WMBD/WYZZ TV has the story:

A Chicago traffic camera could cost you hundreds of dollars. It did for Peorian Casandra Davis, who wrote ‘We Hear You’ after getting tickets for something she says she didn’t do. Her ticket charged her $100 for running a red light in Chicago. The only problem is Davis was in Tennessee.

A red-light camera caught a picture of the car in action. The license plates look almost identical, with the exception of one letter. Plus, Davis drives a silver Impala, and the car in the photo is a red Buick.

Surely if she presented the city with proof of their mistake, they would immediately remedy the situation and apologize, right? Maybe not:

Davis says she called Chicago’s Revenue Department and sent proof, but instead of correcting the problem, Chicago increased her ticket to $200. Now Davis is worried she’s driving around with a bad driving record that’s not hers.

As usual, pressure from the media is the only thing that seems to force cities to fix their errors:

After we called the Department of Revenue we got Davis’ ticket overturned. Representatives say they confused some letters on the license plate.

For more information on red light cameras, check out our issue page.

• Red Light Camera Tickets Innocent Driver Yet Again
• Local School Board Wants Ticket Camera Cash
• Red-Light Camera Mistakenly Tickets Soldier Serving In Iraq
• Florida Cities Exploit Legal Loophole For Financial Gain
• Driver Convicted Of Speeding Without Ever Receiving Ticket

The city has claimed that the cameras reduced accidents by 34%, but a little fact-checking proved this assertion wrong:

Is it money or safety? We wanted to know actual numbers of accidents at red light camera intersections to see if they really went down.

When we asked, the LAPD became very defensive. The sergeant in charge told me in an e-mail, “The city would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.”

So we filed a public records request. The department charged us more than $500 for a computer run. When we got the numbers back, they told a different story.

We looked at every accident at every red light camera intersection for six months of data before the cameras were installed and six months after.

The final figures? Twenty of the 32 intersections show accidents up after the cameras were installed! Three remained the same and only nine intersections showed accidents decreasing.

Charging extravagant prices for information requests is a common tactic by cities with ticket camera programs who are trying to hide unfavorable results (one city recently took it one step further and just stopped keeping track once they figured out that accidents were increasing.)

KCAL’s investigation found that several ticket camera intersections in Los Angeles had as many as three times the number of accidents:

At Manchester Avenue and Figueroa Street, accidents more than tripled from five before the cameras were installed to 16 afterwards. Westwood Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard tripled from three to nine. At Rodeo Road and La Brea Avenue, collisions nearly tripled from seven in the six months before the cameras were installed to 20 in the same period afterwards.

So why did accidents increase at camera-enforced accidents?

“People see the light flash and they slam on their brakes,” [local attorney Sherman] Ellison said. “That’s just human nature. As a result, more accidents, more rear end accidents.”

That’s what happened to Dale Stephens, who knew the yellow light up ahead had a camera.

“Because I had that in the back of my mind I knew I had to stop. And it’s so expensive to get a ticket I knew I had to stop. Well they had no inclination to stop,” Stephens said.

“They” are the two cars that hit him from behind.

David Goldstein: “Do you think the red light camera caused the accident?”

Dale Stephens: “Yes, definitely.”

He’s not alone. Study after study show that red-light cameras can actually cause accidents and some cities are taking notice.

Montclaire, Upland, El Monte and Fullerton all discontinued red-light cameras in part because of accidents. Huntington Beach broke its contract before it even officially began.

“There are quite a few studies out there that will show an increase in rear end accidents in these intersections,” a spokesperson from the Huntington Beach Police said.

Thanks to this investigation, at least one city councilman is considering re-evaluating the red light camera program:

[Los Angeles] Councilman [Dennis] Zine says all accidents should be evaluated. He had been told accidents were down due to the cameras and didn’t know the LAPD was excluding many collisions until I told him.

“If that’s the case, we need to re-evaluate this program if in fact we are having more collisions,” Councilman Zine said.

He says he will take the issue to the City Council because the contract for the cameras is up soon. And if they conclude, as we did, that accidents are up, the red light cameras may soon be coming down.

Thankfully, shutting down ticket camera programs is becoming quite a trend these days.

• Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double
• City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
• If It’s Not About The Money, Then Prove It
• Increased Yellow Light Times Make Ticket Cameras Unnecessary
• Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

From the archives of TheNewspaper.com, here is a compilation of nine cities that have voted to ban ticket cameras:

1) Chillicothe, Ohio November 2009

In addition to kicking two camera supporters off the city council, 72 percent of those voting in Chillicothe, Ohio approved a total prohibition on the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. Prior to the vote, in order to protect their revenue stream, Redflex Traffic Systems sent a glossy mailer to every voter while the mayor demanded that the Ohio Supreme Court ban the public from even voting on the issue — a move high court justices swiftly rejected.

2) Heath, Ohio November 2009

In Heath, voters were bombarded with the same advertisements from Redflex, but they failed to persuade a majority. Voters also defeated Mayor Richard Waugh who had introduced photo enforcement as the signature issue of his administration.

3) College Station, Texas November 2009

The city’s automated ticketing vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) bankrolled a front group to conduct mass mailings and push polling in an effort to save the program that would have earned the company more than $11 million over the life of the contract. The ATS-funded group reported raising $71,240 in contributions, but not one dollar came from anyone living in the local community. To supplement the vendor’s effort, the city allocated taxpayer money to send red light camera promotional material to every voter. Despite all this, local citizens still voted to get rid of the cameras.

4) Sulphur, Louisiana April 2009

In a special election, the Southern Louisiana city of 22,000 overwhelmingly rejected photo enforcement. Asked, “Shall Ordinance No. 873, M-C Series adopting automated speed enforcement for the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, be repealed?” eighty-six percent of voters said “Yes.”

5) Cinncinnati, Ohio November 2008

The residents of Cincinnati, Ohio made it clear that photo enforcement is not welcome in the city. A majority of voters approved an amendment to the city charter prohibiting local officials from ever installing either red light cameras or speed cameras. Cincinnati city council members had been trying for the past four years to install the devices that promised to generate between $2 million and $12 million in annual revenue. Advocates were stopped in 2005 when former Mayor Charlie Luken vetoed a camera ordinance saying, “Let’s be honest with the public — we didn’t think about this until we came up with a budget problem.”

6) Steubenville, Ohio November 2006

An overwhelming majority of voters in Steubenville, Ohio rejected the city’s speed camera program in a referendum on whether the city ordinance authorizing the program should stand. With all precincts reporting, 76.2 percent of voters said “no.” The program began in 2005 issuing nearly 7000 tickets worth $85 each to motorists driving as little as 5 MPH over the speed limit.

7) Anchorage, Alaska April 1996

Faced with the overwhelming public and legal backlash, the Anchorage Assembly voted to stop using photo radar on the program’s one-year anniversary on March 13, 1997. That concession was not enough for local activist Alex Gimarc who warned that nothing would stop city leaders from coming back and installing red light cameras and speed cameras at some point in the future. Gimarc led the effort to gather 12,000 signatures to place a referendum on the April 15, 1996 city ballot — far more than the 6958 signatures required. A strong majority approved Proposition Three which amended the city charter to require human police officers to issue traffic citations, effectively banning photo radar.

8) Batavia, Illinois March 1992

On March 17, 1992, two-thirds of eligible voters showed up at the polls to answer the question: “Should the City of Batavia use photo-radar devices to photograph motor vehicles and/or drivers for the purpose of enforcing speed limits?” A total of 63.3 percent said no; just 36.7 said yes. Voters sent a second message as David Waters — the primary proponent of the cameras — met with a crushing defeat in the Republican primary at the hands of Douglas Weigand.

9) Peoria, Arizona March 1991

In 1991, the group Citizens Against Speed Traps formed in Peoria to battle a then-new program that mailed automated speeding tickets on the streets of the Phoenix suburb. The group succeeded in gathering enough signatures on a petition that, less than a year after the cameras were first activated, voters were given the choice of whether to accept or reject photo radar. On March 19, 1991, the claims of Peoria officials that the program was popular turned out to be unfounded — photo ticketing lost in the referendum by a two-to-one margin.

