Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

New Link

Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red lights were too effective. So they shut them down.

They are not alone. Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.

At the heart of the discussions taking place in city councils and county commissions is tension between the twin benefits that were touted when local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago. Officials were promised that the cameras — which take snapshots of busy intersections, capturing the license plates of any cars that are running the light — would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of dollars in extra fines.

The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.

It is the second half of the equation that may be beginning to collapse. As drivers learn where the cameras are, they are more careful. Fewer of them run red lights. Local governments collect fewer fines.

Fewer violations = less revenue
Sometimes, as in Dallas, cameras generate so little revenue that they can’t even pay for themselves.

Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.

But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections. On the face of it, that, too, is a good thing — but not, necessarily, if you rely on traffic fines to make up a healthy chunk of your budget.

Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30. But City Manager Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than $4 million.

So last week, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable cameras, saying it couldn’t justify the cost of running them.

Safety benefits questioned
Dallas was just following the lead of several other cities that have shut down red light cameras.

City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.

In Bolingbrook, Ill., meanwhile, officials ended their red light camera program after statistics showed a 40 percent drop in ticketable offenses.

Nor is money the only reason cameras have been removed. In Lubbock, Texas, the City Council shut down all its cameras last month, citing a report that showed statistically significant increases in rear-end collisions at intersections, including those with cameras.

Rear-end collisions, in fact, have been cited in numerous reports and lawsuits questioning the benefits of red light cameras. Opponents claim that the cameras actually create more hazardous conditions.

“When people know there’s a red light camera, they change their driving behavior, and they slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket,” said Tom McCarey, an activist for the National Motorists Association. The association, which is based in Waunakee, Wis., calls itself a 6,000-member group “dedicated to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists.”

Federal study largely inconclusive
Research by the Federal Highway Administration bears out McCarey’s argument — at least, as far as it goes.

In 2005, the agency released the first systematic national study of accident rates at intersections where cameras monitor red lights, compiling projections and hard data from seven cities from Maryland to California. The report tabulated 14.9 percent more rear-end crashes than would have been expected if the intersections had no cameras, resulting in 24 percent more injuries.

“Red light cameras don’t make intersections safer. They make them more dangerous,” McCarey said. Which is true — if all you’re worried about is rear-end crashes.

But the FHA study compiled numbers on all accidents at the relevant intersections, and it found that right-angle collisions — also known as “T-bone crashes,” when a car comes across the intersection and whacks you from the side — came in 24.6 percent below projections, with 15.7 percent fewer injuries.

This is where both sides acknowledge that you can make statistics say anything you want.

Opponents of cameras highlight rear-end crashes, noting that they make up more than 71 percent of accidents at intersections. Removing the cameras would lessen the most common kind of accidents.

But advocates point out that right-angle crashes are far more dangerous, causing 64 percent of the injuries at those intersections.

“We would prefer to have minor rear-end collisions, rather than broadside collisions, which lead to serious and fatal injuries,” said Art Acevedo, chief of the Austin, Texas, police.

Small reduction in injuries cited
What is clear in the study, when it is taken overall, is that red light cameras led to no real change in the number of accidents (4,059 with versus 4,063 without). But they did reduce the number of people hurt in those accidents, by just less than 5 percent (459 versus 482).

The FHA concluded that cameras provide, at best, a “modest aggregate crash-cost benefit.”

That benefit is so modest that the National Motorists Association has a standing offer of $10,000 to any community that can empirically prove that red light cameras can prevent violations and accidents better than a schedule of traffic engineering steps it recommends, which include proper signal timing, better signal design and improved intersection design.

Other opponents say that even if the cameras made driving far safer, that still doesn’t justify what they call the systematic violation of drivers’ constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined a lawsuit brought by an Iowa man who received a ticket in the mail after his vehicle was photographed doing 49 mph in a 35-mph zone in Davenport in March 2006.

The man, Thomas Seymour, argued that he was denied due process because he couldn’t confront his accuser — an inanimate camera. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last week.

As early as 2001, a California Superior Court judge dismissed 250 tickets issued under San Diego’s camera program, which is administered by Lockheed Martin Corp. under a private contract. Because the evidence is not gathered by an official police agency, it is “unreliable” and “untrustworthy” and therefore inadmissible in court, the judge ruled.

But opponents contend that what is really at the heart of debates over red light cameras is profits. Some government officials, like those in Dallas, don’t dispute that.

In Springfield, Mo., officials wanted to begin ticketing motorists caught on red light cameras last June 1. But the state Legislature was considering a law that would have diverted some of the revenue to state programs.

So Springfield officials postponed issuing the tickets. Only after it became clear a few weeks later that the Legislature would not act on the bill did Springfield start sending out tickets, NBC affiliate KYTV reported. The cameras began breaking even in January.

“It’s all about the money, and it’s not just about the $100 fine,” said McCarey of the National Motorists Association. “It’s millions for the city and billions for insurers.”

I thought the purpose of these cameras was for “public safety” not for income generation.

In Orlando, the City council had just voted on bringing in the Camera’s citing “public safety” as a concern.
Orlando mayor Buddy Dyer said:

“Most of the statistics show we have issues with people running red lights in Central Florida.” So if we can change the behavior, that’s an important aspect of it. If we got to a point where we didn’t give a single ticket because there was nobody running red lights, that would be great.”

Take note Orlando. Its just a matter of time before the revenues that were “projected” to come from this fall way short and the city back tracks like Dallas did, on its supposed “safety concerns”.


Read Full Post »

The Supreme Court on Monday stepped into a legal fight over the use of curse words on the airwaves, the high court’s first major case on broadcast indecency in 30 years.

The case concerns a Federal Communications Commission policy that allows for fines against broadcasters for so-called “fleeting expletives,” one-time uses of the F-word or its close cousins.

Fox Broadcasting Co., along with ABC, CBS and NBC, challenged the new policy after the commission said broadcasts of entertainment awards shows in 2002 and 2003 were indecent because of profanity uttered by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie.

A federal appeals court said the new policy was invalid and could violate the First Amendment.

No fines were issued in the incidents, but the FCC could impose fines for future violations of the policy.

The case before the court technically involves only two airings on Fox of the “Billboard Music Awards” in which celebrities’ expletives were broadcast over the airwaves. NBC is separately challenging an FCC decision that rapped the network for airing Bono’s use of the F-word during a Golden Globes awards show in 2003.

The case will be argued in the fall.

The FCC appealed to the Supreme Court after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York nullified the agency’s enforcement regime regarding “fleeting expletives.” By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court said the FCC had changed its policy and failed to adequately explain why it had done so.

The appeals court, acting on a complaint by the networks, nullified the policy until the agency could return with a better explanation for the change. In the same opinion, the court also said the agency’s position was probably unconstitutional.

The court rejected the FCC’s policy on procedural grounds, but was “skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its fleeting expletive regime that would pass constitutional muster.”

Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the FCC and the Bush administration, argued that the decision “places the commission in an untenable position,” powerless to stop the airing of expletives even when children are watching.

The FCC has pending before it “hundreds of thousands of complaints” regarding the broadcast of expletives, Clement said. He argued that the appeals court decision has left the agency “accountable for the coarsening of the airwaves while simultaneously denying it effective tools to address the problem.”

The appeal also argued that the FCC’s explanation of its policy was well reasoned and that the appeals court decision was at odds with the landmark 1978 indecency case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the last broadcast indecency case heard by the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the networks said the old policy worked well for 30 years and that broadcasters had no reason suddenly to allow for an explosion of expletives.

Separately, CBS is challenging a $550,000 fine the FCC imposed for the “wardrobe malfunction” that bared Janet Jackson’s breast during a televised 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is considering whether the incident was indecent or merely a fleeting and accidental glitch that shouldn’t be punished.

The case is the second recent test of the federal government’s powers to regulate broadcast indecency. Last June, a federal appeals court in New York invalidated the government’s policy on fleeting profanities uttered over the airwaves.

The new policy was put in place after a January 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show by NBC when U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase “f—— brilliant.” The FCC said the “F-word” in any context “inherently has a sexual connotation” and can trigger enforcement.

The Fox programs at issue are a Dec. 9, 2002, broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards in which singer Cher used the phrase “F— ’em” and a Dec. 10, 2003, Billboard awards show in which reality show star Nicole Richie said, “Have you ever tried to get cow s— out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f—— simple.”

The case will be argued in the fall.

Should be rather interesting to see their ruling.
After the whole Nappy Headed Hoe’s fiasco, this ruling could set some precedent that some are not ready to accept. One that I have stated numerous times.

Lets see where the court takes us this time next year.

Read Full Post »