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.

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.

Red Light Cameras About Tax or Safety First?

The primary purpose of red-light cameras is generally focused on safety rather than generating tax revenue. Red-light cameras are typically installed at intersections with a history of red-light violations and a higher risk of accidents. The intention behind their use is to discourage drivers from running red lights, which is a dangerous behavior that can lead to severe accidents and injuries.

The safety benefits associated with red-light cameras include reducing the number of T-bone collisions, improving intersection safety, and deterring red-light violations. Studies have shown that red-light cameras can contribute to a decrease in red-light running incidents and related crashes.

While red-light camera programs may generate revenue from the fines imposed on violators, the emphasis is typically placed on safety rather than using them as a revenue-generating tool. However, it is essential for communities and authorities to implement and maintain red-light camera programs transparently and with clear guidelines to ensure that the primary focus remains on improving road safety.

It's worth noting that the motivation behind red-light camera programs may vary depending on the jurisdiction, and there can be debates and discussions about their effectiveness and fairness. Public opinion and local policies can influence the implementation and operation of red-light camera programs in different regions.

Is the PhantomAlert vs Waze Lawsuit Over?

Judge, siding with Google, refuses to shut down Waze in wake of alleged theft by PhantomAlert. "This rule applies even when the 'facts' are inaccurate."

Google, the owner of the traffic app Waze, has managed to beat back a copyright lawsuit filed by lesser-known rival PhantomAlert. Back in September 2015, PhantomAlert sued Google over allegations of copyright infringement. Google purchased Waze in June 2013 for over $1 billion. PhantomAlert alleged that after a failed data-sharing deal between itself and Waze collapsed in 2010, Waze apparently stole PhantomAlert’s "points of interest" database. In a judicial order filed earlier this month, the San Francisco-based federal judge found that PhantomAlert could not allege a copyright claim on simple facts of where different places actually are. As US Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero wrote, granting Google's motion to dismiss:

The Supreme Court has made clear that facts are not copyrightable, though the creativity associated with the selection and arrangement of those facts in a compilation may be protectable (as discussed below). See Feist, 499 U.S. at 347-48. This rule applies even when the "facts" are inaccurate, as was the case in Feist, where the defendant had copied a handful of false listings that were "seeded" in the plaintiff’s directory. Id. at 344.

While it is possible to assert copyright over a set of facts that are arranged or organized in a particular way, the court found that PhantomAlert had not done that. As Judge Spero continued:

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts that suggest that the arrangement of the information in its Points of Interest database is characterized by any originality. There are no allegations that the data is organized into categories, for example, or that there is anything creative about the way the data is displayed. Further, to the extent Plaintiff alleges the information in the database is edited so as to alert the driver of the Point of Interest before reaching the actual location, see Compl. ¶ 22, there appears to be no creativity involved in these changes. As discussed above, the arrangement of the Points of Interest on the map merely effectuates the purpose of the database; presumably, any app intended to alert drivers of the types of points of interest contained in Plaintiff’s database would make very similar changes.

However, the judge will allow PhantomAlert to file an amended complaint no later than mid-January 2016.

"We look forward to amending our complaint to reflect the significant creativity and judgment that underlie our client's individual data elements, and its compilation of these data into an original database," Karl Kronenberger, PhantomAlert’s attorney, told Ars via e-mail.  

Full Story

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. 

 

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.

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

3 Years of Red Light Camera Ticket Refunds from a Class Action Lawsuit

Class Action Suit Seeks To Refund 3 Years Worth of Red Light Camera Tickets Issued In Santa Ana, CA  

The July 2010 Supreme Court decision (People v. Park) ruling in favor of the motorist ticketed for a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana, CA because the city lacked compliance with the requirement of Vehicle Code section 21455.5 (b) (that a municipality authorizing an automated enforcement system at an intersection comply with the prescribed warning requirements prior to issuing citations) appears to have opened the floodgates for litigation and paved the way for class actions lawsuits.

Class Action Suit Seeks to Refund 3 Years of Red Light Camera Tickets Issued in Santa Ana, CA

A new class-action lawsuit has been filed in Santa Ana, California, seeking refunds for three years' worth of red light camera tickets issued to drivers. The suit alleges that the city’s red light cameras violated legal standards, which could mean that thousands of citations were improperly issued. This lawsuit has caught the attention of drivers and legal experts alike, as it challenges the legitimacy of traffic enforcement practices in one of California’s major cities. Here’s what you need to know about the case and its potential impact on red light camera enforcement.

What the Class Action Lawsuit Alleges

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of affected drivers, argues that Santa Ana’s red light camera program was not operated in compliance with California state laws governing traffic cameras. Specifically, the suit claims:

1. Improper Camera Calibration and Maintenance: Allegations suggest that some cameras may not have been properly maintained or calibrated, leading to inaccurate readings and potentially unjust citations.
2. Unlawful Contracts with Camera Operators: The lawsuit also questions whether Santa Ana’s contract with its camera operators followed state regulations, which could impact the legality of the tickets issued.
3. Failure to Meet Due Process Standards: The plaintiffs argue that the ticketing process did not provide adequate information or a fair chance to contest the violations, potentially violating drivers’ due process rights.

If the court finds these allegations to be valid, it could set a precedent that affects red light camera programs across California and beyond.

Why This Could Lead to Refunds for Red Light Camera Tickets

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that these tickets were issued in violation of state law, which could entitle drivers to refunds. If Santa Ana’s red light camera system is found to be improperly operated or the contract is deemed unlawful, every ticket issued through the program over the past three years could be considered invalid.

