Website Accused of Imitating Forum For Those Opposed to Red-Light Cameras

• And in response to your wall comment, they've turned wall commenting off and have seemed to delete others' comments. I'm sure yours will be gone in the morning. Way to Like your own posts and comments there too, ATS.

• Which I totally agree with: if the revenue generated by these cameras can match just one police officer's salary, I'd rather have a live patrolman working an intersection, issuing tickets that contribute 100% to the city or community, nevermind the patrolman's other valuable duties. Instead, with these cameras, we're sending half of it to a corporation with questionable and at times disgraceful marketing and sales practices in Arizona, issuing violations that are in a legally gray area. ATS pushes these as a "win-win" situation for communities: generate revenue and "increase safety" without having to pay startup costs or maintenance fees, which is why they've grown so quickly. What wasn't foreseen are the varying legal tangles and additional legislation necessary to make the violations stick, so us taxpayers are at the least footing the legal costs on THAT front, taking money and legislators' time away from other issues to deal with the fallout.

• Funny, ATS now has this story linked from their Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/ATSolutions?sk=wall Perhaps they could explain why they registered their domain anonymously and did not mention anywhere on the site that it was theirs? They managed to register their official site in their name. Perhaps Charles could tell everyone?

• ""And Hankster: it's pretty well-known that ATS usually doesn't charge communities for installation, maintenance and the subsequent prosecution for violators, and in turn they usually take a 50% cut of the fines collected. "" Same difference in the end, is it not?? They get paid regardless......point I see is, for what the Camera companies scam the cities for fee wise, we could hire real cops in that place... 100 dollar fine.... camera guy gets $50?? If a live cop wrote the ticket, city keeps the whole $100!! Issue tickets at a close to similar rate, cops salary is free + fine revenues..... and in reality, what is the object here?? "Revenue Enhancement"? or the "Public's Safety"??? We need jobs.. hire cops?? Makes sense does it not?

• Mr. Reasonable, it's like this. Red light Camera tickets are NOT LEGAL by Missouri statutes. That's the reason they will state they do not report "points" off your license for them, all LEGAL citations have to be reported to the DOR for point assessment and record keeping. So why do you feel it's ok for these cities, to issue ILLEGAL tickets, for the police to accept this, and the JUDGES in these courts to deal with, ILLEGAL tickets?? They are all playing along with this "Illegal activity", all to make a buck! Can we now have THEM arrested, for violating the law?? Acting in a fraudulent manner when claiming they will do "A" or "B" of you fail to pay the not legal citation?? It's not legal to run the light, but illegal extortion is ok?? Get it now?? No one is saying running a red light is ok, but that using THIS illegal method ISN'T! You want better enforcement, hire COPS! Using the data from these camera companies, the amount of tickets issued, and what the city "pays out" for the cameras,as sent "out of town" profits... you could hire more cops, to LEGALLY issue these citations FOR FREE!! DUH!!

• Mr. Reasonable: Unsafe drivers who run consistently red lights aren't the only drivers you have to worry about. Take the following scenario: You, or any other driver, approaches a busy intersection to make a turn. The light turns yellow. Make the snap judgement on whether you've got enough yellow time to clear the intersection before it turns red or slow to stop. Now consider the two differences: 1. A regular non-camera enforced intersection 2. A intersection with "Red Light Camera Enforcement" signs, the additional camera poles, and bright, near-blinding camera flashes that go off sometimes even when no light is in danger of turning yellow. The added information and fear factor of the camera enforcement will occasionally cloud the judgment of typically safe drivers: more incentive to either run the light faster, or slam on the brakes, leading to additional accidents. Also take into consideration the difference between local drivers that know if a intersection is red light camera enforced and familiar with the area, and an out-of-towner less accustomed to heavier traffic and camera enforcement in general. And, I'd imagine the safest drivers among us are occasionally startled by the flashes. Some communities (I know of elsewhere outside St. Louis) have laws on the books prohibiting flashing signage and lights near intersections because of the added distraction and danger. I'm sure what I've detailed here isn't new or unique. It's just not as cut-and-dried as "drive safely and you'll never be bothered by them." "If you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about." Great. But don't forget: "it's the other drivers you have to worry about." That's certainly more than "nothing." With red light cameras, it's the other drivers under added duress that you have to worry about even more. And Hankster: it's pretty well-known that ATS usually doesn't charge communities for installation, maintenance and the subsequent prosecution for violators, and in turn they usually take a 50% cut of the fines collected.

• I have no love for ATS, but I fail to see what problem their cameras pose for drivers who don't run red lights. Drive safely, and you'll never be bothered by them.

• Stupid.. notice the "Beer Bottle" is a FRAUDULENT "rip off" of Corona MEXICAN brew.... a cheap Chinese copy..... Get what they were implying?? Or is that above your head??

• Got owned?? Don't think so, Missouri state law requires a moving Violation to be issued by a LIVE COP... it's the LAW! Owned? No,.. are you a fool to be screwed SO WILLINGLY by some local politicians out for some easy, yet "not legally" gotten money??? I'd say yes.... you like getting taken?

• George Washington was an "Extremist" to the Brits! Depends on which side of the fence you are on....

• He had "nothing to hide"....... so he went and used a "HIDE your Identity Domain server""??? I'd call that statement a lie!! Maybe he also ought to reveal just how much money THEY take per ticket! Be cheaper, to HIRE a LIVE COP! Thought we needed JOBS locally! Dump the Camera's, HIRE a COP!

• I think ATS only "admitted" it so as to not be dragged out onto the carpet in front of the world. There is no other reason to use a hidden server. Fight the scam! Ban the CAMS! www.motorists.org www.banthecams.org (check out FLAWED IIHS STUDY HERE: http://blog.motorists.org/iihs-flawed-ticket-camera-press-release/ )

• "Ours is a site that would have been made regardless to help inform people of the facts." As it's been stated here by others before, the "facts" ATS refers to are statistics collected by the IIHS, which is funded by the insurance industry and in turn stands to reap the benefits of rising premiums due to the increase in rear-end collisions by those who slam on their brakes in order to avoid red light camera tickets. "The creators of wrongonred.com shouldn't take too much credit." Sure they should, as you've mimiced Wrongonred.com's name instead of bothering to register and use Wrongaboutred.com, which is what your site is actually called. Perhaps it's time to sink a considerable amount of the revenue you've taken from cities and motorists and create a fresh new NPO for your cause a la Missouri Families for Safer Roads. ATS obviously spends a LOT of money doing damage control; creating the new site so quickly in response and siccing the turfers on comment boards like this. The fact that ATS and it's representatives unabashedly shill their product behind the guise of "safety", repeatedly invoking injured and killed victims, and attempting to tug at heartstrings is absolutely disgraceful. ATS, there's a telling reason why you have only roughly 1000 likes on your pandering and sardonic Facebook page: it's because YOU GUYS SUCK ASS.

• It’s hilarious the RFT has the beer bottle illustrating this article along with Matt Hay seeing the glass a half full. After all, this is the same guy who bragged on Arnold Topix that he restrained himself to just two or three beers at a public event while awaiting the call to take his pregnant wife to the delivery room. Do you think a moron who cares so little about his own wife and unborn’s child safety gives a flip about the safety of you and your family?

• I love how the ATS website says that cameras promote safety but yes show videos of people blowing through red lights right in front of their cameras!!! LOL!! Priceless! So how do these things work? Get rid of them.

• Hot Rod Fools? Seriously? Its called Due Process. Those Hot Rod fools will never be caught with the current system in place because the ATS cameras are not required to send in the violation info into the Missouri Department of Revenue to issue points to the violator. So as it stands now Clint, those HOT RODS can keep on blazing through red lights, never pay the fines and never get points assessed to get them off the street AND THUS NEVER BE TAKEN OFF THE ROAD. Yeah Clint, You're a genius.

• That's right Paulie. Liberty is always an extreme view in the minds of Tyrants.

• That Matt Hay sure is bitter about being booted by the voters. He blames everyone but his own silly sawed off ass.

• I think it's hilarious that these hot rod fools who like to run red lights are so dumb, they didn't lock down every variation of wrong on red. This is a very clever move by the guy who supports ticketing the red light hot rodders. he doesn't deny it either. Wrongonred got owned!

• Matt Hay is a meathead who was voted out of office because of his extreme views in Arnold. Just to give this some perspective!

• Indeed, I have not received as much as a speeding ticket in over a decade. For Mr. Territo to call me a "law breaker" without any evidence whatsoever to support such a claim borders on slander. The "law" requires points assessment for moving violations, which Mr. Territo was already told by his attorneys what the law is in Missouri, he just does not care: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37186680/Stinson-Morrison-Hecker-admits-Red-Light-Cameras-in-Missouri-contravene-State-Statute

• WE are the ones lying!!!! HA!!! The camera proponents are the ones lying. They claim that the "overwealming majority" of citizens support these cameras. Then I would like them to explain why the cameras have been at the ballot box 15 times and have been rejected by the voters ALL 15 times. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/11/red-light-cameras-routed-at-ballot-box/

• "It's ironic that the the individuals who break the law cast themselves as victims when the real victims are those injured or killed by red-light runners." I like how he just threw that out there without much provocation. I envision him rehearsing that in the bathroom mirror as he starts his days. What a stand-up guy, making the world safer for us without considering his bottom line!

• Appended

• Mr. Territo, Anonymous Proxy Hosting is not part of the standard GoDaddy URL package. You must pay a premium for this service. Because ATS did this (and did not give any indication whatsoever on their site that the site is owned by ATS), it only seems reasonable to infer that you intended anonymity. If it were not for this screen shot: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48255275/American-Traffic-Solutions-creates-a-copycat-site-and-attacks-me-by-name which you subsequently removed from your Facebook Page, you would be denying this.

TotalComments: 25