top headlines:
Friday, January 27, 2012
South Carolina Legislature Shuts Door on Photo Enforcement
The South Carolina legislature put the final nail in the coffin of photo enforcement earlier this month. Both the state House and Senate last year had unanimously approved legislation making it clear that automated ticketing machines were illegal in the state. As part of a compromise, state Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) dropped his opposition to the bill in exchange for the creation of the South Carolina Traffic Enforcement Commission, which he hoped would draft a report he could use to convince his colleagues to give photo ticketing a second chance.The nine-page report dated January 13 had no interest in restoring the speed trap that had operated in the town of Ridgeland in defiance of state law. The commission included the top members of the legislature and judicial branch along with representatives from police agencies and the legal profession. The composition of the committee, set by Davis in his amendment language, did not invite any members of the public to participate. The body was asked a series of twenty questions, most of which presumed photo enforcement would return.
"Assuming that traffic enforcement camera systems are used to enforce uniform traffic laws, is there a way to ensure that traffic enforcement camera systems are being used to improve road safety, and assuming that their use improves road safety, rather than maximizing government revenues resulting from violations of uniform traffic laws?" one of the legislated questions asked.
The commission's members did not accept the loaded questions' premise. Once the members finally met they agreed that private, for-profit law enforcement was not a good idea. "Pursuant to item (4) commission recommends no changes to the existing law concerning the use of traffic enforcement camera systems," the commission concluded.
Existing law expressly forbids the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. In rendering its judgment, the commission focused on the many legal and constitutional problems with photo enforcement.
"No matter who was driving the car at the time, the owner of the car is assumed to be guilty," the committee report stated. "This violates a major tenet of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty... The commission concedes that, properly calibrated and properly operated, photo radar systems may be accurate. However, photo radar, like any radar, can generate false readings, and similar cases are contested and litigated all the time. While technological improvements are likely, the system will never be completely without flaws."
The group found fault with the notion of mailing tickets to vehicle owners because by the time they receive the notice, they may not remember the incident, putting them at a disadvantage if they wish to challenge a photo ticket.
A copy of the report is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
Report and Findings (South Carolina Traffic Camera Enforcement Commission, 1/13/2012)Thursday, January 26, 2012
Peer Reviewed Study Questions IIHS Red Light Camera Report
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) grabbed headlines last February with a self-published study claiming installation of red light cameras nationwide would have prevented 815 deaths (view study). The Florida Public Health Review, a peer-reviewed journal, published a systematic critique yesterday that found the methods used in the IIHS report were sloppy and inconsistent, reflecting a bias towards the insurance industry that IIHS serves.University of South Florida Professors Barbara Langland-Orban, Etienne E. Pracht and John T. Large noted that IIHS did not study individual intersections that had cameras but rather used city-wide data that ignored other engineering variables that could have explained increases or decreases in accidents from year to year. Worse, the study did consider variables such as "land area" and "persons per square mile" which have never been shown through scientific research to have any correlation to motor vehicle crashes. The way these unexplained variables were used introduced other difficulties in the IIHS report.
"Assuming that the dependent variable for each model is defined as reported, some variables are included more than one time, making them redundant," the USF researchers wrote. "For example, population is the denominator in both outcome measures reported (e.g., fatalities per 100,000-population), as well as a numerator in the variable 'population per square mile.'"
The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the "before" period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities "before" to improve in the "after" period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement.
"The fact that the two groups have a large difference in fatality rates in the 'before' period reflects bias in the selection of the comparison group, which jeopardizes the validity of the findings," the USF researchers noted.
The USF researchers then used the IIHS data in an attempt to replicate the IIHS statistical analysis. The critique concluded that IIHS failed to disclose results that contained negative values for red light cameras.
"Thus, cities using cameras are estimated to have a 25 percent higher red light running fatality rate in the 'after' period relative to cities not using cameras, despite the greater reported percent reduction in the former," the critique found.
To account for the bias, the USF researchers pointed out that in several states, insurance companies make money by charging higher premiums to drivers who get photo tickets. Contrary to the common wisdom, insurance companies do not earn less money when accidents increase.
"Insurance companies are able to gain approval from state regulators to raise insurance premiums to cover higher losses, making them indifferent about loss prevention, since increased losses justify increased premiums, passing higher crash costs on to drivers," the USF report stated. "Second, automobile insurance companies earn more profit from investment income (investing premiums collected from drivers) than from underwriting activities."
