Baytown Red Light Camera Monitored Intersections show dramatic increase in all types of accidents

 

Accident Type	2009 report	2010 report	% change
Total accidents	50	70	+40%
Red Light Related Accidents	18	20	+12%
Injury Accidents	8	14	+75%
Red Light Related Right Angle Accidents	11	15	+37%
Rear End Accidents	23	42	+83%
Total Injuries	13	18	+39%

 

 

Some Intersections show a shocking increase in certain types of accidents, some of the most dramatic are;

Hwy 146 @ Garth rd; Red Light Related Accidents up 400%

Garth rd @ I-10 EB; Total Accidents up 350%

Bus. 146 @ Hwy 146;  Injury Accidents up 300%

Hwy 146 @ Wyoming; Injury Accidents up 300%

 

WWW.SAFERBAYTOWN.COM

The theory behind red light cameras as a safety tool is that they reduce red light running, which then reduces red light violations and accidents, the claim is that they also free up police officers to suppress crime in other areas of the city. The city of Baytown has claimed that because of the cameras, accidents at camera locations have been reduced by 11%. But we all know, intuitively, that intersection accident statistics have many variables, with or without cameras accidents go up or down or stay right about the same. Nationwide accidents are at record lows due to the poor economy as fewer people are driving. In Texas, during the same period that Baytown claims a reduction in accidents due to cameras, statewide accidents dropped over 6%, does Baytown exist in a bubble? How much of the claimed reduction in accidents is actually due to the statewide and national reduction? Or are we to believe that the cameras in Baytown are so effective that they reduced accidents all across Texas and the nation? I have a very simple premise, if any reduction in accidents can be attributed to the camera program we would necessarily have to see a reduction in red light running. If there aren't signifigantly fewer red light violations then the cameras can't possibly be the cause for any claims of reductions. The city has claimed that red light running has dropped since the cameras went up, but is that really the case? Their claim is based on the fact that fewer citations have been issued over certain time periods. But is that really a true indicator of how many red light violations there are? How many citiations issued for an offense is a variable that can be manipulated. If we stopped writing speeding tickets in Baytown does that mean we no longer have a speeding problem? The best indicator of how many red light violations are occuring is not how many tickets are being issued, but how many times the cameras record a red light violation. The data from the camera company in their own report shows that red light violations month to month year over year have not been reduced. This is shown in the category called "events" which is when a camera detects a violation of a red light. The events, or actual red light running hasn't reduced. What has been reduced is the number of violations the camera company forwards to Baytown Police Department. In fact, since we began our petition efforts the camera company has increased their rejection rate by nearly 30%. Why would they do that? the answer it that the citations weren't dropping as predicted and the camera company saw a real PR problem, how can they claim that the cameras are working if citations are still so high? Simple, they can't. The solution they came up with is to start sending Baytown PD fewer violations for them to review.  This way they can say that fewer citations mean fewer red light runners and they can attempt to save their multi million dollar program when election time comes around. This raises another issue, since the Baytown PD rejection rate has stayed at about 5% but the overall rejection rate has gone from 28% to as high as 55% this means that the camera company is making law enforcement decisions about who really should get a ticket, not a police officer all so they can make the program seem better than it is to protect their revenue. What about the idea that the cameras free up officers to respond to more important calls and suppress crime in other areas? The Baytown Police department website shows that while the cameras were operating total crime in Baytown went up by 27%! Clearly we have seen no benefit since the city tooks it's eyes off the ball and decided to outsource law enforcement to a for profit corporation.

Too many people have bought into the camera company's sales pitch, that you either have to have a cop on every corner 24/7 or the cameras or complete anarchy in the streets. That isn't the case, in fact, if the cameras get taken down and nothing else is done to improve safety at the intersections I will consider my efforts to be a failure. We believe that the ITE and TTI are correct in saying that engineering improvements offer the best solutions to reducing red light violations and accidents, if that is truly your goal. I have put together a proposal for the council that has some of their proven methods for reducing violations and accidents by more than what is claimed by the camera program. These enhancements like, backplates to increase visibility and increasing the yellow time by a half second have been proven to reduce violations and accidents by 40-50%, why accept 11% when you could have 40-50%? All without having a controversial program that send millions to Arizona every year. The data clearly shows this benefit, when the yellow change interval at Garth and baker was lowered you can see a sharp rise in red light violations, due to our efforts the signal timing was brought to the bare minimum, violations dropped in half! Imagine what could be done if the signal timing was raised another half second above the minimum.


