Last year in my hometown of Mukilteo (just named the 9th best place to live in the U.S.), the city tried to bring red-light cameras and speed cameras to our community. We were knee-deep in collecting signatures for tougher-to-raise-taxes I-1053 (2/3 for tax increases, legislative approval for fee increases), but I made time to team up with a bunch of great people to sponsor the initiative. Long story short, we got the initiative on last November's ballot and voters here rejected the cameras with 71% of the vote. Wowza.
I was subsequently contacted by activists in other cities in Washington wanting to get public votes on ticketing cameras in their communities too. So last year, there was one initiative in Mukilteo -- this year there are five -- Bellingham, Longview, Monroe, Redmond, and Wenatchee. Every single one of them have been enormously fun, interesting, and important. Each one has its own soap opera associated with it. I could write a novel about each one, including glowing accounts of the local citizens who have done all the hard work to make them a success.
These campaigns haven't distracted me/us from our statewide initiatives. Last year's I-1053 and this year's "Son of 1053" I-1125 remain our primary focus.
Nonetheless, it's been an incredibly gratifying experience working on these local city initiatives with these local citizens. It turns out local initiatives are not utilized very often -- it was only the second initiative in Mukilteo city history to get enough signatures and the first to make it through the gauntlet for a public vote. It is Wenatchee Initiative #1, Redmond Initiative #1, and Longview Initiative #1 -- it is the second initiative in Monroe city history and the first initiative in 6 years in Bellingham.
To be clear, these initiatives don't prohibit automatic ticketing cameras, they simply let the voters decide. But after the 71% vote against the cameras in my hometown of Mukilteo, the efforts by cities and the red-light camera companies have been focused on blocking the people from voting.
Their adage is "since we won't win the vote, prevent the vote." It's really an obscene abuse of power.
Fortunately, we're having great success bulldozing through their anti-vote obstruction. Last week, a Bellingham judge not only dismissed the red-light camera company's motion to block the vote on the initiative, but the judge slapped the company with a huge a $10,000 fine for even bringing the lawsuit and forced them to pay the attorneys fees for the initiative campaign.
For cities, ticketing cameras are like crack cocaine, once they get hooked on them, they can't get off (newspapers are starting to illustrate this: Lynnwood chief: Police jobs depend on enforcement cameras -- Chief concedes his department relies on millions in ticket revenue, EVERETT HERALD, Thursday, August 18th, 2011). It's a policy based on a lie -- politicians claim it's not about the money when it clearly is. To me, ticketing cameras are taxation-through-citation, just another way for government to pick-pocket the taxpayers. Worst of all, the more lawbreakers there are, the more money they make, providing a perverse incentive for the cities and the camera companies to INCREASE, NOT DECREASE, the number of lawbreakers. But again, our initiatives aren't about whether cameras are good or bad, but they're about who should decide: the people or the politicians? We think politicians have a built-in conflict-of-interest: they're getting the money so they can't be objective. The people have no such conflict: they can weigh the sacrifice of their civil liberties and violation of their constitutional rights against the supposed safety benefits of cameras.
As long as our supporters continue to contribute to our statewide efforts, your support will allow Jack, Mike, and I to continue being activists for many different causes. There's nothing more gratifying to us than fighting for causes we believe in and letting the voters decide.
Oh...The question of being robbed by Red-Light Cameras would not even be on the horizon.
This is no different from the guy who lies in wait & hits people over the head to rob them. It's the same thing.
Posted by: travis t on August 23, 2011 04:43 PMThere are times when overpaid bureacrats, arrogant experts, social engineering elites, and entrenched elected officials think they know better than the people. And that often is exactly when liberty is threatened.
As a result of the tea party movement, a big part of the new political atmosphere sweeping the nation is opposition to the arrogance of big government advocates, and an insistence that government must serve people - not the other way around! ("We The People!")
In another thread, one SoundPolitics writer actually (and astonishingly!) went 100% counter to this concept - to the idea that the people know better than the liberal bureaucrats. He wrote, as part of an argument in favor of the votes of Lambert and Hague in favor of $20 car tabs, and blocking a vote of the people:
"If Lambert and Hague hadn't voted for this measure it would have gone to the vote of the people and it would have failed."
I don't know if it would have passed or failed. But when there is an assumption that the people are solidly opposed to something is advanced as part of the argument blocking a vote of the people, watch out!
