SafeSpeed Executive Charged With Bribing Cook County Officials For Red Light Camera Contracts

Scams

from the safe-bet dept

In January of this year, we discussed how the Illinois Comptroller had decided to opt out of collecting red light camera fees for motorists ticketed by these automated revenue generators. Susan Mendoza said in a statement that while her office was taking this action due to the feds investigating the contractor for the cameras, a company called SafeSpeed, it was also her position that red light cameras were revenue generators with little efficacy at impacting public safety.

All very true… but about that federal investigation.

Omar Maani, a former co-owner of politically-connected red light camera company SafeSpeed, has been charged with scheming with a former high-ranking Cook County official to bribe the relative of an Oak Lawn village trustee in order to install new red light cameras in the southwest suburb.

Maani is charged with one count of bribery conspiracy in a two-page document known as a “criminal information,” which is typically used in cases [w]here the defendant intends to plead guilty.

If true, such a guilty plea and quick conviction would lay bare the truth that red light cameras for years have been used to bilk money from taxpaying citizens to fill the coffers of both state governments and the contractors those governments work with. In this specific instance, the accusations against Maani suggest fairly brazen behavior. Maani is accused of attempting to pay a close family member of trustee from a Chicago suburb in exchange for installing SafeSpeed cameras in the city. While that is good old fashioned Chicago area politics, it’s also textbook bribery.

And if you might think this was some one-off scheme, it came about in coordination with the chief of staff for Cook County’s Commissioner, Patrick Doherty, among others.

In February, Doherty was indicted on two counts of bribery and one count of conspiracy to defraud, accused of conspiring with a fellow SafeSpeed sales agent and one of the company’s owners to pay $4,000 in bribes to the relative of an Oak Lawn village trustee, in exchange for influencing that trustee to help approve the installation of additional cameras.

The charges against Doherty came about two weeks after former Illinois State Sen. Martin Sandoval pleaded guilty to taking $70,000 in bribes to act as a “protector” for red light camera company SafeSpeed. Sandoval said he agreed to take bribes in exchange for blocking proposed legislation to ban red light cameras.

This again should lay to rest what the purpose of red light cameras is: revenue generation. They aren’t about safety. They aren’t about the law. They aren’t about influencing driving habits. They are about money, full stop.

Which is why they should not exist.

Filed Under: bribery, cook county, omar maani, patrick doherty, red-light cameras, scams
Companies: safespeed

Red Light Camera Company Says It's Dying Of Coronavirus

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the putting-it-out-of-our-misery dept

Things change. And the stuff that used to work just doesn’t anymore. We’ve covered a lot of this over the years, mainly focusing on how the rise of the internet was greeted with rent-seeking and protectionist policies meant to extend the upper hand that incumbent industries had enjoyed for years.

But things are changing elsewhere, outside of industries reliant on intellectual property protection and Congressionally-approved monopolies. Marijuana is being legalized (or at least decriminalized) all over the nation, resulting in an upheaval of sorts in the drug dog industry. According to a few law enforcement officials, drug dogs can’t live full lives without sniffing drugs and marijuana legalization is probably just going to result in some mercy killings. A life that doesn’t involve being run around a car during an illegally-extended pretextual stop apparently isn’t worth living.

We are again being asked to shed a tear for a law enforcement-adjacent industry. Social distancing and sheltering-in-place in response to the coronavirus has led to a downturn in driving. And if there’s fewer drivers on the road, proxy cops are seeing their revenue streams dry up.

Redflex, an Australian company that operates “traffic safety programs” in roughly 100 US and Canadian cities, warned that less traffic and suspended construction amid the pandemic will be a stress on its balance sheet.

“Approximately 15% of group revenue is dependent on volume-based contracts,” the company said in a regulatory filing Monday first spotted by The Wall Street Journal, hinting at its business line that includes enforcement cameras. “We anticipate our revenue from these contracts will be impacted broadly in line with the reduction in traffic volumes as well as the duration of the disruption.”

Yeah, that’s a real shame. It’s too bad a company that engaged in bribery to grab market share won’t be able to weather this unexpected downturn in questionably-obtained income. There are several competitors in the crowded “worst traffic cam ever” field, but Redflex did everything it could to stay ahead of the pack. This behavior resulted in other unexpected downturns, like refunding millions of dollars of tickets in multiple locations due to the tech’s inability to do the little things… like accurately judge vehicle speed.

Hope springs eternal at Redflex, even with COVID-19’s wet blanket dampening the company’s enthusiasm.

On a call with investors Monday, Redflex CEO Mark Talbot warned that further travel restrictions could delay new installations and therefore impact revenues.

Let’s hope there are no more installations ever, even if drivers return to the roads to undo the environmental damage reduction they inadvertently contributed to by staying home. Redflex is a terrible company with terrible ethics and terrible products. Its tech remains unproven, years after deployment. If the virus manages to take out Redflex, we’ll at least have one thing to thank the pandemic for.

Filed Under: covid-19, pandemic, red-light cameras, tickets
Companies: redflex

Illinois Comptroller Is Opting The State Out Of Collecting Red Light Camera Fees

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the full-stop dept

We’ve discussed red light cameras many times in the past, most often to point out how they really aren’t great at providing any benefit in vehicle safety, but are quite good at filling up the coffers of local governments on the backs of motorists. Given that these are essentially profit centers run by governments that aren’t well suited to maximizing profits, the contracts for these red light cameras are typically outsourced to private interests. And if that seems like a recipe for rampant corruption… well… yeah. Everyone from judges to my beloved home city of Chicago has found themselves being investigated, and sometimes charged, with wild corruption as part of these red light camera contracts. Contracts that, again, don’t make anyone any safer.

It’s bad enough that the Illinois State Comptroller has decided to opt out of its duties to collect on red light camera fees entirely.

Since 2012, the Illinois Comptroller’s office has served as a sort of collection agency for communities that are trying to get motorists to pay their red-light tickets. The comptroller’s tool: Deducting the amount owed in outstanding tickets from state-income tax refunds due to the violators — with about $11 million collected this way on behalf of 60 Chicago suburbs in 2019 alone — and forwarding most of the take to the towns while keeping a small cut.

But with federal investigators looking into red-light contractor SafeSpeed over allegations of pay-to-play — amid revelations about politically connected sales representatives for the company landing juicy commissions — Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza said her agency will no longer perform this function.

To be honest, it’s more than a little sad that it takes clownish corruption to get the wheels of state government to stop bilking its own citizens with red light cameras, but at least it’s happening. Mendoza wasn’t done, however. She has also publicly stated that red light cameras are very much about revenue rather than safety, and went on to recommend to all of the Chicago suburbs that they all simply cease their red light camera programs.

“They should revisit their programs entirely,” Mendoza said. “I don’t think it’s good public policy and I think it’s time it ends.”

Yes, they should. We’ve been calling for this for years. Having traffic safety procedures that don’t have anything to do with safety and are instead cynical methods for putting money in public coffers seems like the kind of thing we shouldn’t do.

Filed Under: comptroller, corruption, illinois, red-light cameras, susan mendoza
Companies: safespeed

The Guy The State Of Oregon Said Wasn't A Real Engineer Just Helped Convince The Government To Extend Yellow Light Intervals

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the so-much-for-shutting-the-guy-up dept

Longer yellow lights are on the way, thanks in part to a man a state government agency once forbade from criticizing red light cameras without a proper license.

As The Newspaper reports, the Institute of Transportation Engineers — which develops standards for managing all aspects of driving under the US Department of Transportation — has agreed with recommendations made by a team of engineers that found ITE-approved yellow light timing standards reduced public safety and resulted in more accidents.

Traffic signal yellow times could begin rising at intersections throughout the country next year. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) expects to have a proposal in early 2020 to address the problem of overly short yellow times for motorists making left-hand or right-hand turns. An ITE panel concluded in September that a team of engineers who objected to the practice were right on the fundamental issue: drivers approaching an intersection to make a turn under certain conditions can neither safely stop nor legally proceed without risking an automated ticket.

The appeal of ITE yellow light timing standards was brought by a group of engineers that included an engineer who the Oregon Board of Engineers once infamously claimed wasn’t an engineer.

The team that filed the appeal consisted of Oregon engineer Mats Jarlstrom, Safer Streets LA executive director Jay Beeber, North Carolina professional engineer Brian Ceccarelli, and the National Motorists Association‘s professional engineer Joe Bahen. The appeal used a physics model to prove mathematically that the ITE’s current recommended practice dangerously shortchanged drivers making turns.

Jarlstrom was fined $500 by the Oregon Board of Engineers for practicing engineering without a license. Jarlstrom does, in fact, have an engineering degree. He’s just not licensed by the state. The Board took this to mean it could tell Jarlstrom to stop presenting his red light camera research to public entities. A federal court disagreed and Jarlstrom obtained an official apology from the Licensing Board.

His criticisms of red light cameras (and the consequent shortening of yellow light times) were correct. ITE guidance allowed city engineers to shorten yellow times on left/right turn signals by approving a calculation that shaved 5 mph off the speed limit solely for the purpose of determining yellow light timing.

The research presented to ITE showed this made things much more dangerous for drivers approaching turning lanes during a yellow light. It created a “dilemma zone” where drivers were given two options, both of them bad: make an unsafe stop or get a ticket.

The “dilemma zone” is where cities using red light cameras make their money. Research cited by The Newspaper shows the majority of red light camera citations are issued to drivers who misjudged the end of a yellow light by less than 0.25 seconds.

ITE now appears to be distancing itself from camera-based enforcement efforts, something it has actively encouraged in the past. This is from a 2001 Congressional report on red light cameras that directly quotes ITE’s guidance:

When the percentage of vehicles that entered on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead. (Page 5, emphasis added).

Cities and towns looking for more revenue have taken those standards to heart, shortening yellow times and increasing enforcement. Municipalities and red light camera companies made money while drivers absorbed the risk. Now, ITE’s wording suggests the equation for yellow light timing shouldn’t be used solely for the purpose of calibrating red light cameras for maximum profitability.

The Recommended Practice is not intended to declare, at a snap shot in time, if a vehicle “has violated the red signal” and the use of this document and red light running enforcement should be at best loosely connected. Change intervals should be developed using variables that reflect average people and vehicles.

The deployment of red light cameras directly correlates with shortened yellow light intervals. Driver safety is the sales pitch, but the real motivating force is the extra income. Increasing yellow light intervals from the ITE minimum does actually have a positive effect on driver safety, but it’s hell on revenue streams. Here’s how things changed in Georgia after the state mandated a one-second increase in yellow light intervals.

Suwanee was first to end ticketing on January 19 after issuing just 68 citations under lengthened yellow (the equivalent of 110 tickets per month). This compared unfavorably to the 2008 average of 580 tickets per month which helped the city land $414,540 in revenue. In Duluth, the program issued 652 tickets in October compared to 215 last month. As a result, Duluth will let its contract for the program — which generated 10,386 tickets worth $727,020 last year — expire in May. In Dalton, 122 tickets were issued at the intersection of Highway 41 and Shugart Road after the light was increased in January. The previous year, the number of monthly tickets averaged 460.

The ITE spent years nudging cities towards “enforcement,” rather than safety. It’s finally dialing that back and it took the work of outsiders to get it moving in the right direction. Hopefully, this guidance will be applied and red light camera companies will find themselves in the dustbin of history.

Filed Under: ite, mats jarlstrom, oregon, red-light cameras, yellow light timing

Court Tells Man $172 Red Light Camera Ticket Is Actually Less Than $100 And Can't Be Challenged In Court

Legal Issues

from the you-see,-once-you-subtract-all-the-other-money-you're-obligated-to-pay... dept

Adding to the body of evidence showing that the use of traffic cameras is purely about revenue generation is this report from The Newspaper, which points out (yet again) how these systems are designed to eliminate due process and hasten the collection of fines and fees.

In this case, part of the designed due process elimination was already in place before the red light cameras went up. Certain citations are designed to be unable to be challenged, and this one — a red light infraction pinned on the wrong person — is one of them.

Recipients of red light camera tickets in Delaware cannot challenge the citation in court because the $172 fine is worth less than $100 by the reckoning of the Delaware Superior Court. Judge Abigail M. LeGrow last month denied the appeal of Stanley C. Lowicki, whose car was photographed by a red light camera while allegedly traveling through a red light at the intersection of Route 72 at Kenmore Drive on May 18, 2017.

Because he was not actually behind the wheel at the time of the alleged infraction, Lowicki challenged the citation before the local Justice of the Peace Court. The justice of the peace was not interested in his arguments and imposed the full $172 fine, which Lowicki appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. That court declined to consider the case since it is only able to hear appeals for “civil penalties” that exceed $100.

