By James Baxter, NMA President

The report is in from Baytown, TX, on the results of the city’s red light ticket camera program.

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 (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.

• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
• City Manipulates Report To Make Ticket Cameras Appear Useful
• Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double
• Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents
• Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras

By Jim Baxter, NMA President

Recently, groups opposed to the use of ticket cameras have discovered that companies that promote and profit from the installation of ticket camera systems have been setting up fake organizations, or “front groups” to convey the illusion that there are local citizen groups who favor automated ticketing of motorists.

There is also the attempt to imply that these citizen based organizations are solely concerned about improving traffic safety.

Despite a seemingly blind mainstream media, it has been obvious to even casual observers that organizations like “Stop Red Light Running” were just shills for the ticket camera industry.

Until recently, the formation of local pro-camera ticket groups, was not recognized as a centrally orchestrated campaign to sell or protect ticket camera installations. However, recent discoveries and comparisons show that 15 or more websites for a like number of different communities are the creation of one company with ties to Automated Traffic Solutions (ATS), a leading purveyor of ticket camera systems.

Of late these front groups have been used to oppose local referendums where residents are given the opportunity to vote for the removal of ticket cameras. This opposition includes the funding of legal challenges and P.R. campaigns.

It is not illegal or unethical for a private company to attempt to protect its financial interest.

Where the line is crossed, in this instance, is the creation of the pretense that there is organized community support for ticket cameras and that support is based on safety concerns.

There’s no doubt that there are individuals who have been duped into believing that ticket cameras can reduce accidents.

After all, hasn’t that been what elected officials, police chiefs and government “experts” have told them. ”It’s just the ‘rabble rousers’ who are mad because they got a ticket that are objecting to the cameras.”

But, whenever community organizations have evolved, they have consisted of local people who know a “public-private” snow job when they hear it and also know ticket cameras are about raising revenue and safety be damned.

These real community organizations are the ones that speak the truth and they want ticket cameras gone.

Image Credit (Snake Oil Bottle)

• 9 Cities Where Citizens Voted To Ban Ticket Cameras
• Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras
• FCC Conspires To Protect Ticket Camera Corporation
• Tennessee Ticket Cameras: Can You Solve This Puzzle?
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed

This story from 10TV News in Ohio shows that Columbus, Ohio’s program is one of the worst in that respect:

According to Columbus policy, a driver has to pay $95 to have a hearing.  If the driver does not pay, he or she loses.  If he or she pays late, the payment rises to $120 and the driver could wind up at collections. [...]

10 Investigates wanted to know how often the policy catches innocent drivers and forces them to pay just to get a hearing.  We found plenty of cases.

In 2009, we found 60 cases.  There were 71 cases the previous year.  That is about 14 percent of the people who contest their tickets just are not guilty.

10 Investigates tracked down several of them and brought them to our studios.

“I feel like its highway robbery,” said Janice Henry, who was found not guilty.  “It’s just not fair.”

Dorothy Stills said that she had to use her child support credit card to prove that she was innocent.  She said that she had no other money.

“It’s totally unfair,” Stills said.  “It’s unfair to anyone, even if you’ve got a good paying job.”

This isn’t the end of the story. It actually gets worse:

Even more insulting, some drivers said, is what happens after you prove you’re innocent.  The city keeps your money for at least 60 to 90 days, Aker reported.

“I think the City of Columbus should be ashamed of itself,” said Joshua Dressler, a nationally renowned law professor, who has authored volumes of articles and textbooks on criminal law.

According to Dressler, the system violates a fundamental concept of American justice.

“This system turns everything on its head,” Dressler said.  “It basically requires a citizen to prove himself or herself innocent of the infraction and requires them to effectively pay the penalty just to get themselves into court.”

This exchange with the City Council President gives some insight into how the city justified its ticket camera program:

Columbus City Council President Mike Mentel was asked why he sponsored a law that required the upfront payments.

