Speed Camera News

ATS Sues to knock off speed scamera competitor

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3930.asp

ATS Sues Traffic Camera Competitor Over Patent Infringement
American Traffic Systems takes to the courts to eliminate B and W Sensors from competition to win Chicago, Illinois speed camera contract.

American Traffic Solutions (ATS) once again is using the courts to take on a competitor. On Thursday, the speed camera firm asked the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to enjoin B&W Sensors, a small, Missouri-based photo ticketing company, from using a video-based speed camera technology that ATS claims infringes on its newly granted patents.

ATS filed the lawsuit after its main rival, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia, was kicked out of the competition to land a contract to provide 300 speed cameras to Chicago, Illinois http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3926.asp last week. Knocking off another competitor would give ATS an edge in landing the nation's largest photo ticketing contract. ATS does not believe B&W has what it takes to run a program as large as the Windy City's.

"B&W is a relative newcomer to the automated traffic enforcement market, with an unproven track record, and does not appear to have invested the proper resources and engineering in developing and implementing video speed detection (VSD) technology," ATS co-founder Adam Tuton said in a deposition. "B&W uses its infringing VSD, known as Multiple Vehicle Speed Tracking System (MVST), to target and capture business from multiple, long-term customers, including entities that are ATS customers."

B&W has used this technology to grab contracts with Memphis, Tennessee and four Missouri towns: St. Ann, Country Club Hills, Moline Acres and Sugar Creek. ATS, however, has the US Patent and Trademark Office on its side. The agency granted ATS two patents on video speed detection http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3836.asp earlier this year. Both B&W and ATS claim to have invented video speed detection, though the basic technology of making time-distance speed calculations from photographs to measure the speed of automobiles was invented in 1901. ATS called the B&W systems "inferior knock-off goods" and criticized the firm's high-profile failures in the Show Me State.

"B&W shut down significant portions of Interstate 170 in Missouri in order to install its MVST system," Tuton said. "Unfortunately, B&W failed to obtain the necessary permits from the Missouri Department of Transportation, which let to an unauthorized highway closure, traffic jam and public outcry... Such actions by B&W have resulted in public condemnation of speed camera technology."

In 2010, ATS filed suit against Redflex over the Australian firm's illegal use of uncertified radar equipment, only to lose http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3154.asp in what the trial judge called "an extraordinarily weak case." Redflex said it cost a $3.7 million  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3434.asp  to defend against the ATS lawsuit.

Redflex consultant has ties to controversy in Louisiana!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-red-light-probe-louisiana-20121022,0,423208.story

A consultant for Chicago's embattled red-light camera vendor - under scrutiny for his $570,000 in commissions and his relationship to the city manager who oversaw the contract — is also tied to another company deal investigated in an ongoing federal corruption probe in Louisiana, the Tribune has learned.

A federal grand jury in 2010 demanded records from Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. involving its 2007 deal to install red-light cameras in Jefferson Parish, a large suburban government just outside New Orleans, a company lawyer disclosed in a Tribune interview. The lawyer said company officials are confident nothing was improper.
                                        
                                        
                                        
"They asked questions about procurement arrangements and whether or not there had been any inappropriate conduct on behalf of Redflex," the company's general counsel, Andrejs Bunkse, said in a recent interview. "We gave them all our records and thoroughly complied, and haven't heard from them in close to two years."

The company's deal was among many government contracts that federal authorities examined in a wide-ranging probe of the parish, which functions much like a county. The investigation has led to several convictions including a guilty plea last month by the former parish council president, but none was related to Redflex's dealings in Louisiana.

The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Jim Letten, declined to discuss his office's ongoing investigation, including whether Redflex remains under scrutiny.

Federal authorities subpoenaed Redflex after disclosures about a lucrative commission deal the company gave to a lobbyist and former New Orleans city councilman who helped swing the votes for the multimillion dollar contract. The lobbyist's commission deal was worth about 3 percent of the contract.

Redflex was introduced to lobbyist Bryan Wagner by Marty O'Malley, a company consultant and its Chicago customer service representative, who used to work for an environmental company in Louisiana. Redflex and O'Malley came under scrutiny in Chicago this month amid Tribune inquiries into internal Redflex allegations about O'Malley's own large commission deal and his personal ties to former city manager John Bills. Bills oversaw the company contract for red-light cameras in Chicago.

In the wake of those reports, Chicago rejected Redflex's bid for a new speed camera program, Bills was asked to resign his post on a clout-heavy county panel and the city inspector general opened an investigation that includes Redflex's relationship with Bills and O'Malley. Both Bills and O'Malley said they have done nothing improper.

O'Malley, 72, of Worth, was first hired by Redflex in 2003 to be the company's liaison to Chicago officials at the outset of its contract to install red-light cameras throughout the city. In a recent interview, O'Malley said he met Wagner years before when Wagner was lobbying for O'Malley's former employer.

"Yes, that's correct. I introduced them," O'Malley told the Tribune. "Bryan Wagner and I worked together when I worked for an environmental abatement company in Louisiana in the 1990s. I knew Redflex was having trouble making any headway there, so I mentioned that I knew somebody down there that might help if they were interested."

Wagner did not return telephone messages Friday.

On. Sept. 24, U.S. Attorney Letten's office entered into a plea agreement with former Jefferson Parish president Aaron Broussard, who was indicted last year on charges involving bribery and wire fraud. He pleaded guilty to two counts, and agreed to cooperate with federal authorities in their ongoing probe. He is set to be sentenced Feb. 25. Two top parish aides and a contractor also have pleaded guilty to their roles in the conspiracy.

At a news conference the next day, FBI Special Agent Michael Anderson told reporters: "I know that there's more out there."

After disclosures in 2010 about Redflex's deal with Wagner, the Jefferson Parish council voted to suspend the contract. That move prompted a lawsuit from Redflex, seeking more than $7 million in lost revenue and penalties. That litigation continues.
 

O'Malley said he tried to negotiate a similar deal when he went to work for Redflex in Chicago in 2003.
 

"I threw out the idea that I should get 3 percent of every ticket, but it was just laughed at," O'Malley said. "I tried to negotiate the best deal I could."

Instead, he received $50,000 in annual pay and a $1,500 commission for each of the 384 cameras that would be installed over the next seven years — collecting more than $570,000.

O'Malley said there was nothing inappropriate in his relationships with Wagner in Louisiana or Bills in Chicago.

The allegations against O'Malley and Bills — along with a description of O'Malley's role in introducing Wagner to the company — were included in an Aug. 24, 2010, letter written by a Redflex executive who was under investigation for substantial abuse of the company expense account. After the letter was sent to the board of directors of Redflex's Australian parent company, company counsel Bunkse said an outside law firm discounted most of the allegations.

Bunkse said the independent review uncovered one instance in which the company paid for a two-day hotel tab for Bills at the Arizona Biltmore in March 2010. The company did not inform Chicago city officials of the allegations or its findings until Tribune inquiries this month.

