Now that we have established that camera vendors are not on the side of the citizens, let us discuss the benefits to the municipalities. Surprisingly, traffic camera vendors are not on the side of the municipalities either. In the company’s report to shareholders, redflex boasted of ways to increase revenue. Redflex promised to use “tighter contract language” and “more aggressive collection efforts in key markets”
Contracts which require municipalities to pay the vendor on a per ticket basis, for example, prevents the municipal courts from dismissing tickets. Likewise, if a municipal court has to dismiss a ticket, it will then have to pay the vendor the fee nonetheless. This creates a disincentive to the municipalities to provide “due process” for traffic citations.
Conclusion: Redflex does not act in the interests of municipalities. Likewise, Redflex works to prevent due process in municipal courts. Mike McGinn and Seattle city council (including Tim Burgess): act in the interests of the city and its residents, and end the contracts with ATS and Redflex, before it’s too late. In Tennesee, ATS sued the municipality which actually sided with the residents of the city (thanks Stephen Donaldson for the link!) (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3636.asp, retrieved 11/14/2011)
Original article: http://www.southlapatriots.info/index.php/articles/42-he-risks-of-privatizing-traffic-law-enforcement
Redflex 2010 shareholder report: http://www.redflex.com/report/2010_Report.pdf
End Seattle Traffic Enforcement Cameras 