
Contract Terminated
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse for beleaguered Redflex Traffic Systems after losing 3 contracts this week due to successful ballot initiatives, more bad news came this week when Upland, CA announced that they were terminating their contract with Redflex, as reported by Examiner.com.
Sgt Matthews of the Upland Police Dept. said they terminated the contract with Redflex and removed the cameras at the end of June. “They were not effective in our city. What matters to us is the effectiveness in the city of Upland.” The cameras were “ineffective in reducing collisions”, which was the point of the cams, he said.
A report prepared by the police chief mentioned frequently cited objections to automated ticketing machines in recommending termination of the contract:
- Cameras had “...little influence on the number of red light related collisions at monitored intersections. At times rear end collisions have actually increased.”
- The system tied up police resources that could be spent fighting real crime
- Illegal provisions in the contract.
In the end, the straw that likely broke the camel’s back was the fact that the city was losing money on the program.
Examiner.com also reports that neighboring city Montclair also decided to discontinue it’s program run by Nestor which was recently acquired by ATS.
Evidently, you can put a price on “photo safety.” Fortunately, few cities are willing to pay for it.
Anyone know if the Redflex contract with Phoenix is covered under the FOIA? I’d sure love to see a copy of it.
https://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/dpsredflex-contract-available-online/
It doesn’t hurt to ask. I don’t see why not. If it was a contract to build a building or pave a road, those contracts would be available…
Thanks… the contract RPr posted a link to has lots of interesting info. By the looks of it, the state can back out of the contract at any given time before the end of the 3 year period and for whatever reason it wants to. The only obligation I see is just for the state to cover certain costs such as labor or equipment. I haven’t had a chance to read it word for word yet, but I’m sure I’ll find lots of interesting stuff to research, particularily whether or not certain things are even legal in that contract.
Great article in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110404747.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
I posted some video of the Maricopa County Supervisors meeting over at the meetup section.
It just get better and better I love it!
Darnit! Like I said an article ago…Where’s a troll when I need one?!?!
http://views.washingtonpost.com/post-user-polls/2009/11/legality-of-speed-cameras.html?sid=ST2009110502594
The Washington Post has a Poll right now we are winning with 66%
Holy cow.. just saw two more of these signs by ASU in Tempe! the idea must be catching on.
When is the city going to get the $$$$$$$$$$$$ promised us by the Scamera company? It sure sounded good when the salesman sold us on the HUGE PROFITS we were going to put in the city coffers. Oops, I forgot that we were only supposed to talk about safety.
The Mayor
Upland, Ca
môi trường vi mô gồm
More Automated Ticketing Contracts Terminated | CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down