More evidence that red light cameras are all about the money

The State of Illinois tried to hide all of its enforcement data in an encrypted/locked Excel file so that those freedom-loving people who requested the data under a Freedom of Information Act request would get useless data.  Why don't they want the liberty-minded to see the data?  Could it be that the data proves that red light cameras make intersections less safe?  Isn't that really the only logical concluision? Here is the story.

It's about revenue, not safety

This article really does "say it all" about red light cameras.  Money quote:

A comprehensive report conducted by the Federal Highway Administration found that the presence of red light cameras at traffic intersections increased the likelihood of rear-end crashes by 14.9 percent and the number of injuries in traffic intersections by 24 percent. Red light cameras also do little to prevent “T-bone” accidents, where the side of one vehicle is impacted by the front or rear of another vehicle, as those accidents often occur when the driver is not paying attention, and not simply disregarding a red light.

Simply put, these people do not care a whit about your safety.  It is all about the bucks in their coffers.

Rear-end wrecks up 44% at intersections with cameras

But yet the St. Petersburg council really doesn't want to do too much about it.  They could lengthen yellow times, but that would lower their "profits."

Redlight Camera Contractor at Center of Bribery Scandal

When I told you these things were all about the money, I wasn't joking.  http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_central/article_61a2f12c-9d34-11e2-b390-0019bb2963f4.html

Red Light Camera Company Payola?

"Redflex allegedly had a few associates giving lavish gifts to a Chicago city leader to get a contract extension for their red light cameras. "

Is anyone really surprised by this. I've been saying for years that these cameras are all about the money.  Anyone who supports them ought to be summarily ran out of office for even being associated with these scams.

Who is the Traffic Safety Coalition?

It is a non-profit group that wants to save Riverside's traffic enforcement program.  "Spokesman David Goldenberg said its mission is to focus on measures that improve road safety, with a specific focus on traffic cameras.  He also acknowledged the group’s largest source of funding is Redflex Traffic Systems, the company that runs Riverside’s camera program." (emphasis added)

Oh yeah, there's that.  Why do the politicans even give these people an audience?

What he said!

Red light cameras are all about the money.  The politicans have forgotten that they work for the people and not the other way around.  Money quote:

Where are the studies and data that show the cameras increase safety? And better yet, where is the list of alternatives and the studies on those? Why weren’t these things presented to me? Don’t tell me I should have investigated these myself, that’s what I pay you for. Would you go to your boss at your private-sector job with a new idea and nothing to back it up?


OK, I have some alternatives; replace the yellow light with a strobe light to blind people, pop up spikes, swing down gates. Ridiculous? No, I have the studies to prove these will reduce accident. I’ll show them to you at some later date.

I haven’t even heard from you just exactly what you’re trying to accomplish. Who runs red lights? Lunatics and people who didn’t see the light. Cameras aren’t going to prevent that.

Enforcement Camera Companies Get Their Butts Handed to Them

Last year, the Tennessee legislature changed the law so that red light enforcement cameras could not be relied upon for the issuance of tickets for "rolling rights on red" unless an officer actually witnessed the infraction.  As a result of that, the number of tickets from the red light cameras dropped precipitiously.  Redflex and American Traffic Solutions, the two companies that build and profit from these cameras challenged the law's constitutionality.  They lost. The interesting thing is that, after the law changed, accidents (and particularly rear-enders) declined.  The idiot cop in the article attributes the decline in the accidents to the photo program "instill[ing] better driving habits."  Apparently, the idea that people do not slam on their brakes irrespective of safety to avoid a camera ticket for a close light never crossed his mind.  He may has well said "this program gives the people who write my paychecks lots of money to spend and I will give up every shred of credibility to keep it in place."

The judges were right

This retired news editor laments that a panel of judges unanimously threw out a $425 red light camera ticket on the basis of the fact that the officer did not see the infraction.  The judges ruled that the photographic evidence was hearsay and was therefore excludable.  Hearsay is inadmissable unless there is an exception.  There is no exception for photographs.  Even Wikipedia has a decent explanation of hearsay and explains that hearsay applies to more than verbal statements.  Why do we have hearsay rules?  The primary reason is so that the trier of fact can evaluate the credibility of the statement.  The trier of fact has no way of evaluating the credibility of a camera.  You don't have to spend too much time online to figure out that videos and photographs are both easily faked.

Apparently, it is more important to the author that California's $16 billion deficit be addressed than for people to get a fair and constitutional trial.

Johnson City Rear-end Crashes Up, Revenue Down

The headline says it all:  "Rear-end crashes up, revenue down." Unfortunately, you cannot actually read the article unless you are a paid subscriber, but you can see the headline and get a short summary of the article.  I read the article in the paper version that I found and really, the headline does say it all.  There was a statistically insignificant decrease in other accidents, but rear-end crashes were up markedly.  The reason that revenue is down is that Johnson City is no longer able to screw people with a violation for a rolling right on red unless the police actually see the violation and, as a result of the lower amount of fines, Redflex gets a bigger piece of the blood money. 

Johnson City has long had a problem with rear-end crashes.  According to a senior police official, Johnson City has historically had one of the highest accident rates in the state and most of them were rear-enders.  This was stated prior to the installation of the red light scameras, which easily leads to the conclusion that these cameras were never about safety and always about revenue.  These cameras frequently malfunction and are being used for surveillance of citizens in addition to revenue.  I have personally seen these cameras flash when cars weren't even in the intersection. Unbelievable.

Hey, it's Unconstitutional!

Bluff City has responded to the class action lawsuit against it. It sounds like, while the plaintiffs made many arguments, they did not address the constitutionality of the fines in Bluff City. As I stated before (in much greater detail here), I believe there is a good argument to be made that their fine structure was unconstitutional under the Tennessee constitution. Article VI Section 15 of the Tennessee Constitution plainly states that "No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this state that shall exceed $50, unless it is assessed by a jury of his peers." The original Bluff City ordinance charged a $40 administrative fee on top of a $50 fine and that administrative fee was nothing but a fine by a different name. GO GET 'EM!!

Camera Scam Might Prevent you from Buying a Home

Governments are now turning over unpaid traffic scamera tickets to collection agencies. This can have a significant adverse impact on your credit score. It could keep you from buying a home, cause you to pay higher mortgage rates, etc. Since most insurance companies check your credit score, it might also prevent you from getting good rates on your car insurance.

Aren't these all things that are great for local economies so the local government can have a few more bucks in the short term? Isn't it good news that your local housing inventory continues to build due to fewer and fewer buyers who have good credit? Won't it be great when you get into an accident and learn that you (or your UIM carrier) will have to pick up the tab because the other guy cancelled his insurance because he could no longer afford it.

The use of these cameras is so short-sighted. We get the government we deserve.

Roads Being Made Less Safe to Increase Revenue

Yet another report shows that red light cameras increase accidents. That's no surprise. PennDot has raked in over $21 million for their portion of the revenue from the cameras. So, do you think they care if you get in a wreck? Have they taken the cameras down? Nope. Despite this study, they will keep the cameras and make the roads less safe so that they may have more money to spend.

It's all about the money.

A lawyer to love

As dispicable as some lawyers are, you just have to love a guy that defends people against these unconstitutional traffic scameras for free. That's right, attorney Aaron Delgado is defending those who have received tickets for free. He says he has gotten more than a dozen tickets dismissed and generally attacks them based on them not being regularly tested for accuracy.

If I gave a "This Bud's for You" award, this guy would earn today's award, hands down.

We're watching you anyway, SO GET OVER IT!!

That's the fair implication of The People's Republic of Farragut's photo enforcement enforcement manager's words to the "TEA Party" members at a meeting regarding the Republic's red-light camera system. According to Ben Harkins, the photo enforcement manager, "Love or hate red-light cameras, surveillance has been with us for many, many years."

Not surprisingly, he also thinks Tennessee's new law that prohibits traffic cameras for citing right turns on red is "misguided." Considering how the vast majority of these red light tickets are for "rolling" rights on red (that cause nearly no accidents anyway), I suppose Mr. Harkins sees the writing on the wall and realizes that his job could be in jeopardy. Well, BOO HOO.

Maybe he should have been a little more direct: "Dear subject, the government is watching you. We want to know your every move. We want to know where you go and who you associate with. It's in your best interest. Trust us. Nothing bad can come from this. We will take care of you. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. This is for your protection. We know what's best. Bwaahaaahaaahaaa."

Winnipeg Results Show Red Light Cameras Aren't Working

The number of people killed at intersections in Winnipeg, Manitoba is basically unchanged for years after the enforcement cameras came into use. While I really believe the statistics shown in the article are to erratic to mean much, they certainly do not show that the cameras provide any material safety benefit. If they can't show a benefit, then why have them? The purpose of these cameras is to take money from your pocket and use it to enrich companies with powerful lobbyists and to give play money to politicians so they can buy votes. DON'T BE FOOLED.

Mindless Culprits

After a speed camera in the U.K. was set on fire for the second time in a few weeks, a spokesperson for the Safer Roads Partnership "blasted the 'mindless culprits', claiming the damage put motorists and pedestrians at risk." She then goes on to lament that the "irresponsible perpetrators should realise the cameras are put in place to protect road users."

Meanwhile, John Danneskjold, spokesman for Americans Who Love Liberty*, blasted politicans who install speed cameras and red light cameras as "mindless culprits" who would rather defecate on the Constitution than actually read it. He stated that "their appetite for revenue and the corresponding ability to use that revenue to buy votes and thereby cement their political power is a sad statement on American politics and culture. We have allowed ourselves to be ruled by a political class that is more concerned with cementing its own power over the populace than with liberty and the freedoms entrusted to us by our founding fathers. It's time for that to change."

*No, Americans Who Love Liberty does not exist as a formal organization....but perhaps it should.

Judge Rules that Cops Can't Write Red Light Tickets

A Broward Co., Florida judge has ruled that cops can't write red light tickets because they are more expensive and create points on a driver's license when compared to red light cameras. He has held that red light tickets issued by a police officer are unconstitutional, essentially because it's the same infraction but creates a different punishment, based solely on who/what generated the ticket. In other words, there is no equal protection under the law as required by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.

Of course, the reason most states treat traffic camera tickets differently is to avoid the entire issue of it being a criminal matter. They feel they can avoid the confrontation clause of the applicable Constitutions if they make a red light ticket "a civil matter."

It seems to me that if you have one offense with two different levels of punishment (depending solely on how the ticket is issued), then both statutes should be unconstitutional under the same reasoning. The judge had no reason to reach that issue because that was not the issue in front of him. However, it stands to reason that the same argument could and should be used in red light camera cases. In both circumstances, you have the same offense but are treated differently based solely on how the ticket is issued. That is unequal on both sides of the equation.

Busted!

An American Traffic Solutions EXECUTIVE was "suspended for an uncertain amount of time" when he got caught posing as a citizen and posting positive spin about traffic cameras. A spokesman for the company described the outed EXECUTIVE as being passionate for the company but said he went about promoting it the wrong way. MY. BUTT. He just got caught. Note that nowhere in the article did you see the phrase "without pay" to go along with his suspension.

This industry will stop at nothing to convince the populace that these cameras are desired. We can expect that the traffic camera industry will pay to have studies done with pre-ordained results. We can expect that the industry will hire lobbyists and PR firms. We can expect that they will make promises to crooked politicans of vast wealth that they can squander on their pet vote-buying projects.

They will stop at nothing. Use your common sense. If someone is advocating these unproven and unconstitutional devices, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Traffic Enforcement Camera Quotes of the Day

This Jeff Ward opinion piece is chock full of traffic camera / freedom goodness:

"Because once our civic leaders begin to see law enforcement as just another revenue stream, you won't be able to tell the difference between the cops and the criminals."

"[red light cameras are] a despicable abomination that needs to go the way of the Humvee."