Photo Ticket Firm Redflex Approaches Zero Profit
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3242.asp
Posted: 26 Aug 2010 01:00 AM PDT
Despite collecting A$137 million in revenue from automated traffic ticketing, the Australian photo enforcement giant Redflex Traffic Systems yesterday announced its net profit before tax had fallen to a mere $442,000 for the first half of 2010. Redflex remains the number one player in the US market with US motorists providing 79 percent of the company’s ticket revenue. Redflex management, however, blamed recent losses primarily on “considerable public opposition” to photo radar and red light cameras in the US.Earlier this year, public protests organized by the group CameraFraud.com helped convince Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to shut down the statewide photo radar program run by Redflex. This cost the company $13.1 million in expenses and write downs. Similarly, as cities elsewhere in the country have decided to cancel their photo ticketing programs, Redflex has been forced to write down another $2.8 million in canceled contracts.
“Citizen-led ballot initiatives at both municipal and state levels are potential threats,” the company warned.
Redflex explained to Australian investors that it would fight back against the public through a “managed media interface.” In Arizona, the company cited the creation of the Safer Arizona Roads Alliance as a front group to advance the firm’s corporate agenda in the guise of a non-profit “grassroots” organization. Redflex highlighted a similar effort it is undertaking in Illinois through a “group of advocates.”
Tough market competition accounted for additional losses. Arizona-based rival American Traffic Solutions (ATS) filed an ambitious lawsuit that cost Redflex $4.3 million in legal expenses, even though the Australian firm won the case. ATS also expanded its market share significantly in buying out the German firm Traffipax and the UK firm Lasercraft, bringing Redflex and ATS even in red light camera deployments. Overall, however, Redflex claimed a 47 percent market share with ATS taking 40 percent and Xerox-owned Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) dropping to a mere 9 percent.
ACS, the offshoot of Lockheed Martin IMS, used to hold the number one position in US automated ticketing machines. It has since shifted focus to ticketing in non-US markets. Redflex likewise has looked aggressively to install its products in friendlier, authoritarian regimes. Redflex recently signed three contracts in Saudi Arabia worth $34 million, added 36 new cameras in Qatar, delivered $3 million in cameras for Hong Kong and has secured approval for its products in Turkey.
International exchange hit the Redflex bottom line as an eighteen percent drop in the value of the US dollar against the Australian dollar cost the company $19 million. The company’s net debt now stands at $43 million. Redflex announced it would save money through new software that would “automate citation screening” and reduce the human effort involved in collecting on a ticket by seven percent. Source
August 29, 2010
· 
Tona · 
No Comments
Posted in: Camera Vendor Losing Money
Tennessee Court Rules Overturns Turn Signal Traffic Stop
What’s interesting about this case is that it shows that no one was potentially harmed, resulting in the convictions being over turned. How many people are ticketed by surveillance cameras for safely turning right on red when no one is around?Â
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3212.asp
Posted: 26 Jul 2010 01:11 AM PDT
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday ruled that a driver cannot be pulled over for failure to signal when that conduct did not affect any other driver. The decision came down in the case of Antoinette Feaster, 37, who was stopped and arrested on August 15, 2007 around 11am. Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department Officer Travis Robinson had set up a speed trap on the median of Interstate 24 when he saw Feaster’s Chevrolet Tahoe traveling about 8 MPH below the speed limit and making a lane change without signaling. Feaster’s attorney quizzed Robinson on the stand at trial about his recollection of the incident.ATTORNEY: Okay. And did you see any vehicle put on the brakes as a result of this lane change?
ROBINSON: There were several vehicles around. I can’t recall at this time.
ATTORNEY: Did you see any vehicle having to leave the road as a result of this lane change?
ROBINSON: I don’t recall any vehicles leaving the road, no, sir.
The three-judge panel considered, based on these facts, whether the stop was justified.