The next time you see a news story claiming widespread public support for ticket cameras, just remember this fact:

Ticket cameras have never survived a public vote.

That’s why the ticket camera companies fight so hard (and spend so much money) to stop citizens from having their say.

Please pass this article on to your friends. Share it online, reprint it, spread the word.

• The Real Reason Ken Livingstone Lost
• Ticket Cameras May Be Used To Enforce Text Messaging Laws
• Ticket Camera Scams Are Plentiful In The D.C. Area
• Majority Of Speed Camera Photos In Arizona Are Unusable
• City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get Their Money

The Beacon News

Unsure why the Kane County Circuit Clerk would send him anything in the mail, Ernie Bolen assumed he’d been summoned for jury duty.

Needless to say, a letter stating he owed $375 for speeding in an Interstate 88 construction zone came as a surprise to 43-year-old Bolen, who says he never saw a ticket or anything notifying him of a court appearance.

“I haven’t seen it,” the Montgomery man said of a citation. “I was like, what the heck is this.”

Court records show the ticket was generated by a tollway construction zone speed camera on May 5. A June 19 court date was scheduled. Bolen, who says he never received any notice of a court date, received a judgement against him and the fines were assessed.

Essentially, Bolen was convicted of speeding without ever having any idea that he had even received a ticket. As is always the case when a city’s camera system makes a mistake, it was described as an “isolated incident.”

Bolen’s situation stems from what officials described as a glitch with an Illinois State Police vendor responsible for generating tickets through speed vans positioned on I-88 and other construction zones around the Chicago area. State Police District 15 Sgt. Jim Jenkner described Bolen’s situation as “isolated,” although he couldn’t say how many tickets could have been issued or how many motorists could have been affected in Kane County.

As the article continues, it becomes clear that this wasn’t an isolated incident at all:

Circuit Clerk Deborah Seyller said problems similar to Bolen’s occurred with tickets issued for hearings on May 15 and June 19, although she couldn’t specify how many cases were impacted.

“They do try to limit how many they file,” Seyller said, estimating the state police do about 100 tickets per court date. “We started getting them before we knew they were coming.”

Under the system the city has set up, this kind of mistake is apparently pretty common:

With the speed cameras, [Circuit Clerk Seyller] said, the ticket doesn’t go to court until after the driver is notified. That comes via a “packet” sent certified mail to the driver and a similar one that goes to the clerk, and with enough time to assure everyone has notice of the court date.

“Every violator gets a packet,” Jenkner said. But Bolen says he received nothing until the missed-court notice arrived. At that point, he called the clerk’s office, was told he had been cited for driving 63 in a 45 mph zone and that it was common for the citations to not make it to the driver.

This all leads to the obvious question, which is how many people have been convicted without their knowledge because of this “glitch” in the ticket camera system?

It’s also important to note that these kind of mistakes are not cheap:

Seyller was surprised to hear Bolen received only the minimum fine, especially without appearing before a judge. She said some drivers have walked away owing more than $600 for a conviction.

But don’t worry everybody, the cameras are for safety, not revenue.

You can read the full story here.

• Red Light Camera Tickets Innocent Driver Yet Again
• Minneapolis Refuses To Refund Illegal Ticket Money To Citizens
• Red-Light Camera Mistakenly Tickets Soldier Serving In Iraq
• Toss Your Virginia Red-Light Camera Ticket?
• What To Do If You Lose Your Copy Of A Traffic Ticket

Here’s a quick overview of what happened:

Troy Carter, a driver with a Louisiana license plate, received a red light camera ticket in the mail from the city of Baton Rouge. The photo showed a Blue Mercury vehicle, which was completely different from the vehicle he owned — a white GMC Yukon XL.

However, both his vehicle and the Mercury shared the same license plate number. The key was that Carter’s vehicle is registered in Louisiana with Louisiana plates while the Blue Mercury is registered in Texas and has a Texas license plate. The ticket should have gone to the owner of the Blue Mercury but instead Troy Carter ended up with completely undeserved ticket out of the blue.

On its website, the city assures residents that this kind of thing won’t happen with the ticket camera program because each ticket is “evaluated by sworn members of the Police Department to verify that a violation has occurred and to determine whether a notice of violation should be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.”

