When and Where Will Greensboro’s Red‑Light Cameras Go Live?

• About 20 years ago, Greensboro had a red-light camera program, typically operating at several of the city’s highest-risk intersections.
• That past program was discontinued around 2005 due to a court ruling requiring 90% of revenue go to Guilford County Schools, making it financially unsustainable.
• The new program just approved (up to $1.65M contract with NovoaGlobal) hasn’t yet announced live dates or locations—but they’ll likely target the five worst intersections first.

Montebello Wastes $500,000 on Red Light Cameras: A Cautionary Tale for California Cities

Montebello, CA is under fire after wasting an estimated $500,000 on red light cameras—a program that failed to deliver meaningful traffic safety improvements or financial returns. As California cities reevaluate red light enforcement, Montebello's experience offers an important lesson in what not to do.

What Happened in Montebello?

Montebello partnered with RedFlex Traffic Systems to operate red light cameras at high-traffic intersections like Garfield Avenue and Beverly Boulevard. The goal was to improve road safety and generate revenue from traffic violations.

However, recent reports show that the program lost money. A contract clause allowed the city to pay RedFlex less if citation revenue fell below expectations—an arrangement deemed illegal under California law, which prohibits traffic enforcement contracts based on financial incentives.

Yellow Light Timing Under Scrutiny

At the Garfield and Beverly intersection, the yellow light was set at 3.6 seconds—the legal minimum for a 35 mph speed zone. While this complies with California traffic signal regulations, experts argue it's not enough time for most drivers to stop safely. This has raised concerns that Montebello’s red light cameras prioritize profit over public safety.

Are Red Light Cameras Worth It?

Montebello isn’t alone in facing backlash. Other California cities like Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego have shut down their red light camera programs due to high costs, legal issues, and negligible safety benefits.

According to public data, many red light camera tickets in California go unpaid or dismissed in court, often due to technicalities, improper signage, or questionable enforcement practices.

Taxpayer Money Lost in Montebello

With nearly $500,000 in taxpayer funds wasted, residents and local watchdogs are demanding:

• A full audit of the red light camera program

• Greater contract transparency

• Reforms in how automated traffic enforcement is implemented in California

Critics argue that the city should have focused on traffic signal upgrades, driver education, and real police enforcement, which are proven to be more effective at reducing crashes.

The Bigger Picture: Red Light Cameras in California

Montebello’s failed program is part of a growing trend. Across the state, cities are questioning whether red light cameras are:

• Legal under California’s traffic enforcement laws

• Effective at preventing accidents

• Ethical in their implementation and intent

If cities continue to use them, best practices must include longer yellow light times, transparent contracts, and data showing a clear link to reduced traffic injuries.

Final Thoughts: Montebello's Mistake Shouldn't Be Repeated

The Montebello red light camera controversy is a clear example of poor policy planning and oversight. As more municipalities consider removing or regulating automated enforcement systems, Montebello’s experience could help guide statewide reform.

Shorter Yellow Lights: A Safety Concern or Just Business

When you're approaching an intersection and the light suddenly turns yellow, your split-second decision—brake or go—can have major consequences. But what if that yellow light isn't giving you enough time to react safely? Many drivers and traffic safety advocates are raising concerns that shorter yellow light durations may not just be a safety issue but potentially a business tactic in disguise.

What Are Yellow Lights Supposed to Do?

Yellow lights are designed to provide a buffer period between green and red lights, giving drivers time to either safely stop or clear the intersection. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the typical yellow light lasts between 3 to 6 seconds, depending on speed limits, road conditions, and traffic flow.

But what happens when that window is shortened?

The Link Between Yellow Light Duration and Accidents

Studies show that shorter yellow lights often lead to an increase in rear-end collisions. When drivers don’t have adequate time to react, they either slam on the brakes—risking a rear-end crash—or run the red light out of fear of sudden braking, increasing the chance of a T-bone accident.

Key finding:
A 2015 study from the Texas Transportation Institute found that lengthening yellow lights by just one second reduced red-light violations by up to 50%. That’s a massive improvement in safety—so why aren’t all cities adjusting?

Is It Really About Safety?

While safety should be the priority, many critics argue that shorter yellow lights may serve a more profitable purpose: increasing red-light camera citations.

The Business Side of Red-Light Cameras

Red-light cameras generate millions of dollars in fines for cities and municipalities. The shorter the yellow, the more likely drivers are to accidentally run a red light, triggering a citation. Some cities have faced lawsuits for allegedly shortening yellow light times below federal recommendations just to boost ticket revenue.

In one notorious case, a Chicago audit found that the city had shortened yellow lights by 0.3 seconds, which resulted in a spike in tickets and public outrage.

What You Can Do as a Driver

• Know the law in your area. Many states have minimum yellow light durations—stay informed.

• Drive defensively. Anticipate light changes, especially in areas known for red-light cameras.

• Challenge unfair tickets. If you suspect a short yellow light led to a citation, consider fighting it in court.

The Bigger Question

So, are shorter yellow lights a safety feature or a cash cow? The evidence suggests it’s often a mix of both—but with significant risks to driver safety.

If municipalities are truly committed to public safety, transparency and adherence to federal timing guidelines should be the standard—not an afterthought.

Final Thoughts

As the debate over traffic safety vs. revenue generation continues, one thing is clear: timing matters—especially when it comes to yellow lights. Whether you're a policymaker or a commuter, staying informed is the first step toward safer roads and fairer practices.

Photo Enforcement Ballot Measures: Why They Have Never Survived a Public Vote

As cities across the United States grapple with issues of traffic safety and enforcement, photo enforcement measures—such as red-light and speed cameras—have emerged as potential solutions. However, attempts to implement these measures through public ballot initiatives have consistently failed to gain voter approval. This article explores the reasons behind the public's resistance to photo enforcement ballot measures, notable examples of failed initiatives, the implications for traffic safety, and what it means for the future of automated enforcement.

Understanding Photo Enforcement

Photo enforcement refers to the use of automated systems to capture images of vehicles that violate traffic laws, such as running red lights or speeding. While proponents argue that these systems enhance safety and reduce traffic violations, public sentiment has often leaned against their implementation through ballot measures.

Historical Context: Failed Ballot Measures

1. Voter Concerns About Privacy: One of the primary reasons photo enforcement ballot measures have struggled to survive public votes is widespread concern about privacy. Many voters fear that the increased use of surveillance cameras could lead to an infringement on personal freedoms and privacy rights. This sentiment often outweighs arguments about the potential safety benefits.

2. Perception of Revenue Generation: Voters frequently view photo enforcement as a revenue-generating scheme rather than a genuine safety initiative. When the public perceives that a measure is primarily designed to generate income for the city rather than improve safety, they are less likely to support it. The fear of "money traps," where municipalities profit from traffic violations, can lead to strong opposition.

3. Distrust of Government Motives: Distrust in government agencies can play a significant role in public sentiment against photo enforcement measures. Voters may question the transparency and accountability of how funds generated from fines would be used, leading to skepticism about the overall intent behind the ballot measures.

4. Concerns About Effectiveness: Critics of photo enforcement often argue that these systems do not effectively reduce accidents or improve traffic safety. Instead, they claim that such measures merely displace accidents rather than prevent them. This belief can significantly impact voter support when considering the implementation of these systems.

5. Successful Campaigns Against Initiatives: In various jurisdictions, organized campaigns have successfully mobilized public opposition against photo enforcement ballot measures. These campaigns often highlight the drawbacks and potential negative consequences of automated enforcement, swaying public opinion against the proposals.

Notable Examples of Failed Ballot Measures

1. San Francisco Proposition G (2010): This measure aimed to authorize the city to use speed cameras in specific locations to combat speeding and improve road safety. Despite support from some city officials and traffic safety advocates, it was met with strong opposition from civil liberties groups and ultimately failed in the ballot, reflecting the public's concerns about surveillance and privacy.

2. Red Light Camera Measures in Los Angeles (Various Years): Over the years, several proposals to expand the use of red-light cameras in Los Angeles have faced rejection at the polls. Voters expressed concerns about the perceived focus on revenue generation over public safety and the effectiveness of such measures in reducing traffic violations.

3. Arizona Red-Light Camera Initiative (2010): Arizona residents voted on a ballot measure that sought to expand red-light camera use throughout the state. However, the initiative was met with opposition due to fears about privacy, government surveillance, and the financial motivations behind the program, leading to its failure.

Implications for Traffic Safety

The failure of photo enforcement ballot measures to gain public support has significant implications for traffic safety efforts. Without these systems, cities may struggle to find effective alternatives to address speeding and reckless driving, leading to continued accidents and fatalities on the roads.

In the absence of photo enforcement, law enforcement agencies may need to allocate more resources to traditional policing methods, which can strain budgets and manpower. Moreover, without automated enforcement systems, the opportunity for consistent and fair traffic law enforcement may diminish, creating inequities in how traffic violations are addressed.

The Future of Photo Enforcement Initiatives

Given the history of failed public votes, cities considering photo enforcement must find new ways to engage with the community and build trust. Here are some strategies that could improve public perception and potentially lead to successful ballot measures in the future:

1. Public Education Campaigns: Effective communication about the benefits of photo enforcement and how it can enhance safety is essential. Engaging community members through educational campaigns can help alleviate fears and address concerns.

2. Transparent Use of Funds: Clearly outlining how revenue from photo enforcement will be allocated can help build trust with the public. Demonstrating a commitment to reinvesting funds into community safety initiatives may increase voter support.

3. Pilot Programs: Implementing pilot programs that demonstrate the effectiveness of photo enforcement in reducing accidents and improving safety can provide valuable data and build public trust. Success stories from other jurisdictions can also bolster community confidence in these measures.

Other Public vote outcomes

• In Mukilteo, Washington 70% of the voters banned the cameras and in Anaheim, California 73% voted against them. 
• Earlier in 2010, 61% of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, 86% of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. 
• The November 2009 elections included three votes: 72% said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio, and College Station, 
• Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. 66% of Steubenville
• Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the 1990s, speed cameras lost by 66% of the vote 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% of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.

Conclusion

While photo enforcement ballot measures have yet to gain traction in public votes, understanding the underlying concerns can help cities refine their approaches to traffic safety. By addressing privacy concerns, ensuring transparency, and engaging communities effectively, cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose may find a path toward successful implementation of photo enforcement initiatives in the future. As public safety remains a top priority, the conversation around photo enforcement will undoubtedly continue, shaping the landscape of traffic enforcement across the country.

