List of Cities - Redlight Camera Scam Shut Down

Joey Durel is living a false reality. He would love for the citizens of Lafayette to join him in his world of misconception. This page was created to re-enforce the fact that this program was designed as a money making scam. It lists the current states that have banned photo enforcement. It also displays research findings of photo enforcement programs.

Read Safe Speed Facts
Read Redflex's Lafayette Contract
Read Tony Trammel's Biased Survey
Read Class Action Lawsuit

Here is a list of cities where photo enforcement has either been banned or postponed:

• Alaska, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah, and Wisconsin
• Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Bakersfield, California
• Gulf Breeze, Florida
• Hawaii
• Lubbock, Texas
• Minnesota
• Michigan
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Rome, Georgia

The mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico yesterday suspended the city's red light camera and speed camera program. Mayor Marty Chavez (D) ordered the move in direct response to the state legislature's adoption of legislation that would take automated ticketing profit away from Albuquerque and direct the funds into state court coffers. The suspension appears to be a temporary. Earlier this year the city council discovered that it had no ability to cancel the city's ticketing contract with Redflex because of backroom agreements Chavez had made with the Australian vendor in 2005. Chavez now believes that the suspension could may pressure Governor Bill Richardson (D) to veto the legislation, as he had done in 2007. Lawmakers this year, however, could easily override a veto as only one state senator stood up in favor of Albuquerque's ticket program while the state House voted 53-10 to take Albuquerque's ticket profit. Chavez briefly toyed with the idea of killing the automated ticketing program on his own after it proved unpopular and became a drag on his aspirations to higher office. After this hope faded, Chavez returned to championing the devices.
return to top

The Lubbock, Texas city council voted 4-3 yesterday to deactivate the city's twelve red light cameras. The devices issued their final tickets just before midnight and will be now be taken down at the expense of American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the vendor in charge of the system. A citizen panel charged by a new state law with reviewing the program last month recommended that it be dismantled. "The point of cameras is to change citywide driving behavior, not just at camera intersections," committee chairman David Spears said. "The problem is the change has been for the worse." Spears referred to a preliminary report which had found that accidents jumped 52 percent after the cameras went up. The system's dismal financial performance may have had even more influence on yesterday's decision. City leaders had been counting on the machines to deliver $2 million in profit and help balance the budget. But disappointing collections resulted after news reports disrupted plans to place cameras at intersecti ons with short yellow warning times and little prior accident history. This left the city with no net profit from the program.
return to top

The city of Gulf Breeze, Florida must disconnect and move a red light camera system that the state has determined is illegal. In late February, the city installed the device at US 98 and Daniel Drive over strong legal objections from the state attorney general and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

FDOT officials have shown that the camera was installed outside Gulf Breeze High School on property that belongs to the department. FDOT has said that it cannot allow such a system to operate on the state highway system unless Florida law changes. Key lawmakers have rejected calls to make these changes as revenue raising in the guise of safety. The city now plans to move the camera inside the high school property.

Last July, Attorney General Charlie Crist explained that a local red light camera ordinance violates Section 316.007 of Florida statutes which does not allow municipalities to "enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by this chapter unless expressly authorized." Gulf Breeze is one of six cities nationwide designated by AAA as a "strict enforcement" speed trap.
return to top

The Hawaii state legislature yesterday turned aside an attempt to re-authorize the use of red light cameras. State House Transportation Committee Chairman Joseph Souki (D-Wailuku) proposed the measure six years after outraged residents had forced the legislature to overturn its photo ticketing program. Souki's failed red light camera bill, attached to SB 1191, provided a detailed history of camera enforcement in Hawaii.

"The legislature finds that the photo speed imaging detector system... implemented in December 2001, generated intense public opposition," SB 1191 states. "As a result of this opposition, the legislature repealed Act 234 in its entirety.... The public perceived that the program was operated more to maximize revenue for the vendor administering the program than to improve traffic safety. In particular, camera vans were stationed at locations that did not necessarily have a history of speed-related accidents. They were used to monitor locations with heavy traffic flow at lower speeds. This situation permitted the vendor to issue the maximum number of citations in the shortest period of time and at the least cost, thereby maximizing the return to the vendor without improving traffic safety."

The bill made it through both the House and Senate as a measure designed to fund studies on ways to improve pedestrian safety, but photo ticket proponents attached Souki's language re-establishing red light camera enforcement. In response, Senate opponents of the measure amended the legislation to give it an effective date of 2020.

A conference committee called to iron out the differences adjourned without resolution, likely shelving the matter for the year.
return to top

The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).

The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."

"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."

The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.

