Rob McKenna has no intention of resolving the red light camera problem.
Rob McKenna has no intention of resolving the red light camera problem
Reply
Rob McKenna has no intention of resolving the red light camera problem
I asked him if, as governor, he would urge state legislation addressing red-light cameras, given the local initiatives we’ve seen addressing them. He didn’t see our system as broken and in need of fixing. Currently, local jurisdictions can decide if they want them, and if the community disagrees, the voters have remedies.
The voters have remedies? What would those remedies be? It takes a dedicated activism group to gather thousands of signatures, sometimes, the signatures are rejected anyways, and initiatives don’t pass, and if an initiative is on the ballot, then it’s a ragtag group of activists facing powerful corporations when it comes to the campaign.
“I don’t think they need the state to tell them what to do,” he said.
Let the jurisdictions place red light cameras if they want to do so, and if voters don’t like it, then they can struggle and hope to fight city hall and win. This is a great solution, Mr. McKenna.
Personally, he believe the cameras are only appropriate if they improve safety and not as revenue generators, he said. Transportation design should be driven by engineering, not revenue considerations, he said.
Many Mayors, including McGinn (“We have a budget deficit here”), have admitted to using the red light cameras as a revenue generation tool. We have likewise proven that the RLCs do not improve safety.
Dear Rob McKenna: Your position on this subject is weak. Please support the voters of WA state, and take a stronger approach to RLCs: No RLCs in washington state. If we end the RLC program, then maybe the municipalities will seek to improve traffic safety through engineering, but not before.
The city of Seattle sets up an illegal RLC
Aside
Can the City of Seattle setup an illegal red light camera? They already did.
RCW 46.63.170 states that “(b) Use of automated traffic safety cameras is restricted to two-arterial intersections, railroad crossings, and school speed zones only.”
Yet, the city of Seattle setup an RLC at NE 45th & Union Bay Place. If you observe the Google maps at the link, you will see 5 corners. Can this ticket be challenged in court and dismissed? Yes. Will most people challenge it? Probably not, as most people have jobs, school obligations, and commitments that prevent them from attending municipal court hearings. Other people simply don’t know how to challenge these tickets.
Mayor McGinn and Seattle City council: please start following state laws, and remove this red light camera. Better yet, remove all of them from the city.
Looks like people did, in fact, challenge these tickets in the past: http://www.nwcn.com/news/Documents-Reveal-Judges-Dismissals-of-Red-Light-Camera-Tickets-87673842.html
How to contest red light/speed camera tickets, p1
So, you got a ticket after all. Were you driving the car? If
not, see my earlier post http://banseacams.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/you-dont-have-to-snitch/.
If you were driving the car, review your evidence. The
municipality sends you instructions on where you can get a video to review your
evidence, but that’s not all the evidence they have. Usually, the evidence they
have includes photographs and the (sworn) statement of the officer who reviewed
your video.
To obtain all your evidence, you should file for
“discovery”. File for discovery by sending a copy to the court where
your ticket is filed, and a copy to the prosecutor (you can get the
prosecutor’s information by calling the court clerk). You should only send
these
documents by CRRR or in person.
You may request the following under discovery per IRJL 3.1 (b)
(contrary to what you may have read in “ticket fighting” websites):
“(1) a copy of the citing officer’s sworn statement
(2) a copy of video or photographic evidence the prosecutor
proposes to introduce at trial,
unless in reply to the discovery request the prosecutor provides
the address to
a website where such evidence is accessible to the defendant;
and
(3) [T]he names of any witnesses not identified in the citing
officer’s sworn statement. No
other discovery shall be required.”
You may also request a copy of the SMD calibration and
certification log (speed tickets only), if not on file with the court pursuant to IRJL 6.6(d).
How to review your discovery? More information will be provided later.
Disclaimer:
I take no responsibility for anything anyone
does using the information and/or opinions contained herein. I cannot be held
responsible for the outcome of your traffic case. Use any information and/or
opinions at your
own risk. I do not guarantee the accuracy of the assertions, information, or
opinions expressed herein. Due diligence is YOUR responsibility. As far as
you’re concerned, everything contained in this guide might actually be
fictional. ONE LAST TIME – USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!
Furthermore, the information that I present
here is applicable ONLY TO WASHINGTON STATE. Some may be useful in other
states, but I make so such representation.
The traffic camera vendor is always right!
Most Americans speed! (Allstate survey).
This is also confirmed by a 1992 USDOT study.
According to this survey, most people will drive at the speed which they feel
is comfortable. If speed limits are set below the speed which most drivers feel
is comfortable, people will continue driving at that speed, unless consistent
enforcement exists.
Camera enforcement give municipalities the ability to provide
the consistent enforcement which human officers cannot. The result? Automated
traffic speed cameras convert otherwise safe and prudent drivers into
violators.
“Rather than rethinking a speed limit that most drivers
consider unreasonable, however, the county installed a camera to punish
them.”
“So the success of this camera is predictable. That success
exposes not a population of menacing drivers but a dubious speed limit and
devious camera placement. “
Once again, traffic camera vendors hurt the municipalities
When a TN state law prohibited automated traffic camera citations for right turn on red violations, municipal citation revenue from automated enforcement cameras dropped significantly. The real losers of the law? The municipalities who signed the contracts with the camera vendors. Let’s hope that any municipality which is considering red light cameras know: red light cameras hurt municipalities in the long run.
http://www.starhq.com/2011/11/14/red-light-camera-vendor-sues-over-tennessee-restrictions/ retrieved 11/14/2011
The solution to traffic safety problems
“Changing posted speed limits alone, without additional
enforcement, educational programs, or other engineering measures, has only a
minor effect on driver behavior.”
“Based on the sites selected for this study, it appears
that highway agencies have a tendency to set speed limits slightly below the
average speed of traffic.”
During the study “The majority of motorists did not drive 5
to 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h) over the posted speed limit when speed limits were
raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 to 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h) when
speed limits were lowered.”
(From Report No. FHwA-RD-92-084, retrieved from http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/effects-raising-lowering 11/14/2011) Full study PDF can be found here:
A credible study concluded that people drive the speed which
they feel is safe, regardless of the posted speed limit. The speed of the
motorists can be changed through education, engineering and enforcement.
The easiest (and most revenue-generating) route? Enforcement.
Cameras provide an easy way to provide “enforcement”
The problem with (speed camera) enforcement?
1. Inaccuracy: speed cameras are often used in school zones.
While no one wants to consciously speed in a school zone, cameras often issue
tickets for school zone violations while school is not in session (no flashing
lights, and cameras can’t determine whether or not children are actually
present)
2. Does not remove dangerous drivers from the road. While a
citation will be issued, speed cameras fail to remove truly dangerous drivers
from the road. Examples of which include: distracted drivers, impaired drivers
(i.e., alcohol), drivers of stolen vehicles.
3. People who know where speed cameras are located will slow
down for that stretch of road, and continue driving at normal speeds
afterwards. The ‘speed up->slow down’ approach to traffic causes unsmooth
traffic flow.
4. Reactive, not proactive. Again, no one wants to consciously
speed in a school zone. Rather than prevent speeding, automated cameras simply
issue tickets to people after the fact. “Roving speedometers”, i.e.,
devices which tell drivers their actual speed, do a far better job at causing
motorists to slow down.
What’s the real solution to traffic safety?
1. Engineering: design safer roads and intersections, set speed limits at 85th percentile of traffic engineering studies.
2. Education: example: inform drivers that right turns on red without a complete stop are illegal (rather than citation afterwards), roving speedmeters are also an effective tool to let drivers know they are speeding, and cause drivers to slow down.