Public Records Resistance in Iowa

Access to public records is a fundamental right in many parts of the world, essential for transparency and accountability. In Iowa, however, there are increasing concerns about resistance to releasing certain types of public data, especially regarding traffic enforcement records, such as those from speed cameras and red-light cameras. Understanding the challenges surrounding public records in Iowa can help residents, journalists, and advocates push for more transparent practices. This article explores the barriers to public records access in Iowa, why these records are crucial, and how the state compares with others on this issue.

Why Public Records Matter in Iowa

Public records are essential for government transparency, giving the public insight into how taxpayer money is used and providing accountability for government actions. In Iowa, traffic enforcement records—such as data from red-light and speed cameras—can help the public understand enforcement patterns, assess traffic safety programs, and hold institutions accountable for the use of automated traffic cameras.

Access to these records allows Iowans to:

• Verify enforcement accuracy: Errors in traffic citations can be challenged when records are accessible.
• Hold public agencies accountable: Review agencies’ spending on traffic enforcement, especially in areas where automated cameras are in use.
• Evaluate public safety effectiveness: Determine if red-light or speed cameras actually improve road safety or if they disproportionately generate revenue without substantial safety benefits.

Challenges to Public Records Access in Iowa

Despite these benefits, Iowa has seen resistance from some government agencies in releasing public records. Here are some key challenges to accessing this information:

1. Privacy Concerns

   • Iowa agencies cite privacy as a primary reason for restricting access to traffic enforcement data. While privacy protection is essential, Iowa’s laws sometimes overly restrict information, leaving residents unable to assess how public resources are used.

2. Cost of Access

   • In many cases, obtaining public records can incur high fees, often justified by the need to cover the time and labor required to produce the information. These costs can deter ordinary citizens from accessing data and reduce public scrutiny.

3. Lack of Transparency in Record-Keeping

   • Record-keeping practices can sometimes be inconsistent or lack transparency, making it difficult to track down specific information. When agencies aren’t required to provide detailed reports, it leads to inconsistencies in data accessibility.

4. Limited Resources for Records Requests

   • Agencies often claim limited resources to handle records requests in a timely manner. This results in delays that can take weeks, months, or even years, effectively rendering some data unusable for time-sensitive investigations or reports.

How Iowa’s Public Records Resistance Compares with Other States

Public records laws vary widely across the United States. Some states have robust systems in place to ensure data accessibility, while others, like Iowa, place significant hurdles before citizens. Here’s how Iowa compares with other states:

• Stricter Regulations: While states like California have relatively accessible public records laws, Iowa has stricter regulations that can hinder transparency, particularly around automated traffic enforcement data.
• Higher Fees for Access: States like Texas offer many public records at minimal costs, making it easy for residents to access data. In Iowa, however, fees can sometimes be prohibitively high.
• Lengthy Processing Times: States with better funding and streamlined procedures, like Washington, allow for quicker processing of public records requests. Iowa's process, however, can take significantly longer, adding frustration for those seeking timely data.

Potential Solutions for Improving Public Records Access in Iowa

1. Revisiting Privacy Laws: Updating laws to maintain a balance between privacy and transparency can ensure that the public gets access to essential information without compromising individual privacy rights.

2. Standardizing Record-Keeping Practices: By implementing standardized record-keeping practices across all agencies, Iowa can reduce discrepancies and improve data consistency, making it easier for residents to locate information.

3. Streamlining the Request Process: Simplifying the request process through online portals and efficient systems can speed up response times and reduce bureaucratic red tape.

4. Reducing Access Fees: Lowering or eliminating fees for public records requests, especially for journalists and researchers, would encourage transparency and public oversight.

5. Implementing a Digital Database: Iowa could establish a centralized digital repository where non-sensitive public records are available on demand, without needing to request them individually.

Why Public Records Matter to Iowa Residents

Ultimately, public records serve the public’s interest by promoting government accountability and transparency. For Iowans, having access to enforcement data can shed light on traffic safety initiatives, guide public opinion on automated enforcement, and influence local and state-level policy decisions.

Conclusion

While Iowa faces challenges in providing transparent access to public records, particularly in traffic enforcement, progress can be made with targeted reforms. Balancing privacy with transparency, reducing fees, and improving response times are all achievable goals that would bring Iowa closer to an open-access model. By addressing these issues, Iowa can ensure its citizens have the information they need to make informed decisions and hold government agencies accountable.

Anaheim Voters Banned Red Light Cameras: What This Means

In a significant move reflecting public sentiment toward traffic enforcement technology, Anaheim voters have decisively voted to ban red light cameras in their city. This decision has sparked discussions about traffic safety, law enforcement practices, and the effectiveness of automated ticketing systems. In this article, we’ll explore the implications of this ban and what it means for residents and visitors in Anaheim.

Understanding the Decision

On [insert specific date, if known], Anaheim residents participated in a referendum that led to the prohibition of red light cameras at intersections throughout the city. This decision was driven by a growing sentiment among voters that red light cameras may not effectively enhance traffic safety, and concerns over the perceived fairness of automated enforcement.

