Red light cameras : the truly lawless are exempt

Count me as one of the "not fans" of the cameras the city is planning to install at six intersections.

But apart from that, let me correct some of the errors in the editorial about the cameras. ("Red light cameras ultimately will stop the truly lawless" Manteca Bulletin, 6 Sep 08)

If the system is really "not costing anything," why did the chief of police ask for $189,000 to be transferred to a fund? We don't know, the chief didn't address the issue in any comprehensible way. His only comment in response to my question was "it was to make it... uh.. revenue neutral."

Next, no one is complaining about the $189,000. All I asked was what was it for? And furthermore, this is not the cost of the system. The editor is confusing this amount with the separate cost of installation. The "cost of installation" could be anything, we don't even have an estimate yet. And yes, this is the thing that we don't have to pay back so long as we keep the contract for three years.

(Three year contract? What could go wrong? Ever sign up for a contract for a cell phone? No chance of any regret there!)

Another mistake the editor makes is assuming that the council would have to cancel the contract to be responsible for the money (and they wouldn't be "that boneheaded"). Well, not so. Nestor can also cancel the contract at any time and demand immediate payment.

If you look on page two of that fine print, it lists a bunch of things that will permit Nestor to consider the city to be in breach of contract. I won't list them all, but one example: If someone contests a traffic ticket issued by the red light system and the City of Manteca doesn't present a "good enough case" in court or "do enough to prosecute" the case, then Nestor can cancel the contract and demand full payment immediately. In other words (if they want to be strict), if the police officer is 15 minutes late to court (or doesn't show up) just once then Nestor can demand immediate payment of perhaps millions of dollars! The contract has other provisions that make it possible for Nestor to cancel any time (and demand that huge payment immediately).

Although I never made the "Big Brother" argument, others have. But far from poo-pooing it with "get real," the editor should consider that the argument is much more than simple "invasion of privacy" or simply taking pictures of people who might be camera shy.

No, the real problem (we're getting real) is that now law enforcement will be taken from the public street, from public view and instead done in a Star Chamber, perhaps a single man reviewing evidence in secret.

The camera company doesn't actually issue any "citations." They refer all the pictures of the red light violations to the police department. Where the police then do ... something. That's where the big brother aspect comes in. What if the picture shows one of their friends? Another "police officer?" What if the picture is just a little blurry. Is it a nice car? Does it look like the person has money? What about the race of the driver? How about a driver that's on the list of known "problem people" that the Manteca Police admits keeping? (the one with 300 or 200 or 1000 names on it depending on who you ask).

You can use your own imagination. But there was a reason why this country was founded on the notion that laws are executed in the open in a process that's open to scrutiny by any person. The red light camera citation decisions will be made in the proverbial darkened room by some unknown guy in some unknown place for secret reasons. That is, unless they agree to oversight but I'm not holding my breath on that.

The editor then claims that it's not a cash cow because the city only gets 20 percent of the fines. That's only $80. Can someone explain to me the logic of that? Like, does it become a "cash cow" if it's $90? $150? $174.50? Is there some line somewhere above $80 called the "cash cow" line?

There's some nonsense about some extraordinary costs of writing traffic tickets, so it's not profitable. Let's not even discuss that because the editor is mixing two different accounting schemes, one for a human writing the tickets and another for the automated system. But he does let it slip out that a Manteca "police officer" makes about $110,000 per year. No, that's not "equipment" or "fuel costs" that's the Measure M sales tax increase being funneled into the lavish pay raises. For some reason, I've noticed the city never wants to say how much their policemen are being paid -- I think wisely because the average resident would probably be appalled at the greed of their public servants' union bosses. (No disrespect to the public servants) But I digress.

The most deceptive part of the editorial is at the end, where he asserts that the law will eventually "catch up" to all those who are exempt from the red light enforcement.

Let me go back a minute 'cause you're probably asking yourself, "there's people exempt from getting traffic tickets for running red lights?" The answer is yes. Because of recent court rulings, the picture of the driver taken by the red light camera must match the DMV records for the vehicle. Notice I didn't say match that person's drivers license. In other words the vehicle is registered to someone. That someone has a picture on file with the DMV. That file photo must match the driver that the red light camera photographs. Now, I don't know how much they have to match, but they have to somehow resemble each other.

