top headlines:
Sunday, August 22, 2010
New York, UK: Traffic Cameras Attacked
Vigilantes in Long Island, New York took out all fourteen red light cameras with a can of spray paint in the early morning hours of August 1, Newsday reported. Nassau County installed the automated ticketing machines in the hopes of generating $13 million in revenue and have no idea who is responsible for depriving officials of a day's worth of ticketing, an estimated ticketing revenue loss of $35,000. In Dorset, England vigilantes set fire to a speed camera last Sunday at around 5:20am. A burning tire was used to take out the automated ticketing machine located on the A35 in Chideock, BBC News reported. Some of the destroyed British cameras will not be replaced thanks to cuts in speed camera funding implemented by the new Conservative government. The Shropshire Star reported that a camera burned in Telford on July 22 will not be restored. Vigilantes had destroyed the same camera on three prior occasions.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
California: Another City Admits Accidents Not Reduced By Red Light Cameras
Under court order, Redwood City, California was forced to admit that the red light camera installed at Whipple Avenue and Veterans Boulevard in March 2008 have done absolutely nothing to reduce traffic collisions. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Clifford V. Cretan instructed the city council to respond to a civil grand jury report from June that blasted municipal programs throughout the county that raised $13.8 million from ticketing despite the lack of evidence of any safety benefit (read report).
The Redwood City Council will vote Monday to approve a draft response created in close consultation with Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company in charge of the Redwood City program. Under the signature of Police Chief Louis A. Cobarruviaz, the letter ignores every substantial recommendation offered by the grand jury. For example, because the number of accidents is not going down, the city disagreed with the grand jury recommendation that the city measure the program's ongoing effectiveness by the number of collisions before and after camera installation. The grand jury insisted that the city council be provided a regular update on these rates on at least an annual basis, but no such report has been implemented.
"While the number of red light violation-related collisions at the approaches have not had a significant change since the installation of the red light cameras, it would appear the city's camera systems are reducing the number of red light violations as the number of violations recorded have dropped since their installation," the draft response letter stated.
The number of violations recorded also decreases as motorists avoid intersections known to have red light cameras. Equipment malfunctions, repairs and vandalism can also reduce the number of violations recorded. The city also blasted the grand jury for implying that the program appeared more concerned with revenue than accident reduction.
"The current revenue realized by the city is surprisingly low compared to expected projections," the draft response stated.
The city claimed it "had significant difficulty obtaining its portion of the fines from San Mateo County," which collected $1.7 million in 2008 and $3.2 million in 2009. Redwood City routinely assigned employees involved in other tasks to the red light camera program account to inflate the estimates of the program "cost" -- even though the full cost of the program by contract is borne by Redflex. The city also rejected the grand jury finding that it was imposing $446 tickets on minor "California roll" stops at intersections that have little impact on safety.
"The city is unaware of the number of violations for failure to stop before making a right turn in other cities; however, a significant portion of citations issued from the city's red light cameras are for that violation," the draft response stated.
To prevent motorists from being unknowingly trapped by such tickets at the enforced intersections, the grand jury recommended signage at each location so that motorists would know right-hand turns would be ticketed. The city has absolutely no interest in providing such warning.
"The city does not have signage at each intersection because it is not required by statute," the response stated.
Source:
Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Repor (Redwood City, California, 8/21/2010)Friday, August 20, 2010
Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents in Baytown, Texas
After a year of use, red light cameras have failed to deliver the promised safety benefits in Baytown, Texas. The Houston suburb activated the majority of its cameras on July 13, 2008. Since then, the number of accidents at eight camera locations has increased 40 percent, contrary to predictions from city officials. The increase in accidents has not been in minor "fender benders," as is frequently claimed by photo ticketing advocates. Rather, the number of collisions resulting in an injury jumped 75 percent. Rear end collisions increased 39 percent. Results from comprehensive, independent studies elsewhere in the country have yielded similar results.
"Clearly this shows no remedial effect on driving habits over time," Byron Schirmbeck, the leader of a grassroots effort to ban the cameras in Baytown, told TheNewspaper.
The accident figures are based on the annual reports city officials by law must provide to the Texas Department of Transportation. Schirmbeck insists that the accident jump is evidence that automated ticketing has failed and that the automated ticketing machines should come down. Last week, the city clerk certified that a sufficient number of Baytown residents agreed, forcing the city council next Tuesday to vote either to adopt a ban on red light cameras or place Schirmbeck's ban on the ballot for voters to decide. City leaders so far have been reluctant to back away from the lucrative program.
"Despite widespread evidence that red light cameras actually increase accidents many cities like Baytown and Houston continue to cling to the revenue generating red light camera program," In light of this new information that demonstrates no safety improvement and increased accidents at camera monitored intersections we urge the council to immediately adopt our resolution and break their contract with the red light camera company that has engaged in numerous examples of voter intimidation and spent over $230,000 to fight the citizens of Baytown and Houston to keep the issue off the ballot."
Schirmbeck believes that the harder camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) battles the public vote, the less residents are inclined to support the company's red light cameras. ATS is especially anxious to keep the measure off the ballot because no photo enforcement program has ever survived a public vote.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
California: Another Judge Discards Red Light Camera Evidence
A San Diego, California Superior Court judge on Monday found elements of typical red light camera court evidence packages to be inadmissible hearsay. Eight consolidated cases were dismissed by Commissioner Karen A. Riley after she considered a motion to exclude evidence generated by automated ticketing vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS). In light of the recent Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ruling by the US Supreme Court (view ruling), Riley found the accused had a right to confront ATS witnesses.
