House Transportation Committee Looking To Restart Federal Funding Of Red Light Cameras

from the back-to-buying-stuff-everyone-alreadys-knows-doesn't-work dept

Federal funds -- banned since 2015 from being used by states to purchase red light/speed cameras -- are possibly headed back to buying tech that hasn't done anything to make driving safer.

In 2012, language was added to the federal transportation bill that denied states federal funding for traffic cameras.

"A state may not expend funds apportioned to that state under this section to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic enforcement system…"

But it didn't become law until 2015, and was expanded to exclude automatic license plate readers.

"None of the funds made available by this act may be used to acquire a camera for the purpose of collecting or storing vehicle license plate numbers," the House-passed language states.

Some of that may be rolled back with this year's budget proposal, The Newspaper (which did all the previously-cited reporting) reports:

The US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Wednesday will review sweeping legislation that would, among other things, encourage local governments to set up speed cameras using federal taxpayer dollars. The move would reverse a ban on federal funding for both red light cameras and speed cameras that has been in place since 2015.

[...]

"Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a state may expend funds apportioned to that state under this section to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic system in a work zone or school zone," the proposal states.

The bill [PDF] also adds this language, which doesn't do much to clarify what these guidelines might entail.

Any automated traffic enforcement system installed pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall comply with speed enforcement camera systems and red light camera systems guidelines established by the Secretary.

If this passes, it will reverse a half-decade ban on federally funding this mostly-useless tech. As The Newspaper notes, the federal government was an early adopter of traffic enforcement camera systems, providing funds for several pilot programs around the country more than 20 years ago.

But as report after report showed these cameras did little to increase safety, legislators began to reconsider the federal government's involvement in programs that appeared to do nothing more than generate revenue.

And it's not as though the tech has improved over the years. Accuracy isn't necessarily the goal. The more tickets issued, the more every party involved (local governments, traffic cam manufacturers) benefits. Well, not every party. Drivers are part of the equation but they're viewed as little more than mobile ATMs. Automated systems cut down on payroll expenses and replace it with cheap mailed tickets that, in many cases, can't even be challenged in court. Win-win for governments. Lose-lose for the people paying their salaries.

In other words, there are several good reasons for the federal government to stay out of the automated traffic enforcement business. Those reasons apply to local governments as well. But the federal government shouldn't be making it easier for local governments to indulge their desires to turn residents into revenue streams.

Filed Under: congress, funding, redlight cameras, speed cameras

Ohio Appeals Court Says Speed Trap Town Must Pay Back $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speed Camera Tickets

from the hey-New-Miami,-your-rights-end-where-citizens'-rights-begin dept

Drivers sent tickets by New Miami, Ohio speed cameras will be getting a refund. The state appeals court has upheld the ruling handed down by the lower court last spring. At stake is $3 million in fines, illegally obtained by the town.

The Ohio Court of Appeals on Monday delivered a heavy blow to New Miami's attempt to block a court-ordered refund of $3,066,523 in speed camera citations. The village insisted that the lower court (view ruling) got it wrong and that the village should not be forced to pay back any amount on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Not so, said the unanimous three-judge panel.

"While it is true that New Miami has the authority to enforce its traffic laws, it must do so in a constitutional manner," Judge Michael E. Powell wrote for the appellate court. "New Miami does not have the authority to do so in an unconstitutional manner."

This is the end of six year legal battle over New Miami's speed cameras. The lower court had problems with the lack of options made available to ticket recipients to challenge speeding tickets. It also had problems with New Miami's cozy relationship with the speed camera company, which provided free cameras in exchange for a percentage of collected fines. This fostered an unhealthy relationship between the two, leading to the town becoming most famous for being a speed trap. The company saddled New Miami with a minimum of 100 operating hours per camera each month. This led to spike in tickets and a healthy thirst for continual cash infusions on the part of New Miami's governance.

The Appeals Court addresses New Miami's last-ditch attempt to salvage the $3 million it obtained unconstitutionally. The town tried to go the "sovereign immunity" route, claiming it could not be held responsible for monetary damages arising from a civil suit. The court explains handing out refunds isn't the same thing as issuing a check for monetary damages. From the order [PDF]:

[P]laintiffs are seeking the recovery of the specific amount of penalties they paid pursuant to the unconstitutional ordinance and that were therefore wrongfully collected by New Miami. That is, Plaintiffs are seeking the return of specific monies that had once been in their possession and so belonged to them "in good conscience," and thus have asserted a claim for the return of the very thing to which the class was allegedly entitled in the first place. Santos, 2004-Ohio-28 at ¶ 13-14. The action seeking restitution by Plaintiffs "is not a civil suit for money damages but rather an action to correct the unjust enrichment of" New Miami. Id. at ¶ 17. As the Ohio Supreme Court plainly held, "A suit that seeks the return of specific funds wrongfully collected or held by the state is brought in equity" and "is consequently not barred by sovereign immunity."

The government also tried to claim the speed camera funds were not unjustly obtained. It argued it had a legal right to impose fines for traffic violations. The court agrees the town can indeed do that, but points out it has to comply with the Constitution when it does.

New Miami claims that this is not a case where Plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement for services rendered or money "wrongfully collected." New Miami asserts that the penalties paid by Plaintiffs were not "wrongfully collected" because New Miami has the authority "to operate traffic programs and collect penalties for violation of traffic laws." Apparently, it is New Miami's contention that because it has legal authority to collect penalties for violation of its traffic laws, Plaintiffs' claim is necessarily for money damages based upon a denial of due process in the collection of those penalties. While it is true that New Miami has the authority to enforce its traffic laws, it must do so in a constitutional manner. New Miami does not have the authority to do so in an unconstitutional manner.

Hopefully, this will be the end of New Miami's run as "the little speed trap that could." It's been told otherwise -- twice. It can't. Not the way it's been doing things. If the town wants to assess fees for traffic violations, fine. But it has to provide an avenue for recipients to challenge tickets. Its cozy relationship with the camera company prevents that. And its contractual obligations pervert the incentives, moving it from public safety to generating revenue.

Filed Under: ohio, pay back, speed cameras, speed trap, unconstitutional

Court Orders Small Ohio Speed Trap Town To Refund $3 Million In Unconstitutional Speeding Tickets

from the brace-for-a-revenue-drought dept

The state of Ohio has had its problems with speed cameras. Back in 2010, the city of New Garfield refunded $100,000 in fines collected in violation of its speed camera policy. The city told the public that drivers would only be ticketed for driving more than eleven mph over the speed limit [... which makes one question the purpose of its speed limits]. Plenty of drivers got dinged for exceeding the speed limit by less than the arbitrary cutoff, resulting in the mass refund.

Not that this will necessarily keep anyone from being ticketed, speeding or not. In the same year, an Ohio court ruled that an officer's guesstimate of someone's speed is just as reliable as radar or speed cameras when it comes to testimony. Given how many speed cameras have ticketed parked cars and brick walls, this is somewhat of a "close case" when it comes to testimonial accuracy.

The Newspaper -- which stays on top of every speed/traffic cam-related development [note: they really HATE traffic cams in France…] -- reports that New Miami, Ohio, is being forced to hand back every cent of its speed camera take as the result of a court decision.

New Miami, Ohio broke the law, it was caught, and now it will have to repay $3,066,523 worth of tickets. That was the judgment rendered Wednesday by Butler County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Oster Jr.

"If the government has created an unconstitutional law/ordinance that has taken people's money without affording them the necessary due process protections, should not justice demand, and the law require, restitution of that money to the people?" Oster asked at the opening of his ruling. "Once the complexities of the law are analyzed, the answer is simple: Yes."

As the court sees it, the system set up by the town eliminates a crucial Constitutional right. It's very likely the town knew its actions were unconstitutional, but it probably never assumed it would have to refund $3 million in ill-gotten revenue.

New Miami, Ohio, is more speed trap than town, as the court order [PDF] explains:

The Village of New Miami is in St. Clair Township located just north of the city of Hamilton. New Miami is less than one square mile in size (.95 square miles) and has a population of 2,249 people based on the 2010 United States Census Bureau. US. 127, a major north-south highway, runs through the Village and is the primary location where the speed cameras were located.

