ATS Refuses to Bid on “Unattractive” Contract


ats

Further proof it’s all about the money: American Traffic Solutions pouts as a municipality fears increased litigation from red light camera and photo radar programs:

 

…in setting up an initial 10-camera program, county attorneys drafted a bid requirement that calls for the winning company to put any fines it collects from the projected $150 tickets into an escrow account for at least four years. That way, if Orange gets sued and loses, the ticket money could be paid back.

“The leading vendors in the industry will not enter into such an unattractive relationship,” wrote a representative from American Traffic Solutions, or ATS, which opted not to bid.

“Unattractive relationship” being doublespeak for “can’t make a quick buck.”

ATS is one of the few companies which will even operate an automated ticketing scheme within Florida, with chief rival Redflex calling such operations illegal within the Sunshine State:

“Legal opinions indicate that automated enforcement in the state of Florida remains illegal…”

7 Responses to ATS Refuses to Bid on “Unattractive” Contract

  1. If these companies were so sure that PE would hold up in court, why would they be worried?

    “Just follow the law, and you have nothing to worry about.”

  2. jgunn says:

    Maybe some lawsuits should start getting thrown about for the accidents the photo cameras at I17 northbound and 101 are causing. Today was the third accident I know about at this camera site and I’m not camping out 24/7 looking for them. Today was a full blown accident scene with firetrucks, ambulances and all, EXACTLY where the camera is on the road (#1 accident)> #2 is a comment by my vanpool mates that there was an accident in the last 2 days at the same site. #3 was a vehicle a who literally made a field goal into the barrier between the cameras a while back, along with other vehicals involved.

    This site is literally a death trap as the speed limit drops right after the camera in a construction zone. All it takes is 1 motorist who momentarily forgets the 65MPH limit and instead of getting a 181$ ticket, mashes on the brakes to get down to 55 (or 45 even for the construction zone) and causes a rear ender and the consequential random tangent that the vehicle behind pushes the braking car into. Of course we know Redflex (and the camera lovers it seems) don’t get a rats behind whether people are injured as long as they make the $$$. Disgusting is what I call profiting off of human suffering. Witness the doubling of accidents in peoria after they added red light cameras. Do you see redflex calling for removal to save lives and injuries? Right…. Not if it reduces their profit.

    • Sure says:

      Just goes to show you what happens when you try to get money out of people who can barely survive as it is. Who has the money to pay Australian shareholders these days.

      Thank you, Vanderpool, for endangering drivers with your money making machines.

  3. Charles Brown says:

    That article on Orange County had a few errors. It was ACS (not ATS) that refused to bid.

  4. Dr Jett says:

    It is interesting that Redflex would put the ‘PROFITABILITY’ of the contract as their primary concern. That is Redflex’s statement about the purpose of photo enforcement. Like most corporations, that is their ONLY CONCERN.

  5. Dr Jett says:

    Just imagine if Redflex would actually publish the basis for their corporate business plan instead of leaving us to read their actions which speak louder than words. They might not like my previous statement, but I have worked for enough corporations and my job was to sell the deal and bring in the money. That was drilled into my head by every corporation that I ever worked for and I was either praised or chastised depending on how much money I produced for the corporation. It doesn’t matter which PE company is bidding or not bidding on a contract because their is only one goal; REVENUE!!!

  6. […] In a rare example of honor among thieves, Redflex has refused to operate cameras in the Sunshine State, calling such operations “illegal.” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: