If data were fatty foods, a Culver City man on a strict diet could have swallowed all of the data provided on red light cameras in the last eight days – and still have shed weight.
Supporting statistics have been nearly invisible.
Safety not revenue, defenders of the system have said repeatedly, is our primary motivation.
Yes, but, given the vendor’s well-documented legal difficulties, how important is the character of the people you are dealing with?
Given the bribery-flavored scalding water that Redflex Traffic Systems, the city’s red light camera vendor, is standing in, shouldn’t that give pause to city officials?
Answer: Not a bit.
The unwaveringly consistent position of the City Council, the Police Dept., and various other defenders of the system has been: “The relationship we have with Redflex out here is not comparable to whatever it was that went on in Chicago.”
This personalized question was put to a City Hall officer yesterday afternoon:
Your mother and my mother warned us against hanging around with this type of person. Why are you?
The respondent promptly rejected the premise.
“We don’t share that broad brush statement. To the extent Redflex is a corporation, I don’t know the Redflex operating in Culver City is the identically same Redflex that was participating in the ‘activities’ in Chicago. If they are not, then it is easy to make the distinction between ‘that is them and this is us.’
“But even if they are the same company,” the official persisted, “we believe that the people we are dealing with, and the company we have the relationship out here with, is operating according to proper rules, regulations and ethics. That was a reason the City Council decided that it was appropriate to renew the contract. The Council, I can assure you, is satisfied with the way Redflex has behaved toward Culver City.”