That failure prompted the Emanuel administration last week to accuse the company of covering up the matter, and disqualifying it as a bidder in the mayor's plan to pepper up to half the city with cameras to catch speeders near schools and parks. Redflex's role as operator of Chicago's red-light cameras — which have generated some $300 million in ticket revenue for the city and more than $97 million in fees for Redflex — is also in doubt pending the city's investigation.

The stakes are huge for the publicly traded company. It is bidding on camera projects across the nation, from Tacoma, Wash., to Baltimore, where this month it was chosen as a finalist for that city's speed camera program.

After Chicago's decision to label the company a "non-responsible bidder," Redflex Holdings Group made a filing to the Australian Securities Exchange announcing its troubles in Chicago — which the filing said represents 13 percent of the company's total revenue.

The filing notified stockholders that the company's bid on speed cameras has been rejected, and "the city has also notified the company that the current in-force contracts for red-light enforcement are in breach." By the close of the market Friday, Redflex stock had dropped more than 20 percent on the Australian exchange since the announcement — from $2.10 to $1.66 per share.

South Africa speed Scamera Tickets INNOCENT motorists due to "software error".

CameraFraud National had this to say on the "error".

 
Scameras ticket innocent drivers in South Africa. After someone proved a ticket he received was bogus, officials checked and admitted a "software error" invalidated all fines at the location.

http://www.thepost.co.za/probe-your-fines-some-cameras-faulty-1.1407803#.UIVKSsePW9U

Probe your fines, some cameras faulty

 October 22 2012 at 08:02am
By Anna Cox

Speed cameras can be faulty, so motorists should carefully examine their fines and not just presume they are guilty.

So said Justice Project South Africa chairman Howard Dembovsky after the Joburg metro police department (JMPD) admitted that thousands of fines issued to motorists travelling in Republic Road, close to Brightwater Commons, were illegal. He has promised to cancel them.

Dembovsky said most people who had contacted the Justice Project had received five or more infringement notices from this site, with one getting 12, all of which were incurred in August.

Dembovsky said that judging just from the ones he had received, he realised something had to be wrong.

“This is a fixed camera and most people who use this road know it is there and will not speed. One motorist got information from his tracker, which proved he had not been speeding,” he said.

Dembovsky wrote to JMPD director Gerrie Gerneke to query the obviously defective speed and red-light camera in Republic Road to “seek a solution which would not place a huge administrative burden on members of the public who had been affected by it”.

SOFTWARE FAULT

“Director Gerneke showed us the results of an investigation by the JMPD and their contractor, and it was revealed that this problem resulted from an intermittent software fault which caused speed calculations to be incorrectly calculated, and promised to cancel all the fines issued there in August,” he said.

The camera in question is based on the corner of Republic Road and the entrance to Brightwater Commons, when travelling east to west, from the Randburg city centre towards Malibongwe Drive, and applies only to this particular fixed camera in this direction.

Infringement notices issued at this site, he said, stated that the location was “Republic Road cnr Waterfront Entrance East to West”.

“We are of the opinion that all fines sent by ordinary mail are not legal, but if a person intends paying, they should ensure that the fine is legitimately issued,” Dembovsky said.

All infringement notices resulting from the fault at this specific site incurred from July 1 this year to August 31 will be cancelled by the JMPD. -The Star

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3928.asp

Maryland, Italy: Speed Camera Toppled, Sign Spun
Maryland speed camera knocked over while Italian speed camera warning sign twisted.

In Olney, Maryland, a vigilante rammed a speed camera on Tuesday. The force of the blow knocked the automated ticketing machine near Georgia Avenue and King William Drive off its base, WUSA-TV reported. http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/225827/189/Olney-Speed-Camera-Damage-Is-Vandalism-Police-Say

In San Teodoro, Italy a speed camera was disabled more creatively. At some point on Tuesday, vigilantes spun the legally required photo enforcement warning sign so that it was no longer visible to traffic, according to La Nazione http://www.lanazione.it/pistoia/cronaca/2012/10/16/787893-postazione_autovelox_quel_cartello_vede_scatta_denuncia_contro_ignoti.shtml. As a result, citations issued that day cannot be prosecuted in court.
 

OptoTraffic SALESMAN CITED FOR SPEEDING AGAIN.  Don't you just love the hypocrisy!

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/10/speed-camera-salesman-cited-for.html

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Speed Camera Salesman Cited for Speeding AGAIN

Last August reported how a high profile spokesman for Maryland based speed camera company Optotraffic, Mickey Shepherd, was caught speeding in May of 2011 http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011/08/optotraffic-representative-caught.html.  After that incident was reported, Mr Shepherd replied to us in an email:  "In regards to the violation, and your publication of this information, my only comment is that I appreciate the reminder.  These reminders only serve to help in my efforts to obey the law."  Despite the reminder, court records now show a second incident under Mr Shepherd's name dated September 11, 2012, for allegedly driving 71mph, 16mph over the speed limit:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TQPqHqkINT0/UIKNUF4n7LI/AAAAAAAAApo/Lq7JYaHOE5o/s1600/HeyMickey.jpg

HeyMickey

Court record shows the same physical description, date of birth, and license plate number as the prior incident.  We attempted to contact Mr Shepherd at his last known email address and received no reply after two days.

The court record shows that in this case a "request for trial" was received on 9/17 and is scheduled for December.  In the trial for this human-issued citation, Mickey will be permitted the right to confront the officer who issued him the citation, the state will be required to be able identify the driver rather than merely holding the owner responsible, the state will not be explicitly permitted to introduce evidence "without authentication", and the motorist will be entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Very much unlike recipients of speed camera tickets.

Mickey has recently appeared in Elmwood Place Ohio in support of the newly installed Optotraffic cameras have been issuing $105 fines to vehicles traveling as slowly as 26mph, just a few mph over the limit.  Mickey admitted having received tickets http://www.19actionnews.com/story/19778391/elmwood-place-village-council-to-talk-speed-cameras-at-meeting?clienttype=printable when speaking in an Elmwood Place meeting, in an apparent effort to bond with the crowd of angry ticket recipients: "I've received traffic citations, I've received tickets," Shepherd said. "I don't like to receive them, I understand that, but the speed limit needs to be obeyed."(channel 19 News, Ohio).

“We are a business; any business is in business to make money at it,” http://news.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20121009/NEWS01/310090128/Drivers-irate-over-Elmwood-Place-tickets Shepherd said at a public meeting in Elmwood Place (as quoted in Cincinatti.com).  Motorists driving though Elmwood Place have recently been outraged by thousands of tickets issued by the small town in past weeks, some of which for driving no more than 26mph, and some of which mistakenly stated the location of the alleged violation in Maryland rather than Ohio. 

