Murrieta Red Light Cameras

Steve Flynn sponsored by Safe Streets Murrieta Organizations and major donor ATS have sent out 2 mailers and one robo call to all voters. ATS is involved because it is about MONEY NOT SAFETY.

Recently, American Traffic Solutions, the company that makes millions of dollars from Murrieta’s red-light camera program, mailed a flyer to voters urging them to vote no on Proposition N, the measure to ban the cams in Murrieta.  Not only is this self serving mailer filled with distortions about the effectiveness of Murrieta’s red light camera program but it shamefully attempts to capitalize on the tragedy endured by the friends and family of people killed or injured in red-light running accidents by cruelly suggesting that red-light cameras would have saved the lives of these unfortunate souls, something that is simply not true. 

First, ATS exploits the death of Deborah Parsons-Mason, killed in a collision caused by a drunk driver who had a blood alcohol concentration of more than 2 1/2 times the legal limit. ATS similarly uses a collision involving Jacy Good which resulted from a distracted driver using a cell phone, as well as the death of Marcus May-Cook which was caused by an unlicensed 17 yr old driver who never even had a driver’s permit.  These stories are heartbreaking to read, but a careful examination of the circumstances surrounding these collisions makes clear what we have been saying all along – the most deadly red-light running crashes occur long after the light has turned red and are almost exclusively the result of impairment, distraction, fatigue or evading the police, not an attempt by some drivers to rush the yellow light.  The sad truth is that impaired, distracted and fatigued drivers sometimes also run red lights causing fatalities, but red-light cameras have virtually no effect in preventing these types of late-into-red accidents and this cynical attempt by the camera industry to profit from such tragedies is unconscionable. 

But these types of tactics are to be expected from an industry who sues citizens to prevent them from voting and are known to play fast and loose with the facts.  For instance, their flyer claims that, “In 2005 11 people died in red light crashes in Murrieta. In 2008 and 2009 that number dropped to 1.”  Not only is this false, it’s a complete fabrication. The truth is that in 2005, there were 11 fatal collisions within the borders of the city and none were caused by red light running.  In fact, since at least 2001 there have been no fatalities in Murrieta where the primary cause of the collision was red light running.  That’s right, zero.  All eleven fatalities in 2005 were caused by impaired drivers with almost half occurring on the highway, not on Murrieta city streets. Although these fatalities have nothing whatsoever to do with whether red light cameras have improved safety in Murrieta, ATS included this fake statistic in their mailer hoping voters would be fooled into supporting their ticketing scam. 

Likewise, the ATS flyer makes the claim that “Red light cameras have reduced broadside collisions in Murrieta by 66%” - also not true.  This is another camera industry tactic to trick the public by discussing broadside collisions, not red light running collisions, often two very different things.  The fact is that most broadside collisions are in no way associated with red light running since many don’t occur at signalized intersections.  But even when you do analyze broadside collisions, you find that the 66% claim is a lie.  In 2005, the year before the first cameras were installed, there were 173 broadside collisions throughout Murrieta; in 2010 after about five years of camera usage, there were 164. Not only is this not a 66% decrease, it’s not even a statistically significant difference.  In fact, no matter how you parse the numbers, it’s virtually impossible to find a 66% change in broadside collisions during any comparative time periods.  Meanwhile, at the camera enforced intersections, broadside collisions more than doubled in the four years after the cameras were installed compared to four years before, increasing from 8 to 18.  But none of this really matters because analyzing broadside collisions is meaningless when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of red light cameras and the camera industry knows it.  Yet they continue to spread this misinformation in a carefully crafted scheme to deceive the public.

The truth is this: At red light camera enforced intersections in Murrieta, red light running collisions increased somewhere between 78% and 120% and rear end collisions increased between 200% and 325%.   No amount of deceptive, profit driven, camera industry mailers featuring stock photos of babies in car seats is going to change these facts.  Hopefully, on Election Day, the voters of Murrieta will see through the ATS smokescreen and vote to ban the cameras.