If votes are blocked whenever the elites are worried that the people aren't being fooled, it could be applied to anything - including the issue of red light cameras.
Studies have shown that RLCs at best offer a slight improvement in safety, and may make it worse.
Here is one such study: http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/2007Virginia.pdf
if she couldn't stop safely, she was going too fast in the first place
Reading comprehension failure on your part. Getting rear-ended is not generally evidence that the driver was going too fast.
Posted by: Dishman on August 23, 2011 07:51 PMDidn't some awful person say; "Those who would give up their Liberty for Safety deserve Neither"?
Of course. But Travis blamed his friend's accident on having to "brake hard" because she knew there was a camera; he was clearly blaming the camera for leading her to brake unsafely. That wouldn't have been necessary if she had been driving more slowly.
Tim@7 writes, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Sorry, I value my safety on the highways over your "liberty" to break the law -- especially the law about stopping at red lights, which is one of the most important for safety. You've made some reasonable arguments against RLCs, but this is one of your most absurd.
Posted by: Bruce on August 23, 2011 10:32 PMGovernment is like a child. The only thing it understands is a hand slap and the word NO. Take away their ticketing toys so they have to learn to do with less, just like the rest of the real world.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 24, 2011 08:53 AM2) The FHWA MUTCD K&F formula for traffic signal timing allows the driver to ELECTIVELY choose to stop safely (no panic braking) or continue safely through the intersection. When this timing is violated, which it always is to create camera profitability, THERE IS NO SPEED, FASTER OR SLOWER, YOU CAN GO TO RE-GAIN THAT OPTION. Enough already with the uninformed comment "going too fast".
3) It is counter-intuitive, but even the FHWA has studies showing gaming the light timing trades less injurious, less costly side crashes for more costly, more serious injury rear-end crashes. These studies have withstood rigorous review.
4) Force the city to follow the federal safety guidelines and safety goes up, cameras go away.
Posted by: SeenItBefore on August 24, 2011 10:06 AMOne of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors.
-- Plato
Posted by: Daniel on August 24, 2011 10:22 AMI agree that yellow light timing is critical, but your statement just makes no sense. You literally say the the timing standard is "always" violated, which of course is untrue. You may be trying to say that it's always violated when there are cameras, or that whenever it's violated, the reason is to create profitability. Those statements are also provably untrue. (Hint: It's easy to disprove a claim that involves the word "always".) Slightly more plausible is the claim that cities are more likely to violate the timing standard if they have cameras, but the only data I've seen on that was anecdotal and statistically weak.
In any case, we can agree that yellow light timing should comply with intelligent safety standards, regardless of enforcement mechanism. But this is separate from the question of what's the better way to enforce one of the most important rules of traffic safety: require a trained, taxpayer-supported law enforcement officer to sit around watching and then trust his recollection, or use inexpensive modern technology that provides incontyrovertible proof of what happened. Why do you support wasting taxpayer funds, preventing cops from stopping real crime, and convicting drivers based on unreliable testimony?
Posted by: Bruce on August 24, 2011 11:08 AMNo, it's not 'separate.' It's entirely integral, because it's the use of the cams that incentivizes the fudging of yellow light timing. With the cams, it becomes like a license to print money.
When enforcement of traffic laws is driven by maximizing revenue instead of safety, we're bound to get more revenue and less safety. Bruce, why do you support less safety?
Posted by: travis t on August 24, 2011 12:17 PMIn dealing with RLCs, there is no scrutiny at all as to whether, the Spirit of the Law has indeed been violated. Yes, that's Right! You need a Witness to the scene as to whether, any Safety issues have been violated. With RLCs, there is no Witness to cover fully the event. Was anybody at risk whatsoever by the running of the red light? Could it be that the intersection was completely empty and there was no reason in the World to come to a Stop? The same with a Stop Sign. If there is no immediate traffic in the area, do you need to slavishly come to a complete stop before proceeding? Of course NOT! However, if you are an unthinking Liberal you probably will.
Of course police and prosecutors have the discretion to assess the spirit of the law, but courts convict (and appeals courts uphold) based on the letter of the law. Your claim that you can run a stop sign if there's no safety danger is ludicrous, and I challenge you to find a single legal citation supporting your view.
"you can just, say that you were not the driver of the car when, the Red Light violation occurred and since they can't prove who was behind the wheel, the case would be dismissed"
Sure, accused people lie about all sorts of things, and courts do their best to assess their credibility. But in the case of RLCs I believe cities treat them as infractions against the vehicle owner, not moving violations against the driver, in order to get around this problem.
Posted by: Bruce on August 24, 2011 02:34 PMShow me a red-light camera and I'll show you a traffic signal with clipped green and yellow light times. Cameras are a business; This is how you implement the camera business model.
Cameras are sited where there is enough traffic to make money, not where there is a problem. The FHWA has booklets showing how to reduce RLVs. It's telling that cameras are not on that list.
A camera company getting a split of the citation revenue would never agree to safe and sane signal timing. To do so would dramatically slash income. In Virginia, violations dropped 91% and 94% when the signals were properly re-timed under court order.
The operative lesson here is if the camera is making money, the signal light timing does not meet the FHWA MUTCD safety guidelines. This is a universal truth you can take to the bank.
Posted by: SeenItBefore on August 24, 2011 02:55 PMIn the matter of the RLCs the Court does not bother to go after the vehicle owner, they simply dismiss the case...PERIOD! The vehicle owner is in no way responsible for the actions of another capable legal driver of said vehicle...PERIOD! But, you being a Liberal and lacking Common Sense in dealing in depth and with any extrapolations of events will blindly follow the letter of the Law no matter what the circumstances.
So how about this: instead of passing laws on yellow light timing, which is a technical matter best left to engineers, not legislators, what about a law that forbids cities (and private companies) from keeping any of the fine revenue? Instead the fine revenue could be passed on to random charities, or maybe just rebated back to taxpayers? That would get rid of the incentive to fudge the light timing.
The cams & enforcement then could be funded from general revenue like anything else. If they're really worthwhile safety-wise, cities would keep them. If not, they'd be dropped.
Posted by: travis t on August 24, 2011 03:49 PMIf the tax per ticket was removed, then the RLC companies would be forced to move them to somewhere else, ultimately going out of business when enough Americans realized that bounties and government funded bounty companies are not a reasonable way for a government to behave towards its citizens.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 24, 2011 04:11 PMThe cities are ignoring their own codes. For example, in Longview, LMC 11.20.030 states the lights are to be set using the K&F Formula. Does the Longview Public Works do so? No. Did informing the top three layers of Longview government the code was NOT being followed in the camera-ed intersection result in any change? No.
Cities can ignore existing laws with impunity. Step one would be to criminalize such failure to follow the law and start jailing those responsible. Until that comes about, cities effectively flip off the traveling public and do whatever the hell they want, the public be damned.
Posted by: SeenItBefore on August 24, 2011 06:06 PMThe problem is cities refuse to follow it when it interferes with revenue generation. They have a variety of excuses, all bogus.
The only people the city has to fear are trial lawyers who eat them for lunch when a driver stops believing it is their fault, hires an lawyer, and cleans out the city treasury after proving the timing is unsafe according to federal standards and in violation of the city's own code.
You've seen the headlines: "Driver runs red light, crashes into another car, sues the city for millions and wins." I am really, really surprised Lynnwood isn't buried in lawsuits for the racket they have going. What they have going is not sustainable.
Posted by: SeenItBefore on August 24, 2011 06:20 PMIt's my form of tax protest.
Of course the problem with this kind of lawsuit is that the wrong person ends up being held accountable--the taxpayer. City gov't just keeps on keepin on. And the hypothetical answer that I suggested above (and Bruce actually agreed) will never, ever be adopted by a city gov't.
Thus I still think that Eyman's approach is the most practical, and most likely to yield results.
Posted by: travis t on August 25, 2011 04:17 PMWell said. Or as my Momma (an El Paso Texan) once said:
"If you didn't vote, don't bitch."
Posted by: ERNurse on August 26, 2011 01:48 AMOf course, given the one party nature of this particular State, I wouldn't be surprised if the State decided to get in on the action and put speed cameras up and down I-5 and I-90, Bellingham to Vancouver, Seattle to Spokane.
In fact, I predict this is exactly what will happen when Jay Inslee is elected Governor.
Posted by: Kato on August 26, 2011 11:14 PMHow about you start your own useless blog for right wing losers to post their pointless comments about stupid things other loser right wing losers post?
And what gave you the impression anybody was going to let YOU grow old?
- Stefan