“We conclude that this testimony is insufficient to support a violation of section 55-8-143(a),” Judge David H. Welles wrote for the court. “It does not establish that the defendant maneuvered her vehicle in ‘close proximity’ to other vehicles such that those vehicles may have been affected by her lane change.”
Under Tennessee case law, the signal is required when “any other vehicle may be affected” by the lane change.
“We are mindful of the fact that section 55-8-143(a) does not require evidence that other vehicles actually were affected by a defendant’s turn or lane change; our precedents have considered such evidence important only because the fact of an actual effect on another vehicle necessarily establishes the possibility of that effect… To be sure, we can easily imagine a scenario in which a vehicle, traveling in a medium amount of traffic with other vehicles around it, changes lanes in a way that may affect other vehicles. This case simply lacks specific evidence that such an event actually occurred. In order to establish a violation of section 55-8-143(a), the evidence must show that a vehicle turned or changed lanes without signaling and that this failure to signal at least threatened to create a hazard involving other vehicles.”
With the traffic stop thrown out as invalid, the court suppressed the evidence obtained after a drug dog was brought in to search Feaster’s Tahoe. The dog found two bags containing 135.4 grams of cocaine in the vehicle. Feaster had been sentenced to eight years in jail.
A copy of the decision is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below. Source
August 28, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Court Cases, Government Revenue Scam, Traffic Stop
Why it’s right to challenge speed camera claims
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=14688Â
August 20, 2010Â
The public should be wary of claims of ‘success’ by the road safety industry regarding speed cameras – or ‘safety cameras’ as they prefer to call them, writes Malcolm Heymer, former highway engineer and traffic management adviser to the Association of British Drivers
When the Association of British Drivers (ABD) was formed in 1992, its founder members feared that the introduction of speed cameras would threaten the road safety culture that had given Britain the safest roads in the world. Events have shown those fears to be well founded.
The first cameras were installed where studies showed that high speeds had contributed to accidents. Subsequently, however, they became an automatic response to accident problems, regardless of their causes – a camera was often cheaper than an engineering solution. But the misuse of speed cameras really took off when the ‘cost recovery’ scheme was rolled out nationally in 2001. This enabled ‘safety camera partnerships’ to reclaim the costs of enforcement from the income raised by their cameras, which proliferated.
The cost recovery scheme incentivised empire building by the partnerships, which adopted the term ‘safety camera’ in an attempt to justify their activities. Creative accounting was used to increase the expenses reclaimed, and cameras were often sited where the most drivers could be caught exceeding the speed limit, rather than where accidents had occurred. Speeding penalties rocketed.
Allowing enforcement to be funded from fines was bound to lead to abuse, so the cost recovery scheme was terminated in 2007. But this did not mean the end for the camera partnerships, however, because they were still able to claim an annual grant from the Treasury.
Ever since cameras have been deployed in large numbers, the partnerships have claimed they have reduced accidents significantly. An evaluation of camera effectiveness, published in 2005, claimed a 42 per cent reduction in KSI (killed and seriously injured) casualties in the vicinity of cameras. Tucked away in an appendix to that report, however, is an evaluation of the ‘regression-to-the-mean’ effect (RTTM). Most cameras were installed after an upward blip in accident numbers, which would be expected to fall again to the long-term average, even without any action being taken. This is the RTTM effect, which was found to account for three-fifths of the headline claim!
In addition, there has been increasing under-reporting of non-fatal casualties in recent years, evidenced by comparison of official police figures with those from hospital admission records. With roughly 10 serious casualties to every fatality, the KSI trend is heavily influenced by the diminishing reporting of serious injuries. There is also the long-term trend of reducing road casualties. When all these factors are taken into account, the reduction due to cameras is small or non-existent.
While cameras have had little beneficial effect, even at camera sites, the fatality trend for Britain as a whole suggests they have been detrimental to road safety, as feared by the ABD’s founder members.
From 1950 to 1995, the fatality rate per hundred billion vehicle-kilometres (which allows for fluctuating rates of traffic growth) fell at a remarkably consistent 7 per cent per year. The rate over the subsequent 11 years, the height of the speed camera era, fell to a third of that.
