Speed Camera News

REVOLT OVER SPEED SCAMERAS CONTINUE!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4021.asp

Australia, Germany, Poland: Traffic Cameras Under Fire
Polish speed camera fails to protect itself from a crash, Australian camera operators threatened and German camera is knocked over.

Australians are spitting on the drivers of photo radar vehicles, the Maroondah Leader http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/east/motorists-getting-angry-at-civilian-operators-in-maroondah-knox-and-yarra-ranges/story-fngnvlxu-1226570113021 reported. Police in Maroondah reported six incidents in the past month where beer cans were tossed at speed camera van drivers, or cars swerved toward the photo ticketing vehicle in a threatening way.

"If you have got a problem with speed cameras, take it to the government," Constable Graeme Spurrell told the Maroondah Leader.

In Kelheim, Germany, a vigilante knocked over a tripod-mounted mobile speed camera on Friday. According to Mittelbayerische http://www.mittelbayerische.de/region/kelheim/artikel/unbekannter-zerstoert-einen-blitzer/879439/unbekannter-zerstoert-einen-blitzer.html the attack caused 3000 euros (US $4000) in damage to the device.

In Rzeniszowie, Poland, a speed camera was knocked out of commission when it failed to prevent a collision on the DK1 on Tuesday. According to Gazeta Czestochowa http://czestochowa.gazeta.pl/czestochowa/1,35271,13353117,Pijana_nastolatka_na_DK1__Kradzionym_audi_rozbila.html, a drunk 17-year-old female crashed into a speed camera with her stolen Audi Q5, knocking the automated ticketing machine over.

Toledo Ohio SCAMERA Inconslusive on Safety.  But not on the city Revenue.

Ban the Cams note:  Part of this article is more PR by Redflex and the city.

But these two quotes say it all:

http://www.toledofreepress.com/2013/02/08/toledo-budgets-for-4-2-million-in-red-light-camera-fines/comment-page-1/#comment-598706

Redflex revenue collected by the city in 2012 totaled nearly $3 million. This year, city officials expect to reap even greater financial benefits: Last month Mayor Mike Bell’s administration budgeted $4.2 million in revenue from the cameras, according to city spokesperson Jen Sorgenfrei.

Quote two:

Inconclusive evidence

Redflex, headquartered in Phoenix, markets its systems as “making roads safer by implementing traffic safety programs,” company spokesperson Jody Ryan told Toledo Free Press in an email. But academic and industry studies, paired with local accident data, do not appear conclusive. Traffic accident data compiled by Toledo police show a decrease in the number of accidents at some Redflex camera locations during the past decade. But at other intersections, particularly in West Toledo, the number of accidents has increased.

NOTICE NO MENTION of THE CAUSES OF THOSE CRASHES EITHER by the city.  A speed scamera can only "stop" a crash that is PRIMARILY CAUSED BY EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT.  OHIO, crash facts were showing the number of fatals by exceeding a speed limit WERE UNDER 2%

http://www.banthecams.org/Blogs/governors-highway-qsafetyq-association-pushing-qspeedingq-report-to-qpushq-for-qphoto-enforcement.html  Quote:

1.  Speeding Crash Statistics:  http://www.bhspi.org/mauz/Speed%20Crash%20Statistics%20by%20Greg%20Mauz.pdf

Traffic crash statistics, especially for speeding, can already mislead the average citizen.  U.S. and most state statistics allow up to 3 factors per crash as "contributing circumstances." For example: Joe Citizen, with a .18 blood alcohol content (BAC), runs a red-light at 10 MPH over the speed limit, colliding with another vehicle and killing the driver.  Without question, the primary cause of the wreck is drunk driving. RLR becomes the second factor. Violating the speed limit played an inconsequential role in the crash, but becomes logged into the statistics anyway. Further analysis of "speeding" stats reveal that, oftentimes, the majority are actually weather-caused accidents. Many of these crashes occur well below the posted speed limit. However, they qualify as "speeding" under "speed too fast for conditions." The question is: what percentage of all and fatal crashes can honestly cite true speeding as the primary cause?

 2.  http://www.bhspi.org/mauz/Speed%20Related%20Fatalities%20Grossly%20Inflated%20by%20NHTSA%202.11.2010.pdf

In fact this gap of reality by the pushers of the 1/3 “speed related” claim can be seen in some States Crash Facts.  You see some states actually break out how many accidents were CAUSED by exceeding the speed limit.

Take Ohio for example: 

Ohio for 2008.  http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/HSY7606-2008.pdf   Table 2.08 on page 18 of the Adobe

Exceeded Speed Limit: 10 Fatal,  0.9 % of Fatal     

Unsafe Speed:  173   Fatal,  15.7 %  of Fatal        (notice this is DOES NOT MEAN ABOVE THE SPEED LIMIT.  OHIO already broke that out ABOVE!)

Ohio for 2009.  http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/2009CrashFacts.pdf    Table 2.08 on page 17 of the Adobe

Exceeded Speed Limit: 11 Fatal, 1.2 % of Fatal

Unsafe Speed: 143 Fatal, 15.1 % of Fatal 

Ohio for 2010  is similar:  http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/2010CrashFacts.pdf  on page 17 of the Adobe.

Exceeded Speed Limit: 12 Fatal, 1.2 % of Fatal

 Unsafe Speed: 144 Fatal, 14.6 % of Fatal

 Did you notice that the % killed WASN’T  1/3????   IT WAS CLOSURE TO 1%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The strange part is this is not the first time groups have played game with statistics to push an agenda.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4018.asp

Iowa Takes Three Approaches To Ending Traffic Cameras
Three bills introduced in Iowa legislature would shut down or restrict the use of automated ticketing machines.

An Iowa lawmaker is taking three shots at local governments to discourage them from using red light cameras and speed cameras. State Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale) introduced a set of bills that range from a total ban on photo enforcement to the slight annoyance of a few minor restrictions.

A half-dozen Iowa cities use the devices even though the legislature never granted localities the authority to delegate ticket-writing power to for-profit companies. Instead, the Iowa Supreme Court in 2008 declared such systems could be used (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2518.asp). That did not sit well with the GOP-led Iowa House, which voted 58-42 last April to ban automated ticketing. The measure failed to advance when Senate President Jack Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg) ruled the ban could not be added to an appropriations bill, the last legislative vehicle of the session. Kibbie is now gone and state Senator Pam Jochum (D-Dubuque) has assumed the leadership role.

Under Zaun's most ambitious proposal, the all photo ticketing would end in the state.

"The department or a local authority shall not place or cause to be placed on or adjacent to a highway, or maintain or employ the use of, an automated traffic law enforcement system for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter or any local ordinance relating to motor vehicles," Senate File 19 states.

The ban would go into effect July 1, though tickets for alleged violations mailed prior to that date would still have to be paid under the proposal. Should that fail, Zaun introduced Senate File 20 as an alternative that would direct 100 percent of the net profit from running the camera program to charities. County boards of supervisors would have to create a committee of five residents responsible for finding 501c(3) non-profit organizations located within the county to receive the funds. By removing the profit incentive, few cities would continue to use automated enforcement.

Zaun's last bill, Senate File 21, imposes minimal restrictions regarding signs and other procedures that largely mirror existing photo enforcement practices. Of note is the legislation would prohibit a state-run speed camera program and limit red light camera fines to $50. Speed camera tickets would be tied to the amount collected for police-issued tickets, which are capped at $625 each.

Already, twenty-four lobbyists for local governments and traffic camera companies have disclosed they are actively working against Zaun's camera ban. This includes representatives for Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, the Iowa League of Cities, the Iowa Police Chief Association, the insurance industry, Dutch speed camera maker Gatso, and UK speed camera firm Redspeed. Lobbyists for Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia are currently listed as "undecided."

