Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supporters of red light cameras say project should be low-cost(Austin TX)
590 KLBJ ^ | 07/26/2006 | 590 KLBJ

Posted on 07/26/2006 6:06:38 AM PDT by ziggy_dlo

Supporters of red light cameras say project should be low-cost

7/26/2006

Austin City Council members who support red light cameras say they want to find a system that won’t cost the city much money or effort. City Council Member Lee Leffingwell says the goal of a red light camera system would not be to boost the city’s revenues, but he also wants to avoid draining city funds for a network of cameras at busy intersections. “What I would be looking for in a proposal that comes back to us is one that has zero or minimal up-front costs to the city, and as much of the overhead and administrative process that can be done is actually handled by the company,” Leffingwell said.

Some other cities with red light cameras work out arrangements with the private company supplying the gear so that the company is paid based on the number of citations the red light cameras generate.

The Council could ask the City Manager on Thursday to draft a plan for installing red light cameras at busy intersections. But actually purchasing the cameras and ordering them to be installed would require a separate vote


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: austin; freedom; redlight
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
Some other cities with red light cameras work out arrangements with the private company supplying the gear so that the company is paid based on the number of citations the red light cameras generate.

And these companies would purposely make the delay from yellow light to red light shorter so they could catch more runners. They gat paid a percentage of each runner. I personally hate this idea and I believe it infringes on my freedom rights. Any opinions?

1 posted on 07/26/2006 6:06:41 AM PDT by ziggy_dlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo
Here's an idea: Give camera's to the homeless and the illegal day labors and have them snap the pictures...
2 posted on 07/26/2006 6:19:17 AM PDT by 12th_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

What rights do you believe are being infringed?


3 posted on 07/26/2006 6:25:42 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ops33

I dunno, maybe the right to face your accuser? Right to a speedy trial? These tickets are not negotiable. You pay the fine or you swear an affidavit that your car was sold or stolen. There is no "Not Guilty" option.


4 posted on 07/26/2006 6:35:52 AM PDT by Prodn2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prodn2000

Can't a person still take his case to court? Is it not possible to argue that the cameras are defective, timing incorrect, photo is blurred and doesn't clearly show the person's vehicle, etc? I have never read an article anywhere that said the results of a camera taking a picture of someone going through a red light were "not negotiable." Do you have a source for that?


5 posted on 07/26/2006 6:39:25 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ops33

I Charlotte, NC they are "not negotiable". Your ONLY two choices are pay the fine or prove you were not driving the car and give the name of the person that was. Malfunctioning cameras are not a defense.

Comming soon to a city near you...


6 posted on 07/26/2006 6:43:49 AM PDT by jrestrepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ops33
The reality is that you can easily spend $500 in lawyer fees and lost time from work to fight it, or you can pay about half that for the ticket.

Sure, you might be able to "win", but you don't get your court costs back. They know it, and price the fines accordingly.
7 posted on 07/26/2006 6:46:07 AM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc

Ity is still a violation of your constitutional rights.


8 posted on 07/26/2006 6:49:33 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jrestrepo
Your ONLY two choices are pay the fine or prove you were not driving the car and give the name of the person that was. Malfunctioning cameras are not a defense.

That doesn't sound right to me -- you can always request a Jury Trial (6th Amendment) or appeal (1st Amendment). Can you link the applicable code?

I am not saying you are wrong -- the very EXISTANCE of a thing called an "infraction" is prima facie unconstitutional. I just want to see how bad the undermining of our rights has gotten.

9 posted on 07/26/2006 6:53:08 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

They get around that by declaring it a breach of a civil ordance not a criminal offence. That is what they are doing here in TX.


10 posted on 07/26/2006 6:56:45 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
They get around that by declaring it a breach of a civil ordance not a criminal offence. That is what they are doing here in TX.

Too bad there isn't someone with enough money and time to take this on.

As an aside, what is the penalty if you fail to pay? If they go after your Driver's License then this is a criminal offense.

11 posted on 07/26/2006 6:59:48 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

After having been T-boned by an uninsured red-light runner (who lied about it in court), I would have been VERY happy to have an independent, unbiased source to back me up.

I recently read an extensive study of over 300 intersections that have red-light cameras installed. They compared the accidents for three years before and 2 to 3 years afterward. The cameras cause a slight increase in rear-end accidents, but a large reduction of T-bone accidents, which are usually much more serious (with more injuries, deaths, and more vehicle damage). They found the overall costs (counting both vehicle damage and medical costs, but not lost productivity) are much less for camera intersections than non-camera ones.

