Red light bribe scandal could be widespread

[alp227]

Source: Chicago Tribune

A fired executive of Chicago's beleaguered red light camera company alleges in a lawsuit that Redflex Traffic Systems doled out bribes and gifts at "dozens of municipalities" in 13 other states and says he is cooperating in an ongoing federal investigation.

The explosive allegations, accompanied by few specifics, suggest investigators may be examining Redflex's business practices around the country in the wake of the company's admission last year that its flagship camera program in Chicago was likely built on a $2 million bribery scheme.

Aaron Rosenberg, who was the company's top national salesman, said in a civil defamation claim against Redflex that he was made a "scapegoat" to cover up a long-standing practice of "providing government officials with lavish gifts and bribes" after the Tribune began asking questions about the Chicago contract.

Redflex fired Rosenberg and sued him for damages in Arizona court in February, largely blaming him for the company's wrongdoing in Chicago. In a counterclaim filed in October, Rosenberg disclosed that he provided information to local and federal investigators as well as to the outside attorney who conducted a damaging private investigation of the company.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-redflex-red-light-bribery-20140123,0,7901224.story

[nikto]

1. Could Rahm be involved, in any way?

Just askin'.

[Earth_First]

2. Interesting...

This is the corporation responsible for the 'boxes' in our municipality as well.

I passed this on to a local member of the media to see if this has legs locally as well.

Thanks for the OP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Here in Tucson, as well ...

I believe.

Interestingly, the county had them installed ... the people pressured government not to renew the contract ... yet, they are still allowed to operate without a contract, but don't send out tickets ... it's as if the company knows the decision will be reversed again.

[groundloop]

5. A private company sending out tickets should be unconstitutional

I thoroughly disagree with the concept of a private corporation sending out tickets, either for red light cameras or parking violations. Law enforcement is a government function.

As far as red light cameras themselves, after a wonderful 8 year old boy that I knew was killed by an idiot that ran a red light, I changed my thinking and am not so much against them (IF they're operated by the city or county and not a private contractor). ALSO, I remember reading a while back that by simply increasing the time that lights stay yellow the vast majority of red light violations will stop (but there will always be a few morons who think they have a reason to run red lights and endanger other peoples lives).

[X_Digger]

6. Several studies have shown that red light cameras actually *cause* more accidents.

And municipalities tend to shorten yellows as a means to raise revenue, which has the unintended consequence of folks racing through intersections, causing more collisions.

[happyslug]

9. Those same studies also show less injuries..

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Red-Light-Cameras-Cause-More-Accidents-But-Less-Injuries--235480081.html

The reason is simple, you get more fender benders do to people stopping for the light, but less accidents at speed as people try to run a yellow light.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/11/13/1113-coalition-argues-red-light-cameras-saving-lives.html

A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration looked at red-light camera performance in 7 U.S. cities. It found that while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent. Since right-angle crashes tend to be more severe, the lowered incidence effectively offsets the increase in rear-end accidents, at least from a monetary perspective. Total crash costs decreased by a total of $18.5 million across the 7 communities studied.

http://blog.esurance.com/are-red-light-cameras-actually-causing-accidents/#.UuFPrdIo4sY

Thus the real debate is NOT that Red Light Camera increase accidents, but do they reduce injuries? and the answer to the latter appears to be a solid "Yes".


Newark says it had a 64% DROP in accidents since red light cameras were installed:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/red_light_cameras_accidents.html

Newark was a report after four years of use of such cameras, and it supports the position that it takes over a year for people to adjust they driving habits from speeding to make a yellow light to slowing down to stop with a yellow light. Once people make the adjustment accidents start to decline.

That it takes time to adjust is well known in my area, we closed down a two lane road to be rebuilt and after two years of rebuilding it was re-opened and for the first year you saw a huge increase in the number of dead deer killed by speeding motorists. After about a year the deer had adjusted to the existence of the road and the number of killed deer dropped like a rock. Our local highway department expected it to drop, for they have seen similar jumps and then drops whenever they open a new road in a rural area. People are NOT that much different then deer, it takes a while to adjust and the Newark studies seems to support the concept it takes over a year for most people to adjust to red light cameras.

[Fumesucker]

10. You didn't address the shortened yellow lights

And that is done solely to increase revenue, it's distinctly anti-safety.

[happyslug]

11. I did read about them and the solution is to lengthen them

Thus not a real issue. It appears the shorten yellow lights is for revenue enhancements, but the people shorting those yellow light times cite other reasons, including the need to move more traffic through the intersections and by shortening the Yellow Light times, you can increase the Green light Times. As long as the Shorten yellow light is within some norm for yellow light time, the timing of the yellow light will be left to the decision of whoever installed the light.

Short Yellow lights have been a problem nation wide for decades. Some areas use the max time permitted for Yellow Lights, other use shorter time periods. Often the State gives a range of time, each to be set based on the speed of the traffic in that intersection. I suspect most municipalities with Red Light Cameras set the Yellow Light for what is the Speed limit in that area NOT the speed most cars are going. i.e. set for 25 mph when most people are doing 35-40 mph. Before these cameras, those lights were set for prevailing traffic speeds, 35-40 mph but now shorten to what the legal speed limit is.

Thus the timing for the yellow lights have DROPPED, but appear to be still within the legal limits for such yellow lights (and this has lead to a push to increase yellow light times). States need to set yellow light times and require all lights to meet those specs. In all but four states lights are controlled at the State Level (I live in Pennsylvania, one of the four states without state control of lights). Those lights should be set at prevailing speed not legal speed but in most cases are set at the lower legal speed.

[imthevicar]

12. In NJ

Yellow Lights Have to be a Minimum of 1 Second/10 MPH speed limit. IOW (50 MPH=5 seconds) Before these cameras are used. That to me is a fair yellow light standard. BUT law enforcement is still a government function.

[jsr]

7. Recommend

[Blue_Tires]

8. Oh, I'm pretty sure Redflex's "sales strategies" were employed

in dozens of states/counties/municipalities...

I'm also betting they've earned ten times whatever bribe monies they had to dish out....