Money Hungry Red Light Camera Company ATS Sues, Claiming Allowing Baytown Texas Voters To Vote Against Cameras Violates Voter’s Rights

BAYTOWN, TEXAS – American Traffic Solutions, the company that owns and operates the cameras and sensor systems used to enforce red light compliance at several Baytown intersections, filed a lawsuit against the city Thursday seeking to overturn the city’s decision to call an election on an amendment to the red light camera ordinance.

In addition to repeating previous claims the amendment to the ordinance constitutes a repeal of the ordinance and violates state code, the lawsuit also claims the city is violating the federal Voting Rights Act.

City Attorney Ignacio Ramirez defended the city in a hearing Thursday in which ATS sought a temporary restraining order against the city, according to Patti Jett, public affairs coordinator for the City of Baytown. The temporary restraining order to stop the election was not granted, she said. Another hearing has been scheduled on the matter.

In its suit, American Traffic Solutions presents several claims to justify stopping the election, including:

• A claim the amendment to the city’s red light ordinance constitutes a repeal of the ordinance. Under the city charter, there are tight time limits on how soon a petition can be presented calling for a referendum to repeal an ordinance, but not limits on when a petition can be presented to amend an ordinance. An earlier attempt to repeal the red light camera ordinance was rejected by the city on that basis.

• A claim the proposed ordinance includes a definition of “law enforcement officer” that would not allow Baytown police to enforce the law.

• A claim the proposed ordinance seeks to override state law in restricting the use of photo-enforcement equipment.

• A claim the election violates the Voting Rights Act.

The claim of violation of the Voting Rights Act is also being used in a contest to a pending election in the City of Houston regarding its red light camera program. Unlike the Baytown case, the Houston lawsuit is in federal court and was filed by a political action committee supporting red light cameras, rather than by American Traffic Solutions.

The Baytown lawsuit says the Voting Right Act violation comes from the city allowing a referendum petition outside of the 20-day window allowed by law. The suit says “no approval [from the Department of Justice] was sought (or received) to bypass the previously-approved twenty-day limitation on referendum petitions.”

Further, the suit maintains, “By permitting an unauthorized ballot proposition to be placed before the voters, the City has created a scenario whereby voters who oppose the Safety Camera Program — a group that historically tends to vote in a conservative manner — will vote in greater numbers than would otherwise have turned out for a November 2, 2010 election. This change in voting practices and procedures results in the potential for minority voting strength to be diluted through the inclusion of an unauthorized ballot measure.”

In response to a written question asking if the company had previously used the Voting Rights Act as a legal strategy to block elections, ATS Vice President for Governmental Relations and General Counsel George Hittner said, “ATS’ complaint is not based on the premise advanced in your question. ATS’ claims in this lawsuit are based on the calling of a costly and voidable election.”

In response to a written question asking if the company had any studies or other evidence supporting its contention regarding the political leanings of potential voters, Hittner provided the identical answer, “ATS’ complaint is not based on the premise advanced in your question. ATS’ claims in this lawsuit are based on the calling of a costly and voidable election.”

When asked how many of its clients the company has sued, Hittner replied, “None. However, we are required by law to file this challenge before the election occurs for the simple reason that an election contest is not available as a possible remedy after the election occurs.”

Speaking for the city, Jett said the election is still on as of this time.

She was unable to say whether the city had the legal authority to cancel the election at this time even if it chose to do so, as the state deadline for calling November elections has passed.

Appeared Here

New Jersey Cities Justify Revenue Generating Red Light Cameras With Bogus Statistics Someone Pulled Out Of Their Butt

NEW JERSEY – Nearly two dozen cities throughout the state of New Jersey are preparing to install red light cameras to ticket motorists. In order to “save pedestrian lives” these programs, like others throughout the country, will issue up to ninety-five percent of citations not to straight-through red light runners but to the owners of vehicles that make rolling right-hand turns on a red. This type of turn rarely causes accidents in the Garden State.

“We will continue to bring this revenue-enhancing and life-saving program to all of our neighborhoods,” Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker said in a March statement announcing the expansion of its red light camera program.

Newark Police Director Garry F. McCarthy emphasized how the program would save the lives of pedestrians.

“Project Red Light will enhance our ability to enforce traffic ordinances and maintain safety for pedestrians and motorists alike without incurring additional expenses or duties for our officers,” McCarthy said. “We are using the latest technology and partnerships to enable us to work smarter, and to eliminate the needless tragedies that result when motorists ignore red lights.”

The Bergen, New Jersey Record newspaper obtained accident records from the state transportation department and found that no pedestrians were killed anywhere in New Jersey by drivers making right-hand turns in either 2006 or 2007. In fact, during the same period, nearly a quarter of all pedestrian fatalities could be attributed to drunks stumbling into traffic. The Record’s findings match those of a US Department of Transportation report that showed right-turn on red collisions were rare (view study).

Despite the lack of evidence that red light cameras would do anything to protect pedestrians and despite a number of studies that show the devices have increased the overall number of injuries and collisions where they are used (view studies), municipal leaders have rushed to obtain specific state authorization to use the automated ticketing machines. Since Governor Jon S. Corzine (D) signed legislation in January 2008, authorization has been granted to Brick Township, Cherry Hill, Deptford, East Brunswick, Edison, Glassboro, Gloucester Township, Hoboken, Jersey City, Lawrence, Linden, Monroe, Morris Township, Newark, New Brunswick, Piscataway, Roselle Park, South Brunswick, Stafford, Stratford, Wayne and Woodbridge.

Appeared Here

85% Of Sulphur Louisiana Voters Reject Speed Cameras – Dispite Profiting Company Redflex Traffic System’s Claims That Public Wants An Automated Screwing

SULPHUR, LOUISIANA – In a special election yesterday, a Southern Louisiana city of 22,000 overwhelmingly rejected photo enforcement. Asked, “Shall Ordinance No. 873, M-C Series adopting automated speed enforcement for the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, be repealed?” eighty-six percent of voters said “Yes.” After results are certified on April 13, the Australian speed camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems will be sent packing.

Sulphur’s ballot box totals contrast sharply with public opinion survey results published by traffic camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS). A review of ATS contracting arrangements with municipalities showed that ATS-sponsored polling is regularly offered as part of a suite of marketing services intended to promote the sale of automated ticketing machines. In a March 17 press release, for example, ATS insisted that camera opponents were the minority.

“A recent survey shows two-thirds of Missourians support police photo traffic enforcement using red-light cameras — but that many of those supportive Missourians mistakenly assume the technology is not favored by most of their neighbors,” the ATS release stated. “By a remarkable 66 percent to 30 percent margin, voters supported red light cameras.”

In January, ATS hired Public Opinion Strategies to generate a similar survey showing 63 percent of Arizona voters supported speed cameras. Although traffic cameras frequently enjoy enthusiastic support in public opinion research sponsored by the industry, they have never once succeeded with voters on election day.

Real voters in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras last November. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio residents rejected photo radar in 2006. In less recent votes, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. Anchorage, Alaska also rejected a photo radar program in 1997.

The next referendum on automated ticketing is set for Chillicothe, Ohio where enthusiastic residents succeeded in gathering more than double the amount of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. Additional votes are possible as the group CameraFraud.com is currently working to put photo enforcement up for a statewide vote in Arizona and the Coalition Opposed to Spending and Taxes is working on a petition in Toledo, Ohio.

Appeared Here

85% Of Sulphur Louisiana Voters Reject Speed Cameras – Dispite Profiting Company Redflex Traffic System’s Claims That Public Wants An Automated Screwing

SULPHUR, LOUISIANA – In a special election yesterday, a Southern Louisiana city of 22,000 overwhelmingly rejected photo enforcement. Asked, “Shall Ordinance No. 873, M-C Series adopting automated speed enforcement for the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, be repealed?” eighty-six percent of voters said “Yes.” After results are certified on April 13, the Australian speed camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems will be sent packing.

Sulphur’s ballot box totals contrast sharply with public opinion survey results published by traffic camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS). A review of ATS contracting arrangements with municipalities showed that ATS-sponsored polling is regularly offered as part of a suite of marketing services intended to promote the sale of automated ticketing machines. In a March 17 press release, for example, ATS insisted that camera opponents were the minority.

“A recent survey shows two-thirds of Missourians support police photo traffic enforcement using red-light cameras — but that many of those supportive Missourians mistakenly assume the technology is not favored by most of their neighbors,” the ATS release stated. “By a remarkable 66 percent to 30 percent margin, voters supported red light cameras.”

In January, ATS hired Public Opinion Strategies to generate a similar survey showing 63 percent of Arizona voters supported speed cameras. Although traffic cameras frequently enjoy enthusiastic support in public opinion research sponsored by the industry, they have never once succeeded with voters on election day.

Real voters in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras last November. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio residents rejected photo radar in 2006. In less recent votes, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. Anchorage, Alaska also rejected a photo radar program in 1997.

The next referendum on automated ticketing is set for Chillicothe, Ohio where enthusiastic residents succeeded in gathering more than double the amount of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. Additional votes are possible as the group CameraFraud.com is currently working to put photo enforcement up for a statewide vote in Arizona and the Coalition Opposed to Spending and Taxes is working on a petition in Toledo, Ohio.

Appeared Here

Chillicothe Ohio Voters Will Have The Opportunity To Ditch Red Light And Speed Cameras

CHILLICOTHE, OHIO – A third city in Ohio is poised to ban the use of photo enforcement. The Chillicothe group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE) announced Thursday that it had submitted more than double the number of signatures required to give voters in November the choice of banning both speed cameras and red light cameras (view initiative text).

“CAPE is against the red light cameras because they are unsafe, they do not add safety to the city, they only add revenue and still to this day, we have illegal short yellows,” CAPE President Rebekah Valentich explained.

Under Ohio Code Section 4511.094, which became law on September 12, 2008, it is illegal for any camera-equipped intersection to have a yellow time duration of less than 4.0 seconds. Similar to a new Georgia law, cities must add one second of yellow time to any intersection using a camera. CAPE members caught local officials using yellows with durations under four seconds after the law had passed at intersections such as Bridge and Main. After the city increased the yellow to 4 seconds at this location, the number of citations issued dropped nearly 90 percent. According to the group, several intersections remain undertimed.

Given the strong petition support and the history of similar efforts, prospects are favorable for the referendum. A similar initiative banned cameras in Cincinnati last year. In 2006, three out of every four voters in Steubenville chose to kick out speed cameras after the devices had issued $600,000 in citations. Over the past twelve years, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois have also banned cameras.

Voters in Sulphur, Louisiana will decide in a special election today whether speed cameras should be banned from the city.

Appeared Here

Chillicothe Ohio Voters Will Have The Opportunity To Ditch Red Light And Speed Cameras

CHILLICOTHE, OHIO – A third city in Ohio is poised to ban the use of photo enforcement. The Chillicothe group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE) announced Thursday that it had submitted more than double the number of signatures required to give voters in November the choice of banning both speed cameras and red light cameras (view initiative text).

“CAPE is against the red light cameras because they are unsafe, they do not add safety to the city, they only add revenue and still to this day, we have illegal short yellows,” CAPE President Rebekah Valentich explained.

Under Ohio Code Section 4511.094, which became law on September 12, 2008, it is illegal for any camera-equipped intersection to have a yellow time duration of less than 4.0 seconds. Similar to a new Georgia law, cities must add one second of yellow time to any intersection using a camera. CAPE members caught local officials using yellows with durations under four seconds after the law had passed at intersections such as Bridge and Main. After the city increased the yellow to 4 seconds at this location, the number of citations issued dropped nearly 90 percent. According to the group, several intersections remain undertimed.