Key Factors Influencing the Ban

1. Public Sentiment: Many residents expressed frustration over red light camera tickets, citing a belief that these systems primarily generate revenue for the city rather than enhance safety. This sentiment resonated with voters, prompting a push for change.

2. Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras: Proponents of the ban argued that studies have produced mixed results regarding the effectiveness of red light cameras in reducing accidents. Critics of the cameras pointed to evidence suggesting that they can lead to rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket.

3. Financial Implications: The revenue generated from red light camera fines often contributes to city budgets. However, many voters felt that the financial burden on drivers outweighed any potential safety benefits.

What the Ban Means for Anaheim Residents

Changes to Traffic Enforcement

With the ban on red light cameras, traffic enforcement in Anaheim will return to traditional methods. This means that police officers will be responsible for monitoring traffic violations at intersections, rather than relying on automated systems. Residents can expect increased police presence in some areas to ensure compliance with traffic laws.

Impacts on Traffic Safety

The decision to ban red light cameras raises questions about the future of traffic safety in Anaheim. While some residents welcome the change, others worry about the potential for increased violations at intersections previously monitored by cameras.

Community Engagement

The ban on red light cameras highlights the importance of community engagement in local governance. Residents who feel strongly about traffic safety and enforcement are encouraged to participate in discussions and advocate for measures that align with their views. This can include community meetings, public forums, and outreach to city officials.

Alternatives to Red Light Cameras

As Anaheim transitions away from red light cameras, discussions about alternative measures to enhance traffic safety are likely to take center stage. Potential alternatives include:

1. Increased Police Presence: More frequent traffic patrols can help deter violations and improve compliance with traffic laws.

2. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating drivers about safe driving practices and the consequences of traffic violations can promote a culture of safety on the roads.

3. Improved Traffic Signal Design: Enhancing traffic signals and signage at intersections can help reduce confusion and improve safety for all road users.

4. Community Traffic Safety Initiatives: Encouraging local organizations to develop traffic safety programs can engage the community and foster safer driving behaviors.

Conclusion

The decision by Anaheim voters to ban red light cameras marks a significant shift in the city’s approach to traffic enforcement. As the community navigates this change, it will be essential to prioritize safety and explore alternative measures to ensure that Anaheim remains a safe place for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. Engaging in open dialogue and collaboration among residents, local authorities, and traffic safety advocates will play a crucial role in shaping the future of traffic management in Anaheim.

Ticket Proceeds Go To Local Schools

The allocation of red light camera ticket proceeds varies depending on the jurisdiction and local laws. While it is possible that some jurisdictions allocate a portion of the revenue generated from red light camera tickets to local schools or education-related programs, this is not a universal practice.

Murrieta Ballot Measure Could Remove Red Light Cameras

The Californian town of Murrieta is the latest to take a serious stand against red-light cameras, as campaigners fighting for their removal win a landmark victory. The District Court of Appeal issued a ruling that will allow the initiative to scrap of the cameras to move forward. This was in response to a previous court ruling that affirmed that the cameras were acting within the law.

This move will ultimately mean that the city of Murrieta and the Riverside County registrar of voters can proceed to include the initiative on the November 6 ballot. Authorities will then vote either way on the removal initiative to come to a final decision.

Significant

This is a huge step forward for opponents of the red light cameras, both in Murrieta and beyond. For Murrieta, it indicates a strong possibility that residents will see an end to these over-zealous and ineffective cameras. For those living in other cities, it is encouraging to learn that gradually, city by city, motorists are starting to take a stand against being used as cash cows.

Residents and authorities alike have been strongly opposed to the town's red-light cameras since their installation, claiming that they are actually operating illegally; it has long been claimed that the cameras have been fining drivers who are not actually breaking any laws, issuing them with steep fines purely to boost revenue. In fact, Murrieta has been one of the most vocal voices against red-light cameras, taking an immediate stand against the cameras upon their installation, and launching numerous campaigns to have them removed.

Opposition to removal

Of course, the inclusion of the initiative in the November ballot does not guarantee success for those against the cameras. There are several key people within the city's council that are in favor of the city's red-light camera system; Steve Flynn, who was a prosecutor in the original court case against those seeking to remove the cameras, will be taking part in the vote. His viewpoint echos the sentiment of the Riverside Superior Court Judge, Daniel Ottolia, who originally ruled to stop the anti-camera initiative, in that it is not up to residents to make decisions on road safety: "The court finds that traffic regulation is a matter of statewide concern," Ottolia had said. "The Legislature has specifically delegated the authorization of automated traffic enforcement systems to city councils (or county boards of supervisors) and such delegation precludes the municipal electorate from using the initiative and referendum process to authorize or prohibit red light cameras."

Another expense for motorists 

The over-turning of Ottolia's verdict should set an example to those living in other cities, whose lives are affected by these red-light cameras. The ruling is a victory for fairness during a time when so many people are feeling the effects of dwindling incomes and higher household bills. For motorists, owning a vehicle has never been so expensive. Even though those owning vehicles are now more inclined to shop around for the cheapest motorcycle insurance or car insurance, this doesn't ease the growing costs of fuel and taxes. Extra unfair fines just add to this woe.