The practical upshot of this is that only people driving a car registered themselves can be cited by the red light camera system. And only those where you can get a clear picture of the driver. Notice who this leaves out. Anyone driving a motorcycle with a helmet that covers their face. Anyone driving the company car or truck. If you want to get clever, a husband and wife can register each other's cars then they can run red lights all day long and be immune from the cameras. Also exempted is any of the many people who don't bother to get drivers licenses.

Now this is where the Manteca Bulletin editor is completely wrong. There will be no "eventual catching up with" those people who are exempt. There will be no "bench warrants" issued for failing to pay traffic tickets. There will be no eventual confiscation of vehicles! The reason is simple: There will be no tickets issued! No tickets, no court records, no bench warrants, no confiscations -- no penalties whatsoever for those in the "exempted class" which includes criminals or illegal aliens driving without licenses.

And by the way, the editor misstates how the "collision avoidance system" works. It doesn't hold the green light -- it holds the red light on the cross street. If it held the green light, then all you'd have to do is to gun the engine and the Nestor system would hold the green light for you. No one would ever get a traffic ticket! Because if the system held the green light they'd never get the red light and they can't get a ticket for "red light running" can they?

Sure, we each have our own opinions as to what "sounds like an effective system" but here's where science gets in the way. It doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what you think or what the councilman thinks or what the newspaperman thinks. What matters is what the science actually tells us -- what there is actual evidence for. And so far, neither the company, nor the council nor the police nor the newspaper has provided one tiny scrap of evidence that the system is effective in any way in actually preventing accidents or improving safety. In fact, they haven't even shown by any study or evidence that their system of fiddling with the lights doesn't cause other hidden dangers or more accidents than it's supposed to prevent.

Maybe asking for scientific evidence is asking too much.

Market gives Nestor red light

Has anyone from the city looked into the financial health of Nestor Traffic Systems?

The City of Manteca is considering contracting with Nestor Traffic Systems for a series of "red light cameras." A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for Tuesday, 2 Sep 08 at 7pm at "city hall."

Here's an article that says they are "beset with losses." And they are hugely in debt. And that's from April of this year. Last year the firm was delisted from the NASDAQ. And evidently, since then things have only gotten worse -- the stock price dropped from 22 cents per share last May to 8 cents a share today. One of the principles has left the board of directors and there's "no plans to replace him."

From the looks of the balance sheet, they have suffered huge losses and the losses continue. They might be on target to only lose 6 cents a share this year, which is good 'cause the stock is only worth 8 cents a share!

One of the statements reads:

The opinion of our auditors ... and as further discussed by management ... contained an unqualified opinion ... regarding our substantial net losses in recent years which raised doubt regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. ... We continue to seek additional sources of equity and debt financing to fund system installations ... however, there can be no assurance that the funds will be available on terms acceptable to us, if at all.

Clarence A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of Nestor, Inc., stated the following: "Although we are disappointed that the market has not yet recognized the dramatic advances the Company has made, we remain confident...."

Evidently the City of Santa Fe Springs was one of those that hasn't yet recognized the dramatic advances: They terminated their contract with Nestor saying "it was not satisfied with the service provided by the Rhode Island-based Nestor Traffic Systems..." and "the council was dissatisfied with the company," said City Manager Fred Latham. Areas of concern included customer service, experience and accessibility, he said.

Red light camera supplier determines we should buy their product

Unknown to most in Manteca, Redflex Inc. set up cameras to "survey" some intersections in Manteca. They wanted to determine if there were enough red light violations to make installing a "red light camera" system feasible.

Redflex is the company that contracts with Modesto and Stockton to supply their red light camera systems.

After videotaping various intersections in Manteca. The company that profits from the installation of their red light cameras came to the none too surprising conclusion: By Jove! You need to purchase our product! Lives are at stake!

Doesn't this sound a little suspicious to anyone?

My guess is that the guys who drive around servicing the cameras were going from Modesto to Stockton and noticed that Manteca was right in between, they probably figured wouldn't it be great if we could set up some of these red light cash generating machines in Manteca.

A lot has been written about red light cameras, and I'm not going to repeat all those words here. Like a lot of things, I'm sure neither side of the issue is the absolute truth. Here you can read the various comments yourself.

The best report on the issue is a massive five part series by Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard. This report can be summed up:

Red-light cameras are ... coming to a city near you. The science behind them is bad and the police are using them to make money, not save lives. It's much worse than you thought.

