No WhiteWash!

California: Red Light Camera Refunds Reach $3.1 Million
South San Francisco, California red light camera refunds expanded to cover 7000 illegally issued tickets.

Red light camera refunds will now reach $3.1 million in the city of South San Francisco, California. City officials decided this week that it had no choice but to refund tickets issued between January 28 and March 10 after being confronted by potential lawsuits over the city’s failure to abide by state law.

Read more via California: Red Light Camera Refunds Reach $3.1 Million.

Bluff City is a city without a mayor or vice mayor.  In fact they have had four mayors resign over the past two years.   Warning, they want your money.

BRISTOL, Tenn. — While Bristol Motor Speedway officials are fretting that Bluff City’s new speed cameras on U.S. Highway 11E might upset and alienate unsuspecting race visitors, city officials said Wednesday that the controversial detectors will be operating during the March 19-21 race weekend. Read more via Bristol fans, beware: Cameras will be on Speedway weekend » Knoxville News Sentinel.

Louisiana legislators propose a series of measures to ban traffic cameras or put them to a public vote.

Local governments that use red light cameras and speed cameras would be forced put the future of these efforts to a public vote under a proposal by a team of Louisiana state lawmakers. Led by Representative Jeff Arnold (D-Algiers), a bipartisan team of seven on Monday pre-filed legislation to rein in the use of automated enforcement systems.

Arnold’s preference is to ban them outright with House Bill 160, but he prepared an alternative measure designed to be more attractive to his colleagues with close ties to local government. House Bill 159 would require a referendum before any automated ticketing machine could issue fines in a local city or parish.

via Louisiana Lawmaker Proposes Local Votes For All Traffic Camera Programs.

League City, Texas refunds 1740 red light camera tickets after being caught with illegally short yellow times.

Texas has lost $130,500 in red light camera ticket refunds and cancellations after a local motorist discovered the city had been ignoring state law. Byron Schirmbeck drives through the intersection of Interstate 45 and FM 518 every day on the way to work. He noticed the amount of yellow time given to motorists seemed a bit on the short side, so he decided to check. Armed with a stopwatch, Schirmbeck clocked the interval between the green and red lights at just four seconds — 0.7 seconds shorter than the minimum required under Texas Department of Transportation TxDOT regulations at an intersection with a posted 50 MPH speed limit.

Read more via Texas: Short Yellow Brings $130,500 In Red Light Camera Refunds.

Missouri Supreme Court strikes down the red light camera program run by city of Springfield.

The supreme court of Missouri sent photo enforcement companies scrambling on Monday after it declared the red light camera administrative hearing process in the city of Springfield to be void. The high court moved with unusual speed, handing down a strongly worded, unanimous decision about one month after hearing oral arguments in the case.

"This is a $100 case," Judge Michael A. Wolff wrote for the court. "But sometimes, it’s not the money — it’s the principle."

At first glance, the court’s decision appeared to be limited to a technical legal issue regarding Springfield’s authority to adjudicate a photo ticket against motorist Adolph Belt in an administrative hearing. The court indicated that this was plainly not permitted under state law. Section 479.010 of the Missouri Code requires ordinance violations of this type to be heard in a circuit or municipal court. Springfield had argued that its administrative hearing officer was the first and last word on all judgments, with no appellate courts — not even the supreme court itself — having any jurisdiction over the matter.

A closer look at the ruling shows that the high court judges expressed a dim view toward the legal arguments often cited by municipalities to justify their red light cameras programs. For example, the court made it clear that no city had any authority to treat red light violations in the same manner as a parking ticket.

Read  more via “The Newspaper.com”

Speed cameras burn in UK and Tennessee while an Arizona photo radar van mysteriously crashes.

A speed camera van in Mount Carmel, Tennessee burst into flames at around 3am on February 21, burning down a barn near which it had been parked. Officials did not immediately blame vigilantes for the incident, instead suggesting the van, owned by Australia’s Redflex Traffic Systems, may have caught fire on its own.

“There’s a lot of wiring in that vehicle, and there’s a chance it wasn’t arson,” Mount Carmel Police Chief Jeff Jackson told the Kingsport Times-News.

There is no question that vigilantes were behind ten attacks on speed cameras in Dorset, England in the past year. Automated ticketing machines in Ferndown, Bear Cross, Longham, Verwood and Three Legged Cross have all been burned, the Bournemouth Echo reported.

Even a fake speed camera has felt the wrath of vigilantes. Former police officer Bill Angus, 64, constructed a faux automated ticketing machine and mounted it outside his home in Sunderland, England. Angus was upset last week when his false device was smashed with a hammer.

