Presentations

Presentations

The most common traffic ticket is probably a citation for running a red light. These days, cops don't even have to be there to cite you. Instead, cameras capture the violation and officers use that evidence in court to convict you. Follow these instructions to beat them at their own game!
Instructions

        1 Once you've been issued a citation for running a red light, captured on a traffic camera (NOT cited by an officer) appear in court on the date you are notified of.
        2 Rather than immediately paying the ticket when you get to the courthouse, request a trial. It will be a bench trial because running a red light is a traffic infraction. For all infractions, there is not right to a jury trial so it will be a "bench trial;" that is, it will be a trial decided by a judge not a jury of your peers.
        3 Avoid stipulation. The day you show up for your hearing, the officers who are appearing against you will likely be waiting outside the courtroom with their snazzy equipment offering to show you the video/picture images of you committing the violation. They'll explain how it all works and sheepishly apologize for your bad luck of getting caught. Then they usually tell you that to make everything go "smoothly" in front of the judge, when he asks if you want to "stipulate" to letting the video be seen by the court, just agree. Here is where you nod along with the officer and when you get into court you confidently say, "NO, thank you, your honor." By stipulating you give up your ONLY chance to beat this ticket. The officer knows he can't lay the foundation to get the video admitted into evidence unless you stipulate because the alternative would involve bringing the custodian of these videos, who are usually located in another state, along with him to the hearing.
        4 You win! If the court doesn't get to see the video, because you didn't stipulate and there was no officer there to see you run the alleged red light, there is no evidence of your crime and you win! No fine, no traffic school, no increase in insurance rates.

From what I have learned about the camera practice, the camera takes the photo and/or video, and this goes to the private company for processing. It is then sent to the law enforcement agency, where a representative reviews it and makes the enforcement decision. For evidence to be admissible in court in Florida, it must be verifiable as authentic. These records, which are generated by the department, once under seal are self-authenticating documents per F.S. 90.902. Camera photos and/or videos sent electronically are another matter- they are not generated by the department or a government agency.

 

Presentations

Wisdom from ABD Sussex:  Drive to conditions, NOT NUMBERS!

ABD_Sussex ‏@ABD_Sussex
Driving by numbers doesn't make you a good driver any more than painting by numbers makes you Rembrandt. Drive to conditions not numbers.

(on ABD Twitter site. http://www.abd.org.uk/news/twitter.htm )

Presentations

http://www.facebook.com/WrongOnRed

WrongOnRed

 
I never thought I would say this, but I want to thank City of Arnold, MO and American Traffic Solutions for being so incredibly greedy and corrupt. Had you not shortened your yellow lights to provide such a stark example before MoDOT snuck in and lengthened them on you unknowingly ;-), this bill might not have passed. There was nothing for scamera supporters to argue when they were shown that red light camera violations magically dropped 90% overnight. Even they had to admit is was a complete fraud. If you need help removing the systems, I have a sledge hammer, a truck, and a De-gaussing Coil in the event you just need their electronics fried so you can collect the insurance and at least make some money off the installations. Or, we can just stand around and watch you hemorrhage cash and laugh our asses off. Your choice.

Presentations

Quote page 3.

B. Executive summary
This analysis has shown that the prior use of automated for-profit law enforcement devices has not increased the safety for the motoring public in the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida. This analysis has found there was no significant crash problem at this intersection, as the Florida DOT only reported a total of sixteen (16) crashes for this fifty-three month period, for an average of .30 per month. There were no fatal crashes, a total of seven (7) injury crashes, and only one of the crashes involved red light running. This crash data listed the driver running the red light as being impaired (DUI). Automated enforcement in the author’s experience will not affect an impaired or inattentive driver.  The crash volume at this intersection is so low a couple of crashes can greatly skew the data.

An Analysis of the City of Gulf Breeze Automated For-
Profit Red Light Camera Program
By Paul Henry
July 9, 2012
Page 1 of 10
A. Predication
1. Purpose of automated for-profit law enforcement devices
It is noted that proponents of automated for-profit law enforcement devices (commonly
known as red light cameras) state without exception their sole purpose is safety. Safety
therefore is best defined as not having a traffic crash due to red light running. Safety is not
defined as having an increase in injury crashes or other types of crashes regardless of those
caused by red light running.
2. Purpose of this analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to utilize Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) traffic
crash data for the City of Gulf Breeze intersection that received an automated for-profit law
enforcement device to determine the actual need and assess the accuracy of a statement made
by the Mayor in 20111. The data was received from the DOT on July 6, 2012.
a. Dual time frames
The City of Gulf Breeze, Florida was the first city in Florida to utilize automated for-profit
law enforcement1. For Gulf Breeze, this was done before such enforcement was legalized as

Attachments:

File	Description
Gulf Breeze, FL Red Light Camera Analysis	Gulf Breeze, FL Red Light Camera Analysis

Read more: An Analysis of the City of Gulf Breeze Automated For- Profit Red Light Camera Program

Presentations

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/04/19/your-car-wont-be-beginning-in-2015/

“Your” Car Won’t Be Beginning in 2015

April 19, 2012, By eric

After a certain point, it’s not paranoia.

The latest brick in the wall is the predictably named “Moving Ahead For Progress in the 21st Century Act,” also known as Senate Bill 1813. (See here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813/text  for the full text of the bill itself; the relevant section is 31406.) This legislation – already passed by the Senate and likely to be passed by the House – will impose a legal requirement that all new cars made beginning with the 2015 models be fitted with so-called Event Data Recorders (EDRs). These are the “black boxes” you may have read about that store data about how you drive – including whether you wear a seat belt and how fast you drive – ostensibly for purposes of post-accident investigation.

These EDRs are not new. GM and other automakers have been installing them in new cars for years – in GM’s case, since the late 1990s. What’s new is the proposed federal mandate, which would make it illegal to not have one – or (in all likelihood) to remove or disable one in a car required to have the device.

The question arises: why?

Several possibilities come to mind:

First, the EDRs could – and almost certainly will be – tied into your vehicle’s GPS. (Most new and late model cars, conveniently, already have this, too.) Then data about your driving can be transmitted – as well as recorded. To whom? Your insurance company, of course. Progressive Insurance already has such a system in place – voluntary, for the moment. (See here http://ericpetersautos.com/2011/12/29/that-word-progressive/ for more on that.)

When EDRs are mandated, you will no longer have a choice.

We’ll be told it’s all for the sake of (groan) “safety” – just like the old 55 MPH highway speed limit and every radar trap in the country. Of course, it’s really for the sake of revenue – the government’s and the insurance company’s. Your rates will be “adjusted” in real time, for every incident of “speeding” or not buckling up. It’ll be so much more efficient than using cops to issue tickets. After all, so many fishes escape! With an EDR in every car, no one will escape. Your “adjusted” premium will be waiting for you when you get home.

You’ve got mail!

And naturally, they – the government, insurance companies – will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you’ve been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either “illegal” or at least “suspicious” we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don’t Worry, it’s No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking. Did the average Soviet citizen also “not have anything to hide,” and hence why worry?

Read more: Eric Peters: “Your” Car Won’t Be Beginning in 2015

Presentations

http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-165-the-trade-offs-of-pay-as

The Trade-Offs of "Pay as You Drive" Auto Insurance

You can hardly channel surf these days without encountering the ubiquitous Flo, the over-caffeinated cheerleader for Progressive Auto Insurance. More often than not, she's hawking the company's Snapshot http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot-how-it-works.aspx program.

Snapshot uses an in-car monitoring device to track your driving habits and then calculates a discount based on how you drive. The voluntary program touts discounts up to 30 percent, and the company's website states that your rates won't increase after you sign up (with a couple exceptions).

The idea behind so-called Pay as You Drive (PAYD) policies is simple and appealing: In exchange for regular monitoring, you can lower your rate by driving less and by driving more safely. Insurance companies like it because they can use real-world information to assess risk and set prices accordingly.

But before you sign up, do your homework. Each insurer collects data it deems important and some collect more data than others.

For example, Progressive's Snapshot system does not use GPS to track your location but does track miles driven, sudden braking events and the time of day you drive. Along with these parameters, State Farm's In-Drive http://motorists.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b1cabcf107071c4341a0eda23&id=1653e12877&e=8dea99fd73 program also collects information on acceleration, turns, speeds over 80 mph and, in some cases, GPS data.

In the UK, insurers seem keen to play up the GPS capabilities of their PAYD programs. No surprise given how accustomed British drivers are to having their movements tracked. Through its DriveSafe program, UK insurer AA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16969509 tracks a whole range of driving and location data, including how fast you take turns and where you park your car at night. It also sends you nasty emails if you're detected speeding.

All of which brings up privacy issues http://www.newsmax.com/US/car-insurance-rates-drive/2011/10/10/id/413884. To be fair, some insurers say they collect GPS data only to offer roadside assistance programs. But the State Farm and GMAC PAYD systems work in conjunction with OnStar http://jalopnik.com/5844322/, which found itself embroiled in a privacy scandal last year by admitting it continued to track drivers even after they unsubscribed from the service. If you object to round-the-clock tracking of your vehicle location, make sure GPS tracking isn't part of the program you choose.

Read more: The Trade-Offs of "Pay as You Drive" Auto Insurance

Presentations

http://epautos.com/2011/12/29/that-word-progressive/

That Word…. Progressive
December 29, 2011

By eric

Progressive insurance is a lot like public education. Both are euphemisms that sound happy enough but mask a number of not so-smiley-faced realities.
 

In the case of Progressive Insurance – the company – the smiley-faced ad girl you see on TV is quite unlike the cold, impersonal entity that will be riding shotgun with you in reality. An entity that wants to monitor, record and transmit deliciously detailed information about the driving habits of its “customers” (a despicable term, given that people are forced to buy insurance) in order that said “customers’ ” premiums may be “adjusted” accordingly.

Progressive’s calls it Snapshot- another False Flag euphemism ginned up by a clever copywriter to mask its ugly reality.