Given the strong petition support and the history of similar efforts, prospects are favorable for the referendum. A similar initiative banned cameras in Cincinnati last year. In 2006, three out of every four voters in Steubenville chose to kick out speed cameras after the devices had issued $600,000 in citations. Over the past twelve years, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois have also banned cameras.

Voters in Sulphur, Louisiana will decide in a special election today whether speed cameras should be banned from the city.

Appeared Here

Red Light Cameras Outlawed In Mississippi

MISSISSIPPI – Among the bills signed into law by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Friday is House Bill 1568, which bans the use of cameras to catch motorists running red lights.

Jackson is among several cities in Mississippi that uses or was considering using cameras as ways to reduce accidents and raise revenues through automated ticketing. Columbus has already resolved to remove its cameras in anticipation of Barbour’s signing the bill. Other cities that were reportedly considering installation of the cameras include McComb, Natchez, Southaven and Tupelo.

The Capitol City has cameras at eight intersections around the city and a three-year contract with the company that manufacturers them, reported WAPT last week. City officials have until Oct. 1 to take down the cameras.

Mississippi joins at least eight other states in banning the automated technology, including neighboring Arkansas. Six other states are debating using cameras, which studies suggest work well to reduce the numbers of drivers who run red lights.

A story published in USA Today in 2007 cited two such studies: one in Philadelphia, Penn., and the other in Virginia Beach:

The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%.

“There’s a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used,” says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. “The jury is in on that question.”

The Virginia Beach study, conducted by Old Dominion University, examined signal violations at four intersections before red light cameras were installed, while they were operating and after they were removed in 2005. Violations more than tripled by August 2006.

“That’s a huge jump,” says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. “The rate of red light running was actually higher” than before the cameras were installed.

Appeared Here

Red Light Cameras Outlawed In Mississippi

MISSISSIPPI – Among the bills signed into law by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Friday is House Bill 1568, which bans the use of cameras to catch motorists running red lights.

Jackson is among several cities in Mississippi that uses or was considering using cameras as ways to reduce accidents and raise revenues through automated ticketing. Columbus has already resolved to remove its cameras in anticipation of Barbour’s signing the bill. Other cities that were reportedly considering installation of the cameras include McComb, Natchez, Southaven and Tupelo.

The Capitol City has cameras at eight intersections around the city and a three-year contract with the company that manufacturers them, reported WAPT last week. City officials have until Oct. 1 to take down the cameras.

Mississippi joins at least eight other states in banning the automated technology, including neighboring Arkansas. Six other states are debating using cameras, which studies suggest work well to reduce the numbers of drivers who run red lights.

A story published in USA Today in 2007 cited two such studies: one in Philadelphia, Penn., and the other in Virginia Beach:

The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%.

“There’s a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used,” says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. “The jury is in on that question.”

The Virginia Beach study, conducted by Old Dominion University, examined signal violations at four intersections before red light cameras were installed, while they were operating and after they were removed in 2005. Violations more than tripled by August 2006.

“That’s a huge jump,” says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. “The rate of red light running was actually higher” than before the cameras were installed.

Appeared Here

New Carrollton Maryland Red-Light Cameras Accuse Innocent Motorists Of Traffic Violations – Dumbass Motorists Pay Bogus Tickets

NEW CARROLLTON,, MARYLAND – The town of New Carrollton’s new mobile red light cameras are snapping up pictures like the paparazzi and motorists are calling the cameras out.

Danielle King got two tickets and says she’s been wrongly accused. “I got caught by one up there,” says King referring to the cameras along route 450.

E-mail us if you have been caught by a red light camera: webmaster@wttg.com

Motorists complain they are being wrongly accused. King says,” I think they need to go away. I just think they are unfair. They need to go away.”

Fox 5 photographers stood at one intersection near 85th Avenue and caught the camera popping off like popcorn. Each ticket is a 75 dollar citation. One motorist shared his ticket.
He got cited in his white van, but a closer look at the ticket shows the vehicle is at a complete stop. Complaints are pouring in.

AAA Mid-Atlantic’s John Townsend says it appears drivers are getting ticketed; not for running the red light, but for stopping over the white line.