"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
return to top

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox on Thursday declared the use of red light cameras or speed cameras within the state to be illegal. State Representative Barbara A. Farrah (D-Wayne County) asked Cox to rule on whether a city could use home rule authority to issue photographic tickets. Cox found that state law established red light running as a criminal violation, so that any local ordinance declaring such a violation a civil matter would be "in conflict" with the law.

"It is my opinion, therefore, that an ordinance adopted by a city pursuant to its authority under the Home Rule City Act... that allows the city to issue citations for civil infractions for disobeying a traffic control signal based on the photograph or video produced by an unmanned traffic monitoring device at a location other than a railroad grade crossing conflicts with the Michigan Vehicle Code... and, thus, is invalid," Cox wrote.

Cox also pointed out that state law authorizes photo ticketing at railroad crossings, but not red light or speed cameras. The legislators would have explicitly authorized red light cameras if the intended to do so.

"It is a well-established canon of legislative construction that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others not expressed," Cox explained.
return to top

A ruling today by the North Carolina Court of Appeals threatens red light camera programs in the state. The decision upheld two lower court rulings that had required the city of High Point to direct 90 percent of photo ticket fines to the public school system. Today's ruling expands the precedent statewide, turning money-making programs into a money-losers for the cities involved.

High Point had argued that the Article IX, section 7 of the state constitution did not apply to red light camera tickets because they imposed a "penalty" not a "fine." Judge J. Douglas McCullough swept aside the word games, writing for the court, "the fact that the violation results in a civil penalty rather than a fine for an infraction is irrelevant if we are to observe the Supreme Court's admonition to consider 'the nature of the offense committed, and not in the method employed by the municipality to collect fines for commission of the offense.'"

High Point had been paying Peek Traffic Inc. $35 out of every $50 citation to operate the cameras. Under today's ruling, each ticket issued would cost the city $30. High Point had suspended its program last year pending the outcome of the appeal. Officials admitted at the time that they would not continue the public safety program if it ended up costing money. Greensboro and Greenville likewise suspended their programs last year.
return to top

The Ohio House of Representatives voted 72-23 to approve a bill by state Representative Jim Raussen (R-Springdale) today that would effectively prohibit the use of red light cameras and speed cameras in the state. Raussen's legislation would only allow the devices to be used when a police officer is present to witness the offense and issue the citation to the driver.

The House also voted 92-4 to add a provision standardizing yellow signal timing to the ITE recommendations. The amendment's sponsor, Rep. Shawn Webster, cited the Texas Transportation Institute study showing longer yellow times decreased accidents.

Raussen argued that the photo enforcement represented, "a program that at best has questionable results." He cited cases in Ohio where individuals had improperly received tickets for offenses they did not commit as well as studies which show red light camera use actually increased the number of accidents where they were used.

Rep. Peter Ujvagi (D-Toledo) agreed that some abuses have happened, but "we should not punish those communities that are doing the right thing." He cited evidence from the Toledo police showing a reduction in violations where the cameras were used.

The cities of Dayton, Middletown, Northwood, Sylvania Township, and Toledo currently use red light cameras. Northwood also uses speed cameras.
return to top

The number of accidents increased at the Rome, Georgia intersection where a red light camera was installed, but profits have continued to increase. The total number of collisions at Hicks Drive and Turner McCall Boulevard jumped 24 percent between 2005 and 2007 while total profit increased 19 percent The city is so pleased with these results that a second camera is planned for Martha Berry Boulevard and Veterans Memorial Highway. "(The red-light cameras have) been effective and met our expectations," Rome public services manager Kirk Milam told the Rome News-Tribune. Rome began photo ticketing on July 12, 2004 and has issued 8619 tickets worth $723,996 since 2005. Redflex, an Australian vendor, operates the program in return for a cut of the profit and a monthly fee.
return to top

An independent analysis released yesterday showed that red light cameras have produced no clear safety benefit in Bakersfield, California. According to the Bakersfield Californian newspaper, T-bone collisions jumped 14 percent at five intersections with cameras while such accidents dropped 27 percent at a set of four intersections used as a comparison. The study used California Highway Patrol data from 1999 and 2006. "We found that on the whole, accidents actually increased where there are cameras and decreased where there aren't," Californian reporter James Geluso wrote. Bakersfield Police have their own internal figures that claim accidents have gone down and that individual intersections happened to show some improvement. The city has no intention of abandoning the program which generated about $1.9 million worth of tickets last year. In 2004, the city was caught trapping motorists at photo enforced intersections where yellow signal times were so short that they violated state law. In 2006, ano ther analysis showed the red light cameras caused a 47 percent spike in rear end collisions. "Overall, injuries have gone up at some intersections," Detective Ryan Paslay admitted to the Californian at the time. Independent studies in the US, Canada and Australia spanning more than a decade have shown that red light camera often increase accidents and injuries
return to top