Because in fact, in reality, a  “snapshot” is taken (and recorded) every time you get behind the wheel. A given “snapshot” is merely the data sample the system sends back to Progressive HQ at any given moment. But the fact is the system keeps constant track of your speed, how rapidly you accelerate and decelerate, when you drive – and how often you drive. Just for openers.

Read more: That Word…. Progressive

Presentations

North Carolina Supreme Court says 90% of RLC revenue must go to schools, Cary gives $2.50 out of $50.00 to schools!

Ban the Cams note:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1132.asp  Quote:  A ruling today by the North Carolina Court of Appeals threatens red light camera programs in the state. The decision upheld two lower court rulings that had required the city of High Point to direct 90 percent of photo ticket fines to the public school system. Today's ruling expands the precedent statewide, turning money-making programs into a money-losers for the cities involved.

(Article on the North Carolina Supreme Court:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1834.asp).

So what do you all think, is CARY BREAKING THE LAW????

See this quote from the article below:

By contract, the Town of Cary pays Redflex $49.50 of every $50. That leaves 50 cents to the schools. The contract contains a tiered compensation clause. When the Town of Cary can force more drivers to run red lights, Cary only has to pay Redflex 60%, not the normal 99%. In the end, once Cary takes out its own administrative costs, about $2.50 goes to the schools.

http://redlightrobber.com/red/index.html

Red Light Robber

The story is true.

 

 
 
This is an exact account of the red light camera program in the Town of Cary, North Carolina. Dr. Moley represents the real-life person Brad Hudson. Hudson is a civilian, who against the Town of Cary/Redflex contract, evaluates tickets though he is not a sworn police officer. As the video says, Hudson comes to work once a month and without looking at the videos, accuses and convicts everyone. Baby Cookieflex plays the part of Maria, an employee of Redflex. She works at the "Safelight" office in Cary. If you have a problem with the ticket, the Cary police send you to Maria. Maria does indeed say, "Aren't you happy that your $50 goes to public schools? Don't you care about children?" The Town of Cary spreads Redflex's lie to the local TV stations and the newspapers. But Cary never says what percentage goes to schools. By contract, the Town of Cary pays Redflex $49.50 of every $50. That leaves 50 cents to the schools. The contract contains a tiered compensation clause. When the Town of Cary can force more drivers to run red lights, Cary only has to pay Redflex 60%, not the normal 99%. In the end, once Cary takes out its own administrative costs, about $2.50 goes to the schools.

As for the bad physics, this is the problem. While other problems such as Constitution and legal precedent violations are also serious, it is the misapplied physics that fuels the red light camera industry. Traffic engineers all over the world habitually misapply the ITE Yellow Light Interval Formula, the international standard which sets the length of a yellow light. The misapplication countermands Newton's Second Law of Motion and demands that the driver do so too. But neither driver nor any object in this universe can violate a law of motion. And so the error creates a dilemma zone, a section of road along the approach to the intersection, where if you are in it when the light turns yellow, you will have no choice but to run a red light. The dilemma zone is present at every intersection. Eventually everyone will arrive at the wrong time and be in the wrong place when the light turns yellow . . . and will be guilty. The Town of Cary has so far issued 130,000 tickets--more than the population of the Town of Cary. The red light camera companies, in cooperation with the cities, exploit and profit from the error. Worse than the profitting is the forcing of drivers to crash. Even the pro-camera organization IIHS admits that all cities see a 15% increase in rear-end crashes and several cities, including Raleigh, North Carolina (Cary's neighbor city), see an increase in fatalities.
 
At this website you will find the scientific proof that will get rid of red light cameras once and for all. The legal ground is universal, absolute and irrefutable. The argument is that red light camera laws depend on a standard that violates Natural Law. Any legislation depending on such a standard is null and void itself. The argument applies to any jurisidiction in the world. You can use this argument in the United States as well as the Netherlands. This is called the Canute Legal Precedent. The precedent is named after King Canute who demonstrated in 1020 AD, that not even a king could enforce a law that halts the ocean tides.
 
The goal of the lawyers, physicists and artists behind this website, is to increase the yellow light lengths at all intersections such that they allow drivers to abide by Newton's Second Law of Motion. We estimate that this will prevent over 99% of all crashes and deaths at signalized intersections. If a city wants to keep red light cameras after that, they certainly can. But there will be no profit in it anymore.
 