Despite its blink-and-you'll-miss-it size, the village still issued an incredible amount of tickets, thanks in part to its freebie contract with camera provider Blue Line Solutions (BLS). The contract it signed required the cameras (of which there were at least two) to be in operation for a minimum of 100 hours a month. This isn't unmanned time, as the camera system requires an officer to pull a trigger and capture an image of the speeding driver to send to the processing company that issues the tickets.

BLS gave the town the cameras for free, under the assumption the investment would pay off with operating times of 100 hours per month minimum per camera.

After review by a Village of New Miami police supervisor, the ticket is mailed to the registered owner and a fine of $95 is included.

The village and Blue Line Solutions, LLC split each $95 fine with one another. The village keeps 65 percent of the $95 fine while the private camera company keeps 35 percent.

The speed cameras as free for the village, provided to the village by the private contractor under the five year deal.

To ensure the revenue flow wasn't disrupted by angry drivers and/or insurance companies, the town rewrote its statutes to cut both the criminal justice system and insurance companies out of the equation.

Village of New Miami records show the small Butler County village created its own speeding law in 1991, allowing the village to charge speeding violations under a civil ordinance instead of under the state’s uniform traffic statute.

Under the village ordinance, drivers caught speeding in New Miami would not be subjected to the state’s point system, which would suspend a driver who accrued 12 point violations in a two year period. As a result, insurance companies would not know the conduct of the drivers they cover.

None of that matters now that the court has found the village's system unconstitutional and the town responsible for paying back members of this class action lawsuit. And this $3 million will all be coming from New Miami. The camera manufacturer has no liability if the cameras are deployed unlawfully. That's all on the municipality, which will probably have to screw its own residents to issue refunds on the hundreds of bogus tickets as the money it's unlawfully collected over the years hasn't just been sitting around collecting interest.

Filed Under: new garfield, new miami, ohio, refunds, speed cameras, speed trap, tickets
Companies: blue line solutions

The Legal Netherworld Of Traffic Cam Tickets, Where Everything Is Both Civil And Criminal, While Also Being Mostly Neither

from the American-Traffic-Systems-Multiverse dept

Adam MacLeod, law professor at Faulkner University, was the recipient of a traffic cam speeding ticket. The problem was that he wasn't driving the vehicle when the infraction occurred. So, it was his vehicle being ticketed, but he was being held responsible for someone else's infraction.

He decided to fight it, and that fight uncovered just how crooked the traffic cam system is. Not only are traffic camera manufacturers receiving a cut of every ticket issued, but tapping into this new revenue stream has prompted municipalities to undermine the judicial system.

MacLeod's detailed report of his fight against city hall is well worth reading in its entirety. But one hint of things to come reveals itself in MacLeod's conversation with the city's attorney when attempting to figure out how one goes about actually challenging a traffic cam ticket.

I asked her whether this was a criminal action or a civil action. She replied, “It’s hard to explain it in those terms.” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules.

The attorney had no way of answering this question honestly, or even accurately. What MacLeod discovered during his speeding ticket battle is that his local government -- like many other local governments deploying traffic cameras -- had created a legal netherworld between civil and criminal law where tickets issued by software were allowed to operate.

[T]raffic cameras do not always produce probable cause that a particular person has committed a crime. To get around this “problem” (as a certain law-and-order president-elect might call it), several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.

In short, municipal officials and their private contractors have at their disposal the powers of both criminal and civil law and are excused from the due process duties of both criminal and civil law. It’s a neat trick that would have made King George III blush.

Once a government becomes reliant on a new, legally-questionable revenue stream, the "questionable" part tends to be buried under absurd claims about traffic safety and traffic accident deaths. At this point, the entire system is corrupted. Legislators like the money. Cops like the money. The camera company (in this case, American Traffic Solutions) likes the money. Everything that needs to be done to ensure the cashflow doesn't dry up is done, including engaging in perjury.

MacLeod was finally allowed to address the proxy accusing him of speeding: the local PD. Its testifying officer buried himself (along with the city and ATS) during cross-examination.

On cross-examination, I established that:

- He was not present at the time of the alleged violation.

- He has no photographic evidence of the driver.

- There were no witnesses.

