NATIONAL MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION

Empowering Drivers Since 1982

402 West 2nd Street Waunakee, Wisconsin 53597-1342 Telephone: 608-849-6000 Fax: 888-787-0381 E-mail: nma@motorists.org Website: www.motorists.org

Testimony for the Transportation and Public Safety Committee Minnesota Senate
SF 377 - Traffic safety camera use by local authorities February 25, 2013 Hearing To: Committee Chair Senator D. Scott Dibble, Vice Chair Senator Susan Kent, and Committee Members The National Motorists Association (NMA), a drivers rights advocacy organization with several thousand members throughout the United States, is presenting this testimony on behalf of NMA members in Minnesota who join us in opposing the use of red-light cameras. Included with this testimony is a document (Objections to the Use of Red-Light Cameras) that outlines the key reasons for our opposition. In addition to significant concerns about the subversion of the individuals due process rights when automated ticketing devices are used, the information presented makes it clear that red-light cameras do not improve intersection safety and that there are better alternatives if safety, rather than revenue generation, is the primary objective. Currently, fifteen states recognize this and prohibit the use of automated ticketing. Besides Minnesota, those states are Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. From theNewspaper.com: In 2007, the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down the legality of red-light cameras. The justices found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The citys photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation. We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar, the Court wrote. The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the states argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Acts uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law. The grounds for the Courts decision, particularly those involving due process rights, have not changed over time. Granting authority for local jurisdictions to institute their own red-light camera programs is tantamount to telling Minnesota residents that their individual rights are not inviolate. (continued)

Testimony for the Transportation and Public Safety Committee, Minnesota Senate SF 377 - Traffic safety camera use by local authorities February 25, 2013 Hearing Warnings against red-light camera programs have also been sounded outside the halls of justice by groups like the NMA and U.S. PIRG, a non-partisan consumer protection group that released a sweeping study (http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/trafficcamreport) in October 2011 titled, Caution: Red-Light Cameras Ahead. Among their findings: Contracts between private camera vendors and cities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety. Privatized traffic enforcement system contracts that limit government discretion to set and enforce traffic regulations put the public at risk. Contracts between camera vendors and cities can include penalties for early termination or fail to provide provisions for early termination, leaving taxpayers on the hook even if the camera program fails to meet its objectives The potential abuses were never more on display than in New Jersey last year. The Garden State is in the midst of a five-year pilot program to evaluate red-light cameras. After the NMA received many complaints from state members about what they thought were bogus tickets because the yellow light intervals were too short, we verified the problem and worked with State Assemblyman Declan OScanlon to rectify the situation. The New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) subsequently decommissioned several of the red-light cameras until the cities involved were able to certify proper yellow light interval times. Those certifications were issued and NJDOT cleared all of the cameras for operation. The NMA then sent in a survey team to study traffic speeds and yellow light durations to verify the recertifications. We found that several camera-equipped intersections were still not in compliance with state law. Essentially since the beginning of the New Jersey red-light camera pilot program in 2009, thousands of photo tickets have been issued based on illegal traffic signal settings. For more information on this story, please go to http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/08/assemblyman_oscanlon_tries_to.html. It is telling that a primary lobbying force behind SF 377 (and its companion bill HF 487 in the Minnesota House of Representatives) is Redflex, the Australian camera company. Redflex has a profit motive for installing more ticket cameras, particularly after being booted from the Chicago photo enforcement bidding process when its contract expires in a few months because of charges of serious ethics violations. Redflex had reaped $97 million in revenue over the past nine years when its cameras were installed throughout the City of Chicago. More on the story can be found at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-17/news/ct-met-emanuel-redlight-cameras-1017-20121017_1_camera-program-camera-contract-redflex. The National Motorists Association respectfully asks the Transportation and Public Safety Committee to vote NO on SF 377. Please dont let Minnesotas drivers be subjected to a loss of fundamental due process rights or to the same type of violation of public trust that has surfaced with red-light camera abuses in other locales such as Chicago and New Jersey. Thank you,

Gary Biller President National Motorists Association w 402 West 2nd Street w Waunakee, WI 53597 Phone: 608-849-6000 w Email: NMA@motorists.org w Website: www.motorists.org

NATIONAL MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION

Empowering Drivers Since 1982
402 West 2nd Street Waunakee, Wisconsin 53597-1342 Telephone: 608-849-6000 Fax: 888-787-0381 E-mail: nma@motorists.org Website: www.motorists.org

OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF RED-LIGHT CAMERAS

Founded in 1982, the National Motorists Association (NMA) is a North American grassroots organization dedicated to the protection of motorists rights and freedoms. We have several thousand members situated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and most provinces of Canada. We promote traffic laws fairly written and reasonably enforced, traffic penalties based on sensible standards that differentiate between responsible behavior and demonstrated unsafe actions, and traffic safety produced by sound engineering solutions, not arbitrary measures designed to generate profits. We oppose the use of photographic devices to issue tickets. With properly posted speed limits, properly installed and timed traffic-control devices, and intersection design based on proven engineering solutions, there is no need for ticket cameras. Red-light cameras are highly effective at collecting revenue, but actually make our roads less safe. NMA objections to red-light cameras include: 1. Ticket cameras do not improve safety Detailed investigative reports and documented studies have shown an increase in overall accident rates at signalized intersections equipped with red-light cameras. Two examples: Before the City of Los Angeles, CA shut down its red-light camera program in 2011, a review of data for the six months before and the six months after cameras were installed at 32 intersections found that the number of accidents increased at 20 of those intersections, some by triple. The Washington Post published an investigative report that compared Washington, D.C. safety statistics in 1998, the year before red-light cameras were installed at 37 intersections, to those of 2004 at those same intersections. The number of crashes more than doubled (365 in 1998, 755 in 2004), broadside accidents rose 30 percent, and fatal crashes jumped 81 percent. More information about these cases and several others may be found at http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents. 2. There are better alternatives to red-light cameras Properly engineered intersections have very few red-light violations. At the top of the safety checklist is the verification that the yellow light change interval has been set in accordance with accepted standards. To illustrate the importance of this, two Texas Transportation Institute researchers released studies that reached the following conclusions: Lengthening the yellow light interval by as little as 0.5 to 1.5 seconds decreases the incidence of red-light running violations by 50 percent or more. A 1.0 second increase in yellow light duration corresponded to a 40 percent reduction in intersection crashes. More information about the Texas Transportation Institute studies and about several cities that (continued)

OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF RED-LIGHT CAMERAS

Page 2

2. There are better alternatives to red-light cameras (continued) increased their yellow light timing and achieved red-light violation reductions of up to 92 percent (see Loma Linda, CA) may be found at http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/yellow-lights Conversely, the jurisdictions that collect tens of millions of dollars of red-light camera ticket fines annually, such as Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City, keep their yellow light intervals at or even below minimum acceptability. It should be noted that if red-light cameras served as safety deterrents to red-light violations, then the photo ticket revenue collected should decline over time with these programs. That is not the case.

3. Red-light cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents Motorists do not casually drive through red lights trying to save a few seconds at the risk of injury or death. More likely, they are seriously distracted, impaired, or are suffering a medical emergency. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive kamikaze-style into a crowded intersection against the traffic light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures to be mailed out several weeks later will not stop these types of accidents. The video clip compilations of horrific broadside accidents released by the red-light camera manufacturers prove just the opposite; the ticket cameras that record those images are powerless to prevent the collisions. A proper yellow light interval and an adequate all-red phase delay are much more effective at preventing these type of crashes than red-light cameras. 4. There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation For all practical purposes, the red-light cameras provide no accuser for motorists to confront, which circumvents a fundamental constitutional right in the U.S. system of justice. There is no one who can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. 5. The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified Photos taken by the cameras typically capture the license plate of the vehicle but do not identify the driver beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the registered owner of the vehicle is charged whether or not he/she was operating the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. The vehicle owner is thus put in a position of being guilty until proving his/her innocence, typically by accusing a family member or friend who may have been the driver. 6. Ticket recipients are not adequately notified Most communities using red-light cameras send out tickets via first-class mail. This provides no guarantee that the accused motorists have received the ticket. Indeed, numerous drivers have reported to the NMA that their drivers license had been suspended and/or the original fines doubled because they did not respond in a timely manner to a violation they did not know they had been charged with. Another problem is that the accused may not receive a citation for several days or even weeks after the alleged violation. This makes defending oneself difficult because the circumstances become harder to remember or to collect facts to build a defense.

Perhaps the most effective way to illustrate Points 4 through 6 is to relate the story of a red-light camera ticket defendant from St. Louis, MO. Gant Bloom decided to defend himself in court because of what he saw as the inherent unfairness of the photo ticket he received. He did not deny that it was the image of his car that had been captured by the ticket camera, but because he did not receive the ticket until several weeks later, he (continued) National Motorists Association w 402 West 2nd Street w Waunakee, WI 53597 Phone: 608-849-6000 w Email: NMA@motorists.org w Website: www.motorists.org

OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF RED-LIGHT CAMERAS

Page 3

could not honestly determine whether he or his girlfriend was driving the car at the time of the ticket. Mr. Blooms opening statement included a summary of his strategy: I decided it just wasnt fair for me to admit guilt to something I didnt even know if I did or not. The only physical evidence that the prosecution is going to show you is that it was my car running through a red light. That I dont deny. I dont believe the City can satisfy this court that it was me who committed that crime. And furthermore, I intend to demonstrate reasonable doubt that it was me driving that day. Gant called his girlfriend to the stand and elicited testimony that the two of them sat down after receiving the ticket in the mail and could not determine who was driving at the time of the alleged violation. In contrast to the prosecuting attorney who spent several minutes questioning a representative of American Traffic Solutions (ATS, the red-light camera operator) and the local ticket review police officer to build her case, the non-lawyer Mr. Bloom asked one question of the ATS employee and three questions of the officer. His logic was elegant and simple, and points out the fallacy of red-light cameras as a fair means of enforcing intersection traffic regulations: To the camera company employee, Mr. Bloom asked, Sir, is there any way to tell who was driving the car at the time of the violation? The answer was, No, there isnt. To the ticketing officer, Mr. Bloom first asked if, during an in-person traffic stop for running a red light, the officer would attempt to identify the driver. The answer was affirmative. Next Bloom asked if the officer would issue a ticket if he wasnt able to identify the driver. The officer responded, No, if I couldnt identify the driver, I wouldnt issue a ticket. Final question for the officer: If you pulled a car over and found out it was a different driver than who was the registered owner of the car, would you issue a citation to the car, to the registered owner who is not driving, or would you issue the citation to whoever was driving the car? The answer, of course, from the officer was that he would ticket the driver. The judge found in favor of Mr. Bloom, and charged court costs to the City of St. Louis. For an entertaining read, you can find the full courtroom transcript at www.tinyurl.com/camtranscript. Mr. Blooms situation is played out thousands of times daily across the country, except that most photo ticket recipients dont have the resources or knowledge to challenge their citations based on the inherent violation of the protections afforded defendants in our system of justice.

National Motorists Association w 402 West 2nd Street w Waunakee, WI 53597 Phone: 608-849-6000 w Email: NMA@motorists.org w Website: www.motorists.org