Monday, August 16, 2010

Red Light Cameras About Tax or Safety First?

You let a friend borrow your car. A few weeks later you get a ticket in the mail with a picture of the car running a red light. You know you were not driving the car, but now you're stuck with a ticket and have to prove your innocence.  Lawyers say such a hypothetical situation is not only unfair, but illegal.

Red light cameras have become popular because they supposedly reduce accidents at intersections while generating revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

But now ticket recipients and their lawyers are pushing back.

Dennis Salvagio, a criminal defense attorney from Orlando, Fla., said the traffic cameras and the way cities use them to issue tickets are illegal because they force citizens to prove their innocence, rather than forcing cities to prove drivers' guilt.

"It was unconstitutional from the get-go," Salvagio told "I think everybody should fight it."

The West Palm Beach, Fla. law firm of Schuler, Halvorson & Weisser has filed 27 class action lawsuits against Florida municipalities, charging that they have operated the cameras without legal authority. The first ruling came in Orlando, where the city may be forced to refund over $4 million collected from over 50,000 tickets issued since the city started the program in September 2008.

In Houston, another attorney, Paul Kubosh, organized a group called Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, which has gathered over 30,000 signatures on a petition that would put the cameras up for a vote before the community.

"All I want is a vote. Just a vote!" Kubosh told

Against Red Light Cameras? 'I Scratch My Head'

Though citizens are upset about the cameras and the fines that come with them, Vicki King, assistant chief of information systems command for the Houston Police Department, cannot understand why people don't want cameras that may reduce the "horrific" car crashes that result from drivers running red lights.

"I scratch my head when I hear opponents of red light cameras," King told "I've had more nightmares from motor vehicle crashes than I ever did from homicide.

"I don't know why people aren't screaming at us to do more," she said.

Lawyers like Salvagio and David Kramer, one of the lawyers working on behalf of plaintiffs in the Florida class action suits, say they only want to make sure the government is following the law. Although Kramer and his firm are fighting the cameras in court, he said they are neither for nor against the cameras on safety grounds.

"Our goal is to make sure that the government operates within their authority," Kramer told

Orange County Circuit Court Judge Frederick Lauten ruled against the city of Orlando before the case went to trial, instead issuing a summary judgment. In his decision, Lauten wrote that the city did not have the right to operate the cameras because by law, only the state has the power to allow the cameras. Prior to July 1, state law did not allow the cameras.

He added that the city did not establish who had the burden of proof when it came to the red light violations, which is the problem that leads Salvagio to call the cameras unconstitutional.

"You should never have to come forward and say, 'I didn't do it,'" Salvagio said. "Under the rules, you have to come forward and say what defense you have."

That amounts to shifting the burden of proof, which is illegal, Salvagio said. He described the legal problems inherent with the camera laws as something one learns in "law school 101." The only reason more people don't fight these fines, he said, is that it is easier to pay the fine rather than to hire a lawyer and go to court.

Lawyers for the city of Orlando could not be reached for comment.

Tickets From Red Light Cameras Make Millions for Cities

Citizens also complain that cameras are used only as a way to make money and do not accomplish their intended purpose of making intersections safer.

"Especially in the last two years, governments just looking for any ways to generate revenue," said Jeff Cohn, founder of, a site that tracks the location of red light cameras.

"They're writing tickets like no tomorrow," Kubosh said, and pointed to a Rice University study that found that accidents did not decline at Houston intersections with the cameras. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that while right angle or "T-bone" crashes declined, rear-end, or "fender-bender" crashes actually increased in intersections with the cameras.

Either way, Assistant Chief King said the cameras are worth it.

"If I had to choose between someone being involved in a T-bone crash, which has a very high injury rate and a very high mortality rate, and someone getting bumped from the rear ... I'll take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday," King said.

Houston has collected more than $45 million in fines since it first installed the red light cameras in 2006. King said the money from the tickets pays for the cameras, and the remaining funds are split between trauma centers and traffic programs.

King said the only goal is safety and wishes they could install more cameras in Houston. While growth of the cameras continued for many years, that growth may have ceased.

Cohn, of, which maps the locations of red light cameras, estimated that there were more than 5,000 red-light cameras in 1,300 cities across the United States and Canada. Cohn thought that number may go down.

"I'm starting to see a trend now where cities are removing cameras," said Cohn, adding he is neither for nor against the cameras.