Governor Terry Branstad (R) has already agreed to sign the bill should one make it through the General Assembly. A copy of Iowa's SF19 is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:  Senate File 19 (Iowa Legislature, 1/23/2013) http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/ia-sf19.pdf

USPS vs ATS Saga:  Camera side hypocrites.  Camera executive ignored own ticket till it made the news!

Ban the Cams note: 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2597.asp

Quote:  Executives at photo enforcement firms American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and Redflex have been caught ignoring their own speed camera tickets.

Quotes on TWO ATS EXECUTIVES WHO "mistakenly" IGNORED their photo tickets:

Quote:  In May 2006, Redflex mailed a citation to ATS Executive Vice President of Field Operations John Petrozza, 44. Petrozza ignored the ticket, forcing Scottsdale Municipal Court to dismiss the violation on September 27, 2006. 

Added Quote:  In July, however, ATS employees actually issued a photo ticket to their own company president, James D. Tuton, 46. According to court records, Tuton had failed to respond to the charge by August 29 and a process server was dispatched in September.  According to Weiss, Tuton made arrangements to take a driver education course before mid-December to avoid having points added to his license.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4016.asp

Post Office Refuses To Pay Traffic Camera Tickets
Postal Service claims immunity from red light and speed camera tickets from East Cleveland, Ohio.

The mailman who delivers traffic camera tickets does not have to pay them, according to the US Postal Service (USPS). Postal officials refuse to pay the citations it received in the mail from American Traffic Solutions (ATS), a for-profit company based in Arizona. As first reported by Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/usps-immune-local-traffic-laws-165944476.html, ATS on Thursday sent a nasty letter demanding payment for two photo radar tickets and four red light camera citations generated by automated ticketing machines in East Cleveland, Ohio.

"We suggest that you transfer the liability for the infractions to the USPS drivers who incurred them, and instruct them that pursuant to Ohio law, as well as the USPS guidelines, the infractions are their responsibility," wrote ATS General Counsel George J. Hittner. "If you choose to ignore the infractions, penalties and fines will continue to accumulate."

USPS Senior Litigation Counsel Jennifer S. Breslin was defiant in a January 22 letter to ATS, citing the establishment of post offices in the Constitution and the principle that the independent government agency works within local laws and regulations "when feasible."

"The Postal Service requires its employees to obey all traffic laws and rules while operating Postal Service vehicles and while operating a self-owned vehicle while conducting Postal Service business activities," Breslin wrote. "However, the state and/or local ordinances imposing penalties and fines cannot be enforced as against the Postal Service, and there is no statutory basis for doing so."

Federal law does offer some specific protection to the Post Office. Suits against USPS cannot be heard in state or municipal courts, as federal law gives federal district courts original jurisdiction in all matters involving USPS. The Post Office also enjoys immunity from unfair competition laws meant to prevent business monopolies.

"No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorney's fees may be recovered, and no criminal liability may be imposed, under the antitrust laws (as so defined) from any officer or employee of the Postal Service," 39 U.S. Code Section 409 states.

The statute also exempts the post office from zoning ordinances, though it sets up procedures to encourage compliance. In a 1988 case, the US Supreme Court determined the Post Office no longer enjoys sovereign immunity and can be sued like any other business.

"When Congress created the Postal Service in 1970, it empowered the Service to sue and be sued in its official name," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "This sue-and-be-sued clause was a part of Congress' general design that the Postal Service be run more like a business than had its predecessor, the Post Office Department... After noting that Congress has launched [the Postal Service] into the commercial world, the court held that the sue-and-be-sued clause must be liberally construed and that the Postal Service's liability must be presumed to be the same as that of any other business."

Hittner cited a number of high profile examples of USPS drivers arrested for reckless driving, drunk driving and driving without clothes on as evidence that postal employees do not have immunity from traffic laws. Speed camera van drivers have also been indicted for similar offenses http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2530.asp. Photo enforcement executives have also ignored their on speed camera tickets http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2597.asp.

I-Traffic/Prichard:  Want to ask AL legislature to use speed SCAMERAS AGAIN.  Just like the Ridgeland speed Scamera SCAM on I-95!

Recently I-Traffic had the below article written on their venture where they get a CUT of every ticket made.  (Allowing private companies to get cuts of tickets usually breeds traps used more for MONEY than safety).

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2013/jan/30/prichard-starts-traffic-unit-catch-speeders-ar-5483939/

What was interesting was what wasn't said in the text.  The text makes NO mention of speed scameras.

But if you watch the video, the lady blabs a attempt to ask Alabama legislature later for SPEED SCAMERAS!

South Carolina put a end to I-Traffic SCAMERA operation there.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3503.asp

Other article on I-Traffic:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3919.asp 
Company Promises to Boost Traffic Ticket Revenue for Small Towns
After two failed photo enforcement ventures, company restarts promising to help small towns create speed traps.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3810.asp

Company Promises to Boost Traffic Ticket Revenue for Small Towns
After two failed photo enforcement ventures, company restarts promising to help small towns create speed traps.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4015.asp

Australia, Canada, Italy, Slovenia, UK: Speed Cameras Attacked, Protested
Throughout Europe and North America, speed cameras are attacked and protested.

Vigilantes decapitated a speed camera in Piove di Sacco, Italy on January 27. According to Il Mattino di Padova http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/01/27/news/piove-di-sacco-autovelox-abbattuto-sulla-strada-dei-vivai-1.6423362, the camera had only been operational for less than a month before the camera head was cut down from its mounting pole and left lying in the street.

In Taranto, vigilantes on Tuesday set fire to a speed camera on the Sava Torricella. La Voce di Manduria http://www.lavocedimanduria.it/wp/incendio-doloso-distrugge-autovelox-sulla-sava-torricella.html reported the control boxes for the camera were destroyed in the blaze.

In Manchester, England, a speed camera housing was set on fire Monday. The Manchester Evening Post http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/torched-the-stalybridge-camera-that-clocked-140-1280818 reported the housing was empty at the time a gasoline-soaked tire was used on the Huddersfield Road camera in Stalybridge. In Wellington, a speed camera was damaged by fire Monday, according to the Shropshire Star. The device was attacked a short distance from another camera on Station Road in Ketley that had been set on fire January 4.

In Winnipeg, Canada, a man rammed a mobile photo radar setup on McGregor Street around 7:30am on January 19. CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/02/01/mb-road-rage-winnipeg.html reported the man then left and returned, parking his Ford F250 pickup truck in a way that prevented the photo radar vehicle driver from exiting his car. A 49-year-old suspect was later arrested. In an interview with CBC News, Constable Ray Howes, the officer in charge of ticketing, said photo radar drivers are frequently abused.

"Flipping them the bird or honking at them as they go by, and it's not usually a friendly wave or whatnot," Howes said. "The odd occasion, you have a Slurpee cup or a drink cup thrown at the vehicle. Some might even spit on the vehicles as they're going by.

Last October, motorists in Maribor, Slovenia began protesting a speed camera that issued tickets that cost a third of the country's average monthly wage for the benefit of local politicians. USA Today http://www.thetimesherald.com/usatoday/article/1874685 reported the troublesome camera was set on fire.

In Victoria, Australia a musician is fighting back against automated ticketing with his guitar. According to 3AW Radio http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breaking-news-blog/word-on-the-street-speed-camera-guitarist/20130130-2dkyy.html, the man sat on the side of the road playing a song with a sign reading "speed camera" to warn oncoming traffic of the ticketing danger. Furious police ordered him to remove the sign.

The Polish government's plan to expand the use of speed cameras is causing it to sink in a recent opinion poll, officials with the coalition Civic Platform party told Polskie Radio http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/125822,Speed-camera-plan-hits-government-popularity.