A copy of the study is available in a 170k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
IIHS Study Actually Found Cities Using Cameras Had Higher Fatality Rates (Florida Public Health Review, 1/25/2012)Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Texas: Federal Appeals Court Defends Anti-Camera Referendum
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday rebuked a lower court judge who had taken extraordinary measures to protect the red light camera program in Houston, Texas. A three-judge panel ruled that US District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes erred last June when he blocked the organizers of an anti-camera referendum from participating in the court proceedings that Hughes used to nullify the election results (view ruling).Houston had hired American Traffic Solutions (ATS) to operate issue red light camera tickets on the city's behalf through May 27, 2014. The program was one of the largest in the country until Francis and Randy Kubosh gathered enough signatures to place a charter amendment on the ballot banning automated ticketing machines. Voters approved the measure in November 2010.
Houston officials, who sought to keep the cameras running despite the vote, filed a lawsuit against ATS, which also sought to keep the cameras running. They brought the case before Judge Hughes, who has served along side the father of ATS General Counsel George Hittner for the past twenty-five years. Last year, Hughes insisted that he would be able to detect whether Houston made any attempt to lose the case to ATS intentionally and denied the right of the Kuboshes to defend their ballot measure. The appellate judges tore apart Hughes' reasoning, especially after ATS and Houston's lawyers sat together at the same table during oral arguments.
"There is no federal authority nor state law prohibiting intervention of right in this type of case," Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote for the appellate panel. "These intervenors are unique because they engineered the drive that led to a city charter amendment over the nearly unanimous, well funded, and longstanding opposition of the mayor and city council... They have raised substantial doubts about the city's motives and conduct in its defense of the litigation with ATS. Without these intervenors' participation, the city might well be inclined to settle the litigation on terms that preserve the adverse ruling on the charter amendment and thus preserve its flexibility to reinstate red light cameras in the future. This is no matter of simply defending city policy of one sort or another: it involves millions of dollars of revenue to city coffers during a period of considerable economic uncertainty."
The prediction that the city would rush toward an adverse settlement turned out to be correct. On Friday, the city agreed to settle with ATS for $4.8 million in a move that would allow the cameras to return at any time the city council chooses. The appellate court complained that it only recently had learned about this settlement "via the newspaper."
The appellate ruling focused solely on the question of whether the Kuboshes should have been parties to the litigation between Houston and ATS from the start. The panel ordered the issue should be reconsidered at a new trial where the Kuboshes would be able to defend their initiative. The appeals court signaled with their language that they did not share the view that the public vote merely meant "people in Houston want to run red lights," as Hughes said in proceedings on November 26. Instead, the court referred to the "haste of the litigation" that Judge Hughes placed "on a fast track" in a way that suited "the city's pecuniary motives." The sponsors of the initiative vowed Tuesday to ensure Houston officials can never bring back cameras.
"ATS just must have said to Houston, 'Whatever you do, do not allow the election results to stand,'" Citizens Against Red Light Cameras spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper. "It ended today with the court ruling because the Kuboshes aren't going to stop until those election results stand. That's it for ATS. They lost."
A copy of the interlocutory ruling is available in an 85k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
Houston v. ATS (US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1/24/2012)Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Houston, Texas Settles Red Light Camera Lawsuit
The city of Houston, Texas announced Friday that it would pay American Traffic Solutions (ATS) $4.8 million to settle the lawsuit the company set up after voters rejected red light cameras in November 2010. Upon approval by the city council Wednesday, the Arizona firm will receive $2.3 million up front with another $2.4 million provided as the company collects on unpaid citations over the next three years.ATS was able to extract this sum from the city for two reasons. First, former Mayor Bill White removed an early termination clause from the red light camera contract in an attempt to save the camera program through the year 2014 in the event the state legislature passed legislation outlawing cameras. As a result, ATS demanded the share of ticket profits it would have received through that date. Second, ATS had an ally in US District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes, who overturned the election results and sided with ATS at every step. For example, when ATS lawyer Andy Taylor complained in a November 26, 2010 hearing that the city required ATS to take down its cameras, Hughes came to the rescue.
"I can cure that," Hughes said, ordering the city to keep the cameras up.
The city council did have the power to stop the red light cameras from issuing tickets, so it ordered the systems deactivated on August 24, 2011. Houston came back to Hughes asking him to modify his order so that the cameras could be permanently removed, pursuant to a city ordinance requiring them to come down.
"The city of Houston's motion to compel American Traffic Solutions to remove the red light cameras is denied," Hughes ruled on January 16, 2012.