As far as the companies reducing the yellow-time, I have heard that charge by people who want to stop the cameras, but I have not seen that confirmed in an independent study. There is a fairly complicated formula that has been universally known and accepted for many years to calculate how much yellow time an intersection has. I would be surprised that anyone knowingly went less than that knowing that if ANYONE went to court, the City/company would have absolutely no defense. I did read about a case in California where there was a state law mandating a long yellow light, which was not applied to, but this is like most cases where politicians substitute their prejudices for engineering studies.

BTW, contrary to what I have read here, lengthening the yellow time does NOT increase safety. Studies that go back decades have shown that there is a short (3-6 months) increase in safety if the yellow is lengthened. Then people adjust and keep pushing the yellow until the number of accidents goes back to where it was before the yellow was changed.


12 posted on 07/26/2006 7:00:26 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

Finally a good use for paintball guns?


13 posted on 07/26/2006 7:01:52 AM PDT by 38special (I mean come'on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
...That doesn't sound right to me

I don't know about you, but the $86 ticket I recieved from DC for allegedly speeding, was a lot less than I can make in an hour. I never even saw a camera set up. They place them in plain cars along the side of the road, and do other devious things.

How many folk were moving right along with me? I am not sure, but if only a third of them got a ticket, they have a good revenue stream.

I'll bet their "drivers" don't get bothered too much! I see them flying low all the time! The pols sit in the back laughing and puffing a cigar!

14 posted on 07/26/2006 7:06:59 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

The DC government has become a nickel and dime city. A little here, an extra fee there. The red light cameras are part of it.

My problem is not whether they are effective, but that in 20 years of really watching, I never saw someone pulled over for running a red light outside of good cops using it as an excuse to find drugs. And often succeeding. And DC has lots of red light runners.

There is a didactic value to seeing police enforce the laws. Automating law enforcement loses that.


15 posted on 07/26/2006 7:14:43 AM PDT by Blagden Alley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

How does it infringe? You don't even have a "right" to drive, much less run yellow lights. Don't run yellow lights - or run 'em real fast.

I kinda like 'em, except that they sent my wife a ticket - and the picture didn't even show her car!!!!!


16 posted on 07/26/2006 7:17:10 AM PDT by Little Ray (If you want to be a martyr, we want to martyr you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

These things create a powerful disincentive to make dangerous intersections safer (by extending yellows, improving signal visibility, etc.)


17 posted on 07/26/2006 7:21:41 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc

But the poster stated that a person does not have the right of appeal at all. Your response does show that a person has the right of appeal. It may be expensive, but you can appeal it. It is not different than appealing a parking ticket or a speeding ticket. The person may decide that it is not worth the trouble of appealing but he can still appeal.


18 posted on 07/26/2006 7:23:02 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jrestrepo

If what you say is correct, then a ticket coming from a red light camera is the only criminal process in America that does not have the right of appeal. Do you have a source?


19 posted on 07/26/2006 7:24:03 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

These devices contravene the underlying principle of law that everyone accused has the right to confront his accuser.


20 posted on 07/26/2006 7:26:00 AM PDT by sono ("May the Wings of Liberty never lose a feather." Jack Burton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

You don't even have a "right" to drive



Keep repeating that leftist crap, and maybe I'll start to believe it, too.


21 posted on 07/26/2006 7:30:27 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
As far as the companies reducing the yellow-time, I have heard that charge by people who want to stop the cameras, but I have not seen that confirmed in an independent study.

Before the camera authorization expired here in VA, there were two types, the state-controlled red-light cameras and the city-controlled ones (e.g. City of Fairfax). The state lights were set by state engineers and had normal yellows. The cities did whatever they felt like. One city light in Fairfax City (Fairfax Circle) was changed from a staggered light to clear through traffic to a simultaneous, shortened yellow. You better believe VA legislators heard from people like me and now there are no more red light cameras, mainly because they were abused for revenue generation purposes.

22 posted on 07/26/2006 7:31:56 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
You don't even have a "right" to drive

Sorry, but you are wrong about that.

23 posted on 07/26/2006 7:33:08 AM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
How many folk were moving right along with me? I am not sure, but if only a third of them got a ticket, they have a good revenue stream.

I heard on WTOP that DC speed camera revenues have gone up even as "aggressive speeding" (not further defined by the reporter) as a percentage of drivers has gone down (from 30-something to 2%). In any event, you are part of their amazing revenue stream long after the law enforcement value has ceased.

24 posted on 07/26/2006 7:38:38 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

The biggest problem the Austin metro area has with traffic signals being run, is timing. There are two bad intersections in Cedar Park, 183 at Cypress Creek and 183 at 1431. There are two or three cars running the light after we see a green signal every day.

Cedar Park and TXDOT had all the signals in perfect timing several years ago. You could leave the first signal and make every signal from one end to the other without stopping. Now, you have to stop at every third or fourth light.