After this kind of mistake, they’re going to have a tough time convincing anyone that their “evaluation process” isn’t just an officer with a rubber stamp.

The story didn’t end there though.

Troy Carter wrote a letter to the city that included visual proof of their mistake. However, instead of apologizing, the city’s response was basically “show up in court or pay the ticket.”

That’s when Carter turned to News 2, a local TV station. A reporter went to District Court — which is where the ticket instructed Carter to go — to ask about the citation. The employees there told him that they couldn’t help him and that he should actually go talk to City Court.  Employees at City Court explained that all they deal with is collecting payments for red light camera tickets and that they couldn’t help him either.

In the end, like Troy Carter, News 2 found it impossible to figure out who was actually accountable for the red light camera appeals system in Baton Rouge.

The station eventually had to go to American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the ticket camera manufacturer, to get the citation dismissed for Mr. Carter.

So how do you fight an undeserved red light camera ticket in Baton Rouge? Unfortunately, the news station wasn’t able to get that answer for their viewers. Apparently the only way to do it is to embarrass the ticket camera company through the local media.

It’s a good thing cameras never make mistakes.

• St. Louis Aldermen Don’t Have To Worry About Paying Tickets
• Red-Light Camera Mistakenly Tickets Soldier Serving In Iraq
• Red Light Camera Wrongly Tickets Woman Who Was Out Of State
• Local School Board Wants Ticket Camera Cash
• Red-Light Camera Contracts Incentivize Ticketing Innocent Drivers

By Gary Biller, NMA Executive Director

The effective way to defeat red-light and speed camera initiatives in your community, or to mount effective opposition to existing installations, is to ratchet up the pressure on local politicians.  It takes a strong grassroots effort to overcome the appeal of a proven revenue generator to financially-challenged municipalities.

The NMA now provides a platform for those grassroots efforts.  Permanently linked on our website, in the photo enforcement section, is “Essential Download for Ticket Camera Activists”.  The download consists of a PDF file with several one-page components which can be presented to decision-makers to educate and inform them of serious issues surrounding the use (and misuse) of ticket cameras.

You can view and print the information packet directly from this page.

The key ingredient to the opposition effort against ticket cameras resides with the community activists who are leading the fight.  They are encouraged to get local signatures, whether by petition or letters, and present this evidence of a constituency opposition to each politician along with the NMA information packet.  A sample petition in the information packet is provided as a signature-gathering aid.

“Essential Download for Ticket Camera Activists” is not just for the use of NMA members.  Fighting the unfair use of ticket cameras impacts a large segment of the driving public, and we are making this information available to anyone who is mounting a fight against photo enforcement.  Spread the word about this information to friends in other cities who are unhappy about existing or proposed ticket camera programs.

The single-page documents in easily-viewed PDF format are listed below.  The executive summaries are designed for efficient review, but also provide web addresses to enable the reader to delve deeper by reading the full studies.

• Traffic Ticket Cameras – NMA position paper, and checklist for other documents
• Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents (Washington Post) – executive summary
• Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red-Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas (North Carolina A&T State University) – executive summary
• Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase if They are Used in Florida? (University of South Florida) – executive summary
• 6 Cities Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times for Profit
• Traffic Ticket Camera Incidents, Part 1 – a compilation by the NMA
• Traffic Ticket Camera Incidents, Part 2 – a compilation by the NMA
• Sample Petition Form To Ban Ticket Cameras

Grab your copy of the entire package here.

• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed
• Increased Yellow Light Times Make Ticket Cameras Unnecessary
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
• Florida Cities Exploit Legal Loophole For Financial Gain
• Grassroots Effort Needed to Stop PASS Act

According to an article by the Arizona Republic, the city’s police department reported that accidents at intersections with red-light cameras more than doubled over the last two years. In the 2007 fiscal year, there were 36 collisions.  In the 2008 fiscal year, there were 73 collisions.

As the article says:

Whether they like photo enforcement [or not], Peoria leaders seem to agree on one thing: it’s not clear whether red light cameras are actually making the city’s streets any safer.