For drivers who paid fines due to red light camera violations, a successful lawsuit could mean a refund of fines, which often range from $100 to $500 per ticket. Given the thousands of tickets issued annually, this could result in millions of dollars refunded to affected drivers.

How Red Light Camera Violations Work in Santa Ana, CA

Red light cameras are installed at intersections to capture images of vehicles that run red lights. In Santa Ana, as in many cities, the system automatically takes photos and videos of vehicles that cross the intersection after the light turns red. The registered owner of the vehicle then receives a citation with the violation details and a fine.

Potential Consequences for Santa Ana and Other Cities

If the class action suit succeeds, it could have a ripple effect across California and other cities that rely on red light camera programs. Here are some key implications:

1. Changes to Red Light Camera Programs: Cities may be prompted to re-evaluate their red light camera contracts, equipment standards, and ticketing processes to ensure full compliance with state laws.
2. Increased Scrutiny of Automated Traffic Enforcement: Red light camera programs, which have faced criticism for prioritizing revenue over safety, may see increased public and legal scrutiny, potentially leading to reforms or even program shutdowns.
3. Potential Refunds in Other Cities: Similar lawsuits could emerge in other jurisdictions if drivers feel their red light camera programs are not following state-mandated standards.

What Drivers in Santa Ana Should Know

If you received a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana in the last three years, you might be eligible for a refund if the class action suit succeeds. Here’s what to keep in mind:

• Stay Informed: Follow updates on the class action suit to understand if and how you might benefit.
• Check Eligibility Requirements: If the suit results in a settlement or judgment, there will likely be criteria to qualify for a refund.
• Keep Records: Hold onto any records of paid tickets, as they could be helpful if refunds become available.

Will Red Light Camera Programs Change?

This lawsuit, if successful, could influence the future of red light camera programs not only in Santa Ana but throughout California. Automated traffic enforcement has long been controversial, with critics arguing that cameras prioritize revenue over safety and may unfairly target drivers. A win for the plaintiffs could lead to tighter regulations, improved transparency, and potentially fewer automated cameras in operation.

Final Thoughts

The outcome of this class action lawsuit in Santa Ana has the potential to reshape how cities use red light cameras to enforce traffic laws. For drivers, it’s a reminder to stay informed about your rights and the evolving laws around traffic enforcement technology. If you’ve received a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana, keep an eye on this case—you may be eligible for a refund if the lawsuit prevails.

Fines May Be Reduced From $450 To $250

San Mateo, California Fines May Be Reduced from $450 to $250

Drivers caught by traffic cameras for taking an illegal right turn at a red light would face much cheaper fines than they do now under a bill introduced by a Peninsula legislator on Friday.  The bill from Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, would lower from about $450 to $250 the fine drivers caught on camera pay for turning right on red without fully stopping.

The exact fine varies slightly in different areas of the state. Although it would provide relief for drivers who roll through right turns, it would cost cities enough money that they may have to yank their cameras altogether. Currently, police fine drivers caught on camera the same amount whether they run a red light through an intersection or make a right turn on red without fully stopping. Assembly Bill 909 would make the illegal right turn penalty the same as what drivers pay when they are pulled over by police for not fully stopping at a stop sign.

In other cities, however, it's less of a concern. Already, Burlingame and San Carlos officials in the past two months voted to take down their cameras because they were not generating enough fine revenue to pay for themselves, and officials in San Bruno voted not to install the devices for the same reason.

Read more

Moreno Valley Dumps Red Light Cameras

Alessandro Blvd & Perris Intersection, Moreno Valley, CA

The money-making allure of red light cameras has worn off in a pair of Southern California cities as drivers get educated and ticket revenue drops and legal activity rises. In Moreno Valley on Tuesday, the city council voted 3-1 to shut down the automated ticketing machines that have been operating since 2008.

“Due to legal activities in the state legislature in the past few years regarding red light photo enforcement and the lack of public support for the program, city council’s consensus is to discontinue the existing red light photo enforcement service at the end of its 2-year pilot program,” Public Works Director Chris A. Vogt wrote in a memo to the mayor and council. At least one member of the public believed the council’s unspoken motivation has been the lack of expected revenue being generated by the program.

The city will notify Redflex Traffic Systems to remove its equipment from Frederick Street at Centerpoint Drive, and Perris at Alessandro boulevards. Eric Lewis, the city's traffic engineer, evaluated the data and said the 18-month test program was successful: Accidents dropped by a third at Frederick/Centerpoint and 16 percent at the Perris/Alessandro. But the program proved to be a marginal moneymaker, the public detested it and the council decided it wasn't worth it.

Gardena California Extends Red Light Camera Contract

Daily Breeze, 02/10/2010

The Gardena City Council voted unanimously this week to extend a contract for 10 red-light cameras at city intersections. On Tuesday, the council decided to continue with the program even though results have been mixed. A police report on the cameras states that they have not resulted in a noticeable safety enhancement. The number of auto collisions has remained the same at some intersections, while increasing at some and decreasing at others.  A staff report concluded that the community generally believes the cameras have a positive impact. The renewal is good for a five-year term with two two-year renewals.

Intersections with cameras are Normandie Avenue and Artesia Boulevard; Normandie and Redondo Beach Boulevard; Rosecrans Avenue and Budlong Avenue; Western Avenue and 158th Street; Redondo Beach Boulevard and Gramercy Place; and Western Avenue and 135th Street.