People don't like to sit at the intersection for 2 or 3 minutes. What happened to the $2.5 million Austin wanted to spend to get the lights in time on many of the major streets a few years ago?


25 posted on 07/26/2006 7:50:04 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (The media and the democrats are the biggest supporters of the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

Gee, I wonder who funded the "studies" that show all the wonderful benefits of red light cameras?

What a bunch of hokum. This is a blatant money raising scheme and nothing but.


26 posted on 07/26/2006 7:54:17 AM PDT by johncatl (...governs least, governs best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

"And these companies would purposely make the delay from yellow light to red light shorter so they could catch more runners."

And some techie they tagged will start timing them, take the bastards to court and win. The city will have to pay back a ton of loot and the councilmen will be pointing fingers at each other.


27 posted on 07/26/2006 7:59:18 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blagden Alley
The DC government has become a nickel and dime city.

The DC All federal, state, and local government(s) has become a nickel and dime city rape of the producers.

28 posted on 07/26/2006 8:06:13 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: johncatl

Actually, the big one I mentioned was from an professional engineering organization. All large engineering groups do a lot of studies before making recommendations of what policy should be adopted. God help us all of the politicians decide engineering matters. The politicians may have grabbed onto this as a way to make money, but there are real benefits independent of that, whenther you believe it or not.

I have no doubt that if you and the Internet were around when the first traffic signals were introduced, you would have said exactly the same thing about them. If you have ever tried to get through a busy intersection when the power is out, you should understand why they are needed. You may not understand red-light cameras, but they are no different. The goal is to pass the maximum number of vehicles through an intersection with a minimum number of accidents.


29 posted on 07/26/2006 8:06:50 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Extending the yellow has NOT been proved to improve safety. I have seen that said here a lot, but many studies do NOT back that claim up.


30 posted on 07/26/2006 8:09:41 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: palmer

> a simultaneous, shortened yellow....

I thought that would trip the conflict monitor and start flashing red in all directions?


31 posted on 07/26/2006 8:12:22 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
The goal is to pass the maximum number of vehicles through an intersection with a minimum number of accidents.

Numerous studies to the contrary here:

Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents

32 posted on 07/26/2006 8:13:15 AM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ops33
It may be expensive, but you can appeal it.

I think that you are missing the point. In essence, it is set up such that an appeal is, for all practical purposes, a fine bigger than the one you would have paid.

Appeal or not, the government has forced you to lose some of your assets, and there is no path, through the system, to get those assets back.
33 posted on 07/26/2006 8:14:38 AM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Here is what I know...

1) NC had to pass a law to make it legal to have traffic cameras (we have both speeding and intersection)
2) It is not a criminal offense it is a civil fine (like walking on the grass)
3) The local radio guys joke that it is a speeding tax since there is no way to fight it

I did a quick search for any links, but I could not find any...sorry.


34 posted on 07/26/2006 8:16:36 AM PDT by jrestrepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ops33

Unfortunately, no. I live here in the democrat bastion of Charlotte, NC and all I know is what the officials have said. If a picture is taken and it was not you, then you have to turn that person in. The person that the car is registered to is liable. I also know that before we got them, the state had to pass a law to even make them legal.


35 posted on 07/26/2006 8:19:36 AM PDT by jrestrepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

I should have been clearer, the intersection has two separate lights in a row. They used to stagger the yellows to clear out the middle of the island (about 50-60 feet long). When they added the camera (at the second light) they removed the staggering so you would have to run the red or stop inside the island. They also shortened both yellows.


36 posted on 07/26/2006 8:20:20 AM PDT by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

There is red light running and then there's red light running.

Treating a red light as a stop sign at 2:00 in the morning when you can plainly see there isn't another car for blocks is entirely harmless.

Pushing - or misjudging - the yellow and entering the intersection in the first second or two of red only leads to a collision if an approaching driver timed the light and didn't slow down, or if someone waiting floors it at the first wink of green.

Ignoring the light and flying through the intersection when cross traffic has had a chance to get moving again is where the t-bone accidents and fatalities come in to play..

Red light cameras make no distinction between these scenarios. The people pushing these programs use the scapegoat of the third scenario to rake in the dough from the first two harmless behaviors.


37 posted on 07/26/2006 8:27:37 AM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ops33
a ticket coming from a red light camera is the only criminal process

That's where the problem started, the idea of infractions, which are unconstitutional. Still, the process of the cameras is all mechanical, and I, for the life of me, don't understand why more people are not exorcised over being stopped for absolutely no reason in the middle of the night at a roadblock and asked questions regarding an actual crime, for which there was absolutely no reason to believe, prior to the stop, that they had committed. I watched a crippled man peform stunts for over fifteen minutes before being released, a few months ago, at one such roadblock. He had had his car driven to the side by officers, then forced to dance like a monkey, all because he had the unfortunate luck of being crippled.