Presentations

Ban the Cams note:  Though this article doesn't mention speed scameras, AZ still "allows" them.  It is a good insight into how speed limits are manipluated by cities for finanical (not safety) purposes.

http://photoradarscam.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dubious-traffic-engineering-and-politics-predominate-over-public-safety-on-arizona-roadways/

Dubious Traffic Engineering and Politics Predominate Over Public Safety on Arizona Roadways
December 19, 2011 – 6:17 am

People place blind trust that the governments responsible for determining speed limits are qualified and have conducted a proper analysis to arrive at the correct number. Many firmly believe that driving even just a little above the posted limit can be indeed be extremely dangerous. But this new video on Youtube shows that posted speed limits we see are sometimes nothing more than the result of a political whim, as in the city of Peoria, AZ the limits are established by ordinances that are established by the city council. Although difficult to see, the video shows a roadway in North Peoria, the stretch of Pinnacle Peak between 83rd Ave & 91st Ave where speed limits are set for 30mph going Westbound, but 45 going eastbound. There is no discernible difference in each side of the road (low density residential with no schools or school crossing), and the road is one lane in each direction. What could the engineering justification possibly be to call for a 15mph difference in speed limits based only on what direction you’re going? The only reasonable answer is that the city wants to create a speed trap.

The video also shows another location just south of Happy Valley Road on 91st Ave. As you approach the 3-way intersection, the last 1/8 of a mile drops from 40mph to 30mph. When you turn from Happy Valley onto 91st Ave southbound, you can go 45mph for the 1st 1/8th mile, then the limit drops to 30mph for about 3/8 of a mile, then raises up to a standard 40mph limit. Again, there are no schools and no discernible changes in road design or neighborhoods over these distances. These limits are nothing more than a speed trap, and nothing more than city officials screwing with drivers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LrKzamq_6MQ

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LrKzamq_6MQ?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Read more: Dubious Traffic Engineering and Politics Predominate Over Public Safety on Arizona Roadways

Presentations

New link to facebook site fighting ATS front group NCSR!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Anti-National-Coalition-for-Safer-Roads/205032206181287

Anti National Coalition for Safer Roads

Non-Profit Organization.

Anti National Coalition for Safer Roads
 

Founded 2011
 

Company Overview In a study of six jurisdictions over a seven-year period, the Virginia Transportation Research Council concluded that camera installations were associated with an increase in rear-end collisions. In 2001, the Virginia Department of Transportation increased by 1.5 seconds the length of the yellow-light cycle at an intersection with cameras. The increase in the yellow-light time resulted in a 94... percent drop in citations at the intersection.

Last year, Norcross, Georgia officials abandoned the use of red-light cameras in the wake of mandatory increases in yellow-light intervals statewide, because violations dropped to the point where the privately operated camera systems were costing the city revenue.

Mission To stop the red-light running cameras that are put there in the interest of generating revenue rather than saving lives. Did you know the yellow light time was cut in 1/2 when they started these? Collisions have increased, and it saves no one from someone who isn't paying attention or can't see the light, which is the REAL red-light problem. 

Presentations

THE REJECTION RATE SCAM! 

The Rejection Rate Scam is where a scamera Vendor (or City) INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATES the number of VIOLATIONS by use of the REJECTION RATE.

This came out into the news last year in Baytown, TX where ATS and the City INCREASED the REJECTION RATE to make it seem like RLV were going "down".  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3173.asp

The REJECTION RATE SCAM can be played one of two ways:

A.   Either increase the number of violations you reject (like Baytown)

B.   Or you STOP REJECTING ANY RLV Triggers of any kind. 

In fact I strongly suspect that is what vendors do in their SURVEYS to pump up the violation numbers.   Then if they get a contract, those "violation" numbers can be adjusted down by police "review" of tickets (or themselves).

A GREAT Example of this was in Mukilteo, WA when they calimed to have a "massive" RLV problem which turned out to be right turns on reds!

ATS VP (former now) Kroske WAS SO UPSET when the city enginneer mentioned the fact that most of the "violations" were REALLY NON DANGEROUS RIGHT TURNS, KROSKE CALLED THE MAN A "IDIOT".  http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110807/NEWS01/708079938

KROSKE:  "I cannot believe this idiot sent this to WSDOT. (It) may have torpedoed the project,"

In fact you can see the ATS survey here in the PDF format:  http://www.banthecams.org/attachments/1553_ATS%20Mukilteo%20survey.pdf

Also see:  http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/ats-mukilteo-survey-proves-most-of-the-qviolationsq-were-right-turns.html
 

Presentations

Parking Scamera fining people for exactly 17 seconds: Spy cameras hit innocent drivers as tickets soar fivefold

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026385/Fined-parking-exactly-17-seconds-Spy-cameras-hit-innocent-drivers-tickets-soar-fivefold.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Fined after parking for exactly 17 seconds: Spy cameras hit innocent drivers as tickets soar fivefold

• Four million tickets were issued in the UK last year
• Number successfully challenging up 20 per cent

By Ray Massey

Last updated at 8:49 AM on 16th August 2011

Persecuted motorists are being handed five times as many parking tickets as they were a decade ago, figures show.

New mobile CCTV cameras are being used to catch drivers who may only have stopped momentarily. One case was based on just 17 seconds of film.

There have even been instances of automated fines being generated for moving vehicles.

More than four million tickets with penalties of up to £105 a time were dished out by wardens and councils across the country last year.

Numbers have leapt more than ten per cent in the past two years, fuelled by the introduction of controversial CCTV-equipped camera cars.

Instead of tickets being slapped on the windscreen, drivers discover a fine only when the automatically generated ticket drops through their letterbox.

But misuse of the cameras has led to a stinging rebuke from the official appeals watchdog, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

 No warning: The report said that many councils failed to put up signs saying that CCTV was in operation

The number of people successfully challenging their tickets has risen by an astonishing 20 per cent in the past two years.

In one case that was thrown out on appeal, a council issued a ticket using CCTV footage of ‘some 17 seconds’.

In another rejected case, a fine was issued when a car stopped for 46 seconds to allow driver and passenger to swap places.

The report also highlights cases of camera cars parking on double yellow lines to catch errant drivers and councils that fail to put up signs warning drivers that CCTV is in operation.

Motoring groups said cash-strapped councils were increasingly using parking charges and fines to fill ‘black holes in their coffers’.

Read more: Fined after parking for exactly 17 seconds: Spy cameras hit innocent drivers as tickets soar 5 fold!

Presentations

http://www.facebook.com/randall.kubosh

Randall D Kubosh AN OPEN LETTER

We have always contended that the Red light Intersection Cameras actually increase accidents and were never about safety, but only about revenue for the city. The cameras are nothing more than a tax on the people who drive th...rough the city. An analysis of the tickets written early on showed that the cameras were not producing enough revenue so the City shortened the timing of the yellow caution light by a fraction of a second at selected intersections and the City started issuing citations for right on red violation. In fact, the Houston Chronicle reported last May 2011, that 5 months after the light were turned off, accidents were down over 13%. This validated our belief that any true unbiased report will confirm that the red light intersection cameras increase accidents.

The Mayor told my brother Mike in City Council Chambers prior to the election, whenever we meet with her in the City of Houston Council Chambers, when the City Council voted to put the matter on the ballot in November, that she planned to beat us, fair and square. She was confident the citizens would stand with her and her support of the Red Light Intersection Cameras.

(Ban the CAMS NOTE:  I think we know the MAYOR HAD NO INTENTION OF EVER HONORING THE VOTERS BANNING RLC!  So much for the public "support" claims!)

After the November 2nd 2010 Election was held, the voters Against Prop # 3 won by 5% margin, 181, 082 voters in Houston made it clear. The Citizens of Houston decided they wanted the Red Light Cameras to GO. On November 15th, 2010 the City of Houston Canvassed the vote, making the election official and ordering the Red Light Camera Company, ATS, American Traffic Solutions to turn off the cameras.

In November, after the vote was canvassed, Mayor Parker instructed David Feldman, City Attorney, to file what we call “a friendly lawsuit” against the RLC company ATS in Federal Court to get a favorable venue. This lawsuit should have been filed in State District Court. I cannot imagine a State District Judge throwing out an election by the people and expect to be voted back into office the next election. Mayor Parker and David Feldman knew this, reason why they filed the case in Federal Court. The City and the RLC company, ATS are all wanting the same thing, the cameras to be turned back on. Another possible explanation why the City Houston initiated the suit, rather than the ATS, was to shield ATS from negative press. Consider this, the RLC company, ATS' Chief Legal Counsel is George Hittner, son of Federal Judge Hittner in the Federal Courthouse two blocks from City Hall, downtown. This is another explanation for why the City of Houston filed their lawsuit in Federal Court.

Read more: Randall D Kubosh AN OPEN LETTER

Presentations

Ticket Camera Humor!  (Just in Time for Harry Potter!)

http://www.myneworleans.com/My-New-Orleans/June-2011/In-Which-I-Contest-a-Traffic-Camera-Ticket/

In Which I Contest a Traffic Camera Ticket
Jay Forman
 
Photo Courtesy of NOPDJust got one of those camera tickets in the mail and decided to contest it. I’ve tried before, to no avail. This time (and in the spirit of the upcoming Harry Potter movie) I’ve opted for a different approach. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Notice # 0801100923607

Dear Officer Hartman,

I assume you are familiar with the wizarding world of Harry Potter. I also assume you are familiar with local mental healthcare facilities. Finally I assume that you are aware of the existence of temporary wormholes, or “rips” in the very fabric of space/time. Given these assumptions, along with the evidence below, I feel confident that you will agree that I am not at fault for Moving Violation #0801100923607.

On May 12 I was traveling south on Henry Clay Avenue. It was a balmy spring evening. Little did I know what was about to transpire. As I passed the intersection at Coliseum Street I was temporarily blinded by a flash of light. At first I naively assumed it was just from the recently installed speeding camera, a device of which I am a big fan. Imagine my shock to see a cluster of four hovering dementors blocking the road ahead of me:

Exhibit A-1

I quickly assessed the situation. To slow down or – worse – stop the vehicle would be madness. Nor could I swerve into the other lane for fear of oncoming traffic. Clearly, I only had but one choice. I floored it.

As I drove through the flock of dementors, the momentum carried me into the ball of light just beyond them. This was in fact a temporary, but stable, wormhole! Therein, I found myself bathed in a weird, unearthly glow, not unlike the Pink Floyd Laser shows they used to have out at the Planetarium. I was only in there for seven and a half seconds in “real-time”, but inside it felt like a good three hours. During that time I was able to ascertain the situation.

This was my conclusion:

As you know, this traffic camera is installed just outside of what we once referred to as an “Insane Asylum.” That term is no longer in vogue. They prefer to call them “treatment centers” now, but we all know what the score is.

The presence of dementors outside its walls was no coincidence. I submit to you that DePauls is Azkaban, the famous wizarding prison, concealed by multiple layers of Confundus charms, whose true location has never been fully disclosed by the Ministry of Magic. True, the prevailing school of thought is that Azkaban is on a rocky island. But the prevailing school of thought also had Osama bin Laden hiding in a remote cave, not next to the Applebee’s in downtown Abbottabad.

Placing Azkaban in the United States makes sense. Our cordial relations with the United Kingdom would facilitate extradition, while keeping wizarding threats far from British soil. And the wormhole? The Patronus charm is a wormhole, which explains its ability to summon the souls of dead protectors to watch over the living and defend them against dementor attacks. QED.

Of course, something extraordinary must have happened to cause those dementors to leave the grounds and make their presence known. Most likely, a high-profile practitioner of the Dark Arts has escaped and is at large Uptown. This could also explain what has happened to all the ducks in Audubon Park. Do you have Aurors on staff now? I would hope that was part of Ronnie Serpas’s new crime initiative.

But back to the matter at hand. Compare the time stamps on Exhibit 1-A to Exhibit 1-B, below:

Exhibit 1-B

As you can see, transport through the wormhole caused me to actually travel forward at a negative rate of speed, as I appeared thirty feet in front of myself seven and a half seconds before I left -- a pretty neat trick!

Now comes the uncomfortable part: I feel that the City of New Orleans actually owes me money, not the other way around. I understand that your camera is not capable of processing this kind of situation. The back of my notice accounts for datum such as “1-9 mph over limit = $75 Civil Penalty”. It does not account for “Speed, while initially 6 mph over posted limit, when aggregated with stable wormhole travel due to dementor menace results in net negative forward speed = $75.00 Civil Credit.”

I accept either personal check or money orders. Be advised that should you pay with credit card, I will assign a small “convenience fee.”

Sincerely,

Jay Forman

PS – should my Azkaban tip result in the arrest of a Death Eater, I expect to be eligible for the Crimestoppers reward.

Ed. Note: Renaissance Publishing and myNewOrleans.com do not acknowledge the existence of dementors, wormholes or wizards in general, no matter how much we really, really wish they were real.

Presentations

Thanks to www.wrongonred.com for the link.

http://stpeters.patch.com/blog_posts/will-st-peters-red-light-camera-system-go-dark-would-you-care

Will St. Peters' Red-Light Camera System Go Dark? Would You Care?
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:00am 

By: Michael E.Carter
 

As a municipal judge, I presided over many red-light camera cases and decided outcomes in accord with the applicable city ordinance in place—i.e. driver identity, proper stop, color of signal light, etc.

I can tell you that no one likes making a traffic court appearance. This includes policemen, defendants and attorneys. However, without exception, there was one type of ticket that suffered the most disdain and was the least popular—the red-light camera ticket.  No speeding, stop-sign, or seat-belt ticket could possibly compare with the heated passions evoked by the "big brother" (typical defendant's words) camera ticket.

Ask most experienced municipal traffic court judges and they, if candid, can likely paint a quick picture of the average speeding-ticket defendant that actually comes to court—at a minimum they skew young and are typically hoping to eventually get the money together for an attorney's fee or fine.

But, such stereotyping just doesn't work for the red-light camera ticket defendant that actually comes to court.  These defendants are often professional men & women; fathers & mothers; grandmothers & grandfathers; and business owners (lots of these).

Keep in mind that red-light camera tickets arrive, unsuspectingly, in the mail with the look and feel of something akin to a utility bill, as opposed to a ticket that an officer hands the defendant through the driver-side window.

These affluent, civic-minded, defendants typically have the money for the fine, but often take issue with the ticket-issuing methodology, camera technology, perceived purpose of the camera system, road conditions at the time of the red-light camera's picture, or insist that they were not driving the car. So, they head to court to voice their concerns.

It is often quite troubling when mothers and fathers point out that they are not the driver in the red-light camera picture, only to find out they must choose between facing another trip to court for a trial or agreeing to swear and affirm that the person in the red-light camera picture was their son or daughter.

Read more: Will St. Peters' Red-Light Camera System Go Dark? Would You Care?

Presentations

http://blog.motorists.org/traffic-tickets-everyone-gets-a-piece/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=traffic-tickets-everyone-gets-a-piece

Traffic Tickets: Everyone Gets A Piece
Posted on June 7th, 2011

The Daily Breeze put out a story http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_18211219 earlier this week that demonstrates how a $100 traffic ticket can turn into $480 burden.

When motorists in Los Angeles County get a ticket with a base fine of $100, they’re hit with 15 additional penalties and assessments that add an addtional $380 to their bill. Unfortunately, there’s not much hope that these penalties are going away or that the government won’t add even more penalties on top:

To help ease the state’s budget troubles, legislators have added several new assessments to traffic fines since 2009, including a $35 “state conviction fee” and penalties that raise money for new courthouse construction.

Among other increases, state security fees doubled to $40 in recent years, and legislators tacked on a $4 penalty to traffic tickets to fund emergency air transport services due to increased Medi-Cal funding of that service. [...]

Other traffic violation fine penalties have been proposed in the Legislature. They include a $3 fee to go to spinal cord injury research, and an increase to the existing DNA identification fines on all criminal offenses including traffic violations.

It has finally gotten to the point that motorists are fed up:

Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the organization has had an increase in calls from people frustrated by costly traffic tickets, even though they are not considered a tax.

“They’re definitely becoming abusive,” Vosburgh said. “Rather than a deterrent, government has come to look at this as an opportunity to expand revenue. Revenue is the first priority, and public safety is a far second.” [...]

 Existing traffic fee penalties are up significantly from 10 years ago, as Ken Breding of Gardena noticed when he was ticketed recently for rolling through a stop sign.

 

“I’m a self-employed, single father and, right now with the economy, I’m living paycheck to paycheck. So that (ticket) was a hard chunk to swallow,” said Breding, 48. “It’s like sticker shock when you see (the ticket cost). That’s two months of groceries for me.”

“I broke the law but it seems these days that the traffic ticket is not about enforcing the law,” he said. “It’s more about increasing revenue. It’s become more of a business than law enforcement.”

Politicians are careful to leave the base ticket fines alone because it’s easier politically to hide ticket increases in a group of tacked on fees that are generally only noticed by the ticket recipients themselves.

It’s hard to work up much outrage when they’re adding $5 fees one at a time, but as we’ve found out, those small fines add up quickly. That means it’s important for motorists to keep on top of their local government and speak up against adding additonal fees, no matter how insignificant they may seem at the time.

If we don’t break their addiction to tacked-on fees, we may look back years from now and think that adding 15 additional penalties to a minor traffic ticket seems reasonable.

Presentations

http://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/06/have-ticket-with-unclear-photo-of-you.html

Have a Ticket With an Unclear Photo of You?
by DeadZones.com | Thursday, June 02, 2011 | evidence, Fighting Tickets, How To, Laws, Snitch Tickets, Validation

What to do When a Camera Ticket has an Unclear Photo of You

Those red light cameras tickets you receive in the mail can be tricky to deal with. Many find themselves stuck with a ticket that says they were the driver but doesn’t actually have clear photo of the driver’s face.

If you receive a ticket in the mail that says you were the driver but it doesn’t have a clear picture of your face it can be frustrating because without a clear picture how can you even tell yourself if it was you driving? There is a way you can send in a form saying that someone else was the driver, but with a blurry picture how can you tell who it is.

You could of course go into court and let a judge see for himself that there is no possible way you could be identified as the driver based on the picture on the ticket. You could also explain to a judge that you can’t identify anyone else as the driver because of the poor picture quality. But going into court can be a hassle and scary for some, so it’s much easier to handle situations like this without going into court, with a Trial by Written Declaration. Using a Trial by Written Declaration you can explain the situation and even include a recent photograph of yourself for the judge to use as a comparison to the picture of the driver on the ticket. In situations like this there is a good chance your ticket will be dismissed.

Blog contributed by TicketBust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.
If you get cited for a red light photo ticket, contact us at www.TicketBust.com or call us at (800) 850-8038. For Spanish, please visit www.Combatesuticket.com or call (818) 584-3689. For more information on how TicketBust can help to beat your cell phone ticket, visit www.fightcellphonetickets.com or call (800) 850-8038.
 

Presentations

http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_wordpress&p=10813&Itemid=482
 

Red Light Cameras Promote Unsafe Driving
by Jeff Prince

A recent article in The New York Times warned readers about speeding, saying police citations can increase your insurance payments by double digits.

The story included the following nonsense: “So you might want to slow down or even stop when the traffic light turns yellow, instead of accelerating and trying to get through before it turns red.”

Red light cameras encourage motorists to accelerate through yellow lights.

Before the advent of red light cameras, I used to slow down when traffic lights turned yellow. If I were able to bring my full-sized pickup to a stop, I did. If I couldn’t, then I rolled through the tail end of the yellow light or maybe even the beginning of the red light.

I considered that the safe way to drive.

Now, when I see a yellow light, I punch my accelerator. Why? Because it’s impossible to force a pickup or any other heavy vehicle to slow down from 40 or 50 mph to a dead stop in just a few seconds, without having to stand on the brakes and come to a screeching halt.

Some cities, such as Dallas and Lubbock, have even relied on shorter yellow lights to make sure they catch more motorists and increase profits.

I’m not going to ruin my brakes by sliding to a three-second stop at every intersection just to please some money-grubbers who want to exploit its citizenry and pad our city coffers. So I punch the accelerator with everything I’ve got to get through an intersection before the camera snaps a picture.

Is this safe driving? Uh, no.  I liked my old way of driving better.

But myself and other drivers are doing this now in reaction to arbitrary cameras that allow no room for grace — just a $75 fine, no exceptions, no human being to listen, no nothing except a payment demand.
 

Presentations

http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publications/video/red-tape/559-an-end-to-red-light-cameras-in-saint-louis.html

 
 
An End to Red Light Cameras in Saint Louis?     

By David Stokes    

Thursday, June 02, 2011 

Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst David Stokes weighs in on red light cameras in Saint Louis — the recent ruling that found such cameras illegal in Saint Louis, and the implications of the ruling for the city payroll tax.

You can read the entire ruling here.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/56102842/St-Louis-Red-Light-Lawsuit

Presentations

http://web.me.com/mike.butler/Change_Hallandale/Updates/Entries/2011/5/26_Former_City_Manager_on_Red_Light_Cameras.html

Red Light Cameras
2011
 Former City Manager R.J. Intindola on red light cameras...see below.

And in case you missed it, see the article “Bad Safety”: http://savehallandale.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/bad-safety/

As City Manager of Hallandale Beach Florida, I rejected the concept of the installation of red light cameras for several reasons. Although there were limited studies at the time of my retirement in November of 2002, considerable research and documentation indicating the danger and ineffectiveness of the cameras has surfaced over the past several years.

Similar to other local government officials, the Mayor of Hallandale Beach, Florida, Joy Cooper, credits the installation of red light cameras as a method for saving lives. She also states that the strain on law enforcement necessitates the installation of red light cameras. In a recent Miami Herald guest editorial, she wrote: "Not being able to pay as many police officers is a challenge, but instead of putting cities and towns at risk with less officers on the streets, red-light traffic cameras can still effectively enforce the law, and allow officers to do their job — protect citizens."

However, in the case in Hallandale beach Florida, her statement is not factual. A review of the 2009 budget indicates there are an equal number of police personnel today as there were when I retired in November of 2002.

Having worked with Joy Cooper for several years, I know she shoots from the hip using a shotgun approach, and then tries to justify her false statements. Typically, her justifications are generic and without supporting documentation. In the same article noted above, she wrote "According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in the United States, 200,000 people are injured and 900 people are killed each year in motor vehicle collisions resulting from a motor vehicle driver violating a red light-traffic signal…The violation of red light traffic signals is the number one cause of urban motor vehicle collisions. The installation and use of red light cameras have proven to reduce intersection collisions by 40 percent." Joy Coopers cries http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/apr/04/joy-cooper-florida-lives-depend-on-red-light/ for the community to support red light cameras

Joy Cooper has a fondness for the dramatic, and for the misuse of facts. So I undertook my own investigation to validate her statements and determine the truth regarding the use of red light cameras.

For example, I located many of the same Insurance Institute for Highway Safety statistics used by Mayor Cooper. But I could not locate any other website or study that illustrated the positive aspects of red light cameras. Instead, a considerable amount of research concludes that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is providing self-serving statistics, provided exclusively by consultants they hired.

One major study conducted by the University of South Florida’s College of Public Health concluded red light cameras were ineffective and not living up to their intended purpose. Lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of Health Policy and Management noted: “The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work." You can read and learn more at the University of South Florida website for the Department of Health Policy and Management.

The study also notes a 2001 report by the majority leader for the United States House of Representatives. That study reported that red-light cameras are "a hidden tax levied on motorists." As of this date, six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light cycle below uniform standard traffic engineering principles, and even in some cases State law. These cities include Lubbock Texas; Nashville and Chattanooga Tennessee; Union City California; Dallas Texas; and Springfield Missouri.

In Union City California, officials were found to trap motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by State law. The city was ordered to refund more than $1 million in fines previously issued to motorists.

In California, the State auditor concluded that 77% of all citations were issued when the light was red for less than one second. Due to the reduced yellow signal time, these motorists were faced with either running the red light or slamming on the brakes. Those that chose to brake often stopped past the double line, therefore were technically in violation. In many cases the vehicles ended in the middle of the intersection or in the pathway of crossing traffic.

In Lubbock Texas, the statistics regarding an increase in traffic accidents at red light camera intersections is horrifying. Rear end collisions nearly doubled at 12 intersections where red light cameras were installed. The total number of accidents increased by 50%. One local television station, KCBD in Lubbock, documented short yellow cycle times below the minimum required by law, most likely causing the increased accident rate.

In Nashville Tennessee, many question the motive for initially installing the red light cameras. Justin Owen, president for the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, wrote "…on the whole, they create a lot of problems." Owen continued that there are other methods to reduce the accident rate at intersections including increasing the yellow light cycle "…by one or one and one half seconds." The increased yellow cycle provides additional time for the driver to make a more informed decision. This comment is supported on numerous occasions in my review of the literature where traffic experts have stated that reconfiguration of the intersection and enhanced yellow cycle times decrease accident rates more than the installation of red light cameras. 

A 2008 University of South Florida report found "Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety."   Study Summary  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2267.asp

                 The complete