The city of San Diego argued that the ticket evidence falls within standard business and official record exceptions to the hearsay rule and no such testimony was needed. Defense attorney Mitchell Mehdy countered that the evidence package prepared by ATS is hearsay because the company's employees never appear in court and a police officer merely reads off a sheet of paper on the witness stand having no direct knowledge of the incident described.
"The information regarding the alleged violation is purposefully created in anticipation of litigation, packaged neatly for an officer, and then used to convict a person who never had the opportunity to properly confront anyone other than the officer who can only recite what he has on the papers in front of him," Mehdy wrote in a brief to the court.
The court did find that elements of the ATS package are admissible insofar as an ATS employee states under penalty of perjury the conditions under which materials in the evidence envelope were "obtained or generated, or captured, transmitted and stored in the ATS database in Scottsdale, Arizona." Other portions of the document however were found to be improperly testimonial in nature. For example, the ATS records custodian describes the training and experience of employees and the habits of technicians responsible for reporting the data. The document also speaks about how employees "enlarge and enhance" ticket photos "without altering the content" and how the company's systems use "advanced encryption" to prevent tampering.
"The prosecution appears to contend that the affidavit is admissible for all purposes because each affidavit itself falls within the business records or official records hearsay exceptions; but this contention is unsupported," Riley found. "Instead of recording an act, condition or event as part of a business record, the affidavit of custodian of records describes in some detail various aspects of the overall photo red light process at ATS.... Since the affidavits contain largely 'testimonial statements' and the custodian is attempting to testify as a 'witness' for purposes of the Sixth Amendment... the defendants here are entitled to be confronted with the testifying witness at trial."
The court found the photographs themselves to be admissible because they essentially speak for themselves, but that the data imprinted on the photo showing the time of day and how long the light was red would only be accepted after showing both the camera system and the Arizona computer network was functioning properly. Merely producing inspection logs is insufficient in the court's view to establish reliability.
"There is no evidence or mention (indeed to date there is never evidence by the city) that the internal camera computer or its connected counterpart in Arizona, or the computers' date and specific time settings, the local or remote measurements of the exact signal phase times, the speed calculations, the Arizona computer connection with each of the intersection camera systems, etc. were or are ever checked for proper functioning," Riley wrote. "According to the inspection logs, technicians only check the intersection equipment, with no mention of the computer at the intersection or in Arizona... They do not indicate that they check the accuracy of the settings and measurements being made by the system..."
The court set a high burden for ATS to meet should it wish to prosecute a case successfully in the future.
"The court points out that it is not ruling against the red light camera system as a whole," Riley concluded. "Rather it is a ruling that sufficient foundation and evidence must be presented and appropriate witnesses must be present at trial to testify and be subject to cross-examination by the defendants. In the absence of the excluded evidence and appropriate witnesses with personal knowledge as discussed herein, the court finds that the people would be unable to prove the within eight cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the within matters are dismissed."
A copy of the decision is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
In Re: 8 Photo Red Light Cases (Superior Court of California, San Diego County, 8/16/2010)Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Australia: Appeals Court Rules Photo Ticket Inadmissible
California courts are not alone in questioning the validity of red light camera and speed camera photographs as valid legal evidence. On Friday, the Queensland, Australia Court of Appeal ruled that automated ticketing cases require more than a pair of images in a folder to make a speeding case that will stick. The motorist, a non-lawyer, won her case against the government with only the help of her husband.
A camera accused Bilyana LeKich of driving 114 km/h (70 MPH) in a 100 zone (62 MPH) on Bruce Highway in Burpengary on September 4, 2008. Lekich pleaded not guilty in Caboolture Magistrate's Court where a judge did little more than look at the photos and declare that she was guilty and must pay A$200. LeKich appealed to a district court which overturned this conviction on the grounds that the photos should not have been entered as evidence.
Under Australian law, the police commissioner must certify the photographs as "properly taken" at the time and location stated on the citation. The commissioner can delegate this power to another police officer, but the prosecution never offered any evidence that the power had been properly delegated -- other than the fact that a police officer's signature on the ticket was proof that the power had been delegated. The lower court judge did not buy the argument.
"The starting point, of course, for any criminal prosecution is that the evidence is to be given orally," the Brisbane District Court judge ruled last year. "Evidence in writing is prima facie hearsay and is inadmissible unless it comes within a statutory exception to the rule against hearsay.... There is certainly nothing in s. 120 of the act which permits the delegate to certify to the existence of the delegation where the commissioner's power has been delegated."
As hearsay, the photographs were inadmissible and Queensland Police Service was left with nothing to prove a case against LeKich. Court of Appeal Justice Hugh B. Fraser, writing for the three-judge panel, agreed with the district court findings because proper procedure is important when a signature constitutes automatic proof.
"The consequences of a delegation by the commissioner are by no means insignificant," Fraser wrote. "It arms a police officer with power to provide prima facie proof of an offense merely by signing a certificate which s. 120 otherwise requires to be signed by the commissioner. It does not seem unduly pedantic to insist upon proof of such a delegation where as the primary judge explained, the applicant [Queensland Police Service] could have taken advantage of the simple mode of proof which the legislature has provided."
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
Dixon v. LeKich (Court of Appeal, Queensland, Australia, 8/13/2010)
This is a journal covering motoring issues from 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 4,019,023 tickets worth $305 million (as of 8/31/09).
| Previous Page | Next Page |
 |  |
Archives | Contact | Site Map | Search | Documents | Privacy Policy