There have always been two schools of thought with red light cameras in Florida:
1. Ban them, and
2. We need more!
The former group, if you base the definition upon public votes on the devices, consists of most of the public.
The latter group, if you base the definition upon legislative and local commission (non-public) votes on the devices, consists of most of our elected officials and camera company employees.
The ban of these devices has been tried since the law authorizing them came on the books in Florida in 2010. It has never been successful. The main reason is like most things in politics:
Money
The camera companies and local governments have it, and they want more. It’s far easier to push a law that punishes bad behavior than it is to levy a new tax. I think many would have no problem with this idea so long as the law was constitutionally applied.
That’s never been the case with red light cameras.
The law when it came to Florida (other states are very similar, since the camera company lobbyists write the bills) did a number of things:
Unlike a police officer’s ticket, the person that broke the law is not cited- the vehicle owner is ticketed via the mail, and then is responsible to pay the ticket unless they can ID another or offer one of a handful of excuses. Contrary to the 5th Amendment, the owner must prove who broke the law, not the government.
Unlike a police officer’s ticket, the owner has no court option on the mailed ticket. They must fail to pay it and then get a more expensive second ticket in order to go to court. The local government websites always have stern language here about how if you go to court, the fine can be increased. This element of law- due process- is so important that it is included in both the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Unlike a police officer’s ticket, when the owner is finally in court, no one that handled any evidence is there to validate it. Why is this 6th Amendment protection important? For example, if a an officer made a drug possession case, the lab techs and anyone that handled it would need to be in court to testify it was not altered or mishandled. Let’s contrast a state crime lab tech, who has no financial interest in the drug case, with the camera company employee, whose job depends on enough tickets being paid.
The automated tickets also carry a much lower fine and no points on the owner’s record.
The goal of the law is clear- steer people into paying the fine by making it too difficult to go to court, and “reward” their forced confession with a lower fine and no points.
As to the safety claim, proponents never give actual red light violation crash numbers for before and after device use- at best you’ll get a vague percentage. The state’s annual report on the devices was massively flawed. It failed to contain any red light violation crash data- and 20 to 30% of the agencies required to submit data didn’t submit any. I pulled gigabytes of DOT crash data and reviewed red light violation crash data for several Florida cities. There is no clear reduction beyond normal fluctuation due to device use. This is due to these crashes being caused by distracted or drunk drivers- something no device at roadside will ever prevent.
So there is where we’ve been. Now for where we are.
A couple of years ago, I saw the push to ban the cameras was going nowhere. I wrote a compromise bill, something called the Florida Motorist Rights Restoration Act, which has at its core three things:
1. The right to a hearing from the mailed ticket.
2. The burden of proof being returned to the government, as it is for all other moving violations.
3. Witnesses that handled/processed evidence being required in court.
Last session (2012), the bill was filed but was gutted by former Rep. Brad Drake. It never made it past the second committee.
This session, thanks to more public awareness of the problem, the bill has done better. As HB 1061 in the House and SB 1342 in the Senate, it contained all of the motorist rights provisions as well as other good things such as:
- A prohibition on automated (not officer) enforcement of right turns on red, something that had been inconsistently enforced and that causes very few crashes.
- Steps toward better yellow light timing. When Georgia adopted the proper formula, their red light violations dropped so far that the cameras there were removed. No one had their rights violated and the roads were safer.
- There were other provisions as well, such as fining local governments that violated the law.
Things were going well until Sen. Jeff Clemens (D-ATS*), who has taken $1,000 in campaign money from Arizona camera company American Traffic Solutions (ATS) since November 2011, got involved. On March 21, 2013, he introduced and was able to pass an amendment to the Senate bill that removed all of the good portions such as motorist rights.The gutted bill passed with a 9-0 vote. It will next be heard in another committee, and the thought is these items that were removed will be restored.
The House bill fortunately has not suffered this same amendment.
It is telling that the camera companies no longer send lobbyists to speak at these hearings. They do not do so since each time the room is filled with government and quasi-government lobbyists, such as the Florida League of Cities, who employs 5 lobbyists and a support staff that includes an attorney. Then there are the police chiefs, deputy sheriffs (Hillsborough County sent 3 for the March 21 hearing), and city/county council people. All of these government lobbyists go to lobby against our rights using our tax dollars.
Here is what you can do:
- Call Sen. Clemens at 850-487-5027 and tell him you do not appreciate his amending out your rights in order to benefit an Arizona company.
- Keep an eye out for future postings where I will identify members of the next Senate and House committees that need to hear from you in order to restore SB 1342 to the original language. An Action Alert will be sent out.
* Normally the city or area a legislator represents is listed after their party. In the case of those that no longer represent their citizens but instead represent camera vendor ATS, I have changed this designation.