summit County. Other local communities, including Shaker Heights, are considering programs.
red-light-camera-tickets-and-fines-cleveland-ohio.jpg View full size The Plain Dealer
Voters in several Ohio communities, including Garfield Heights and South Euclid, have used the ballot box to outlaw photo enforcement on their streets.
Ohio law does not address traffic enforcement cameras, so communities operate their programs under local ordinances. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2008 that cities do not overstep their authority by using the devices as an enforcement tool.
On Thursday, however, a common pleas court judge in Hamilton County ordered a Cincinnati suburb to halt its camera program. In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman wrote that the village's traffic camera system violated a motorist's constitutional right to due process. He called the setup "a scam that motorists can't win."
Nine states have passed laws prohibiting the use of red-light cameras, while 12 outlaw speed cameras, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.
Akron's communications director, Stephanie York, said a "blanket prohibition" on traffic cameras in Ohio would be disappointing. Akron uses speed cameras exclusively in school zones to monitor traffic during student arrival and dismissal. The city began the program in 2005 after a car hit and killed a 10-year-old boy in a crosswalk.
York said the city's program is targeted and effective. Akron's cameras caught 11,000 speeders last school year. The tickets generated more than a half-million dollars that went toward child safety programs.
"There are ways that cameras can and should be used," York said. "That's where the focus should be."
The legislation has been assigned to the House's Transportation, Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee for discussion.
http://www.cleveland.com/roadrant/index.ssf/2013/03/traffic_camera_ban_sought.html
Bill would ban traffic cameras statewide in Ohio
Ohio legislators proposed a ban on traffic enforcement cameras to eliminate what they see as violations of drivers’ rights.
The recently introduced bill would eliminate the use of photo monitoring devices to detect speed and traffic signal violations. Several Central Ohio municipalities have banned the use of cameras in lieu of traffic enforcement — some after months of disputes.
Residents in Chillicothe and Heath overwhelmingly voted to eliminate red-light cameras in November 2009 after concerns that cited drivers could not face their accuser in court. The Mansfield City Council unanimously voted down an ordinance to install red-light cameras in January 2010 after a vigorous letter campaign against the proposal.
Red-light cameras have proved to be a hazard to public safety, Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, wrote in a statement. He is co-sponsoring the bill introduced by Rep. Ron Maag, R-Lebanon, and Rep. Dale Mallory, D-Cincinnati.
“Several recent studies, including a federal report, have confirmed that traffic photo-monitoring devices increase the number of rear-end collisions at intersections that are monitored by these devices,” Hood wrote.
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled Thursday that a village near Cincinnati was violating drivers’ right to due process by issuing $105 fines on speeding violations via cameras that issued thousands of tickets.
“Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3 CARD MONTY. It is a scam the motorists can’t win,” Ruehlman wrote in his decision.
However, Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said traffic enforcement cameras deter unsafe driving. Many people dislike them simply because they like to speed and think it’s their right, Adkins said.
“From a highway safety standpoint, it’s critical that states allow communities to use these,” Adkins said.
If the ban passed, Ohio would become the 13th state to outlaw cameras that issue speeding violations and the 10th to eliminate red-light cameras.
jbalmert@central
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20130308/NEWS01/303080033/Bill-would-ban-traffic-cameras-statewide?nclick_check=1
Contact your representative
http://www.ohiohouse.gov/members/member-directory
Monday, October 3, 2011
Cambridge residents have issues with speed cameras
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
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
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
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
Friday, September 30, 2011
Pasco man gets ticket in mail for going through green light
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/
"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/
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Eyman files suit against city concerning traffic-enforcement cameras
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)