Officials in College Station, Texas used $20,000 in taxpayer funds in an attempt to influence residents to vote against a referendum that would ban red light cameras from the city. The city mailed to every voter a multi-color, bilingual brochure entitled “Red Light Cameras: Voter Education” in the hopes of convincing them to support a program that generated $905,688 in revenue for fiscal 2009. “A petition was filed by a citizens’ group asking the city council to let voters decide whether to keep or eliminate the red light camera system,” the brochure explained. “This item will be on the November 3 ballot.”
The brochure goes on to present a chart showing “red light related” crashes at photo enforced intersections in 2006 and 2007 — before cameras were installed — and in 2008 and 2009 — after installation. The enforcement industry created the “red light related” category of accident as a way to selectively exclude the types of accidents that increase following the installation of cameras. The brochure’s numbers also were not adjusted to reflect the significant decrease in traffic volume that began in 2007 as a result of recession and high gas prices. The drop in traffic resulted in a nationwide drop in the fatality rate to the lowest level the US Department of Transportation has ever recorded. In 2007, the rate stood at 1.38 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled. The figure plunged to just 1.15 in the first half of 2009.
Petition sponsor Jim Ash stopped the city from implementing a far more extensive plan to spend public money on a television and radio advertising blitz. Earlier this month, Ash filed an ethics complaint over a proposed brochure that would have included a number of what Ash described as potentially illegal claims.
“The false and misleading information is sufficiently substantial and important enough to influence a voter in the November 3, 2009 election,” Ash wrote. “Conversations, emails obtained as a result of ‘Freedom of Information’ requests indicate the city manager and members of the city council know the facts to be misleading and false. Knowingly using city money to misrepresent facts for the purpose of influencing an election is a violation of election code.”
After the complaint was filed, the city eliminated nearly all of the claims about the benefits of photo enforcement that were present in the twelve-page draft brochure. Early voting began on Monday in College Station. A copy of the final brochure is available in a 900k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Red Light Cameras Voter Education (City of College Station, Texas, 10/23/2009)
[courtesy thenewspaper.com]
What is it about politicians and lies, anyway?
As a native Texan, anything other than a ladnslide vote to throw the damned things out will leave me massively disappointed.
Leaving the question of using public funds to influence a referendum aside for a moment, these cameras seem to have worked. I live in College Station and it used to be that virtually no one would stop for red lights here. I personally saw two accidents and my wife saw a man killed on a motorcycle by a driver who ran a red light. I’ve seen the data that the city sent out and, because the accident numbers are so low, it’s not that impressive. Speaking anecdotally, however, people do now stop at the lights. As much as I hate being overly policed, I’m going to vote against the ordinance.
I have never been to College Station, but I doubt that “virtually no one would stop for red lights” there. I also think that if someone were reckless enough to risk injury or death by knowingly blowing through red lights, then adding the risk of a $100 fine on top isn’t going to stop them.
Same thing as making it illegal to take a gun into a bank isn’t going to stop someone from robbing a bank.
OK, so maybe “virtually no one” was an overstatement, but it was a big surprise to move here and see how many cars went through the lights after they turned red. Other than China, I’ve never been anywhere where people seemed to have so little regard for the lights.
The fine is only $75, but it really does seem to have worked. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people do seem to change their behavior out of fear of a small fine.
windupman : because the accident numbers are so low, it’s not that impressive. Speaking anecdotally
Translation: there’s no difference, but you want there to be a difference. That’s wishful thinking.
As stated in the article, the nationwide traffic fatality rate is down 19% since 2007. Roads have never been safer. So, yes, there has been an improvement, but it has nothing to do with the cameras and everything to do with reduced traffic volume.
The body of the article should support your headline better. I’m still waiting for you to cite the calls letters and describe their format…jazz, progressive rock, classical…
I lived in College Station for 6 years. Yes there is a lot of red light running but most of it being done is by the college kids who are the politician’s main target with the cameras. They know the kids will just get their parents to pay the tickets and won’t fight, or the tickets will be mailed straight to the parents if that’s who the car is registered to. I never saw an accident due to red light running because there was a very generous transition time between the light turning red and the next light turning green. The TTI (Texas Transportation Institute) is base in College Station at Texas A&M and they study the lights and timings all the time. The traffic system is managed at a control center on west campus. Considering how bad college kids drive I very rarely saw an accident. If TTI does their job and conforms to the things they teach in class (I took transportation design as part of my major) then the cameras are not necessary. There used to be a good 3 second transition from red to the next green. Not sure if this has changed since I moved and they implemented the cameras. I do know you could see every intersection from the control center back when I was in school, but they didn’t start cameras till after I graduated.