The Red Light Camera Saga In Houston Continues: Court Lets New Parties Enter The Case
from the convoluted... dept
We've been following the somewhat bizarre legal situation in Houston, involving a legal fight over the red light cameras in that city. The details have been somewhat confusing, but the short summary is that there was a public referendum that voted against the red light cameras, which created a legal mess. That's because when the cameras had been installed, the city signed a long-term contract with the company supplying them, ATS. ATS then sued the city, and confusion ensued. Some of the details were a bit hazy, but a new ruling lays it out pretty clearly.Basically, the city (which profits handsomely off of red light cameras) wanted to keep the cameras, and thus was upset about the referendum. So when ATS sued the city over its attempt to follow the referendum and cancel the contract, the city had every incentive to basically throw the case and let ATS "win," since that meant the city itself would win in terms of revenue. That's why the citizens who had put the referendum to ban red light cameras on the ballot decided to try to get listed as parties to the lawsuit as well -- to make sure that the public's rights were defended. The lower court refused to let them get involved, but the 5th Circuit appeals court disagreed -- noting that it's in the public's interest that these people are allowed to take part in the case.
What's interesting is how the court justifies allowing these people to enter the case, noting that they spent considerable money on the campaign to get the referendum in the first place:
These intervenors are unique because they engineered the drive that led to a city charter amendment over the nearly unanimous, well funded, and longstanding opposition of the Mayor and City Council. They have demonstrated a particular interest in cementing their electoral victory and defending the charter amendment itself. If the amendment is overturned, their money and time will have been spent in vain. Finally, they have raised substantial doubts about the City's motives and conduct in its defense of the litigation with ATS. Without these intervenors' participation, the City might well be inclined to settle the litigation on terms that preserve the adverse ruling on the charter amendment and thus preserve its flexibility to reinstate red light cameras in the future. This is no matter of simply defending City policy of one sort or another: it involves millions of dollars of revenue to City coffers during a period of considerable economic uncertainty.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: houston, redlight cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would still be pretty lucrative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It would still be pretty lucrative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It would still be pretty lucrative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It would still be pretty lucrative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It would still be pretty lucrative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shambles
OT: What is the big deal with everyone concerned about unemployment. Shouldn't that be the goal? What the fuck are you working for if you don't need to? Less people working = less worthless production = happy people and planet. With all of our supposed advancement, why can't we figure out the optimal amount of work that needs to be done to support the world but not exploit it. I think therein lies the anwer to sustainability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras remain. Contract upheld. Fines issued, but with a $0.00 fine amount. The city pays a rental for the cameras and the cost of their maintenance that is abnormally high, keeping the provider happy. Houston finds another way to rob their own citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a reason judges are appointed for life, most other places.
But then, you only have to study texas history to understand their unique interpretation of justice. It explains a lot about the governors they keep throwing to the national stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> keep throwing to the national stage.
At least they keep throwing them to the national stage, instead of into prison, like they do in Illinois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corporations (which include non-profits and unions) are how ordinary people can pool their money to influence the government. Individual rich jerks can perfectly well influence the government without corporations, and always have. The right of individual rich jerks to speak their mind under the First Amendment is acknowledged protected by all. (Citizens United wasn't about contributions, just about speaking; in particular, a non-profit trying to put out a documentary it made about a candidate it didn't like.)
If not for Citizens United, then the stands of corporations like Google, Reddit, the Wikimedia Foundation, and others against SOPA and PIPA could be taken as electioneering and banned.
Of course, the pro-SOPA/PIPA stands of CNN, Rupert Murdoch, Time, and Hollywood would all be protected even without Citizens United, since even Citizens United opponents want a special exemption for media corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Strange. Do you also think that free speech rights don't apply to video games, and should be able to be arbitrarily banned, since they're published by corporations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess we could set up the system so that only the rich can afford to run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell is wrong with car drivers
It's dead easy.
SPEED CAMERAS: No speeding = no revenue!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS: No running red lights = no revenue!
But i suppose i'm just an idiot pedestrian who knows nothing about 'the realities of driving and the roads'
These rubbish 'only for revenue' arguments really piss me off.
I suppose we'll be running referenda to abolish the crime of murder and all sorts of other crimes next?!?!?!
If i've missed a wider point, then, apologies.
Rant over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
Second thing, red light cameras have been repeatedly shown to increase the number of accidents at intersections as people slam on the breaks: nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
The reason people "slam on the brakes" at lights is because they're driving like cocks and not paying attention in the first place. We get the same bollocks argument trotted out for speed cameras in this country.
Do you think people who argue for safety are idiots?
If you're paying attention and driving properly in the first place there is no room for argument, or 'slamming on the brakes' because you've panicked at the sight of an enforcement camera or red light, it's not like they try to trick you. I'm sure people are very aware that a light may change as they approach it, that's if they were, again, actually paying attention: nuff said indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
And whether you want to call it stupidity or not ignores the reality that when red light cameras go in more accidents occur. You can debate the oughts and shoulds all you want, but you can't refute reality: more accidents occur when red light cameras are installed.
Plenty of studies have shown that the best way to increase safety is to increase the yellow light time and put in a delay between the red light and cross-traffic green lights. This costs the city a small amount but will never bring in revenue so most cities don't opt for it. Instead they choose the method that brings in revenue, but isn't the safest, AND gives them all sorts of incentives to actually decrease safety.
If you're going to propose safety, propose solutions which 1) work and 2) don't give incentives for decreasing safety. Red light cameras do neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
The yellow light "trick" has been so common in cities with red light cameras that there has been talk of federal legislation.
