senor honda

By Chris Bruce




Chicago may once have been known as the home of the mob in US with Al Capone running things, but for several years in the 2000s it looks like a completely legal racket may have made the city millions. A recent Chicago Tribune investigation has turned up some disturbing data about how the Windy City's network of red-light cameras used to be operated that may have given out thousands of bogus tickets.

Until 2013, Chicago had a contract with a company called Redflex Traffic Systems to operate its red-light cameras. If they caught someone running the light, the video was supposed to be reviewed twice, and if accurate, the driver received a $100 fine. Redflex and the city each took a portion of the money. However, their arrangement came to an abrupt end when it was eventually discovered that the company was bribing a city official. According to the Chicago Tribune, since 2003, the government netted around $500 million in revenue from the cams.

The new investigation found that drivers might have been getting the worst end of that deal. The Chicago Tribune examined four million red-light tickets going back to 2007. It found massive spikes in the numbers of infractions at several intersections that would last for short periods of time. In one extreme case, a camera that usually ticketed one person per day shot up to 56 per day.

To make matters more confusing, the cameras would occasionally stop giving out tickets for a brief period before and after these spikes. According to the report, that could have indicated maintenance being done, but the city didn't have any record of it. In some cases, the yellow-light times would also decrease during the spikes by as much as a second, as well.

Chicagoans affected by the bad tickets may not be completely out of luck, though. As a result of the Tribune story, a group of city aldermen opened their own investigation. "We want to find out what went wrong, and we want to see refunds where the ticket was wrongly issued," said alderman Scott Waguespack to the paper.

Separately, at about the same time the report was published, a Chicago man filed a federal lawsuit against Redflex and its parent company that asks for $100 million in refunds to drivers, according to CBS News. The case has nothing to do with the ticket spikes; instead, the man claims that the company's alleged bribery makes its contract with the city fraudulent.

senor honda

details
Chicago red-light cameras under fire for unexplained ticket spikes [w/videos] - Autoblog

senor honda

By Pete Bigelow
New Jersey may soon prohibit other states from issuing traffic citations to its residents for alleged violations that were caught on speed or red-light cameras.

Lawmakers in the Garden State have introduced a bill that would stop New Jersey's Motor Vehicles Commission from providing license-plate numbers or other identifying information to another state or an interstate information network for the purpose of doling out a fine.

"I've been getting loads of complaints from people," state senator Nick Sacco told The Star-Ledger, the state's largest newspaper. "They drive to Virginia to visit relatives. They go through Maryland. They come back home and start receiving tickets in the mail. And they swear that they're not speeding; that they're keeping up with the traffic."

Introduced in the state assembly last month and in the state senate last week, the bill targets any speed-control devices that utilize cameras, vehicle sensors and are capable of automatically producing a recorded image of an alleged violation. It has a measure of bipartisan support: Republican Declan O'Scanlon sponsored the bill in the assembly, while Sacco and another Democrat sponsored the bill in the senate.

One of the main criticism of the speed and red-light cameras is they penalize the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the driver of the vehicle. When weeks pass by before owners even know they have been been implicated by a camera, that's a problem.
"How are you going to defend yourself against that," asks Steve Carrellas, the head of the New Jersey chapter of the National Motorists Association, which has applauded the state's proposed legislation. "In the old-fashioned way, a police officer looks at your license and you at least have a chance to have some explanation or you have the opportunity to talk and the officer can use the appropriate discretion."



Traffic Cameras Becoming A Widespread HeadacheThe bill comes at a time of increased scrutiny for automated traffic-control devices. Last month, the Chicago Tribune revealed there were sudden and unexplained surges in the number of traffic tickets doled out by red-light cameras in the city. Violations would spike for a number of days then "abruptly dropped back to their previous levels."

Speed cameras have been so unreliable in Baltimore that city officials decided to scrap the system and spend $450,000 to replace it last year, and the same system is now facing criticism in nearby Howard County, where the Baltimore Sun reports that the speed cameras show more violations for cars speeding than there were actual cars on the road.

New Jersey isn't the first state to seek such legislation. In fact, it's proposed law is based on one in South Dakota that's been signed into law. The bill passed through South Dakota's state legislature earlier this year, in part because lawmakers were angered by speed traps set across the state line shared with Iowa and said it did not provide "due process with the law."

Does Automated Enforcement Improve Safety?