“We are assuring people show up (to court),” Mentel said.  “If they have the adequate evidence, then the money will be returned to them.”

Early on, Mentel seemed to think anyone who got a ticket must be guilty.

“If you don’t want to face this problem at all, don’t run a red light,” Mentel said.

After Aker told Mentel of cases like Stills, Mentel seemed to have a change of heart.

“Let’s get it done,” Mentel said.  “Let’s not have a debate and talk about it.  Let’s get it corrected.  Let’s help this lady.  Let’s help other people in her circumstance.”

Like most cities with ticket camera programs, the local politicians were too blinded by the potential revenue to see the terrible situation they’ve created for drivers in their city. It’s a story we’re seeing far too often. However, thanks to investigations like this one, more and more people are starting to see ticket cameras for what they really are: a scam.

• Red-Light Camera Mistakenly Tickets Soldier Serving In Iraq
• Can Missouri Red-Light Camera Tickets Be Thrown Away?
• Red Light Camera Tickets Innocent Driver Yet Again
• St. Louis Aldermen Don’t Have To Worry About Paying Tickets
• Bait And Switch: Funds Diverted Away From Trauma Centers

However, with the spread of ticket cameras across the country, it looks like that apathy is starting to disappear.

For example, look at what’s happening in Lynnwood, Washington according to KIRO Radio:

So many drivers in Lynnwood are challenging tickets from traffic cameras, it’s causing a backlog in the court system.

There just aren’t enough courtrooms to hear the appeals. The city’s court administrator says right now they’re scheduling hearings all the way into September.

Lynnwood isn’t the only city where there has a been a huge number of drivers fighting back. Kansas City’s ticket camera program has generated a large backlog of court appeals as well.

The good news is that the increased in court challenges has a measurable effect on the profitability of ticket camera programs — it makes them substantially less profitable. And when there’s no profit, the ticket camera programs will disappear.

With fifteen states already banning ticket cameras, court challenges increasing, and lawsuits associated with most cities’ ticket camera programs, we’re well on our way to ridding our streets of these automatic ticketing machines for good.

• 58% Of People Who Fought Traffic Tickets In Washington D.C. Won
• The Rise Of The Ticket Camera “Front Group”
• Ticket Cameras May Be Used To Enforce Text Messaging Laws
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed
• 9 Cities Where Citizens Voted To Ban Ticket Cameras

By Gary Biller, NMA Executive Director

Former Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist ruled that using red-light ticket cameras on state roads was illegal. Current Governor Crist just signed a bill into law reversing his prior position. It is too bad that the governor didn’t listen more to his attorney general alter ego, particularly in light of an investigative report by Charles Elmore, a staff writer with the Palm Beach Post.

In the 70 days after February 21, 2010, the date when the city of West Palm Beach installed red-light ticket cameras at three intersections, traffic accidents increased from prior levels and so did revenue generation for both the city and state. Elmore found that in March 2010, the first full month of ticket camera operation, 2675 photo tickets were issued at $125 each, for total revenue of $334,375. The state law signed by Crist will increase the cost of each citation to $158 as of July 1, 2010, and the state will keep $70 to $100 of each fine. That is almost certainly the reason that the answer to the question posed in the title of this piece is “yes.”

A “yes” answer would also mean that Gov. Crist ignored the results of multiple studies over several years that show accident rates increasing at intersections equipped with photo enforcement. The West Palm Beach statistics simply are another case in point.

The most telling comment in Elmore’s report is the quote attributed to West Palm Beach Traffic Division Director Dan Weisburg. “If a cop saw someone run a red light and gave them a ticket, no one would bat an eye,” he said. “Why is the camera a big deal?”

Let us enumerate some of the ways, Mr. Weisburg.