- He does not know where Adam MacLeod was at the time of the alleged violation.

And so on. I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”

Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.” This surprised both of us. It also surprised the judge, who looked up from his desk for the first time. A police officer had just testified under oath that he perjured himself in service to a city government and a mysterious, far-away corporation whose officers probably earn many times his salary.

Once you're corrupt, it's all over. The officer MacLeod questioned seemingly didn't realize his complicity in this corruption until he was directly questioned. In all fairness, he'd likely been told everything about the ticketing system was above-board, legally and constitutionally.

But once the new system -- one that is neither criminal nor civil -- is challenged, it falls apart. MacLeod reports that Alabama residents fought back against the deployment of traffic cameras, resulting in the repeal of the state's traffic cam law. Not that his mattered to the city of Montgomery's (where MacLeod resides) governance.

[M]ontgomery’s defiant mayor announced that the city would continue to operate the program. Curiously, he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions.

That went on until the state's District Attorney stepped in to shut down the mayor's rogue traffic cam program. Or tried to. A compromise of sorts was reached. Car-mounted cameras were shut down, but stationary cameras already in place were allowed to keep issuing tickets summoning citizens to the city's judicial Kafka-esque criminal/civil intersection.

Unhappy with having to (sort of) comply with state law, the mayor made it clear that cameras may come and go, but newly-found revenue streams are here to stay.

In a fit of petulance, and belying his insistence that the program is motivated by safety concerns rather than revenue, the mayor announced that the amounts of fines for ordinary traffic violations will now be tripled.

That's how the system works. The money must flow from the citizens to their government. And if the pipeline has to run right through their civil rights and liberties, so be it. Traffic camera systems are sold as public safety enhancements, but all they're really doing is transferring more money -- and more power -- to governments willing to let contractual obligations with private companies take precedence over Constitutional amendments.

Filed Under: adam macleod, alabama, civil, criminal, due process, speed cameras, speeding ticket, tickets, traffic cameras
Companies: ats

Hackable Speed Cameras Highlight Risk Of Rush Toward IoT-Enabled 'Smart' Cities

from the if-you-build-it-(poorly)-they-will-come dept

We've been talking at length about how the lack of security in the Internet of Things space is seen as a sort of adorable joke, but isn't always a laughing matter. While the hillarious stupidity of some of the "smart" products flooding the market is undeniable, the reality is that the abysmal state of security in "IoT" devices (read: little to none) is creating millions of new attack vectors every year. And as Bruce Schneier recently warned, it's only a matter of time before the check comes due, and these vulnerabilities contribute to hacking attacks on core infrastructure resulting in notable fatalities.

Refrigerators that leak your Gmail credentials are one thing, but this looming calamity is going to be made notably worse by the rush toward "smart" cities. The same hardware vendors that can't bother to secure their consumer-side hardware haven't done a much better job securing the gear they're shoveling toward cities under the promise of a better, more connected tomorrow. Case in point: Kaspersky Lab researchers have discovered that a significant number of city speeding cameras are, you guessed it, easily hackable:

"According to Vladimir Dashchenko and Denis Makrushin from Kaspersky Lab, these devices can be easily manipulated. The results were published in a security conference paper about the security hazards in smart cities...The Russian researchers were using the Shodan search engine to explore the security implications of the "smart city" fad. They hypothesized that the rush to deploy high-tech, "Internet of things" devices to improve the municipal infrastructure often meant that security was left behind.

And they were right. Except security wasn't just subpar on speed cameras made by vendors like Redflex Traffic Systems. In many instances it didn't exist whatsoever:

"We decided to check that passwords were being used," Dashchenko and Makrushin wrote. "Imagine our surprise when we realized there was no password and the entire video stream was available to all Internet users. Openly broadcast data includes not only the video stream itself, but additional data, such as the geographical coordinates of cameras, as well."

The researchers noted that even in not-so-smart cities, the cameras are already processing gigabytes of citizens' data with little to no protection. Worse, the researchers found that given these cameras are tied to larger networks, hackers could potentially gain access to databases of stolen vehicles and add or remove vehicles from said lists. Their full paper, Fooling The Smart City (pdf), is worth taking a look at, and highlights how a significant number of kiosks -- used for everything from ticket sales to bicycle rentals -- are also vulnerable.

