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."

Another town to dump the cameras

Residents of Monroe, WA fought tooth and nail to put an end to this unconscionable assualt on liberty. And they won.

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.

Do it for the children

So says Rahm Emanuel. According to Rahm (aka the "Godfather," whose motto is to never let a crisis go to waste), revenue cameras are all about the children and are part of an overall strategy to protect the children. He wants us to believe that it's not about the revenue. Ok, so why aren't you using that money to, well, actually do something for the children. Nope. Gotta burn that money on some other big government scheme!

Who will protect our children from a government run amok? Who will protect our children from someone who would trash the Constitutional right to confront an accuser? If you want to do something to protect the children, how about giving them a country that values freedom and Constitutional rights.

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.

Why no one in Bluff City stood up to the camera clowns

Well, the Bluff City speed cameras are about to be turned back on, the speed limit will be reduced and the length of the speed trap will be extended. The city "leaders" continue to maintain the incredulous position that the extension of the speed trap is for "traffic calming." In any event, some of my non-local readers might be interested in knowing why no one in Bluff City would bother showing up at the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting to complain. It's simple, really.

1. Very few people actually live in the speed trap. It's in a commercial area.


2. Very few people live in Bluff City to begin with and, those that do, benefit greatly from it because nearly 100% of the violaters are from outside of Bluff City. Bluff City has a population of under 1,700 people, but yet they pull in millions from these two speed cameras. You do the math. It allows the citizens of Bluff City to have a much larger government than they otherwise would and they don't have the burden of having to pay for it.


3. The area of the speed trap is essentially strip-annexed into Bluff City. The center of mass of the population of Bluff City is well outside of the speed trap. Depending on the direction of travel, many residents of the area that has been historically known as Bluff City can partially or entirely avoid the speed trap, particularly if they are traveling toward Elizabethton or Bristol.

In other words, why should the citizens of Bluff City care? You're paying for it! It's the new American way - get others to pay for stuff that you want. Whenever one group gets all the benefits and pays little of the costs, what do we expect will happen? It's the same thing that we see happening when over half of the citizens of this country pay no income tax....but that's an issue for another rant.

Bluff City's Next Attempt at a Traffic Camera Scam

Here's a warning to folks who travel 11-E. In light of the recent shut-down of the speed camera in the southbound lane, the "city" of Bluff City wants to expand the ridiculous 45 mph speed zone further up the highway so they can keep their traffic scamera alive. As part of this process, it appears that they may be doing a traffic study, using the little trailer that records people's speeds and shows their speed on a sign board as they pass. Traffic studies are required for all new speed cameras under the new Tennessee law and it may be that they are doing this as part of their plan to extend the speed trap and "reinstall" (or re-activate) the speed camera.

Here's the trick - they have located the trailer just a few yards inside of the current 45 mph speed zone, but are measuring speed outside of the 45 mph zone. They basically placed their trailer right behind the sign where the speed limit changes. The sign on the trailer shows 45 mph and it is "inside" of the speed zone, but is set to measure cars that are clearly outside of the speed zone. That way, they can say "we set up a traffic study in the 45 mph zone and most people were exceeding the speed limit." They won't bother telling anyone that they were actually measuring speed in a 55 mph zone. THESE PEOPLE WILL STOP AT NOTHING WHEN IT COMES TO STEALING YOUR MONEY!

I note that this speed measuring trailer was turned off yesterday, but look for a rigged traffic study to go along with the expanded speed limit. This should be illegal. If that camera is turned on, anyone who gets a ticket should challenge the validity of the traffic study that may be being prepared with this speed measuring radar trailer.

Better yet, Bluff City should be disbanded and have its charter revoked. It is a dysfunctional government that seems to exist primarily to keep jobs for a few bureaucrats and few policemen.

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.