A federal judge issued an order last Friday blocking the immediate removal of red light cameras from Houston, Texas intersections. On November 2, voters adopted an amendment to the city charter making photo tickets unenforceable, against the wishes of the Houston city council and the private vendor that operates the cameras, American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Over the Thanksgiving holiday, US District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Lynn N. Hughes worked out a deal with the city and ATS to preserve the cameras, for now.
“The city of Houston and American Traffic Solutions, Inc, will continue to collect the fines for the traffic violations that occurred through November 15, 2010,” Hughes wrote in his order. “The cameras will not be removed during the pendency of the litigation.”
Hughes had called a colloquy among lawyers for the city — David Feldman and Hope Reh — and the lawyers for ATS — Andy Taylor and George Hittner — on the day after Thanksgiving. Although the city technically filed suit against ATS, the city staff do not want to see the cameras removed any more than ATS does. The parties hashed out a compromise that happened to give ATS everything the firm wanted.
“ATS requests the court to preserve the status quo by enjoining the city from terminating the public safety program or otherwise implementing Proposition 3, pending an adjudication of these fundamental issues of law affecting not only these parties, but the general public at large,” Taylor wrote in its brief to the court filed Wednesday.
The actions in Houston track what happened last year in the city of College Station after voters approved an anti-camera referendum. Attorneys for the city attempted to lose the lawsuit that ATS filed to overturn the result of the public vote. Ultimately, public pressure on elected officials forced the College Station cameras to come down, even though a local judge ruled against the vote. ATS is hoping it can win this time by arguing not only that voters have no right to overturn a city council decision through the charter amendment process, but that no power can take down the red light cameras.
“Both the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution prohibit legislation impairing the obligation of contracts,” Taylor wrote. “The purported charter amendment cannot validly be upheld if doing so would in any way impair the city’s ability to fulfill its pre-existing contractual obligations to ATS.”
Those obligations are iron clad, ATS argued, thanks to the city’s own actions. The firm pointed out that Houston did have a contract provision that would have allowed a “termination for convenience” without financial penalty. Just three days before this provision would have taken effect, the city signed a new agreement with no termination provision in an attempt to avoid a proposed ban on new red light camera contracts, House Bill 300, that passed in the state House but was blocked in the Senate.
“The city, fearful of HB300, did not want to be forced to terminate the agreement upon the passage of a new state law and therefore, removed the termination provisions of the agreement entirely by clearly stating in the amendment that it ‘remains in effect until May 27, 2014,'” Taylor explained. “The city also removed ‘unless sooner terminated under this agreement’ phrase that appeared in the original agreement. Had the city intended to keep its termination options available to it, it could have easily done so.”
Judge Hughes has set a Friday hearing for arguments in the case.
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
ATS is hoping it can win this time by arguing not only that voters have no right to overturn a city council decision through the charter amendment process, but that no power can take down the red light cameras.
Although the argument justifying this move is some paragraphs below, it’s good to see how in the land of the free, people’s will, expressed in a referendum, no less, is respected.
All the politicos seem to be the same. Our votes are and will continue to be the equivalent of toilet paper.
If they keep paying off the judges, I guess it’ll keep on going…
Somebody ought to open a corruption probe into the Judge.
I don`t know the rights or wrongs of what is happening in this case in texas. But as a general principle what is wrong with redlight cameras? I am all for speed cameras to be restricted or banned since they are subjective (what speed is too much above the limit). But red light cameras seem to have a simple safety principle – you run a red light and you could easily get in a crash. Of course the city makes money, but it does if a policeman is there ticketing and I would rather my policemen were off getting criminals who are robbing, killing or doing other criminal stuff.
You appear to be new to this issue but in a nutshell, the red light camera designers choose intersections with below average yellow light durations and unusually long intersection distances.
Some cameras are faulty and issue tickets erroneously and the burden is on the ticket receiver to prove their innocence.
Also safety can be reduced as people panic brake (on wet roads) to avoid getting snagged by the robocamera.
Odd that you think a speed sensing device is subjective but a red light camera isn’t. They both measure a moving object against time/distance parameters. The problem with that is the objects(cars) are not in a lab but a highly variable multi-faceted surface/weather/traffic environment.
In a nutshell the beef with Red Light Cameras is that if you really wanted to reduce the running of red lights (a generally accepted safety problem) the most efficient way would be to extend the yellow by approx 1 sec (up to 4 seconds).
The fact that studies are now showing that Red Light cameras do not in fact reduce the running of red lights – which does not improve traffic safety – but they do in fact create significant revenue for the cities that install them leads one to believe that any claims for public safety are just ‘cover’ for revenue enhancement.
But red light cameras seem to have a simple safety principle – you run a red light and you could easily get in a crash.
Almost all red light camera tickets are for so-called “rolling right turns,” which rarely cause accidents. If these tickets were not issued, there would be no red light cameras. There are just two few red light runners out there to support a red light camera program that just ticketed them.
For example, my wife got a $436 ticket for making a right turn 1 second after the light turned red, going less than 15 miles per hour. She was a little careless, following a pickup truck that was just ahead of her through the light. But the turn was perfectly safe. No other cars were moving.
At that intersection, there had been no accidents at all from red light running of any kind during the two-year period studied. So to say that the red light cameras were put in for safety is bonkers. They are just there to generate revenue.
“The firm pointed out that Houston did have a contract provision that would have allowed a “termination for convenience” without financial penalty. Just three days before this provision would have taken effect, the city signed a new agreement with no termination provision…”
Tar, feathers, pitchforks, torches…What am I forgetting?
It is high time. Our ‘representatives’ happilly sell us down the river in perpetuity in exchange for help in achieving their short term ambitions from state employee unions and anyone else with effective lobbyists. This judge could use a boiling tar bath as well.
the problem with red light ticket cameras is that they offer a financial incentive for local governments to not fix poorly working intersections that now otherwise operate as revenue generators.
The city signed a half-baked contract and is stuck with ATS as a result unless they can negotiate a way out. At this point ATS has them by the short hairs so any agreement would probably be very expensive. Plus the cameras are still making money, so my bet is the legislature/council will blame the judge, keep calm and carry on.
Fleetofwheel – I am new to this topic and thanks for the synposis. I meant by saying speed cameras are subjective is that someone has to decide when they ticket , 5mph, 6mph above the limit. Whereas with a red light camera it is “easy” because the driver has had grren, then amber and if he goes through the red then he gets a ticket.
I fully understadn how local Governments will use it to get money and it is indefensible for them not to fix faulty lights etc. However the cameras mus make people think twice about going through on red because they know they will be ticketted. If there is no camera or policeman then no deterrent.
Mikey, you are correct that the cameras make people think twice about running red lights, but what actually happens is a lot of panic braking that causes a significant increase in rear-end collisions at the intersections. Multiple studies have shown that intersections with cameras added have seen significant increases in accidents as well as injuries. Most municipalities have attempted to cover up or distort the results of such studies.
The vast majority of red light running is caused by someone trying to beat out a yellow light. It’s not in the true sense of the word running a red light. The problem is that there is no standard time for yellow lights. Sometimes it’s 3 or 4 seconds, but can be as low as 2 or high as 5 or 6. This creates uncertainty in drivers who believe they may be able to beat a yellow light. In reality this type of light running very rarely (less than 5%) causes accidents as there is a built-in delay to take account for this type of action in most traffic light timing algorithms.
The majority of accidents are caused by actually running the red light by distracted drivers. This type of accident would occur anyway as the driver just isn’t paying attention at all and studies have shown that this type of accident has occurred at about the same pace as before cameras. In addition, the cameras have caused a spike in rear-end accidents from people trying to avoid running a light when it turns red at the last second when in reality it was probably safer to just run it than to slam on your brakes at the last second.
The timing can be adjusted and usually intersections undergo studies periodically to evaluate their timing and see if it may be improved. Studies have shown that changing yellow light timing from 3 to 4 seconds can cut infractions significantly. Up to 60% in some cases. Some cities have been caught illegally decreasing their yellow timing to boost automated ticket revenue (primarily in California).
The best solution to all of this would be using a system similar to some Russian traffic lights (and European) where numbers flash in the background of the light indicating how much time remains until the light will change. This takes any guess work on the driver’s part out of the equations. If this were mandated at any light using automated cameras I am sure that the revenue would be reduced by at least 80% to the point the contracts were no longer profitable. I understand that replacing the nation’s stop light equipment with this newer timing system would be costly but I believe it should be forced on any municipality that decides to use automated ticketing. If a camera goes up, so should a light indicating the time remaining on a traffic cycle.
Hope this helps Mikey.
Useful Links:
http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2606.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3283.asp
Notes: Texas City has since voted to remove speed camera
However the cameras mus make people think twice about going through on red because they know they will be ticketted. If there is no camera or policeman then no deterrent.
Yup, when I am driving through a $camera’d intersection and the light turns, I slam on my brakes. Don’t care if you are too close. Hit me – I’m in a company car. A few tickets can cost me the car. Your rear ending me only means my company will likely sue you. These things are a disgrace. And the fact that the public outcry and vote gets undermined by the politicians and some sleazy company says a lot about the status of things today. I actually feel bad thinking like this but I don’t see an easy solution short of drilling a hole in the camera controller box with a cordless drill and pouring in some Muriatic acid…
And people wonder why everyone in this state owns guns.
Much safer would be a high powered laser to overload the CCD. Not that you should experiment or anything…
There is a solution to this problem. A bucket of hot tar, a bag of feathers, some rope, and a fence rail. Apply to one or more politicians, p.r.n.
The will of the people is important, but so is the meaning of a contract, however odious the contractor. If the city council got hornswoggled by ATS’ lawyers, there are elective remedies.
The City Council did not get hornswoggled by ATS’ lawyers. They colluded with them to create a contract which could not be rejected by the people whose intrests they allegedly represent.
When the cameras go up, the green and yellow times go down. Municipalities do this at the camera company’s urging to maximize revenue. The real-world effect is increased accidents, injuries, property damage, car insurance, road rage, and more but man how that cash register sings!
More and more people are becoming aware of the fact the cameras do not decrease red light violations, unsafe driving practices, or accidents. In fact, the stated goal of “Traffic safety” is the first casualty of the cameras. The unvarnished truth is that it’s all about the money: Shorting the green and yellow light times produces lots and lots of money to cover up irresponsible city spending.
One commenter stated that traffic camera revenue is like crack cocaine to a junkie: once a city gets started on it, it’s awfully difficult to get them to quit. A yellow less than 4.5 seconds is a city’s crack pipe.
The yellow times are nearly always based on the heavily flawed Institute of Transportation Engineer’s “Kell and Fullerton” formula. Some cities have been caught setting the time to as short as 2.7s claiming to adhere to the formula. The State of Georgia legislators smelled a rat and the governor signed a bill adding one full second to all calculations. In truth, if intersection safety is really the goal, at no time should the calculation result in a yellow less than 4.5 seconds.
Each of these flaws favor a short yellow light calculation which increases citation revenue but decreases intersection safety. It comes as no surprise the cameras disappear when cities are prevented from cheating drivers out of proper green and yellow light times. However, ticketing drivers for safe and inconsequential right-turn-on-red violations has become big business.
Here are some of the issues with the ITE formula:
1. The formula has no safety factor whatsoever. None. Human safety engineering usually requires a safety factor of 5.
2. The “Perception+Reaction” time is invalid as it is missing the “Decision Making” component. It is also invalid because the time values are based on ideal, highly optimized laboratory conditions, not the 85 or 90-percentile in the real world. Fixing just this one flaw would add about 1.5 seconds to the yellow.
3. The length of the vehicle is ignored unless the intersection has an “all-red”. (A tractor-trailer is 4 times the length of a typical car.) Even when it is included, vehicle length is understated.
4. The intersection width is ignored unless the intersection has an “all-red”. Even when the width is included, intersection width is understated.
5. The deceleration rate of 10 is too aggressive, almost to the point of being a panic stop.
6. The assumed vehicle breaking capability is too optimistic for the 85 or 90-percentile in the real world.
7. The assumed street material and surface condition is too optimistic for actual real-world streets.
8. Weather conditions are assumed to be perfect and support perfect stopping.
9. The Approach Speed is from the posted speed, not from actual real-world intersection speeds.
The ITE has shown no interest in fixing the flaws in the formula to favor safe and efficient traffic flow. The ITE also does not seem to have a problem with short green lights, used to ensure that a nearly constant supply of (hapless) drivers are fed into the shortened yellow lights.
Camera companies and municipalities love the formula because it heavily favors citations and camera revenue. Insurance companies love it because it adds points that are used to jack up rates. They also deny the yellow light times are unsafe. NHTSA and the IIHS are in complete denial the cameras, which once held the promise of increased intersection safety, have been universally hijacked for revenue at the expense of intersection safety and efficient traffic flow.
1 yet obviously most vehicles stop in a time that is set by this formula, therefore the factor of five is excessive
5 A deceleration of 10fpsps is 1/3 of a g, we call this moderate braking when evaluating, not panic braking.
6 yet obviously most vehicles stop in a time that is set by this formula, therefore the braking performance is not unachievable.
7 as 6
8 as 6
9 as 6
Sorry, exaggerating the problems with the formula reduces your credibility
@ Greg Locock
With short yellows, vehicles behind the “decision point” can stop normally. Those at or closer will have to either panic-stop or run the light. The yellow is too short to permit a normal stop.
Read the SAE and auto industry papers on normal stopping times vs. panic stopping. 8fpsps is about where items in the vehicle begin flying around. Kids begin to be dislodged from school bus seats at about this point too.
All nine of these points are valid. No exaggerating is needed to prove each and every one of them.
@ Greg Locock
“…most vehicles stop in a time that is set by this formula”
I find no comfort knowing that (apparently to some) a satisfactory metric is 51% of the vehicles should be able to stop. This implies about half can and half cannot without panic braking if they are at the decision point when the light changes. Respecting this is about human safety, I and most safety engineers I know would say 85-90% in real-world conditions is a far better metric.
Quick yellows do not give you time to stop and they do not give you time to get through the intersection. That is why quick yellows are so dangerous.
I hear that in England a burning tire hung around the offending device works wonders to enforce the will of the people, not that anyone should do that. Just sayin’