The result isn't just an exponential explosion in vulnerabilities. These compromised devices are now being used in historically massive new DDoS attacks, that appear to be getting larger by the day. On the heels of the recent, record-setting 620 gigabit-per-second DDoS attack against Brian Krebs (which was fueled in part by compromised IoT devices), a new attack this week launched against a French web host peaked at an incredible 1.1 terabits per second, driven in part by -- you guessed it -- hacked security cameras.

Krebs subsequently noted this week that the source code for the IOT-fueled DDoS that took down his website has been released, all but guaranteeing that mammoth, even larger attacks fueled by not-so-smart cars, not-so-smart locks, and not-so-smart power outlets are about to become the norm.

Filed Under: brian krebs, ddos, hackable, iot, speed cameras

Judge Voids Tons Of Chicago Traffic Camera Tickets Over Due Process Concerns

from the duped-process dept

Being familiar with our story roster when it comes to traffic and speed cameras, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that these devices have almost nothing to do with driver safety and almost everything to do with bringing in revenue for local governments. And, with the focus being on revenue as opposed to keeping human beings from harm, the mystery for all of the corruption surrounding how these camera contracts are awarded and implemented vanishes into a story of the age-old greed of the human being.

But to really see how spectacularly these cameras fail at just about everything, we can eschew the reports on safety and the lack of their impact for the moment and focus instead on how it's quickly becoming clear that the cameras do a shitty job at the bringing-in-revenue part of the equation as well. We've seen already the staggering statistics on how many refunds have been issued for tickets issued by the camera system, but now the courts are getting involved as well. An example of this can be seen in Chicago, where a judge has ruled that camera tickets spanning back over a decade are simply void and that the city had violated the due process rights of the citizens under its care.

In a harshly worded ruling handed down late Friday, Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy kept alive a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions dollars in refunds for motorists ticketed since 2003 after City Hall “skipped a step” mandated by the city’s own municipal code. The lawsuit filed nearly a year ago accused the Emanuel administration of violating the requirement to issue a second notice of violation before issuing a determination of liability against motorists issued speed-camera and red-light camera tickets.

The suit further alleged that the city failed to specify the make of the vehicle and that city notices indicate that late penalties will be assessed if payment is not received within 21 days of a liability determination, when a 25-day grace period is required by law.

I'm from and of this city and the notion that government officials didn't bother to follow their own municipal codes and laws is so shocking that-haha, no it isn't, my god this happens all the time. Still, the true nature of greedy government is on display here, with the city being so blinded by cartoonish dollar signs dancing before its collective eyes that it couldn't see that the bullshit camera policy that it knew wasn't being used for safety reasons wouldn't even be able to pull in the revenue it wanted either, after the legal challenges.

And it's not like the city even put in a real effort in this instance. The second notice of violation provision required by law is quite simple to follow. A first notice is handed out, after all, and this provision is shampoo in nature: rinse and repeat. It's important, though, as it gives alleged traffic violators ample opportunity to contest tickets handed out by the camera overlords. Except, of course, the city clearly wanted to minimize the number of people contesting tickets, because that costs time and money, and this was all about generating revenue. This can be more clearly seen as the city haphazardly adjusted late fees for the tickets outside of the law.

Kennedy ruled that the three named plaintiffs in the case — Delyn McKenzie-Lopez; Themasha Simpson and Erica Lieschke — had “sufficiently alleged facts showing that the city’s retention of payments from determinations made without a second notice violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.”

“The alleged practice of accelerating late fees without statutory compliance is sufficient to show a violation of the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience,” the judge wrote.

And this paves the way for the plaintiffs to request class-action status for anyone who received and paid these tickets since 2003. The city will likely settle that action, of course. After all, if it were happy to pay the family of a teenager executed in the street by police a couple of million to stay silent, it won't think twice about making this whole thing go away.

But all of that does is affirm that these traffic cameras are good for nothing, as safety was never a concern and now the city is paying out as a result of tickets issues rather than collecting. Bang up job all around, Chicago.

