For-profit traffic enforcement (poll)

The toughest thing about putting this diary together has been coming up with a title.  I could have named it "implications of red light cameras", or "do you have a spare $350?", or "have you heard about Redflex?", or, as one Web site has, "highway robbery".

Some of you may have received citations generated by automated traffic enforcement devices, either red light cameras or photo radar units.  I didn't start looking into the situation until I received such a citation last fall.  Because I didn't have a spare $350 at the time, I decided to "fight the ticket".

My research opened my eyes, and I'm going to relay some of my findings below the fold.  To begin with, let me ask you whether you realize that an Australian defense contractor is taking slices out of red light and speeding fines in a number of states and whether you know that the annual reports for that corporation predict that its revenues from such for-profit traffic enforcement will grow to BILLIONS of dollars.

What's wrong with citing people for traffic violations?

Nothing.  But why should American cities and states contract with an Australian corporation to install red light cameras and photo radar units under terms which award that equipment supplier percentages of every fine imposed for those traffic citations?  

What's wrong with sharing traffic fines with for-profit corporations?

A number of things.  In California, there are minimum standards for the lengths of yellow light phases before traffic signals turn red.  Those standards provide for slightly longer times when the speed limits for the streets are higher.  I received a citation for entering an intersection late on a left turn signal, but, when I prepared for my court appearance to defend against the citation, I discovered that the yellow light had been set below the minimum time.  When a for-profit corporation participates in siting red light cameras and photo radar units, that corporation has a strong incentive to trap motorists (and thus maximize its profits) by doing such things as shortening yellow light phases and selecting locations such as downhill grades.  

At one point, the Redflex Holdings Limited annual report states that "...the USA enforcement industry remains in its commercial infancy and the potential growth that is expected in red light enforcement and, increasingly, speed limit compliance is IMMENSE."  [emphasis added]

My experience turned out well, in that I was found not guilty.  Of course, I had to spend time preparing my defense.  I didn't win on the ground that the left turn yellow light phase had been set below the minimum, because the judge granted my motion to dismiss the citation for having been processed by an employee of Redflex Traffic Systems (the USA subsidiary of Redflex Holdings Limited) instead of by Ventura Police Department personnel--the confidentiality requirement for automated traffic enforcement had been violated.

Although I was aware of their existence in some cities, I was surprised to learn how widely red light cameras had been installed in California.  I was shocked to read in the annual reports for Redflex Holdings Limited that its profits have exploded and that they are forecast to reach BILLIONS of dollars from operations in the USA.

Here is a link to the annual reports page on the Redflex site:
http://www.redflex.com.au/... .

Here is a link to a site which questions and opposes red light cameras:
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/... .
 

•  Tip jar

  Any contributions to my fine for the next citation I receive from an automated system?  ;^)

  by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:43:27 AM PDT

  •  Another link for you

    I should have included this in the main diary.  Here's a link to the Speed Trap Exchange site (if you've never visited it, you should take a look):
    http://www.speedtrap.org/... .

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

    •  I probably shouldn't say anything

      I work for an American company that competes with Redflex for this business. I'm not terribly happy that my company has gotten into this arena, but the people involved do seem to be genuinely interested in saving lives. Of course, they're also genuinely interested in making a profit off of the practice, too.

      Last year, they were planning to compete for all of these red light enforcement programs that were beginning to roll out around the country. They had put together a pretty good technology, very nice promo materials, and a pretty good price, but in state after state, and city after city, they got beat out of the process by this company no one had heard of called 'Redflex'. Pretty soon, they had wrapped up most of the business. Now, the traffic and enforcement business is so much an old-boy network, it wasn't really surprising that somebody was somehow working an inside angle. I'm not in that division and am only hearing about this stuff second-hand, but I gather that several of our bids were under Redflex, but the programs still went to them.

      In any case, I hate the idea of getting a ticket via remote-control. I've managed to avoid it, even though we have no more knowledge about this than the regular public. The group that does the verification (that part is all done by human eyeballs) is behind keycode locked doors, but with interior windows so everybody can be watched. Actually, it's kind of creepy.

      And some people have had some success fighting the tickets. I doubt that the American people are going to let this program get very entrenched. It just pisses off too many people.

      by tergenev on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:22:24 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for your contribution

        It wouldn't surprise me if Redflex was employing monopolists' tactics in pitching their services to additional states and cities.  Did you notice the statement from its annual report that commercial traffic enforcement in this country is in its infancy?

        My guess is (and I really should talk to a clerk in the Ventura County traffic enforcement office), most people do NOT fight their tickets.  I found both the yellow light timing provision and the confidentiality requirement (which the police agency for which Redflex is processing citations is ignoring) in the Vehicle Code.  Most people never have looked at the Vehicle Code.

        It's the same thing for speeding tickets.  Most people don't fight speeding tickets; they pay the bail amount and just accept whatever effect the conviction has on their insurance rates.  That's the scary thing about Redflex pushing photo radar systems these days.

        by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:42:41 PM PDT

      •  List of manufacturers

        Here's a link to the page on the trade association site where various manufacturers are listed:
        http://www.sense.bc.ca/... .

        That's a Canadian site.  Notice how many foreign manufacturers want a piece of the North American pie.

        by JTML on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:38:33 AM PDT

•  they're starting here in Illinois

  In June, they'll start in construction zones, with a $275 minimum fine, with photo radar units.

  Nevermind how badly marked construction zones are - you can't always tell where they begin or end, and that you can't bargain and get driving scholl for those fines. Next, they'll start them in school zones, probably, depending on if it makes money.

  I don't know if outside corporations are involved, my impression so far is that it's more for the state to profit so Gov. Blagojevich can balance the state budget without raising taxes.

  Under Blagojevich, the state has started doing checkpoints for seatbelts, and similar maneuvers, so I don't really assume this will turn out very well.
  I'll bet we end up with a lot more "construction zones" where no construction is going on, and speed limits not clearly marked. And an awful lot of people getting those tickets.

  by Banana Republicans on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:01:08 AM PDT

  •  Redflex trumpeted its entry into Illinois

    Redflex is the "industry" leader, and its site trumpets its entry into Illinois.  I don't know what portion of the Illinois contracts will go to that corporation, but, however much of a fine the state will receive, is there any justification for giving Redflex or some other for-profit corporation a percentage of a fine?

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:13:29 AM PDT

  •  I'm all for these ideas

    Someone did a statistical analysis and reported back that if you buy lottery tickets, you should make sure you don't drive to get them, because you have a greater chance of being killed in an accident than winning.

    I see  all sorts of violations, every day.  I was almost hit on my bike today by some a$$ pulling into the lane I was in without looking.

    Robot enforcement and privatized enforcement sound great to me.  

    By the way, it's been my antidote to the anti-immigrant campaign.  "yeah!! we have to get rid of all these people who break the law to get a job.  From here on out, let's deport anyone who breaks the speed limit.  They're lawbreakers. No Amnesty."

    Seems to shut up the racists.  Possibly just because they're dumbfounded that I could say such a thing, but still.

    by ne plus ultra on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:01:48 PM PDT

    •  Intermediate ...

      I find myself somewhat falling between the extremes here ...

      Statistical analysis shows that red-light cameras clearly reduce fatal crashes (but lead to some additional fender benders as people who stop are hit by people seeking to make it through the yellow light).

      There are, however, serious problems with the enforcement and the appeals process.

      In DC, which was (might still be) Lockheed Martin as contractor, there was a great article (Post) which talked about some of the problems. For example, the car that supposedly was in about six different places in the city within about five minutes with the owner getting something like $1000 worth of tickets in the mail ... excuse me, but they used their transport machine to move around the city to get more tickets? Now, that situation was extreme enough that the person took the time to fight it and won.

      Or, the photo machine that was set to hit people at 7 miles over the speed limit.  Believe there was someone who had amassed something like 50 tickets for 10 miles over (which was about 'normal' for that location -- 'speeding' was something like 20 miles over) before the first one arrived in their home.

      I paid, once, a mistaken ticket -- I just wasn't there but couldn't justify the half-day against the $50 fine.  But then I got another one two days later ... turned out there was exactly the same car with one letter difference in plates very close to me.  The second photo set I did a double take because their car didn't have "Proud to be a Democrat" bumper sticker.  Was able to fight successfully that second ticket but had to eat the first since I had paid without fighting ...

      The incentive is to process as many tickets as possible -- thus, the contractor and the police both want to maximize tickets. And, then it is incredibly difficult to fight tickets that might have been given out in error.  (I have two that were "mine" -- one I got caught in an intersection because a bicyclist ran a red light and I hit my brakes hard to avoid hitting them, stalling the car.  Took me a few seconds to restart. Thus, I was "in" the intersection on red light, but had entered the intersection prior to red light. Other was merited ... possibly ...).  Thus, I have 'paid' three times, of which one was not legitimate to fight ...