In Phoenix, Arizona, the group CameraFraud.com spotted the mangled wreckage of a freeway speed camera van being de-striped in the Redflex parking lot on Friday. The Australian company has issued no statement on the cause of the van’s destruction, but the anti-photo organization offered the suggestion that perhaps another of the company’s employees has been driving under the influence of alcohol. Roderick Ruffin was charged with DUI in 2008 while behind the wheel of a Redflex van.

via Arizona, Tennessee, UK: Speed Cameras Catch Fire, Crash.

Largest photo enforcement vendor reports that opposition groups have cut into company profits.

The number one speed camera and red light camera operator in the US today reported that its profits plunged by 32 percent in the first half of fiscal 2010, due in large measure to rising public discontent with automated enforcement. Redflex Traffic Systems told Australian shareholders that after adjusting for exchange rates, the company lost A$8 million, primarily as a result of citizen activists taking action against photo enforcement.

“The business, particularly in the US, has become more difficult over recent years, and the results reflect the influence of a range of adverse issues and circumstances on the business, including… the rise of opposition from various groups opposed to photo enforcement, resulting in challenges to programs through citizen initiated referenda,” a company statement explained. “A state wide ballot initiative [in Arizona] could result in negative impact.”

To date, citizen groups nationwide have succeeded in putting the question of photo enforcement on the ballot in nine cities. All nine voted to ban automated ticketing, with margins as high as 86 percent against the cameras (view list of cities). The largest citizen-led revolt so far is happening in the state of Arizona where the group CameraFraud.com has used a continual stream of protests, a Facebook page and other techniques to educate drivers that citations mailed from the program could be thrown away, unpaid. Only personally served notices are valid in the state. Redflex reported that the Arizona program so far has lost $4.9 million..

“Citation payment rates remain low due to the inability to achieve acceptable payment rates from violators,” the company explained. “Our push to reform the laws governing traffic enforcement with the Arizona Legislature and with the Arizona Supreme Court makes 2010 a critical year for our Company in Arizona…. Once corrective legislation is passed payment rates are expected to rise to the average historical payments rates typical for the Arizona business model.”

Discontent with photo ticketing has spread nationwide as politicians fear they may lose their jobs if they are responsible for bringing cameras into their community, although Redflex suggests the recession may also play a role.

“The rate of new contract signings has clearly decreased since a year ago,” Redflex admitted. “It is not clear at this stage whether this is driven by the economic environment, by the level of opposition, or by a slowdown in the rate of growth in the industry as a whole.”

A number of cities that use Redflex or a competitor have dropped the use of automated ticketing machines entirely. In California, Maywood and Moreno Valley dropped red light cameras while Loma Linda and Upland discussed the possibility of doing so. Avondale, Arizona and Dalton, Georgia also canceled their programs.

“As has been experienced over prior years, there is no guarantee that all contracts will be renewed at completion of their base contract term,” a Redflex statement explained. “Some cities have decided not to continue, and we have experienced early shutdowns in two cities.”

The company’s other major financial burden has been a lawsuit filed by American Traffic Solutions has cost Redflex another $1.3 million (more info). A shareholder revolt also cost the company $197,000 in expenses related to a change in the board of directors. Source

via Red Light Camera Giant Redflex Loses $8 Million From Opposition.

 Avondale, Arizona cancels photo enforcement after it failed to generate accident reduction or profit.

Avondale, Arizona last week decided to terminate its contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) for the operation of red light cameras and speed cameras. The city council made its decision primarily on financial grounds after the program failed to deliver on its promise of enhanced safety and substantial profit. With Avondale facing a $3.8 million budget deficit, officials decided the cameras had to go.

"The largest reduction in budgeted appropriations comes from the camera traffic enforcement program," Avondale Finance Director Kevin Artz wrote in a February 8 memo to the council. "The police department has assessed the effectiveness of the program and determined that potentially the program costs outweigh the benefits. With the total costs of the program exceeding the revenue and little change in accident rate, staff recommends that council consider eliminating or suspending the program."

The city allowed ATS to deploy two red light cameras and one mobile speed camera van. Over the past two years, ATS issued 6326 photo citations, with the number of tickets issued down 46 percent in 2009. While some cities would trumpet this reduction as evidence of the benefit of camera use, Avondale provided a different explanation.

"In June 2009 the decision was made to discontinue photo enforcement at intersections for failing to stop turning right on a red light," Police Chief Kevin Kotsur wrote. "This was based on a review of the previous year’s accident rate that revealed there were no traffic accidents caused by a vehicle failing to stop on a red light turning right at an intersection… This decision appears to account for the majority of this decrease."