Hughes has close ties with ATS, having served on the bench for 25 years with Judge David Hittner, the father of ATS General Counsel George Hittner. His ruling is now under review by the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals which heard oral arguments on January 3. Randall Kubosh and Francis M. Kubosh sponsored the anti-camera initiative and want to see the public vote upheld.
"Appellants argue that the Texas Election Code protects the right of Texas voters to intervene in defense of a measure election, a right subverted by the city's collusive filing of a declaratory judgment suit that gave ATS an opportunity to nullify the Proposition 3 election it would never have had without the city's help," the Kubosh attorney David A. Furlow argued in a Friday filing with the Fifth Circuit. "Denial of their right to defend the Proposition 3 election and the no-red-light-camera votes they cast in it would render their constitutional rights meaningless."
Houston and ATS came to a quick settlement in the hopes that this appeal would be dismissed as moot. Current Mayor Annise Parker insisted the multi-million dollar payment represents the best deal that could have been struck under the circumstances.
"I am thankful that traffic violators, not Houston taxpayers, will be paying for this," Parker said in a statement. "This is a reasonable settlement and I thank the city legal department for its diligence in getting it done."
A copy of Judge Hughes' January 16 order is available in a 40k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
Houston v. ATS (US District Court, Southern District Texas, 1/16/2012)Monday, January 23, 2012
Washington: Judge Slaps Attempt to Block Anti-Camera Vote
The Snohomish County Superior Court on Thursday found Monroe, Washington liable for a fine of up to $10,000 for denying photo enforcement opponents access to the ballot. Although two-thirds of voters in the city voted against the use of red light cameras and speed cameras in November, they were only allowed to consider a measure crafted by Mayor Robert Zimmerman. He asked voters whether they wanted to continue using cameras when the vendor's contract expires in 2013.The citizens' group Seeds of Liberty had collected signatures from nearly half the city's active voters to place an immediate and binding camera ban on the ballot. Zimmerman sued to keep voters from considering that tougher language. In a letter ruling, Judge George N. Bowden said the city went too far, violating a state statute designed to stop "strategic lawsuits against public participation" or SLAPP.
"I am granting Seeds of Liberty's motion for costs and fees because of the following reasons: Washington's anti-SLAPP remedies are not discretionary," Bowden wrote. "Having secured enough valid signatures to place Section Three on the ballot, the city's lawsuit burdens the initiative sponsors with having to defend the right of voters to express their opinions and weigh in on a matter that will directly affect them. As such, the initiative concerns an action involving public participation and the inherent rights of citizens to petition their government."
Bowden followed the precedent set down by the Washington Court of Appeals in September that struck down the binding portion of an anti-camera initiative in Bellingham while clarifying that an advisory vote section of the measure could stand (view ruling). As a result, voters will have a chance in April to vote to tell the city council to take down the cameras immediately. "We are thrilled with this court decision because it sends a clear message to other greedy politicians and sleazy red-light camera companies that such obstructionist tactics will not only fail, but result in substantial financial penalties," initiative co-sponsor Tim Eyman wrote in an email to supporters.
Although 68 percent of the Monroe's electorate rejected automated enforcement, city leaders have stuck by their decision to continue the camera program. Eyman believes the city should accept the inevitable and cancel its photo enforcement contract.
"When are Mayor Zimmerman and the city council going to get the message and take down all the ticketing cameras in the city of Monroe?" Eyman asked. "Every day they leave them up is a slap in the face of the people of Monroe."
A copy of the letter ruling is available in a 210k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
Monroe v. Seeds of Liberty (Snohomish County, Washington Superior Court, 1/19/2012)
This is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.
search tips | about us | site map
Subscribe
Receive free email or RSS news updates.
Key Documents
Documents, studies and memos about camera enforcement.
Archives
View previous news items.
Feedback
Contact the editors.
View Main Topics:
Popular Stories
-Missouri Cop Harassment Video
-Photo Enforcement Bans
-Most Popular Stories
Popular Studies
-Red Light Camera Study Roundup
-2007 Virginia DOT: Cameras Increase Injury Accidents
-2005 Washington Post: Accidents Doubled with Cameras
-2004 North Carolina: Red Light Camera Study (Burkey-Obeng)
-Majority Leader Armey Red Light Camera Report
-Longer Yellows Reduce Crashes (TX Transportation Institute)
-HOV/Carpool Lanes Cause Accidents
Since 1999, Washington, D.C. cameras have issued 4,500,103 tickets worth $312 million (as of 5/30/10).
| Next Page |
 |
Archives | Contact | Site Map | Search | Documents | Privacy Policy