Delivery driver, sacked after faulty camera recorded him speeding at 103mph when he was going 34mph 

(Thanks to Idris Francis of www.fightbackwithfacts.com on sharing this link)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268134/Delivery-driver-43-sacked-faulty-camera-recorded-speeding-103mph-travelling-just-34mph.html#comments

Delivery driver, 43, sacked after faulty camera recorded him speeding at 103mph when he was travelling at just 34mph 

• Company would not relent despite the police apologising for the blunder
  
•  Paul Kellerman's van had a speed limiter stopping it going above 70 mph
  
•  He has since signed up for housing benefit and is struggling to pay his rent
  
•  Mr Kellerman has lost a stone and a half in weight since being sacked

By Alex Gore
 
PUBLISHED:06:09 EST, 25 January 2013| UPDATED: 09:12 EST, 25 January 2013
 
 

Sacked: Paul Kellerman lost his job as a delivery driver after being wrongly recorded doing 103 mph when he was only driving at 34 mph
 
A delivery driver who was wrongly recorded speeding at 103 mph has been sacked despite the police apologising for the blunder and his van being unable to go above 70 mph.

 
Paul Kellerman, 43, was dismissed after his firm received a prosecution notice stating he was caught speeding in a 40 mph zone, when he had actually been travelling at just 34 mph

 
The manager of the police force's speed camera unit later admitted the error, but the company would not relent and Mr Kellerman is still looking for another job.
 
He was on his way to deliver electrical goods to Stevenage, Hertfordshire, when he noticed a speed camera flash as he drove along the Hatfield Road in St Albans.
 
Paul, of Cudworth in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, said: 'I saw the signs and knew it was a 40 mph zone but I knew I wasn't doing much more than 30 mph.
 
'I was gutted but I knew I was well under the limit. It's a high street, you can't do 103 mph and I wouldn't do that anyway.'
 
His van even had a speed limiter on it, meaning it cannot go above 70 mph. Mr Kellerman contacted the police to complain and officers admitted their mistake.
 
A letter from the speed unit manager said: 'On further investigation it is apparent that you were travelling within the speed limit at 34 mph in a 40 mph zone and the ticket was issued as a result of operator error.'
 
The unit manager even telephone Mr Kellerman's boss but his job had already been filled.
 
The speed camera had wrongly recorded the speed of Mr Kellerman's vehicle and the operator failed to check the speed before issuing the notice.

Mr Kellerman, who worked up to 80 hours a week for £320, also called the speed unit and said they could not apologise enough.
 
He said: 'I was told it was an error on their part. They kept saying they were sorry and I wasn't the first person but I have still lost my job.'

Mr Kellerman has lost a stone and a half in weight since being sacked. He has also signed up for housing benefits and has had to ask for help in paying his rent.
 
He said: 'I tried to explain to my boss that I would never drive so fast but was replaced straight away because of the constant flow of work. It's not him I'm mad at it is the police.
 
'I know everyone makes mistakes but not on that scale. If I'd not got a letter of apology nobody would believe me.
 

'I would have had to go to court and would have got an automatic ban. Other people have got to complain.'
 
A Hertfordshire Police spokesman said: 'A notice of prosecution was issued in this instance in error.
 
'As soon as it was brought to our attention we retracted the notice and apologised to Mr Kellerman.
 
'We have written to him to confirm non further action will be taken in respect of the notice and have also offered to write to the company but Mr Kellerman declined this offer.

'We have also spoken to the employer to explain the situation. The subject of his employment is a matter for him and the company.'

News of the Goulish:  speed cameras in cemetery

(Thanks to Camerafraud for the link).

http://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/1267811/councillors-concerned-by-reports-of-speed-cameras-in-cemetery/?cs=12

Councillors concerned by reports of speed cameras in cemetery

 By Ryan Smith Jan. 30, 2013, 10:42 a.m.

Port Augusta Police have come under fire at the latest Port Augusta City Council operations committee meeting for allegedly having speed cameras stationed in the cemetery on Carlton Parade.

Councillor Phil Greagen brought it to the attention of the council as a question without notice.

Cr Greagen said there was allegedly speed cameras situated in the cemetery on October 25 and December 21 last year.

“This is totally disrespectful,” he said.

“If you need to hide behind our dead [there’s a worry].”

Councillor Peter Solomon agreed with Cr Greagen.

“Complete show of disrespect to be blocking the driveway at the cemetery,” he said.

“There are a lot of other places they can hide and not be in the cemetery.”

Port Augusta Police Senior Sergeant Ben Treloar defended the police and said there was not a speed camera in the cemetery on those dates.

“There was an officer with a laser situated outside the cemetery, on Carlton Parade on the road as per usual,” he said.

“We wouldn’t allow them in the cemetery because that’s just wrong.”

Ban the Cams note:  Add this to another "mistake" by the speed scamera industry. 

Example:

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html or http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-14/news/bs-md-speed-camera-error-rate-20121214_1_camera-tickets-camera-contractor-xerox-state

Just goes to show the industry "review" is a JOKE!

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/the_18mph_taxi_driver_clocked_doing_50mph_by_misfiring_speed_camera_1_1831308

The 18mph taxi driver clocked ‘doing 50mph’ by misfiring speed camera

3615436978

Andrew Constantine, who fought his speeding ticket in court and won. PHOTO BY SIMON FINLAY

by Mark Shields Tuesday, January 29, 2013
2:03 PM

A Norwich taxi driver has won his battle against prosecution for a speeding offence – by proving the speed camera which snapped him got it wrong.

Father-of-two Andrew Constantine, below, says he was left “angry and bewildered” after being prosecuted for driving at 50mph – when he was in fact doing less than 18mph.

Now concerns have been raised at how many other drivers have been wrongly caught by the camera on Fakenham

Road in Drayton despite its pictures contradicting the radar speed reading.

Mr Constantine had to spend £1,600 and wait 11 months to clear his name in court after being accused of breaking the 30mph speed limit on February 9 last year.

However, a spokesman for Norfolk Constabulary said it was not aware the ticket was being challenged until yesterday and if it has been told about the precise nature of the case at an earlier opportunity, it would not have reached court.

The case against 47-year-old Andrew Constantine was withdrawn yesterday, as a trial was due to begin, after a simple piece of maths proved he had been travelling at around one-third of the speed the camera radar had suggested.

Two pictures taken by the camera, half a second apart, showed Mr Constantine’s car had travelled four metres over the white speed-trap road markings – which should be used as a second measure of the speed – meaning he was travelling at 17.8mph.

Speaking after the hearing yesterday, Mr Constantine said: “I’m very pleased and very relieved.

“Being called to court induces a sense of trepidation, even if someone is completely innocent.

“It was nice to walk into court innocent, leave court innocent and to be completely vindicated.”

Having travelled the road “thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of times”, Mr Constantine said he was aware of the camera and had been driving cautiously, as the paying passenger he had on board was a woman in her 80s, and was certain he had not been speeding.

“I have an instinct to check my speed,” he said. “Some other people may have just taken the medicine and accepted it, but I was innocent.”

Mr Constantine covers more than 70,000 miles a year in his job for Enterprise Taxis and said he felt “a cocktail of exasperation, anger, shock and bewilderment” when told of the charge.

He took his case to a specialist motoring offences lawyer, who identified that the two photographs contradicted the radar speed reading.

It is not clear what caused the incorrect reading from the camera, though Mr Constantine speculated the reading may have been taken from another vehicle.

Because the case was withdrawn, Mr Constantine could see around 75pc of his legal fees refunded – but is still likely to be left out of pocket.

A Norfolk police spokesman said data and images from the cameras were viewed by staff in the Criminal Justice Unit and fixed penalty notices were issued where necessary.

“In this case, an FPN was issued in error; however we were not notified that this ticket was being challenged until [Monday] morning,” she said.

“The file was reviewed and we have supported the withdrawal of this prosecution.

“If we had been alerted to the precise nature of the challenge at an earlier opportunity, this case would not have reached court.”

She added every camera is tested prior to installation, then calibrated annually, and said the Fakenham Road camera had been activated 141 times in 2011.
 

"One law for us, another for them: UK scamera van in a no-parking zone to issue tickets."

CameraFraud National
"One law for us, another for them: UK scamera van in a no-parking zone to issue tickets."

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Police-say-camera-van-allowed-park-double-yellow/story-17985213-detail/story.html

Police say camera van is allowed to park on double-yellow lines .

Monday, January 28, 2013 This is Plymouth
 

A POLICE van was pictured parked on double yellow lines – but police say the vehicle’s driver was doing nothing wrong.

The Herald’s eagle-eyed photographer spotted the speed camera van parked in Outland Road on Wednesday afternoon.

And Herald reader Graham Webb complained about a similar vehicle being parked in a nearby bus stop.

“No one can park in a bus stop,” he raged. “Only buses and taxis to load and offload, and police cars whilst going about their business with the lights on.

“The people of Plymouth are struggling with today’s money problems and don’t need people breaking the law to catch them.”

However, a police spokesman said the camera vehicle was exempt from the usual rules which ban other drivers from parking on double yellow lines.

The City of Plymouth Traffic Regulations and Parking Places Order 2004 states that: “Nothing in this order shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes.”

The spokesman said: “In this instance the vehicle was being used for police purposes and therefore the driver may avail him or herself of the exemption.”

(Ban the Cams note:  What they mean to say is "DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO".   The Modus Operandi of the scamera industry!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_operandi)

Local Comments on This is Plymouth UK:

by ysr80
Monday, January 28 2013, 10:26PM
.“****Traffic Light camera at junction of Peverall Park road*****
****Traffic Light camera of catdown round about heading to town *****
(yes the ones less than 10 meters from the speed cameras we all know) are now speed cameras, take note of the 3 lines on the road.

And in the name of safety, never was a problem when it was a 40 limited!”
.

 by jabbathebutt
Monday, January 28 2013, 9:51PM
.“And thats apart from the fact that persecution of the motorists and the greed involved is one of the reasons our town and city center shops are struggling to survive. Vultures .
And anyone noticed the recent 3 lane reduced to one bus lane and one lane outside the busiest place in town ... Drakes circus car park entrance outside starbucks ? In the name of what ? How many accidents had happened ? None ?
But now ,even on a quiet day there are tailbacks in exeter st .... at peak times these will be back to marsh mills .
Getting ready for a congestion charge on "motorists " ?”
.

 by pogle63a
Monday, January 28 2013, 6:32PM
.“Get sick to death of these so called SAFETY - piggy banks on wheels being allowed to break the laws that bind the rest of us just inorder to make money. I was following the so called safety camera car long Durnford street kept up with it on purpose after it pulled out on me as I came into the road, I chased it on purpose, I stopped keeping up with it when we reached 40 and slowed down, it carried on pulling away must have been doing 45+. It is behaviour like this that gives me nothing but contempt for all the tacitics the police and the council are employing to catch people who by and large obey the law. When this van parks on Weston Mill hill it forces traffic onto the chevrons in the middle of the road - in effect putting drivers at risk having to drive around it, where is the safety in that?”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4009.asp

French Speed Camera Sends Ticket To Poland  (5 mph ticket)
Bogus speed camera ticket creates international incident as Polish government helps citizen accused by France.

A speed camera in France falsely accused a motorist in Poland of speeding. On December 11, a student in Warsaw named Mariusz was surprised to find a "notice of contravention of the traffic law" mailed to him by the French government. The ticket claimed to have photographed his Peugeot traveling 57 km/h (35 MPH) in a 50 km/h (31 MPH) zone on the Route de Corbeil in Longjumeau, in the southern suburbs of Paris. For allegedly traveling 4 MPH over the limit, the noticed demanded payment of 135 euros (US $182).

Mariusz never left Poland in October and is innocent, but he has no way to fight the ticket, Gazeta Wyborcza http://wyborcza.pl/1,126565,13278580,Fotoradar__zlapal__go_we_Francji__A_on_byl_w_Polsce_.html reoprted. Failing to pay would cause him problems when he does go to France to visit friends. The French Embassy in Warsaw only helps French citizens who have problems in Poland. That leaves Mariusz to find his own way to contact officials in France to fight the ticket. He sought the help of a local newspaper that called the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which the reported convinced to reach out to the consulate in France.

Speed SCAMERA"mistaken" identity, OR MORE LIKELY JUST RUBBER STAMPING TICKETS,  NO REAL REVIEW!

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/photo+radar+ticket+a+case+of+mistaken+car+identity/6442794739/story.html

Photo radar ticket a case of mistaken car identity

Trish Kozicka, Global News Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:57 PM

Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Photo radar ticket a case of mistaken car identity

EDMONTON - A photo radar ticket is something you never want to see in your mail, but what if the ticket you receive isn't even for your car? That's what happened to one Edmonton man, who's now warning other drivers to check their ticket twice.

Kamal Hassen almost paid his ticket, until he took a closer look at the picture of the car.

"And it's not my car."

The licence plate in the photo is partially obscured, but if you put it side by side with Hassen's car, the difference is clear, especially with the lights.

He then noticed that the other details like the time of the 10 a.m. offence didn't make sense, since he works a late shift and would've been sleeping then.

Hassen called the Automated Enforcement Program and was frustrated when they told him to fight it in court, which would mean taking a day off work.

Enforcement staff tell Global News every photo goes through an extensive review, and plate numbers are not guess work.

Ban the Cams note:  BULL! Edmonton, BULL COOKIE!

"Days like today, we end up eliminating and rejecting the violations. Reason being if we can't see the license plate number we can't get registered owner information," says Rick Ragnon with the Automated Enforcement Program.

But if there's a partial plate, and staff believe they can see the number, they will run it to make sure the vehicle description matches.

"Vehicle in the image was a 4-door dark coloured vehicle and the motor vehicle information was a four-door dark coloured vehicle. So putting that all together, they believed they had a valid image."

Staff now agree it's not Hassen's car, though, and have cancelled the ticket.

"This could happen to anyone else," Hassen says. "If I didn't pay attention and look into the details of my car, the timing and the date, I could have ended up paying for somebody else."

Ban the Cams Note:  The  SCAMERA VENDOR AND TOWNS COUNT ON PEOPLE JUST "paying up" and not fighting scamera tickets.  That is why the "review" process is really just a RUBBER STAMP!

MD:  Delegates Call For Speed Camera Repeal

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2013/01/delegates-call-for-speed-camera-repeal.html

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Delegates Call For Speed Camera Repeal

Legislation has been submitted to the House of Delegates to repeal authorization for the use of speed cameras in Maryland.   Delegate Michael Smigiel (R, Kent, Queen Anne's, Cecil, and Caroline Counties) has sponsored House Bill 251, along with co-sponsors William Frank, Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Stephen S. Hershey, Jay Jacobs, Susan Krebs, Warren Miller, Wayne Norman, Anthony O'Donnell, Nathaniel Oaks, Neil Parrott, Justin Ready, and Steven Schuh.

Read the Bill Text http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/hb/hb0251F.pdf  and Legislative Summary http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=HB0251&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS for HB251.

The bill would repeal "the authority of counties and municipalities in the State 4 to use speed monitoring systems in the State 4 to use speed monitoring systems" and also the SHA's freeway workzone speed camera program (which currently operates "regardless of whether workers are present") by completely striking transportation articles 21-809 and 21-810 from the books.

Delegate Justin Ready commented on the bill in an email "I have consistently opposed speed cameras as an infringement on privacy and a blatant money-grab. They do very little for safety. Worst of all, they do not allow due process for those who receive a ticket. Now we find out that there are widespread inaccuracies http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html. It’s time for this misguided law to be repealed, I’m very proud to be a co-sponsor."

Speed camera repeal would need to clear enormous hurdles, and will likely face stiff and well funded opposition from local governments and speed camera contractors which profit from scameras.  Before being permitted to a vote on the house floor, the bill would need to be approved by the House Environmental Matters Committee (chaired by Delegate Maggie McIntosh).  The Environmental Matters Committee heard testimony on a serious speed camera reform bill last year http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/03/house-committee-given-testimony-on.html, but the committee leadership did not even allow it to come to a committee vote, despite having received extensive evidence of innocent people getting speed camera tickets and frequent violations of the law by speed camera programs in March of 2012.

Since then we have seen the situation continue, with innocent motorists being falsely accused of speeding by Baltimore City and Speed Camera Contractor Xerox Corp http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/12/emails-reveal-more-prior-complaints.html, proof that the city knew about the problems for many months http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/11/baltimore-saw-previous-problem-with.html and left the cameras online, admissions of serious flaws in the SHA's speed camera program http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/11/state-audit-finds-flaws-in-sha-speed.html, and revelations of gross violations of the law such as outright FORGERY and FRAUD http://www.gazette.net/article/20120810/NEWS/708109535/1029/fraud-allegations-mean-riverdale-park-may-have-to-reimburse-5&template=gazette by the Town of Riverdale Park's speed camera program.  So now the Environmental Matters Committee will have the opportunity to consider repeal, and to decide whether they are OK with the fact that innocent people are being FALSELY ACCUSED under the authority which the state legislature created.

Contact Info For Environmental Matters Committee
Chair Maggie McIntosh(D, Baltimore City): This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , 410-357-1234
Vice Chair: James E. Malone, Jr.(D, Baltimore & Howard Counties): This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , (410) 841-3378
Other Committee Members:

•      Pamela G. Beidle http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14495.html
•      Elizabeth Bobo http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa12188.html
•      Rudolph C. Cane http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa02769.html
•      Alfred C. Carr, Jr. http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14770.html
•      Barbara A. Frush http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa12225.html
•      James W. Gilchrist http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14617.html
•      Cheryl D. Glenn http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14618.html
•      Anne Healey http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa12238.html
•      Patrick N. Hogan http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13977.html
•      Marvin E. Holmes, Jr. http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13964.html
•      Jay A. Jacobs (HB251 sponsor!) http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa15458.html
•      Stephen W. Lafferty http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14625.html
•      Herbert H. McMillan http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13997.html
•      Doyle L. Niemann http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13967.html
•      H. Wayne Norman, Jr. http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14773.html (HB251 sponsor!)
•      Anthony J. O'Donnell http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa12284.html (HB251 sponsor!)
•      Charles J. Otto http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa15521.html
•      A. Shane Robinson http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa15460.html
•      Dana M. Stein http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13918.html
•      Cathleen M. Vitale http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14494.html
•      Michael H. Weir, Jr. http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa14010.html
•      C. T. Wilson http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa15455.html

Baltimore Speed SCAMERAS off line.  Previous contractor ACS will NOT share software (without added payment). 

CameraFraud National had this to say:

Baltimore, MD thought it was clever to take ownership of its speed cameras at the end of the contract with ACS. So Baltimore owns them now, and chose a new vendor who can't run them because the cameras require proprietary software -- available from ACS for a price. It's all about the money. You can't make this stuff up

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-speed-cameras-not-working-20130122,0,351518,full.story

Troubled transition shuts down city speed cameras
No citations in 2013; just 17 red light tickets issued

By Luke Broadwater and Scott Calvert, The Baltimore Sun
 
9:59 p.m. EST, January 22, 2013
Baltimore's speed and red light camera system has experienced a near-complete shutdown during what city officials are calling a problematic transition to a new contractor, records show, and the new vendor says it could take four months to get its system running.

City officials acknowledged Tuesday that Baltimore's network of 83 speed cameras — which issued about 2,300 tickets each weekday last year — has yet to issue any in 2013. And records posted on a city website indicate that red light cameras have issued just 17 tickets, all in the first two days of the year.

The city could miss out on $1 million or more in speeding fines alone each month that the system stays dark.

Meanwhile, the city recently notified some motorists that they would receive refunds because they paid $40 speed camera citations that officials now believe were erroneous. Transportation officials gave few details Tuesday, saying only that 239 tickets would be voided and declining to explain how the city determined who was entitled to a refund or which cameras generated the faulty citations.

The bumpy transition and the issuance of refund notices are the latest signs of trouble for the lucrative automated enforcement network, which has generated tens of millions of dollars for the city in recent years. The Baltimore Sun has documented erroneous speed readings from several city radar cameras, including a speeding citation issued to a Mazda stopped at a red light, and has shown that judges routinely throw out tickets for a range of deficiencies.

Xerox State and Local Solutions, the city's contractor until Dec. 31, acknowledged that five cameras had error rates of 5 percent, prompting the city to take those offline late last year. Since then, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has publicly committed the city to replacing all of its speed cameras with newer models that use more sophisticated tracking radar.

City Solicitor George Nilson said in a recent interview that the city and its new vendor, Brekford Corp. of Hanover, have experienced "transitional problems." On Tuesday, he said the city, Xerox and Brekford have been working jointly to achieve the city's "overwhelming objective," which is a "smooth move from the former system to the new system with as little gap and as little disruption as possible."

The camera system typically gives out several thousand red light and speed camera tickets per day, with fewer on weekends — when only red light cameras are allowed to operate — and on holidays. On Christmas Day, the system generated 1,128 citations. On Jan. 1, 16 red light camera tickets were issued and just one ticket the day after. No tickets of either kind have been issued since Jan. 2, the city's website shows.

Nilson said Tuesday that he was unsure whether the speed cameras are generating tickets and referred questions to the city's Transportation Department.

"No citations have been issued since Jan. 1st," Adrienne Barnes, a spokeswoman for the department, wrote in an email Tuesday night.

Barnes said the process of replacing equipment "will require cameras to be temporarily taken offline until the new systems are properly calibrated." She said earlier this month that "in the interest of public safety, the city will not disclose when the cameras will be offline or where they are located."

If all cameras were to stay offline for an extended period, it could be costly for the city. From July through November, the city collected $9.6 million just in speed camera fines, about $90,000 per weekday. According to the city's budget, Baltimore expects to take in $11.4 million from speed cameras this fiscal year.

"We will take a bit of a revenue hit in the transition, undoubtedly," Nilson said.

Before Xerox's contract ended, Brekford had promised a seamless transition.

"Our plan involves taking over the existing system, with no downtime, and facilitating a transfer of ownership of all power and communications to the city," Brekford's chief executive, C.B. Brechin, wrote in a letter to city officials.

But Maurice R. Nelson, managing director of Brekford, said matters subsequently got more complicated. Xerox did not leave behind its software for the city's cameras when its contract ended, he said, and so Brekford could not operate the cameras.

"The only reason we haven't started is we were looking for some software," Nelson said. "I needed that software to begin our program."

Xerox contends that its software is proprietary, and company officials have referred questions to the city and to Brekford, saying they are no longer the city's vendor.

Last year when the city sought bids to operate a camera system, the official request for proposals noted in several places that vendors would have to supply their own software. In one place, the city document states: "All software necessary to operate the cameras shall be provided by the vendor."

In an Aug. 17 letter to a city transportation official, Xerox manager Ryan Nicolas said that while the city would own the cameras when the contract ended, it would not inherit the software. "If desired," he wrote, "the city can license the related proprietary software from Xerox pursuant to a mutually acceptable agreement."

"We continue to cooperate with the city to address any issues," Xerox spokesman Chris Gilligan said Tuesday.