Since the economic recession took hold in 2007, traffic volumes have dropped nationwide. As a result, traffic fatalities have hit all-time lows. Since the beginning of the recession, fatal crashes have dropped 14.7 percent across the country. The half-mile radius surrounding Avondale’s camera locations only saw a 7 percent drop in accidents. Areas farther from the cameras experienced a more significant drop in the number of crashes.

The city budget did estimate that cameras would generate $318,610 in net revenue for the city, but Kotsur noted that indirect costs associated with the program would mean the city would wind up losing $80,000. Avondale’s contract was set to expire on September 19, 2010, but an early termination clause allowed cancellation without penalty to the city. A copy of the city council memo is available in a 260k PDF file at the source link below.

 Source: Budgetary Update and Strategy Discussion (City of Avondale, Arizona, 2/8/2010)

via Arizona: City Dumps Money Losing Traffic Cameras.

Straight through violations drop 92 percent after yellow lights are extended by one second in Loma Linda, California.

Dr Rhodes RigsbyRedflex Traffic Systems of Australia succeeded last week in blocking efforts to end red light camera ticketing in Loma Linda, California. While several members of the city council expressed a desire to uproot the automated ticketing machines, Redflex insisted that could not be done unless the city paid $534,558 in early termination penalties. The council declined to take any action at its February meeting.

The problems began after the city extended the duration of yellow lights in November. This engineering enhancement reduced the number of straight through violations to drop to near zero with the consequence that only citations for rolling right-hand turns remained. With a pricetag of $456 for each of these citations, the council had been hit with complaints about such a stiff fine for a type of violation that does not cause accidents.

"I have received a number of complaints and emails from individuals," Councilman Ovidu Popescu said. "They teach you in business that for one complaint, that’s at least ten individuals who are very upset."

Popescu and Councilman Rhodes Rigsby led the charge to terminate the camera contract immediately because the program enraged constituents without providing any safety benefit.

"I’m not sure the statistics when it comes to auto accidents — it doesn’t show a decrease in accidents," Rigsby said. "If we’re going to fine our visitors and our citizens $12 or $14 million over four years, we should at least expect a safety benefit, and I just don’t see it."

The council, on the other hand, was extremely pleased with the results of lengthening yellow lights by one second in November. The number of left-turn violations dropped 80 to 85 percent from about 240 monthly violations to about 25 or 30 a month immediately after the change. Straight through violations were reduced 92 percent.

"Lengthening yellow lights has produced a tremendous drop in violations," Rigsby said. "The statistics from January are very telling. For four intersections, there were five straight through violations in total. That is tremendous improvement in safety. We’re talking about huge success of lengthening the yellow lights… We could have had that safety with lengthening the yellow four years ago instead of installing red light cameras."

Councilman Floyd Petersen wanted to know why city staff never tried lengthening yellow before.

"Councilman Rigsby brought up the issue and pushed on it really hard," Petersen said. "We have a whole profession out there called traffic engineers. We pay these people a lot of money to figure out the best way to set up the lights. Where are these people? Why haven’t they ever suggested lengthening the yellow light? What’s the deal? They aren’t being paid off by the camera people, are they?"

City staff defended the idea of keeping the cameras and endorsed short yellows.

"If you lengthen the yellow light, you reduce the green light," Public Works Director T. Jarb Thaipejr said. "So then I will get a call from someone who said, “I waited so long at the red light";” The whole idea of traffic engineering is to move the traffic."

Popescu vowed to bring early termination to a vote next month. The contract will expire on its own in December.

via California: Longer Yellows Nearly Eliminate Violations.

“The Show” blog gives below some important information on the upcoming vote on revenue cameras used by cities in Tennessee.

The vote is set to take place after the Transportation committee (they start at 3:30pm Nashville time).

HB 3024

Here are the subcommittee members.

Committee Officers

* Vince Dean, Chair
Phone (615) 741-1934
Fax (615) 253-0271
rep.vince.dean@capitol.tn.gov

* Tony Shipley, Vice-Chair
Phone: (615) 741-2886
rep.tony.shipley@capitol.tn.gov
Facebook page

Members

Ty Cobb

Phone: (615) 741-3005
rep.ty.cobb@capitol.tn.gov
Facebook page

* Chad Faulkner

Phone: (615) 741-3335
rep.chad.faulkner@capitol.tn.gov
Facebook page

* Pat Marsh

Phone (615) 741-6824
Fax (615) 253-0344
rep.pat.marsh@capitol.tn.go

* Ben West

Phone (615) 741-6959
Fax (615) 253-0331
rep.ben.west@capitol.tn.gov

---

Here is the bill

*HB 3024 by *Harmon, McCord, Tidwell, West. (SB 2918 by *Burchett.)

