Ban the Cams! Latest News

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://baytownsun.com/news/article_599b2e80-b89f-11df-bac6-001cc4c03286.html

Red light camera firm files lawsuit over election 

Posted: Saturday, September 4, 2010 10:39 pm

MARK FLEMING | 2 comments

American Traffic Solutions, the company that owns and operates the cameras and sensor systems used to enforce red light compliance at several Baytown intersections, filed a lawsuit against the city Thursday seeking to overturn the city’s decision to call an election on an amendment to the red light camera ordinance.

In addition to repeating previous claims the amendment to the ordinance constitutes a repeal of the ordinance and violates state code, the lawsuit also claims the city is violating the federal Voting Rights Act.

City Attorney Ignacio Ramirez defended the city in a hearing Thursday in which ATS sought a temporary restraining order against the city, according to Patti Jett, public affairs coordinator for the City of Baytown. The temporary restraining order to stop the election was not granted, she said. Another hearing has been scheduled on the matter.

In its suit, American Traffic Solutions presents several claims to justify stopping the election, including:

• A claim the amendment to the city’s red light ordinance constitutes a repeal of the ordinance. Under the city charter, there are tight time limits on how soon a petition can be presented calling for a referendum to repeal an ordinance, but not limits on when a petition can be presented to amend an ordinance. An earlier attempt to repeal the red light camera ordinance was rejected by the city on that basis.

• A claim the proposed ordinance includes a definition of “law enforcement officer” that would not allow Baytown police to enforce the law.

• A claim the proposed ordinance seeks to override state law in restricting the use of photo-enforcement equipment.

• A claim the election violates the Voting Rights Act.

The claim of violation of the Voting Rights Act is also being used in a contest to a pending election in the City of Houston regarding its red light camera program. Unlike the Baytown case, the Houston lawsuit is in federal court and was filed by a political action committee supporting red light cameras, rather than by American Traffic Solutions.

The Baytown lawsuit says the Voting Right Act violation comes from the city allowing a referendum petition outside of the 20-day window allowed by law. The suit says “no approval [from the Department of Justice] was sought (or received) to bypass the previously-approved twenty-day limitation on referendum petitions.”

Further, the suit maintains, “By permitting an unauthorized ballot proposition to be placed before the voters, the City has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the Safety Camera Program — a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner — will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election. This change in voting practices and procedures results in the potential for minority voting strength to be diluted through the inclusion of an unauthorized ballot measure.”

In response to a written question asking if the company had previously used the Voting Rights Act as a legal strategy to block elections, ATS Vice President for Governmental Relations and General Counsel George Hittner said, “ATS’ complaint is not based on the premise advanced in your question. ATS’ claims in this lawsuit are based on the calling of a costly and voidable election.”

In response to a written question asking if the company had any studies or other evidence supporting its contention regarding the political leanings of potential voters, Hittner provided the identical answer, “ATS’ complaint is not based on the premise advanced in your question. ATS’ claims in this lawsuit are based on the calling of a costly and voidable election.”

When asked how many of its clients the company has sued, Hittner replied, “None. However, we are required by law to file this challenge before the election occurs for the simple reason that an election contest is not available as a possible remedy after the election occurs.”

Speaking for the city, Jett said the election is still on as of this time.

She was unable to say whether the city had the legal authority to cancel the election at this time even if it chose to do so, as the state deadline for calling November elections has passed.

Posted in: Presentations  | Add a Comment(0)

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/ats-unveils-new-business-model-lawsuits/

ATS Unveils New Business Model: Lawsuits
(Un)American Traffic Solutions is at it again.. and again. They have definitely found their niche of late: filing and losing at nuisance lawsuits.

To protect their scam, ATS execs are suing to block citizens rights to vote. They already had their suit tossed out by a Judge earlier this year in a suburb of Seattle, WA(Mukilteo) and now are making the same attempt in Baytown, TX. Their latest suit alleges that a citizens initiative in the Texas city with 1000′s of signatures violates the Voting Rights Act. Interesting take. Maybe ATS is also being scammed, by their own attorneys.

ATS lost their lawsuit against their competitor, Redflex earlier this summer. You may remember that Redflex was forced to admit they used fraudulent documents to obtain their contracts with municipalities all over the U.S. from 1997-2008. Even with that startling admission by Redflex CEO Karen Finley, ATS still lost mightily. A Federal Judge left no doubt about how badly ATS performed:

“At best the plaintiff has an extraordinarily weak case,” US District Court Judge Frederick J. Martone said with the jury out of the courtroom. “It is weak at every point.”

ATS lawyers have decided to refile that case, despite the embarrassment. Round two begins in Arizona next week.
 

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3252.asp

9/5/2010
Italy, Latvia: Speed Cameras Swiped, Shot
A speed camera was damaged by gunfire in Latvia and removed in Italy.

In Macerata, Italy vigilantes grabbed a speed camera from the side of the provincial road 571 at around 6am this morning. Police arriving on the scene found glass shards on the ground from smashed lenses and the radar equipment removed from the housing, ANSA http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/regioni/marche/2010/09/05/visualizza_new.html_1786339013.html reported. Officials have no idea who was responsible.

Vigilantes in the former Soviet Republic of Latvia shot a speed camera on August 12. The automated ticketing machine had been located in Daugavpils, the second largest city next to Riga. The device, the country's only speed camera, will be repaired, TVNET http://www.tvnet.lv/auto/satiksme/96233-daugavpili_sasauj_vienigo_parvietojamo_fotoradaru reported. Police have no idea who is responsible.

Posted in: Court Decisions  | Add a Comment(0)

Ban the Cams note:  Judge ignores legal protections on Innocent Until Proven Guilty to protect accident causing SCAMERAS.

This is one of those examples of Judicial Activism.  This is where a judge doesn't rule on law but lets her personal like of RLC to try to justify ignoring the law.  At least the MO Supreme Court looked at the law!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3251.asp

Missouri: Federal Judge Likes Red Light Cameras, Denies Class Action Refund
Federal judge who likes red light cameras allows Springfield, Missouri to escape refunds for illegal program.

Fighting speed camera and red light camera tickets in federal court is becoming increasingly difficult as yet another US district court judge yesterday embraced the use of automated ticketing machines. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey dismissed the class action lawsuit that Gregory Mills had filed against the city of Springfield and Lasercraft, a private vendor that has since been bought out by American Traffic Solutions. Mills argued that because the Missouri Supreme Court in March struck down the city's program as illegal (view decision), those who received tickets were entitled to a refund.

Under the program, Lasercraft mailed tickets to the owners of vehicles who in many cases were not behind the wheel at the time of the offense and consequently had not violated any law. The suit argued that these individuals were denied a meaningful right to contest the $100 punishment imposed because challenges to the citation were heard not in a court with constitutional protections, but in an administrative hearing operated by an employee of the city that receives the proceeds from payment of any fines. Judge Laughrey dismissed the notion that anyone could be wrongly accused and assumed anyone mailed a ticket by Lasercraft was a scofflaw who should not have been running red lights.

"The freedom to run a red light is not a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition," Laughrey wrote. "Under the lenient rational basis test, the city of Springfield's red light camera ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate government interest in public safety. Clearly, a legislative body could find that improved surveillance and enforcement of red light violations would result in fewer accidents."    (Ban the cams note:  What is wrong with the judges statement.  1.  This isn't about the "freedom" to run a light.  YOU DON'T have the right to endanger someone.  BUT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS something this judge feels shouldn't apply to the general public!    Further I wonder if the judge has read the INDEPENDENT REPORTS SHOWING MORE CRASHES at RLC sites disproving her statement!  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp)

Laughrey went on to insist the fine imposed was not a punishment and the mere declaration by Springfield city leaders that the program was "civil" deprived ticket recipients of any meaningful constitutional protection.

"The court finds that a mere $100 fine does not rise to the level of an intent to punish," Laughrey wrote. "As a civil ordinance, Section 106-161 need not provide the heightened procedural protections required by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."

Laughrey finally ruled that the fact that the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Springfield's program was illegal did not affect her analysis under federal law.

"The due process clause does not require a state to implement its own laws correctly, nor does the Constitution insist that a local government be correct in its interpretation of what is permissible under state law," Laughrey wrote. "Thus, plaintiffs' attempt to convert violations of state law into federal due process claims improperly bootstraps state law into the U.S. Constitution. It is implausible that Section 106-161 could have denied plaintiffs substantive due process."

Cases against Springfield are pending in state courts. A copy of the federal decision is available in a 125k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Mills v. Springfield (US District Court, Western District of Missouri, 9/3/2010)  http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/us-springfield.pdf

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

Roadside speed cameras may bite the dust!
Published Date:
04 September 2010
By RORY O'KEEFFE
Political editor

SPEED cameras could be removed from Portsmouth's roads, if a government proposal is enacted later this year.
Portsmouth City Council believes the government is set to make what it feels are unreasonable demands on local authorities, which would see the removal of the city's cameras on grounds of cost.

Council leader Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson said:ADVERTISEMENT'The government has plans which look likely to be enacted later this year, which would see us totally liable for all upkeep and maintenance of the speed cameras. Under those circumstances, they'll be impossible for us to afford to operate, so we'd get rid of them all.'

The city council's seven fixed cameras are run through the Hampshire Safer Roads Partnership, which also includes councils across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

But it pays almost £250,000 per year for membership of the group.

Each year, the council hands over all the fines it collects to central government, which then redistributes the cash to councils and groups across the country.

But new government proposals, which could be introduced as early as next month, are expected to change the rules so the cash is not handed back to councils, or is used to 'top up' the annual grants each authority receives.

Cllr Vernon-Jackson said: 'The policy just makes the cameras unaffordable, and it's hard to see how we could keep operating them under those circumstances. They would have to stop running. In the past, we have received help from the government, but this would be a cut and we wouldn't be able to afford them. '

Earlier this year, the government demanded budget cuts from all local authorities, which caused some councils, including Oxford, to pull out of their road safety partnerships, and turn off their cameras.

But Portsmouth City Council's head of street management Simon Moon denied the council would leave the partnership.

He said: 'We're committed to the safer roads partnership and have no plans which would change our involvement at this point in time. In year funding cuts by central government have been absorbed and we can continue in the partnership until the end of this financial year. Beyond this, the situation remains unclear and as with any financial commitment it will be reviewed when funding sources are known.'

Posted in: Presentations  | Add a Comment(0)

(BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  BanCams in WA State is up against a well funded SCAMERA GROUP TRYING TO DENY A VOTE.

ATS Front group has now asked the WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT TO DENY A PUBLIC VOTE!

So much for the "polls" claiming public support of photo enforcement.  When you have to resort to denying a PUBLIC VOTE to keep the scam going, you know something is wrong!

If you are so inclined and would like to help, BanCams in WA State has where to go to help with the fight!)

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/notes/ban-traffic-cameras-in-washington-state/we-need-your-help/147466745284410

We need your help!by Ban Traffic Cameras in Washington State! on Friday, September 3, 2010 at 3:24pm
Dear BanCams.com Supporter,

We need your help! The camera company, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), has filed a lawsuit  to stop the Mukilteo initiative from going on the November ballot. Last month Snohomish County Superior Court judge Michael T. Downes rejected their argument and said that the initiative could go forward. But they have appealed his decision and we are now waiting on a judgment from the Washington State Supreme Court. We are very optimistic that this will be decided in our favor, but we need your help to cover the legal fees. As you probably know we are in a position where we had to hire legal council to defend the city’s ability to put the Mukilteo initiative on the ballot. Since the city doesn’t actually want the initiative on the ballot we had to intervene to make sure they win the case.

The down side is that securing a legal defense to protect the work we have done is expensive. We are writing you today because we have to raise $5,000 for our legal fees. Can we count on you to support our fight by making a symbolic contribution of $124, the price of a red-light camera ticket?

 
Our lawyer has done an awesome job representing our side in court. He has also been very patient about being paid, but now is the time to pay him. ATS has millions of dollars to fight with, but we are just ordinary people. We have made arrangements with our fellow co-sponsor of the initiative, Washington Campaign for Liberty, to take online payments for the legal fees. If you cannot afford the full price of a ticket, please consider cutting it in half and donate $62, it would still be a very helpful donation. We have hundreds of supporters, if all of you contribute, we will reach our goal, and so that all of the costs won’t come out of our pockets.

Some of you have already donated, thank you! If you have not donated yet or would like to donate again, you can make a donation online through our fellow co-sponsor of the initiative, Washington Campaign for Liberty. Or you can make checks payable to: Groen Stephens Law Firm and write “Mukilteo Initiative #2″ in the note field and send the checks to : Groen Stephens Law Firm – Mukilteo Initiative ; 11100 Northeast 8th Street;  Bellevue, WA 98004-4469 

We appreciate everything you have done to help us push back Big Brother and create a safer driving experience, people like you really make a difference. We have successfully passed many milestones along our journey to end photo-fraud statewide and we are anxious to report the next victory, thank you for your contribution.

Thank you for your help,
Nick and Tiffany Sherwood
www.BanCams.com

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3250.asp

Red Light Camera Firms Raise Stakes in Court Battle
Redflex and American Traffic Solutions step up legal battle against one another.

While red light camera firms are facing significant legal peril as vehicle owners in California http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3249.asp  and Florida http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3006.aspare fighting citations in court through class action lawsuits, the stakes are even higher when the companies themselves battle one another in the courtroom. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now reviewing a number of issues brought in the suit filed by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) against its Australian rival, Redflex Traffic Systems.

ATS had sued Redflex for advertising speed camera operations using radars that were illegally imported into the country. As reported by TheNewspaper in May, lost the case on all counts before a jury http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3154.asp with the judge expressing the view that the ATS argument was "weak at every point." Nonetheless, ATS has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Redflex is attempting to recover the $4.3 million it spent on the litigation after the firm's lead attorney, E. Jeffrey Walsh, claimed he had spent 12,782 hours on the case. Redflex insists it is entitled to attorney's fees because ATS filed the lawsuit in bad faith.

"ATS chose to use the courtroom as a forum to embarrass Redflex by, under the guise of proof of willfulness, accusing Redflex officials of lying to federal and state authorities," Walsh wrote in a July 27 filing. "ATS provided salacious fodder for bloggers and other media personnel who attended the trial and damaged Redflex's reputation and integrity... ATS unleashed a crusade against Redflex, its biggest competitor in the photo traffic enforcement industry, to damage it."

Read more: Red Light Camera Firms Raise Stakes in Court Battle

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/fixed-cameras-proving-futile/1919984.aspx

Fixed cameras proving futile
MICHAEL INMAN

22 Aug, 2010 12:00 AM
FIXED speed cameras are failing to reduce accidents at Canberra traffic hot spots, with accident rates actually increasing since nine new cameras were installed in 2007-08.

But ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has defended their use and flagged the possibility of installing more fixed speed cameras throughout Canberra.

Figures obtained by ACT Liberal MLA Alistair Coe showed accidents at eight camera sites increased from 58.7 per year prior to installation to 67.9 after while pumping an extra $7million each year into government coffers.

Data for the ninth camera was unavailable.

The largest increase in the number of accidents occured at two camera sites along the Tuggeranong Parkway.

Accidents jumped from an average of 20.3 to 24.4 per year at the camera placed near the Cotter Road underpass.

To the south, accidents leapt from 21.4 to 31 per year at the Hindmarsh Drive overpass.

Figures show the two cameras reaped almost $125,000 in the three months from October to December 2008.

However, the number of accidents declined slightly at several sites.

Mr Coe said the increased accident rate, paired with fines, shows revenue-raising was the driving force behind the expansion.

''[This] evidence suggests that the current methodology, the current strategy the ACT Government has, is much more about revenue than about making our roads safer,'' Mr Coe said.

''What we're seeing here is road safety being used as a cover for a revenue-raising method for the ACT Government because of its inability to manage expenditure.''

Read more: Fixed cameras proving futile

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/paradise-valley-town-council-a-simple-solution/

Paradise Valley Town Council: A Simple Solution
Paradise Valley Town Council is holding their normally scheduled meeting on Thursday Afternoon, starting at 3 pm. If you’re wondering, the address is 6401 E Lincoln Dr, Paradise Valley, Az 85253. CameraFRAUD volunteers will be there to collect signatures for the initiative to ban photo ticketing in Paradise Valley.

Oh and what a coincidence, it seems that very initiative is on the the slate for the meeting:

We have a very simple solution to this issue: Let’s do the right thing and take the cameras down in Paradise Valley. That would save the most time, money and is the safest option. However, if it needs to go to the voters, we’ve already seen how popular our initiative is at the polling places. 1,500+ signatures isn’t that far away!
 

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3249.asp

California: Red Light Camera Programs Face Class Action Suit
Experienced class action law firm takes on red light cameras in California.

A team of experienced class action lawyers is taking on California's red light camera industry, and photo enforcement companies are expressing unease. Last month, the law firm of Pearson Simon Warshaw and Penny, LLP filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court arguing that tickets issued throughout the Golden State since January 1, 2004 should be refunded where the photo enforcement contracts violated a state law mandating flat-rate compensation to companies like Redflex Traffic Systems. Redflex referred to the case as a particular business risk in an August 25 filing with the Australian Securities Exchange.

"The level of litigation industry‐wide has continued to be widespread with the majority of suits testing the constitutionality or administrative legitimacy of road safety enforcement programs," Redflex explained. "A number of class action lawsuits involving others in our industry and Redflex have been filed challenging the pricing models used in several states alleging violation of cost neutrality laws as well as the admissibility of business records in court. We continue to aggressively defend against these claims."

An aggressive defense will not come cheap. The firm spent $4.3 million to fend off a lawsuit filed by competitor American Traffic Solutions (ATS), even though the Australian firm won the case. Should this class action make it to trial, Redflex and co-defendant ATS could end up financially responsible for contracts in the fifty-nine jurisdictions identified as having the questionable language.

In the city of San Mateo, for example, Redflex is paid $120 for each $446 ticket issued at each red light camera intersection up to a monthly cap of $6030 per intersection. This so-called cost neutrality arrangement allows the city to have a guarantee that the cameras will never under any circumstances lose money. The class action suit argues that such clauses violate a state law prohibiting per-ticket compensation arrangements for automated ticketing contracts.

"Through their employees and agents, RTS, ATS and the Doe defendants, as defined below, entered into illegal contracts with public entities in California, operated automated traffic enforcement equipment in California and caused tickets to be issued to plaintiff and class members throughout California," attorneys Bruce L. Simon and William J. Newsom wrote in the court filing.

The suit does not ask that existing convictions be overturned, but that Redflex and ATS pay damages for the amount of revenue the companies have collected from their unlawful business practices. The appellate divisions of both Orange County (view ruling) and San Mateo County (view decision) courts have already ruled "cost neutral" contract provisions are illegal, but the decisions have not been published. Only a handful of cities like San Mateo and San Carlos have dropped the cost neutral provisions. Contractors in these cities would still be sued for the amount of revenue generated prior to the contract revisions.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare all cost neutral contracts illegal and issue an injunction against all programs operating under such arrangements. It also asks for a full refund of all fines paid, plus appropriate punitive damages

Posted in: Presentations  | Add a Comment(0)

http://blog.motorists.org/another-ticket-camera-success-story/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=another-ticket-camera-success-story

Another Ticket Camera Success Story
Posted on August 31st, 2010 in James Baxter, Red-Light Cameras | Comments (0)

By James Baxter, NMA President

The report is in from Baytown, TX, on the results of the city’s red light ticket camera program.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3236.asp

The camera proponents are going to be hard pressed to lavish praise on the results:

•40 percent increase in total accidents
•75 percent increase in injury accidents
•37 percent increase in “t-bone” right angle crashes
•83 percent increase in rear-end collisions
These disastrous results should really be no surprise. Independent studies http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies (no financial interest) of the automated intersection ticketing programs have repeatedly shown an increase in rear- end collisions, more injuries, and contrary to the claims of ticket camera proponents, no reduction in right-angle crashes.

But, tomorrow, just as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west there will be a government official or clueless reporter making the claim that red light cameras improve traffic safety.

Baytown officials are being presented with a petition to put ticket cameras to a vote in November.

If these officials are really concerned about the well-being of their constituents they won’t wait until November to put the cameras down the road.

If they do wait until November, the voters would be well served to treat incumbent officials as they do the red light camera program and put them down the road too.
 

Posted in: Red Light Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

Ban the Cams note:   I find it funny that the scamera side uses the "if you have nothing to hide, than you should have nothing to fear" BS argument YET THE POLICE CHIEF OF PORT RICHEY CLEARLY WANTS TO HIDE A RLC CONTRACT FEE! 