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

The Republican November 06, 2012 at 04:57 AM
Do you really think I am trying to win something here Jake? I have already told you I am in mock mode. I have written enough over the last few months and on election's eve there is no purpose in debating what is already sold. You want questions answered and you may think I have something to prove by answering you.There are gears of justice that roll very slowly. I do think I know things that you dont' I am very sure you would love for me to say more. At this point there is no reason to. I have already gotten what I wanted.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 05:03 AM
Ryan I am not even tryin. I am just going to enjoy the results.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 05:13 AM
Jake I will leave you with this. do some research and look for public connections between Randon Lane...Steve Flynn's attorney ...and ATS and others.... there are dots that connect at multiple levels. Most of it is lawsuit material but you are more than welcome to do your own research
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 05:14 AM
@TheRepublican: I don't think you have something to win. But you do have something to lose: Your own pride. You're right, I do want questions answered. Questions which you have yet to answer, anywhere. You expect me to just say "Oh ok, you're probably right. You know so much more than me and I ought to just take your word for it." Well I wont stand for that. If Randon Lane is such an infamous scumbag by your own hand, then you should want to defame his every effigy, including right here, right now. There are several opinions here, ripe for the changing. SO CHANGE THEM, if you've apparently got all this amazing evidence which you're too lazy to disclose. You haven't gotten what you want until tomorrow evening. And I hope that Murrieta voters have the good sense to look around and realize that Randon has done nothing wrong. I don't directly advocate for his or anyone else's reelection, but your reasoning hasn't taken him off of anyone's table. At this point, I hope that in the next election you send out a mailer of your endorsements, so that anyone who agrees with a single one can take a serious second look at their decisions. Rest well knowing that there are multiple votes here that may go to Randon Lane, and as of now, you're the only thing here to change it. So if you're too lazy to disclose it, then so be it. Or you could just own up to the fact that you have nothing to present and have been bluffing, lying, deceiving, and manipulating.
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 05:18 AM
@TheRepublican: Goodnight, TheRepublican. Thanks for the entertainment and we shall see what happens tomorrow. Let the Sleeper Community Revolution begin!
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 05:20 AM
I have no ego and pride is not an issue with me. I know who is arrogant. Randon will get a seat no doubt. We will see how soon a post election lawsuit is filed. We are ready.
Vic November 06, 2012 at 05:29 AM
Entertaining thread, Republican! Alot more intellectual than your exchanges with good old Jeff! I kinda miss those days....
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 05:40 AM
Ah, I see. You don't wish to show your hand so that you can 'explode' it once he's elected, and, to use your own words, "deny Murrietans their right to vote". Sounds like YOU'RE the one who wants to stab Murrieta in the back. YOU'RE the one who doesn't want Murrietans to have the power to vote. Now this is the aha moment you spoke of before. You are the slimiest, most dastardly individual I've ever had the pleasure to find under the rock you apparently think we all live under. Not to mention two-faced and hypocritical of you (again, using your words). This whole time, the words that you've been using against everyone else can be used to describe your tactics. I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror, TheRepublican. You're the one who wants to go behind the back of Murrieta and work behind the scenes to deprive the good people of our little sleeper community of their God-given votes with slimeball politics. Shame on you. You can only be thankful that your country gives you the right to express your obtuse view (yet again, your word).
Vic November 06, 2012 at 05:58 AM
"slimiest, most dastardly individual"??!!! You are taking this WAY too seriously, Jake!
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 06:02 AM
Jake nice try at attempting to turn it all around on me Your ignorance is showing. When you use my words they just don't have the same impact. The source just seems weak and impotent.. I actually work with those that took Flynn to court and WON Murrietans their right to vote on Measure N. The only "explosion " that will occur is when ATS and Flynn take the will of Murrieta voters back to court and attempt to nullify election results. Randon Lane will help I am sure . He is on record as not supporting the will of Murrieta voters many times.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 06:11 AM
I got a good laugh at that. It made me feel dirty so I gotta hit the spa!
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 06:15 AM
@Vic: Did you read this thread?? Or anything anyone else on here has said? We're all taking it seriously because it's a serious topic. @TheRepublican: Just giving you another example of your hypocrisy. "I find it amusing that arrogant bastards like you and Randon think they can fool the voters. You already lost on measure N and now it will be taken to court by Flynn and ATS with the council sitting by doing nothing in silent support. Murrietan's should be angry that scumbags use tactics to deny their voting rights pre and post election."-TheRepublican 12:28PM, November 5th, 2012 Again, this is exactly what you're doing in the other direction. Only you have no evidence that they will do it. You admit that you will.
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 06:18 AM
@TheRepublican: And you are on record as threatening the will of voters dozens of times within the last 12 hours. If Randon Lane is elected, then that is the will of the voters. Yet you do not acknowledge that.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 06:29 AM
Jake statistically speaking there is an extremely low probability that measure N won't pass based on the past. First off measures such as n pass with over 70% voter approval. Second Red Light cameras are being shown to be a farce statewide with the largest example being Los Angeles. Lastly here in Murrieta the NO on N folks tried to do an end run on Murrieta voters They decided to attempt to use the courts and force decision FOR red light cameras down our throats. I stand by my quote. Scumbags in Murrieta either by action or inaction tried to deny Murrietan's the right to vote on measure N. It will pass. I am very happy that the voters of Murrieta had the chance to see the despicible tactics that losers will sink to in order to win.
Vic November 06, 2012 at 06:33 AM
