Speed Camera News

More on MD:  Senate Neuters Speed Camera Reform Bill Provision

Ban the Cams note:  Essential reform sold out to the scamera side for a buck.  We do wonder, did the Senators get Ruth Chris Steak Dinner on selling out their OWN CITIZENS again???

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2392.asp  (2008)

Quote: Photo enforcement lobbyists wined and dined key Maryland state lawmakers before a vote to expand speed cameras statewide earlier this year. The Annapolis lobby firm Alexander and Cleaver arranged a $3,700 event to wine and dine the House and Senate committee members responsible for delivering the legislation to the floor of each chamber. The Washington Post reported on the event after analyzing the ethics disclosure reports for each of the state's 188 lawmakers.

This was done at a Ruth Chris Steak House.  See the link above on more.

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/senate-neuters-speed-camera-reform-bill.html

Senate Neuters Speed Camera Reform Bill Provision

A key provision in a speed camera reform bill was eliminated after State Senator Richard Madaleno (D, Montgomery County) submitted an amendment removing a requirement that citation images show evidence of speed.  Senator Madaleno's amendment denies motorists access to evidence which in most cases is the only thing which can exonerate a falsely accused motorists who receives an erroneous speed camera ticket.  http://www.mddriversalliance.org/search/label/camera%20errors

Senate Bill 207 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=SB0207&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS, sponsored by Senator James Brochin (D, Montgomery County) originally contained two key provisions: 1) clarifying an existing to provision of the law (which is currently being widely broken) to ban speed camera contractors from being paid based on the number of citations issued, and 2) to require citation images to "ALLOW FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE SPEED OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE " (ie, secondary evidence of speed).

Senator Madelino's amendment http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/amds/bil_0007/sb0207_77382101.pdf changed the language of SB207 from stating that speed camera images must "PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ALLOW FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE SPEED OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE " to instead say "PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SHOW THE PROGRESSION OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE".  By changing the language of the bill from "speed" to "progression", they have changed the meaning such that the bill would no longer require secondary evidence of speed. As amended, citation images would merely need to show that the vehicle is present and moving, something which is not in and of itself a violation of the law, and which provides absolutely no protection to motorists who are accused based on an incorrect speed reading. 

Brochin's bill was prompted by revelations that speed cameras in Baltimore City had systematically issued erroneous speeding citations http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html, with 1 out of every 20 citations from some cameras proven to be in error.  This included large trucks accused of traveling twice their actual speed http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/10/trucking-company-questions-accuracy-of.html  The errors were discovered only due to the fact that Baltimore City's speed cameras had millisecond precision timestamps as well as videos which made the erroneous speed readings provable after the fact.  However many speed cameras in the state do not provide accurate timestamps on images, sometimes rounded down to the second when the time interval between images http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-08/news/bs-md-speed-cameras-time-stamp-20121208_1_camera-tickets-camera-law-baltimore-county is actually a fraction of a second which is information that is denied to ticket recipients, so proving speed after the fact would be impossible.

The fact is speed measurement errors can occur with any system.  The Washington Post once reported that a speed camera falsely cited a Silver Spring couple for a 100mph rampage http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081601895.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns when in fact they had not been speeding.  Such errors are far more common than speed camera supporters will admit, and have happened around the world.  In the UK, a van driver was recently fired over a 103mph speeding ticket which authorities would eventually admit was due to an error http://www.barnsley-chronicle.co.uk/news/article/6079/delivery-man-in-blunder-loses-his-job.  In Fort Dodge Iowa, speed camera contractor RedSpeed admitted that they were seeing erroneous speed readings for large vehicles http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/545083/Chief-cites--Bermuda-Triangle-.html in an area the town's police chief described as 'the Bermuda Triangle'.

Xerox corp has admitted http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/baltimore-camera-cited-non-moving-car.html that "very flat, metallic, back panel of these types of truck can act as a RF mirror and cause radar signal reflection that can bounce between the receding vehicle(truck) and the approaching vehicle (car in the opposite direction) and results in high doppler changes, hence higher speed readings".  And in a report to Baltimore City http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html#moreThe%20same%20type%20of%20cameras%20which%20produced%20the%20erroneous%20citations%20in%20Baltimore conceding the existence of systematic errors, Xerox Corp stated that "Radar effects are caused by reflection, refraction, and absorption" and that "The radar effect is a know property of radar".  As such any radar device has the potential to produce false speed readings, and the speed camera vendors know this.  The same type of speed camera which produced erroneous speed readings in Baltimore City are also used in Baltimore County and the City of Rockville.  Baltimore's then contractor Xerox Corp (who has since been replaced in Baltimore City) is also the contractor in Montgomery County, Frederick, and the State of Maryland's speed camera program.  As such there is no reason to believe equipment used by other speed camera programs in the state is any more foolproof that the equipment used by Baltimore City.

The TRUE REASON some lawmakers oppose the requirement for secondary evidence of speed is because they FEAR that the Public and the Press will find systematic errors in other speed camera programs, just as has already happened in Baltimore City.

Madeleno's amendment has the effect of denying motorists the right to a fair defense and of ensuring that in many cases they will be presumed guilty.  In most cases, secondary evidence of speed from citation images is the only thing which can give a falsely accused motorist a fair shot in court. And unless it is REQUIRED, such evidence will not be provided and errors will simply be denied by the agencies which profit from cameras.

As an example, in past years recipients of tickets issued by Optotraffic speed cameras that citations had been successfully disputed in court using the millisecond precision timestamps on the images http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=147930 to contest speeding citations.  In fact a document written by Optotraffic specifically stated that "Since a stationary object is present along with the vehicle, a photographic method also determines speed, guaranteeing fairness”.  However after Optotraffic and their clients started receiving bad press over the errors -- and after Optotraffic lowered the timestamp precision on their citations from three decimal places to one!!!  -- motorists who tried using citation images to dispute speed readings in most parts of the state started losing these cases fairly consistently.  Some judges have even openly stated to entire rooms full of defendants, before any evidence was presented, that there was no defense they would accept challenging a recorded speed reading http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2011/11/prince-georges-county-court-openly.html.  The fact that Optotraffic cameras are capable of producing "false triggers" was eventually proven by documents released by the town of Cheverly http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2011/11/optotraffic-contract-with-cheverly.html.  However local governments including Prince George's County, Forest Heights, College Park, and Riverdale Park continue using the devices, and Optotraffic has yet to admit to a single error.

Only Baltimore City seems to be the exception... because there were videos and millisecond precision timestamps judges could see that the speed readings were in error, and many cases have been dismissed.  Had it not been for the detailed evidence, trucking companies would never have been able to provide us with our first evidence that these errors were taking place, the Baltimore Sun's series on these errors never would have been written, the documents we found showing that the city had known about the problems for months http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/emails-reveal-more-prior-complaints.html without taking the cameras offline would never have been found. It is entirely possible those same defective cameras would still be on the streets today issuing erroneous citations.  Baltimore City and Xerox could have denied these errors, exactly the way Optotraffic, Forest Heights, College Park, and other jurisdictions did.  And some of the professional drivers who received the tickets might even have been fired because their employers would have assumed the citations were correct.

As amended, this provision may actually make matters WORSE for defendants in speed camera hearings, because it corroborates the position of the camera vendors that the citation images are only intended to show "movement" rather than speed.... even though it is not a crime for a vehicle to be "present and moving".

By contrast, Senator E.J. Pipkin submitted an amendment to the bill http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/amds/bil_0007/sb0207_73362902.pdf which would clarify the law and prevent speed camera vendors from allowing the manufacturer of the device to certify their own equipment... a practice which has been done by the SHA and more recently in Hagerstown and Laurel http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/laurel-hagerstown-circumvent.html.  E.J. Pipkin, unlike Madaleno, has been a stalwart supporter of motorist rights.  However we note that the cameras in Baltimore City issued erroneous tickets even when the devices passed all tests, with one camera passing its daily self test on the very day it issued an erroneous citation to a stationary vehicle.  As such, while Pipkin's well intentioned amendment may correct the PROCEDURAL issue, without the requirement for secondary evidence of speed the amended SB 207 no longer contains any provisions which address the accuracy issues revealed by Baltimore City's situation.

When a police officer issues a speeding ticket, there IS in fact "secondary evidence of speed" -- the police officer's eye witness testimony.  Since most speed cameras are unmanned, no such eye witness exists.  Furthermore the burden of proof for speed camera citations is explicitly lowered to allow conviction without requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt" and without the testimony of either the camera operator or citation approvers.