In 2011, Mickey Shepherd conducted public relations for Optotraffic, including arguing both in public and in court that images recorded by Optotraffic cameras could not be used as proof of speed in order to allow a defendant to exonerate themselves (after several individuals argued that they had received erroneous citations), despite the presence of an earlier Optotraffic document which claimed citation images did provide evidence of speed.  In another one of Mr Shepherd's public relations posting for Optotraffic, Mr Shepherd argued that the Town of Cheverly had "successfully accomplished it's mission" of eliminating speeding in the town as the reason why they were canceling their contract with the town -- only to have it later revealed that Cheverly town officials had been dissatisfied http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011/11/optotraffic-contract-with-cheverly.html not only because the devices had been recording "false triggers" (including a bike traveling at freeway speeds and an "invisible vehicle" going 76mph), but also that the town had been rejecting most of the citation images being recorded due to poor quality.

 Olnley, MD speed Scamera Attack:  "It needs to happen to every one of them,"

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/225827/189/Olney-Speed-Camera-Damage-is-Vandalism-Police-Say

Olney Speed Camera Damage is Vandalism, Police Say
10:57 PM, Oct 17, 2012   |

OLNEY, Md. (WUSA) -  It's a crime -- but there are a lot of people cheering from the sidelines anyway.

On Tuesday we showed you a speed camera in Olney, Maryland that was knocked off its pedestal.

Today Montgomery County police said they are nearly certain that someone hit it with a vehicle on purpose.  There are no suspects, even though a police substation sits little more than a block away.

The camera near the intersection of northbound Georgia Avenue and King William Drive was repaired and put back in service within a day.

WUSA9's Facebook page was flooded with comments expressing seething contempt of speed enforcement cameras, especially in Montgomery County which operates at least 115 of them.

"It needs to happen to every one of them," wrote one viewer "Stop the Greed in government."

"I don't know if someone did this or not," wrote another. "But if he/she gets caught I'd surely contribute to a defense fund."
"Camera Karma " was a post that sums it up.

Montgomery County police report at least 53 acts of vandalism on enforcement cameras between February and September of this year.  The incidents ranged from spray painting to gunshots. 
A county legislative report showed speed cameras result in 87% motorist compliance, a 28% drop in collisions, and a 39% reduction in injuries and deaths around enforcement camera zones.

In Montgomery County, the speed camera program collects about $13 million a year.

Ban the Cams note:  A "report" done by the county that PROFITS from the scam! Notice how they don't bother bringing up how many collisions and injuries were in the BEFORE PERIOD CAUSED by exceeding the speed limit.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3801.asp "Out of 2.7 million traffic accidents recorded in twenty-five states over the course of a year, only 1.6 percent were caused by drivers who exceeded the posted speed limit." 

We wonder if that were PEER reviewed, what the games the county might have played to make the collission and injuries look lowerer.

WE already know that in the UK the POLICE WERE DELIBERATELY UNDERREPORTING  injuries as discovered in the British MEDICAL Journal! 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1210.asp

Quote:  Non-fatal road injuries, despite the claims of police, have also risen according to a British Medical Journal (BMJ) study published last week. The BMJ researchers examined the police claim that the road injury rate had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 59.4 in 2004 and found that it did not ring true. By examining hospital records, the study found the road injury rate increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The study attributes the discrepancy to "under-reporting" on the part of the police.

Add to that the fact that the vendors are "involved" in some of the reports like ACS out of Denver.  http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19580844

Quote:  To say that ACS has a direct financial stake in demonstrating that photo radar enhances public safety should be self-evident. How could such a study possibly be accepted as a dispassionate portrayal of the facts when so much is on the line for those who are conducting it?"

Stop Big Brother MD on Elmwood Place, OH adding third Optotraffic Speed Scamera.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/17/elmwood-adding-third-speed-camera/?fb_comment_id=fbc_121301288022245_137065_122445297907844#f181d74e95ba6c2

Ask Optotraffic a simple question: "Can someone use an Optotraffic speed camera images to exonerate myself by showing mathematically that I was not speeding"? Because In Maryland, they claim that you cannot: the images can be used to prosecute you but Optotraffic says you cannot use them to prove you were NOT speeding. Having images as secondary evidence of speed is an NHTSA standard which Optotraffic cameras DO NOT MEET, at least not according to Optotraffic's statements AFTER people in Maryland claimed to have gotten erroneous tickets.

Ohio needs to boot this company and their non-IACP/NHTSA certified equipment out *while you still can*. Once other local governments have written these camera profits into next year's budget you will be powerless to stop it, and Ohio will go the way of the People's Republic of Maryland where drivers no longer have any due process whatsoever and your fate will be at the mercy of companies like Optotraffic who get paid based on the number of tickets they issue.
 

Ban the Cams note:  There have been reports in the press of 2 to 3 mph speeding tickets issued in Elmwood Place (and Optotraffic). 

http://www.banthecams.org/Speed-Camera-News/citizens-protest-speed-scameras-in-ohio-town-encourage-boycott-of-speed-scamera-town.html or http://www.thecincinnatiherald.com/news/2012-10-20/News/Speed_trap_or_speed_demons.html

Quote:  Some motorists complained of getting tickets for as little as 2 or three miles over the speed limit in the 25 and 20 mph speed zones during the recent Village Council meeting

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/19/the-districts-latest-scamera-swindle/

EDITORIAL: The District’s latest scamera swindle
Cheaper tickets won’t mean less revenue for city

The Washington Times
Friday, October 19, 2012

The D.C. Council is poised to lower the cost of speed camera tickets from a maximum of $250 to just $50. The plan unveiled on Tuesday is meant to create the impression that the District has seen the light and has finally decided to go easier on motorists. Considering the source of the latest plan, that’s hardly likely.

The District and the for-profit vendor in charge of the robotic cameras dish out more tickets in a year than the city has residents. This has created a pile of loot so lofty that it’s only a matter of time before it crosses the $100 million per year mark. That looks bad, so Councilman Tommy Wells and Councilman Mary M. Cheh decided to set up a task force to draft legislation reducing the fines.

Of course, Mr. Wells and Ms. Cheh both adore speed cameras, and their hand-picked task force was a love fest of like-minded people who don’t drive cars. Members included the AARP, the D.C. Pedestrian Advisory Council and the D.C. Bicycle Advisory Council. Bureaucrats from the Department of Motor Vehicles, the District Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Police Department also had seats at the table. The lone representative who might stand up for motorists, AAA-Mid-Atlantic, has a record of lobbying in favor of ticket cameras everywhere in the region.

So it shouldn’t come as a shock to learn the new plan actually makes classic business sense. A high-volume, low-margin approach is what makes stores like Walmart a financial success. So instead of shaking down drivers for an average of $120 per ticket, the proposed law would trade the lower fines for more cameras. This is how Maryland has used modest $40 fines to haul in $77 million per year, according to the calculation of the StopBigBrotherMD.org website.

The smaller fines carry other advantages. Payment and collection rates will rise as it’s easier to write a check for the more affordable fine amount. Drivers who might vigorously fight a $250 citation will decide it’s not worth the effort to do so over a mere $50.