A battered speed-enforcement camera called a Gatsometer has been smashed and strewn along a lonely stretch of A40, a major road that runs from London westward toward Oxford. According to the British Website www.speedcam.co.uk, these surveillance devices are falling "thick and fast" along what Britons are referring to as "Gatsos Alley"

James Bancroft, age 24, is the creator of the Website. "I've had an interest in speed cameras since ... four years ago" he tells INSIGHT. "I started the Website soon afterward.... As I drive for a living, I recognized it was only a matter of time before I lost my license and my job. As a result, I had bought detectors that warn you when approaching a speed trap." He slows to avoid a summons and then reports locations on the Website.

Unlike Bancroft, not all drivers have avoided such surveillance simply by lowering their speed. "About two years ago I saw a camera lying on the ground, so I took some pictures of it to put on my site" Bancroft says. That was the beginning of his online "Beheaded Gatsos" graveyard of decapitated, burned-out and acid-drenched cameras.

The Old Farmer's Almanac credits Connecticut with enacting the first automobile speed limit on April 21,1901. Violations started, no doubt, shortly thereafter. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), photo enforcement of traffic laws has been in use in Europe for more than 20 years and in the United States for more than a decade. In April, the IIHS released a status report that concluded the use of speed cameras had slowed traffic.

The insurance-industry study claimed injuries in crashes at intersections with traffic signals dropped 29 percent after camera-enforcement began. "Front-into-side collisions--the crash type that's most closely associated with red-light running--were reduced 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced 68 percent" the insurers said.

But Richard Diamond, spokesman for House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Texas), a conservative lawmaker who is an ardent opponent of the government's use of traffic-photo enforcement, has examined the IIHS findings closely. "Read what they say carefully" Diamond tells INSIGHT. He points out the status report stressed that the cameras made traffic "slower," but only implied that they made the road "safer."

Armey's spokesman carefully refutes the safety claims of camera proponents. He cites coverage of traffic-camera enforcement in Europe, where the system has been in use longer. Diamond says one location studied showed 50 accidents so far this year--the exact number that occurred in the same location without traffic cameras the previous year.

Moreover, Diamond says, speed-camera cars caused three accidents in a single day at one speed trap in Australia. And in the United Kingdom, according to Bancroft, "There was an incident recently when a speeding driver spotted a mobile speed trap and braked so hard his car overturned."

The United Kingdom has had to admit some of the cameras were placed without regard to safety. "They're removing them and relocating them since they got caught red-handed" according to the Armey spokesman.

Already in the United States, Diamond says, some states that have tried photo radar are rejecting it. He lists legislatures and courts in Alaska, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah, Wisconsin and (most recently) Hawaii as among those that have acted to ban photo radar.

Like most other critics of speed and radar cameras, Diamond suggests that revenue rather than safety is motivating the proliferation of photo enforcement. In two months, he reports as an example, Washington billed motorists well in excess of $40 million as a result of camera surveillance. "That's what this is all about" Diamond says.

Claims by law-enforcement authorities that their primary concern is auto safety are somewhat undermined by evidence of camera inaccuracies and eccentricities. A recent article in London's Evening Standard cited a duck caught on camera in the village of Gluckstadt in Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany. "The bird's exact speed is not known" according to the story. "What is known is that it was traveling in excess of the 24 mph limit." Apparently a high-speed waddle or rocket-supported swoop had triggered the camera, say amused critics.

Meanwhile, consensus is building globally that police are in a frenzy to generate revenue by ticketing nearly everything that moves, says webmaster Bancroft. Even to the point of violating other traffic laws. Bancroft recalls an incident in which a speed-camera van was given a ticket for parking illegally in a nook that the officer apparently had planned to use as a blind to catch speeders. Motorists worldwide are complaining about the growing number of speed, red-light and train-crossing cameras. The situation became so bad in the nation's capital that police officers there went to the Washington Times to object to the policy.

"We don't really experience any major vandalism on any of the cameras in the U.S.," says a representative of ACS, the U.S. distributor of Gatsometers. But attacks by angry motorists on U.K. highway cameras appear to have been both visceral and calculated. "Most cameras are attacked by placing a tire around them and setting fire to it. Other incidents have involved a tractor with a bucket being used to knock down the cameras. Angle grinders have been used and the camera just stolen," Bancroft says. A similar Website in Australia reports, "For those who wondered that the unit on a bridge on the Hume Highway in the Broadford area is a speed camera, it is not. It is a camera system to time interstate trucks' average speed with other cameras hundreds of [kilometers] down the highway, except some nice citizen has taken a shotgun to it, so it no longer works!"
return to top