Red Light Camera Company Fights Back Against Florida Critics
American Traffic Solutions, which provides red light traffic cameras for St. Pete and 70 other Florida municipalities, says court rulings are on their side.
The Arizona company that provides red light traffic cameras for St. Petersburg and more than 70 municipalities around Florida is fighting back against recent attacks on the legality of the technology and its use to catch violators.
In a news release sent Wednesday, American Traffic Solutions points out five court rulings that have upheld the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act, which cleared the way for municipalities to use red light traffic cameras.
The company notes a Sarasota County case, State v. Nathan, in which the court ruled red light cameras do not "automatically deem a driver guilty of an infraction based on the issuance of a citation" and that the driver "is provided notice of a hearing and an opportunity to be heard."
“These rulings are just a few clear examples of how judges in Florida have validated the legality of the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act and the use of red-light safety cameras. Yet, critics continue to use failed arguments to mislead the public,” said George Hittner, lawyer for American Traffic Solutions, in a news release. “There is no question that red-light safety cameras operate in full compliance with the law and for the benefit of public safety.”
Opponents of red light cameras have leveled a number of criticisms, arguing that they violate rights of privacy and against self-incrimination and that they don't reduce crashes.
The Florida House of Representatives is considering repealing the red light camera law. And last week, the Pinellas County Clerk of Court urged six cities there to stop issuing tickets for red light cameras, saying that the system is flawed and that it creates ill will among citizens "upset with the poor communication, insufficient information and resulting unfair penalties."
See the attached PDF for the full news release from American Traffic Solutions.
What do you think of red light cameras? Post a comment below and join the conversation.
Sign up for the free St. Petersburg Patch email newsletter to stay connected to your community.
Jim
10:14 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Melissa Wandall is now President of the NCSR, the lobby front for ATS.
If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That saying applies to Ms. Wandall and her idea that red light cameras are THE solution.
Personally, I think it would be appropriate for Ms. Wandall to shift her focus to a campaign against buzzed driving and teaching defensive driving. Why?
The driver of the car in which Wandall's husband Mark was riding had been drinking. Not legally drunk, but buzzed. He hit the gas when his green arrow came on, evidently without confirming that opposing traffic had stopped. If he had not been buzzed he might have noticed, directly in front of him and coming straight at him, the headlights of the red light runner.
The driver was Ms. Wandall's brother. You can imagine that if it had been anyone else driving, Ms. Wandall (or anyone else) would have sued the driver for his last dime. But she couldn't do that, couldn't punish her brother, so she punishes US with her hammer, red light cameras.
Mark Wandall's death is a lesson for us to teach our children of driving age: Don't drive buzzed, and drive defensively. (They're connected, because if you are buzzed, you drop your defenses.) In particular, don't swing a left turn - even with a green arrow - until you've looked around. I would welcome a campaign by Ms. Wandall that focused on that particular lesson. She's a good speaker and could save a lot of lives, nationwide. And no one would have to install cameras.
Mike Funkhowser
11:42 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
And how much $$$ is ATS making off of red light cameras? The statistics published recently in St. Pete (that also showed that accidents did NOT decrease at camera intersections), showed that ATS cleared more cash than the municipality itself for the resultant tickets/fines.
James C. Walker
11:47 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Mark Wandall's death due primarily to a drinking driver was tragic, but a red light camera at that location would NOT have prevented the death. It is an invalid comparison of cause and effect.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
Rider
1:26 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
The resistance that so many are putting up to a system that is making a positive difference in driving habits...is amazing. These people will kick and scream for the right to run red lights at will and put innocent people at risk. What is the alternative to these cameras, people? Sure, there are bugs and they can and must be worked out. Do you want more patrol cars at those intersections? Where will you come up with the money to pay them? Where will the funds for traffic court come from as people running a red light will put us just as many irrational arguments in front of a judge like they are on this blog. All the while, those opposing this attempt to solve a serious problem are forgetting that if a traffic officer nails you for risking lives by running a red light, the fine is higher AND you get points on your license that the insurance industry uses to increase your rates for 3 years. If you get more points after this red light infraction, then your points will put you into a high risk driver category and some insurance companies will even drop you.
Rider
1:30 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Guessing that Jim believes that education will stop people from texting while driving, too. NOT......nail those drivers putting others at risk. No more lah lah lah esoteric idealism. People are driving more recklessly today than ever and that could be due to the softies calling for education instead of penalties. These people know that they're not supposed to run red lights or text while driving, yet, everyday, you can see people doing this on a regular basis. More education? No way. Nail 'em. They deserve it.