Filed Under: chicago, due process, kathleen kennedy, speed cameras, traffic cameras

Missouri Court Upholds Right Of Citizens To 'Vote' Traffic Enforcement Cameras Out Of 'Office'

from the the-unbearable-red-lightness-of-being-kicked-right-the-fuck-out dept

Citizens don't care much for red light/traffic cameras. These revenue generators do little more than turn moving (or parked) vehicles into ATMs for the governments that deploy them. Obviously, local governments love them. They love them so much they're willing to overlook badly-broken systems, crooked manufacturers and increases in vehicle collisions.

Sometimes the citizens win the fight against red light cameras. That's when the government's hate for the little people really shows through. Late last year, residents of St. Charles, Missouri, showed Redflex the door by voting for a ban on camera-based traffic enforcement.

In St. Charles, Missouri, it was the county council, not a petition, that put the question of a photo ticketing ban on the ballot. County Councilman Joe Brazil came up with the measure as a means of reining in automated ticketing in St. Peters. Len Pagano, the town's mayor, insisted it violates "local control" to allow voters to decide such an issue. They did decide by a margin of 72.6 percent that the cameras should be banned.

It's unclear if Pagano's relationship with traffic enforcement camera manufacturer Redflex is as close as his predecessor's was. The former mayor, Shawn Brown, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for soliciting a bribe from the traffic camera company -- threatening to withhold approval until it paid him off. Redflex's hands were clean in this incident (not so much in other cases).

Pagano hasn't been tied to any financial malfeasance. That doesn't necessarily make him a friend of the common man, though. Shortly before this measure went up for public vote, Pagano told constituents he would spend their money to prevent them from enacting the ban they clearly desired.

"There is the strong potential for litigation," Pagano warned in a letter to County Councilman Joe Brazil, the amendment's sponsor.

"You may be raising serious constitutional questions that may take several years and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to answer."

Pagano said his city "and other interested parties at the local and state level and in the private sector" will carefully scrutinize any actions taken by the county that "restrict municipalities' roles and responsibilities."

The constituents of St. Charles County have been handed a victory by the court -- something that will slightly lessen the sting of having to fight a taxpayer-funded opponent just to be granted the ban taxpayers had already overwhelmingly declared they wanted.

The cameras will not return to St. Peters after Judge Pelikan decided that counties in Missouri do indeed have the power under the state constitution to regulate "any and all services and functions of any municipality" through the county charter.

"Plaintiffs incorrectly contend the charter amendment invades the province of general legislation involving public policy of the state as a whole, contending the public policy of the state of Missouri delegate directly and exclusively to the cities the authority to control traffic on municipal streets, including, as applicable here, the authority to use 'red light cameras' and other 'traffic control devices," Judge Pelikan ruled. "The county relies on its police power in conjunction with the police power of the municipalities to enact its charter amendment to serve the public good. The acts contemplated by the charter amendment are squarely within the powers granted to the county and the municipalities and are therefore valid and enforceable."

In essence, the government claimed the public couldn't tell it what to do through the use of charter amendments. The court says it can indeed do this and that the use of charter amendments to force the government to give the people what they actually want is perfectly constitutional. The public gets a win, but nothing is more bittersweet than the last sentence of the order, which ultimately means nothing in this context. A single party is footing the court costs for both sides, even if the wording in the order makes the situation seem far more equitable.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

If only.

Filed Under: joe brazil, len pagano, missouri, red light cameras, speed cameras, st. charles
Companies: redflex

Traffic Cam Company 'Bagman' Pleads Guilty To Bribing Chicago Transportation Official

from the that's-'safety'-with-a-capital-$ dept

John Bills
Managing Commissioner
Chicago Transportation Department
30 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60602  
(312) 744-3600



Mr. John Bills,

As the Commissioner of Chicago's DOT, you are undoubtedly aware that unsafe driving kills or injures hundreds of people every year.* While not every death or injury can be prevented, there are proactive measures that can be taken to reduce this terrible toll.

*[Stats tk, but probably a lot.]