According to Brekford's formal proposal, the company will need four months to have its own system of cameras and software installed and operational. If Brekford cannot obtain software licenses needed to run the existing cameras, the four-month timetable suggests it could be spring before the city's system is running at full strength.

Ragina Averella, government and media relations manager for AAA Mid-Atlantic and a member of a mayoral task force studying Baltimore's automated enforcement, said she did not fault city officials for being reluctant to share information about inoperative speed cameras with the public, out of concern that increased speeding would result.

"We don't think it would be surprising to anyone if the cameras are not operational during this transitional period," Averella said. "That being said, from a traffic safety standpoint, we recognize and understand the city's reluctance to publicize if the cameras are in fact not operational."

Meanwhile the city has begun refunding citations to some motorists, including Daniel Rogers of Parkville. A speed camera on West Cold Spring Lane snapped a picture of his car Feb. 1 while he was on his way to a painting job.

The citation alleged that he was doing 63 mph, but The Baltimore Sun determined — using two time-stamped photos from the camera and measuring the distance traveled on the pavement — that his car's actual speed was 27 mph.

Like many motorists, Rogers paid the $40 rather than take the time to challenge the citation in court.

Earlier this month he received a letter from the city that began: "This letter is to inform you that you may have received a speeding citation in error. Due to a processing error, the City of Baltimore has voided the above citation."

The letter from the Transportation Department went on to state that the city was "working diligently to rectify this error." It said: "In this case, you will not be responsible for the citation issued, but please be advised that speeding can result in personal injuries, monetary fines, loss of driving privileges and the inability to register motor vehicles."

Days later he got a $40 check in the mail.

Rogers said he was pleased to get the refund but wishes the city had repaid him with interest and admitted the error. He said he didn't appreciate the "slap" about the importance of not speeding because he wasn't speeding.

"Yes, I got my money back," he said. "But they didn't offer an apology, didn't admit to the mistake and didn't reimburse me for that lost year of money."

MD Speed Scamera Reform Legislation Takes Shape.

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2013/01/first-speed-camera-reform-legislation.html

Monday, January 21, 2013,

First Speed Camera Reform Legislation Takes Shape

After many promises by state lawmakers to correct the gaping flaws in state's speed camera law which were laid bare by Baltimore City's buggy speed camera program, the first two speed camera reform bills have now been submitted to the General Assembly.

MD SENATE LEGISLATION
The first bill, Senate Bill 207 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=SB0207&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS, has been sponsored by Senators James Brochin(D, Baltimore County), Katherine Klausmeier(D, Baltimore County), Anthony Muse(D, Prince George's County), Douglas Peters(D, Prince George's), and Bobby Zirkin(D, Baltimore County).

SB207 contains several important provisions.  One, it would require that speed camera citation images "provide sufficient information to allow for the calculation of the speed of the motor vehicle during the interval between the two time-stamped images".  At various times defendants have been able to use time-stamped images to exonerate themselves of speeding.  However, despite such extensive evidence, speed camera contractors have often denied that citation images can be used to verify the recorded speed. Moreover, in many cases the speed camera contractors have made this a reality, by only providing images with time-stamps accurate to 1 second, giving no indication of the actual time interval between frames which is a fraction of a second.  For example, the same type of camera which was found to have issued 5% of it's citations in error, using time-stamped images with 3 decimal places as proof, is also used in other jurisdictions but with only 1 second precision -- the devices are all clearly CAPABLE of providing 3 decimal places of precision but the local governments have refused to provide this information to ticket recipients... even some motorists who specifically requested that information under the Maryland Public Information Act.

The bill also requires that jurisdictions "paint or otherwise apply marking to the portion of the roadway on which violations will be recorded to assist in the calculation of vehicle speed based on a recorded image."  An important aspect of this change since it clearly states that the purpose of the images and markings is to allow verification of speed, preventing speed camera contractors from making the very convenient claim that the purpose of speed camera images is merely  to show that the vehicle is present and moving, allowing them to prevent anyone from acquiring undeniable proof of systematic erroneous speed readings such as the ones which occurred in Baltimore City.

In fact, the use of white lines to verify speed is a national standard established in the NHTSA's guidelines of speed cameras http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/810845.pdf*, which states
"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."  So these changes would merely bring Maryland law into compliance with this national standard.  Some local speed camera programs already use white lines to verify speed http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/White-Stripes-Now-Backing-Up-DC-Speed-Cameras-144992735.html?fullSite=y, but most do not.  (*Yes, just so you know, your federal tax dollars are in fact being used to promote the use of speed cameras nationwide.)

In addition, the SB207 would change the wording of current law from "If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid."
to
"If a contractor ADMINISTERS AND PROCESSES CIVIL CITATIONS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor’s fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid."

This change is due to the fact that the language of the original law, which even governor O'Malley now says was intended to ban per-ticket bounties to speed camera contractors, has been effectively nullified after the Office of Attorney General Gansler (aka "The Department of Helping the Government Break the Law") instructed Montgomery County on how to bypass the rule, and that so long as they "don't use the O-word" ("operates") to describe what the contractor does they do not need to comply with the restriction regardless of the contractor's actual duties.  Changing the language of the law would HOPEFULLY prevent the law from being circumvented and end the practice of per-ticket bounties to speed camera contractors.

Lastly, the bill requires that "school zone" speed cameras be placed only within 500 feet of the grounds of an school, and only in a school zone "established for an elementary or secondary school".  After the statewide speed camera law was passed in 2009, some local governments created VAST new school zones which had never been marked as such before, and then placed cameras on roads which were not directly adjacent to any K-12 school.  In some cases entire towns were designated as school zones, and 75% of the city of Baltimore is now considered a "school zone" by the city's standard.

Sponsor Senator Brochin voted against statewide speed cameras in 2009 and has sponsored speed camera reform legislation in past years which would have prevented the state from placing "workzone" speed cameras in workzones with no workers ( the senate rejected this change last year and voted to keep workzones cameras where no workers are present ).

SB207 would need to clear the Judicial Proceedings Committee http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/com/05judp.html before it can go to a vote in the full Maryland Senate, however the prospects of at least getting past that barrier is at least reasonably possible given that three of the bill's sponsors sit on the committee.

MD HOUSE LEGISLATION
The second bill is House Bill 166 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=02&id=HB0166&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS, which has been sponsored by Delegates John Cluster(R, Baltimore County), Kathy Afzalia (R, Frederick County), Wendell Beitzel (R, Allegany and Garret Counties), Joseph Boteler(R, Baltimore County), Eric Bromwell (D, Baltimore County), Stephen Hershey Jr (R, Kent, Queen Anne's, Cecil, and Caroline Counties), Wade Cache (R, Baltimore County), Susan Krebs (R, Baltimore County), Susan McComas(R, Harford County), Michael McDermott(R, Wicomico and Worchester Counties), Warren Miller (R, Howard County), Michael Smigiel (R, Kent, Queen Anne's, Cecil, and Caroline Counties), and Kathy Szeliga(R, Baltimore and Harford Counties).  You can read the full text of HB166 here http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/hb/hb0166f.pdf.  Most of the sponsors of this bill are ones who opposed speed cameras and/or sponsored reform legislation in the past.

HB166 has two provisions.  First, the law requires that speed cameras receive a DAILY check by an "independent calibration laboratory".  Currently speed cameras are supposed to be inspected daily by the "operator", generally a representative of the local government which runs them.  However in reality the current tests have proven meaningless because our investigation revealed that cameras which issued defective citations in Baltimore City passed all the daily test "performed" by the city (although our investigation also showed that logs did not exist for many days).  The apparent intent of the bill would be to require a company which does not profit from keeping cameras online and issuing tickets to perform the daily tests instead.