Standards set by the NHTSA for speed enforcement radar http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/810845.pdf state the following:
"2.18.2 Unattended Operation. If the ATR device is to be considered for unattended operation, the manufacturer shall provide a secondary method for verifying that the evidential recorded image properly identifies the target vehicle and reflects this vehicle’s true speed, as described in §5.18.2. This may be accomplished by means of a second, appropriately delayed image showing the target vehicle crossing a specified reference line."
Unfortunately, Maryland law does not require speed cameras to meet nationally recognized standards.

Cameras which can capture images will millisecond precision are now fairly commonplace technology, you have seen it in sporting events capturing 'photo finishes' and images taken fast enough to showing bullets in flight.  Yet speed camera manufacturers take the convenient position that their supposedly state of the art, infallible equipment cannot do this.

At the senate committee hearing for SB 207, and college professor and a radar expert both testified that requiring citation images to have accurate timestamps with lines painted on the road was the best way to verify accuracy after the fact.

You can hear the audio of the senate committee testimony on SB207 here. http://mgahouse.maryland.gov/house/play/08d520d2e26b45faa6b6bd90ff61d8b5/?catalog/03e481c7-8a42-4438-a7da-93ff74bdaa4c&playfrom=14289154

At one point, Montgomery County officials stated to the press that they already used citation images to verify speed http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/White-Stripes-Now-Backing-Up-DC-Speed-Cameras-144992735.html.  So why is a Montgomery County senator now rejecting this, and why did Montgomery County send officials PAID WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS, to oppose the idea in the senate hearing?

It appears Baltimore City may already have taken steps to ensure "this will never happen again": the new cameras which are replacing the old ones will not provide video.  In the future they need not there will be no images of trucks accused of driving 70 mph in a school zone actually calmly moving with traffic, or of "speeding" vehicles which are actually coming to a stop at a light http://www.baltimoresun.com/videogallery/74681226/News/VIDEO-Speed-camera-issues-nearly-stopped-vehicle-ticket.  And if Madalena has his way, Baltimore and every other jurisdiction are free to lower the timestamp precision as well.

Write to your State lawmakers TODAY and tell them to retract Senator Madaleno's amendment to SB207, and to pass legislation requiring speed camera images to contain timestamps detailed enough to verify SPEED.  Find Your State Lawmakers Here.  http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmmain.aspx?pid=legisrpage&tab=subject6

======================================
Update 3/26/2013:
The now greatly weakened SB207 passed the Senate with a 46-1 vote.  And will now proceed to the House of Delegates.

The Senate did not restore the secondary evidence of speed requirement before passing it, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE TOO MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE TERRIFIED THAT ERRORS WILL BE UNCOVERED IN OTHER SPEED CAMERA PROGRAMS IF PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED ACCESS TO EXONERATING EVIDENCE.

 
Scamera Company Champion Senator Jennie Forehand
SB207's remaining provisions would still eliminate the bounty system, ending the practice that speed camera companies be paid based on the number of tickets issued.  Even Governor O'Malley has recently stated http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2012/12/omalley-says-speed-camera-programs.html that this (now common) practice violates the intent of state law. As such the amended bill merely clarifies existing provisions of state law which are being widely broken right now.

The sole vote against the remaining provisions of SB207 to eliminate the bounty system was cast by Senator Jennie M Forehand (D, Montgomery County). 

Senator Forehand was one of the sponsors of SB389 -- a bill which would actually have WEAKENED CITATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/02/some-lawmakers-want-to-weaken-ticket.html by allowing private contractors to approve tickets instead of police.

Maryland Senate Votes To Cover Up Speed Camera Errors (Scamera Vendors TERRIFIED Errors be revealed)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4059.asp

Maryland Senate Votes To Cover Up Speed Camera Errors
Maryland Senate votes to gut major provision from speed camera reform bill.

Earlier this year, a number of lawmakers in Maryland vowed to reform the way speed cameras were operated in the state. Officials were rocked by the revelation that more than 5 percent http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3976.asp of photo ticket recipients in Baltimore were likely innocent with lax oversight and faulty photo radar equipment to blame for the bogus citations (view legislative auditor's report http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3961.asp). On Monday, the state Senate voted 46-1 to cover up future errors.

"Agencies that use speed have thrown a lot of taxpayer funded resources into fighting against a requirement for secondary evidence of speed," Ron Ely, chairman of the Maryland Drivers Alliance http://www.mddriversalliance.org/ told TheNewspaper. "I think they believe Baltimore's mistake was letting the public have too much information and they are terrified that errors might be proven in their own systems."

Senator James Brochin (D-Baltimore County) had introduced comprehensive legislation meant to address what he saw as the most significant problems in the way the program operated, despite his desire to end the use of cameras entirely ( view original bill, 120k PDF http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/md-sb0207.pdf).

"I'm a political pragmatist and I realize it's probably not going to happen," Brochin explained at a Judiciary Committee hearing on his bill. "So what I want to do is a little different here. I want to try to fix the system."

To give innocent vehicle owners a chance of clearing their own name, Brochin wrote a provision requiring pavement markings and accurate time stamps on citation photographs so that the speed calculation made by the machine could be double-checked with a simple time-distance calculation based on the photographs.

"We want to make sure both time-stamped images go along with the picture," Brochin said. "Baltimore County and Howard County are the ones who aren't doing this right. Baltimore city is the one doing it right. We want to take it out to the thousandths of a second. The city's doing it. The vendor for Baltimore County and Howard County isn't doing it."

The amendment also eliminated the proposal to paint lines on the ground to allow for more accurate distance calculations from the photograph. Such lines are used in the neighboring District of Columbia, but lawmakers claimed it would be too expensive to paint the lines.

"You're going to be getting millions and millions of dollars," Brochin said. "The least you can do is be able to assist in [accurately measuring speeds]."

Brochin described how officials set up a "school zone" speed camera outside the Maryland School of Broadcasting, which only has classes for adults who do not walk to class. The committee deleted Brochin's proposed requirement that cameras be located within 500 feet of a school, but it did retain a requirement that the cameras could only be used within a half-mile of elementary and secondary schools. The final bill also requires independent calibration of the speed camera on a quarterly basis. It also clarifies that the original ban on allowing contractors to operate speed cameras in return for a per-ticket cut of the fines collected actually applies to the contractors who run speed cameras in Maryland.

"We know what's been going on," Brochin said. "I can tell you in the Baltimore metropolitan area is an absolute sham. It's turned into a commuter tax. It's all about revenue, and it has nothing to do with fairness."

If passed by the House of Delegates and signed by the governor, Brochin's remaining reforms would take effect on October 1.

A copy of the legislation as it passed the state Senate is available in a 170k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Senate Bill 207 - as amended (Maryland General Assembly, 3/25/2013) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/md-sb0207s.pdf

Scamera Attacks Week Ending 3/24/2013

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4057.asp

UK: Speed Cameras Decapitated
Vigilantes in Scotland use angle grinder to cut down two speed cameras.

A pair of speed cameras were cut down last weekend in the Borders region of Scotland. The Border Telegraph reported the cameras at Huntford and Camptown south of Jedburgh became the sixth to fall within the past year.

http://www.bordertelegraph.com/news/roundup/articles/2013/03/18/449812-two-more-speed-cameras-stolen-on-the-a68-by-campaigners-/

Ban the Cams note.

Local Comment on the Attack:

Modern day Robin Hoods I'd call them! I suppose we can rule out Chris H and his missus!

The Truth About Speed Cameras, By Godfrey Bloom TD RCDS(s) MEP

Ban the Cams note:  WE ENCOURAGE all who are battling speed scameras to please read the pdf report.

WE think you will see what is wrong with basing safety on petty policing.

The Truth About
Speed Cameras

By
Godfrey Bloom TD RCDS(s) MEP

With interjections from
Alan Wheatley
Keith Peat
Idris Francis

Excerpt:

As a candidate in the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, hopefully representing middle England, the whole purpose of the appointment, I have picked up on a number of problems that we face in a modern society adopting the concept of police by consent. As a ‘baby boomer’ I have seen the relationship between the police and the policed deteriorate over the last thirty years by no means to the point of no return, but this drift must be arrested soon before it becomes so. I blame politicians for this albeit there are many other causes based on shifts in society and its ethics. However a major problem is the dismantling of experienced traffic police and their replacement by cameras on sticks for what is now commercial gain. Fortunately my long career as a financial economist in various forms has given me a strong insight into statistics and their manipulation. It is easy for an expert to produce a statistical picture showing the very opposite of the real truth. Not by fraud or even malice, but simply by adjusting time weighting or leaving out a single piece of the jigsaw. This has become prevalent now in modern government where budgets are under pressure, politicians need to be re-elected and significant lobby groups have become powerful in an age of elector apathy.