One of the best deterrents is a non-intrusive camera: one that acts as both a recording device and a police officer. (And a judge and jury, truth be told.) In fact, these cameras -- which can* monitor speed and red light violations -- perform 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, generating a possibly unlimited amount of revenue for your department, as well as for the city itself. They may also make your streets safer, both for commuters and pedestrians -- something that can be highlighted when pursuing funding.

*[The spirit is willing, but the tech is weak.]

Unlike more static revenue streams like vehicle registration feeds and road taxes, camera systems can be tweaked as needed to guard against budget shortfalls. Working in conjunction with Redflex specialists, you'll be able to avail yourself to a variety of revenue boosters like shortened yellow lights, sudden speed limit changes, unchallengeable tickets and any number of camera malfunctions or programming errors that will almost always* result in more generated revenue.

*[Caveats apply. See 135-page agreement for further details.]

Choosing the best traffic camera solution for your city is a daunting decision. We at Redflex believe we can offer what many of our competitors can't, or at least likely won't. In addition to our traffic camera "expertise," we also offer the following:

• A condominium in Gilbert, Arizona
• Deep, deep, deep, deep, deep discounts on hotel rooms, car rentals and meals
• Debt consolidation plans for select transportation officials
• Multiple personal finance options

We realize your have your choice in traffic control systems, but would like to remind you that only one company can offer you up to $570,000 in cash over the next eight years.


Sincerely,


Martin "Bagman" O'Malley
Senior Consultant

Redflex Traffic Systems
Phoenix, Arizona
866 703-8097

[h/t velox -- and, yes, if you hadn't figured it out yet, this is satire, but based on a true story]

Filed Under: bribery, chicago, john bills, red light cameras, speed cameras, traffic cameras

Complete Failure: Chicago's Speed Camera Traps Fail To Bring In The Revenue Mayor Emanuel Counted Upon

from the fast-cash dept

Speed cameras, just like their red-light camera brethren, have been pretty well established as nothing more than revenue machines for local municipalities. Their application results in a myriad of issues, such as the fact that the cameras don't work, not to mention that the cameras don't work, oh, and the cameras don't work and the companies behind them might try to fudge the evidence if you dispute a ticket. The excuse for these cameras that don't work has always been that they are designed to make the roads safer under the theory that if motorists know that the cameras exist, they will be less likely to speed. That supposed justification is belied by two facts. The first is that some people who have tried to warn motorists that the cameras exist have been dragged to court for doing so, which sort of defeats the entire supposed purpose of the cameras. The second fact that disproves the justification is that Chicago just can't help going all Chicago on itself.

Local reporters have the glorious story of the latest Chicago budget crisis that has Mayor Emanuel scrambling for only one reason: Chicago motorists are way better behaved than he'd planned for in his previous budget.

You heard that right: Good behavior is bad for the budget. Real bad, reports CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine. CBS 2 has learned the speed cameras caught far fewer speeders than expected. According to the Mayor's 2015 Budget Overview, there have been "lower than expected violation rates."

How much lower? Fifty million dollars lower. Emanuel's administration had figured on $90 million in fines to help balance this year's budget, but they can only count on $40 million. That's a $50 million shortfall, putting pressure on the next spending plan.

Think about the logic here for a moment: Rahm Emanuel wrote a spending budget for the third largest city in the country that relied on a certain revenue number from speed cameras. Where's the incentive for better behavior on the road in that? There is none. The fact is that Chicago drivers are far better behaved than the city expected. That's an outcome you'd think the city would be celebrating. Instead, it's considered a negative, because the speed cameras were never about safety, they were only a method to fill the city's coffers to the tune of milliions of dollars. That isn't so much public policy as it is an extortion racket that happens to have failed.

"It was a combination of the camera company’s salesmanship and the city's greed," says camera critic Barnet Fagel.

You may not want to forgive the camera company their sales tactics, but how much do you really want to fault them? They're a large company beholden to nothing beyond the profit motive. They can't be expected to have the best interests of a city's population at heart. The Chicago city government on the other hand? Most citizens likely didn't elect Mayor Emanuel out of a sense of sadomasochism or the theory that we all just have a bit too much money in our pockets. Stories like these are among the reasons that Emanuel isn't considered invulnerable in the upcoming mayoral election.

Filed Under: budget, chicago, rahm emanuel, speed cameras