Second, and arguably more importantly, the bill requires that all speed cameras provide a video clip of the alleged violation which could be made available only to the ticket recipient at their request.  This is significant because it was in fact the presence of videos from Baltimore city speed cameras which made proof of erroneous speed readings undeniable, since the videos clearly showed vehicles accused of traveling twice the speed limit simply moving along with traffic, or even sitting completely stationary at an intersection.  Had it not been for such videos, it is likely the Baltimore Sun would never have recognized the severity of the problems with the city's cameras, there never would have been a 'viral video' of a "speeding" minivan sitting motionless at a red light, Baltimore City and Xerox corp would never have admitted that their cameras had systematically issued erroneous tickets, and it is likely that our state legislature would have been content to allow them to go right on issuing tickets to innocent motorists.  The bill also addresses the fact that most motorists were until recently completely  unaware that many cameras in the state were in fact already recording videos which might have contained exonerating evidence, because the citations did not state this fact.  HB166 would that the citations state how the video can be obtained and that the video must be provided upon request free of charge.

The importance of this is that the threat of embarrassment by another viral video of an obviously innocent motorist being accused of speeding by a Maryland City could do FAR more to keep local governments honest than anything else, especially given the fact that the State of Maryland isn't going to actually do anything to enforce the requirements of the state's speed camera laws on local governments which choose to break them whenever they can marginally increase revenues by doing so.   Of course this is probably the real underlying reason why many supporters of speed cameras will end up opposing HB166 and try to get it killed in committee.  Having such irrefutable evidence of speed camera errors falling into "the wrong hands" (ie, the public's) is the LAST thing speed camera supporters (who prefer that the ONLY evidence of speed be the speed printed on the citation) would ever want to see.

House Bill 166 would first need to survive the House Environmental Matters Committee http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=cmtepage&stab=04&id=env&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS (chaired by Del Maggie McIntosh), which dismissed an important speed camera reform bill last year without giving it any serious consideration.

These bills would be excellent steps in reforming the state's speed camera laws.  Of course, even if these bills pass, one might ask whether local governments which consider themselves to be above the law would simply circumvent any new restrictions in the same way they have avoided complying with current restrictions (which has even included committing outright forgery and fraud http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/10/riverdale-park-says-public-cannot.html).  No bill can change the fact that the state is not genuinely interested in providing real oversight over local speed camera programs.  And it won't change the fact that we have an Attorney General  who will ignore any violations of the law by local speed camera programs, and who believes it is his job to help local governments find ways to bypass any rules that are inconvenient for them.  But these bills would help limit the number of grossly false accusations handed out to innocent motorists, and that should count for something.

You can find your Maryland state lawmakers at www.mdelect.net and tell them what you think of these speed camera reform bills.

SCAMERA SIDE SAYS Baltimore SCAMERAS "passed" test.  BUT THEY WILL NOT PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTATION LOGS!

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2013/01/defective-baltimore-cameras-passed-all.html

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Defective Baltimore Cameras Passed All Calibration Tests, But Logs Missing 

Speed Camera Calibration records requested from the City of Baltimore showed that cameras admitted by the city's former contractor to have issued many tickets with faulty speed readings http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/12/xerox-admits-5-error-rate.html had passed their annual calibration tests with flying colors.  However the city was unable to produce log showing that they had performed legally required daily tests on the machines for all days.

The calibration records for the camera at 1300 West Cold Spring Lane East Bound were first requested by a supporter of the StopBigBrotherMD.org website under the Maryland Public Information Act (see request letter https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1e8Zo-xJDL2akNROW03ZVlEOXM/edit).  This is a location where trucks were cited for traveling at twice their apparent speed based on evidence videos, where documents from the city showed they know of cases of errors since February 2012, and where the Baltimore Sun identified cases of  apparent errors.  The request included logs from this location for Feb 10, March 19, June 5, and Sept 4 2012, and also for the camera in the opposite direction for June 20 and Sept 3.

Inaccurate Cameras Passed Certification Standards http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fx4JM4xx9gw/UPtmao8j8lI/AAAAAAAAAxE/i6zEaMRDAec/s1600/calibration+cert.jpg

The city did provide some logs [see logs provided https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1e8Zo-xJDL2N0FtNkllV3k5V3c/edit].  However the city's response to that request, dated Oct 31 2012, initially DENIED ACCESS TO THE ANNUAL CALIBRATION RECORDS, claiming that they were in the custody of the city's contractor (read city's response https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1e8Zo-%20%20xJDL2dGhkbGx1ZUdyaFk/edit). This city also did not provide logs dated on 3 or the 4 dates requests.  The actual dates provided were Feb 9, Feb 13, Mar 14, Mar 21, June 5, June 6, Aug 31, and  Sept 4.  StopBigBrotherMD had already confirmed that some citations were issued at this location on all requested days because many of they either corresponded to the dates of apparently erroneous citations reported to us http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/10/trucking-company-questions-accuracy-of.html, or else the dates corresponded to citations in a database the city had published.

Maryland transportation article 21-809 states :
"(3) A speed monitoring system operator shall fill out and sign a DAILY set-up log for a speed monitoring system that:
(i) States that the speed monitoring system operator successfully performed the manufacturer-specified
self-test of the speed monitoring system prior to producing a recorded image;
(ii) SHALL BE KEPT ON FILE; and (iii) Shall be admitted as evidence in any court proceeding for a violation of this section."

It seemed to us that it is legal for the city to issue citations without having a "daily" log on file for dates when citations are issued.

The claim that the city did not have annual calibration records in their custody is disturbing, because annual calibration certificates are similarly required to be "kept on file".

After being informed of this, StopBigBrotherMD.org sent the city a request by email on December 14, copying numerous members of the DOT, then followed up with a written request dated Dec 21.  On January 18, 2013 (which was more than 30  days after our emailed request), the city provided a new response which included the annual calibration certificates, and some of the requested daily logs.  The city still denied that they posessed a technical specification for the cameras[see city's reply https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1e8Zo-xJDL2eVVnWGpKbm82eTg/edit], even though one would assume the city would have requested such information for their own purposes given that they supposedly underwent an extensive investigation into their camera program.

It's unclear to us at this time whether the reason is the city did not have, or did not wish to admit having, a technical spec for these cameras, given that they claimed to have conducted an extensive investigation into the errors by the cameras.

At any rate, the three cameras we requested records for passed all annual calibrations performed on them.
[Read Records provided https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1e8Zo-xJDL2b3hSZFNwZkgyUlE/edit] 
The annual calibration certificates show that the devices were of the model name 'G1-ATR' and were built by a company called "Mesa Engineering".  The certificates state that they were tested by a company called "MRA Digital" according to a "manufacturer specification".  This is despite the fact that one of the cameras was the one at 1300 west cold spring lane which Xerox has admitted was issuing erroneous tickets, one located 1700 cold spring lane had issued a ticket to a stationary car http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/12/baltimore-camera-cited-non-moving-car.html, and the third location on Greenspring Ave was one where errors had been credibly reported to us.  Xerox has now admitted that some their cameras had a 5% error rate.

We note that under state law the devices are only required to meet a "manufacturer specification" without any requirement on what that specification would be.  In fact article 21-809 does not even contain the word "accuracy".  So if the "manufacturer specification" were that "the box is blue", it would be perfectly legal under the law YOUR Maryland legislators wrote to use the device to accuse people of speeding so long as they can find someone to certify that the box is blue.

Likewise every single daily log provided showed passing results.  This included the April 24th log for the camera at 1700 West Cold Spring lane, the same day it issued a speeding ticket to a motionless car.

However the city still failed to provide logs for 1300 West Cold Spring dated on 2/10, 3/19, or 9/3, or for 3800 Greenspring Ave on 9/10, all of which we had requested.  Instead  providing 'start' and 'end' deployment logs for the requested locations on 2/9 and 2/13; 3/14 and 3/21; and 8/31 and 9/4; and 9/6 and 9/11. 

