Red Light Cameras installed in Balcones HeightsBy Greg Mauz
Guest Columnist
City officials claim they are "considering all options" in regards to signal-related intersection safety. Is this just a public facade? I've been fighting these unethical camera promoters for many years. The city manager and mayor are the first line of contact for profit-hungry camera companies. They promise to enhance the city budget with millions of dollars.
City officials like that. And the people (politicians, engineers, lawyers, police, some media, etc.) who play ball with the photo enforcers usually profit themselves through campaign contributions, political favors, consultant fees, lobbying fees, stock options, etc. Your money, residents.
All this transpires in secret while the money-driven promoters parrot the "safety" smoke screen to placate the deceived economy. Despite the lip service to "considering all options," which is required by Section 707.003c of the Texas Transportation Code (I worked on this with Sen. John Carona), did the mayor and city manager already have a preconceived arrangement with Redflex to install red-light ticket cameras?
Consider the evidence.
As an honest (no money conflict of interest) traffic safety researcher for 22 years and author of three large, objective ticket camera reports (www.motorists.org/mauz.php), one would expect city officials to consult me, right? It's free. Yet local officials have not returned my calls or acknowledged my two-page letter (July 15th) and plenty of research from various sources.
As an honest (no money conflict of interest) traffic safety researcher for 22 years and author of three large, objective ticket camera reports (www.motorists.org/mauz.php), one would expect city officials to consult me, right? It's free. Yet local officials have not returned my calls or acknowledged my two-page letter (July 15th) and plenty of research from various sources.
Texas Department of Transportation rules (above) say to consider engineering solutions before cameras. Why did Abilene officials rush to allow Redflex's biased sales presentation first?
Redflex presented its deceptive sales pitch to the citizen advisory committee without having to worry about a truthful counterpoint. I was not invited to the late August meeting.
Redflex presented its deceptive sales pitch to the citizen advisory committee without having to worry about a truthful counterpoint. I was not invited to the late August meeting.
While the mayor contends that "red-light running" is "epidemic," Redflex's data actually proved the opposite. Cameras at 14 locations, for eight hours each, produced a mere 121 violations. This equates to about 26 daily red-light violations. Congratulations, Abilene, for having one of the lowest violation rates in the country! No accidents occurred. Redflex showed dramatic accidents collected from other cities and parroted the phony "cameras increase safety" rhetoric. He wants your money!
For the record: Red-light violation crashes comprise only 1.5 percent of all crashes and 2 percent of fatalities (925 of 43,000 in the U.S.). Texas is 3 percent (about 100 of 3,700 fatalities). A person is 20 times more likely to be murdered than killed in a red-light violation crash (18,000 murdered annually in the U.S.).
Does Abilene even have one red-light violation fatality?
It seems quite obvious that the truth is not going to stand in the way of corporate/government profits unless the residents of Abilene fight back against the deception. The Reporter-News Web site responses were two-to-one against red-light ticket cameras. An MSNBC poll of 40,000 people recorded 62 percent against cameras. The Texas Civil Rights Association is against ticket cameras.
The straight-up truth is: In addition to violating four due process rights and employing engineering malpractice to entrap innocent people, camera enforcement causes more crashes, injuries and fatalities.
My research and 20 others confirm this fact. Red-light violation crashes rose significantly in Melbourne, Australia (up 70 percent), North Carolina (up 40 percent), Lubbock (up 50 percent), Washington, D.C. (up 30 percent), and Virginia. Rear-end crashes almost always increase (up 70 percent average) with many whiplash/back injuries and some fatalities.
The trend lasts for years (Melbourne -- five years after red-light ticket cameras was up 90 percent), and overall injuries rise significantly. All signal-related (red-light violations, angle and rear-end) fatalities have increased since the proliferation of cameras in U.S. cities. (up 600 deaths, NHTSA, pages 37 to 39 of Mauz report)
If traffic signal-related safety (not money) is the honest goal, ticket cameras must not be considered. Period. What's to consider? How many smashed vehicles, plus injuries (and possible deaths), of human beings are considered acceptable collateral damage to provide government/corporate profits?
Respect the lives and liberty of those who pay your salaries. Reject cameras.
Greg Mauz of Christoval has been a traffic safety researcher for 22 years.
Greg Mauz of Christoval has been a traffic safety researcher for 22 years.
Editor's Note: Walker Report Publisher & current Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2 candidate & former Balcones Heights Councilman Steve Walker cast the lone dissenting vote against Red Light Cameras in Balcones Heights before they installed them.
Walker stated before he left the Council three things would happen.
1. The state would take half the revenue-Governor Rick Perry signed into law such a bill that took effect September 1st, 2007
2. Few violators would pay the citation-less than 20% pay
3. The City would be sued-currently the City is in litigation
All three incidents occurred shortly after Walker left the Council in 2007 to run for JP2.
No comments:
Post a Comment