This report was "blasted" by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which
represents the interests of the auto insurance industry. The IIHS simply asserts that
all the critics are "not scientific." For example, they criticise the Labash data as
"unreliable" and say things like his data shows some accident rates going up
after the installation of red light cameras -- and since "we know this can't
possibly be true" those studies should be disregarded. In other words, to the
Insurance Institute, only data or studies that support their position can
possibly be considered "true." hmm. I should point out that the IIHS represents the
companies that sell automobile insurance. And since the premiums
insurance companies can charge is regulated, each red light ticket permits them
to charge more for auto insurance. Red light cameras are a cash cow for the
insurance companies -- regardless of their effectiveness.

Some of the "studies" that show positive effects were done at the same time the State of California increased the fines for red light violations from $104 to $271. But the IIHS attributes the decrease in red light running to the product they help sell. They can't explain how red light running decreased by about the same amount at
intersections where there was no cameras installed. Sometimes they pull out the
term "spillover effect." Maybe. But the effect was seen all over the state.
That's some major "spillover!"

Actually, I am repeating some of what was written on the subject. But if you take the time to study the subject, you'll be struck by the overall lack of data, one way or another. This is acknowledged in one of the few semi-scientific studies done by the federal DOT.

Note how this study talks about "the paucity of definitive studies..." Other points from this study:

• Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones.


• There were weak indications of a spillover effect that point to a need for a more definitive ... study of this issue.


• ... estimates of the safety effect ... vary considerably. The bulk of the results appear to support a conclusion that red light cameras reduce right-angle crashes and could increase rear end crashes; however, most of the studies are tainted by methodological difficulties that would render useless any conclusions from them.


• Check out the tables of costs. They attempt to put a dollar value on each type of accident, and more or less decide that that since the side impact crashes cost more, even though the rear end crashes are increased there's a marginal benefit. That's reassuring. Except that this analysis depends on carefully choosing which accidents to "count."


• The DOT study revealed one other negative effect that no one had detected before. Paradoxically, they found that although right angle crashes were decreased, those that did occur were more serious. The conclusions of this study are tempered with the caution that they may not be valid if "the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real." "Non-significant" is a statistical term that means there wasn't good enough data to tell if this increase in severity of the accidents was just "a fluke" or if it was real.

There were a few other points I wanted to bring up at the meeting, but didn't get to them with the time constraints:

• What about people driving around without licenses? The local scandal sheet says about 40% or more in Manteca don't seem to have valid "papers." I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, isn't it a little unfair to send violations to the legal people with valid license and registration and let the illegal drivers off the hook? That's what, in effect, the red light camera program would do.


• This type of program is open to abuse. The pictures taken by the cameras are collected and sorted by this private company. The company sends the ones they like to the police department for further review. All this is done in secret, there's no independent record or audit of what pictures have been taken. So, we must trust that if the mayor's son is snapped going through the light that it will be treated just the same as a picture of one of the politically unpopular people. Bear in mind, the pictures are viewed, the license plates are run, the owner or driver is identified -- all this before anyone outside the police dept or the company knows about the existence of the photograph.


• Manteca people will now be vulnerable to more fraud schemes. Already, there are scam artists sending out fake "violation" letters to people who live in cities with these cameras. The letters look official, they demand payment, except that the payments go to a post office box in some mail drop. People in Manteca and in the San Joaquin County are already getting deluged with fraud attempts -- this has been noted in several of the local newspapers. (examples: Bank fraud schemes and money from Nigerian diplomats and fake checks with instructions to wire funds and "keep" some of the money, etc.) The presence of the red light cameras will open up a new opportunity for fraud that affects the poor and old most. You can read about one such case here. Notice how authentic this fraud looked, and how many people people were defrauded even though the letter was "sloppy." It's only a matter of time before these letters get better. If fact, the extent of this red light camera fraud may not be known. This is hinted at in the article in the The San Bernardino Press-Enterprise. Notice the police didn't want to identify the suspect. This suggest this case was just part of a larger network of fraud or that there are others doing the same thing (the police didn't want to tip off the fraudsters.)

On the plus side, the council did ask some tough questions during the meeting. They didn't sound 100% convinced. Councilman Hernandez is commended for voting against the step toward the red light cameras. Also, contrary to the press reports, it's not a forgone conclusion. There is still another public hearing on the issue and I think some other council actions needed to actually implement the red light camera scheme. I'm hoping that maybe after thinking about it some more, the council will decide against this questionable program that promises so much, costs so much, and gives so little benefit.