The adverse effects of cameras are not just the obvious ones, like a driver braking sharply on seeing a camera. Far more serious is the excessive focus on speed limit enforcement, which sends the subliminal message that rigidly observing speed limits is the key to being a safe driver. This is not the case – drivers must take responsibility for adjusting their speed to the conditions, sometimes slowing to well below the speed limit.
At the same time as cameras were proliferating, many speed limits were being lowered. International experience shows that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile level – the speed that 85 per cent of drivers would not exceed anyway – to achieve maximum compliance, the smoothest traffic flow, the lowest spread of speeds and minimum accident frequency. Speed limits set below this level lead to poor compliance, bunching of traffic and frustration, resulting in more accidents.
Many speed cameras, both fixed and mobile, are deployed to catch people exceeding speed limits where they are unreasonably low and no danger is caused. Average speed cameras do nothing to stop drivers going too fast at danger spots, while forcing them to drive unnecessarily slowly elsewhere. The use of vehicle-activated signs, which flash a warning if drivers approach a hazard at too high a speed, are a much cheaper and more effective solution than speed cameras at genuine high-risk sites.
It is notable how quickly many local authorities have decided to reduce or abandon their use of speed cameras in the face of budget restraints, suggesting they were not convinced of their effectiveness anyway. The vested interests in the road safety ‘industry’ are predictably forecasting carnage on the roads, but there is no evidence to support this view. The ABD hopes that the demise of speed cameras will turn out to be a rare silver lining to the cloud of recession.
August 28, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Engineering Standards, Government Revenue Scam, Police State, Red Light Cameras, Speed Limits, Ticket Cameras
California Legislature Votes to Drop Right Turn Fines
Posted: 27 Aug 2010 01:02 AM PDT
The California state Senate on Wednesday voted 63-11 to give final approval to a measure that will cut the fine for the most common type of red light camera violation in half. Under existing law, motorists who make safe, rolling right-hand turns at monitored intersections may receive a $500 bill in the mail from a private company operating on behalf of a municipality. In the past few years, the “California stop” at some locations have begun to account for up to 98 percent of automated ticketing machine citations.
Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) introduced a brief, but complicated bill that he says will slash the fine for such turns from $500 to $250. It does so by reassigning turning violations to a code section carrying a $35 base fine as opposed to the current $100 base fine given to more serious violations. When state and county surcharges are added to the base amounts, the $35 fine becomes between $225 to $250 and the $100 fine between $450 and $500.
The League of California Cities strongly opposed the measure on monetary grounds, estimating that one-half of all tickets in the state go not for red light running but for turning right on red. The League called Hill’s fine reduction bill a “de facto prohibition” on camera use.
“With the same number of tickets being issued but with less revenue for operations, cities will simply decrease or eliminate red light camera operations,” League lobbyist Jennifer Whiting wrote in a letter to the Assembly Transportation Committee last week. “AB 909 would negatively affect cities’ ability to use automated traffic enforcement tools and potentially cost the state millions of dollars of lost revenue. It does not directly prohibit the use of red light cameras but the reduction of fees collected could make red light camera systems fiscally unfeasible. For these reasons, the League opposes this bill.”
Assemblyman Hill insisted that the rolling stop fine was never intended to be so high and that a drafting error in 1997 legislation placed rolling turns in the more expensive category. His change restores rolling right tickets to the same category as running a stop sign.
“This may be the most significant thing we can do for the people of California this year, given the budget situation,” Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) said in a statement.
As the Senate had passed the same bill 26 to 8 on August 12, the proposal will become law with the signature of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). A copy of the bill is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below. Source
August 28, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Government Revenue Scam, Legislation, Red Light Cameras, Ticket Cameras
Letter: ‘Red Light Cameras Are Unconstitutional Unless…’
Friday, 27 August 2010 00:00
The Village Courts in Nassau preside over violation cases including allegations involving the State’s Vehicle and Traffic Laws occurring within our borders. We are local criminal courts and as such the Criminal Procedure Law and rules of evidence that apply in the case of misdemeanor and felony courts also apply to them. So too do the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York both of which have right of confrontation clauses contained within their Bill of Rights provisions.
