So why do over 50 cities in Florida continue to ticket drivers for red light camera violations? They’re gambling that legislation will be passed this spring, which would allow cameras statewide.

At the same time, another Florida bill could rule cameras illegal and have cities scrambling to issue millions of dollars in refunds.

How do cities get around state law? Cities create an ordinance that only applies to their specific town, thus using a loophole to make their own set of local traffic laws.

In recent weeks, many cities without current camera contracts have been meeting to pass ordinances and sign contracts before legislation is passed in hopes of retaining more ticket revenue “if” the cameras are made legal statewide in the future.

West Palm Beach, New Port Richey, Oveido, Punta Gorda, Oldsmar, and other Florida cities have all recently passed or have been preparing to pass local law within the last month.

We have two bills, one for and one against cameras. The house is currently in session and will ultimately decide the fate of the law in the next month.

Why aren’t cities waiting on the legislation before installing cameras? The cameras produce millions of dollars  locally and under HB 325, allowing cameras, the state would receive half of the all camera revenue. The bill allows for a grandfather clause for cities already using the technology before legislation is passed. In New Port Richey’s case…

“Another proposed bill, which passed a House committee Tuesday, would allow and standardize the cameras’ use statewide. But even that could prove an obstacle to Port Richey’s plans, the council said, because it would split the ticketed revenue among health care facilities and the state and earn the city $35 less per fine.

“Having cameras already up before legislation is passed would be a huge advantage,” City Council member Perry Bean said. The long-term contract could be leverage, council members said, allowing the city’s agreement to be grandfathered into law.

City councils have found yet another loophole.

Florida had 76 fatalities and 5,607 injuries from disregarding red lights in 2008. In a state of 19 million people, not including those who come for business or as tourists. The numbers are relatively low given the large number of drivers. Florida’s red light injuries have decreased every year since 1998, yet the 1st cameras were installed only 6 years ago.

Many cities don’t consider less revenue generating ideas for safety before installing cameras, such as increasing yellow light time or having all lights remain red longer before a green light is shown. The more cities who pass city law now, the more pressure it puts on the house to justify why the state won’t do the same.

House Bill 325 allowing cameras, is  named for Mark Wandall. He was a victim of a red light runners negligence. A little followed story by the local media says that Sarasota and Manatee counties have both contributed to Melissa Wandall’s coalition, though she hadn’t registered as a lobbyist and that her foundation is supported by major camera companies and insurance agencies.

Do Floridians  really support red light cameras?

According to American Traffic Solutions (camera company), 85 percent of residents in cities where the cameras are in use like them. RedFlex, another major camera company recently said,  “In a recent nationwide opinion poll, voters showed 80 percent support of the red light cameras as a safety tool.” The Partnership for Advancing Road Safety (PARS) describes itself as an organization that seeks to use best practices to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on American highways. The group’s number one priority is countering the growing nationwide backlash against the use of automated ticketing machines that has resulted in millions of dollar’s losses for camera vendors. The group itself, however, is the creation of the public relations firm APCO Worldwide. The “founding members” that hired APCO for this public relations project include Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, UK-based Lasercraft and Redspeed, Germany-based Traffipax and Australia-based Redflex. The overseas companies use front groups to evade laws prohibiting direct foreign influence in the US electoral process.

So it’s safe to say that when the camera companies conduct the poll, 80% or more people are for cameras.

Our newspapers/websites help these companies by using their polls in articles and allowing numerous  readers to come away misinformed, with an opinion that most people support red light cameras based solely on the camera companies own stats.

Cameras have been put to public vote 9 times in recent years. In all 9 instances citizens voted to remove cameras, with between 64% and 86% of the public against cameras.

A recent Orlando Sentinel poll of 7900 residents show that 73%  oppose red light cameras. In Lakeland, citizens have created a Facebook group called “We hate Lakeland Red Light Cameras.” The group has over 1,500 supporters and has increased by 1,000 people in the last month alone. In Tampa, a new TBO.com poll is showing residents oppose Red Light Cameras nearly 2-1. In Naples, over 700 residents voted in a poll that says 62% of residents think cameras are unconstitutional or cause more accidents, while only 26% think cameras increase safety.

Even when a poll is in favor of cameras, it’s nowhere near 80% as claimed by the camera companies or reported by the media. Bay News 9’s latest poll on red light cameras show at least 46% want them gone and the Palm Beach Post’s poll has similar numbers.

With all these stats readily available by a quick Google search for “Florida Red Light Camera Polls”.  Its interesting to note that over 15 Florida newspapers and online news agencies have all used the following stat over and over again in their reporting:

“The Public Opinion Strategies poll of drivers found that 72 percent supported the use of cameras in their communities and more than 60 percent would back a state law regulating their usage in cities and counties.” This was a poll of 800 Florida drivers.

The polls we found include over 10,000 votes and about 65% of the population is against red light cameras.

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.

“You can’t argue with giving the people a right to decide,” Arnold told TheNewspaper. “I’m not making the decision, the people are. When people are given a choice on this issue — as happened in Sulphur, Louisiana — they vote over 80 percent, ‘No, we don’t want traffic cameras.’”

Arnold explained that this measure would force automated ticketing advocates to live up to their own rhetoric.

“People who support these cameras say that there’s strong public support for it,” Arnold said. “If you think you’re right and people support these, go ahead and put it up for a vote. Let’s see what it gets you…. If Lafayette votes ‘yes, we like our cameras’ then they can keep them, but if Orleans votes ‘no,’ then they’re gone.”

Last year, the House by a 56-26 margin voted down an amendment to ban photo ticketing outright. Arnold explained that lawmakers did not like the idea of adding the camera ban to an unrelated piece of legislation during an abbreviated session. This time, the House will have plenty of time to consider free-standing legislation. As one of the most senior members and chairman of the powerful Commerce committee, Arnold expects his proposals will receive a fair hearing in the committee of jurisdiction.

“I’ve talked to some members on the Transportation committee who voted against this last time who are now looking to vote for the bill,” Arnold explained. “They’re coming to the understanding that this is really a cash grab as opposed to a safety issue.”

Arnold intends to introduce two more versions of his legislation in case the ban and referendum efforts falter. One bill would ban the use of cameras on state-funded highways and roads. Another would require any tickets go before a judicial proceeding before an elected traffic judge, as opposed to an administrative hearing officer who works as an employee of the local jurisdiction.

The Louisiana State Legislature’s legislative session begins on March 29. A copy of the pre-filed House Bill 160 is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Source: House Bill 160 (Louisiana State Legislature, 3/8/2010)

Some measures require explanation. In Arkansas, for example, state law authorizes police to use a photo radar gun if the officer personally delivers the ticket at the time of the violation. This does no more than allow a photograph to be used in conjunction with a traditional traffic stop and serves as an unconditional ban on automated enforcement. In Utah, the legislature has placed so many restrictions on the use of photo radar — specifically, banning outsourcing of the ticketing process to private, for-profit companies — that no city uses speed cameras. This serves as an “effective ban” on photo enforcement. The list also excludes states like Florida where photo enforcement is illegal but local jurisdictions ignore the law in the hopes that they will not be sued before the legislature retroactively approves their use of photo ticketing.

Cameras have also been banned at a local level by referendum. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down “traffic management cameras” that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote.

Source: Thenewspaper.com

The photo enforcement industry announced on Friday the creation of a new red light camera and speed camera advocacy group. The Partnership for Advancing Road Safety (PARS) describes itself as an organization that seeks to use best practices to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on American highways. The group’s number one priority is countering the growing nationwide backlash against the use of automated ticketing machines that has resulted in multi-million dollar loses for camera vendors.

“While a vocal minority may oppose road safety cameras, our research indicates just the opposite — 80 percent of the public support intersection safety cameras and 67 percent support speed safety cameras,” said PARS Executive Director David Kelly. “Automated road safety cameras share one thing in common with other proven safety countermeasures – they save lives. And that’s the message PARS intends to communicate to everyone we can reach.”

Kelly provides a respectable face for the group as the former chief of staff for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and a former senior staffer at Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The group itself, however, is the creation of the public relations firm APCO Worldwide. The website was registered by APCO. The PARS contact on the group’s press release, Jeffery A. Smith, listed a “jsmith@advancingroadsafety.com” email address, but the phone number given rings the offices at APCO.

The “founding members” that hired APCO for this public relations project include Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, UK-based Lasercraft and Redspeed, Germany-based Traffipax and Australia-based Redflex. The overseas companies use front groups to evade laws prohibiting direct foreign influence in the US electoral process. Redflex, for example, specifically cited an “APCO nationwide poll” in a press release issued earlier this month, making no mention of its connection to the firm.

“In a recent nationwide opinion poll, voters showed 80 percent support of the red light cameras as a safety tool,” the Redflex news release stated.

Despite the bold claim, neither red light cameras nor speed cameras have ever survived a public vote. In nine out of nine municipal referenda on the issue, automated ticketing lost with as much as 86 percent of the public voting against cameras

In January, the city admitted that every photo ticket that American Traffic Solutions (ATS) issued on its behalf between August 2009 and January 28, 2010 was invalid because the city council failed to ratify the contract. The council agreed to refund the tickets, nearly 3000 worth $446 each, and pay for the traffic schools motorists were forced to take. While generous, this move was not enough.

 ATS restarted the mailing of camera tickets on January 27, but California law requires a 30-day warning period before tickets may be issued. In the eyes of the law, the program started on the 27th — without a warning period. The state supreme court upheld a court case that found tickets issued without this warning period were void. The editor of the website Highwayrobbery.net pointed out that the city may have been forced into this untenable legal position by vendor reluctance to hold a warning period without being paid to do so.

“ATS shall provide the customer [South San Francisco] with an optional one-time warning period up to 30 days in length at the outset of the program,” the contract between the city and ATS stated.

During the warning period, the vendor is responsible for all of the expenses for creating and mailing warning notices to alleged violators. ATS had already paid for a warning period in 2009, when the program was operating illegally.

City council members may vote next month to drop the red light camera program entirely.

“With 60 day written notice, on the first anniversary of the start date, either party shall have the option to terminate this agreement,” the city’s photo enforcement contract explains.

[courtesy:thenewspaper.com]

A committee hearing is considering a new proposal Monday in Springfield.

A reform proposal will not crack down on when drivers stop while turning right, just as long as they stop.

$100 tickets would continue for drivers who turn right on red without stopping at all.

The reform includes a new review process for violations.

Police officers would have to review tickets in collar counties, while Chicago and suburban Cook County would use trained technicians.

Drivers would also be able to review citations for themselves online.

There’s also no fee for appealing violations.

The new red light cameras rules say nothing about the placement of cameras.

The Daily Herald reports that many cameras are going up in suburban intersections that have had few red-light related accidents.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/red-light-camera-reform-wgntv-mar15,0,2336565.story

To put a stop to this problem, around 50 cities in central and south Florida have installed red light traffic cameras like these at dangerous intersections.

Here’s how the cameras work. Once you run the light, the camera snaps your license plate. Some cameras take two shots, one of you, and one of your license plate.

A few weeks later, you receive a ticket in the mail costing you hundreds of dollars. But how big of a problem is red light running?

The latest statistics show between 700 and 900 people are killed by red light runners in the U.S. each year. Half of those deaths were pedestrians.

In 2007, a Bronco t-boned a Panama City police cruiser. The driver of the Bronco ran the red light at Jenks Avenue and 15th Street. The officer was injured in the accident.

Surprisingly, Panama City police aren’t sure if the cameras would work here.

“It’s just another thing to have to manage really. I don’t know what the impact would be. I think we have bigger issues that just red lights,” Capt. Scott Ervin, PCPD’s Field Services Commander said.

But some see this as a good way of cracking down on risk-taking drivers.

“I think it’s a good idea. Everybody makes mistakes. But still when you run a red light I do believe the photographs work. I’ve had it happen in California and it’s been working for a while so I know it’s successful,” Richard Sugars, a resident said.

We polled three Panama City commissioners on the issue. Two were undecided. While Commissioner John Kady told us if he had to vote on the issue today it would be a definite no.

“They’re fraught with all kinds of constitutional issues. I usually see them as a tool for communities to try and raise money. I don’t see how they serve a legitimate purpose,” Kady said.

State lawmakers are currently debating red light camera bills that would make the cameras legal. No word yet on when they plan on taking a vote.

A number of lawsuits have already been filed in cities with the red light cameras saying they are unconstitutional. In those lawsuits, the owners of the cars are getting tickets rather than the actual drivers.

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/87528057.html