To prevent loss of revenue, the city will have to boost the number of speed camera locations — something it has clearly been doing over the past several months. The legislation introduced Tuesday goes further by dedicating half of the city’s share of camera profit to a new Automated Traffic Enforcement Road Safety Fund. The first use of this money will be the “Expansion and improvement of the automated enforcement system, including increasing the number and types of automated enforcement cameras, and improved public information campaigns and signage.”

So the fines will be cheaper, but there will be more tickets and more government-funded propaganda telling us how lucky we are to be shaken down. What really happens on the streets of the nation’s capital is that brake lights flash as people approach the roadside thievery stations. Traffic bunches up, creating an extremely hazardous condition.

D.C. officials don’t care about that, as long as their Arizona-based vendor keeps the money rolling in.

The Washington Times

CITIZENS PROTEST SPEED SCAMERAS IN OHIO TOWN.  Encourage BOYCOTT OF SPEED SCAMERA TOWN!

Ban the Cams note:  Optotraffic is a NORTORIOUS vendor whose operations have been called into questions in some of the articles below:

1.  "Maryland Town Defends Practice of Forging Signature on Speed Camera Tickets"
  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3924.asp  Quote:  "Optotraffic's failure to reject citations it knew contain a forged signature of a police officer means they are a direct participant in the fraud committed on the plaintiffs as well as a conspirator," Leahy wrote.

2.  "Maryland: Innocence Not a Defense to (Optotraffic) Speed Camera Citations"
 http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3645.asp  Quote:   "He used the photographs taken by the speed camera vendor Optotraffic to create a time-distance calculation showing his vehicles could not possibly have traveled at the velocity alleged."

3.  "Maryland: Forest Heights Speed Camera Accuracy Questioned" (Optotraffic)
  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3387.asp  Quote:  The accuracy of the speed cameras deployed by Forest Heights on Indian Head Highway (State Highway 210) has been questioned by local residents were claiming innocent drivers were being ticketed. Citation photos appear to show many cases that speed cameras in Forest Heights cited vehicles for speeds far in excess of the speeds the citation images indicate.

added quote: Forest Height's speed cameras are a proprietary design by Optotraffic

4.  Accusations of Rubber stamping of Optotraffic "Citations".  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3293.asp  Quote:  "Catterton called the Brentwood Police Department and was told that he had to come in and talk to Chief David Risik in person to dispute the charges against him. Catterton did so, asking the chief whether he rubber stamped every citation he received from Optotraffic without comparing the photographed vehicle with the description pulled from the owner's registration. Risik did not answer."

www.stopbigbrothermd.org is a good location for more infor on the Optotraffic speed scameras.

http://www.thecincinnatiherald.com/news/2012-10-20/News/Speed_trap_or_speed_demons.html

Speed trap or speed demons? 

Elmwood Place has the unwelcome mat out in the form of speed cameras, and local residents, businesses and visitors to the northern Hamilton County village have had enough of the village’s efforts to enforce the 20 and 25 mph speed limit.

More than 6,600 notices costing $105 each were issued through the mail beginning Sept. 15, according to Elmwood Police Chief William Peskin. The Village Council approved the installation of the cameras in July, notifying residents at that time by automated calls and by direct mail.

Village officials say an excessive amount of speeding on the village’s streets and limited enforcement capabilities promoted them to take action to protect the public. They contracted with Optotraffic Inc., of Maryland, which administers the program and provides the machines. During the two week trial period, in which notices were not issued, 20,000 speeding offenses were recorded, and that creates an unsafe situation for local residents, they said.

A protest was held Oct. 6, with citizens lining Towne Street to protest what they say is over enforcement of the speeding restriction and to warn approaching motorists to avoid the community. Several residents at the protest said the multiple, high cost tickets are extremely burdensome to pay.

Optotraffic started sending drivers $105 tickets in the mail on behalf of Elmwood Place. But violators say they are met by a sign posted at the entrance to the Town Hall that directs them to the police station to protest or pay their fine. However, when people go to the police station, there is a sign on the door there that provides a phone number for them to call. People trying to contest their speeding tickets are complaining Elmwood Place does not have anything set up to handle their complaints. In order to resolve the ticket situation, violators must send money to an address in Cleveland or appear in court there.

Some motorists complained of getting tickets for as little as 2 or three miles over the speed limit in the 25 and 20 mph speed zones during the recent Village Council meeting. A driver must be eight over the 25 mph limit and six over the 20 mph limit to receive a ticket.

Village officials said the money Elmwood Place receives goes into the village’s general fund, which pays for village operations.

Several residents, who say they were within the speed limits allowed, have received multiple tickets that have created a financial burden for them.

Priscilla Baldwin, who received four tickets, which she says falsely charge her with driving too fast in the school zone, lives on her monthly Social Security payment, and says she cannot pay the tickets. Baldwin is trying to arrange for a hearing, but has not received a reply from Optotraffic. In addition, her tickets state she is being cited for speeding in Elmwood Place, Maryland, where Optotraffic is located.

Baldwin added that church members going to and from a church on the corner of Towne and Vine have received 70 tickets, and employees at a business close to the Towne Street camera have received more than 100 tickets.

Katrina Newman received three tickets for diving 39 mph and 40 mph, but says she was within the permissible speeds on all three occasions. “I live on limited income, so I have to make a decision as to whether I pay the tickets or buy the medicine I need,’’ she said. “I want to protest the tickets, but they will not talk to you are the Village Hall.

Newman said a majority of those who have received the speeding tickets are African American, while the village has a small percentage of Black citizens.

IA town SUING  IA DOT to reverse decision DENYING SPEED SCAMERA on Interstate.  Many Don't buy Towns "safety" claim either.

Ban the Cams note:  The usual claims of "safety" by the town are there.  But NO DATA that shows how many crashes were EVER CAUSED by exceeding the speed limit. 

(not speed related which counts accidents that were NOT caused  by exceeding the speed limit but logged in becuase it was there.  Example:  falling asleep and hitting a tree 5 over the speed limit.  Cause was falling asleep, but it can be logged in as "speed related" regardless. 

CRASH statistic show that only 1.6% of crashes were ever caused US wide by exceeding the speed limit!     http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3801.asp

also see:  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3923.asp  "Road safety conference presentation in Australia urged officials to end the obsession with speed enforcement.")

 http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121017/NEWS/121017009/?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1

Quote:  But on Aug. 1, the DOT denied the city’s justification proposal. The city then appealed the DOT’s decision and asked for a contested hearing.

In its final correspondence last week on the matter, the DOT said its department “prefers engineering and enforcement solutions over automated traffic enforcement when it comes to solving primary road safety issues.”

Comments indicate that many don't buy the cities "safety" claim either.

Dakota Customs · Top Commenter · Works at Dakota Customs
“We feel like we got into this because it’s a public safety issue, and now we feel obligated to continue with it,” she said.

LIAR, Donate all the fines to charity, See how concerned you are then about safety. Nothing but pure greed.