Speed and red-light cameras are supposed to make driving safer by changing driving behavior over time, but increasingly, critics say the safety benefits are dubious and the cameras are nothing more than revenue generators for states and municipalities. Rather than improve traffic safety, a 2008 study conducted by University of South Florida researchers found they "significantly" increase crashes.

Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, believes the cameras add a net benefit for safety, but concedes the ongoing stream of problems are breeding mistrust. He's concerned about New Jersey's pending legislation."It sends a dangerous message that if you go into another state, you can't get into trouble, so that does raise concerns," he said. "It's a sign of the times, though. A lot of these automated enforcement programs haven't been run in model ways."

He cites the examples of Chicago, Baltimore and other notable problems in Washington D.C. as specific examples of problematic deployments of traffic-control cameras. More broadly, he said the idea that speed or red-light cameras serve primarily as revenue generators for local municipalities has contributed to a backlash. At least 31 local municipalities have put traffic-camera measures on their ballots since 1991, and voters opposed their use 30 times.

Position of cameras should be apparent to motorists, Adkins argues. He says they should be well-marked with signs along the roadway, advertised on social media and discussed openly within communities. The goal, he says, should be to change driver behavior, not implement a "gotcha" scheme that leads to municipalities becoming dependent on new revenues.

"It's important for communities to be open about it," he said. "When you publicize it, the behavior really does change over time, and then drivers don't just change their behavior at one intersection, they start to carry it to the next intersection. It changes the way we view intersections."



"New Jersey Is At A Crossroads"Two potential complications for the New Jersey bill: It is unclear how the state's Motor Vehicles Commission would prohibit information from being passed along an interstate network for automated enforcement, but still allow for the flow of driver information in the case of a real-life police officer pulling over a New Jersey driver in another state. A spokesperson for the agency said it could not comment on the pending legislation.

Two states, California and Arizona, treat traffic charges generated from cameras as criminal offenses. In the case of the South Dakota law, US News and World Reports raises the possibility they may be exempt from the law.

Within New Jersey, traffic-enforcement cameras are, of course, still allowed. The Garden State is at the tail end of a multi-year pilot program in which its evaluating the effectiveness of the devices in about two dozen communities. The program is set to end in December. It would need to be renewed by the state legislature.

"New Jersey is at a crossroads," Carrellas said. "This pilot program is coming to an end, and it's had lots and lots of problems. ... I think we're seeing the start of the downfall of automated enforcement. We're seeing an uptick now, and we expect to this to catch on in other states."

senor honda

By Pete Bigelow




Early in his tenure, Gov. Chris Christie saw red-light cameras as a way to augment traditional traffic enforcement and keep motorists safe on New Jersey roads. Lately, he's seen the automated traffic technology as more of a nuisance.

Christie indicated last month a five-year statewide pilot program wouldn't be renewed when it expires in December. "I'll wait until all the evidence comes in ... but I will tell you that my gut feel on this one is that I don't favor it," he told The Asbury Park Press.

He's not alone. Red-light cameras are falling out of favor with communities and motorists across the country. After two decades of continuous growth, the number of red-light camera programs is declining in the United States. The number peaked at 540 two years ago, according to records kept by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Today, there are 502 programs, a decrease of about seven percent.

Conversely, growth in speed-camera programs remains steady. Over the past three years, the number of speed-camera programs has grown from 115 to 140 today, according to IIHS, an increase of 21.7 percent.

"There's a bit of a disconnect there, in seeing one go up and the other go down," says John Bowman, communications director of the National Motorists Association, which also tracks the number of automated programs. "I would hope some of the backlash with red-light cameras would start to carry through to speed cameras, but we haven't seen that yet."

The reasons behind the decline of one type of automated enforcement system while the other continues a steady uptick aren't clear. In some cases, changes in state laws affect local programs; in others, the fiscal health of municipalities affects automated enforcement contracts. And sometimes the controversial nature of the traffic cameras plays a lead role in discontinuing their use.


An Avalanche Of Problems

Next month, voters in Maple Heights, OH, will vote on whether to terminate the town's fledgling traffic-camera program. Launched only in July, the cameras have already accounted for nearly $400,000 in revenue for a cash-strapped town. The Ohio Supreme Court had to compel the town to include the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot. If history is any indication, the cameras won't be popular with voters.

In 27 of the 30 instances in which automated traffic enforcement ballot initiatives have been voted upon over the past 23 years, voters have rejected traffic cameras. In votes involving red-light cameras only, voters rejected them 10 of 11 times, according to National Motorists Association records.

Recently, high-profile problems with these systems have only worsened.