Supreme Court Likelihood 

The Murrieta case is expected to be argued before the California Supreme Court, whatever the outcome, according to Peter Lepiscopo, who is representing the proponents of the anti-camera initiative. His clients, Murrieta residents, Diana Serafin, and Robin Nielson, have been gathering signatures from thousands of their fellow citizens, all in favor of scrapping the unpopular cameras. The petition has been growing since last November, when there was a public consultation on whether or not Murrieta should become the latest town to install the controversial red-light cameras.

Murrieta currently has four cameras installed in busy city intersections: one at Clinton Keith Road and Nutmeg Street, two at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Whitewood Avenue, and one at Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Margarita Road. Although some agree that the cameras have reduced the number of red-light violations, the overwhelming public sentiment is that they are also penalizing those driving within the rules.

The citizens of the town of Murrieta, along with the rest of the country, will have to wait and see what the outcome of this case will be. If the residents win, it will surely pave the way for other cities to feel that they too can take a stand against red-light cameras.

Red Bank City Council May Dump Cameras

Drivers in Red Bank may be about to breathe a sigh of relief; the town is just one meeting away from getting rid of its much unloved red light cameras. The controversial cameras, which have been labeled as cash-grabbing machines by the general public since their introduction, have fast been losing support from Red Bank’s officials as they apparently put visitors off coming to the city.

Red Bank’s Mayor Milliard said that motorists were choosing to stay away from the city, which has become well-known for its red-light camera installations, for fear of being unfairly ticketed at red lights. Many residents and visitors alike had previously complained to the city council that they were being fined by the over-zealous machines when making honest mistakes or misjudgments driving through traffic signal systems at interchanges. As a result, visitors have said they’d sooner bypass the city of Red Bank, rather than visit it as they did not want to be fined.

“Hurting the city”

Mayor Monty Milliard, who also voted against a 12-year contract extension with American Traffic Solutions in 2010, said that he wanted people to visit Red Bank, not avoid it. "I have had over 100 conversations with residents and business owners, all who say that the cameras are hurting the city.”

Therefore, the Mayor has called for an official vote to cancel Red Bank’s red-light camera contract at the next meeting of the city’s commissioners on September 4. The Mayor has, however, warned the public that, if the vote to remove the cameras is passed, the earliest they can be taken down is the first day of next year. The city authorities would also need to give contractors 90 days notice.

Safety features or cash-grabbers?

It has been seven years since the unpopular red-light cameras were installed into three intersections on Dayton Boulevard (Morrison Springs Road, Signal Mountain Road and Ashland Terrace), the main road serving the city of Red Bank. The cameras, which are owned and run by American Traffic Solutions, were initially intended to act as a safety feature. It was claimed that many drivers were jumping red lights and, as a result, were causing road traffic accidents. The cameras capture photographic evidence of any driver passing through a red light and then issue a fine. However, many drivers have since complained that the cameras are overzealous, often issuing fines unfairly. Cash-strapped motorists have accused the city’s authorities of using them as cash cows, unjustly penalizing them in order to increase revenue.

Milliard, who has been vehemently opposed to the cameras since their 2005 installation, has also confirmed that revenue from fines being issued due to driving infractions has fallen significantly. This is due to a new law passed in 2011 by the Tennessee General Assembly that won’t allow issuing of a ticket for failing to come to a complete stop at a traffic signal before initiating a right turn. Also, a large proportion of the revenue generated from fines is handed over to American Traffic Solutions each month; in 2008-9, Red Bank made just over $579,000 from tickets but handed over around half of that to the Arizona-based company.

Outcome unclear

Whether or not the vote to remove the cameras will be successful or not is unclear. Two commissioners that have long been in favor of the cameras, Floy Pierce and Ruth Jeno, will both be voting. The pair both voted to extend the red light camera contract back in 2010, but could the passing of the new legislation have swayed their opinion?

Removal will be welcome

One thing is for sure, the general public will be echoing Mayor Milliard’s sentiment on the cameras. At a time when the cost of driving is at an all-time high, many people argue that red light cameras raise that cost even higher. Particularly vulnerable are young drivers, who already have higher insurance premiums to cover. Not only are they faced with extortionate fines to pay, but this could also then impact on their driving records, making young drivers insurance harder to obtain. It is clear that a vote next week to remove the city’s cameras will be a welcome piece of news for Red Bank’s drivers.

Corona Becomes Latest City to Ditch Red Light Cameras

It was a program that the Corona police wanted to see rolled out across the city; red light cameras recording and penalizing every driver that jumped a red traffic signal at the city's main intersections. However, this ambitious - and highly controversial - the program is fast losing support from both the city council and the general public. As a result of a widespread loss of support, as well as its argued ineffectiveness, it has built up a huge deficit, which is on course to result in the extension plans being scrapped.

Strong Opposition

Corona residents have long been opposed to the plans, complaining that the cameras - which use photo and video systems to capture vehicles driving through red lights - are costing too much money and are actually causing increasing numbers of rear-end collisions.

Corona's authorities last week conducted a study session to address the impact of the cameras. However, this session failed to gain the support needed from the city leaders to renew the program.

The police department originally wanted to extend the cameras to additional important intersections throughout the city. They argued that the cameras are reducing crashes and are promoting safer driving. They wanted to follow plans by a nearby city, San Bernardino, which recently voted to add red-light cameras to three more of its major intersections.

Cities Removing Red Light Cameras

However, other cities have voted to remove their own red-light cameras after they were proven to be ineffective and unpopular. The decisions by nearby cities, Moreno Valley and Loma Linda, to end their respective programs have convinced Corona's council that it should follow suit. The two neighboring cities faced a devastating deficit of $611,000 from their red light camera programs this year, which led Corona's officials to a 3-2 vote against their own program. Those against the camera plans said that they weren't as effective or as fair as first thought. Although those in favor of the plans continued to argue that collisions were being reduced as a result of the cameras and that people were driving more safely.

The proof is in the figures

It is clear that both sides can't be right here. The proof therefore must be in the statistics. Since the introduction of the program in May 2009, there has been a 17 percent decrease in collisions in Corona at intersections with traffic signals. However, overall collisions during the same period increased by 6 percent, while accidents at intersections increased by 12 percent. A report on road safety in the city also showed that traffic accidents were on a downward trend between 2006 and 2008. However, road collisions started to increase again from 2010 onwards, suggesting that the cameras were a contributing factor.

Decreased Revenue & Increased Costs

What about the revenue? The red light camera program has endured a damaging 34 percent decrease in revenue, as well as a crippling 15 percent increase in cost since its introduction over three years ago. During its first year, the city of Corona made a respectable $357,218 in revenue. However, this dropped drastically to just $54,767 by 2011.

Meanwhile, the cost of the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems costs around $30,000 per month to maintain. In times of prolonged economic hardship, residents and authorities alike are arguing that this money could be much better spent elsewhere. Residents argue that it is already difficult to finance cars, complaining that the overall cost of ownership is increasing thanks to rising fuel duty and imposing taxes. Councilman, Steve Nolan, who has become a voice for the campaign against the camera program, said: “So many things about this program have been deceptive since day one.”

Councilwoman, Karen Spiegel, also spoke against the police department's plans to add red-light cameras to three more intersections: “I’m not sure if it’s the right thing to do. I’m not seeing [the] success rate citywide.”

Those looking for guaranteed car loans or finance on new vehicles may be pleased by this apparent cancellation of the red light camera program; insurance and loan companies have been known to increase costs thanks to drivers' records with driving and road fines. The abolition of red light cameras in Corona could help in some small way to reduce the cost of ownership of a car.

Final Decision

A final decision on the camera contract, which is currently being carried out by Redflex Traffic Systems, is expected at the next City Council meeting on September 4. Whatever the outcome, however, city residents are being warned that tickets received before the November 5 expiration date are still valid.

San Juan Capistrano Removing Cameras

The San Juan Capistrano City Council voted unanimously Wednesday not to renew the city's $232,000 annual contract with American Traffic Solutions. Since the cameras' installation in 2001, traffic tickets through the program have generated as much as $400,000 in revenue over expenses for the city. The tickets carry fines of about $500 each. The city was facing declining revenue and souring negative public opinion.

The decline in citations and a growing number of legal challenges have cut revenue by more than half within a year, officials say. The red-light program is projected to lose about $40,000 this year. Red-light camera citations will cease after Sept. 29. The city will extend its contract with American Traffic Solutions through December to finish processing tickets already in the system.

The cameras photograph the car and the driver, and tickets are issued by mail based on the vehicle's license and registration information. But an appellate court decision has made it more difficult for cities to defend automated citations, causing some to reevaluate their use of the cameras. An appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court judges ruled in 2010 in the appeal of a red-light ticket that photos and video submitted by police were inadmissible as evidence. The panel said the photos and video were hearsay because no officer actually saw the driver run the red light.

The Laguna Woods City Council will consider terminating its red-light camera program at its Wednesday meeting as well.  Read the full article. 

Speed Cameras Coming To Chicago

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s speed camera ordinance, ordinance passed with a 35-14 vote at this morning’s Chicago City Council meeting. City Hall promises a slow start for speed cameras to be implemented near parks, schools. Speeders caught going 6 to 10 miles over the limit will get a $35 ticket. The fine jumps to $100 for drivers going 11 miles over the limit.  This fine is similar to Chicago's current fine of $100 for red-light running violations.

Speed cameras are a great idea if you want to generate revenue. Lot’s of revenue. Millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue. When you realize that Chicago’s 191 red light camera locations generated over $69 million in 2010, potential 300 speed-camera locations could easily be the U.S.'s largest safety camera program.

Here is the PR video Chicago is using to promote the new program. 

 

Belmar New Jersey Considering Red Light Cameras

The Belmar city council is considering whether or not to apply to have red-light cameras installed at various spots along Route 35. Last week at their work session meeting, a representative from a red-light camera company presented the council and mayor his findings of a test-run already conducted in the borough, as well as the benefits of such a system and how it would work.  Fines would be $85.

Belmar Police Chief Thomas Palmisano, who spoke openly regarding his support for the cameras as not only a means for catching violators but also as a tool for documenting traffic accidents, said a test camera at Route 35 and 10th Avenue witnessed 84 violations in a 10-hour period.  See Belmar Patch story. 