Traffic Safety – As introduced, directs the comptroller to study traffic surveillance cameras, places a two-year moratorium on new cameras, and revises fines from traffic violations captured by such cameras. – Amends TCA Title 55, Chapter 8, Part 1.

Fiscal Summary

Not Available

Bill Summary

Present law requires that any state agency or political subdivision of the state that installs, owns, operates or maintains a traffic-control signal light located in an intersection that employs a surveillance camera for the enforcement or monitoring of traffic violations must ensure that:

(1) The surveillance camera does not identify as a violation of the “stop on red” requirement of the rules of the road any vehicle that legally entered the intersection during the green or yellow intervals; and
(2) Appropriate signage is located not less than 500 feet but not more than 1,000 feet in advance of the intersection informing drivers as to the presence of surveillance cameras at the approaching intersection.

A traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from a surveillance camera that has been installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations is considered a nonmoving traffic violation. If the state agency or political division of the state violates (1), as described above, then any traffic citation based solely on evidence generated by the surveillance camera is deemed to be invalid.

Present law prohibits the placement of any surveillance cameras on federal interstate highways, except for Smart Way cameras, other intelligent transportation system cameras or, when workers are present, surveillance cameras used to enforce or monitor traffic violations within work zones designated by the department of transportation; provided, that the cameras must be operated only by a state entity.

This bill requires the comptroller to conduct a comprehensive study of the use of traffic surveillance cameras by government agencies in Tennessee and to provide a copy of such study to the transportation committee of each chamber by January 15, 2011.

Beginning January 1, 2011, this bill prohibits any local government from placing or operating a surveillance camera used to enforce traffic safety on any highway receiving state financial aid unless:

(1) The local governing body exhausts all reasonable engineering solutions pursuant to department of transportation standards to enhance traffic safety; and
(2) Any contract for the operation of such surveillance camera by a private vendor provides only for payment for services rendered, and no payment is based on a percentage of traffic citations generated by such surveillance camera.

This bill prohibits any local or county government from entering or renewing any contract with a private vendor for the operation of any surveillance camera used to enforce traffic safety until July 1, 2012, except that such prohibition will not apply to the portion of the roadway between blocks 2900 through 3200 of Hixson Pike in Hamilton County. Any contract entered into or renewed after July 1, 2012, must comply with the following:

(1) Rules promulgated by the department of transportation that prescribe traffic and engineering studies be conducted before the installation of a traffic violation surveillance camera;
(2) Rules promulgated by the department of safety that prescribe traffic safety considerations be addressed before the installation of a traffic violation surveillance camera; and
(3) Guidelines established by the comptroller for local government contracts with private vendors for installation and use of traffic surveillance traffic cameras.

This bill requires that the departments of transportation and safety consult with the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police and the Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association before filing rules pursuant to this bill with the secretary of state. This bill also requires that any local governmental entity seeking to install or operate traffic surveillance traffic cameras must, by majority vote, request that the comptroller verify that such local governmental entity has met all the requirements of the rules promulgated by the departments prior to the installation or operation of traffic surveillance cameras. A local governmental entity must vote to approve the installation or operation of traffic surveillance cameras after receipt of notice by the comptroller of compliance with the rules. Any rules promulgated pursuant to this bill must be presented to the transportation committees of each chamber for review and comment before being considered by the government operations committees of each chamber.

This bill requires that each local governing body that contracts for placement or operation a traffic surveillance camera on any highway receiving state financial aid on or after July 1, 2012, must submit the contract to the comptroller. This bill authorizes the comptroller to conduct compliance audits of any local governing body that has placed or is operating a traffic surveillance camera.

This bill sets the penalty for a person charged by a traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from a surveillance camera as follows:

(1) For a first offense by a fine of $10.00 only;
(2) For a second offense by a fine of $25.00 only; and
(3) For a third or subsequent offense by a fine of $50.00 only.

A person will not be considered a multiple offender under this bill if three years have passed since the prior violation. This bill also limits the court costs in any such case to $10.00 and prohibits the assessment of litigation taxes against any person who pays the ticket on time.

This bill adds to present law by requiring that the law enforcement employee who reviews video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and makes a determination as to whether a violation has occurred must be certified by the peace officer standards and training commission.