I turn to speed cameras and their misuse, not just because motorists are being robbed by the system, they are, but more importantly when 99% of middle England’s interaction with the police is traffic related and therefore negative it is bad for society. The mantra often seen on sign posts ‘Speed Kills’ is just the sort of ignorant nonsense I mean. If ‘speed killed’ every formula one driver, fast jet pilot, or high speed train passenger would be dead. Dangerous or careless driving kills and a camera on a stick has no system of evaluating it. I spent many years in a Territorial Transport Regiment. I have driven competitively sometimes against the police but more importantly I have a 40 year no claim bonus and a clean driving licence. I reckon that makes me as much of an expert as anyone else. I have assembled a broad range of commentators who have spent a significant amount of time on this subject to give their views and back it up with some statistics of their own the sort you do not often see on sound bite television interviewing camera salesmen and distraught relatives of deceased road traffic accident victims. Let us take out the emotion and cut to the chase.

Ban the Cams note: Please see the PDF on the complete report.  http://www.godfreybloommep.co.uk/downloads/6256-bloom-speeding-booklet.pdf

Attachments:

File	Description
6256-bloom-speeding-booklet.pdf

NMA Activist Casey Raskob, Esq Testimony to NYC Speed Scamera proposal.

NYC has Failed since 1998 to supply data even on the RLC required by NY law!



Good Afternoon: I am here as a representative of the National Motorist’s Association.    My day job, however, is as an attorney.  Part of my practice is defense of traffic tickets, so every day I see the “output” of law enforcement, both in the Suburbs east and north of the city, and in the city itself.  I see who writes which violations and where they are written.

I understand the outrage of many when they state that there isn’t much local enforcement of traffic laws in the residential districts.

They are correct.

Put simply, no one enforces any speed limits in residential areas in NYC. I don’t know why, as I understand that the Highway Precinct is someplace officers work to be assigned to, but for whatever reason, that means they only write tickets ON highways.

Reviewing Traffic Summonses from Police Agencies outside NYC, you will see speeding tickets on all roads, not just highways.  I see a lot of cell phones, lane violations, written in NYC, but almost never do I see speeding tickets that are NOT written by Highway, and are on anything other than an expressway.

Where are the radar teams on Queens Boulevard ?  When do you write
speeding tickets on the Grand Concourse ?  The short answer is you don’t, and there is zero visible enforcement…..I don’t know why each precinct cannot just hand the radar or laser gun to one guy each shift, and assign him or her speed enforcement-just like every single Police Department outside the City. only NYC Traffic Violations Bureau tickets.

    In short, you are telling all the concerned people here that you know they have a problem, but that problem is not worth a live police presence.  Cameras send bills, they don’t enforce laws.  
 
Words have meaning, and if you thought that Republicans had the monopoly on deceptively named laws, I suggest the following.  “Temporary Demonstration Project”

Camera enforcement in NY is a “Temporary Demonstration Project” under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1111-a.  It was enacted in 1988, and re-authorized several times
to the present date.  This project is supposed to result in a study, showing revenues, accidents by location before and after, and overall results.  

Temporary means for a limited period of time, and Demonstration Project means that there is a research component.  This means that there is a report at the end.  This is how the Red Light Camera project was sold.  (Ask: Where is the report )
    
We are again told this is a limited project, “for the children”, with small fines and a very limited number of cameras, but to sell this to us as a Temporary Demonstration project is to say, “really”?  And “really”, is anywhere you want !!!!  Let us read the legislation proposed……

40 Cameras, 20 of which will be Mobile.

  SUCH SPEED LIMIT PHOTO DEVICES SHALL BE PLACED  AT  LOCATIONS  BASED  ON  CRITERIA,  INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WHETHER THE LOCATION IS WITHIN A  QUARTER MILE OF A SCHOOL, SPEEDING DATA, ACCIDENT HISTORY, PROXIMITY  TO  NATURALLY  OCCURRING  RETIREMENT  COMMUNITIES  OR  FACILITIES FOR SENIOR  CITIZENS OR DISABLED PERSONS AND ROADWAY GEOMETRY.

I think we’ve covered the entire city here.


Each time the “Temporary Demonstration Project” is re-authorized, the report is kicked down the road.  Meanwhile, the supposed purpose for this legislation, to determine the real outcomes, the research, is conveniently ignored.  

As they say in the military, the mission creep is relentless.   My math shows we are now 25 years into this temporary demonstration project.  

So, Temporary is Perpetual.  While today you are attempting to justify a small project “for the children”, the actual legislation is different.

We will see, every year, a request for “just a few more speed cameras”, “in a few more locations”, first “work zones”, and then in “high violation sections”. There will be, as there has been, quiet reauthorization of the temporary project, with grudging allowance, as a political chip, of a “few more cameras”.  Over time, NYC will be just like London and Australia, with photo enforcement everywhere.  This is what you are eventually proposing, not “save the children”.    At least be honest in what you intend.

Speed cameras, if authorized, will eventually end up on wide open parts of the main highways, where a small technical violation has no safety ramification but the ability to snap “send us a check” photos will be very, very lucrative. This is like how red light cameras have become “right turn on red cameras” outside New York City, snapping violators who don’t come to a complete stop before the legal right turn on red.  Not a danger, but a technical violation.  Send Check.  

On a different note, I am also a Village Trustee in my Hudson Valley Community, and I too have to balance a public budget.

 The general public has little idea how tough budget it is…you have endless demand, and limited income.

Now, having lived in NYC in Parkchester, and on the Upper West Side, I get how cars are inconvenient in the City. Into this comes the “Motorist, an endlessly abuseable resource”.  This justifies over $10 bridge tolls, the vast majority of which goes nowhere near roads.  This justifies huge taxes on parking, and the removal of parking spaces, notably on Columbus Avenue on the West side and in other places like Park Slope.  

Alternate Side of the Street ?  I suffered that one too, and know the only thing the City can do timely is to get me a $135.00 ticket at 7:50 am.

Cars are bad, car drivers are bad, and anything we can do to inconvenience them is good.  If we can make money, even better.  There is no fee or surcharge a driver should not have to pay.  

 Since over half the cars in the City are from Outside the city, then any money raised is from outsiders…bad outsiders…bad outsiders breaking the law. (add “in school zones” and you have a trifecta !)

Enter the automated camera.  I recently attended a Legislator’s meeting in Saratoga.  While there, one of the vendors was the Redflex company, Automated Enforcement from Australia.   I spoke to the rep about cameras, and he told me something interesting.  He said “the real money isn’t in red light cameras…the real money is in speed cameras”.  He also pointed out the second part of successful enforcement for profit was a high traffic density.   He did use those words.

He’s right.  Set up automated enforcement on a few roads, with underposted limits, and millions of dollars will flow.  Free money.  I balance a municipal budget too, and I fully understand the allure of “free money” .

If it cost money, no one would ever propose this technology.  Likewise, Speed and Red Light cameras have come down in dozens of places after a popular outcry, and often, expensive litigation.

A police officer stopping an errant motorist has an immediate effect.  He discovers drunks, unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers, and criminals with a Warrant for Arrest.  A camera sends a bill.

If we don’t want to hire and pay police, that is a different issue, but if speeding is a problem, stop the driver, give him a ticket, and points on the license…not “send an invoice”.   The folks in the residential areas deserve no less, and pointing them to speed cameras as a panacea is both dishonest and disingenuous.  Selling them to the People and State Legislature as a “limited and temporary demonstration project” is also dishonest and disingenuous.

Why is it so hard to just hand out a few radar guns to the local precincts and let them do some visible enforcement-you know, cop cars, lights flashing, maybe even one guy running radar and calling violators to chase cars.  

I applaud Assemblyman Gantt, and Sheldon Silver, for their protection of motorists.  I would like to ask them, on behalf of the millions of folks outside NYC, who come here regularly for business or pleasure, but always to spend money, to stand up for the other residents of New York State and not report this bill out of committee.
 
                    Very Truly Yours,

Casey Raskob, Esq.

Attachments:

File	Description
short Testimony NYC DOT transportation committee.pdf

http://warondriving.com/post/45703345079/jerry-doyle-war-on-driving

Jerry Doyle Covers Michael Bloomberg and the War on Driving

Thanks again to Jerry Doyle http://jerrydoyle.com/ for keeping the push back by Campaign for Liberty and War On Driving against the proliferation of scameras on high alert.

We are winning!

Audio from the 3.13.2013 Show:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nifancYm7O8

Thanks to G. Amy for sharing this!

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/how-i-used-physics-to-beat-a-speed-camera-ticket.html

How I Used Math to Beat a Speed Camera Ticket
Posted by Alex Berezow at Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:51:50

Seattle is a city in serious need of cash http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/documents/April_2012_Budget_Update.pdf. To make up for its budget shortfall, it has increased street parking rates so incredibly high that drivers feel as if they are the victims of a highway robbery.* But the most controversial measure, by far, has been the implementation of red-light and speed cameras.

City governments justify the use of traffic cameras because they claim it increases public safety. However, for both red-light http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/seeing-red-1208/ and speed cameras http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8719263/Speed-cameras-fail-to-cut-accidents.html, the data on this is mixed. Of course, regardless of whether or not the cameras actually serve a greater purpose, cities are quite pleased by the substantial bump in revenue they receive from them.

Recently, I found myself on the wrong side of the law. (Well, legally, traffic camera tickets fall under the purview of civil cases, not criminal cases.) The citation said I was traveling 30 mph in a 20 mph zone, and for that, I received a whopping $189 fine. But there was a big problem with the photos they provided as "evidence": They didn't really prove their case.

The first thing I noticed were the timestamps. The first photo was marked 04:14:19.7 PM, and the second photo 04:14:20.2 PM. That means it took 0.5 seconds for the camera to take two successive pictures of my car. In order for me to verify if the speed camera was accurate, I needed to know the distance my car traveled in that time period. But, that information wasn't provided in the citation.

The second thing I noticed was the poor quality of the photos. The angle and the lighting make it very difficult to determine how far my car traveled. Based on a landmark (a parked car), it appears as if I traveled about one car-length in 0.5 seconds. The type of car I drive is typically about 15 feet long, so that means, based solely on the crude photographic evidence, that I was traveling 30 feet per second. Crunching the numbers, that converts to 20 mph. In other words, the photographic evidence didn't support their case that I was speeding.

Obviously, the burden of proof is on the city. I didn't need to prove that I wasn't speeding; all I needed to show was that the city couldn't prove that I was. Therefore, I subpoenaed the officer who issued the citation, and armed with an ability to do basic math, I headed to court.

Much to my surprise, the officer actually showed up. The city attorney's office examined him first, and he verified that the camera calculates speed based upon distance divided by time. (I'm glad to know that Seattle uses that standard, since I don't think there's any other way to calculate speed.) Then I got my opportunity to cross-examine him:

"You said the device calculates speed by dividing distance by time. Do you know how far my car traveled?"

"No," he responded.

"Do you know the margin of error for the device?"

"No."

0 for 2. That's good for me. The city attorney then submitted documentation showing that the speed camera was certified to work accurately. The judge noted, however, that the documentation didn't actually provide much detail, and she also wasn't familiar with the certification process described. I made sure to hammer that point home: "While it's nice that the camera has been shown to work, the relevant point of how far my car traveled and the margin of error of the device hasn't been provided."

I felt the tide turning my way. Then came the coup de grace. The city attorney, presumably not intentionally trying to undermine her own case, asked if the officer was certified to use the device that took a photo of my car.

"No."

Ouch! She probably should have asked that one before the trial.

After I gave my closing remarks, I nervously awaited the judge's ruling. She voiced her concern that the cameras haven't been rigorously verified to work properly. Then, I heard the most glorious words that will forever echo in my heart: "Infraction not committed." I was a free man. (Well, at least not $189 poorer.) I don't know if my mini-physics lesson actually persuaded the judge, but I still like to think that Sir Isaac Newton was my guardian angel that morning in the courtroom.

And just in case you're wondering: I probably was speeding.

"I fought the law, and the law I won... I fought the law, and the law I won..."

*Update 3/22 @ 12:36 pm PST: I had mentioned a paper bag tax, but I was notified that the bag tax is kept by the stores and does not go to the city's coffers.
 

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/baltmore-city-unable-to-provide.html

Friday, March 22, 2013

Baltmore City Calibration Certificates May be Incomplete

Under Maryland law, "A speed monitoring system shall undergo an annual calibration check performed by an independent calibration laboratory". The laboratory is required to issue a signed certificate of calibration for the speed monitoring system.

Baltimore City recently signed a contract with "Brekford Corporation" for speed camera services, so the Maryland Drivers' Alliance decided to have a look at a calibration certificate for the new speed monitoring systems.

After a lengthy delay, Baltimore City provided a certificate from Radar Lab of Maryland http://www.radarlabofmaryland.com/ for a product manufactured by "Smartmicro". We checked with Smartmicro http://www.smartmicro.de/ and learned that they do not manufacture speed camera systems.  Instead, they design and manufacture electronic components that are used in speed camera systems.  The model number shown on the certificate, UMRR303, is for a radar module that must be integrated with a camera, a computer, and various other electronic components to build an actual speed camera system. 

Based on the information in the certificate, Radar Lab of Maryland tested only the Smartmicro module, not the actual speed camera system.  State law specifies that a "Speed monitoring system" means a device with one or more motor vehicle sensors producing recorded images of motor vehicles traveling at speeds at least 12 miles per hour above the posted speed limit."  The one tested component of the system does not 'produce record images', and so is not a speed monitoring system in and of itself.  It is unclear whether a certification for just one component of a speed monitoring system, rather than the entire system, meets the requirements of the law.  

JPG of "certificate":  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HcXVff66jxk/UU0Q_r3JKNI/AAAAAAAAASQ/dxOb2q1PR4g/s1600/baltcitycert.jpg

The Smartmicro UMRR303 is an interesting electronic component, but it's not a speed monitoring system and by itself cannot detect and record speeding violations.  You can get detailed technical information about the Smartmicro UMRR303 by going to the FCC ID web site, http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid, and entering W34 for the Grantee Code and UMRR0A for the Product Code.

BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  ANOTHER SPEED SCAMERA TOWN IS BREAKING THE LAW based on reports.  http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2013/03/laurel-hagerstown-circumvent.html

Quote:

Documents obtained from the cities of Laurel and Hagerstown reveal that a requirement of state law that speed cameras be certified by an independent calibration lab was circumvented, with the cities and their contractor allowing the manufacturer of the devices to certify their own equipment.  Both Laurel and Hagerstown contract with Brekford Corp for speed camera services and hardware.
 

Suprise, AZ DUMPS SPEED SCAMERAS!

http://arizona.newszap.com/westvalley/120881-114/surprise-will-end-photo-radar-program

Surprise will end photo-radar program

By Jeff Grant

Independent News Media, Inc., USA

Updated March 20, 2013 at 01:30PM

SURPRISE, Ariz. -- The city will end its contract with a Phoenix-based photo traffic enforcement firm that operates the municipality's system, citing a nearly $190,000 deficit in the program over the nearly three years it has been in operation.

The City Council made the decision during its workshop meeting Tuesday night. No formal vote is required.

"I'm a little disappointed," lamented Councilman Richard Alton (Dist. 2). "I didn't think it was going to cost us anything," said Mr. Alton, who recalled voting for the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., when it was approved by the governing body in Sept. 10, 2009.

"I'd much rather have 2-3 motors (motor officers) on the street," the councilman added."They can do speed control, they can do a number of things," he said, adding those activies could include traffic enforcement using radar guns.

"When I saw that (the operating deficit), I went 'ummmm, that's three policemen,'" said Councilman Skip Hall (Dist. 6), who also was on the council in 2009 and voted for the Redflex contract at the time.

The pact initially called for having Redflex supply the city with one mobile radar unit, according to Police Chief Michael Frazier. At the direction of City Council, the unit was to used for neighborhood and school zone monitoring. The contract's initial term began May 4, 2010, the date the first citation was issued, and last for three years with options for renewal every two years thereafter. The pact is due to expire May 4, 2013, and Redflex must be notified at least a month in advance if the city decides to end the program.

Mr. Frazier told the council that through January 2013 the department estimated the photo radar enforcement had raised $150,900 for the city, while costing Surprise $340,700. Expenditures include the equipment and service provided by Redflex as well as court and police staff to handle the adjudication of cases.

"The radar unit was deployed solely in neighborhoods and school zones, rendering standard measures such as reduction in accidents invalid because most accidents are intersection-related," the chief told council members during a 15-minute presentation at City Hall, 16000 N. Civic Center Plaza.

Mr. Frazier presented the governing body with three options, including contract renewal as is, renewal with new operational criteria such as auto-accident prevention, or discontinuing the contract.

Redflex representatives were not present during the meeting and could not immediately be reached for comment.

Photo-radar enforcement is currently in use along U.S. 60, also known as Grand Avenue, in El Mirage. Photo radar enforcement was discontinued in Peoria last year, according to public safety spokeswoman Amanda Jacinto.

Surprise's police chief, under questioning by Mayor Sharon Wolcott, said he had concerns about continuing the program, given current discussions in the Arizona Legislature http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/Senate/PHOTO%20TRAFFIC%20ENFORCEMENT_UPDATED.pdf about discontinuing the program statewide. He said spending the money the city is now losing to put more officers on the street.

"I can place them and move them as needed," Mr. Frazier explained.

Two residents who spoke on the issue urged the council to end the agreement.

One of them, Randy Miller, pointed out that officers are more effective at enforcing the law because they build relationships with the community.

"Cameras don't offer the ability to use discretion. They just snap indiscriminently. When an officer makes a stop, they can pick up the odor of alcohol. When a camera takes a picture, that car keeps going," Mr. Miller explained.

Assistant City Manager Jeff Mihelich told the council that the contract will simply be allowed to expire. The city has until April 4 to inform Redflex of its decision under terms of the current contract.

News editor Jeff Grant can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 623-445-2805.

Baltimore Shuts press out of meeting on Speed Scamera "reforms"  RESTRICT MEDIA ACCESS WANTED TOO!

• ILLEGAL PER TICKET CONTRACT TO CONTINUE!

What a "surprise" of the scamera industry. 

Just goes to show what lenghts the scamera industry will go to keep the dollars rolling in.  Due Process (too trouble some), court orders (they don't apply to "us", mistakes "we never make em" (like the admission by ACS of at least 5% all in error in Baltimor, need we go on????  And the truth that most "vioaltions" are not even safety related. 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/sun-investigates/bs-ci-speed-camera-transition-20130320,0,4068755.story?track=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Mayor's task force recommends speed camera reforms
Restricted media access urged for future panels

The media were not allowed as members of Baltimore's speed camera task force visited Brekford's headquarters on the same day a draft report from the group recommended future media restraints.(Christopher T. Assaf/Baltimore Sun video)

By Scott Calvert, The Baltimore Sun
 
8:47 p.m. EDT, March 20, 2013

A task force studying Baltimore's troubled speed camera program will urge the city to increase oversight, change the way camera sites are selected and create a website containing maps and other information of interest to the public, according to draft recommendations released Wednesday.

A final report is expected to be presented in the next two weeks to Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who formed the task force last summer.

"It's going to help us make a better program," acting Transportation Director Frank Murphy said. "We all want this to be a very successful program. We want it to be accurate and effective. We think these things will help us do that."

Several task force members visited the Anne Arundel County headquarters of Brekford Corp., the city's new vendor. Members of the news media were barred from entering by a company official who said it is a "secure facility."

One attendee said Brekford officials told the group about 15 new cameras out of 78 are up and running. City officials said earlier in the day that the company would not meet a deadline to have all of the new cameras in place by the end of this month.

The task force recommended that the city:

•Provide more police for citation review: "Officers should not feel rushed to review citations."

•Require the vendor to issue monthly reports to the city.

•Require camera calibration by a third party.

•Evaluate school zone speed limits for "appropriateness."

•Initiate town hall-style meetings for issues of public concern.

•"Restrain media access" to future task forces to enable "frank, productive conversations."

A Baltimore Sun investigation last year documented erroneous speed readings from seven city radar cameras, including a speeding citation issued to a car that was stopped at a red light. In addition, The Sun found, city judges routinely throw out tickets for a range of deficiencies.

Read more: Baltimore Shuts press out of meeting on Speed Scamera "reforms" RESTRICT MEDIA ACCESS WANTED TOO!

COMPTEMPT OF COURT CHARGES requested on Emwood Place, OH on continuing to issue Speed Scamera tickets against COURT ORDER!

(Thanks to CameraFraud on the link)

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130321/NEWS/303210122/Lawyer-Elmwood-violating-judge-s-traffic-camera-order

Lawyer: Elmwood violating judge's traffic-camera order

Mar 21, 2013   |

A lawyer for those who received speeding tickets as a result of Elmwood Place traffic cameras is asking a judge to find the village in contempt for continuing to issue tickets after the judge ordered it to stop.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman made a March 7 finding, ordering the village to stop using the controversial traffic cameras. The week after that, he issued another ruling clarifying his fist ruling. Elmwood Place has appealed that ruling.
“We have had a number of people call the office after Judge Ruehlman’s ruling saying they’re still getting a notice of liability,” attorney Mike Allen, who represents many of those who received the tickets, said Thursday.

Elmwood Place Solicitor Anita Vizedom didn’t immediately returns calls.

The contempt request http://www.scribd.com/doc/131641807/ElmwElmwood-contemptood-1 came, Allen said, after driver Terry Howe received a Feb. 24 ticket as a result of the speed cameras. But he was ordered March 11 – after the judge told the village to stop using the cameras to issue tickets – to appear March 27 for a hearing on the ticket.

“It was pretty clear: ‘Stop everything,’ ” Allen said. “It’s a clear violation of the judge’s order.”

Allen also asked the judge to allow him to amend his original complaint against the village to make it a class-action suit.

“We’re trying to get money back to people who paid tickets already” as a result of the speeding cameras, Allen said.

The cameras have generated more than $1.5 million for the village but have infuriated drivers who received tickets in the mail, unaware they were cited for speeding because they were caught on camera and had no contact with a police officer in the case.

In ordering the village to stop using the cameras, Ruehlman called the use of them “a scam the motorist cannot win.”

Elmwood Place has appealed Ruehlman’s ruling.

(Ban the Cams note:  like California.  The business model of the Scamera industry is DEPENDENT UPON DENYING BASIC DUE PROCESS rules and Assumption of Guilt to make their business model work.  Scameras are a business model dependent upon "violations".  And long term the violations become more petty.

In parts of Europe the "violations" have become as little as under 1 mph.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3266.asp  Quote:  Vehicle owners have begun to protest after receiving 45 euro (US $58) tickets for driving as little as 61 km/h (38 MPH) in a 60 zone -- just 1 km/h or sixth-tenths of a mile-per-hour over the limit.

One country even cites for driving too slow past speed cameras. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3523.asp Quote:  Valencia, Spain tickets motorist for driving too slowly past a speed camera. )

Kansas City RLC failing produce revenue (also failed to improve safety), now city wants speed scameras.

Wrong on Red.com Comment:
 

Quick move the scameras, they aren't generating enough violations a month.....funny this entire piece neglects to mention the fact that the KCPD's own study said the program was without discernable benefit.

Ban the Cams note:  Judge just ruled Friday the St. Louis community speed camera WAS ILLEGAL TOO!  http://www.banthecams.org/Speed-Camera-News/judge-voids-speed-camera-ticket-for-charlie-brennan-citing-invalid-ordinance.html

Ban the Cams note II:  Report showing RLC FAILED TO IMPROVE SAFETY!  (that is until the report was rewritten with ATS "collaboration".  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/kc-police-told-to-qcollaborate-or-at-least-consult-with-ats-before-releasing-more-info-on-rlc.html or http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/24/3389558/kc-police-officials-request-more.html#storylink=cpy

This article reads more like a PR piece.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/17/4127556/as-tickets-drop-kc-looks-to-move.html

Personal Notes:

RLC DID NOT improve safety in Kansas City.  In fact the original Kansas City, MO RLC report showed MORE accidents, NOT less.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3703.asp  Only after the police were ordered to "collaborate" with ATS did the new "report" show what the RLC side wanted.  http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/kc-police-told-to-qcollaborate-or-at-least-consult-with-ats-before-releasing-more-info-on-rlc.html or http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/24/3389558/kc-police-officials-request-more.html#storylink=cpy

IT WAS A REWRITE JOB to hide the fact the fact that RLC FAILED TO IMPROVE SAFETY!

And taking "safety" studies from the IIHS is problematic since some of their studies have been found to have been gamed to give a certain result.  Like their 2011 "study".  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp 

Quote:  "The critique noted the most troubling issue was the dissimilarity between the cities chosen to represent camera enforcement and the camera-free cities. Almost a quarter of the camera-free cities had between zero and two red light running fatalities in the "before" period. It is impossible for a city with zero fatalities "before" to improve in the "after" period. By contrast, nearly all the camera cities had 7 or more fatalities, leaving far more room for improvement."

As for the locals getting less tickets, that is likely because many are AVOIDING the intersections no doubt.  "Violation" numbers are not a indication of safety when there is NO breakdown of what kind of "violations":  Right turns on red, stop lines, and split second mistakes.  (Nevermind the fact that this very vendor was busted using a higher rejection rate to mask violations just before a vote banning RLC in Baytown, TX. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3173.asp )

The speed scameras are not a safety device.  They don't pull over someone acting unsafe, they send a bill.  Typically this becomes ever more petty.

In some parts of Europe, they actually cite for under 1 mph.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3266.asp 

Quote:  "Vehicle owners have begun to protest after receiving 45 euro (US $58) tickets for driving as little as 61 km/h (38 MPH) in a 60 zone -- just 1 km/h or sixth-tenths of a mile-per-hour over the limit. The camera in question is positioned just a few yards away from a sign that lowers the limit on the road from 90 km/h (56 MPH) to 60, Varese Notizie reported." 

In other they actually cite for driving UNDER the speed limit.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3523.asp

Heck even the safety statistics have to be question.  In the UK, it was discovered by the British Medical Jornal that the police were UNDERREPORTING Injuries to make the speed cameras look good.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1210.asp  also see:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1359.asp

Another report on Construction Zone cameras that showed MORE wrecks was INTENTIONALLY HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC until released under a FOIA.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp

IN MD, the speed scameras have become so abused that legislators are calling for their removal. 

There have been admissions by one vendor that over 5% off all speed camera tickets were in error!  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-14/news/bs-md-speed-camera-error-rate-20121214_1_camera-tickets-camera-contractor-xerox-state  Heck in that town a STOPPED car was cited for "speeding".  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-12/news/bs-md-speed-camera-stopped-car-20121212_1_potential-citation-xerox-state-camera-ticket

These devices are not being proposed to improve "safety".  They are being proposed to improve a budget.

I am surprised this paper refuses to bring up the fact that the earlier RLC report did NOT improve safety, or the recent ruling declaring the speed cameras illegal in one MO town.  http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-voids-speed-camera-ticket-for-charlie-brennan-citing-invalid/article_db78be21-c55b-5b4d-aee8-48631f26d9fa.html

Speed scameras, like RLC are not, and never will be about safety.  They require "violations" to be profitable.  When they don't get enough expect games to be played to churn tickets.

Here are some school zone scams played out in other areas:  http://www.banthecams.org/2020-9-school-park-zone-speed-scams.html

AS for the public "support".  Dare you to let the voters vote on this.  Come on.  Let the public vote, or have the city and ATS come to the conclusion a public vote would not be "good" on their scameras??  You can tell in areas where the vendors are worried.  They tend to try to dismiss any suggestion of a vote or even SUE to stop public votes.  This has occured in parts of California http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3964.asp, Texas http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3698.asp, and Washington State http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3828.asp.

Bottom line, the real reason the city wants to "expand" this is NOT ENOUGH REVENUE!  You see when they don't make enough revenue, cities tend to drop scameras.  This is occurring in places like California where a number of towns are dropping RLC due to losses in revenue.  The RLC industry has tried to stem the losses by getting ever more petty on what "counts" as a violations.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3687.asp

Quote:  "Cities around the country have begun dropping the use of red light cameras, which were once touted as the best way to stop drivers from "blowing through" red lights. Disappointed municipal officials invariably point to the systems' failure to generate the promised amount of revenue as the reason for the change. To keep from losing more clients, the red light camera industry's latest move has been to ticket drivers who stop at red lights to boost the number of potential violations."

The Scameras need to be BANNED.  The safety claims read as hollow as the claims of a SNAKE OIL Salesman!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4051.asp

France, UK: Speed Cameras Sawed, Spraypainted
Speed cameras in Scotland are cut down while French speed cameras are spraypainted.

In Colmar, France vigilantes used silver spraypaint on a speed camera. The lenses on the device on the RN83 were completely covered, L'Alsace reported http://www.lalsace.fr/actualite/2013/03/10/colmar-un-radar-automatique-tague.

Vigilantes took out a pair of speed cameras in the Borders, Scotland last weekend. The devices on the A68 at Huntford and Camptown were cut down from their mounting point, according to the Southern Reporter http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/two-more-speed-cameras-attacked-1-2831871.
 

SCANDAL INVOLVING COPS at REDFLEX PHOENIX:  22 instances of officers dismissing infractions for family members 

The "auditor" has ties to scamera vendors!

CameraFraud National had this to say on this:
33 minutes ago.One law for us, another for them. From Arizona, a "consultant" (i.e., Redflex front man) discovers a problem that is costing Redflex money. That's the only reason Redflex cares.

Ban the Cams note:   perhaps this is another "perk" of working for the scamera crowd. 

• Some cops get money (like cops who are lobbyist, see Houston), 
• some cops get their kids flown around at scamera vendor expense (like a certain vendor out of Edmonton),
• some cops get Ritz Carlton Treatment for court testimony like a cop out of Tennessee),
• some even run side business with those vendors too (like with a certain Sweeden scamera vendor). 

GUESS IT PAYS to work for the scamera crowd if you are a COP.  Makes you wonder when you see those cops go to committee hearings harping on why we "need" photo enforcement HOW MANY ARE GETTING SOME KIND OF PERK either currently or will in the future.  Some people who have push photo enforcement WORK FOR THE SCAMERA VENDOR Front Group, like a certain Chief based out of Paradise Valley, AZ!  (NSCR,  and his name is John Wintersteen )

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp  Quote: 

Those playing ball with the effort have been rewarded with highly lucrative jobs. John Wintersteen, the former chief for photo radar pioneer Paradise Valley,,,,are now part of NCSR-ATS

He also has done work for REDFLEX in the past too:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3032.asp

Redflex Traffic Systems of Melbourne, Australia convinced John D. Wintersteen to file a petition earlier this month that asked the Arizona Supreme Court to modify the state's rules of civil procedure to better accommodate red light cameras and speed cameras.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS THE SAME JOWN WINTERSTEEN WHO IS THE "auditor" on the article below. 

Quote:  by "public safety" consultant John Wintersteen of Paradise Valley.

YOU MEAN PAID by the scamera side DON'T YA!

THERE NEEDS TO BE A INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, OUTSIDE OF THOSE THAT WORK OR ARE WORKING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN THE SCAMERA INDUSTRY!

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=117130&TM=41418.89

Prescott Valley cop nixed wife's 7 photo radar tickets
Independent audit finds 22 instances of officers dismissing infractions for family members
 
Ken Hedler
The Daily Courier

PRESCOTT VALLEY - An independent audit documented a number of cases of Prescott Valley police dismissing photo-enforcement violations involving family members using vehicles registered to the officers.

Twenty-two cases involved family members who activated the photo cameras by driving at least 11 mph faster than the posted speed limit, according to a 22-page report by public safety consultant John Wintersteen of Paradise Valley.

The report covered photo enforcement since Redflex Traffic Systems in Phoenix began providing the service in October 2006.

In response to the audit, police have ordered an internal investigation of Sgt. Mark Postula and his supervisor, Lt. Wayne Nelson, which began this past week, Administrative Sgt. Brandon Bonney said Thursday. The investigation could lead to disciplinary actions against both men, he said.

"We have reviewed the outside audit, and we are in the process of completing administrative interviews and will be compiling our findings for (police) administration to determine what to do," Bonney said.

The audit does not identify by name Postula, Nelson or anyone else Wintersteen interviewed.

Postula and Nelson referred comments to Bonney, who serves as spokesman for the police department, which has 61 sworn officers and 14 civilian employees.

Nelson joined the force in 1989 and was promoted to lieutenant in January 2009, according to the Human Resources Department. Postula joined the department in 1995 and was promoted to sergeant in 2007.

Wintersteen's report states that a traffic sergeant (Postula) admitted to dismissing seven violations over a four-year period that ended in February 2012 involving his wife.

The minimum photo-enforcement ticket for speeding is $223.

Wintersteen indicated that he focused his review initially on the rejection of violations involving vehicles registered to police officers.

He stated he could not identify photo enforcement violations involving spouses if they have different last names or drove vehicles registered to them.

Determining whether police dismissed violations for spouses with different surnames and driving their own vehicles could be the subject of the internal investigation, Bonney said.

However, he added, "I don't know the extent they are going to be able to look into it."

Redflex does not store photo images of speeding or red-light violations for longer than a year, according to Bonney.

The town government hired Wintersteen to conduct the review after "various officials," including the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training, received an anonymous tip that Prescott Valley police were dismissing photo enforcement citations for officers and their families. Town Manager Larry Tarkowski, Deputy Town Attorney Steven Zraick and paralegal Cindy Corcoran initially met with Wintersteen on Dec. 12, 2012, to go over the project, including the anonymous allegation as one aspect of his audit, according to his review. He completed it March 1.

The town authorized paying him as much as $4,000 but had not received the bill as of Wednesday afternoon, Zraick said.

The town hired Wintersteen instead of conducting an internal audit because "we did not want to show any outside prejudice," former Police Chief Bill Fessler said in an interview before he announced his retirement this past Friday.

Wintersteen stated that he would interview command officers, the traffic sergeant "who does most of the work and oversees the day-to-day photo enforcement program" and police officers who review incidents in SmartOps (Redflex's proprietary online information system) to find out what they knew about dismissing citations for motorists who drove vehicles registered to an officer.

He reported the sergeant acknowledged that he asked the lieutenant to reject two incidents involving the sergeant's wife, and that he had rejected three more incidents after discussing them with the lieutenant.

"He indicated knowledge that other officers who review incidents in SmartOps had rejected two additional incidents, as was the practice for not just the traffic sergeant's wife but for all Prescott Valley officers," the report stated.