With double the number of accidents, that’s certainly putting it lightly.

The city isn’t letting go of the the cameras that easily though. They insist that it couldn’t be the cameras that are causing the collisions and instead blame road construction.

While it’s true that evaluating traffic safety statistics year to year needs to be done carefully, one of the city’s councilmen makes a good point:

Councilman Ron Aames from the Palo Verde District said the increase suggests that the cameras might actually be making intersections more dangerous.

In response, Deputy City Manager Susan Thorpe said there are “multiple variables” affecting collisions and that the cameras shouldn’t be treated as the “single difference between one year and another.”

Aames replied, “I’m thinking if these numbers were reversed . . . I probably wouldn’t hear these other ways of explaining it.

There are numerous studies showing that red-light cameras lead to increased accidents.  Yet, while cities will trumpet the smallest apparent ticket camera success, they will go to great lengths to avoid the idea that the cameras aren’t working. Especially when the cameras bring in so much revenue ($680,000 since January 2008 in Peoria).

Of course, with more and more poor ticket camera results becoming public, most people have figured out the true purpose of the cameras by now anyway.

• City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
• Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents
• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed
• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
• Ticket Cameras May Be Used To Enforce Text Messaging Laws

The following excerpt from the OregonLive.com article, written by Stacy Mitchell, shows how this flaw can lead to drivers being convicted without knowledge of ever even having been charged:

I live in Maine. Several weeks ago I received a call from someone working collections for Multnomah County. He said I owed the county $353. I was baffled.

It took some time on the phone to sort out what he was talking about. Apparently, while visiting Portland two years ago, in May 2007, I was photographed running a red light.

I was driving a rental car at the time. The rental company turned over my name and driver’s license number. But rather than sending the ticket to my current address — the one on my driver’s license at the time and on file with the Maine Department of Motor Vehicles — officials mailed it to an address I had not lived at for more than four years.

The envelope was returned unopened, but county officials made no further effort to locate me. They did not contact the Maine DMV. Nor did they look in the phone book, where I am, and was at the time, listed.

My court date came in October 2007. Since I failed to show up, I was convicted at the highest fine level. A few months later, with the fine unpaid and me still completely in the dark, Oregon imposed additional fees and suspended my driver’s license.

The suspension was sent out on a national database, which means that, had I been pulled over anywhere in the country in the last year and a half, I could have faced a steep fine and even arrest for driving with a suspended license.

That was not the only consequence of my secret conviction. Shortly after the call from the collections agent, my husband and I were, to our surprise, unable to refinance our mortgage. I learned that my credit score had plummeted almost 200 points, all because of a single item reported in March of this year, long before I received that first phone call: a “seriously past due” fine owed to Multnomah County Circuit Court.

You can read the full article here.

• City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get Their Money
• Driver Convicted Of Speeding Without Ever Receiving Ticket
• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• Maryland Police Refuse To Pay Speed Camera Tickets
• Ticket Camera Scams Are Plentiful In The D.C. Area

This is part of an increasing trend in ticket camera press coverage. Two years ago, the press never mentioned short yellow lights as the potential cause for increased accidents at troublesome intersections. Now it is mentioned in nearly every article on ticket cameras.

It’s becoming clear that cities will not be able to get away with this revenue-enhancing trick for much longer.

Here are few excerpts from the Wall Street Journal editorial:

Laid to rest long ago should have been the pretense that the goal is “safety,” not chasing cash. New York State, sinking under budget shortfalls, last week authorized a batch of new red-light cameras around the state. A recent investigation by the Detroit News showed that even conventional ticket-writing is driven by revenue needs. Said one cop: “When you’re being told how many tickets you need to write, to me that’s a quota.”

Consider: Red-light running and speeding, the two main uses of traffic cameras, are implicated in fewer than 8% of accidents. A far more prevalent cause of nondrunken accidents is driver inattention — one study estimated, in a typical case the driver’s eyes are diverted from the road for a full three seconds or more, fidgeting with a cellphone, disciplining the kids in the back seat, snoozing, blotting up spilled coffee, etc.

[...]