Keith Gehring · University of Nebraska at Kearney
The Iowa DOT is finally catching on and figuring out that the ONLY reason cities want the camera's is for revenue. They don't give two cents about safety! Let's continue to put pressure on our Legislators and get the cameras outlawed, so every speed and red light camera has the plug pulled on it!!!

Bryan Short · Top Commenter · Iowa State University
Windsor Heights citizens need to take notice. Your city council will stop at nothing in their quest to pull more money out of your pockets, as well as those of your neighbors and friends in the city of Des Moines and the surrounding suburbs. Windsor Heights controls a very small section of I-235, which carries thousands of vehicles each day. This is an attempted money grab of epic proportions. The request to allow speed cameras on this very short stretch of interstate serves only to fleece drivers from other areas for the financial benefit of one small suburb.

It is time to stand up against these actions and vote your city council members out of office the next time they are up for retention. Remember this.

Matthew Hermanson · Top Commenter · Fort Dodge, Iowa
I love how they say they picked that area because of safety when the area they picked was the only portion within their city limits.

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2012/10/redflex-ousted-from-speed-camera-bid/

Redflex Ousted From Speed Camera Bid
October 17, 2012   Red Light Cameras
 

Once, they were thought to be a shoe in to be Chicago’s vendor for the city’s new speed camera program.

Redflex Traffic Systems had been the city’s red light camera vendor since it’s inception in 2003 and its equipment and technology had helped grow the program to become the nation’s largest with 384 cameras.

The company also had political connections to City Hall, as a friend and major fundraiser for Mayor Rahm Emanuel also worked closely with Redflex http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-13/news/ct-met-resolute-emanuel-speed-cameras-20120313_1_speed-cameras-greg-goldner-red-light-cameras as a consultant.

Many believed the fix was in. But that’s not the case now.

A Tribune investigation into possible ethics violations http://theexpiredmeter.com/2012/10/chicago-red-light-camera-vendor-faces-possible-ethics-probe/ has forced Redflex from the original pool of nine vendors that submitted bids for the lucrative, multi-million dollar speed cam contract.

The Tribune reports today http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-emanuel-red-light-cameras-1017-20121017,0,2640775.story, the city’s Department of Procurement Services issued a letter to Redflex Monday http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-pdf-rejection-of-redflex-proposal-20121016,0,4062116.htmlpage, the day after the Tribune’s story with the allegations of wrong doing was published, informing them of the decision to disallow its bid.
The original Tribune story reported how Redflex has paid for two nights at a luxury hotel for John Bills, the Chicago Department of Transportation employee overseeing the red light camera program.

This breach of the public trust by Redflex could imperil its long standing city red light camera contract as well as endanger bids for other cities’ RLC programs.

Bills had since left CDOT and has worked as a consultant for the Traffic Safety Coalition, a pro-enforcement camera lobbying organization that is funded in part by Redflex.

Here’s the Tribune’s story, “City axes speed camera firm’s bid, citing delay in reporting ethics case.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-emanuel-red-light-cameras-1017-20121017,0,2640775.story

http://networkedblogs.com/DwgoJ

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

City of Winnipeg Violates Provincial Photo Enforcement Conditions of Authority at Henderson & Gilmore

Absence of warning signs renders all tickets at the intersection unenforceable, WiseUpWinnipeg calls for ~ 500 tickets to be refunded immediately

WiseUpWinnipeg Press Conference scheduled for 10:00 AM on October 15, 2012 just south of Henderson & Gilmore intersection. Burma shave to follow.

Winnipeg, Oct. 15, 2012 – The City of Winnipeg has been regularly violating the Provincial Photo Enforcement Conditions of Authority (attached) as they pertain to posting permanent warning signs in advance of the camera intersection at Henderson & Gilmore. The Conditions of Authority, established by the provincial government in December of 2002, establish the terms by which the City of Winnipeg must operate the photo enforcement program including the stipulation that permanent warning signs must be posted at approaches to camera intersections. See the picture below for the clause within the Conditions of Authority referring to erecting intersection warning signs.

Ironically, when the warning signs were first erected, they were posted on both the median and curb side of the road presumably to maximize driver awareness and intersection safety. Neither of these warning signs are present today despite numerous attempts by WiseUpWinnipeg to alert City Public Works officials.

Dual “permanent” warning signs were erected at one time – where did they go?

 (Photo Not Available)

Absence of any warning signs since at least March, 2011

 (Photo Not Available)

It has been widely recognized, even by the WPS itself, that photo enforcement warning signs have resulted in safer driving behaviour and a dramatic reduction in accidents and offenses – a concept that is even celebrated by the City of Winnipeg on its website:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/police/safestreets/educational_campaigns/index.stm

In addition, the stated intent of the Conditions of Authority is also “to improve traffic safety through reduction of red light speeding violations.” Yet despite all of its rhetoric about achieving safety the City continues to ignore WiseUpWinnipeg requests to restore the warning signs at Henderson & Gilmore.

From the Conditions of Authority http://wiseupwinnipeg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ConditionsOfAuthority.pdf:

 (Photo Not Available)

“If warning signs improve safety, as the program claims, and they are required under the Conditions of Authority then what possible reason could the City have for not erecting the signage,” asks Todd Dube, founder of WiseUpWInnipeg. “The answer is obvious – it is yet another example of deliberate entrapment by the City to pursue revenue at the expense of safety.”

As a result of this blatant violation of the Conditions of Authority, WiseUpWInnipeg calls on the Province of Manitoba to immediately refund all tickets issued at this intersection since January 1st of 2012 - the date when the camera at this intersection was last activated. The camera was inactive for 2011 which justified the lack of warning signs but they should have been replaced when the camera was activated.

“TheProvinceofManitobais obliged to either start enforcing the Conditions of Authority or refund the tickets – they can’t have it both ways,” says Dube. “The City and the Province love to cite regulations and conditions when it suits their money generating agenda but are quick to dismiss their own lack of compliance – that’s a double standard that Manitobans are no longer going to tolerate.”

- 30 -

WiseUpWinnipeg Press Conference scheduled for 10:00 AM on October 15, 2012 just south of Henderson & Gilmore intersection. Burma shave to follow.

Media Contact:

Todd Dube

Ph.  204-795-5120

e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

website: www.wiseupwinnipeg.com

Speed Scamera Town Breaking the Law Part 2:  DOESN'T errect signs required by law until picketing!

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/city-erects-photo-radar-signs-hours-after-pickets-from-angry-citizens-demand-ticket-refunds-1.996432

City erects photo-radar signs hours after pickets from angry citizens demand ticket refunds

CTV Winnipeg
Published Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 11:08AM CST
Last Updated Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 2:41PM CST
City of Winnipeg crews erected new photo-radar warning signs at an intersection after a group picketed and demanded refunds for tickets Monday.

Wise Up Winnipeg picketed a photo-radar controlled intersection at Henderson Highway and Gilmore Avenue Monday morning.

