Most Popular

Most Viewed
Most Commented
News
"Most Popular" tools sponsored by:
Recent Articles
Related Articles

Recent Articles By Chad Garrison

National Features

  • Miami New Times
    The Murder of Master Do

    In a city plagued by killings, the most perplexing death is that of a killer.

    ByTamara Lush
  • SF Weekly
    Pitching "Woo-Woo"

    He'll find you a parking space and even watch your car--if the meter maids let him.

    By Ashley Harrell
  • Nashville Scene
    Spank the Honkey

    The victim of a racial slur exacts a special kind of retribution.

    By P.J. Tobia
  • Broward-Palm Beach New Times
    Spring Break is Still Awesome

    Try as it might, Ft. Lauderdale still can't shake America's die-hard partiers.

    By Michael J. Mooney

This past January, St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa wrote a letter to the editor in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch stating that "local and national studies indicate that cameras are an effective tool in altering behavior." Exactly which studies Mokwa was citing is unclear. The police chief was unavailable for comment for this story, but police department spokeswoman Schron Jackson informs the RFT that the department has yet to study the efficacy of the cameras in St. Louis.

Nonetheless, a 2001 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that intersections with traffic cameras in Oxnard, California, saw a 29 percent decrease in injury crashes. The cameras also led to fewer accidents at other street corners. The IIHS study is often cited by policymakers who are looking to defend red-light cameras.

More recent studies, though, have found the cameras to have significant drawbacks.

A 2005 report published by the Federal Highway Administration showed that while red-light cameras lowered right-angle (or "T-bone") collisions at intersections by 25 percent, the cameras increased rear-end collisions by 15 percent, owing to drivers slamming on their brakes to avoid a ticket.

Another study, published last year by the Virginia Transportation Research Council, found that the cameras led to an increase in comprehensive crash costs as a result of the increased frequency of rear-end collisions. Still another report from the Texas Transportation Institute discovered that extending the length of the yellow signal by one second had a much greater impact on reducing accidents than the use of traffic cameras.

In 2006 Jeff Rainford told the RFT that Slay's interest in red-light cameras began after the tragic case of Eunice Felder, an 82-year-old woman killed by a hit-and-run driver while crossing the street at the corner of McCausland and Plateau avenues in Dogtown. "That's pretty much what started it," Rainford said at the time.

Why, then, does that intersection not have a camera today? Slay spokesman Ed Rhode says it's because the mayor doesn't get involved in selecting which street corners receive cameras. Still, the fact remains that the cameras aren't used specifically at the city's "most dangerous" intersections — at least not according to accident statistics maintained by the St. Louis police.

For example, in October the corner of Memorial and Walnut streets downtown became the seventh city intersection to receive red-light cameras. But that corner is listed as only the 44th most dangerous street-crossing in the city, according to the police. Meanwhile, the corner of Grand Boulevard and Gravois Avenue had 91 accidents in 2006, ranking it as the fifth most dangerous intersection. Yet that intersection does not have red-light cameras installed.

Rhode explains that the city chooses intersections based on an "informal process" that takes into consideration input from the courts, the police department and the city counselor's department. "The primary criteria is safety," ensures Rhode.

State Representative Charles Portwood isn't convinced. This past December, the Ballwin Republican authored legislation to standardize the way Missouri municipalities employ photo-enforcement programs. Among the many mandates outlined in his bill is a provision requiring cities to evaluate their photo-enforcement programs every three years to determine what, if any, effect they have on public safety.

Officials in other states have been accused of shortening the length of yellow lights that are equipped with cameras. To prevent similar allegations in Missouri, Portwood's bill would require the Missouri Department of Transportation to certify the signal timing on all lights equipped with cameras.

"Don't get me wrong," says Portwood. "I'm not trying to get anyone out of trouble for running a red light. I just think there ought to be standards, and everyone ought to know those standards. Right now, the state is prohibited from auditing red-light companies because there is no law on the books on how the state can direct these companies and what to do if there is a problem with one."

Portwood filed a similar bill last year that was attached to another piece of legislation. He believes the bill had enough votes to clear the Missouri House of Representatives, but it died when legislators struck down the accompanying measure. The lawmaker says lobbyists for the red-light camera industry are now pushing hard for statewide legislation that could mitigate controversy surrounding the cameras in St. Louis City, Arnold and other municipalities.

"The industry wants a state law addressing the cameras so they can say, 'Hey, the legislature is OK with us,'" says Portwood. "But my fear is that they'll force movement of a bill that does nothing and doesn't have the checks and balances of the one I've crafted."

The state representative also has a provision in his bill requiring that no fine from red-light cameras exceed $100 — including court costs — and that all the money collected goes to the local school district.

"All I'm saying is that if it's really about public safety, then money should be no object," reasons Portwood. "It shouldn't matter if we spend it on the schools or whatever. But in theory, if the cameras worked as well as advertised, they'd already be coming down because there would be no revenue."