@Jake This is a blog. Opinions are given, "facts" are stated, ...nothing is legitamitly arguable. Yes, it's entertainment!
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 06:45 AM
@TheRepublican: I suppose we'll have to wait and see what the voters of Murrieta say. I, too, am happy that everyone has the ability to put measures on the ballot, so don't paint me as someone who believes otherwise. I disagree completely with your assessment of the installation of the cameras, but I guess now that the issue is put to a vote, we will have to see what the voters think. I know what I think, and you very obviously know what you think, so the rest is left to a vote. My opinion is that you're the one trying to deny the will of voters by threatening to attempt to directly overturn their will. I'm sure you disagree, so no need to go on about it; it's just my opinion. If N should pass, and the cameras are removed, we will have to let the statistics and ever-important testimonials reign true, and show us the power of our opinion.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 06:50 AM
Hilarious! How am I "threatening to attempt to directly overturn their will.?" Really now! By court action? Or do you somehow think that this blog has the ability to send mind control signals through town? ROTFLMFAO
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 06:59 AM
@TheRepublican: You are threatening with your so called "evidence" which you are STILL yet to disclose. Some connection between Lane and the ATS? You've been anything but clear on the subject. You claim that, if Lane is elected, you will take legal action to remove him from his post. Thereby revoking the Murrieta voter will. However, I don't think you have such evidence, so there is nothing for me to worry about, but your very claim and intent to do so is an overt expression of your inability to recognize your double standard. And if you do have it, then you're selfish to sit on your hands and do nothing about it, letting an apparent criminal and manipulator go free.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 07:07 AM
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned a recall, .I dont speak indirectly, and you seem to want to read between my lines and state assumptions. I would just love to indulge you but unfortunately pending legal action does limit my ability to say what I really want to say. I really find your tactic to reverse No on N tactics back on me to be humorous as hell. Thanks for a good laugh.
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 07:17 AM
Unless your pending legal action involves a currently ongoing suit in which you are a participator, witness, etc., then only you limit your speech. And since you neglect to inform me that such a suit is underway, I am inclined to believe that there is not. There is nothing preventing you from giving this critical information. "There are gears of justice that roll very slowly. I do think I know things that you dont' I am very sure you would love for me to say more. At this point there is no reason to. I have already gotten what I wanted." That seems to speak to the fact that you know something which you are not disclosing, no? Your words, not mine. Lets look at another quote of yours. "We will see how soon a post election lawsuit is filed. We are ready." Now THAT seems to say that you plan to file a lawsuit. It's no secret that a lawsuit against an elected member of a city council generally has the goal of the member resigning. YOUR WORDS. Straight from the horse's mouth, no word-putting-into-mouths. No reading "between the lines" or stating assumptions. Only obviously stated words from you.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 07:25 AM
Jake again your ignorance is showing. The only party that has filed a suit is Steve Flynn backed by ATS, Your assertion that anyone else besides Flynn intends to file any type of suit against voters or anyone else on any issue is just a joke and a complete fantasy fabrication in your own mind. What I am not disclosing is what will be used to uphold Murrietans election results in defense of what is expected to come from ATS and Steve Flynn along with Randon Lane. Have you been drinking tonight? Your mind is racing into false territories.
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 07:29 AM
I think you're the one that's been drinking. You have misspoken, either in your quotes or now. Because what you are saying now is not what you said earlier. Now you say that you plan to uphold whatever voters choose? What if voters choose No on N and choose Randon Lane and Steve Flynn to represent them? Will you support it then? I see your cards getting closer to your chest, my nameless, faceless counterpart. And oh, how satisfying it is.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 07:38 AM
Yes on N will be the result, No On N will fail. I worked with those that put this on the ballot and fought those that tried to remove it from a vote. I have not mispoken at all. You have just attempted to read into my words and assume things. And you have failed miserably to confront me although you thought you won at some point. I find you to be rather weak in the manner you try to mimic my tactics, I guess that is a form of flattery so I guess in some way I should thank you for the props.
Jake Forrester November 06, 2012 at 07:52 AM
You seem confident. That's good. I gathered your position on N, but thank you for reiterating. I have assumed nothing. Only heard your exact words and followed logically on the instances that you did not precisely state your intentions. You find me to be weak? That I've failed miserably? Made assumptions? Sounds like your on your heels to me. More personal attacks and even fewer actual discussion than before. You do not respond to the issues I raise, other than to contradict them. "Why is Randon Lane guilty?" "Because he is!" "What you said doesn't add up." "That's because you're ignorant." You present no valid arguments against me. Only personal attacks and slander to further your own opinion and evade questions.
The Republican November 06, 2012 at 04:24 PM
You obviously didn't get the point from the beginning which I stated clearly. My point was to MOCK you not debate you. You were not even on my level. I was already done debating before you wrote a single word. Measure N is decided, Randon Lane may or may not be an issue depending upon what Steve Flynn and ATS do post election.
Non registered voter November 07, 2012 at 09:55 PM
So did it pass?
Diana Serafin November 07, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Yes it did pass by 57.20%!
Don Mooney November 08, 2012 at 03:11 AM
I am totally anti-red light camera, and I voted for Randon Lane. It seems to me that The Republican and Jake Forrester have way too much time on their hands. I was embarrassed for both of them.
The Republican November 08, 2012 at 04:55 AM
I don't have too much time. I just have 4g and I talk to text very fast!
Don Mooney November 08, 2012 at 05:25 AM
Cool. Technology is something else.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »