Red light camera vendor Redflex: America is a “low/no-growth market”

[aGameOfThrones]

A red light camera at the intersection of Sylvan and Coffee in Modesto, California.

Cyrus Farivar

The chairman of the major red light camera vendor, Redflex, has told the company's investors that North America is a "low/no-growth market" and that the company continues to face "potential legal risk as a result of the investigative findings."

Redflex has been under fire in particular as a result of its Chicago contract that resulted in a federal corruption case. In October 2014, one of the three defendants in that case pleaded guilty, which marked the first guilty plea in a high-level case involving Redflex.

Since losing the Chicago contract as a result of this corruption scandal, Redflex’s 2013 pre-tax profits in its North American division (its corporate parent is an Australian company) have plummeted over 33 percent—from $3.4 million in the first half of 2013 to $2.28 million in the second half. The company announced that it lost $1.2 million during its fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. At present, the company operates in California, New Jersey, Florida, Alabama, and Virginia, among other states.

"Let me ask you to consider the unprecedented amount of change that Redflex has faced," Adam Gray told investors last Thursday. "Over just the past three years, this company has seen seven directors leave the organization, has had three chairmen, and is on its third Group CEO. Seven directors. Three chairmen. Three CEOs. Over three years."

Finally, Gray concluded, "Redflex needs to be de-risked. Revenue volatility, geographic and product concentration risks, class actions, federal investigations, different technology platforms all create a high risk business. To move into the non-Photo Enforcement market, organically or inorganically."


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/redflex-a-major-red-light-camera-vendor-may-pull-out-of-north-america/

[Anti Federalist]

Finally, Gray concluded, "Redflex needs to be de-risked. Revenue volatility, geographic and product concentration risks, class actions, federal investigations, different technology platforms all create a high risk business. To move into the non-Photo Enforcement market, organically or inorganically."
What the fuck does that even mean?

[Occam's Banana]

Finally, Gray concluded, "Redflex needs to be de-risked. Revenue volatility, geographic and product concentration risks, class actions, federal investigations, different technology platforms all create a high risk business. To move into the non-Photo Enforcement market, organically or inorganically."
What the fuck does that even mean?

Well, obviously, it means that liability-averse synergies need to be leveraged in order to avoid the achievement of non-positive (or insufficiently non-negative) revenue stream outcomes. Organically or inorganically.

[otherone]

What the fuck does that even mean?

It means that literal highway robbery is not good business.

[Danke]

Well, obviously, it means that liability-averse synergies need to be leveraged in order to avoid the achievement of non-positive (or insufficiently non-negative) revenue stream outcomes. Organically or inorganically.

Thank you.

[JustinTime]

Well good! Now take your red light cams and hit the road.

[Acala]

Here in Tucson, the camera citation scam reached its high water mark a couple years ago and is pulling back sharply. Cameras that were already in place have been removed. I think the County pulled all of theirs, but the City still has some in place.

[FindLiberty]

The goal should be more Liberty.

Using technology to extort cash out of people who are not causing
harm to persons or property is despicable and needs to be exposed.

The red light revenue cameras and automated speed trap systems
should be driven right out of town as would happen to every Bozo
who, for the purpose of highway robbery, erects a private toll booth
that blocks a random public street until drivers pay $400 before
they can proceed down the road and encounter the same kind
of scam toll booth that's been erected on the next block, and so on.

Maybe adherence to speed limits and seatbelt usage issues should be
left up to the driver and insurance company to address regarding
liability and responsibility especially if endangering others on the
road. Swerving at 20 MPH over the limit and/or having near misses
(causing others to have accidents) might be something insurance
companies would like to record and track. It would be best to avoid
an accident in the first place, but after an accident, proving in court
that a reckless driver has habitually endangered others by the use
of technology including camera recordings, would certainly help
determine liability and appropriate punishment, etc.

A positive incentive for safe, responsible driving (via insurance?) might
be a better answer to spotty, police "law enforcement" than the hideous
24x7x365 all-seeing technology and one tenth of a second yellow light
timing tweaks and those various cash traps.

I don't have a problem with camera recordings that can prove who
is at fault in the case of an accident, but rolling through a red light
or stop sign when no one else is present should not be an automated
source of revenue for corporate or local government tyrants.