Joe Scott speaks with the silver tongue of a criminal defense attorney — and for good reason. His Pennsylvania-based company makes and distributes PhotoBlocker, an aerosol spray that is said to make your license plate "invisible" to red-light cameras.

"We're not encouraging anyone to run red lights or speed," stresses Scott. "All we're saying is that the system is rigged. It's not a level playing field. These cameras are notorious for making mistakes and police departments have been found to shorten the length of yellow lights to set traps. Under those circumstances, you have a right to protect yourself from unjust traffic tickets."

PhotoBlocker leaves a glossy sheen on the license plate that reflects the flash from a camera, resulting in an overexposed image. "The law says that your license plate has to be visible, but nowhere does it say it has to be photogenic," argues Scott. "If they can't read the numbers on your license plate, they don't know who you are and they can't send you a ticket."

Seven years after first crafting Photo­Blocker out of a secret recipe of shellac, varnish and sundry chemicals, Scott boasts he's sold nearly 600,000 cans of the ticket repellent. Dozens of Internet vendors sell the product for prices ranging from $19.99 to $29.99. Yet for all its popularity online, few — if any — local retailers stock it.

Write Your Comment show comments (13)

  1. great article!!!!!

    Comment by dre — March 5, 2008 @ 04:04PM

  2. St. Louis city officials push back the rollout of red-light cameras

    Allison Retka
    St. Louis drivers and attorneys have a few more weeks before having to deal with the implications of cameras snapping pictures of red-light runners.

    City authorities have pushed back the rollout of red-light cameras in the city until mid-to-late April, said Ed Rhode, spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay.

    That will give the city time to deal with computer problems at the court level and attorneys more time to prepare for a possible onslaught of clients wondering whether they can beat the high-tech traffic cops.

    The photo tickets are a growing trend locally. St. Louis has installed cameras at two intersections. Florissant, St. Peters and Arnold have them issuing tickets already. Kansas City says it is about to add some as well and Webster Groves is considering it.

    Each camera in St. Louis is catching an average of 450 red-light violations a month in the trial run alone. With such a wealth of potential tickets, attorneys are debating whether the tickets are prosecutable if the driver cannot be identified and whether footage from the still and video cameras is public record.

    How they work

    The red-light cameras that will soon be fully operational in St. Louis, located at the intersections of Hampton Avenue and Wilson Avenue and Hampton and Chippewa Street, are triggered by cars that enter the intersection while the stoplight is red.

    The camera takes two high-resolution photos - one of the car behind the stop line or crosswalk with the red light visible ahead, and one of the car in the middle of the intersection with the light still red.

    The photos and an accompanying 12-second video clip - the video cameras are constantly filming - are transmitted to ATS's headquarters in Arizona, where staffers crop the photos and zoom in on the car's license plates. Once the plates are run through a registration system, the photos and registration information are sent to the police department operating the camera.

    The footage waits in a "queue" until a police officer examines the photos, watches the video and approves a traffic citation.

    St. Louis ordinances require police to issue a citation within 60 days of the violation, but usually the citation is mailed to the violator within three to five days of the driver zooming through a red light.

    The citation itself includes three color photographs captured by the camera and directs the drivers to a Web site where they can access the photos and watch the video of their alleged violation.

    In St. Louis, each camera captured about 15 red-light violations a day.

    Handling a red light ticket

    Because the fines are relatively minimal, usually between $75 and $100, many people may choose to pay the tickets, said Doug Heagler, a Clayton attorney who handles traffic violations. Tickets from the St. Louis cameras will be $100 - $31 of the ticket goes to ATS.

    For those who contest the tickets, it remains to be seen how St. Louis prosecutors will react, he said.

    "Every municipality is going to handle it differently," Heagler said. "Some prosecutors are very strict about things in their community."

    Nick Zotos, a St. Louis attorney who handles traffic violations, has contested red-light tickets for clients in Arnold and said the city prosecutor "hasn't made a fuss" about amending tickets for a lesser violation.

    But he said the traditional arguments against red-light cameras still come into play.

    "It's pretty simple: If you can't identify the driver, you don't have a case," Zotos said.

    It's important to remind clients of this fact, said Wendy Thornburg, a St. Louis attorney with Tuteur & Associates, which runs the Web site PulledOver.com.

    "It's almost impossible to tell who's actually driving the car," Thornburg said. "If you loan the car to someone and they run a red light, you have to pay the ticket. That's how I would contest it."

    The city of Florissant opted to issue its red-light tickets as public safety offenses instead of moving violations that count against a driving record.

    "I think that's why Florissant made theirs a public safety offense, because they knew we would fight them all that way," Thornburg said.