Iowa City Red Light Cameras Coming

The Iowa City City Council passed an ordinance allowing development of red-light cameras throughout town on its final consideration. Mayor Matt Hayek and Councilors Rick Dobyns, Terry Dickens, and Susan Mims voted in favor of the ordinance. Councilor Connie Champion maintained her position on the red-light cameras, voting "no" on all three considerations.

10 Reasons to Keep Red Light Cameras

Los Angeles - LOS ANGELES - As the Los Angeles City Council prepares to vote this week on the future of the city's critical traffic safety camera program, the Traffic Safety Coalition is outlining 10 reasons why the program should stay:

1. ZERO Crash Fatalities: Following safety camera installation, the Los Angeles Police Department crash reports, between 2002 and 2009 since the Photo Red Light Camera program began, NO fatal crashes have occurred at any of the camera enforced intersection approaches.
2. Safety cameras have worked to make Los Angeles streets safer. There has been a 62 percent decrease in red light related traffic collisions at the 32 intersections where the cameras are installed, with no significant increase in rear end collisions.
3. Safety cameras change driving behavior city wide. In Los Angeles there was a 22% reduction in crashes citywide after deployment.
4. Deadly consequences of dangerous driving in California. 3,000 people are killed in the California roadways every year (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
5. Red light running kills. 66 percent of all people killed at intersection crashes are victims of red light runners. The victims are innocent drivers, passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2011).
6. Red light running increased in Houston when cameras went dark. After intersection safety cameras were turned off in Houston, police cited injury crashes were up 350 percent after deactivation and one Houston intersection saw a 1,300% increase in crashes following camera deactivation. (“Exclusive: Accidents way up with red light cameras off.” KTRK ABC 13 Houston, 8-June-2011)
7. Speeding and red light running increased in Albuquerque when cameras were removed. Red light running and speeding increased by 584 percent after intersection safety cameras were turned off at three Albuquerque intersections just five months ago (“Scary stats with red light cameras off,” KRQE News 7, 5/27/11).
8. Speeding increased in Scottsdale when cameras were turned off. When speed safety cameras were turned off on Scottsdale's State Loop 101, the number of drivers speeding increased 1,024 percent (Washington et al., "Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 Photo Enforcement Demonstration Program, Arizona State University." Nov 2007).
9. Safety cameras reduce fatal crashes nationwide. A 2011 report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded traffic safety cameras at the 14 largest U.S. cities using them reduced fatal red light running crashes by 24 percent (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2011).
10. Simply put, safety cameras reduce red light running and speeding, change driver behavior and save lives.

"It's a sad reality that when drivers are not held accountable for their actions, speeding and red light running increases dramatically as they ignore our traffic safety laws, putting everyone in danger," said Traffic Safety Coalition co-chairs Paul and Sue Oberhauser. “Cities should be taking advantage of red light cameras and every other technology available to ensure these laws are followed and enforced.”

About the Traffic Safety Coalition:
The Traffic Safety Coalition is a not-for-profit, grassroots organization comprised of concerned citizens, traffic safety experts, law enforcement, public officials, victim's advocates, health care professionals, and industry leaders who are committed to working together to make our roads safer for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. We work with our partners throughout the country to promote technology and education that save lives and keep our roads safe. For more information, visit www.trafficsafetycoalition.com.

Do You Still Have to Pay Your LA Red Light Camera Ticket?

Even if Los Angeles shuts down red light cameras, don't forget about the ticket you already have. Are Traffic Cameras Legal In Los Angeles, California?

The Los Angeles City Council has announced plans to stop using cameras to enforce red-light violators at numerous intersections throughout the city. While many are rejoicing that the cameras may be shut down by the end of June, don’t forget about the red light camera ticket you currently have!

The program ends would prevent future red light camera tickets from being issued. However, don’t assume that any current red light camera tickets you have from the City of Los Angeles will just automatically vanish. If the current red light camera system ends these tickets will still be prosecuted. To avoid potential problems just be sure to follow up on any outstanding tickets. You can always check the status of your ticket on the court website to see if it is still active or closed. Remember, if the ticket is already filed and active with the court before the city’s red-light program ends (assuming it does) then it may not automatically be dropped. If you don’t follow up on the ticket it may go to collections or affect you negatively in other ways if the DMV is notified (LA courts exercise their own discretion and can choose to refer your information to a collections agency OR the DMV OR Both, although it is rumored they usually stick with the first option).

We would like your opinion as well if you think LA LA should shut down the cameras?  Was Los Angeles losing money on red light cameras?  A few non-profits have raised the question of whether photo enforcement is a legitimate use of city and law enforcement resources considering the recent acknowledgment by the LAPD and LADOT that intersections have been made safer due to signal timing enhancements alone.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Should LA Shut Down the Red Light Cameras?

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners will decide whether or not to approve the LAPD’s request for a new multi-year, multi-million dollar contract for the city’s Photo Red-Light Program.  Are Traffic Cameras Legal In Los Angeles, California?

Some highlights from the LAPD’s request:

·Under the new Photo Red-Light contract, the City of Los Angeles will lose a minimum of $1.5 million per year on the program.

·LAPD has chosen American Traffic Solutions, the vendor for the current system, as the vendor for the new contract even though ATS is based in the State of Arizona and the City Council previously voted to boycott all Arizona-based businesses.