If you’re wondering how $172 can be less than $100, the Common Pleas courts is happy to explain it to you. In upholding the Justice of the Peace Court’s decision, the Common Pleas court performs the sort of math you usually see deployed by Hollywood studio accountants. From the decision [PDF]… no, wait a second. Let’s hang back a minute and savor this judicial turn of phrase:

On May 18, 2017, a car Stanley C. Lowicki owned was captured by a traffic camera disobeying a red light on Route 72 at Kenmore Drive.

Great. The traffic lights are sentient. So are the cars. Bring on Skynet etc.

OK. Here’s the court’s breakdown the $172 fine, which is pertinent to its finding that $172 is less than $100 and, therefore, incapable of being challenged.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the JP Court found Mr. Lowicki responsible for the violation and ordered him to pay $172.50, consisting of the following amounts:

Fine Amount: $75.00
Court Costs: $25.00
Court Security Fee: $10.00
Transportation Trust Fund: $37.50
State Police Fund: $7.50
Local Law Enforcement Fund: $7.50
Ambulance Fund: $10.00

To challenge a fine, it must be over $100. Breaking down all the fees attached to the actual “fine” shows most of the assessed fine isn’t actually the fine, but a bunch of handouts to everyone involved in the scheme (except ambulances, I guess…). This keeps the supposed real “fine” under the $100 mark, which makes it unassailable in court. Drivers (or non-drivers, as it is in this case) can hope to talk the local JP into dropping the fine (and its costly appendages) but that option is rarely successful.

Lowicki argued that this breakdown of “funds” that are inseparable from the “fine” is some bullshit. He’s correct. But it’s the state’s bullshit and it pretty clearly seems to be constructed this way to maximize revenue while reducing the state’s exposure to courtroom challenges.

The court agrees with the State and its fund-packing.

The term “civil penalty” in Section 4101(d)(12) corresponds to the amount of the fine assessed by the JP Court, which falls within the “civil or administrative assessment” referenced in Section 4101(d)(3). Section 4101(d)(12) specifies that any late fees assessed under subsection (d)(3) also will be considered part of the civil penalty for determining whether there is a right to appeal. By specifically referring to only one of the amounts contained in subsection (d)(3), the legislature made clear that the other costs and fees imposed were not included within the “civil penalty.” Section 4101(d)(3) refers to those amounts as costs and fees, not assessments or penalties.

And, just like that, $172 becomes less than $100 and tickets from red light cameras become nigh invincible. There is no recourse in Delaware and Stanley Lowicki’s only option appears to be [checks notes] obtaining a more obedient vehicle.

Filed Under: abigail legrow, bureaucracy, delaware, due process, fees, red-light cameras, stanley lowicki

San Mateo Dumps Red Light Camera Program After A Decade Of Continuous Failure

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the if-it-ain't-working,-don't-fix-it dept

Earlier this month, the city of San Mateo, California, decided to end its red light camera program. The official reason given is pure spin — a transparent attempt by the city to distance itself from its failed program.

According to the city, an evaluation of the program determined that the safety benefits of the program have plateaued as it has also become more challenging to administer.

You see? No one’s responsible for this mess. It’s just entropy or something. Not, oh I don’t know, the fact that the city couldn’t run the program competently to begin with. If safety is the stated goal, what the hell’s going on here?

The decision comes after the discovery of an error in yellow-light timing at the intersection of Saratoga Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard. The yellow-light timing when driving south on Saratoga Drive was inadvertently set to 3.4 seconds during a construction project. The state-mandated minimum for yellow lights is 3.6 seconds.

Thanks to this, almost 1,000 tickets are being dismissed and refunds are being issued. But this decision to call the whole thing off shouldn’t have taken a decade. Dave Price of the Palo Alto Daily Post points out the city has been aware of yellow-light timing issues since 2009.

In January 2009, the Post received a tip that the yellow light was set too short at an intersection monitored by a red-light camera in San Mateo. Drivers were getting caught in the intersection unexpectedly and given tickets.

So a Post reporter set up a video camera that records 30 frames every second and recorded the stoplight cycle. He then checked the recording frame by frame and discovered that, indeed, the yellow light was shorter than federal regulations.

Then we contacted an outside expert to check our work to make sure our conclusions were correct.

They were, and we printed the story.

The response from the city back in 2009 was just as exonerative, but nowhere near as littered with bureaucratese. The city claimed the Daily Post was “irresponsible” and only published the story for the clicks. The city also claimed the Daily Post was wrong. It backed this claim with zero evidence. The city never tested the lights itself.

Six years later, an NBC affiliate performed the same testing at San Mateo intersections. Again, it was determined the city’s yellow light timing was below federal guidelines. This time, the city refunded 948 tickets.

The city did nothing to prevent this from happening again. So, naturally, it happened again. And, finally, the city has decided to toss the program, rather than be forced to periodically confront its failure to run a legal red light camera program.

I’m sure the money had something to do with the refusal to kill this program earlier. According to numbers obtained by Price, the city netted at least $266,000 last year from red light cameras. Its partner — Redflex — did just about as well, collecting $239,000 in fees. That’s two sets of vested interests with quite a bit of power between them.

Behind all the cash-grabbing is the repeatedly disproven claim that unmanned cameras with the power to automatically issue tickets make drivers safer. It doesn’t work anywhere else. It didn’t work in San Mateo.

Supporters of red-light cameras have argued that they reduce T-bone crashes by people running the light. But studies have shown that over time, the number of rear-end crashes caused by people trying to avoid a photo ticket surpasses the T-bone crashes. In San Mateo, the number of accidents at the red-light camera intersections are higher now than they were when the cameras went in.

Thankfully, the program is dead and seems unlikely to be resurrected. More cities should make their drivers safer by doing the same thing.

Filed Under: california, red-light cameras, san mateo

Texas Cities Rush To Extend Camera Contracts Ahead Of The State's Red Light Camera Bans

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the turns-out-their-grandfathers-are-assholes dept

Twelve years after first broaching the subject, the Texas legislature has finally killed red light cameras. This follows years of fraud, corruption, and contractual language negating prior ban attempts. The Newspaper reports on the good news, which unfortunately comes with some bad news. The supermajority vote means the bill can’t be vetoed by the governor, but some cities have managed to grandfather in their resident-screwing cameras.

The majority of red light camera programs in the Lone Star State will be shut down under legislation that cleared the Texas legislature on Friday. By a vote of 23 to 8, the state Senate approved the partial ban on automated ticketing that had sailed through the House with a vote of 109 to 34. Because it passed with supermajority support, the bill becomes law upon being signed by Governor Greg Abbott (R), who made getting rid of cameras part of his campaign platform.

Most, but not all, of 37 cities running red light cameras would lose the ability to approve $75 photo citations issued by private, for-profit companies. Cities that have clauses that allow for early termination of their photo ticketing contract in the event of adverse state legislation must pull the plug immediately. Cities that struck the escape clause in anticipation of the legislature’s move can continue using the cameras until the contract expires — many of the deals have been extended for twenty years or more.

Arlington is one the cities that has decided to screw its residents porn-style, going at them from multiple angles. When the bill passed, city legislators unanimously voted to extend its contract with American Traffic Solutions from five years to twenty years. This move will give residents less protection from traffic cams’ perverse incentives than residents living elsewhere in the state. It also means they’ll be paying more tax dollars for this dubious privilege, as there will be no reason for ATS to maintain competitive pricing for the next couple of decades. Nor will it feel any pressure to improve its tech, which has performed poorly enough to result in millions of dollars of refunds.

The good news is these cities will have to deal with the state Attorney General if they want to continue utilizing traffic enforcement measures the state has banned. Tickets from red light cameras in the cities that opted for extended revenue generation rather than compliance with the law are going to have a hard time collecting on unpaid tickets. The law prohibits the DMV from blocking vehicle registrations and license renewals for unpaid tickets. The problem is drivers may not be aware of the ban and will continue to pay fines when they’re not legally required to.

Cities that have opted for further resident-screwing will face increased activism efforts that will fill the gaps in the Attorney General’s enforcement.

Jurisdictions that attempt to defy the legislature will have to take on state attorney general Ken Paxton, who is tasked by the bill with enforcing the shutdown. Byron Schirmbeck, state coordinator for Texas Campaign for Liberty, says his group will also hold cities to account.

“Fortunately the remaining camera sanctuary cities will no longer be able to block registrations for unpaid tickets making them completely optional,” Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. “The cities that do have to shut down their programs are also not allowed to pursue outstanding tickets and all existing registration holds will be removed. We will consider petition efforts and an increased trash your ticket campaign to go after those that choose to operate camera programs after the ban.”

While it’s always tough to watch a revenue stream dry up, the fact is traffic cameras do little more than generate unearned revenue. They don’t make drivers safer or encourage better driving. But that was never the goal. Revenue generation was the endgame. Fortunately for most Texans, the state has realized this money is no longer worth pursuing.