The group says the intersection hasn’t had the appropriate signage since January of this year.

“We expect the province to start enforcing the rules against the city because it has become a rogue program,” said Todd Dube of Wise Up Winnipeg.

Legislation that governs the program stipulates signs must be in place warning drivers about red-light cameras and photo radar.

Dube said those signs were initially put up at the intersection in March 2011 but later removed when the intersection was no longer being monitored. Earlier this year, the cameras were back in place, but the signs stayed down, according to Dube.

“It seems like they’re more motivated to remove them to maximize violations,” said Dube. “They gotta play by the rules.”

The city erected the previously-absent signs around 11 a.m., shortly after the picket. City officials said they weren’t aware the signs were missing and put them up as soon as they were notified. The city would not confirm how long the signs were down.

Provincial officials said anyone who feels they have been issued a ticket unfairly can challenge it in court, adding Winnipeg police are responsible for ensuring the conditions of photo-enforcement are met in the city.

Wise Up Winnipeg is encouraging anyone who received a ticket at the intersection since January 2012 to contact them through their website. http://wiseupwinnipeg.com/

The group believes the camera was last activated in January.

Speed Scamera Town Breaking the Law Part 1:  FORGERY by SCAMERA TOWN!  Scamera Vendor conspirator as well

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3924.asp

Maryland Town Defends Practice of Forging Signature on Speed Camera Tickets
Riverdale Park, Maryland argues it does not need to refund speed camera tickets issued with a forged signature.

Riverdale Park, Maryland refuses to back down in the face of a class action lawsuit challenging the town to refund citations bearing the forged signature of a police officer. Between February 17, 2010 and April 3, 2010, citations were issued bearing the signature of Police Corporal Clayton Alford, even though Alford was on medical leave on those dates and could not have signed the tickets, as required under state law. Attorney Timothy P. Leahy, who filed the class action suit, blasted the town's conduct in papers filed with the Prince George's County Circuit Court on Monday.

"As far as I know no one has been fired and no charges have brought against anyone from Riverdale Park," Leahy told TheNewspaper. "It looks like Riverdale Park believes it can forge an officer's signature and there be no consequences."

Judge John Paul Davey will decide whether to honor the town's request that the suit be summarily dismissed. Riverdale Park's lawyer, Kevin Karpinsky, argued the town cannot be sued for violating the state's speed camera statute, under the precedent set by Maryland's highest court in August (view ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3876.asp). The town's court filing did not deny that the citation signatures were forged. Instead, it denied any member of the public could challenge a citation for such a violation of state law.

"Because there is no such duty creating an express or implied private cause of action for plaintiffs' claim against defendant, under Section 21-809 or otherwise, plaintiffs' tort claims must be dismissed," Karpinsky wrote. "In the absence of a statutory directive, the Maryland courts have uniformly held that it is not appropriate to expand a statute to include remedies that were not specified."

The town also argued that the plaintiffs, who live in College Park and Lanham could not file a "taxpayer lawsuit" because they were "neither a taxpayer nor a landowner" in Riverdale Park. The town insisted the lawsuit had to first be filed in district, not circuit, court.

Leahy countered that the Court of Appeals speed camera ruling specifically stated violations of the state camera statute could be treated separately from consideration of individual tickets.

"That petitioners did not litigate their Section 21-809(j) claim in the district court is not fatal at the threshold, in and of itself, to the present claim," the high court ruled.

Moreover, Leahy pointed out that Corporal Alford only came forward in August, so the ticket recipients were not aware of Riverdale Park's unlawful conduct in time to file a timely challenge in district court. Unlike Riverdale Park, the town of Brentwood refunded fines it illegally issued between June 24, 2010 and July 13, 2010 after learning citations were signed by someone who was not a police officer. Leahy also seeks to have the for-profit vendor in charge of the program held liable.

"Optotraffic's failure to reject citations it knew contain a forged signature of a police officer means they are a direct participant in the fraud committed on the plaintiffs as well as a conspirator," Leahy wrote.

(Thanks to the Association of British Drivers www.abd.org.uk for the link!)

http://www.prlog.org/11994244-dft-officials-now-admit-that-they-rely-on-amateur-vested-interested-advisers-on-road-safety.html

DfT officials, now admit that they rely on amateur & vested interested advisers on road safety.
Mike Penning, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at The Department for Transport, in a reply to questions via Sir Peter Tapsell MP, says that being a registered charity is enough qualification to advise Parliament on road safety & prosecution.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) - Oct 09, 2012 -
In their enquiries about Parliamentary advisers on road safety, The Drivers Union, a road safety group, whose aims include good, true, altruistic, non profit road safety, focused on  charities who are outspoken on road safety; in particular PACTS, (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety). In response Mike Penning, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at The Department for Transport, in a reply to questions via Sir Peter Tapsell MP, says that being a registered charity is enough qualification to advise Parliament on road safety & prosecution.  See  https://sites.google.com/site/driversprotestunion/amateurs-who-spout-road-safety/minister-supports-amateurs-with-vested-interests-as-advisers

Keith Peat, an ex police officer and expert in driving, road accident recording, prosecution and founder of the group explains: ‘In any other life and death pursuit like bungee jumping, free fall parachuting, mountain climbing and so on, ministers and politicians would defer to experts. In issues of road safety and driving it seems that every Tom Dick & Harry may be consulted’. He goes on: ‘Apart from the obvious, that it will result in poor policy, more importantly, it opens the door for vested interest and profiteering’.

The group claim to have exposed many examples of this which they reveal on their website www.youdrive.co  but are particularly concerned about PACTS, whose special parliamentary adviser is an ex school teacher with no experience in road accident investigation or reporting, prosecutions, or has any qualification as a driving expert either. ‘PACTS seem to promote public transport to the disadvantage of road transport.’ They say. See  http://tinyurl.com/9qh8ul6

Members of PACTS range from speed camera suppliers and motor insurance firms as well as companies who run the profitable Speed Awareness Courses which of course are a spin off from the speed cameras.

‘Not only is this very unhealthy ethically, but by allowing such amateur vested interest sources anywhere near parliament will inevitably result in unnecessary casualties and prosecution of drivers, whilst genuine road safety takes second place to amateur vested interests.’ Says Keith Peat

--- End ---

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3923.asp

Former Australian Road Safety Official Questions Speed Emphasis
Road safety conference presentation in Australia urged officials to end the obsession with speed enforcement.

Road safety officials had their priorities challenged as they gathered at the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management annual conference Thursday. Lex Stewart, the man responsible for road safety in the western region of New South Wales in the 1990s, presented data that suggests the industry's current obsession with speed enforcement is making roads less safe than they would otherwise be. In the past nine years, the fatality rate in NSW has stopped its long-term trend of decline and has leveled off. Over the same period, however, revenue generated from speeding tickets has increased 225 percent from $116 million to $263 million per year.