1. A police officer witnessing an alleged violation uses observation to take into account the circumstances surrounding the incident, and can also use discretion as warranted. Ticket cameras are silent sentinels that provide sketchy views and leave everything to interpretation.
2. An officer making a traffic stop can make a positive identification of the driver. Not so with ticket cameras. Photo tickets are sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, regardless of who was driving at the time of the incident, under the assumption that the owner is guilty until proven otherwise.
3. An actual traffic stop allows the driver to interact with the officer, not only providing perspective to the situation, but also making the driver aware that he is even being charged with a violation. Photo tickets arrive in the mail a few weeks after the alleged incident, making it difficult to recall all of the circumstances, thereby impeding the ability to prepare a ticket defense. In some cases, the mailed ticket does not reach the intended party, but that party is still responsible for the consequences of a non-response, up to and including increased fines and/or a suspended license.
4. A ticketing officer can be questioned in court, affording the defendant an opportunity to explore the facts of the case in front of a judge and/or jury. Ticket camera evidence can only be taken at face value by the court.

These reasons, and others, fall under that pesky “right to due process” most people find essential when dealing with the justice system.

• Essential Material For Ticket Camera Activists
• Guilty in Ohio: Speeding Convictions by the Art of Observation
• Red Light Camera Wrongly Tickets Woman Who Was Out Of State
• 10 Reasons To Oppose Red-Light Cameras
• Grassroots Effort Needed to Stop PASS Act

In past years, they would often print quotes from the ticket camera companies as fact, they didn’t question the statistics given to them by local government, and any dissenting opinions were relegated to one sentence at the end of the article.

Things have changed over the last year or so though — the tables have turned and now the majority of articles on ticket cameras are negative. All across the country, local newspapers and TV stations are investigating the reality of their cities’ ticket camera programs and they’re not pleased with what they’re finding.

This editorial by the Las Cruces Sun-News (which has supported the cameras in the past) is just one example:

From the beginning, we’ve maintained that red-light enforcement cameras could potentially serve as an effective traffic safety device at some of our city’s busiest intersections. But, we’ve also been troubled by the city’s secretive administration of this policy.

If every there were an effort that demands total transparency, the red-lights cameras would be it. Instead of paying upfront to have the cameras installed and monitored, the city has contracted with a private company called Redflex Traffic Systems. For every $100 ticket issued, $50 goes to Redflex, $25 to the city and $25 to the state. Obviously, Redflex has a strong incentive to issue as many citations as possible.

[...]

What we haven’t learned yet is whether the cameras are having any effect, other than monetarily. Have accidents been significantly reduced at the intersections where the cameras have been posted? For what it’s costing local drivers, one would certainly hope so.

Thanks to the efforts of everyday citizens, and organizations like the NMA, these kind of editorials are becoming more and more common. The impact that this kind of press can have is substantial. Ticket cameras have been voted down in every city where they’ve been on the ballot.

Whenever you get a chance, take the time to send a letter to editor to your local newspaper or write your legislators and let them know how you feel about ticket cameras. Let’s keep this momentum going.

• City Manipulates Report To Make Ticket Cameras Appear Useful
• City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
• Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double
• Ticket Camera Bias Uncovered At The Orlando Sentinel
• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes

Here’s how cities ensure that they scam their residents out of the most money possible — straight out of the camera corporation playbook:

1) Make sure you let the camera company choose where to place the cameras.

Ticket camera corporations are often given carte blanche when it comes to choosing where their cameras are installed. The public is told that the cameras will be placed at the most dangerous intersections, but the ticket camera company has no interest in improving safety. They do have an interest in revenue though, so the cameras always seem to end up at intersections with the most traffic. If an intersection is dangerous, but has very little traffic, the ticket camera corporation will simply refuse to place a camera there.

This is very rarely publicized because no one directly involved (the city and the camera corporation) has any incentive to bring it up. Letting a private corporation make traffic safety decisions looks bad for the city and the ticket camera corporation doesn’t want to jeopardize the extra profits.

Unless the local media is paying attention, the citizens are left completely in the dark — or worse, they only hear the propaganda pushed out by the city and the ticket camera company.