Also, I love how the poster above gets all bitchy with me as though I'm responsible for the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
I'll go look for links to the studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/caution-red-light-cameras-ahead
http://www.motorists. org/red-light-cameras/studies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
And also, just because drivers have been getting away with breaking the rules because they are virtually unenforceable, until new technologies were able to take up the slack, doesn't mean they should not be enforced. Getting away with it is not the same as being allowed to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
Also, speeding can help to increase safety by reducing the density of traffic (up to a point). Basically traffic and transportation is a well understood science and I doubt many traffic engineers are out spouting the glories of red light and speed cameras as they are much more interested in safety and efficiency than revenue.
Finally, you sound like someone who doesn't own a car. While there are plenty of bad drives the statement "most drivers, in my experience, need to be treated like brainless children" is a strong indicator that you are either arrogant or ignorant ... but you keep on keepin' on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
> who knows nothing about 'the realities of
> driving and the roads'
No, you're just an idiot pedestrian who knows nothing about the realities of how governments work.
Whether you like it or not, it *is* all about the money. You need look no further than Dallas, Texas, for evidence of just that. They spent hundreds of thousands installing red light cameras, to great fanfare about how they would make the streets safer, then when the cameras actually worked and people stopped running the lights, the city noticed it was experiencing a serious revenue shortfall from the lack of tickets. What did they do? Yep, they removed all the red light cameras.
I guess road safety wasn't all that important after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the hell is wrong with car drivers
If there are an insufficient number of speeding tickets, lower the speeding limit.
When deciding whether a dangerous intersection with many fatal accidents should have a red-light camera, or a busy intersection, better to have it to an intersection with more traffic, to increase ticket counts. If a busy intersection has an insufficient revenue generation, lower the yellow-light time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dwayne Boring & Company
My god, people, are we going to pretend we don't recognize whatthis is about. Let Mr. Boring tell and the rest tell us about all their other humanitarian efforts. All the charities for the poor, the disabled, and the homeless?
What happens next with these birds? When, for instance, the want to remove traffic cops from the highways (that's a "money grab," too, isn't it?)? How about (other) road signs - speed limit, for instance.
And for "coward," it happens that motor vehicle accident investigation and reconstruction was for seventeen years my business. You're full of it (but you know that don't you; that's not what it's about, now - IS it?!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revenue?
It is beneficial to society that we don't enforce every law all the time. Speeders don't get a ticket every time they speed or else we'd all be indebted to the local municipalities for the rest of our lives. Everyone breaks the law in some way, whether they're even aware of it or not. Do you turn yourself in every time you break a law? No? Then don't pretend that we need some technological totalitarian monitoring system to make sure we're not breaking the law. That's not a free society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Revenue?
To be honest, I think there ought to be higher speed limits and then a sign that gives the recommended speed. Meaning, a sign that says the road was designed for a certain speed given certain conditions (weather, car size, brake efficiency, traffic, etc) and then a sign indicates at what speed you'll be ticketed at. For example, if a road was designed for a speed of 40 mph based on the average car, with average tires, good weather conditions and light traffic, then if it's good weather conditions, no traffic and I'm driving a light car with awesome tires and brakes, I'll be free to drive 50 without having to be on the lookout for a cop. If it's bad weather or heavy traffic or I'm driving a heavy truck with bad tires and soft brakes, then I'll go 30 or whatever conditions call for. Then another sign that says the speed limit (you know, the actual limit) is 65. If you're driving faster than that then you'll get pulled over no matter what the conditions are.
As it is, speed limits are set not only below what the road is designed for, but also well below what the average speed a person would drive if there were no speed limits on that road. We need to move away from every one driving at the limit, and instead try to get people driving at the recommended speed with a limit being a real limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last I remember reading on chron.com (I couldn't find the link) a few months ago the federal district court ignored the results of the referendum because of a city charter that states that policies enacted by city council had to be challenged within 30 days to be valid and since the deal to install the cameras was made months prior (even though as usual the general public wasn't made aware of it then) the referendum was irrelevant. I remember thinking then that we need an ordinance that says that basically the will of the people trumps all other provisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few corrections
2) There's a settlement on the table. And it does not involve rebooting the red light camera program. It will be, however, funded by revenues generated from tickets issued when the program was in force.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Red-light-camera-settlement-to-cost-Housto n-2666658.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entering into a binding contract on behalf of your constituency without consulting that constituency that doesn't allow for the constituency to say "NO!" once they find out about it is irresponsible misrepresentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, incomplete rewording error on my part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs cameras?
Worse, a false expectation of safety, because cameras can't stop the real late runners, who cause the accidents. (If cameras worked, camera sellers wouldn't have the crash videos they supply to the media.)
Want safety, no side effects?
To cut car/pedestrian accidents, train your kids not to step out just 'cuz the walk sign came on.
To cut nuisance running (a fraction of a second late), lengthen the yellows. It's cheap to do so can be done all over town.
The dangerous real late (multiple seconds) runs won't be stopped by the mere presence of a camera, because the runner won't know (a lost tourist) or won't remember (a distracted or impaired "local") that there's a camera up ahead. They're not doing it on purpose! To cut the real late runs, improve the visual cues that say, "Intersection ahead." Florida's DOT found that better pavement markings (paint!) cut running by up to 74%. Make the signal lights bigger, add backboards, and put the poles on the NEAR side of the corner. Put brighter bulbs in the street lights at intersections. Put up lighted name signs for the cross streets.
Who needs cameras and their side effects?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]