      Thus, it is clear that these can help reduce the dangers at intersections.  But the profit motive can drive a system less focused on improving safety than on improving the bottom line, even at the expense of innocents.

      by besieged by bush on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:25:31 PM PDT

      •  Washington Times article

        It's three years old, but here's a link to an article in the Washington Times which reported a speech by an AAA official:
        http://www.washtimes.com/... .

        The interesting part, other than the arguments against removing the firewall between law enforcement and revenue generation, may be the statistics for Washington, D.C.  

        According to Metropolitan Police statistics, the District collected $21,974,285 in fines from red-light camera citations from August 1999 through June 2003. The red-light cameras issued 377,743 citations, of which 253,911 have been paid.
           In addition, the city collected $30,331,113 in fines from photo-radar cameras from August 2001 through June 2003. The speeding cameras issued 587,434 citations, of which 408,191 have been paid.

        by JTML on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:46:12 AM PDT

    •  but do you ever see

      Do you ever see people sitting way out under lights waiting to turn, being ignored by cops? Turning without using signals? Switching lanes without signals?
      Ignoring emergency sirens?
      I've seen all of them be ignored by police, many times. Yet seatbelt checkpoints are important.

      What we need is better selected enforcement. Go after the more dangerous traffic violations, not the most profitable.

      by Banana Republicans on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:37:11 AM PDT

•  In general I want more traffic enforcement

  I detest aggressive drivers.  I mourn the days of 1-car-length-per-every-10-mph following distance. I think it's very sensible for small towns to run speed traps to pad the public treasury.  

  But cops in our town don't even have time to catch murderers, so I guess they're not gonna start ticketing for running yellows or following too closely, or reckless lane-switching.  

  So I've observed with interest as the not-yet-in-use traffic cams  have begun to sprout on selected intersections. As an ACLU aficionado, I am troubled by certain contradictions, but on the whole I decided I felt okay with the cameras there.

  But your0 diary makes me question my acceptance.

  Geez, I shoulda known it would be friggin out-sourced. I was naive to think in terms of subsidizing local law enforcement.  I suppose the Australian defense contractor is giving a cut to Halliburton along the way.  

  by lgmcp on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:06:31 AM PDT

  •  Outsourced, or privatized?

    The only benefit from contracts with Redflex or its competitors is that the public agency doesn't have to front the cost of the complicated equipment.

    This development came from a defense contractor because it had the technical knowledge of radar, communications, and photographic systems.

    Here in California, aggressive drivers are a problem in part because the Highway Patrol has been starved, with only a fraction of the personnel which would provide better enforcement.

    But we should be bothered by the conflict of interest regarding the length of yellow light phases--when you approach an intersection at, say, 30 mph, you should have time to react to the change and prepare to stop.

    And Redflex, instead of concentrating on the development of static speed locations, has been developing photo radar vans, which will be moved around.  Here, if traffic began traveling at, say, 50 mph on a stretch of road where the speed limit was 40 mph, the speed limit might have been adjusted upward after a traffic survey.  Now, surveys will be done so that Redflex will be able to position its vans to maximize the number of vehicles which will be cited for exceeding the old 40 mph speed limit.

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:25:51 AM PDT

    •  Your point about the yellows is perfectly sound

      it is a significant safety issue, and also offers great potential for financially-motivated misuse.  

      In other areas, I guess I don't understand the distinction between outsourced and privatized.  Maybe it's a continuum? The examples that come to mind are ...

      Janitorial services in schools have been "outsourced", and gone is the in-house custodian who took a personal interest in every broken waterfountain or graffitied wall (and earned a pension from the school district).  

      Running prisons has definitely been "privatized", which seems to result in an ever-greater percentage of people being locked up.

      by lgmcp on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:47:35 AM PDT

      •  What is the distinction?

        Chalk it up to laziness--my dictionary defines neither "outsource" nor "privatize", and I didn't look further.  

        I think I assumed that outsourcing dealt more with procurement from a non-governmental source, in other words with obtaining equipment or services, and that privatizing meant turning the entire governmental function over to corporations.  Maybe it's a question of a partial or an entire delegation.  Maybe there's no real distinction.

        by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:45:13 AM PDT

      •  Privatization is outsourcing

        a function previously carried out by a public agency.

        by Delta Overdue on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:31:25 PM PDT

•  Red Light cameras, et al

  Here in the Denver Area, there was a big stink about using Photo Radar to send tickets to speeders on certain steets and highways. After much argument, the state legislature or other agency decided that the Photo Radar was not in fact a tool to promote safe driving, but in fact a money generating exercise and made all cities who used the devices post signs indicating that Photo Radar was in use. This sounds like something that happened to you. You weren't served with a notice from the Law Enforcement Agency, but rather a private company whose sole role is to generate revenue not promote safety.

  by whipmeco on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:07:19 AM PDT

  •  All intersections signed in this state

    There may be a requirement in the Vehicle Code here in California that intersections where automated enforcement equipment has been installed be signed, so that motorists are notified that such systems are operating.  I haven't seen red light cameras in operation without such signs, which are standardized.

    I don't try to beat red lights.  When I approached the intersection last fall, I thought that I'd have time to clear it during the yellow phase.  When the yellow light changed unexpectedly quickly, I had to choose whether to make a panic stop or to continue through with my left turn onto a freeway on-ramp.

    You're right to focus on the revenue generation--cities find it much cheaper to locate the cameras than to station police officers at multiple intersections around the clock.  But traffic officers have been able to exercise what might be called "prosecutorial discretion" (or, really, enforcement discretion), to take account of conditions which may have reduced the amount of time for a motorist to proceed through the intersection.  Now, there is no leeway, or only that provided by such things as minimum timing for yellow light phases.

    Saving costs for citation issuance, and the preparation of evidence packets for those instances where the person who received the citation decides to "fight the ticket", is another selling point for the automated systems.

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:37:52 AM PDT

    •  Good diary, I say privatize it

      by renting sealed videocameras to unemployed students or who ever. Then they go all over and video tape intersections. The one by my house here in Santa Barbara would buy baby some new shoes.
         In five minutes you can see several suv's full of young white faces speed through the stop sign by the urban school.
          I'd like to collect by the ear.

      by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:04:08 AM PDT

•  A family member

  was fined for being in the intersection for 9/10ths of a second while the light was red.

  There are also intersections here that are very rarely used that have them.  Before, when no one was coming (which is almost always), you could just go through and on your way.  But now that little camera forces you to sit there for 10 unnecessary minutes.

  So I already didn't like them.  Now I have even more reason to dislike them.

  by tryptamine on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:02:02 PM PDT

•  Is It About $ or Safety?

  I received a photo radar ticket in Portland, Oregon while driving a company vehicle.  This delayed it's delivery to me (address unclear from registration records), which of course resulted in an increase in the fine.  So, double ouch, since I paid it (with some whimpering and whining).  Good diary though, and kudos on beating the citation.  It seems the setting of the light interval would have been adequate for aquittal.  I really don't like the money incentive implied here.  Old-fashioned speed traps are bad enough, but these kind of "automated" speed traps really suck!

  by Delta Overdue on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:22:33 PM PDT

  •  Never got to that argument

    What happened in court was this:  before the police officer who was appearing to present the case said a word (the city doesn't bother sending an attorney from its city attorney's office), I popped up and told the judge that I was moving to dismiss the citation, on the ground that the letter I received from Redflex (containing a brief affidavit from a Redflex employee in Arizona) clearly showed that the city and its police department had failed to keep the photo and the details of the citation confidential, as California law requires [the "highway robbery" site contains an explanation of that].

    When the judge pronounced me "not guilty" (technically, he should have dismissed the citation, but that had the same effect), he ended the matter before I could present my insufficient yellow light timing argument, which was a sure winner.  That morning, I had visited the traffic engineer's office in the city public works office and obtained a document which showed the speed limit for that street and the yellow light timing for that particular traffic light, and I had a copy of the minimum timing requirements from the Vehicle Code in my pocket.  

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:55:46 PM PDT

    •  I just beat one here in SB

      with a hand-written plea. Refunded my $445 yippee!
         I said the yellow was too fast, I was too slow, and the road was too greasy in the cold mist. I ran it, slowly, instead of a skid, and avoided the cars trying to turn into my lane.
         I didn't think I had a chance.

      by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:08:35 AM PDT

•  Let's all wear disguises

  after all, it is the driver that gets ticketed, not the vehicle.  If someone borrows your car and they speed or go through a red light, they get a ticket not you.  So the solution would seem to be to wear disguises so your identity can't be determined by the camera.  I'm going to be George W. Bush.  I wonder if they will send traffic tickets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  by Orangebeard on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:55:58 PM PDT

  •  Additional subject: snitch tickets

    I haven't mentioned something which is discussed on the "highway robbery" site, because I had no experience with it.  But the police departments for some California cities send out fake citations, which look like real citations but which ask you NOT to contact the court, but instead submit the name of the person shown in the photo to them.

    You have no obligation to respond to such a fake citation.  The "highway robbery" site has dubbed such fake citations "snitch tickets", and I think we can expect those police departments to continue using them.

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:01:40 PM PDT

  •  We had these cameras up here

    They are on hold right now as the protest was in great numbers.

    Unless they really spent a lot of money on numerous cameras. They do not get images of the driver's face. Nor the angles required for running theough lights.

    Another one. I ran radar for 12 years. The only way to really determine which car is getting tagged in heavy traffic, can only be determined by a human eye.

    Sorry but when I was a police officer I believed in Protecting and Serving. Not filling quotas and making the money accounts richer. All they are doing is turning another career that's suppose to be honorable, into a money maker.

    by ladydawg on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:29:26 PM PDT

    •  Good to hear from you

      Thanks for commenting.  It's always good to hear from someone with law enforcement experience.

      While you know about running radar, most folks don't.  I have no doubt that most simply pay the bail amount (unless they can't afford to do that, and ignoring the citation causes a lot of additional problems).  

      I have to repeat that I favor speed limit enforcement, but I have seen other former law enforcement officers complain about some of the traps being run on the "speed trap exchange" site (the one I remember best was a former St. Joseph, Michigan police officer who objected to a speed trap located at the bottom of a long downgrade in that city, when many drivers failed to keep their speeds below the posted limit, which was a bit low).

      by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:46:12 PM PDT

      •  Does the city Steubenville Ohio and

        St. Route 7 in Mingo Junction sound familiar?

        That's our area. The only good thing was it's illegal to put quotas on officers in the state of Ohio. A lawsuit determined than an entire department was in the right when they protested against the quotas brought forth by the Chief.

        My Chief tried it with me. Unfortunately, he forgot I always carried a tape recorder at all times.

        by ladydawg on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:51:45 PM PDT

        •  Here's the link for Steubenville

          Here's the link for the Speed Trap Exchange page identifying some speed trap locations in Steubenville:
          http://www.speedtrap.org/... .

          by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:27:10 PM PDT

  •  no true

    Don't SPREAD misinformation.  In some cities, the owner of vehicle is cited.  If your friend borrows the car, parks illegally and you get a parking ticket, does a disguise matter??

    In Columbus they have contracted out a private company that keeps 80% of the fine.  The city has to do all the work, looking at photos, verifying license plates and mailing out tickets.  What is criminal is the studies which show that rearend collisions are up 30% for intersections where cameras are installed.  

    The idea is that cameras should make the streets safer, because of all those bad, nasty light runners.  But in fact the reduction of collisions goes up.  Private companies make money, insurance companies make money.  Cities make only $10 a ticket for selling you out to some company.

    Do you know that the NSA doesn't have plate tracking software in those lights?  (Sure, right, I'm paranoid, like the FBI wasn't listening in on vehicles with OnStar)

    by electiledisfunction on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:02:36 AM PDT

•  I drive for a living

  And once again it seems as though the spirit of the law has collided with the letter of the law.

  It's been proven that if everyone drove the speed limit the end result would be gridlock.

  Most people manage to drive with a reasonable degree of safety otherwise the roads would be impassable, not just some of the time but all the time.

  Traffic enforcement has very little to do with this, the desire to live is a much stronger motivation.

  So, in my opinion, enforcement is just an excuse to pick the public's pocket, it does nothing to make the roads safer. We'd be far better served training people how to properly handle a vehicle before handing them a license.

  Some things can't be legislated.

  by Gegner on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:53:31 AM PDT

•  I heard yesterday

  that some cities with these cameras are SHORTENING the yellow to make it more likely that "risk-taking drivers" get caught. More revenue for everyone that way.

  by el dorado gal on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:17:16 AM PDT

  •  California protection

    Here's the California statute which requires that the minimum yellow light timing phases set down by the Traffic Manual (MUTCD) of the California Department of Transportation be maintained:

    21455.7.  (a) At an intersection at which there is an automated enforcement system in operation, the minimum yellow light change interval shall be established in accordance with the Traffic Manual of the Department of Transportation.
      (b) For purposes of subdivision (a), the minimum yellow light change intervals relating to designated approach speeds provided in the Traffic Manual of the Department of Transportation are mandatory minimum yellow light intervals.
      © A yellow light change interval may exceed the minimum interval established pursuant to subdivision (a).

    Unfortunately, the draft of the new Traffic Manual now available for comment seems to drop the Table 4D-102 "Suggested Yellow Interval Timing" which is in the 2003 MUTCD, in which the interval begins at 3.0 seconds for a street which is posted for 25 mph and increases by .3 or .4 seconds for each additional 5 mph.
     

    by JTML on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:54:41 AM PDT