Police dodge traffic fines

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

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

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

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

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

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

The revelations prompted criticism from Police Minister Peter Ryan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria Police said the figures were "disappointing".

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

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

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

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

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

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

kailaj@heraldsun.com.au

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

Council has barking dogs, red light cameras on agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red light cameras

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residents question lone red light camera

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

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

Washington employees market red light cameras for private company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damascus man beats speed camera ticket

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

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

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

Bring Traffic Cameras; Expect lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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