2) Shorten yellow light times or take advantage of existing short yellow lights.

Yellow light timing is often the key to reducing red light violations. According to one study, an increase of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds in yellow-light duration will decrease the frequency of red-light running by at least 50 percent. There are numerous studies showing similar results.

However, the ticket camera corporations know that high violation rates are the key to making money from red light cameras so they either shorten yellow light times or make sure to place the cameras at intersections where the yellow light time is already too short.

The city goes along with it either out of ignorance or because they want the extra money to pad their budget.

Over the past couple years, through the efforts of the National Motorists Association and the media, this trick has been discovered by the public and they have demanded changes.

For example, thanks to citizen outrage in Georgia, there was a law passed that forced a one-second increase in the duration of the yellow warning light at intersections with red light cameras. This resulted in huge drops in red light violations and prompted several cities to disband their ticket camera programs.

3) Strictly enforce right turn on red violations.

After the yellow light timing trick was exposed, the camera corporations started to focus more on another popular way to drive up revenue at ticket camera intersections — right-turn-on-red violations. Cities with ticket cameras sell the cameras to the public by explaining that they’ll help prevent right-angle crashes.  However, the majority of tickets given out inevitably end up being for minor right-turn-on-red violations.

According to the LA Times, Los Angeles officials estimated that 80% of the red light camera tickets are for right turn on red. And according to the Chicago Daily Herald, right turn on red violations have accounted for 90% of the tickets generated in several Illinois communities. These tickets are often given to drivers who actually stopped safely but were inches over the line.

Right turn on red violations have been proven to have very little effect on driver safety. In fact, a review of US Department of Transportation statistics shows that an average motorist could drive a billion miles — the distance from Earth to Jupiter and back — before being involved in an accident that resulted from a motorist making a rolling stop on a right-hand turn.

The chorus of drivers who are outraged by this camera corporation tactic is growing louder and many ticket camera cities are considering dropping right turn on red violations to appease the public.

The bottom line is that if cities installed cameras only at the most dangerous intersections, set appropriate yellow light times, and de-emphasized right-turn-on-red violations, their ticket camera program wouldn’t make enough money to survive. The cities know this and the camera corporations know this and that’s why they do the opposite.

But that’s only if their constituents let them. In each city, it’s ultimately up to the citizens to stand up for their interests and say no to the cameras.

• Help Us Stop Short Yellow Lights
• Increased Yellow Light Times Make Ticket Cameras Unnecessary
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
• 5 Proven Ways To Stop Red-Light Running
• Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents

A recent report by a citizen of Las Cruces, New Mexico illustrates how far cities are willing to go to protect their ticket camera programs.

At the Las Cruces City Council Work Session, there was a 9-month update on the city’s red light camera program. The results show that total crashes at three intersections have gone up from 39 before the cameras to 46 after the cameras.

However, the city wants to keep the ticket camera program and they know that reporting those kind of results could jeopardize its future so they decided to create a formula that shows that the cameras have improved safety in the city.

This is a screenshot of the results that they presented, along with the formula they created called the Severity Index (SI):

As you can see, even using their made-up formula, two of the three intersections were worse off with cameras. They also failed to include data from a fourth intersection — possibly because the results were even more damning.

Furthermore, the single fatal crash that swings the formula in favor of the cameras was a drunk driving fatality that would have occurred with or without the cameras.

Ultimately, the only statistically-significant change from pre-camera to post-camera is a 36% increase in property damage crashes.

While this report out of Las Cruces is a minor example of statistical manipulation, it’s important to take any report from a ticket-camera city with a grain of salt. They have a vested interest in keeping the cameras so they’re likely to only present statistics that make the cameras look effective.

• City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
• Texas DOT Red-Light Camera Report Seriously Flawed
• Another Ticket Camera Success Story
• Red Light Cameras: The Media Wakes Up
• Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents

Traffic judges have declared the camera set-up illegal at a busy intersection near the University of Washington and they’ve tossed tickets out, but the city is still ticketing unsuspecting motorists.

