An estimated sixty million Americans live in a jurisdiction monitored by an automated ticketing machine. According to a report released today by the left-leaning US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), the trend of privatizing law enforcement raises a number of issues that put the public in those areas at risk.
“Pitfalls can arise when contracts encourage vendors to treat automated traffic enforcement systems as a profit center: by maximizing the number of tickets written, regardless of the impact on public safety; by limiting the ability of governments to set traffic safety policies according to community needs; or by constraining the ability of cities to terminate contracts early in the event that automated enforcement systems are rejected by the electorate or fail to meet safety goals,” the study explained.
Under severe budgetary pressures, local jurisdictions often sign contracts with vendors that were presented with a slick marketing campaign. Such deals often contain extremely unfavorable terms. The public is hurt by per-ticket payment systems — often disguised with “cost neutral” contract language — that ensure that the system is designed to maximize revenue, not safety. Such provisions provide a monetary incentive to increase the number of tickets issued. That leads to other provisions prohibiting cities from lengthening yellow light duration to improve safety and requiring right on red ticketing and ticket approval quotas.
“Many automated traffic law enforcement contracts create risk by penalizing municipalities or leaving them exposed to costly and disruptive lawsuits in the case of early termination of the contract, leaving taxpayers on the hook even if the camera system fails to meet community objectives,” the study noted. “Contract terms that keep municipalities locked in with heavy cancellation fees or threaten them with expensive litigation if they change their minds are not in the best interests of the public.”
The report’s authors suggested the privatized law enforcement arrangement creates a dynamic where the companies end up lobbying for the creation of more violations. In Florida, for example, red light camera companies employed forty lobbyists at a cost of over $2 million to kill legislation that would have mandated longer yellow signal times and that would have otherwise limited the use of photo ticketing. Both Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) have created front groups to create the appearance that these corporate efforts have “grassroots” support.
The study concluded with recommendations about the way to structure a red light camera program “free from potential conflicts of interest.” No such principles are adhered to by any existing photo ticketing program.
A copy of the study is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead (US Public Interest Research Group, 10/27/2011)
Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com
While not left-leaning, I agree with the findings in this report. I am also opposed to red light cameras for similar reasons.
What would drive these companies out of business is the cost of the technologies being reduced to the point where local governments can set them up and regulate them within accordance to citizen’s wishes.
Red light cameras can be used within reason and can be used within defined limits as determined by citizen voters. They are a usable traffic tool in some instances.
Red light cameras have been abused in many ways however and their legacy is poor. They are used by profit seeking companies and revenue seeking governments, (revenue is the “profit” of a government), and the focus has not been on using them to actually improve traffic patterns and safety. Additionally at this point, red light cameras are not creating a safe environment, but I believe actually could if handled reasonably.
We shouldn’t turn our back on technology, but should instead insure that it is introduced within our society in a way that is respectful of society. We have been too quick to reach for red light cameras as the solution to traffic control without realizing the damage created by them. Red light cameras can be a solution in some instances and they should be owed and monitored by citizen controlled government groups, not private businesses.
This is a matter of freedom. Handing your freedom over to a private business is a bad idea. We must always be aware that when we give private industries our law enforcement duties, we run the risk of possibly stripping ourselves of Constitutional rights.
Kiddos to this left leaning organization for stumbling onto a few truths. I don’t agree with their angle, but I do agree with their findings.
Seems to me, there is nothing here that wasn’t said on this site by the Best and Brightest years ago. In a few years they will likely figure out no one is going to provide a money making, safety oriented system.
Well, duh.
Private law enforcement companies, like all other for-profit companies, exist for one reason and one reason only: to make money.
How? They really don’t give a damn. So if it means making up ways to “catch” more people, that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Now, careful how you phrase that. You say too much stuff like this and people are going to think you are a commie. I mean capitalism has no negative side or didn’t you get that message.
“Private law enforcement companies, like all other for-profit companies, exist for one reason and one reason only: to make money.”
So does so-called public ones. They just distribute profits as pension plans, rather than dividends. Don’t believe the hype, nor the newspeak. It’s all a racket, all the way down.
Privatizing our prisons has created a $4B industry and many, many laws designed to keep people in these private prisons. Each empty bed costs the company money. The prison lobby is strong and getting stronger. Pretty soon, they will put folks in jail for any trumped up charge and never let you out.
The prison owners get bonuses bases upon occupancy – this is not American it is more like Mussolini, a fascist.
One other stakeholder has not been mentioned in this article: insurance companies. When premium increases are tied to traffic tickets, they stand to make a lot of money from these cameras and from private law enforcement. Didn’t GEICO sponsor these cameras at one time?