"In the 1960s we were far too lax and many drivers regarded it as a fundamental right to drive while very drunk," Stewart said. "However, in recent years has the pendulum swung too far the other way with ever-increasing 'big stick' punishments? Criminology tells us that the certainty of getting caught is a bigger deterrent than the hugeness of the punishment. Politicians choose to ignore that before elections and promise voters ever bigger punishments for all sorts of things, not only regarding road behavior. Of course, there is a role for penalties."

Stewart points out the data used to justify crackdowns on speeding are unreliable. Nearly 40 percent of incidents are labeled as "speed-related," even when the vehicle was traveling under the posted limit but in excess of what is reasonable for the given conditions. Stewart argued the typical accident report form encourages investigating police officers to designate the incident as "speed related."

"The police officer after valiantly directing traffic, working with ambulance officers to extricate bodies etc, then finally gets around to filling in the P4 Form," Stewart said. "Maybe a witness said the vehicles were in excess of the speed limit, but can they reliably tell the difference between a vehicle at 115km/h and one at 95km/h (under the 100 limit)? ...He or she looks at the mangled vehicles, the broken glass on the road, the skid marks etc, and wearily ticks the box 'Yes' to speeding. Thus, fundamental data on speeding is not accurate at its source, and I mean no criticism of police in saying that."

Stewart argued the effect of the enforcement mentality has been to force drivers to spend more time looking at their speedometer than looking at the road. Thanks to speed cameras, good drivers with long, accident-free histories often find themselves in danger of losing their drivers' licenses. Stewart argued the point system should be entirely replaced with a system where drivers start with 100 "merit points" and points are taken away based on scientific evidence of how dangerous the activity is, as measured by road trauma figures.

"Police be encouraged to have more frequent interactions with motorists to give cautions which have no dollar penalty but cost the motorist only one point," Stewart wrote. "Police can have more of an educational/warning role, and less (not zero) of a purely punitive role."

Stewart would also replace nearly all speed cameras with police officers.

D.C. traffic whistleblower’s efforts stall.  Meanwhile D.C. is still reissuing speed-camera citation dismissed by DMV HEARING OFFICER!!!!

Quote:   He pointed to his own experience last November when he received a speed-camera citation that just last week was dismissed by a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing examiner because of the District’s “failure to meet its burden of proof,” according to a DMV notice. He said there are more than 100,000 similar citations, with a revenue potential of more than $10 million.

 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/11/dc-traffic-whistleblowers-efforts-stall/

D.C. traffic whistleblower’s efforts stall

By Jeffrey Anderson
 
The Washington Times
 
Thursday, October 11, 2012
 
A veteran Metropolitan Police sergeant says higher-ups at the department and the city council chairman are protecting a manager accused of misusing department funds, failing to rescind defective speed-camera citations and improperly voiding legitimate tickets.
 
Sgt. Mark Robinson, a 22-year veteran who served with the department’s automated traffic enforcement unit, said the police internal affairs bureau told him that it had upheld allegations he brought against Homeland Security Bureau Program Manager Lisa Sutter, but no punishment or penalties were sought.
 
He also said that despite being dubbed a whistleblower, he has been removed from his post.
 
Fraternal Order of Police Chairman Kristopher Baumann said he was not surprised that Ms. Sutter has gone unscathed despite complaints to numerous oversight bodies and adverse internal affairs findings.
 
“The unit that she heads is a cash cow for the city,” Mr. Baumann said.
 
Whistleblower reassigned
 
Sgt. Robinson said he took his concerns about Ms. Sutter to the Metropolitan Police Department, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and D.C. Inspector General Charles Willoughby, but police officials under the purview of Chief Cathy L. Lanier declined to act on the findings by internal affairs.
 
In a July 13 letter to Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Mendelson, chairman of the council’s Judiciary Committee, wrote that Sgt. Robinson should be considered a whistleblower and that D.C. policy was to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. But Sgt. Robinson said he was moved from the automated traffic enforcement unit to a special events post shortly after he filed his complaints and has not been returned to normal duty.
 
The Mendelson letter included a statement by Sgt. Robinson accusing Ms. Sutter of giving $25,000 to a nonprofit without proper authority, improperly using automated traffic enforcement revenue to cater a staff meeting, and failing to rescind more than 100,000 defective citations resulting from portable speed cameras while improperly voiding an undisclosed number of other citations that had been approved by sworn police department reviewers.
 
According to documents attached to the letter, the police department’s office of audit and compliance referred the matter to internal affairs, which upheld some of the accusations, yet police officials took no action.
 
“If the allegations regarding Ms. Sutter are true and material, corrective and/or disciplinary action should be taken,” Mr. Mendelson wrote, urging Mr. Willoughby to investigate.
 
‘Not worth their time’
 
While police department officials did not impose any discipline in response to the internal affairs investigation, it is unclear what action, if any, the inspector general’s office took.
 
Ms. Sutter declined to comment.
 
Willoughby spokeswoman Blanche Bruce said the inspector general’s office usually gets back to a requestor “in the appropriate manner, but we don’t talk about ongoing matters.” She also would not confirm whether Sgt. Robinson’s complaints constituted an “ongoing matter.”

Sgt. Robinson said Jessica Jacobs, legislative counsel to Mr. Mendelson, confirmed that Mr. Willoughby’s office had looked into the matter. The sergeant said Ms. Jacobs read to him a written response from Mr. Willoughby to Mr. Mendelson stating that the inspector general had no problems with the police department’s handling of the investigation and decided that the transfer of funds issue was “not worth their time.”
 
Ms. Jacobs did not return calls for comment.
 
“It’s confidential is my understanding and the [inspector general’s] office must release it,” Denise Tolliver, chief of staff to Mr. Mendelson, wrote in an email. Mr. Mendelson’s office declined to disclose the letter.
 
When pressed for further comment, Ms. Tolliver said the chairman “has already sent a letter to the [inspector general’s] office asking for an investigation and MPD Internal Affairs is also investigating.”
 
At a recent council hearing in which Sgt. Robinson testified, Mr. Mendelson dismissed the matter by saying, “I’ve done all I can do” and invited the sergeant to take his complaints to other law enforcement agencies. Sgt. Robinson said he referred the matter to the FBI on Sept. 24.
 
Police chief’s response
 
Chief Lanier’s office denied any retaliation against Sgt. Robinson and said his former unit was “civilianized.”
 
Police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump denied that the speed cameras resulted in any defective citations.
 
She said internal affairs investigations are confidential but insisted that they were “acted upon.”
 
She also denied that Sgt. Robinson was detailed to another unit for filing complaints against Ms. Sutter and calling attention to alleged flaws in the automated traffic enforcement unit.
 
Ms. Crump said no sworn personnel are assigned to the automated traffic enforcement unit.
 
Sgt. Robinson refuted Ms. Crump’s claims that there were no statutory violations on the portable speed units, calling the statement “blatantly false.” He pointed to his own experience last November when he received a speed-camera citation that just last week was dismissed by a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing examiner because of the District’s “failure to meet its burden of proof,” according to a DMV notice. He said there are more than 100,000 similar citations, with a revenue potential of more than $10 million.
 