An ongoing investigation into Chicago's red-light camera program revealed unexplained spikes in the number of violations recorded at certain locations. Thousands of motorists received tickets they did not deserve, according to the Chicago Tribune.
In August, the former CEO of RedFlex Traffic Systems was indicted on corruption charges in Chicago. Prosecutors allege that Karen Finley bribed a city transportation official to win more than $100 million worth of contracts.

In New Jersey, a judge dismissed approximately 17,000 red-light camera citations because a glitch in the system prevented unsuspecting motorists from receiving their tickets.

A recent Inspector General's report that examined Washington DC traffic enforcement found aspects of its automated programs troubling. The report found that an earlier study "intended to instill public trust that speed cameras are installed by the DC government to improve safety and not just increase local revenues" had the opposite effect when it concluded that 300 of 300 possible locations for automated enforcement equipment were justified.

The report found an abundance of problems in DC Automated enforcement cameras issued violations in cases when they did not have enough information to conclusively identify vehicles, when camera information did not match license-plate registration information and when photographic evidence was not available to motorists.

In the Capitol and elsewhere, the burden of proof often lies with ticketed motorists, who are increasingly frustrated in their inability to fight back.

More than a few critics believe that red-light cameras are outright money grabs designed to generate revenue, not enhance traffic safety. The decrease, they say, is coming because motorists are fed up with these violations and are finally fighting back.

"It's all about the revenue," says Declan O'Scanlon, a New Jersey assemblyman who has introduced legislation that would thwart the use of automated enforcement cameras and encouraged Christie to not renew the pilot program. "The more people know about these ATMs – automatic taxing machines – the more they realize that they are nothing more than government-sanctioned theft."

Do Cameras Improve Safety?

Even when deployed properly, there are lingering questions over whether red-light cameras actually enhance traffic safety. Numerous studies of various scope and method have attempted to determine their effect and delivered mixed results. One that both supporters and critics cite is a 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration.

Researchers in that study analyzed cameras stationed at 132 locations in seven US cities. They found both sides had some merit: red-light cameras in the selected cities reduced right-angle crashes by 25 percent, but they also found a 15-percent increase in rear-end collisions, the latter of which is potentially caused by motorists who hit their brakes when they realize they're entering an automated enforcement zone.
The authors found a net economic benefit for the system – that is, the costs saved by preventing more-serious, right-angle crashes are more substantial than costs incurred from the increase in rear-end crashes. But they also noted a need for a second, more definitive study of the issue.

The economic aspects of red-light cameras aren't only found in accident reduction. A 2011 report (PDF here) from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund on red-light cameras warned that contracts between public municipalities and private camera vendors often put profit above traffic safety, because many of these contracts call for the vendors receive 30 to 40 percent of the revenue raised by tickets. When traffic enforcement is privatized, these contracts often limit the government's discretion to set and enforce traffic regulations, further putting the public at risk, the report said.

The report noted some red-light camera vendors have organized under the auspices of grassroots organizations, such as the National Coalition for Safer Roads, which produced the video below. U.S. PIRG criticizes the group for presenting only the upside of automated enforcement without discussing other alternatives.




More Complexity To Red-Light Cameras

Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research at IIHS, says the organization's studies show red-light cameras enhance traffic safety. Accidents that occur as a result of red-light running claim approximately 676 lives per year, according to the FHA, so reducing those accidents by a quarter could substantially save lives.
The benefit of red-light cameras can be difficult to quantify, she says, because the cameras don't merely modify a driver's behavior at one intersection, they can potentially modify a driver's behavior at all intersections. That's hard to measure.

In some cases, she says, red-light cameras have been removed because they've done their job. "It can do with cameras that are no longer needed because they're been successful in reducing violations," she said. Yet she concedes there is growing public opposition to the red-light cameras, something she finds befuddling because in IIHS surveys, motorists regard red-light running as a more serious traffic violation than speeding.

But speed limits are simpler to understand, and typically well marked. Red-light violations can have more complexity. Motorists often have less control over the timing of yellow lights, and motorists may not regard rolling through a right turn at a red light as an offense on par with a straight-line path through a red.

"They both can be controversial, but you seem to see that red-light cameras do have more and stronger opposition," she said.

senor honda

By Pete Bigelow




Early in his tenure, Gov. Chris Christie saw red-light cameras as a way to augment traditional traffic enforcement and keep motorists safe on New Jersey roads. Lately, he's seen the automated traffic technology as more of a nuisance.