It would be easy for the council to say, let's just kick this to the voters, that way we won't have to worry about the outcome either way. But is that the kind of leadership we should expect from our council? To take the easy way out? Your job is to make the tough decisions, and this is certainly one of them. Prove your leadership tonight, prove that you can make your mistakes right again, don't do what the camera company wants you to do to protect their profits. Our hope is that the council will do what they have always said, that they will evaluate the program based on the numbers, and based on the numbers the camera program hasn't worked, unless you consider sending millions of local dollars that could be spent here to an out of state Goldman Sachs run corporation a success. We urge the council to join other cities like college station, Lubbock and recently Harlingen who took the cameras down after they found they weren't working. While we have no doubt that, if left to their own, the citizens in Baytown would vote the cameras out just like every other time the citizens have been allowed to vote on photoenforcement. But with a team of high priced lawyers and PR firms there is no doubt the camera company will do everything in their power to stop that from happening. I don't have deep pockets like they do from their ill gotten gain, they can definitely outspend me and fight me in the courts. If our initiative gets on the ballot it is certain they will file suit to stop us, in that case the city of Baytown will find itself going through the legal expense of fighting the camera company in court. They can also flood the papers and airwaves with their misinformation and spend money to turn out the vote in their favor they are already doing that in Houston to stop the vote there. I can't do that, it is possible that the camera company will be able to buy an election this November to save their revenue stream. I don't think any council member would like to preside over a city where a corporation was allowed to buy an election, but that might happen if the council does not take immediate action to vote the program out. If you take no action on this matter everyone will know that the council kicked the can down the road to avoid making the tough decisions. And everyone will know that the council will be responsible for the legal battles and politicing that is sure to come in November. You have the power to stop this right now with a vote, you can take the power out of the hands of the camera company's lawyers, if you only stand up and do what is right. It's never too late to do the right thing.

These are graphs I prepared based on the camera company and police department data. I have done everything to give every possible benefit of the doubt to the cameras. I simply put their numbers into a graph, I also only used the time all cameras were in operation and eliminated data from garth at cedar bayou as it is a new camera intersection. The graphs clearly show that the citations issued haven't risen with the events. And clearly show the camera company is deliberately rejecting more violations to make the program appear more effective. You can also clearly see the seasonal dip in data from over the winter and the fact that violations are on the rise as we head into the busier traffic season.

So in short the main database would have them flagged for the entire harris county, but each individual tax office may or may not renew the registration even if red flagged, does that sound about right? In theory, there would be nothing to stop a person from going from tax office to tax office to finally get one that wont' block it?

Response;

You are correct!

TX Dept of Motor Vehicles
VTR/TSB - Scofflaw &
Law Enforcement Programmer
Austin, TX

04-03-2010

Unpublished rebuttal to the city manager's status on the red light camera program report to council as reported in the Baytown Sun here

Grounded in Fact

 

01-04-2009

From December 30th 2009 to January 1st 2010 the city of Baytown released several press releases on their rejection of our petition to put the issue of red light cameras on the ballot to give the people a vote on this controversial and abusive program. The crux of their argument for rejecting the petition is that they declared it to be an untimely referendum instead of an initiative petition since it sought to repeal an existing ordinance and any petition seeking to repeal or modify a current ordinance needs to be filed within 20 days of the ordinance passing. Ms Jett  said in her statement to the Baytown Sun;

 

 

Our position was, and continues to be, that the city is selectively applying the charter to petitions they view as favorable and those they view as unfavorable. Not based on following the law of the city, as Ms Jett claims, but on the politics of the city officials. In November 2006 the city of Baytown allowed a petition labeled as an "initiative ordinance" to ban smoking in Baytown on the ballot. This ordinance repealed the previous smoking ordinance on the books for years, well over the 20 day deadline Ms Jett says the city has "long established" as the deadline. In fact the city's own website in a brochure on the smoking ordinance says;

 

"Voters in
Baytown could either vote to approve or deny
the initiative ordinance which would repeal the
current smoking ordinance"

 

How is it that the city previously passed an initiative ordinance that would repeal a standing ordinance on the books for far more than 20 days but now selectively rejects our petition (which was structured on the previous smoking ban initiative) as an untimely referendum? The city viewed the smoking ban as favorable while they view the red light camera initiative as unfavorable. In fact, the same city attorney, Ignacio Ramirez, who declared our petition to be invalid worked closely on the language of the smoking ban initiative. Clearly, by any reasonable review of the facts, the city is not applying the law equally in these cases. If the city truly stands behind Ms Jett's statements they would seek to reverse the smoking ban ordinance as it was an untimely filed referendum and would investigate what Ms Jett characterized a "misappropriation of public funds" by spending public funds to put an untimely filed referendum on the ballot in November 2006.

 

Baytown Red Light Camera Coalition, a grassroots organization that seeks to ban the red light cameras in Baytown, hopes that ultimately the city will decide to be guided by the will of the people. We gathered sufficient signatures to demand a vote on this issue. Recently, in College Station the council voted to remove the red light cameras after a vote on the cameras showed the will of the people was to remove them. Our hope is that the city council will follow the lead of College Station's council to ultimately execute the will of the people. We ask that concerned individuals contact the Baytown city council and the mayor to express their desire to have a vote.

 

The city has violated numerous sections of the the transportation code governing red light cameras including implementing illegally short yellow lights, improper violation notices and improper signage. The city still refuses to hold themselves accountable for these violations and with almost $3 million in collected fines under the program we believe the city will continue to block our efforts by any means necessary, legal or not. More information can be found at our website www.saferbaytown.com or contact Byron Schirmbeck at 281-728-7220 for a statement or interview.