As a post I left on the St. Pete Times (I DON'T hide who I am unlike ATS Front Groups do), I WONDER IF THE CHIEF EVER HEARD OF THE SUNSHINE LAW!

 http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/police-chief-says-port-richeys-budget-for-red-light-cameras-is-confidential/1118774

Police chief says Port Richey's budget for red-light cameras is confidential
By Drew Harwell, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 

PORT RICHEY — The question seemed simple enough: How much will the city pay per camera each month to the company that provides red light cameras?

Council members asked Police Chief Dave Brown.

That's confidential, he answered during Monday night's meeting, pointing out that the contract with American Traffic Solutions, an Arizona company, forbids discussing it.

"We entered into this contract," council member Terry Rowe said, "yet we can't talk about it?"

City officials, according to budget estimates, expect to issue about 9,600 camera citations next year, totaling $1.5 million in fines. A large chunk must be paid to the state and ATS. Knowing the exact amount would help city leaders with their budget. 

(Ban the Cams, SO MUCH FOR SAFETY, IT REALLY IS ONLY ABOUT MONEY, but you know that already don't ya!)

"I don't believe there is anything such as confidential when it comes to city finances," council member Bill Colombo said Tuesday. "That's the first time I've heard anything like that."

Read more: Port Richey Police Chief "forgets" about FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW! Claims RLC Contract "confidential"

Posted in: Blogs  | Add a Comment(0)

LONG TERM DANGER IN MICRO MANAGING POLICE OFFICERS AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL

Recently Ban the Cams have had some post on emergency personnel being cited by photo enforcement.

I can understand why most people would love to hammer those on the photo enforcement side for being hypocritical.  In fact a most entertaining example was when ATS President Tuton and ATS Executive John Petrozza Ignored PHOTO TICKETS THEMSELVES! (Tuton dealt with it after  it was posted all over the web by www.camerafraud.com  and Petrozza claimed “he never received the ticket and he would never have intentionally ignored a citation.”).    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2597.asp

But it is important to remember that not all Law Enforcement Officers support photo enforcement or are even part of the SCAM! 

In fact a vote by The St. Louis, Missouri Police Officers Association STATED THEIR OPPOSITION TO PHOTO ENFORCEMENT:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2714.asp

Quote:  The St. Louis, Missouri Police Officers' Association on Monday spoke out against the use of red light cameras as a revenue raising tool. The police union adopted a resolution opposing automated ticketing as state lawmakers consider measures that would authorize use of the devices statewide. The group representing rank-and-file police officers stands in opposition to the high-ranking officials represented by the Missouri Police Chiefs' Association.

"Police chiefs serve at the pleasure of the mayor -- they're political jobs," said Jesse Irwin, co-founder of Missourians against Red Light Cameras. "I'm not surprised that the Missouri Police Chiefs' organization would be for the cameras. I'm also not surprised that the men and women out on the street enforcing the law would be against them -- they don't work."

It is important to remember that most Officers are hard working people who put their lives on the line protecting the public!

That is why I want to POINT OUT THE LONG TERM DANGER IN MICRO MANAGING POLICE OFFICERS AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TOO (in addition to drivers). 

DO WE REALLY WANT THEM BECOMING PARINIOD to the point that Ambulance drivers are afraid to run lights or speed WHEN A LIFE MIGHT DEPEND UPON IT for fear of being cited for a technical foul in the MAIL? 

Do we want police officers having to enter in to their decision process whether to break a technical law in responding to a call BECAUSE OF THE PAPERWORK IN DEALING WITH ALL THE PHOTO TICKETS IT MIGHT GENERATE?

Yet photo enforcement MAKES PEOPLE PARINOID.  Photo enforcement’s main bread and butter are TECHNICAL FOULS!  Not safety ones.  That is fact.  Go look at the many towns that write over 50% of their RLC tickets for right turns on red.  (SOME EVEN AFTER FLORIDA law was supposedly changed to outlaw the practice of citing for safe right turns on red).

I DESPISE PHOTO ENFORCEMENT as well as the players WHO DARN WELL KNOW PHOTO ENFORCEMENT IS BEING DONE FOR CASH!  But what we don’t want is making Emergency personnel AFRAID to do their job because they might “get a ticket” for a technical foul in the mail.

Quote from this 2008 article:    “Officials in charge of ambulance services believe the situation is making drivers concentrate more on saving their jobs than the well-being of the patients under their care, even when they are not responding to an emergency call. Receiving just a few speed camera tickets can result in a driver losing his license.”  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1202.asp

Bottom line PHOTO ENFORCEMENT IS A SCAM, more about generating long term tickets, than safety.  SAFETY IS PULLING SOMEONE OVER WHO DRIVES DANGEROUSLY.  NOT SENDING A BILL WEEKS LATER!

Making Police Officers and Emergency Personnel paranoid is just as bad as citing the general public for technical fouls too!   In fact it is more dangerous for it increases response time for the police and medical personnel.

TIME TO BAN THE CAMS!

Posted in: Speed Camera News  | Add a Comment(0)

(Ban the Cams note:  Go to the read more and see the Maps provided by StopBigBrotherMD showing what Mount Rainier did to CHURN TICKETS!)

Before

 
After

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2010/08/mount-rainier-brentwood-lowered-speed.html

Sunday, August 15, 2010
Mount Rainier, Brentwood Lowered Speed Limits at Camera Sites
The town of Mount Rainier recently began using a speed camera on the 3700 block of Rhode Island Avenue (US Route 1). StopBigBrotherMD has discovered that the speed limit at that camera site was recently lowered by 10mph, from 35mph to 25mph. Photos taken in the first week of August by a concerned citizen show the 25mph speed limit just north of 37th street. The speed limit north of the current camera site is 35mph, with the camera site located about 45 yards south of the 25mph sign (marked on the photo below, partially concealed by trees and other obstacles).   An image extracted from Google street view shows the same site taken before the camera deployment. Notice that the 25mph sign is not present in these legacy images.

 
Before 
 

After

A 25mph zone did exist previously on Rhode Island Avenue southbound, but started south of 37th street, approximately 500 feet south of the point where it is at now. Before the new 25mph sign the speed the limit in the section around the camera was still posted as 35mph.

We also discovered that there was previously a 35mph speed limit sign just south of 37th street in the northbound lane, marking the (former) end of that 25mph zone. Now that sign was removed and has been replaced by a 25mph sign a short distance away.
 

Read more: MD: Games Speed Camera Vendors and Cities Play, ALSO TOWN DENIES FOIA AT SCAMERA SITE!

Posted in: Legislative News  | Add a Comment(0)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3247.asp

California Legislature to Authorize Photo Parking Tickets
California legislature approves parking ticket cameras while cracking down on municipalities issuing administrative traffic tickets.

The California state Senate last week gave preliminary approval to legislation giving local governments the green light to install automated ticketing machines on street sweepers to generate parking tickets. The measure, introduced by state Assemblyman Steven C. Bradford (D-Gardena), passed in the lower chamber in April by a 49 to 24 vote. It would go to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) upon a final vote by the Senate and an Assembly vote to approving the upper chamber's amendments. On Friday, the full legislature sent a related measure cracking down on municipalities that have been using an unauthorized civil fine system to bypass state traffic laws for speeding and red light camera tickets.

"Streetsweepers operating throughout our nation and the world remove from streets and roads unnecessary pollutants, contaminants, chemicals, trash, and debris, which provides significant environmental and sanitation benefits, thereby protecting the environment and contributing to the health of people in communities worldwide," Assembly Bill 2567 states. "It is also the intent of the legislature that this article shall provide a single statewide standard for the use of camera enforcement technology on streetsweepers to help ensure continuity in program implementation and enforcement by local public agencies that desire to implement camera enforcement systems."

Under the program, a private company would install and maintain the cameras set up on streetsweepers to prey on the owners of vehicles who may be confused by unclear signage or otherwise unaware of the sweeping restrictions. The private company would mail tickets to owners two weeks after the photographs are taken. A similar program failed in Chicago, Illinois after officials realized that the camera photographs needed to capture images of the vehicle and the parking restriction signs together for the ticket to hold up in court. For the California program, the for-profit vendor will have the final say when a motorist contests a ticket.

"If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, he or she may request an administrative hearing with the citation processing agency (which may be the same as the issuing agency or may be a public or private contractor) within 21 days following the mailing of the results of the initial review," the official legislative analysis of the bill explained.

Read more: CA Legislature lets FOR PROFIT COMPANIES be "enforcers" and JUDGE on parking tickets!