Stop-light cameras are especially pernicious. Where red-light running is a problem, the solution is usually a longer yellow — at least three seconds is the recommended minimum for a 25-mph intersection. Drivers do not blast through red lights on purpose. Even the federal government encourages the use of engineering solutions before installing a red-light camera.

Yet as the late and lamented Rocky Mountain News found when Denver was sizing up intersections for cameras a year ago, many of those deemed accident-prone had yellows timed at the state minimum of three seconds or even less. Citizen groups around the country have more than once raised suspicions of authorities shortening yellows to ring up more tickets. Half a dozen Georgia towns just cancelled their camera contracts after a state law mandating the addition of an extra second to the yellow made them unprofitable.

Even defenders of photo enforcement acknowledge studies showing that red-light cameras (which are designed to be conspicuous to motorists) lead to an increase in rear-end collisions as drivers slam on the brakes. Defenders claim the trade-off is still a net gain because of reduced deadly T-bones in the middle of the intersection. But the real lesson may be that both types of accidents would be reduced by a longer yellow.

Read the full article here.

• Increased Yellow Light Times Make Ticket Cameras Unnecessary
• 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
• 9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing You
• Help Us Stop Short Yellow Lights
• Essential Material For Ticket Camera Activists

By James Baxter, NMA President

For ten years there were credible investigators and investors telling federal regulatory agencies that Bernard Madoff could not be doing what he claimed to be doing, and that in all probability that he was running a Ponzi scheme.

The federal agencies either ignored these accusations or made superficial forays into Mr. Madoff’s affairs and accepted his explanations for his claimed prowess as an investor and money manager, serving the famous and wealthy.

I feel their pain.

For ten years we have been telling anyone who would listen that the ticket camera industry is a scam, that traffic signal management is a disaster, and the combination of the two is culminating in a huge rip off of the driving public. Furthermore, that government greed and the private sector profit motive have teamed up to make our roads less safe by increasing accidents at controlled intersections.

Like Bernie Madoff, these governments and corporations denied our claims and trotted out supposed studies that show ticket cameras are reducing accidents.

In every instance where a relatively unbiased third party investigated these “studies” they found fraud, manipulation, and outright misrepresentation of the data.  The real results verified our claims; Ticket cameras increase intersection traffic accidents. 

They do this in two ways: First, they cause motorists to take unexpected measures, usually abrupt braking, to avoid a traffic ticket. Second, they discourage making improvements to traffic signals, and their operation, if those improvements will reduce revenue generation from the cameras.

When finally embarrassed to take action, the federal government (the same agency that had been promoting ticket cameras) gathered up a collection of mostly shady or self-serving reports from the same governments already caught cooking the books and reported that overall, ticket cameras improved highway safety (like Bernie Madoff was running a legitimate business).

When told of flaws and omissions in the underlying studies the response was usually silence. (For example, a frequently-cited study from Virginia attributed significant reductions to red light violations and subsequent safety improvements to a ticket camera installation, but “forgot” to mention the improvements occurred after yellow light durations were increased.)

Every independent study of red light ticket cameras has found that they increase intersection accidents. Every study by an institution or government with a vested interest in promoting ticket cameras has been rife with inconsistencies, untenable assumptions, and/or outright manipulation to generate pre-ordained results. And, in the latter case they have almost always been caught in the act! Never-the-less the ruse continues. 

Local officials claim the cameras are going up to improve safety and catch dangerous red light runners.  If outside restraints — say mandated minimum yellow light standards — significantly reduce revenue generation, the cameras come down, safety be damned! (Apparently.)

The overriding question is how many times does it have to be proven that ticket cameras do not improve traffic safety, that they are in fact a detriment to traffic safety, and the only reason governments are installing these systems is to generate revenue from entrapped motorists?

When will the press finally catch on?

When will state legislators eliminate the authority that allows local units of government to install and exploit ticket cameras? 

Bernie Madoff has been found out, how about turning a little attention to the ticket camera scam, ten years is long enough to ignore this crime.

• Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed
• Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
• FCC Conspires To Protect Ticket Camera Corporation
• Watch Your Wallet When Driving Through These 10 States
• Ticket Camera Scams Are Plentiful In The D.C. Area