Filed Under: red-light cameras, texas

Chicago Wins 'Most Corrupt City' Award Due In No Small Part To Its Awful Redlight Camera System

Failures

from the we-won-we-won dept

We’ve talked a great deal about my home city of Chicago, largely for the myriad of awful, corrupt practices it has put in place around topics that we cover here. For instance, we have an alderman trying to shore up the city budget by taxing the shit out of Uber and Lyft, our Mayor thought it was a great idea to have his own private email accounts to conduct business, and a red light camera system so hilariously geared towards bilking money from citizens that the courts have tossed out huge swaths of the tickets it generated, which led the city to decide to make it barely less corrupt by a measure of tenths-of-seconds worth of leeway for drivers crossing the intersection.

Now, you might be thinking that all of this effort to be corrupt and insidious seems like a waste. Wouldn’t it be far easier, you might be thinking, to simply run the city in a sensible way? Wouldn’t that actually require less effort and be better for the people of Chicago? Perhaps, but then Chicago wouldn’t have received the prestigious award of “most corrupt city”, as it did this past week.

A report released Tuesday ranks Chicago as the most corrupt city in the country and Illinois as the third-most corrupt state.

“What we find is a very dreary picture. In nearly every sector, whether you talk about aldermen, you talk about Chicago schools, you talk about contracts, in every area corruption is still rife in the city of Chicago,” said Dick Simpson, lead author of the “Continuing Corruption in Illinois” study and a University of Illinois Chicago political science professor.

We did it! Suck it, every city in New Jersey! My hometown is the corruptest place in the land. And, as the UIC report notes, Chicago won this much sought after award in no small part to the very red light camera system we mentioned above.

Chicago’s red light camera scandal sent an assistant transportation department commission to prison for bribery and extortion.

“What that means is that it’s harder to get businesses to come here because of its corrupt state, we’re losing population and corruption is one of the reasons we’re losing population. We have undermined faith in government,” Simpson said.

Asked to comment on the UIC report, Mayor Rahm Emanuel responded by noting how awesome a job he’s done at not being corrupt, despite that not being the framing of the question at all. But that’s the kind of response you can expect from Rahm, who has overseen the most corrupt city’s government for more than seven years now. It has been under his watch that the camera system has flourished into the corruption monster it now is, not to mention it being under his watch that the Chicago Police Department has become the butt of a national joke.

So pop the champagne, fellow Chicago residents. It took a lot of hard work and effort, but we made it!

Filed Under: chicago, corruption, illinois, rahm emanuel, red-light cameras

Guy Fined $500 For Criticizing Government Without A Permit Sues Oregon Licensing Board

Free Speech

from the with-a-special-appearance-by-[STATE-REVENUE-GENERATOR-A] dept

Government entities tend to dislike people who criticize red light cameras. There’s little evidence supporting the theory they make driving safer, but there’s plenty of data out there showing just how profitable they can be, especially with a little fine tuning.

When someone takes it upon themselves to dig into traffic cameras, they make few friends at city hall. Oregon resident Mats Jarlstrom’s interest in red light cameras was piqued like so many others: by receiving a ticket. Unlike some others, Jarlstrom has a background in electronic engineering and the inherent inquisitiveness to follow through on a thorough examination of yellow light timing. He did some math and came to the conclusion the timing was off.

In his view, the leading mathematical formula for calculating the proper length of yellow lights (dating back to 1959) is incomplete, because it fails to account for how drivers decelerate before making a right-hand turn. Mats’s revised theory addresses that issue; his formula is based on the 1959 model but also factors in the time needed for turning drivers to clear the intersection.

Jarlstrom’s apparent mistake was not keeping these findings to himself. He spoke to local news stations about his research and presented his conclusions to a national conference of transportation engineers. The only entity that didn’t want to hear anything about his yellow light research was his local government. He tried to present his findings to the state traffic engineering body but found it less than receptive to new ideas.

In response to Jarlstrom’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, the Oregon state engineering licensing board opened an investigation. Unsurprisingly, it arrived at the conclusion that it hadn’t handed out an engineering license to Jarlstrom. Surprisingly, this effort wasted nearly two years of taxpayer time and money.

According to the Board, Mats illegally practiced engineering without a license every time he “critique[d]” the existing traffic-light system and shared his ideas with “members of the public.” Even his e-mail to the creator of the original formula was ruled illegal. So was his correspondence with local media.

Weird. Stupid. But at least the licensing law is narrowly-tailored, right?

The practice of engineering is defined to cover “any . . . creative work requiring engineering education, training and experience.” And the law is just as sweeping as it sounds. Even the Oregon Attorney General’s Office has admitted that it’s “a broad definition which may have a particular meaning to those persons trained and knowledgeable in engineering but may be unclear to anyone else.”

Having found something to use against a critic of outdated traffic light measuring systems, the Oregon licensing board went all out. It told Jarlstrom he could no longer refer to himself as an “engineer” (despite his BS in electronic engineering). It compiled a list of nine violations and fined him $500.

It also nailed down something else: the starring role of defendant in an upcoming civil rights lawsuit, as the Institute for Justice reports:

Today he filed a lawsuit [PDF] against the board in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the state’s requirement that citizens must obtain an engineering license in order to publicly debate anything involving “engineering.”

IJ points out the board’s regulation of speech is not just unconstitutional, it’s ridiculous.

Criticizing the government’s engineering isn’t a crime; it’s a constitutional right,” said Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Mats in the lawsuit. “Under the First Amendment, you don’t need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don’t need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don’t need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights. Whether or not you use math, criticizing the government is a core constitutional right that cannot be hampered by onerous licensing requirements.”

In essence, the Oregon board fined Mats Jarlstrom for doing math and then talking about it. Apparently, no one’s allowed to do their own math and speak publicly about it without the express, licensed permission of the state’s regulators. While the board is there to prevent non-engineers from harming the public by building faulty bridges and buildings (or, more to the point, fiddling with traffic light timing to drivers’ detriment), it shouldn’t be able to keep anyone from discussing their own research or referring to their engineering background and expertise.

Jarlstrom simply wanted his findings to be considered. He had no power to alter traffic light timing or otherwise pose some sort of safety risk to Oregon drivers. And yet, the licensing board subjected him to a lengthy investigation and told him what he could and couldn’t discuss publicly. Apparently certain topics of discussion are off limits to the general public unless the government ok’s it through a very long and expensive process.

Like many government things, the underlying concept is good, but the execution is horrible. And, in this case, the government was less concerned with the safety of the public than with shutting up a critic poking holes in long-held government theories.

Filed Under: engineering, licensing, mats jarlstrom, oregon, red-light cameras

Chicago Agrees To Make Red Light Camera System Barely Less Corrupt By Increasing Grace Period By 0.2 Seconds

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the yay? dept

It’s been well-established at this point that red light cameras, those devices that issue tickets and blinding lights to drivers not stopping on red, have always been less about safety and more about the revenue produced by the tickets. That really should be enough a story of corruption for anyone to cast a wary eye at cities implementing these cameras, but you really have to admire the brazen committment to corruption the city of Chicago displayed when initially contracting with the company Redflex for its camera system. The CEO for Redflex was brought up on federal charges for bribing city officials, including offering some condos and cars, because why mess around? Yet, even once we move past the corrupt manner the cameras were put in place, Chicago saw tons of its tickets tossed by a judge who noted that the city wasn’t even following its own rules for due process on those tickets. Furthermore, the cameras were set to have a “grace period,” the buffer time for which a driver could run a red light and still not be ticketed, of .1 seconds, even as other major cities’ grace periods were three times that, and it was laughably clear how this system was designed entirely to bring in city revenue.

Well, rejoice Chicagoans, because the city has been dragged into extending that grace period to the .3 seconds shared by other major cities, making the whole thing barely less nauseating.

Under the new policy, which was announced Monday, the grace period for Chicago’s red lights will move from 0.1 seconds to 0.3 seconds. This will bring the Windy City in line with other Americans metropolises, including New York City and Philadelphia. In a statement, the city agency said that this increase would “maintain the safety benefits of the program while ensuring the program’s fairness.”

Except it really doesn’t. This is the same system, no longer operated by Redflex due to the company’s corrupt practices, but still born of that same corruption and forever tainted by it. Unaddressed thus far are the city’s failings in due process, nevermind any valid analysis showing a safety benefit to any of this. Instead, the city has basically agreed to collect slightly less revenue in its traffic camera revenue program. This, by the way, is the city with the largest red light camera program in the nation. So… yay?

Filed Under: chicago, corruption, red-light cameras
Companies: redflex