The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791 as the first 10 amendments of our federal constitution and similar provisions adopted by our State in its own Constitution in 1967 were geared to thwart convictions based upon hearsay and innuendo. This point is driven home, not merely by the constitutional debates of those eras but also by more contemporary examples such as the Broadway play, The Crucible, where rumors allowed for the convictions of humans and animals in Salem, Massachusetts based upon the allegations that they were possessed by evil spirits or witches. The hangings and other executions that then occurred were the by-product of hearsay and trials lacking in the component of cross-examination or juries representing a fair cross-section of the community or even judges who might fairly decide the facts and the law. Certainly defense lawyers and their function of testing the prosecution’s case were non-existent.
Similarly, the red light cameras that have been installed present problems in that the photographs themselves cannot be cross-examined and therefore the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is easily established by the prosecution. While legislation has allowed for these cameras to be implemented as revenue and safety measures, they cannot presently pass constitutional scrutiny for anyone who wishes to challenge them based upon their assertion of constitutional rights including the right of confrontation. In order for that to occur under our rules of evidence, photos have to be properly authenticated and introduced by someone authorized to take them such as a police officer, who can attest to his or her personal knowledge of the violation. Much like a breath technician in DWI cases, operators of the cameras or equipment should be certified and also capable of testifying about the calibration and operating records of the cameras. This will reduce revenue, increase costs for the prosecution of these cases and reduce the number of convictions. But that is a cost that we must pay if we plan to continue to uphold, protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York. Naturally these constitutional protections should only apply to those asserting them but all others may avail themselves of pleas of guilty. That may save them time and money but it will not help to preserve our constitutional rights.
Village Justice, Westbury
August 28, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Constitutional Rights, Court Cases, Evidence Requirments, Government Revenue Scam, Red Light Cameras, Ticket Cameras, Traffic Lights
Hey Tennessee Courts, are you Paying Attention?
Another California judge dismisses tickets based on the 6th amendment and evidence requirements. Tennessee Courts have not be supportive of constitutionally protected due process.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2488.asp
More California Courts Refuse Red Light Camera Evidence
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3240.asp
Posted: 24 Aug 2010 01:04 AM PDT
The public relations group founded by red light camera firms, the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, issued a warning in July 2009 that the industry was threatened by the US Supreme Court’s newly developed understanding of the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution. The prediction proved accurate in the California courts. Last week, a San Diego County court threw out eight red light camera tickets in a consolidated case (view ruling). On Thursday, an Orange County judge followed suit, dismissing seven tickets in a consolidated case.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson considered the red light camera evidence presented to him by a local police officer to be insufficient in light of the high court’s directive in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (view ruling).
“The prosecution’s sole witness, Officer Bell, provides no direct testimony whatsoever about the particular defendant or the particular infraction,” Judge Wilson wrote. “Here there is no evidence about the authenticity of the actual photographs… Instead, there is only a description by the officer of the circumstances under which these types of photographs can be taken at the intersections in question. At best, the officer’s testimony establishes in general how the photo enforcement system at the intersection is supposed to work…”
To determine the accuracy of the photographs, Officer Bell relied entirely on a declaration from Redflex Traffic Systems, the private Australian company in charge of the photo ticketing program. Bell lacked personal knowledge of three critical facts necessary to lay a proper foundation for the evidence.
“The declaration contains testimonial hearsay without which the officer cannot identify the photographs as photographs actually taken by the Redflex system, cannot identify the photographs as pertaining to any particular infraction, and cannot provide any testimony concerning the actual (proper) operation of the photo enforcement equipment at the locations in question at the dates and times in question,” Wilson wrote.
County prosecutors attempted to argue that it was sufficient that Bell was trained in April 2009 on the camera system’s workings so that he was able to explain the general process used to create the photographic evidence. Following the reasoning in the Khaled decision (view ruling), Wilson emphasized that Bell needed specifically to know the photographs used to accuse the defendants, not just any photographs. Wilson described the prosecution’s reasoning as essentially circular.
“Here, the expert is testifying to the reliability of the evidence presented to support a finding that a violation occurred,” Wilson wrote. “In order to do that, he must rely on hearsay and on computer data proffered without proper foundation, to opine that that same hearsay and data is reliable. He cannot bootstrap himself into supporting his own opinions in this way.”
Without proper foundation, the photo evidence was ruled inadmissible and the seven cases dismissed. A copy of the decision is available in a 550k PDF file at the source link below. Source
August 24, 2010
· Tona · 2 Comments
Posted in: Constitutional Rights, Court Cases, Evidence Requirments, Government Revenue Scam, Officer Training, Red Light Cameras, Ticket Cameras
Maryland Attorney General Upholds Right to Video Traffic Stops
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3227.asp
Posted: 11 Aug 2010 01:01 AM PDT
Making a recording of a police traffic stop is not a crime in the opinion of Maryland’s attorney general. In a ruling issued last month from the state’s top law enforcement office, Chief Counsel Robert N. McDonald found the legal grounds weak for felony wiretapping charges of the type brought against a motorcyclist who posted a video of himself being arrested on YouTube. Maryland State Police had taken advantage of ambiguity in the law to prosecute Anthony Graber, 25 for the April 13 recording.“No appellate decision in Maryland specifically addresses the application of that law to recording of police activity,” McDonald wrote in his opinion.
Graber had been stopped for speeding on Interstate 95. While driving an unmarked car in plain clothes, Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Uhler cut off Graber as he brought his motorcycle to a stop. Uhler then jumped out of his car, gun drawn, commanding, “Get off the motorcycle” before identifying himself. Graber had a camera on his helmet that recorded the entire incident, which he later posted on YouTube (view video). The sight of Uhler wielding his weapon in public over a traffic infraction drew a storm of criticism. Uhler responded by ordering his colleagues to raid Graber’s residence and confiscate all of his computer equipment as evidence of wiretapping. By filing charges that could send Graber to prison for sixteen years, the state police wanted to send a clear message to anyone who might consider documenting police misconduct in the future.
Under the interpretation of the state police and prosecutors, a police officer has an expectation of privacy while working on public streets. Ordinary citizens on those same streets, however, have no such expectation and are subjected to constant monitoring by the state’s red light cameras, speed cameras and recently expanded automated license plate recognition systems. The attorney general’s office examined the question of whether the conversation in a traffic stop constituted an “oral conversation” that is “intercepted” under the wiretap act if a citizen records the arrest. After considering a related attorney general ruling from 2000, McDonald ruled that there is no difference between a police officer and a citizen as far as the statute is concerned.
“The reasoning of that excerpt, which suggested that a police officer would not face prosecution or liability under the act for recording an arrest or traffic stop in a public place, would apply equally well to a private person involved in the same incident,” McDonald wrote.
Several other states, with the exception of Massachusetts, have developed case law that clearly allows the recording of police traffic stops. The attorney general’s ruling did not directly consider the details of the Graber case, but it concluded that the most likely outcome should it come to trial would be acquittal.
“A court could hold that a police stop of an individual necessarily is not a ‘private conversation’ and therefore does not involve an oral communication covered by the state wiretap act,” McDonald ruled. “This conclusion would be consistent with the suggestion made in the 2000 opinion and with the holdings of the courts in most other states construing state eavesdropping statutes. Given the language of the Maryland statutes, this seems the most likely outcome in the case of a detention or arrest.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 1.3mb PDF file at the source link below. Source
August 21, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Police State, Privacy Invasion, Traffic Stop
Brooksville rightly ends red-light camera program
In Print: Sunday, August 15, 2010
The city of Brooksville decided it didn’t want to be the city of Waldo. A City Council majority, suspicious a red-light camera program provided out-of-focus safety data, voted last week to kill the effort, two years after it had begun. It was the appropriate decision considering both local merchants and out-of-city residents highlighted the cameras as a detriment to commerce by discouraging visitors to Brooksville.
Some even compared the situation to Waldo, the tiny city along U.S. 301 in Alachua County, which gained such notoriety as a ticket-writing speed trap that the American Automobile Association refuses to route motorists through the area.
“It’s bad for your retailers and obviously a scam to make up for lost property taxes,” said Jennifer Sullivan of Spring Hill, who acknowledged getting a ticket.
Council members had to make their decision after being presented a snapshot of conflicting data including statements the city has 109 businesses for sale or rent, while Mayor Lara Bradburn countered that 68 new businesses had opened, creating more than 250 jobs.
Likewise, some members were dubious of the safety proclamations including statistics from Chief George Turner that showed a 35 percent drop in accidents at the four intersections covered by the cameras. The number of rear-end collisions at the intersections, however, indicated driver distraction, following too closely or other circumstances contributed to a public safety threat beyond just red-light running.
But, more to the point, the political grief and potential for a tarnished city image were no longer worth absorbing because a new state law made the financial rewards to the city inconsequential. The law, effective July 1, eliminates the right-on-red violation, which accounted for more than 60 percent of the city’s tickets. The new law also dictated $83 from each $158 fine be sent to Tallahassee.
The fallout is significant. Over a six-month period ending in April, the city calculated its net at $465,000 after paying its camera vendor. However, more than 60 percent of the nearly 5,500 tickets were for making a rolling right-hand turn without stopping. If those trends continued, council member Richard Lewis calculated the city would receive only $109,000 annually and still have to pay overhead costs for a police officer to review the citations.
With 97 percent of the tickets issued to non-city residents, council members Lewis, Joe Bernardini and Frankie Burnett said the cameras were counterproductive to economic development.
It’s hard to argue with their logic particularly since the program has evolved into a cash grab by the Legislature. Traffic cameras should be about safety foremost and with the data measuring their effectiveness in dispute, the city was right to take them down.
http://saferbaytown.com/Press_releases.html
August 21, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Cameras Removed, Government Losing Money, Government Revenue Scam, Legislation, Red Light Cameras, Traffic Lights
California: Another City Admits Accidents Not Reduced By Red Light Cameras
Redwood City, California admits red light cameras do not reduce accidents and refuses to make changes to program.
Posted: 21 Aug 2010 01:38 PM PDT
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
August 21, 2010
· Tona · No Comments
Posted in: Cameras Causing Accidents, Constitutional Rights, Grand Jury, Police State, Red Light Cameras, Safety Benefits, Ticket Cameras
Accidents up dramatically at Baytown Red Light Camera Locations
http://saferbaytown.com/Press_releases.html
Â
8-18-2010
Baytown Red Light Camera Monitored Intersections show dramatic increase in all types of accidents
| Accident Type | 2009 report | 2010 report | % change |
| Total accidents | 50 | 70 | +40% |
| Red Light Related Accidents | 18 | 20 | +12% |
| Injury Accidents | 8 | 14 | +75% |
| Red Light Related Right Angle Accidents | 11 | 15 | +37% |
| Rear End Accidents | 23 | 42 | +83% |
| Total Injuries | 13 | 18 | +39% |
Â
Some Intersections show a shocking increase in certain types of accidents, some of the most dramatic are;
Hwy 146 @ Garth rd; Red Light Related Accidents up 400%
Garth rd @ I-10 EB; Total Accidents up 350%
Bus. 146 @ Hwy 146;Â Injury Accidents up 300%
Hwy 146 @ Wyoming; Injury Accidents up 300%
August 19, 2010
· Tona · 2 Comments
Posted in: Government Revenue Scam, Injuries, Red Light Cameras, Ticket Cameras