    If clients call in with traffic citations from red-light cameras, she urged attorneys to find out if they were actually driving the car. If it was them behind the wheel, it would cost clients more to have an attorney contest the ticket. But if they were not driving the car at the time of the violation, there's strong reason to fight the ticket, Thornburg said.

    Kansas City attorneys also have questions and concerns about the soon-to-be-installed cameras in their area.

    Using the cameras to capture violators seems to put the burden of proof on the defendant, instead of the city, Aimee Gromowsky, defense attorney, said. If a driver runs a red light, he or she is sent a bill and if the citation isn't paid, a warrant will be issued.

    Gromowsky said usually the defendant is given a court date and they have the option to fight it.

    "Now, what's the average Joe going to do when he gets the bill in the mail? He will probably just pay it. That's not what the justice system is about. It's supposed to protect," she said.

    Donald L. Crow, defense attorney and Grandview municipal judge, said he doesn't have any concerns. The cameras are only taking pictures of the license tag and not the driver, so without evidence of "seeing that it's you in the car, you can contest it. [The city is] hoping you will just send in your check. But it's the city's obligation to prove you're in the car. If anyone challenges it, they will be successful."

    Is it public?

    Municipalities are handling the public record issue in different ways. A resident who was not cited for a ticket but wants to see the footage from the cameras in three metro communities can't get access without a subpoena.

    St. Louis is the lone exception, and said nonviolators can obtain the footage from the city courts.

    Subpoenas make sense for civil suits provoked by car accidents, said Zotos. But for any criminal charge - traffic or otherwise - police are required by law to hand over evidence in the discovery phase, Zotos said.

    Most U.S. cities doing business with American Traffic Solutions, the company that operates red-light cameras in St. Louis, Florissant and Arnold, consider the footage public record, said Sherri Teille, spokeswoman for ATS.

    The footage belongs to the police departments, but nonviolators can usually get at the images with an open records request, Teille said.

    Not so in the St. Louis area.

    Maj. Jeff Finkelstein of the St. Peters Police Department said police had discussed whether camera footage should be public record and decided against it.

    "We believe it could be subpoenaed," Finkelstein said. "That's why the company retains [the images] for three years."

    St. Peters has a contract for red-light cameras with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., based in Scottsdale, Ariz.

    Florissant Police Capt. John Foster said police had used the footage from its cameras for

    their own investigations, but the photos and film would not be available to the public without a court order.

    Lt. Bill Bonsack with the Arnold police force said its department considers the images proprietary material.

    "Could I get you a photo and video clip for John Smith running a red light? Well, in most cases, no. Not unless there's a court order on it," he said. "It would identify someone who is technically being charged with a crime, and that's not fair and would not be public record."

    Kansas City hasn't made any decisions on the public record status of the camera footage.

    A company was selected this month to install the cameras, and a traffic study has to be conducted before they will be up and running, said Dennis Gagnon, spokesman for the city's Public Works department. The Council will also have to approve the locations of the cameras and draft a final ordinance.

    Other red light cameras

    ATS is also talking with Webster Groves officials about installing cameras at railroad intersections, said Dan Reeb, a development manager with ATS' St. Louis office. Cameras would help track drivers who try to "beat the train" and also help the city meet federal safety guidelines that would allow trains to pass intersections without sounding their whistles.

    Red-light cameras for Kansas City were approved by the City Council in 2006, but funding problems kept the city from purchasing equipment.

    Staff reporter Trish Mehaffey contributed reporting to this story.

    Copyright 2007 Dolan Media Newswires
    Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

    Comment by jason — March 5, 2008 @ 04:07PM

  3. The intersection at Hampton and Hwy 44 has one of these and, given that it is a dangerous intersection,(that people run all the time), I can understand it. However, the intersection of Kingshighway and Arsenal has one and I see it malfunction almost every night when I'm on my way home from work. Does anyone monitor these to ensure that they are working properly? Of course not.

    Comment by kathy — March 5, 2008 @ 07:13PM

  4. Having just moved to St. Louis from Orange County, CA, I experienced these over the last few years. A lawsuit was brought against the county to fight the revenue sharing with the equipment company which was won. I believe the grounds were based on the incentive of mis-calibrating them to increase revenue by the equipment company. They had to be tested and certified to ensure proper operation. St. Louis residents need to make this happen or they will be taken to the cleaners with these "safety" signals.

    Comment by Russell Cummings — March 6, 2008 @ 10:39AM

  5. I received one of these tickets when they first went up. I missed it by a foot. If your front tire is on or behind the white line when it turns red you just coughed up a 100 bucks. One inch passed and your safe. Florissant has been bombarded by these in the last year and i drive through three of them just to get home. With about 40% going to Arizona for some company how can it not be a money thing. Give all the money to the schools and lets see if they continue to put these up everywhere.