NE 45th Street at Union Bay Place NE is not your typical intersection. [...]

The five-way intersection has a dizzying configuration of lights and signs and turn lanes. And towering over it all are camera systems on the lookout for red-light runners.

Recently they recorded  video of an eastbound car on NE 45th Street. It clearly shows the car cruising through the intersection after the light turned red. The driver got a costly ticket for $124 in the mail.

But on Monday Seattle traffic judge Francis deVilla dismissed the infraction.

He didn’t respond to the KING 5 Investigators’ repeated requests for an explanation.

But the City Attorney’s Office says it was just informed deVilla ruled that the camera system is illegal at the intersection. The judge apparently based that decision on state law which says cameras are restricted to intersections where two arterial roads meet – your typical four-way stop.

But then, NE 45th Street at Union Bay is a five-way intersection.

Chris Ingalls, the King 5 News reporter who wrote the story, asks some interesting questions about the city’s actions:

At $124 a ticket, this could be potentially be a million-dollar intersection for the city since it installed cameras there a year and a half ago.

We’ve learned legal questions were raised months ago in a lawsuit now being heard in federal court.

And the City Attorney’s Office acknowledges that Seattle traffic judge Adam Eisenberg dismissed at least one ticket at the same intersection.

So why does the city continue to issue tickets and fines at a controversial intersection?

The City Attorney’s Office believes the intersection is legal and says it will likely fight all these challenges.

Meantime, the city continues to write an average of 16 tickets a day at that one intersection.

Red light camera programs in Washington are already under fire for charging more for tickets than is permissable under state law. There are currently at least two bills pending in the legislature that would reduce ticket camera fines:

1. Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, is the sponsor of a bill (HB2780) that would cap fines at $25 and mandate longer yellow light times.
2. Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, has offered a similar bill (SB6410) to cap fines at $42.

With all this controversy, perhaps it’s time for Washington to join the 15 states who have banned automated ticketing instead?

• St. Louis Aldermen Don’t Have To Worry About Paying Tickets
• Short Red-Light Camera Grace Period Leads To Ticket Refunds
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
• Minneapolis Refuses To Refund Illegal Ticket Money To Citizens
• Forget Due Process. We’ll Just Wing It.

However, they protected the state’s current ticket camera programs by ensuring that there would be no disruption in ticketing in those cities.

The story was reported on TheNewspaper.com and included this puzzling quote:

“This is a difficult issue for every one of us,” Representative Richard Floyd (R-Chattanooga) said. “We’ve got all of our local governments who want to do this, but if you put it on the ballot and you’d get blown out of the water with it.”

One representative calculated that 85 percent of the public was against cameras, and photo enforcement’s primary legislative advocate, Vice Chairman Vince Dean (R-East Ridge), agreed.

“As has been stated, the public don’t like these [cameras],” Dean said.

It’s clear from this excerpt that the legislators know that Tennessee citizens want ticket cameras to be removed from the state.

The quote is puzzling because state legislators are supposed to represent their citizens’ interests, but they seem more worried about pleasing local government officials.

Normally, this wouldn’t be much of a problem because local governments also represent their citizens’ interests. However, for some reason, local governments aren’t listening to their constituents on this issue. So who are they listening to?

The ticket camera companies.

So, why would local government officials listen to the ticket camera companies over the voters? Can you solve that puzzle?

Government should work for the people, not for corporations. If public opposition to ticket cameras is strong enough that even camera supporters acknowledge that the public strongly opposes them, then why is the legislature even debating the issue? It already knows what the public wants.

• Washington Department Of Transportation Outsources Its Disingenuous Quotes To Ticket Camera Company
• Bernie Madoff & Red-Light Cameras
• 9 Cities Where Citizens Voted To Ban Ticket Cameras
• The Rise Of The Ticket Camera “Front Group”
• Everybody Loves (To Destroy) Ticket Cameras