Red light cameras can be a big moneymaker for local governments.
?
?
?
?
?
?
Voters in the State of Washington were dealt a blow on March 8, 2012, when the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not have the right to use the initiative process to ban local legislative bodies, such as city councils, from hiring private companies to install red light cameras and speed cameras in their city. The ruling invalidates the 2010 ballot initiative, Proposition 1, put forth by residents of the City of Mukilteo, in which 71 percent of voters chose to ban the ?robo-cop? cameras from their city.
Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government was responsible for drafting the legal arguments which led to the court?s ban of the right to an initiative vote. The special interest group was created and funded by the traffic enforcement camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and consisted of a single member. ?ATS was compelled to create the group in order to obtain the private standing necessary to file the argument for limiting the range of initiative power.
The ruling reads, in part:
We hold that because the legislature expressly granted authority to the governing body of the city of Mukilteo to enact ordinances on the use of automated traffic safety cameras, the subject matter of Proposition 1 is not within the initiative power.
A copy of the full ruling can be found here.
?Our Supreme court has ruled that you can?t have a say in whether or not your city has these cameras,? said Mr. Kannin of Kannin Law Firm P.S. ?But don?t worry. Even if you can?t vote for or against them, you can still fight a robo-camera ticket. I recommend hiring an attorney to fight your ticket in order to assert your right to not be subjected to government video recording.?
Despite government claims that in addition to enforcing traffic laws, the cameras help keep the intersections safe, ?calling these traffic ?safety? cameras is a misnomer,? Mr. Kannin said. In fact, studies have shown that the cameras are making some intersections more dangerous. Researchers at the University of South Florida Public Health published a study in 2008 in which they showed that traffic cameras used to stop red-light runners actually caused an increase in accidents as drivers slammed on their breaks at the intersections, causing tailgaters to rear-end their vehicles. An article in an online auto blog (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/03/new-study-says/) states that studies in Virginia, North Carolina and Ontario have showed a similar increase in accidents at intersections where traffic cameras have been installed. The article also notes that studies showing decreases in accidents have generally been funded by auto insurance companies, which stand to make a lot of money by upping the insurance rates of the motorists who receive traffic tickets generated by the cameras.
?The reality is, the cameras are being installed as a way for private camera vendors, cities and insurance companies to make money,? Mr. Kannin said. ?In this era of dwindling government revenues, it?s seen as an important revenue source.?
Mr. Kannin, who has won every traffic camera case he has handled, said that some cities have installed the cameras in places where it isn?t legal to do so.
To contest a ticket for a traffic infraction based on traffic camera surveillance, call Kannin Law Firm P.S. at 206-574-0202 for effective, aggressive legal representation.
Tags:
attorney, attorney John Kannin, Burien DUI lawyer, Burien red light camera, civil rights, Constitutional Rights, DUI King County, red light cameras, State of WA Supreme Court, traffic tickets
maria menounos proposition 8 ricky martin chauncey billups caucus results exton red dawn
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.