    Comment by Josey — March 6, 2008 @ 11:30AM

  6. Synchronizing Lights will go very far to increase safety and decrease emissions. But his of course does not increase city revenue. There is a ticket light at Goodfellow and Natural Bridge and the previous lights seems intentionally out of sync...is this to actually encourage light running. It's pretty simple, if lights are synchronized, the "need" to run lights would be significantly reduced and cleaner air would result.

    Comment by Bob — March 6, 2008 @ 05:30PM

  7. Good article. What kills me about these people crapping becasue they got their picture taken and no proof it was really them is that if the title & registration is in your name then shouldn't you be responsible? No one is driving my car without permission and if you are in Missouri then you fill out the same forms I do each year to tell the collector if you've changed vehicles. It's way past time for people to grow up and say "Hey, it's my car so I am responsible." Instead of whinning and running to laywers.

    I wish there were more cameras in place and at stop signs as well as light controlled intersections. Do away with Right Turns on Red as well since most people just roll through anyway these days. My life and vehicle isn't worth Joe Blow saving 30 or 40 seconds by being a self-centered ass in their car.

    Comment by Craig — March 7, 2008 @ 08:40AM

  8. One of the things I didn't see mentioned in this article, is that ATS, the provider of the equipment, often charges either rental fees OR purchase fees for the cameras, and installation.

    The cities also pay all fees associated with maintenance, electricity to operate them, upgrades, etc.

    I believe (but not 100 percent sure) that Arnold actually is paying off the cameras/equipment totaling HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars-so whatever revenue is generated, might be lost on the equipment, at least the first few years. Then it will probably be time to upgrade!

    Another factor to look at is MODOT's involvement, and unwillingness to cooperate with fixing red lights, timing issues, etc--UNTIL MODOT was brought into the fold and offered a share of the profits earned from cameras on MODOT highways.

    This is a pretty big money grab by many cities in Missouri, thanks to Arnold's willingness to be the guinea pig. Thanks for taking time to highlight the issue again and again. Without someone daring to expose the negatives, the poor would be most likely incurring the biggest percentage of this money grab (as they do with tobacco taxes.)

    Comment by Vicky — March 7, 2008 @ 10:22AM

  9. Thanks for your article. I thought you would find this interesting. It is an article I found on yahoo regarding traffic lights and violations cited to the state of Maryland's police force. It would be interesting to see how many violations Missouri police have committed and if they are being held to the same standard.

    Md. police officers ignore speed cameras

    ROCKVILLE, Md. - No matter what the cameras say, some drivers are refusing to pay dozens of $40 speeding fines. Who? Police officers.

    In the last eight months of 2007, Montgomery County's new speed cameras recorded 224 cases in which police vehicles were recorded traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit, according to department records.

    Supervisors dismissed 76 of those citations after determining the officers were responding to calls or had valid reasons to break the speed limit.

    But that left 148 who didn't have that excuse, and about two-thirds of those citations haven't been paid, said police Lt. Paul Starks.

    The police union says officers shouldn't pay because the citations are issued to the owner of a vehicle, in this case the county, and not to the driver.

    Police Chief Thomas Manger doesn't buy that argument.

    "We are not above the law," Manger said. "It is imperative that the police department hold itself to the same standards that we're holding the public to."

    Manger said officers who continue to ignore citations might be disciplined.

    Comment by Robert Glus — March 9, 2008 @ 01:42AM

  10. This is a very good article. I read it in the RFT paper and decided to come on the website just to see what others are saying. It seems all are in agreement except one yahoo. This person seems to be OK with big brother watching their every move. They probably love the idea of the government wiretaps also.

    Comment by Greg — March 10, 2008 @ 01:41PM

  11. Fanstastic article!!!!

    Comment by Sherry — March 20, 2008 @ 12:10PM

  12. Great article! However, I do think the cameras are good for controlling the flow of traffic. Being from Chicago, everyone sits in the middle of the intersection waiting to turn, and usually it has been red for some time while cars are still turning to get out of traffic. But then that causes the other cars wanting to turn to have to wait, an ultimately miss their turn signal because they had to wait for traffic to clear, and it continues like that everyday. These would be great there!;)

    Comment by CJ — March 31, 2008 @ 11:02AM

  13. The City of St. Louis Code of Ethics prohibits funds from being diverted from the City, to private companies, at tax payer expense. Applying this to Red Light cameras will not make them illegal, but will sever revenues and private company interests.

    Comment by gerard — April 7, 2008 @ 06:53PM

About Us | Work for Riverfront Times | Esubscribe | Free St. Louis Classifieds | National Advertising | Privacy Policy
Problem With the Site? | RSS | Site Map
©2008 Village Voice Media All rights reserved.

Riverfront Times Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff

buy, sell, trade (4,262)
musician (464)
rentals (4,429)
jobs (3,002)
adult entertainment (1,115)
NOW CLICK THIS