Cohn said the reason for the decline is that municipalities often find the cameras are ineffective from a cost standpoint, but questions of legality may be an increasing factor.

According to, an online journal on the politics of driving, 15 states have banned the use of red light cameras. They also wrote that red light cameras have never passed a vote before the general public.

Article By John Wetenhall from ABC News


  1. I'm not all for these, but they have shown their worth in decreasing the number of people breaking the law and therefore resulting in fewer accidents. If you allow someone to borrow your vehicle, yes you should be responsible for their actions as well. If there is a concern there, then don't loan out your vehicle.

  2. Stop - Don't RunNovember 12, 2010

    I've just moved to Houston from the North East. My family and I have never seen as many red light runners in our lifetime as we've seen in the short time we've been here. There's clearly a need to stop the red light runners (the fine should be in the $1000's, not hundreds, and jail time). Easy question - do you like to live? Being T-boned by a red light runner will likely lead to serious injuries or death.
    The decision to even put this to a vote is ridiculous, of course all simple minded individuals (and red light runners) will vote it away - it removes them from being responsible, the new "American Way".
    As far as arguing about loaning out a car and a ticket arrives - that's pathetic. Take responsibility for your car AND your supposed "friends" actions when in it!
    The dangerous action of running red lights (seems to be a hobby well as driving without insurance coverage (a popular trend also in TX)) is unacceptable and ANYONE arguing against it is incompetent, short-sighted and not willing to take responsibility for their actions.
    Grow up!

  3. I read your blog when I was in Quebec. I bookmarked your site and read your post again when I reached CA after I purchased my new ed online computer. The site is excellent and looks the best in new!
    Colorado Criminal Defense Attorney

  4. If it is about "safety" and "deterring" red light runners, and not accumulating money, why are there not signs posted that one is approaching a red light camera??? Or "may" be approaching a red light camera? That's when they "deter" traffic infractions - especially something new like this. How does a hidden red light camera "prevent" a red light runner? I believe it is all about money, and if they wanted to deter traffic, they would warn people, or post signs for a lengthy period of time, if not permanently. This is about money, not deterring traffic infractions. This is Big Brother not only watching, but taxing the citizens without representation. They are motivated by money, not public safety. Same thing with a speed trap. They want the money, after catching a speeder, rather than slowing down traffic. If you want to get the drivers to slow down, you "train" them that this is a watched area, an area of concern, and make their presence KNOWN, not HIDE behind something everyone once in a while. I have seen this done before, and it works. I have not had a ticket 25 years, and the one I got then was when I first moved to Florida, was driving 40 mph, the standard roadway posted mileage is usually 45 and to a lesser extent 40mph, but somehow, in the middle of the summer, there was no traffic, nothing, and apparently I drove through a school zone - unbeknownst to me. Yet, now the roads are so pathetically slow and congested because the person(s) usually causing the slow down are carrying on a leisurely conversation on their cell phones. Just yesterday, I was wondering why all the traffic was driving at 33 mph in both lanes for quite a distance in 40mph zone. When there was some leeway to get over from the van ahead of me, there was no longer any traffic just ahead of the two cars preventing those behind them to at least drive the speed limit, because they were both on the phone! They should be getting tickets for impeding traffic. There's a money maker. I can pick out cell phone users ahead of me 99% of the time, because they are in there own world, have no idea of all the cars behind them, drive ultra slow, and sort of swerve within their lane and others out of their lane, like another I saw this past week driving partially in the right shoulder. The way it is now, it is an abuse of our rights, and if it prevails, what's next? AND, how about those in law enforcement? Are their tickets being quashed or honored? I think we need to start spying on how our law enforcement officers conduct themselves in their private lives, since they are supposed to conduct themselves in an ethical manner at all times, not just on duty. It will also be interesting to know what our local agencies have collected for different traffic infractions, how low their budgets have become, what they did to meet their budget (red light cameras) as they have certainly increased patrolling traffic which seems to be motivated, again, by money. Not all red light "runners" are trying to beat the light, either, but, if they went through a red light, then it's a fact, but doesn't mean they were trying to beat the red light. And it is ridiculous to hold a car owner accountable for another driver; it is ridiculous to have to prove your innocence in this country; it's the other way around. Say good bye to our civil liberties... this is only the start - of what we know.


Popular Posts