Wintersteen quoted Fessler as saying Postula and Nelson rejected the incidents in SmartOps, which means the dismissals took place before notices of violations or citations could be issued.

"This review found there is no pattern of repeated violations with the same family member of an officer (except for the traffic sergeant's wife as described above), that most officers (except those with common last names) do not have any incidents involving a registered owner with the same last name, and in a substantial number of those (who) do have incidents the address of the registered owner is out of the Prescott Valley region and is often out-of-state," Wintersteen wrote.

Fessler told the Courier that police exercised the same discretion to reject violations involving their family members as they have applied to rejecting them for members of the public whose driving triggers the flashing cameras from Redflex.

Wintersteen's report states police have discretion for rejecting incidents that appear on the SmartOps screen after viewing the images for clarity, matching Motor Vehicle Division information and so forth.

The report states Fessler learned about the allegation of rejected violations three weeks before Wintersteen began his review in December.

"The chief stated unequivocally that he had no knowledge that the practice of rejecting incidents involving vehicles registered to a Prescott Valley officer existed, and had he known he would have immediately put a stop to it," the report states.

Wintersteen determined police officers received a "lack of comprehensive guidance" when they processed incidents involving vehicles registered to police employees.

"Practices that rep-resent a real or perceived conflict of interest had become accepted," he wrote, while adding an oral directive from Fessler "had effectively ended this practice" by requiring police to refer the incident to the appropriate level within the chain of command.

Wintersteen detailed several recommendations (see related story), and concluded, "The number of incidents identified during this review as involving or possibly involving a family member of a Prescott Valley officer is infinitely small compared to the 300,000 photo enforcement in-cidents since the fall of 2006. The Prescott Valley photo enforcement program is largely well run, and supported by members of the Police Department and others involved on the town staff."

The report drew praise from Tarkowski, who said, "I thought the consultant did a good job, and he certainly is experienced with photo enforcement in the way it operates in other communities."

Photo enforcement has enjoyed support from Tarkowski, management in the Police Department and Town Council, who believe it reduces accidents by encouraging motorists to slow down. They have claimed from the start that photo en-forcement is "revenue-neutral" for the town.

However, a number of residents remain strongly opposed. They see photo enforcement as intrusive and flawed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pba-chief-speed-cameras-article-1.1290365

EXCLUSIVE: PBA chief says no to cameras for catching speeding drivers
 

The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association said Friday it’s urging lawmakers to reject the legislation pushed by the Bloomberg administration for the new devices.

BY GLENN BLAIN / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013, 8:39 PM
                  
Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch is against using cameras to catch speedy drivers.

ALBANY — The PBA wants to slam the brakes on using cameras to catch speeders.
The Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association said Friday it’s urging lawmakers to reject the legislation pushed by the Bloomberg administration for the new devices.

“Speed cameras are no substitute for live policing,” PBA President Patrick Lynch told the the Daily News.

He said the cameras would allow drivers who are drunk, carrying weapons and fleeing crimes to “slip by.”
 
PBA President Patrick Lynch told the News, “speed cameras are no substitute for live policing.”
The cameras record the speed of passing vehicles. The Bloomberg administration wants to test using 20 of them in school zones. Tickets would be issued automatically.

Political momentum had been growing behind the proposal, which was included in an Assembly budget bill adopted this week.

But the PBA’s arguments have found a sympathetic ear in the more conservative state Senate. Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) predicted the upper chamber would not go along.

“What we need are the actual police officers on the street,” he said. “Cops on the street are what slows people down.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-voids-speed-camera-ticket-for-charlie-brennan-citing-invalid/article_db78be21-c55b-5b4d-aee8-48631f26d9fa.html  


Judge voids speed camera ticket for Charlie Brennan, citing invalid ordinance

March 15, 2013 12:00 am  •  By Jennifer Mann This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 314-621-5804

MOLINE ACRES  •   A judge on Friday dismissed a speed camera ticket given here to local radio host Charlie Brennan, saying the ordinance that allows the cameras is in conflict with state law.

The ruling, while not precedent-setting, could hold sway with other judges who are asked to weigh the validity of such speed enforcement, said Bevis Schock, the attorney who represented Brennan.

And it may be one of the first rulings on the matter here.

While red light cameras have seen a number of court challenges — including at the appellate level, with the Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals currently deliberating a handful of such cases — nobody reached by the Post-Dispatch on Friday knew of similar push-back with speed cameras.

And a move for a ballot initiative to ban the speed cameras, backed by St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch and a group of ministers, has so far had trouble finding a sponsor.

Schock said that as a result of this ruling, though, “speed cameras could be in real trouble.”

He added a common lament of both red light and speed camera foes: “This whole set of laws is about raising money, and not public safety.”

The attorney for Moline Acres could not be reached for comment, nor could a representative of the company that operates the camera.

At least 13 municipalities in St. Louis County are using speed cameras, mostly in a cluster along Interstates 70 and 170, east of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

Brennan, a morning talk show host on KMOX, was caught by one of them, allegedly going 56 mph in a 40 zone while driving on Highway 367 in Moline Acres on July 31.

Schock argued the municipality had no authority to hand out the $124 ticket on an offense already prohibited by state law.

In her ruling in court in Clayton, St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Mary Bruntrager Schroeder agreed, pointing to a state appeals court case that upheld the use of red light cameras in certain situations, and explaining why speed cameras in Moline Acres are different.

That precedent setting case, Creve Coeur vs. Nottebrok, held that red light cameras can be used if the municipality treats violations as a civil offense. It noted that to be considered civil, the behavior cannot already be a crime.

Creve Coeur’s ordinance cites the vehicle, not the driver, for being in the intersection when the light is red, and thus can be rightly considered a nonmoving violation, the appeals court judges determined.

In her ruling, Schroeder pointed out the obvious problem in trying to bring speed cameras in line with that decision, writing: “It would seem impossible and a violation of the laws of physics to have speed without motion.”

Brennan, reached by phone Friday, said he was pleased the judge agreed that the law was poorly constructed.
 

“I have talked about few topics that have generated more interest than this one,” he said. “I think a lot of people now will be able to question the governments who use these cameras and are alleging they are violating the law.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-voids-speed-camera-ticket-for-charlie-brennan-citing-invalid/article_db78be21-c55b-5b4d-aee8-48631f26d9fa.html  


Judge voids speed camera ticket for Charlie Brennan, citing invalid ordinance

March 15, 2013 12:00 am  •  By Jennifer Mann This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 314-621-5804

MOLINE ACRES  •   A judge on Friday dismissed a speed camera ticket given here to local radio host Charlie Brennan, saying the ordinance that allows the cameras is in conflict with state law.

The ruling, while not precedent-setting, could hold sway with other judges who are asked to weigh the validity of such speed enforcement, said Bevis Schock, the attorney who represented Brennan.

And it may be one of the first rulings on the matter here.

While red light cameras have seen a number of court challenges — including at the appellate level, with the Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals currently deliberating a handful of such cases — nobody reached by the Post-Dispatch on Friday knew of similar push-back with speed cameras.

And a move for a ballot initiative to ban the speed cameras, backed by St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch and a group of ministers, has so far had trouble finding a sponsor.

Schock said that as a result of this ruling, though, “speed cameras could be in real trouble.”

He added a common lament of both red light and speed camera foes: “This whole set of laws is about raising money, and not public safety.”

The attorney for Moline Acres could not be reached for comment, nor could a representative of the company that operates the camera.

At least 13 municipalities in St. Louis County are using speed cameras, mostly in a cluster along Interstates 70 and 170, east of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

Brennan, a morning talk show host on KMOX, was caught by one of them, allegedly going 56 mph in a 40 zone while driving on Highway 367 in Moline Acres on July 31.

Schock argued the municipality had no authority to hand out the $124 ticket on an offense already prohibited by state law.

In her ruling in court in Clayton, St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Mary Bruntrager Schroeder agreed, pointing to a state appeals court case that upheld the use of red light cameras in certain situations, and explaining why speed cameras in Moline Acres are different.

That precedent setting case, Creve Coeur vs. Nottebrok, held that red light cameras can be used if the municipality treats violations as a civil offense. It noted that to be considered civil, the behavior cannot already be a crime.

Creve Coeur’s ordinance cites the vehicle, not the driver, for being in the intersection when the light is red, and thus can be rightly considered a nonmoving violation, the appeals court judges determined.

In her ruling, Schroeder pointed out the obvious problem in trying to bring speed cameras in line with that decision, writing: “It would seem impossible and a violation of the laws of physics to have speed without motion.”

Brennan, reached by phone Friday, said he was pleased the judge agreed that the law was poorly constructed.
 

“I have talked about few topics that have generated more interest than this one,” he said. “I think a lot of people now will be able to question the governments who use these cameras and are alleging they are violating the law.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/13/judge-adds-to-jurisdictions-speed-camera-dilemmas-/

Judge adds to jurisdictions’ speed-camera dilemmas

By Matthew Cella
 
The Washington Times
 
Wednesday, March 13, 2013

 
A judge in a county north of Cincinnati has issued a blistering ruling calling a small town’s use of traffic cameras nothing more than a scam — a sensitive subject in the D.C. area where many motorists think automated enforcement is nothing more than a cash cow for local governments.
 
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman said in a strongly worded seven-page ruling last week that the use of cameras in the 2,200-person town of Elmwood Place amounts to a revenue generating “game.”
 
“I used the term ‘game’ because Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3 card monty. It is a scam that the motorists can’t win,” Judge Ruehlman said in his ruling.
 
The decision by the county judge is unlikely to set widespread legal precedent, but the stinging criticism of the program comes at a time when many states and localities, including the District and some areas of Maryland, are questioning traffic camera programs. And while significant differences exist between the way the cameras were deployed in the Ohio community and the way they are used in the D.C. area, observers say such incidents tend to erode public trust in automated enforcement.
 
“I think people who have paid attention to the issue in any meaningful way, the trust is long gone,” said James C. Walker, executive director of the Wisconsin-based National Motorists Association. “Backlash is growing against this over time. More and more people are realizing that the speed camera is about revenue, it’s not safety.”
 
In the District, officials have long held the cameras are an effective way to curb speeding and prevent accidents, with Mayor Vincent C. Gray saying last year he hoped to cover “the entire city” with cameras. However, city lawmakers voted last year to reduce the fines that ranged from $75 to $150 for most infractions captured by speed cameras amid a mounting chorus of motorists who said the city was burdening them with pricey traffic-camera fines in an attempt to balance its budget.

Read more: Judge adds to jurisdictions’ speed-camera dilemmas

Redflex Traffic Systems is not the only red light camera company in financial trouble.   Brekford ALSO!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4049.asp

Another Red Light Camera Firm Reports Financial Loss
Another speed camera operator reveals loss over last year of operation.

Redflex Traffic Systems is not the only red light camera company in financial trouble. Brekford Corporation, an upstart competitor based in Maryland, reported on Friday a net loss of $1,266,671 for 2012. The company collected $18,295,906 in revenue, which represents both receipts from automated tickets and payments for various "electronic ticketing" and other information technology products and services the firm sells.

"Management primarily attributes the net loss in 2012 to a non-cash write-off of bad debts, lower gross profit margins, and expenses related to preparing for the Baltimore [speed camera] contract," the firm explained in a notice to investors.

After being embarrassed by the inaccurate tickets issued by Xerox http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3976.asp, a Fortune 500 company, Baltimore selected the penny-stock firm Brekford to operate the camera program, even though the firm lacks experience and, with just seventy employees, manpower. Brekford is getting by on a $3.5 million bank loan provided by PNC Bank to pay for the purchase of the cameras to be used in Baltimore. The firm warned its highly leveraged position meant could result in serious financial jeopardy if the economic downturn continues.

"The weakened economy could also have an effect on the company's ability to obtain external funding if needed," Brekford noted in its annual report. "If the company encounters unforeseen circumstances, then it may need to curtail certain of its operations. Although management believes the company has access to adequate capital resources, it has not secured any commitments for new financing at this time nor can it provide any assurance that new capital will be available to it on acceptable terms, if at all."

Brekford is terrified by the possibility that pending legislation to hold photo ticketing companies financially liable to motorists who are falsely accused of speeding might pass.

"Because much of our business involves providing traffic enforcement solutions to governmental agencies and municipalities, the future passage of laws and regulations affecting red light camera and speed camera systems could have a material adverse impact on our business," Brekford explained. "For example, several bills are pending before the Maryland General Assembly that, if enacted, would significantly change current law, including, without limitation, by imposing a civil penalty on enforcement contractors like Brekford if they issue erroneous citations on behalf of a municipality, and by prohibiting contractors such as Brekford from receiving compensation that is based on the number of citations issued by the municipality or citations actually paid."

Existing Maryland law already prohibits payments to Brekford based on the number of citations, but the state's highest court refused to enforce the provision (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3976.asp).

Crashes used on NYC article on Speed scameras WOULD LIKELY NEVER HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY SPEED SCAMERA!

Recently the NY Post ran this article on NYC again pushing for speed scaemras. 

Part of the "justification" were two terrible crashes.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/push_for_speed_cams_5XbantLhlyYuECPAVzd4HO

Quote:  The new call for speed cameras follows the deaths of a Williamsburg couple and their unborn baby and this week’s fatal collision that killed a 16-year-old outside La Guardia Community College.

WHAT WASN'T BROUGHT UP was the underlying circumstances in those crashes:

http://brooklyn.news12.com/news/report-julio-acevedo-to-surrender-in-deaths-of-nathan-and-raizy-glauber-child-1.4752043?firstfree=yes

BROOKLYN - Published reports say the driver accused in a hit-and-run that killed a young Brooklyn couple and their baby will turn himself in.

Julio Acevedo told the New York Daily News that his heart goes out to the victims and that he didn't know they died until he saw the reports.

According to investigators, 44-year-old Julio Acevedo, of 177 Sands St. in Brooklyn, was behind the wheel of a BMW that slammed into a livery cab carrying 21-year-olds Nathan and Raizy Glauber early Sunday morning. Investigators say he was driving at least 60 mph.

Acevedo is no stranger to breaking the law. Police say he spent nearly a decade in prison for manslaughter and was arrested for DWI just last month. Other prior arrests include robbery, criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment.

Another article added this:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130305/williamsburg/driver-williamsburg-hit-and-run-arrested-by-police-say-co-workers

Three days after slamming into a livery cab and allegedly killing the couple and their unborn child, Julio Acevedo gave an exclusive interview http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/driver-julio-acevedo-talks-death-crash-article-1.1279817 to the Daily News, during which he said he was fleeing bullets when his car hit the cab carrying Nachman and Raizel Glauber, both 21, and their unborn child. The crash happened at Kent Avenue near Wilson Street at 12:30 a.m. Sunday.

The other crash based on this article wasn't even caused by speeding, but "reaching for a carton of milk"!

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130311/long-island-city/four-laguardia-community-college-students-struck-injured-by-car?cid=177957&group_hood_id=73085

Tenzin Drudak, 16, a student at Applied Communications High School, inside LaGuardia Community College's building at 30-20 Thomson Ave., was struck and killed when a 2002 Dodge Caravan driving past the school lost control and mounted the sidewalk, police said.

The driver of the minivan, whose name has not been released, was ticketed for driving without insurance, police said. The driver lost control while reaching for a carton of milk, according to news reports.

The minivan was going through the intersection about 10:30 a.m. when it careened off the road, jumped the curb and hit six people, FDNY officials said. Four of those struck were LaGuardia College students, a school spokeswoman said.

Branden Gonzalez, 20, a sophomore at LaGuardia Community College, was crossing the street when the minivan sped through the light and plowed into the people in front of him, he said.

"I looked to my right and saw a car coming around 20 to 30 mph. A light was turning from yellow to red, and everyone stepped forward. Then everything that was in front of me was no longer in front of me," said Gonzalez, who said he watched Tenzin be hit and dragged by the van.

The scamera side likes to use terrible crasehes to "justify" the scamera they are pushing, but when you look closer, you discover that the circumstances of those crashes would in many cases LIKELY NEVER would be stoppd by a scamera. 

THE PROBLEM IS A SCAMERA DOESN"T PULL OVER A DANGEROUS DRIVER!  IT TAKES A COP TO DO THAT!   All a scamera does is send a bill, usually weeks later on ever petty "violations". 

In Speed Scameras case we have seen "violations" for as little as under 1 mph. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3266.asp 

Quote:  owners have begun to protest after receiving 45 euro (US $58) tickets for driving as little as 61 km/h (38 MPH) in a 60 zone -- just 1 km/h or sixth-tenths of a mile-per-hour over the limit. 

Spain even cites for driving under the limit too!  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3523.asp  

Quote:  "Drivers who pass a photo radar location frequently drop their speed far below the legal limit to be absolutely certain no citation will come in the mail weeks later. In response, officials in Valencia, Spain have begun issuing photo tickets to drivers who are moving "too slow."   

The NMA had this to say on the NYC speed scamera proposal:

Opponents of speed cameras say they are more about generating money than ensuring safety and are a violation of due process because there is no way to cross examine a camera in court the way a traffic cop can be questioned.

“There are much better ways to manage speed than with cameras,” said John Bowman with the National Motorists Association. “They are set up to take advantage of speed limits that are set artificially low in order to entrap motorists who are in fact driving safely with traffic.”