Safer Streets L.A., a grassroots organization dedicated to improving motorist safety, believes there may be enough opposition from Police Commission Board Members to vote down the proposal and kill the Red Light Camera Program.

Safer Streets L.A. also questions the wisdom of the City of Los Angeles continuing to do business with a company that has recently been caught engaging in ethical lapses in their quest to sway public opinion in support of red-light cameras. See the following:

Heraldnet
Spokesman
Highway Robbery
Againstallclods

The Board of Police Commissioners meeting will take place at 9:30am at the Police Administration Building 100 West 1st Street. LA, CA. Safer Streets L.A. studies regarding red-light cameras can be viewed and downloaded for free at Saferstreetsla.org/reports

LA Losing Money on Red Light Cameras

Safer Streets L.A. has raised the pertinent question of whether photo enforcement is a legitimate use of city and law enforcement resources considering the recent acknowledgment by the LAPD and LADOT that intersections have been made safer due to signal timing enhancements alone. Safer Streets L.A. and its supporters will be providing public comment as to why the contract should not be extended.

• Effect of Extending PRL Contract 3 Months
• Immediate cost of $ $901,539.00 (Vendor and LAPD/DOT)
• Overall Loss of $22,000 (after income from tickets many months later)
• Loss To Local Economy: $1,072,861.00+ (In ticket costs alone. Additional losses to the economy from higher insurance premiums.)
• Cost for 30 day warning period $0.00 (Vendor pays this cost. Need warning period if the system moved to new locations anyway.)
• No Improvement in Safety (Accidents were eliminated by original engineering countermeasures, Cameras not put at most dangerous intersections)
• 75% of Tickets for Rolling Right Turns (97% at some intersection approaches)*
• Violations can be further reduced by lengthening yellow light .3 - .7 seconds at minimal cost

3 Month Projections for Contract Extension

Receipts due from Superior Court	$ 1,072,861.00
Reporters Salary Fund Deductions at 18%	$  (193,114.98)
Estimated Revenue from RLC Program	$   879,746.02
Vendor Costs	$   691,194.00
Labor (LADOT & LAPD Direct)	$   210,345.00
LADOT Infrastructure Cost Amortization	$                 -
Total costs	$   901,539.00
Net Income (Loss)	$    (21,792.98)

*Citation Data from LAPD
**Costs and revenue projections verified by Controller’s office.

The Safer Streets LA studies can be viewed and downloaded for free at www.saferstreetsla.org/reports. 

Government Employees Avoid Red Light Camera Tickets

California Government Employees Get a Free Ride

Approximately 30 years ago, the Confidential Records Program in California makes private license plates available to police officers and other state or government employees so certain workers can choose to keep their DMV info private, like their home address.  The law is supposed to keep certain information private like the home address, to prevent say criminals from harassing, threatening, or stalking police officers, judges, etc. This law has been expanded over the years to include numerous other Government or State worker positions (like park rangers) not just police officers or judges and has even been extended to include spouses and children. Furthermore, employees can retain confidentiality for 3 years if they switch to a civilian job, and retired peace officers can remain in the confidential plate program indefinitely.

When someone in the privacy program is detected, the DMV will only release the person’s employing agency to non–police agencies and or to private companies that process citations for cities and counties. The DMV cannot release a home address and therefore a violator with a confidential plate who is caught on camera cannot get a ticket.

There is no question that camera enforcement of traffic violations generates revenue for the State.  If the DMV has more than one million vehicles registered to motorists who are connected to a few thousand state and local government agencies that are allowed to opt for confidential plates, this could prevent the State from collecting on millions of dollars in fines from those State workers.  These State works can also get out of traffic fines, tolls, or parking tickets. California assemblyman Jeff Miller has taken efforts in hopes to close the gap of this so-called loophole.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Cities Removing Red Light Camera Locations

Here is a continually updated list of cities that have removed or partially removed red light camera locations recently.  Subscribe to our red light camera locations database to get a full list of detailed locations.  Keep in mind some States and County jurisdictions have passed laws preventing the use of red-light cameras but Cities and Municipalities continue to use them illegally.  To remove a location please provide a link to a local newspaper article highlighting the City Council's decision to remove the cameras.  We are only concerned with locations that have been permanently removed and not those that have been deactivated temporarily.

Anchorage, AK
Arlington, TX
Avondale, CA
Burlingame, CA
Brooksville, FL
College Station, TX
Costa Mesa, CA
Lilburn, GA
Loma Linda, CA
Lubbock, TX
Melbourne, FL
Monterey Park, CA
Moreno Valley, CA
Naperville, FL
Norcross, GA
Peoria, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Redlands, CA
San Carlos, CA
Scottsdale, AZ
Springfield, MO
Snellville, GA
Suwanee, GA
St. Peters, FL
Union City, CA
Wilmington, NC
Yucaipa, CA

As always, please email us if we are missing any cities on this list or still have locations listed in our public database that should be removed.

Related Articles:
How Many US Cities Use Red Light Cameras
Arizona Freeway Speed Cameras Go Bye Bye
Moreno Valley Dumps Red Light Cameras
Avondale Arizona Shuts Down Red Light Cameras