#Traffic

A federal class action lawsuit seeks to take advantage of last month’s California Supreme Court’s red light camera decision. The high court let stand a lower court ruling that invalidated citations on the ground that the city of Santa Ana’s failed to provide the legally required warning periods before activating the automated ticketing machines ( view ruling). Motorist Robert Plumleigh was forced to pay $480 on March 17, 2008 after a camera accused him of turning right at a red light at one of the sixteen intersections where the city failed to provide the required thirty-day warning period. He wants Santa Ana to refund all illegally issued tickets. US District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney on Wednesday gave Plumleigh’s lawyers an extra thirty days to file for class certification.

Nearly three out of every four Anaheim, California residents voted Tuesday to ban the use of red light cameras in the city. Twenty-five miles away in Gardena, the police chief warned the city council in February that the devices lack public support. Gardena began using automated ticketing machines five years previously. As the contract came up for renewal, city councilmen asked during a Finance Committee meeting for the police chief to report on the public perception of the camera program. Chief Edward Medrano’s assessment was brutally honest and did not tend to support the notion that the program was put in place to reduce accidents.

The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America’s fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

The city of Houston, Texas sought to keep secret all detailed information about the performance of its red light camera program on the eve of an election that will decide their fate. Yesterday, Paul Kubosh, co-founder of Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, filed suit in Harris County District Court seeking a court order compelling the release of accident data at intersections equipped with automated ticketing machines. Voters head to the polls today to decide whether or not the city will be allowed to continue using the devices.

A federal magistrate on October 20 set the schedule for a five-day jury trial to decide whether red light camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems owes the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota $3 million. US Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson set a February 1, 2012 date for the showdown with motions and pleadings to be served by February 1, 2011.

The city is furious that it had to refund $2.6 million in red light camera tickets after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the program was illegal ( view decision). The city wants to extract that money back from the Australian ticketing firm, but Redflex is fighting the suit.

Albemarle County, Virginia plans this week to install its first red light camera system, ostensibly to reduce accidents caused by red light running. County documents show that at one of the two intersection approaches selected, there has not been a single accident caused by red light running in the past three years.

The county applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) earlier this year for permission to allow Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia to install and operate a pair of cameras at the intersection of US 29 and Rio Road. The east bound approach at Rio Road had no reported angle collisions caused by red light running violations between 2006 and 2009, according to county records. The other monitored approach, US 29 southbound, did have related crashes. The annual crash total for the type of accidents that the photo enforcement system might address is 1.8 per year.

The highest courts in California and Louisiana yesterday denied the requests of municipal officials desperate to save their photo enforcement programs. In New Orleans, the red light camera and speed camera program must shut down after the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously rejected the city’s request to overturn the decision of Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Paulette R. Irons who found earlier this month that the program violated the city’s own charter.

“We are obviously disappointed in supreme court’s decision because these cameras have proven to be an important deterrent to unlawful traffic practices,” a city statement explained.

Facing massive budget shortfalls, many of the nation’s governors are turning to toll roads as a solution to their short-term spending needs. The National Governors Association last month dispatched a letter to US Senate committee leaders in the hopes of dissuading them from limiting the abilities of states to impose tolls on existing interstate freeways.

Photo enforcement cameras are temporarily disabled in Albuquerque, New Mexico after a study by the University of New Mexico failed to offer a complete justification for the program. Mayor Richard J. Berry announced that he would eliminate six of the twenty red light camera intersections where accidents increased the most. He also will stop issuing speed camera citations at intersections — although he plans to keep three vans to set up mobile photo radar traps. While the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems is expired, Berry is seeking a better deal from other photo ticketing vendors.

A class action lawsuit against fifty-nine red light camera programs in the state of California will be heard before Judge William H. Alsup in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Attorney Bruce L. Simon, who is suing Redflex Traffic Systems and American Traffic Solutions (ATS), moved Friday that the case return to the state court system. Simon argues that the contracts of Redflex and ATS with municipalities are illegal under California law.

The Federal Highway Administration recently held out $10.5 million to bribe states into turning freeways into toll roads through fiscal 2011. As part of the so-called Value Pricing Program, which Congress introduced in 1991, the agency will take taxes paid by drivers at the pump and underwrite projects designed to charge motorists more for driving on existing roads or increase other fees imposed on drivers.

“These projects show that states are developing new ways of thinking about how to manage congestion,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement on projects selected in August.

A motorist is using federal anti-racketeering statutes to go after the red light camera and speed camera program in Tempe, Arizona. Dan Gutenkauf filed his complaint last week in the US District Court for the District of Arizona and happened to land the same judge, Frederick J Martone, who presided over the recent American Traffic Solutions (ATS) vs. Redflex case which is currently under appeal. The suit names Redflex employees, police officials, politicians and judges as defendants.

“I feel this lawsuit is very comprehensive and I have spent a lot of time over the last two years doing the legal research, gathering evidence and drafting the complaint,” Gutenkauf told TheNewspaper. “And I have my appeal victory from the lower court propelling me into federal court.”

OK, so the basic functionality of the Car & Driver/Chrysler “Txt U L8r” app is fine: receive a text message while you’re driving, and it will read it aloud and automatically reply that you are driving and cannot respond immediately. But the industry’s fundamental ambivalence towards distracted driving quickly rears its head in the form of a “paid upgrade” that allows voice-activated replies by the driver: distracted driving is not a problem to be solved, but a money-making opportunity to be exploited. As a result, the message that C&D and Chrysler send with this new app is “Texting while driving is bad, bad, bad… unless you shell out for our perfectly safe app.” Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is bullshit.

Being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) can cost a motorist thousands of dollars in court fines, insurance costs and attorneys’ fees. At least 79 accused drivers were notified last Friday that the police officer that charged them with drunk driving had likely falsified at least one piece of evidence. Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully threw out the cases after an investigation into the conduct of Sacramento Police Officer Brandon Mullock, 24.