This is not the first time we have observed a situation like this, not by a long shot.  We had previously noted in 2010 that the City of Gaithersburg had systematically failed to log tests http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2010/04/gaithersburg-skips-speed-camera-checks.html as required every day, and that Montgomery County had been doing the same thing http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2010/05/montgomery-county-safe-speed-also.html.  It would seem the same applied with Baltimore's cameras in 2010.  Not that it would have mattered much, because even cameras which Xerox admitted had a 5% rate of erroneous citations were in fact passing all their "manufacturer specified tests" with flying colors.  Ironically, Gaithersburg and Baltimore both have the same contractor Baltimore City was until recently using (Xerox Corp), and so their contractor should have been aware that their other clients had caught flack over this in the past.

The Mesa Engineering G1-ATR has been used in several other jurisdictions which have Xerox as their contractor, including Baltimore County.  A notable difference is that THOSE cameras do not produce evidence videos which are made available to the defendants, nor do their images contain timestamps to fractions of a second, and are thus the recorded evidence would be useless for proving errors of the sort discovered in Baltimore City.

Baltimore City has dumped speed camera contractor Xerox corp, and has recently started a new contract with Brekford Corp paying them a per ticket fee (despite a provision of the law which is supposed to ban contingent fee contracts).  Baltimore has stated that they will systematically replace all of the city's cameras with a new, unspecified, model of cameras. 

European News:  Man accused of speeding 94 times cleared

Thanks to www.photoradarscam.com on sharing the link!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/01/18/Man-accused-of-speeding-94-times-cleared/UPI-41301358544157/

Man accused of speeding 94 times cleared

Published: Jan. 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM
ROUEN, France, Jan. 18 (UPI) -- A French judge has acquitted a man allegedly photographed speeding 94 times, after finding prosecutors could not prove the man was driving at the time.

Prosecutors said the 40-year-old Rouen man, whose name was not released, was allegedly caught by speed cameras driving 112 mph on 43 mph roads and one of the cameras captured the car traveling 155 mph, The Local.fr reported Friday.

President of Versaille Criminal Court Francoise Dufour threw out the charge of endangering people's lives because the 94 speed camera photos from 2011 and 2012 failed to show the man's face.

Lawyer Adrien Weil applauded the decision.

"Legally this decision is absolutely correct because there are no photographs and no witness testimonies to prove my client was driving the vehicle," Weil said.

"The car was used for both company and private use and this is the problem with speed cameras," he said. "Notice of the violation is sent out to the owner of a vehicle a little like a bottle in the sea and then they must find out who committed the offense."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3999.asp

France, Poland, UK: Speed Camera Sawed, Smashed, Scorched
Speed cameras in France, Poland and Scotland come under vigilante attack.

A speed camera in the Borders region of Scotland caught fire last week Saturday just before midnight. According to The Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/speed-camera-set-on-fire-on-a1-1-2735516, the device issued tickets on the A1 near Dunglass Roundabout. About twenty cameras have been attacked in the region since 2004.

Vigilantes in Lower Silesia, Poland used a rock to smash the lens of a recently installed speed camera, Sfora.pl http://www.sfora.pl/Fotoradar-rozbity-kamieniem-Wandal-nie-dal-mu-szans-a51469 reported. The automated ticketing machine located on the DK.8 in Mleczna was unable to issue citations, despite the relatively low cost of repair.

In Essarts le Roi, France, vigilantes cut down a speed camera on January 10 at around 11:30am. According to Le Parisien http://www.leparien.fr/espace-premium/yvelines-78/le-radar-victime-de-vandales-11-01-2013-2470345.php, one of the camera poles on the D202 Rue de Dampierre was removed with a saw.

OHIO:  Another suit over traffic cameras

http://www.salemnews.net/page/content.detail/id/562362/Another-suit-over-traffic-cameras.html?nav=5003

Another suit over traffic cameras
January 17, 2013
Salem News 
 
Another traffic camera lawsuit in Ohio makes two things clear - that local governments use the cameras for revenue, not safety, and that it's not worth the trouble to use the devices.

With that in mind, Youngstown should reconsider its decision to install the cameras in school zones and Warren officials should dismiss any notion of re-introducing the idea here.

Southwest Ohio attorney Mike Allen says the speed cameras are ''nothing more than a money grab.'' He wants a Hamilton County judge to shut down the system in Elmwood Village, near Cincinnati. Allen says the village has reaped $700,000 from tickets.

Allen is challenging the way the cameras were put into use last year, saying people's due process was violated by insufficient notice and signage. Business owners and even a church pastor have said the speeding ticket blitz is deterring people from coming to the village.

Closing arguments in the lawsuit are scheduled for Jan. 24.

We heard the same complaints when Girard installed speed cameras many years ago. People began driving around, instead of to or through the city, reducing customers for commercial businesses. Complaints and lawsuits turned the cameras into such a political nightmare for those who supported the idea that they buckled and agreed for the cameras' removal.

The complaints surfaced so vociferously in Warren that city leaders rejected the cameras before a single one was installed. But facing a difficult budget, talk of bringing cameras to Warren has resurfaced.

Using cameras in place of police officers means eliminating one process of catching criminals who are apprehended during routine traffic stops. Relying on cameras instead of officers also means reducing a town's ability to catch impaired drivers. Cameras don't make traffic stops.

To properly use cameras instead of officers, speeding must be reduced from a criminal offense to a civil one. That's because cameras can't testify against the suspects. This means wealthy drivers are free to speed as often or as much as they want without ever facing serious consequences - they can just pay their fines and continue driving.

The best course is to allow police officers to do their jobs, not hire machines to do it for them.

TN:  Hill promises to try to ban traffic cameras

http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_dc5d00e2-5ec3-11e2-a415-001a4bcf6878.html

Hill promises to try to ban traffic cameras

DAVID CRIGGER/BRISTOL HERALD COURIER Tennessee State Representative Timothy Hill holds a town hall meeting Monday evening in Piney Flats.
 
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:30 pm | Updated: 10:33 pm, Mon Jan 14, 2013.

Hill promises to try to ban traffic camerasBY ROGER BROWN | BRISTOL HERALD COURIERTriCities.com

PINEY FLATS, Tenn. – State House District 3 Rep. Timothy Hill said Monday that he is preparing proposed legislation that would ban the use of traffic cameras to enforce speeding laws in the state, including those now being used in Bluff City and other local communities.

“It’s time for them to go,” said Hill, R-Blountville, regarding the cameras during a town-hall-style meeting he hosted at Pardner’s Restaurant, just yards from Bluff City’s often-controversial enforcement cameras on U.S. Highway 11E.

Calling the speed cameras “an improper” way to enforce traffic laws -- and devices that unfairly target local motorists and businesses near them — Hill expressed optimism that his legislation will draw significant support.

“I think we’ll be able to get rid of them,” Hill told about 25 people who attended the gathering. “I’m not in favor of people speeding. I just think there’s a better way to enforce the law than [ traffic cameras]. And that’s having the police enforce the law.”

Though Hill said his proposal has begun to “gain some momentum” among fellow legislators in Nashville, he wouldn’t speculate on when he’ll formally submit his proposed ban.

“I still have some work to do,” Hill said.

Many of those in attendance expressed support for the legislation.

The meeting was the first of three that Hill is holding this week across his district, which includes a section of Sullivan County — Blountville, Bluff City and Piney Flats. One will be held today in Roan Mountain and another Thursday in Mountain City.

Hill, sworn in last week, easily won election to the open seat last November.

In other comments, Hill:

» Suggested he would likely support legislation allowing wine to be sold in Tennessee grocery stores, but only if it gives local communities the power to decide on whether to permit such sales.
» Said he will work aggressively to protect the rights of gun owners in Nashville and expressed concern about possible efforts by the federal government to impose new, heavier restrictions on gun ownership.