And BTW, in my business, they send people 100 fines and assume everyone is guilty unless you prove yourself innocent and there is no due process at all!

38 posted on 07/26/2006 8:29:51 AM PDT by at bay ("We actually did an evil....." Eric Schmidt, CEO Google)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: at bay

What business are you in?


39 posted on 07/26/2006 8:42:44 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jrestrepo

I did a google search on "Charlotte NC Red light Cameras" and found numerous articles. Several of the articles spell out the process for challenging the camera to prove that the person receiving the ticket was not the driver. Also, there was a case before the NC Court of Appeals that questioned the entire issue of red light cameras. So someone is appealing.


40 posted on 07/26/2006 10:02:19 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc

How is that any different than any other type of appeal to any other crime? The original poster stated that the photos taken from red light cameras could not be appealed. I questioned that assertion and from what I have found, and from your post, that the photos can be appealed. If an individual does not wish to make an appeal, or cannot, that still doesn't negate the fact that an appeal can be made.


41 posted on 07/26/2006 10:04:38 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

A "Journal of the Politics of Driving" is NOT an independent study. Every one I have seen that say that (like this one) are untrained people who have an axe to grind -- just like you.


42 posted on 07/26/2006 10:08:22 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Sounds like an idiot did the timing there. It reminds me of the saying "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." Setting up timing for a single intersection is a stretch for a lot of "engineers". Setting up several related (or interconnected ones) is a stretch for all but a few (just my opinion).


43 posted on 07/26/2006 10:12:35 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ops33
I am glad people are appealing. I have personally seen the cameras malfunction and I hope the law gets overturned. I understand the process for challenging the ticket, but it still comes down to you did it or you have to turn in who did. That is not a challenge of guilt or innocence because one of the two is going to be fined.

A friend of mine was given a ticket for going through the intersection I saw malfunction, and he new he was innocent, but he choose just to pay the speeding tax as opposed to fighting it. At $50 most people consider it more of a hassle to fight it then to just pay it.

The assumption is guilty and machines are considered infallible...
44 posted on 07/26/2006 10:17:01 AM PDT by jrestrepo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent

Let me know where I can find those studies.


45 posted on 07/26/2006 10:17:18 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
As far as the companies reducing the yellow-time, I have heard that charge by people who want to stop the cameras, but I have not seen that confirmed in an independent study.

Union City, CA had to refund over $1 million for reducing yellow light time 1.3 seconds below state law.

If you have time to kill you can read the Burkey-Obeng Red Light Camera Study here. Net result when including as many variables as possible is that RLCs do not reduce collisions.
46 posted on 07/26/2006 10:31:01 AM PDT by BJClinton (What happens on Free Republic, stays on Google.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
A "Journal of the Politics of Driving" is NOT an independent study.

There are independent studies at the link.

I tried to link directly to the page, but they evidently want you to go through their home page first.

1/3 of the way down, on the right is a box called "Popular Studies". Click on "Red Light Camera Roundup". There are dozens of independent studies in PDF format.

Sheesh.

47 posted on 07/26/2006 11:54:34 AM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton

My understanding of that case was that the yellow light time was set up according to accepted engineering standards (read the MUTCD for more information about the ITE formula). The politicians passed a law that was NOT based on anything other than what they felt like at the time. The two conflicted. That does not make the state law right.

I have read the Burkey-Obeng Red Light study and don't find it as "independent" as the people here claim. How many times have people around railed at studies by ivory-tower pin-heads that confirm their own prejudices. Unless it was done by an professional engineering group (like ASCE) and has been peer reviewed and accepted, I am not going to get too worked up about it.


48 posted on 07/26/2006 12:28:55 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

> Let me know where I can find those studies.

Be glad to. Get an engineering degree. Join the engineering organizations in your field. Subscribe to their usual publications. Go to their seminars and conventions each year. Read the lastest studies, listen to the people doing the studies when they make their presentation, offer constructive criticism, see the updated studies in following years with the criticisms answered. When the study is accepted by your peers, it will be worked into standards that EVERYONE uses, like the MUTCD.

And no, I don't have a couple of webpages that you can glance at. Most of this information is available only to members until it is adopted.


49 posted on 07/26/2006 12:38:12 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

I looked through the "studies" and "commentary" listed on the website and still don't see any independent engineering studies there. Everyone there has their own axe to grind.

If it is NOT from a national engineering group (like the ASCE) and has been peer reviewed and accepted by the people actually working in the field, it is suspect. There may be some ivory-tower, pin-heads out there who are actually doing good work, but that has to be proved, not just accepted.


50 posted on 07/26/2006 12:43:11 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson