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
Redmond Traffic-Cam Violations Down, Collisions Up
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
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
Wednesday, September 28, 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 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
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
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The beginning of the end for this city council. Give them Hell at the polls!
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
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
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/
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/
Friday, September 23, 2011
City Officials Slap Citizens in the face; deny their right to petition!
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Chideock: Speed camera fiasco totals £1.8million and counting
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/
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)