City red-light camera vendor under scrutiny (Now Under Federal Investigation)

Business the Chicago way.

It happens in every city, town, neighborhood in the good ol' USA. imho it's good that there are those whose jobs are to expose wrongdoing.

Here is a link with more info I think:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3926.asp

Sounds like the city official on the take needs to spend the next 15 years in jail.

Fred

The city on Tuesday accused Redflex of covering up the allegations and barred it from bidding on a lucrative new speed camera program Mayor Rahm Emanuel hopes to begin testing in November. The administration also referred the allegations to the city inspector general.

In Chicago, they first will have to investigate the city inspector general!!

Fred

Couldn't agree more on both points. We need to start setting a few examples here, just like the system does for everyone else (i.e. NON government/city officials like you and me).

- Phil

It this case somebody might get caught!

(heh heh heh)

Safety of public official jobs and their lavish lifestyle.

The original article is now available without having to register.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-red-...

There was an update yesterday that I didn't post

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-17/news/ct-met-em...

This update is super fresh

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-preckw...

If memory servers me, one of Red-Flex's big wigs was a campaign sponsor and close associate of Rahm's.

Follow the money, it will always lead you to the cookie jar.

Trib article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-resolute-ema...

Come on, it's all about the kids. Oh wait, that's the rationale for the upcoming speed cams. We have something far more effective here, except the city can't make money off them-they're called speed bumps.

The rep who received the commissions was a Redflex contractor. Basically a normal (but lucrative) sales commission. His friendship with a city employee who oversaw the contract with Reflex (and now works for a Redflex-affiliated organization) is what smells funny.

You're right. I got the two men mixed up. I also wasn't pointing out that the commission meant anything was wrong, I was just floored by how high it was.

There was another article in the Tribune yesterday about Marty O'Malley.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-22/news/ct-met-re...

Thanks for posting the link to this article, I've been waiting for this.

- Phil

Not surprised. Most important is the need for effective and timely oversight

is a cesspool.

"Inspector general subpoena in red-light camera probe"

This is an article that's currently under the "plus" category. Hopefully, in a couple of days, it will be available online. I'll provide the link then.

...which is the worst....Chicago or the county it is located in.

Ron

These camera companies are leeches.

Crooks!

Here's the link for the Inspector General article

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-13/news/ct-met-re...

Business the Redflex way. <- Fixed that for you.

Thanks for that link!

Ron

I found this article today and Chicago's Channel 5 morning news spoke about this.

Article: Emanuel is counting on raising at least $20 million from tickets issued to motorists by speed cameras in 2013 to balance his budget.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-speed-camera...

what a political jerk.

If I recall RedFlex here in AZ and some other locales were being investigated for some shady dealings so they could get their cameras installed. It's all about the money...as usual.

My garmin is picking up red light cameras on the interstate.

Hang 'em high!

Fred

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-08/news/ct-met-ch...

"Emanuel announced the action against Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. following the Chicago Tribune’s report today that the chairman of Redflex’s Australian parent company resigned this week and trading in the company's stock was suspended amid an intensifying investigation into allegations of corruption in its Chicago contract."

I really have to hand it to the Chicago Tribune for exposing the corruption in the first place. It was a tiny blip that everyone was trying to sweep under the rug, but where there's smoke, there's fire.

Sounds, too, like Rahm Emanuels (& other top administration officials), bank accounts should be examined for sloshing cash. Loans for the purchase of property is another long used ploy in politics to cover up graft.

When citizens get angry enough perhaps they'll take action to rid themselves of these political parasites. Until then, it just makes sad newsprint.

Fred

Feds probing Redflex deal

U.S. attorney subpoenas financial records of ex-city official who oversaw program

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-16/news/ct-met-re...

I'm Shocked, Shocked !

Move along. Nothing to see here. There are no hard-and-fast statistics to unequivocally back up these rumors of kickbacks and other forms of financial corruption associated with RLCs.

Just like the rumors that at least some municipalities have capitalized on short yellow light timing to enhance their revenues from newly installed RLCs (notice I didn't say "shortenED").. it's all just mythical rumors that cannot be proven by a google-searching statistician from the comfort of his easy chair, which means... it NEVER happened.

And remember, no matter how much collateral damage there may or may not be from RLCs, it's all for your own good... comrade.

If some people who happened to be in just slightly the wrong place at the wrong time, they simply have to pay for the greater good, all done remotely, via evidence collected through the narrow lens of a camera, and the unflinching programming of a computerized system... Say, that reminds me of another controversial program...

Thank you for not using the word "shortened".

You are invited to provide recent facts that cities are abusing camera enforcement (Note I started a thread in which this might be the case - see http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39094)

Until you can, then you are expressing your opinions unsupported by facts.

I wish you had made clear that the personal attack was on me and not BoxCar, whom you quoted. Not everyone would realize that.

You are invited to provide recent facts that cities are not abusing camera enforcement. Until you can, then you are expressing your opinions unsupported by facts.

Guess what: google searches don't provide any conclusive evidence - much less "proof" - regarding questions involving motive and intent, two key words relevant to whether or not there is an "abuse" happening. Unsurprisingly, politicians who seek to "abuse" something for personal, financial, or political gain will always have a plausible cover story. If you want to keep on ignoring all the circumstantial evidence of corruption, a condition that in this case extends beyond financial, go right ahead.

By they way, what you think is an opinion, and what you think is a fact, is itself just your own opinion. Your choice of "facts" ensures that.

Oh, I do love seeing "opinion masquerading as fact" arguments.

