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.

Red-Light Cameras Collect Over $1.8 Billion from Illinois Drivers Since 2008

Recent analysis reveals that red-light cameras in Illinois have accumulated more than $1.8 billion in fines from drivers since 2008, underscoring ongoing concerns regarding the impact and effectiveness of these enforcement measures on motorists.

Red-Light Cameras - Engineering Malpractice

Red-light camera programs are a charlatan fraud scheme profiting from bad physics. The cameras exploit the pseudo-science traffic engineers use to miscalculate the duration of the yellow light. The miscalculation always shorts the yellow light. The shortness is just a matter of degree. The miscalculation creates systematic unavoidable red-light running and crashes. The miscalculation exists at every signalized intersection because the engineer is following a national standard of care. When you hear a traffic engineer justifying his yellow lights by saying "We just follow the ITE practice", know that he just confessed to making everyone run red lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' practice is the problem. The ITE practice is indeed the standard of care, but it is a standard of care that departs from that required under engineering practice law.

Believe it or not, you have experienced bad physics while driving. The engineering defect called the dilemma zone is the outcome of bad physics. A dilemma zone is a segment of road upstream from the intersection where if you are in it when the light turns yellow, you neither have the distance to comfortably stop nor the time to reach the intersection before the light turns red. You react to a dilemma zone by not knowing whether stopping or going would be appropriate, or by choosing to beat the light or slam on the brakes. Sometimes there is no stop-or-go solution. You must run a red light no matter what you do. Over 90% of red-light camera tickets result from dilemma zones.

Where the math errors most oppose the physics of traffic motion, the most red-light running and crashes occur. For turning traffic and for commercial vehicles, the math errors are at their worst. The math can make drivers enter the intersection long (~ 5 seconds) after the light turns red. These two groups experience the most T-bone crashes. Learn math and physics.

Where does the law meet bad physics?     Making math mistakes in public engineering works is unlawful.    Engineers who miscalculate the yellow light duration violate the State's Engineering Practice Act. Because these engineers are mishandling basic physics, they lack the education required by the State's engineering license. The lack of education triggers the incompetence clause.

There is a second level of engineering malpractice. The unlicensed practice of engineering. This is done by the red-light camera firms. A "red-light camera installation plan" is a complex document that includes both professional engineering and professional land surveying elements. A plan cannot be executed unless the plan is first certified. A plan is "certified" when it has been signed and sealed by a State licensed professional engineer who oversaw the project. In all States, a "P.E." must take personal responsibility for the contents of the plan by certifying the plan. Without certification, there can be no installation. And of course, there can be no operation of the cameras without the cameras first being installed. Certification precludes operation. It appears that the unlicensed practice of engineering is the norm for red-light camera firms.  

What does a  typical "red-light violator" really look like in the eyes of a red-light camera firm?  This  video makes a mockery of your assumptions about red-light runners. Red-light runners are not the reckless scofflaws we have imagined. Instead, they are safe innocent drivers like you and me who unfortunately happen to be in a dilemma zone when the light turns yellow. Each day millions of drivers find themselves in such a predicament. They enter the intersection a fraction of a second into the red, incursions perceivable by computer only, not by driver or policeman. These drivers are whom red-light camera firms target. Because showing multitudes of such petty clips to a city council would sour its interest, the firms present only the rare video clips of cross-street T-bone crashes. Those T-bone clips are dramatic. Those clips instill fear. Those clips scream out to the council members to take action.  Yet only 1 out of 100,000 clips are such T-bones.  The crimes committed by the red-light camera firms here are false advertising and false pretense.    Safety is the false pretense.   Cameras have nothing to do with safety.

When all is said, we see classic charlatanism. The red-light camera never solves the problem because it applies treatments to the driver. Drivers are not the ones with ailments; traffic engineers are. The cure is physics lessons. The camera is snake oil--a nostrum. The red-light camera firm is the old-time medicine show operator coming to town, selling oil, and leaving. And for millions of dollars of new revenue, the city council gladly becomes a shill.

Engineering malpractice is the heart of the red-light camera industry.   Sitting on top of the engineering errors are the due process issues.   It is these due process issues that first confront us.   I am sure that you know this issue:   "You are guilty until you blame someone else."   Whatever happened to "you are innocent until proven guilty?"    There is also the blatant due process issue that the poor people of Pueblo Colorado put up with.  Pueblo's city ordinance actually says, "The Court does not have to adhere to the rules of evidence."   There are dozens of egregious due process issues that, as Professor Adam McLeod of Faulkner University says, would make King George III blush.   I won't get into them here.   I do leave you with a Blame Society skit which will put you in the due process mood.   Blame Society, a Wisconsin comedy company, made a video telling the story of Cary, North Carolina's red-light camera program.   The names have been changed to protect the guilty.   The story is all true.  

Guest Writer, 

Brian Ceccarelli, PE

Talus Software, PLLC

More Chicago Suburb City Officials Busted for Corruption

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. (WLS) -- Plastic bags covered what were among the most controversial red light cameras in the state.

Brothers Indicted In Widening Illinois Red Light Camera Corruption Probe

The lights are at Route 83 and 22nd Street, just across from the Oakbrook Mall. They are no longer in service, which means drivers will no longer be getting tickets from them in the mail.

James Colucci and Joseph Colucci are accused of giving valuable items, including cash, to Tony Ragucci, then the mayor of Oakbrook Terrace.

Two men have been charged over their alleged roles in a kickback scheme that provided thousands of dollars in cash payments to the then-mayor of Oakbrook Terrace after the western suburb renewed a contract with the red-light camera company SafeSpeed.

James Colucci and Joseph Colucci are accused of serving as the conduit to deliver valuable items, including cash, to Tony Ragucci, when he was mayor of Oakbrook Terrace. In return, Ragucci, among other favors, signed a one-year renewal agreement with SafeSpeed, according to the 10-page federal indictment.

The fraud scheme began sometime in 2016 and ended in the fall of 2019, according to the indictment. James Colucci and Joseph Colucci both began making cash payments to Ragucci beginning in 2018 based on revenue generated from SafeSpeed’s red-light cameras in Oakbrook Terrace.

None of the payments to Ragucci from the Coluccis were reported by Ragucci to the DuPage County Clerk’s Office, in order to evade detection of the scheme, according to the indictment.

A spokesperson for the city of Oakbrook Terrace didn’t respond to questions regarding this recent indictment but said the Illinois Department of Transportation has revoked its highway permit for the red-light camera at Illinois Route 83 and 22nd Street.

The Coluccis’ arraignments had not been scheduled as of Friday night, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney said.

The two men are the latest charged in connection with red-light cameras in the Chicago area.

Ragucci was charged last month and is accused of taking thousands of dollars in secret payments. Agents had previously seized $60,000 in cash from Ragucci’s west suburban home in 2019.

Omar Maani, a onetime SafeSpeed partner, was charged in 2020 with a bribery conspiracy but agreed to work with the feds under a deferred-prosecution agreement.

Crestwood Mayor Louis Presta resigned last year over his dealings with SafeSpeed. He had served as mayor of the southwestern suburb for nearly a decade. He pleaded guilty in November to the red-light bribery scheme. Former state Sen. Martin Sandoval also pleaded guilty to taking a “protector fee” from someone with an interest in the company.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

RED LIGHT CAMERAS

'A little justice': Oakbrook Terrace red light camera permit for busy intersection revoked by IDOT

By John Garcia and ABC7 Chicago Digital Team

Friday, May 13, 2022 3:01PM

EMBED <>MORE VIDEOS 

Oakbrook Terrace has had its permit for red light cameras at Route 83 and 22nd Street revoked by IDOT.

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. (WLS) -- Plastic bags covered what were among the most controversial red light cameras in the state.

The lights are at Route 83 and 22nd Street, just across from the Oakbrook Mall. They are no longer in service, which means drivers will no longer be getting tickets from them in the mail.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. (WLS) -- Plastic bags covered what were among the most controversial red light cameras in the state.

The lights are at Route 83 and 22nd Street, just across from the Oakbrook Mall. They are no longer in service, which means drivers will no longer be getting tickets from them in the mail.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

ABC7 has reached out to Oakbrook Terrace officials for comment.

IDOT issued a statement saying, "The Illinois Department of Transportation is committed to improving safety and continually works with our local government partners toward this shared goal. After review, the IDOT permit issued to Oakbrook Terrace to operate a red-light camera at Illinois 83 and 22nd Street is revoked due to failure to comply. Despite repeated requests, the city did not submit the post-installation analysis on the effectiveness of the camera system to improve safety at the intersection, as required by IDOT policy.

"The city has been instructed to deactivate the cameras immediately and apply within 15 days for the necessary permit to remove them.

"The existing IDOT policy was developed to assist local agencies to obtain a permit to install red-light cameras on roads under state jurisdiction. The policy also allows IDOT to remove such cameras if it is in the best interest of the motoring public."

River Forest, Illinois Red-light cameras Turned Back On

Map of Chicago Red Light Cameras

After a delay of nearly two years, red-light cameras are returning to River Forest. Jeff Loster, director of public works and development services, said the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) gave the officials the green light on April 9 to reinstall three red-light cameras, one at Harlem and North avenues and the other two at Lake Street and Harlem Avenue.

River Forest approved a contract in June 2020 with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions doing business as Verra Mobility, replacing SafeSpeed as the village’s red light camera operator.

In February 2020, local officials announced their intent to decline to renew River Forest’s contract with SafeSpeed and issue a request for proposals from other vendors amid a federal corruption probe involving state and suburban politicians and a former SafeSpeed official, allowing the contract to expire July 1, 2020. The village originally contracted with SafeSpeed in 2011.

Loster said officials have been working with IDOT “over the last several months” regarding the change in vendor for River Forest’s red light cameras. Staff members will be working with the engineering consultant Hampton, Lenzini and Renwick Inc. and Verra Mobility to make the necessary modifications at both camera locations as approved by IDOT, he added. Loster said when the cameras will be operational is still to be determined.

He said officials are unable to explain the length of time it’s taken to implement the change, which was estimated in 2020 at 30 to 45 days, but the village was not responsible for the delay.

“I don’t know how long it took to get the original cameras up, so I don’t have much context,” Loster said. “I know IDOT is working on creating a new policy relative to red-light cameras and even though it is not something that was applied to our ‘vendor transfer,’ it may have been a factor.

Verra Mobility Buys Rival Redflex

The two largest operators of red light cameras and speed cameras are merging. Verra Mobility (formerly American Traffic Solutions or ATS) told investors on Wednesday that it would buy the Australian-based Redflex Traffic Systems for A$146.1 million (US $112.7 million).

"We are delighted at the prospect of welcoming the Redflex team and their customers to the Verra Mobility family," Verra Mobility CEO David Roberts said in a statement about the deal.

Despite its significant share of the photo enforcement market, Redflex stock was depressed by its inability to turn a profit since it was caught in a massive bribery scandal in 2014. Top Redflex executives handed envelopes filled with cash, made large campaign donations and gave other "lavish gifts" to politicians in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington in return for their endorsement of automated ticketing. A Federal Bureau of Investigation sting operation secured felony convictions for Karen Finley, the head of US operations and a board member of the Australian parent company, for corruption in Chicago, Illinois, and Ohio. More than twenty politicians, photo enforcement executives and public officials have been jailed in similar schemes (view a complete list).

This is not the first time that Redflex and Verra Mobility's predecessor company, ATS, have merged. Redflex formed in 1995 as a communications technology provider for the Australian military, but it soon found that operating automated ticketing machines on behalf of local governments was a more profitable line of business. Redflex undercut rivals with lower prices by, among other things, cutting corners on obtaining regulatory approvals and licenses. By 1999, Redflex was strong enough to buy out ATS (then known as American Traffic Systems) for $1.8 million.

Once their non-compete agreement expired in 2002, the original founders of ATS, Jim and Adam Tuton, created American Traffic Solutions. The Tutons built the company into the largest photo radar and red light camera operator in the United States, often clashing in nasty courtroom battles with its rival Redflex.

"ATS unleashed a crusade against Redflex, its biggest competitor in the photo traffic enforcement industry, to damage it," a Redflex lawyer said at the time.

In 2017, the Tutons cashed out their ownership stake and sold ATS to Platinum Equity, a merger and acquisition firm. The equity firm created Verra Mobility, whose latest purchase proposal requires the approval of Redflex shareholders and government regulators. The company expects the transaction to be completed by May.