Christie indicated last month a five-year statewide pilot program wouldn't be renewed when it expires in December. "I'll wait until all the evidence comes in ... but I will tell you that my gut feel on this one is that I don't favor it," he told The Asbury Park Press.

He's not alone. Red-light cameras are falling out of favor with communities and motorists across the country. After two decades of continuous growth, the number of red-light camera programs is declining in the United States. The number peaked at 540 two years ago, according to records kept by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Today, there are 502 programs, a decrease of about seven percent.

Conversely, growth in speed-camera programs remains steady. Over the past three years, the number of speed-camera programs has grown from 115 to 140 today, according to IIHS, an increase of 21.7 percent.

"There's a bit of a disconnect there, in seeing one go up and the other go down," says John Bowman, communications director of the National Motorists Association, which also tracks the number of automated programs. "I would hope some of the backlash with red-light cameras would start to carry through to speed cameras, but we haven't seen that yet."

The reasons behind the decline of one type of automated enforcement system while the other continues a steady uptick aren't clear. In some cases, changes in state laws affect local programs; in others, the fiscal health of municipalities affects automated enforcement contracts. And sometimes the controversial nature of the traffic cameras plays a lead role in discontinuing their use.


An Avalanche Of Problems

Next month, voters in Maple Heights, OH, will vote on whether to terminate the town's fledgling traffic-camera program. Launched only in July, the cameras have already accounted for nearly $400,000 in revenue for a cash-strapped town. The Ohio Supreme Court had to compel the town to include the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot. If history is any indication, the cameras won't be popular with voters.

In 27 of the 30 instances in which automated traffic enforcement ballot initiatives have been voted upon over the past 23 years, voters have rejected traffic cameras. In votes involving red-light cameras only, voters rejected them 10 of 11 times, according to National Motorists Association records.

Recently, high-profile problems with these systems have only worsened.

An ongoing investigation into Chicago's red-light camera program revealed unexplained spikes in the number of violations recorded at certain locations. Thousands of motorists received tickets they did not deserve, according to the Chicago Tribune.
In August, the former CEO of RedFlex Traffic Systems was indicted on corruption charges in Chicago. Prosecutors allege that Karen Finley bribed a city transportation official to win more than $100 million worth of contracts.

In New Jersey, a judge dismissed approximately 17,000 red-light camera citations because a glitch in the system prevented unsuspecting motorists from receiving their tickets.

A recent Inspector General's report that examined Washington DC traffic enforcement found aspects of its automated programs troubling. The report found that an earlier study "intended to instill public trust that speed cameras are installed by the DC government to improve safety and not just increase local revenues" had the opposite effect when it concluded that 300 of 300 possible locations for automated enforcement equipment were justified.

The report found an abundance of problems in DC Automated enforcement cameras issued violations in cases when they did not have enough information to conclusively identify vehicles, when camera information did not match license-plate registration information and when photographic evidence was not available to motorists.

In the Capitol and elsewhere, the burden of proof often lies with ticketed motorists, who are increasingly frustrated in their inability to fight back.

More than a few critics believe that red-light cameras are outright money grabs designed to generate revenue, not enhance traffic safety. The decrease, they say, is coming because motorists are fed up with these violations and are finally fighting back.

"It's all about the revenue," says Declan O'Scanlon, a New Jersey assemblyman who has introduced legislation that would thwart the use of automated enforcement cameras and encouraged Christie to not renew the pilot program. "The more people know about these ATMs – automatic taxing machines – the more they realize that they are nothing more than government-sanctioned theft."

Do Cameras Improve Safety?

Even when deployed properly, there are lingering questions over whether red-light cameras actually enhance traffic safety. Numerous studies of various scope and method have attempted to determine their effect and delivered mixed results. One that both supporters and critics cite is a 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration.

Researchers in that study analyzed cameras stationed at 132 locations in seven US cities. They found both sides had some merit: red-light cameras in the selected cities reduced right-angle crashes by 25 percent, but they also found a 15-percent increase in rear-end collisions, the latter of which is potentially caused by motorists who hit their brakes when they realize they're entering an automated enforcement zone.
The authors found a net economic benefit for the system – that is, the costs saved by preventing more-serious, right-angle crashes are more substantial than costs incurred from the increase in rear-end crashes. But they also noted a need for a second, more definitive study of the issue.

The economic aspects of red-light cameras aren't only found in accident reduction. A 2011 report (PDF here) from the U.S. PIRG Education Fund on red-light cameras warned that contracts between public municipalities and private camera vendors often put profit above traffic safety, because many of these contracts call for the vendors receive 30 to 40 percent of the revenue raised by tickets. When traffic enforcement is privatized, these contracts often limit the government's discretion to set and enforce traffic regulations, further putting the public at risk, the report said.