Townsend blasted the camera saying, “This is the most egregious one we’ve seen. It is so beyond the pale. It not only violated the spirit of the law it violates the letter of the law. It may be illegal in the state of Maryland. “

During a short period, the cameras flashed continually and went off when cars were at a complete stop. We asked one motorist, “Did you go past the red light?” The unidentified driver said, “No, I didn’t. I’m still stopped here at the red light. If I went through then you wouldn’t be talking to me now. The camera went off. So am I going to get a ticket? Oh no. “

Townsend said, “These people legally stopped for a red light, but they ventured into this box and they consider that technically to be red light running and it’s not. It smacks of I got you; a game just for money.”

As the camera snapped another picture, we asked another motorist, “Do you realize you just got a red light ticket?” The unidentified woman said, “You’ve got to be kidding. You are kidding. Did you pass the red light? No!”

Some say it’s not just a camera, but a cash cow–snapping up photos of unsuspecting motorists.
Townsend said many motorists don’t even contest the tickets, in fact one woman confirmed that saying; “if I got it I wouldn’t fight it no. If the camera is set to do it that way I just have to pay the ticket.

Townsend admits he’s one of those recently ticketed, but he fought it.

Fox 5 made an effort to talk with the New Carrollton Police Department and the city about the issue.
The chief said he’ll answer questions during office hours.

Triple A says they’ve received numerous complaints from several cities using the mobile red light cameras along the Route 450 corridor; including Bladensburg and Riverdale.

Appeared Here

New Carrollton Maryland Red-Light Cameras Accuse Innocent Motorists Of Traffic Violations – Dumbass Motorists Pay Bogus Tickets

NEW CARROLLTON,, MARYLAND – The town of New Carrollton’s new mobile red light cameras are snapping up pictures like the paparazzi and motorists are calling the cameras out.

Danielle King got two tickets and says she’s been wrongly accused. “I got caught by one up there,” says King referring to the cameras along route 450.

E-mail us if you have been caught by a red light camera: webmaster@wttg.com

Motorists complain they are being wrongly accused. King says,” I think they need to go away. I just think they are unfair. They need to go away.”

Fox 5 photographers stood at one intersection near 85th Avenue and caught the camera popping off like popcorn. Each ticket is a 75 dollar citation. One motorist shared his ticket.
He got cited in his white van, but a closer look at the ticket shows the vehicle is at a complete stop. Complaints are pouring in.

AAA Mid-Atlantic’s John Townsend says it appears drivers are getting ticketed; not for running the red light, but for stopping over the white line.

Townsend blasted the camera saying, “This is the most egregious one we’ve seen. It is so beyond the pale. It not only violated the spirit of the law it violates the letter of the law. It may be illegal in the state of Maryland. “

During a short period, the cameras flashed continually and went off when cars were at a complete stop. We asked one motorist, “Did you go past the red light?” The unidentified driver said, “No, I didn’t. I’m still stopped here at the red light. If I went through then you wouldn’t be talking to me now. The camera went off. So am I going to get a ticket? Oh no. “

Townsend said, “These people legally stopped for a red light, but they ventured into this box and they consider that technically to be red light running and it’s not. It smacks of I got you; a game just for money.”

As the camera snapped another picture, we asked another motorist, “Do you realize you just got a red light ticket?” The unidentified woman said, “You’ve got to be kidding. You are kidding. Did you pass the red light? No!”

Some say it’s not just a camera, but a cash cow–snapping up photos of unsuspecting motorists.
Townsend said many motorists don’t even contest the tickets, in fact one woman confirmed that saying; “if I got it I wouldn’t fight it no. If the camera is set to do it that way I just have to pay the ticket.

Townsend admits he’s one of those recently ticketed, but he fought it.

Fox 5 made an effort to talk with the New Carrollton Police Department and the city about the issue.
The chief said he’ll answer questions during office hours.

Triple A says they’ve received numerous complaints from several cities using the mobile red light cameras along the Route 450 corridor; including Bladensburg and Riverdale.

Appeared Here