The following are established facts:
1: Red Light Cameras exist.
2: Yellow Light times do not follow Federal guidelines at some intersections where RLC cameras are installed.
3: Red Light Camera vendors receive a percentage of the money generated from RLC fines.
4: Municipalities receive the rest of the money generated from RLC fines.
5: Persons targeted by RLCs are not penalized in any way except financially.

Those are the absolute facts. They are real, tangible, and provable. The conclusions drawn from those facts are opinions. For example my opinion, based upon the facts presented, is that RLCs do not exist for the purpose of enforcing road safety but solely to generate revenue for the municipality. Reasoning: if the cameras were set up to enforce road safety, then motorists "captured" by RLCs should be receiving penalty points to their licenses for violations as well as possible adjustments to their insurance rates, thus risking suspension or revocation of their license to drive. Instead, motorists only pay a monetary fine (fact 5 above) that is apportioned between the camera vendor (fact 3) and the municipality (fact 4). The fact that some intersections that have RLCs installed do not follow Federal guidelines regarding the timing of yellow lights (fact 2) is incidental, since all we appear to focus on here are intersections with RLCs that have short yellow light times. It is logical to presume that there must be intersections throughout the country that have RLCs but do not have short yellow lights. At the same time it is also logical to presume that there are intersections without RLCs in place but with short yellow lights.

^^ Yep.

For all the obsessive-compulsiveness by one person about the "facts" of this matter, the central crux of this issue doesn't even depend on the facts.

The crux of this issue is a matter of opinion:

Whether all the well-documented drawbacks...

(including ensnaring people in much larger scope of pissant violations; making violaters out of those who were acting in good faith, even if not perfectly exact stop timing; increased rear-end collisions in the approach to intersections; having complications due to an entirely different scheme of delivering the a ticket; allowing public officials with yet another opportunity to be bribed; and many others)

...are worth the supposed benefit, namely reducing serious injuries due to high-speed intersection incursions by people who "blow through" intersections when their light was red.

Some people want RLCs to catch people who slip though when they should have stopped. That may be true, but it's also true that's an annoyance, rather than the real problem of high-speed intersection incursions that RLCs are supposed to address. Those who want a automated system to essentially "nag the hell out of people" every time they don't conform exactly, should get the hell out of my country. They'd be much happier in 1980s East Germany, as long as they were not the object of the universal surveillance/suspicion. I know they would because I was there (or at least, very nearby). I saw how they lived. That's not my country, and anyone who wants to make it that way in ways small or large had better plan to face opposition.

I have spent many years driving full time. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people do not intentionally "blow through" intersections. Maybe there are a few thrill junkies who do that for sport, but my assessment is that they are a tiny minority of the already tiny minority of drivers who "blow through" intersections. In any case, it's the people who do it unintentionally who are the problem, because they are giving NO consideration to other traffic. They are indeed an accident waiting to happen.

I have seen drivers "blow through" intersections on several occasions. In all cases, it was obvious they were not paying attention. How do I know this? I watched them... their lack of any reaction. Their eyes saw the intersection but their brains failed to process the incoming data. These people are indeed a serious accident waiting to happen. But they are that way when they aren't at an intersection too.

The argument goes that by catching people like this beforehand, that fine will serve as a reminder to them the next time. That may be true in a few cases, but in general, I don't buy it, because if fear of death or serious injury doesn't make them pay attention, a fine certainly will not. They blow through intersections (and do a lot of other stupid things) because they fail to pay attention, and that is the root that needs to be struck.

As I said, in the end, it all comes down to opinions. Some people like RLCs and similar devices because it appeals to their sense of "order" and "fairness" while disregarding the fundamental fact that RLC systems treat very different classes of infractions the same. The fine is the same for stopping five feet too far forward as it is for someone who narrowly avoided a collision. And that, in my opinion, is wrong.

And that's without even getting into the surveillance aspect of these cameras, as is inevitably the case, when the data ends up being retained indefinitely.

In my opinion, that is not fair, and based on my observation, it is a very poor way to address the real problem. Drivers who blow through intersections need to be pulled over ASAP and issued a stiff moving violation citation. Doing some half-ass automated scheme that doesn't address this issue, while also managing to collect lots of money from people who in the past would have never been bothered, is in my opinion a very poor tradeoff, and also fits part of an ongoing pattern of doing the easy (and by the way, more profitable) thing, rather than doing the right, but harder, thing.

Others have different opinions. None of them will ever be dissuaded by any argument here, which will also have no effect on RLC installations/removals anywhere.

And that is why this is my final post on this topic.

Final post on the topic or not, I totally agree with everything you've said. Almost every post in various threads, I can't help but like what you say. I am very against RLCs for so many reasons, and I know exactly where you're coming from. I'm hoping that with the Redflex scandal, more red light companies will be scrutinized for possible corruption, and I'm hoping that there will be federal regulations that every company has to follow. The ultimate dream of mine is that red light cameras will be outlawed all together.

Redflex corruption goes back to Daley administration.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met--chicago-red...

I really like the comment from James Walker.

EDIT

I knew the name sounded familiar. He posted in my other thread.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/38811

Frankly I'm not surprised. This whole business model is rife with conflicts of interest.

Incredibly well said.

For RLC systems to truly be fair, you would need some sophisticated artificial intelligence and heuristics to weigh in on whether an infraction was worthy of enforcement action and that would cost too much. Some simpler ways to keep from ensnaring the majority of "relatively innocent" offenders would include waiting a short period of time (like one second) after the light turns red before issuing violations for those entering the intersection, instead concentrating on the 7 additional vehicles which continue to drive through the light after it turns red.

Of course as you so eloquently stated, this conversation is academic because enacting these measures will significantly reduce revenue, so it will almost certainly never happen. Cash is king.