Ed Martin, who is running for AG in the state of Missouri has a strong anti-camera stance and calls camera supporting politicians exactly what they are, “pay-to-play” cronies.

The video speaks for itself and bravo to Ed Martin for standing up to the scamera mafia in the Show-me state.

Arizona has long been an easy target for flashing bandits installed by Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS). One of the chief reasons for this is that those two private (foreign - Redflex) vendors get to make up almost all the rules, including where an intersection starts.

Arizona is one of only two states who don’t clearly define an intersection and it leads to a lot of dangerous practices by both Redflex and ATS, such as painting confusing “imaginary” lines in intersections.

The city of Tucson is one of the worst offenders in this category and has even been reprimanded by the Federal Highway Administration for illegal intersection lines.

The East Valley Tribune’s article points out that intersection lines could be clearly defined, if new legislation passes in the form of HB 2557, which is working its way through state legislature.

The article also points out that since Tempe, AZ has ditched their photo ticketing program, accidents have dropped. Maybe Arizona will join the rest of the country in defining just where an intersection starts instead of leaving that up to the scamera profiteers, just as they typically do with all their traffic laws in the last decade.

[READ MORE]

By Gina Williams

The Accident “Conspiracy”

Red Light Cameras (RLCs) are supposed to prevent accidents.  However, according to various studies, RLCs actually cause harmful accidents and it isn’t all that surprising.  

It makes sense that when people see a yellow light that they’ll slam on their brakes out of fear of being ticketed because they know they’re being watched; given the same situation with no camera, the same people would go through the yellow light.  

After all, yellow lights don’t mean stop, they mean “caution” because a red light is approaching.  

Flawed Studies and Conflicts of Interest

Two extremely biased and thoroughly debunked studies are usually cited as proof that there is some type of safety benefit associated with the use of RLCs.  

The first is a 2005 Federal Highway Administration (FHA) study which gives red light cameras credit for a decrease right-angle crashes.  However, this report made that conclusions based on only 7 jurisdictions which combined have less cameras than the Houston, TX area.

According to photoenforced.com which hosts a database of all RLCs and speed cameras in the U.S., 1,300 cities use RLCs; given this, the sample size that the FHA used to conduct its study was entirely too small to truly represent RLCs effects sufficiently.  

Additionally, said study has been criticized due to conflicts of interest, as well as methodical and analytical flaws in their research and findings. Its co-directors conducted research for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) in the past, meaning that the FHA and IIHS financial ties to each other.  

IIHS is a private company that represents the auto insurance industry which has continuously raised rates based on photo ticketing data as that system proliferated during the last decade. See this report for extended details on the FHA’s study’s methodical and analytics flaws.

The other report that’s usually referred to by companies like Redflex and American Traffic Solutions was conducted by the IIHS themselves. Not only was their data almost completely irrelevant in some cases, but a recent report shows the IIHS study, when reviewed by peers shows an increase in fatalities at red light camera intersections.

Other Studies Suggest An Increase in Accidents

On the other hand, studies conducted by various Departments of Transportation, universities, and media outlets contradict the above study and others.  

According to a 2004 North Carolina A & T University study that examined 17,271 crashes, “When analyzing total crashes…RLCs have a statistically significant (p<0.001) and large (40% increase) effect on accident rates.”   

According to a 2005 Virginia Department of Transportation funded study, in Virginia, RLCs decrease the number of right-angle crashes with injuries.  However, they also lead to an increase in rear-end crashes and the number of overall crashes resulting in injuries.  This study was based on an 18 month study of 7 jurisdictions in Virginia.  Unlike the FHA study above, this study was applied only to Virginia.

Given the funds these RLCs generate for governments, especially in an economy experiencing financial problems, it is difficult to take government studies that support RLCs seriously.  It’s in their interest to continue the programs, and in order to continue them, the programs must be justified to the public; thus “studies” proving RLCs effectiveness are conducted and released to the public.

Gina Williams is a guest post and article writer bringing to us information on RLCs. Gina also writes about motorcycle accident statistics

by Gina Williams

In the early 1990s red light cameras (RLCs) began to be used in the United States.  Almost 22 years later, 26 states and Washington DC have implemented these cameras in various major cities. 

RLCs are supposed to prevent deadly accidents by making people think twice before gunning it through a yellow light, or blatantly running a red light.  Their proposed purpose and their actual purpose, however, are two different things entirely. 

Looking at government conducted or funded studies will lead readers to believe that RLCs work.  Digging a bit deeper, however, leads to a different conclusion for two reasons.  First, studies demonstrate that RLCs are associated with increased accident rates at intersections. 

Second, the private companies running the red light programs and our government have a vested interest in ticketing people; they want people to run red lights because they make money from it, and a ton of money at that. 

Sadly, the steps both entities have taken to ensure their own financial benefits pose safety threats to citizens.

Why They Want Us To Run Red Lights

How Things Seem

Here is how RLC programs generally work:  Private companies are contracted by local municipalities to install camera surveillance systems.  If someone runs a red light, multiple pictures are taken of their vehicle.  The pictures are later “inspected” by a law enforcement official; if it is deemed that the citizen ran the red light, they are sent a ticket in the mail.

Sounds straight forward, right?  People who break the law are ticketed and others that would break the law think twice.  Lives are saved.  World peace is probably achieved somewhere in there as well. 

How Things Are

Remember how people always say that nothing is ever as it seems?  That’s the case here.  It seems like our government is trying to protect us, but like everything else in life, the government’s motives are based on financial gain. 

Contracted, private companies, such as Redflex, American Traffic Solutions, and Affiliated Computer Services, actually have quota clauses written in their contracts with municipalities; as a result of that and the desire for financial gain, municipalities gladly take actions that encourage motorists to run red lights. 

According to The Atlantic Cities, “The problem [with RLCs] is that many of the contracts signed with these companies force cities to commit to standards that encourage the running of red lights. Some of the contracts, written by the companies themselves and later signed by municipal governments, require each camera to record a certain number of red light-runners every year and for police departments to issue a minimum number of tickets.

The companies, after all, have a fiscal incentive to have as many people as possible move through the intersection illegally, since they usually pocket a percentage of the ticket fee.”  Municipalities obviously have a fiscal incentive for people to run red lights as well. 

After enduring the initial costs associated with the cameras, every fine they receive for a red light violator is money in the government’s pocket; after all, it’s not like they’ve hired a police officer to sit at every traffic light to ticket red light violators. 

The Dirty Truth – An Example of Governmental Actions that Harm Citizens

A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found that, “An increase in yellow duration of 1.0 seconds is associated with a [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes.” 

Despite this, many municipalities’ yellow lights are actually shorter than what this study and others recommend; this obviously puts citizens in a situation where their chances of an accident are higher than they could be. 

In 2008 alone, thenewspaper.com reported that multiple cameras in the following cities were caught purposely imposing short yellow lights in an effort to boost their earnings from RLCs:

·         Chattanooga, Tennessee

·         Dallas, Texas

·         Springfield, Missouri

·         Lubbock, Texas

·         Nashville, Tennessee

·         Union City, California

And these are only a few of the cities that have been identified for engaging in these types of activities.

The bottom line is this: Governments have a financial interest in ticketing people and have the full power to manipulate traffic lights to ensure that people get tickets.

Gina Williams is a guest post and article writer bringing to us an examination on how RLC’s affect motorcyclists. Gina also writes about motorcycle accident lawyers.