The report noted some red-light camera vendors have organized under the auspices of grassroots organizations, such as the National Coalition for Safer Roads, which produced the video below. U.S. PIRG criticizes the group for presenting only the upside of automated enforcement without discussing other alternatives.




More Complexity To Red-Light Cameras

Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research at IIHS, says the organization's studies show red-light cameras enhance traffic safety. Accidents that occur as a result of red-light running claim approximately 676 lives per year, according to the FHA, so reducing those accidents by a quarter could substantially save lives.
The benefit of red-light cameras can be difficult to quantify, she says, because the cameras don't merely modify a driver's behavior at one intersection, they can potentially modify a driver's behavior at all intersections. That's hard to measure.

In some cases, she says, red-light cameras have been removed because they've done their job. "It can do with cameras that are no longer needed because they're been successful in reducing violations," she said. Yet she concedes there is growing public opposition to the red-light cameras, something she finds befuddling because in IIHS surveys, motorists regard red-light running as a more serious traffic violation than speeding.

But speed limits are simpler to understand, and typically well marked. Red-light violations can have more complexity. Motorists often have less control over the timing of yellow lights, and motorists may not regard rolling through a right turn at a red light as an offense on par with a straight-line path through a red.

"They both can be controversial, but you seem to see that red-light cameras do have more and stronger opposition," she said.

senor honda

bsbsbsbsbsbsbs
They are going away because everyone knows it was a govt fundraiser
that has proven to be unconstitutional. Over and over and over where
it was taken to court.

senor honda

Red light cameras Florida
An appeals court decides that in Florida, private companies that operate red-light cameras have no right to send out tickets.
By Chris Matyszczyk

Will the police department in Hollywood, Fla., now reissue thousands of tickets? StopOnRedFlorida/YouTube screenshot by Chris Matyszczyk/CNET When we reach nerdvana, even the law will be automated.
A human court, however, has decided that a current form of automated law enforcement is actually unenforceable, at least in Florida.
I am grateful to the open-eyed bloodhounds at Watchdog for spotting a Florida appeals court ruling.
The judges mulled the fact that private owners of red-light cameras were the ones who sent out tickets. The judges concluded: "Hang on, that's not legal."
Clearly, those weren't the literal words used in the judgment (PDF). The Fourth District Court of Appeals phrased it like this: "The City is not authorized to delegate police power by entering into a contract that allows a private vendor to screen data and decide whether a violation has occurred before sending that data to a traffic infraction enforcement officer to use as the basis for authorizing a citation."
The city in question is Hollywood, Fla. The court went further and said: "Dismissal of the citation is the appropriate remedy where a private third party effectively decides whether a traffic violation has occurred and a citation should be issued."
This particular case involved American Traffic Solutions. It bills itself as "the leading provider of traffic safety, mobility and compliance solutions for state and local governments, commercial fleets and rental car companies."
It also boasts "over 3,000 Road Safety Camera systems installed and operating throughout the United States and Canada."

The company subpoenaed Eric Arem in 2011. He fought and lost, but won on appeal.
I have contacted the city of Hollywood to ask whether it will fight the ruling or whether it will have all the tickets reissued by the police department. There is also the option, presumably, of refunding money illegally obtained.
At the heart of the use of cameras -- whether at red lights or on highways -- is the suspicion that they're mere moneymakers. Last year, an Ohio judge described speed cameras as "nothing more than a high-tech game of 3-card Monty."
Earlier this year, residents of Tamarac, Fla., were incensed that a red-light camera had been mounted near the emergency room of a hospital.
[h=6]More Technically Incorrect[/h]
Then there was the Baltimore case of a man who received a camera ticket that claimed he was speeding. It was sent with an image of his car completely stationary at a red light.
Authorities and private camera companies (see video above) say cameras improve safety. The National Motorists Association says they actually increase the number of accidents.
Of course, if this is all about money, the city of Hollywood may merely consider whether there's a cheap way to get tickets sent by its police department. If there is, perhaps nothing will change.
Who would be surprised, though, if the cost of actually having a member of law enforcement examine every ticket before it's sent means red-light cameras slink out of town?

senor honda

Details and video
Tickets issued due to red-light cameras are illegal, says Florida court - CNET

senor honda

You are here:
Thousands of bogus red light camera tickets in Chicago