He also disputed the claim that his former unit had been civilianized, saying other sworn officers have been detailed back to the unit.
 
“I have been forced to remain in a detailed position because I adhered to the District of Columbia Ethics Manual and reported waste, fraud and illegal conduct to the appropriate authorities,” Sgt. Robinson said.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3922.asp

France, Germany, Saudi Arabia: Speed Cameras Attacked, Questioned
Speed cameras in France and Germany are assaulted while ambulance drivers in Saudi Arabia complain of the hazards they create.

In Domalain, France vigilantes disabled a speed camera using yellow spray paint. According to Ouest France http://www.ouest-france.fr/ofdernmin_-a-Domalain-le-radar-automatique-recouvert-de-peinture_40771-2120980-pere-bre_filDMA.Htm, the automated ticketing machine on the RD178 headed toward Vitre can no longer issue citations. Police have no idea who is responsible.

In Viersen, Germany a 44-year-old man attempted to detach a traffic camera last Sunday at around 1:30am. A pair of police officers who were driving home spotted the man on a ladder using tools to unbolt the automated ticketing machine, Westdeutsche Zeitung http://www.wz-newsline.de/lokales/kreis-viersen/viersen/ueber-foto-geaergert-mann-will-blitzer-abschrauben-1.1119968 reported. The man, who was allegedly intoxicated at the time, faces charges. On Friday at about 8pm in Bad Bellingen, a vigilante hurled a large rock at a mobile speed camera car, leaving a dent, according to police reports.

In Saudi Arabia ambulance services are complaining about the way red light cameras are making it harder for them to do their job. Many drivers refuse to give way to an ambulance at an intersection if the light is red for fear of receiving a ticket. This happened recently in Tabuk.

"Some were scared, but allowed ambulances to pass and carry the offense, but the others kept still," Mohammed Mohsen, a witness, told the Al Watan http://www.alwatan.com.sa/Local/News_Detail.aspx?ArticleID=116435&CategoryID=5 newspaper.

Stop Big Brother MD:  DON'T support owners of ACS.  BOYCOTT XEROX!!!!!

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/09/opinion-dont-buy-from-xerox.html

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Opinion: Don't Buy From Xerox

ACS State and Local Solutions http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/search/label/ACS has been the speed camera contractor for Montgomery County, Howard County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Bowie, Frederick City, Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Takoma Park, the SHA's 'SafeZones" program, as well as in DC and other locations outside of Maryland. In 2009, ACS was bought out by Xerox Corporation http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2914.asp, a well known company which produces a wide variety of commercial products for home and office use.

Unfortunately, as the biggest speed camera contractor in the state, ACS bears some of the responsibility for the abuses and injustices we have documented on this website.  They have engaged in tactics such as Astroturfing in Baltimore County http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011/02/speed-camera-contractor-created.html and in Howard County http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011/03/acs-running-astroturf-site-for-howard.html. Their cameras were involved in cases of mass false accusations in Baltimore City http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/search/label/Baltimore%20City.  And of course the cameras they deploy are partially responsible for the creeping surveillance state and our loss of the right to face an accuser.

If you oppose automated enforcement then we believe you should not give them any of your money, by boycotting Xerox consumer and office products.

These products include:

• Printers (including the Workcentre, Phaser, ColorQube models)
• Scanners (including DocuMate brand scanners)
• Copiers
• Fax machines
• Office Products (printer paper, labels,  and toner cartridges)
• Software Products

The next time you need printer paper or replacement printer cartridges, don't buy Xerox. The next time you want to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax, don't buy Xerox. Just buy it from another company.  

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2012/10/trucking-company-questions-accuracy-of.html

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Trucking Company Questions Accuracy of Baltimore Camera Tickets

A manager from trucking company has questioned the accuracy of citations issued to them by speed cameras in Baltimore, claiming that evidence images and videos captured by the cameras shows the large semi trucks could not have been traveling at the high speeds recorded on the citations.

The Safety Manager for a PA based trucking company forwarded a citation alleging that a large semi truck had been traveling 70mph in a 35mph zone at 1300 Block of W. Coldspring Lane E/B "This is the 6th citation we've received at this location since 1/07/12 and it's getting out of hand.  I reviewed each video personally and there was never any indication our driver was speeding.  I sent a letter to city a few months ago expressing my concerns, but heard nothing back, of course.", He wrote to us in an email.

The manager provided access to the images and videos for four violations, showing different trucks (and presumably different drivers), all recorded at the same location for various dates in 2012.  This is a company which operates hundreds of vehicles, and may have had many vehicles passing this speed camera a great many times in 2012, making the possibility of multiple occurrences of what would be a low-probability error for a single instance mathematically much more likely over that period. 

Most speed cameras in use in Maryland capture still pictures only.  However this particular camera appears to be configured to collect 3 second long video clips.  The citation images read 'speed on green', indicating this may be a converted red light camera (some red light cameras can be converted to speed cameras requiring only a software change, and red light cameras DO record video).  The four alleged violations claimed the vehicles were traveling between 59 and 70mph.  You can judge whether this is accurate for yourself.

Event #1:  The first alleged violation was on 2/10/2012 and claimed a speed of 65mph.  The image timestamps are given to 3 decimal places, giving a time interval of 0.500 seconds.  You can see from the images the distance traveled is about 1/2 the length of the trailer.  

A vehicle traveling 65mph would travel 47.7 feet in 0.5 seconds. The trailer on a typical 18-wheel semi is 53 feet long.  Half the length of such a trailer would be only 26 or 27 feet.  A trailer long enough for 1/2 its length to equate to that speed would need to be close to twice the road legal length in MD.  In addition, the second image shows a second vehicle following the truck, a portion of the vehicle is in the first image as well.  While the car is not sufficiently in frame in both images to estimate its speed, you certainly cannot conclude from this that the truck was traveling far faster than the prevailing speed of traffic.  TheVIDEO captured by this camera seems to support that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-V1XAiwIUzU

[We have blurred the video clips in order to respect the company's wish that their name and logo not be shown.  However we have the original images and citation numbers in the unlikely event that the Baltimore City government (or certain Baltimore based news outlets which don't like to talk about speed camera errors) change their mind and decide to seriously examine the matter rather than just reciting the mantra "if you don't speed you won't get a ticket".]

We have superimposed a timer over the video, so you can see the exact time it takes to traverse the length of the trailer. 

This interval is close to 1.368 s.  Assuming a 53 foot length, that would equate to about 27mph, not 65. 

Event #2:   The second alleged violation took place on 3/19/2012 and was for 59mph.  This also shows a time interval of exactly 1/2s.

A vehicle traveling 59mph would go 43.2 feet in 0.5s.  Once again, the trailer moved only a fraction of its length, and would seem to be only half the required distance.

Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdXDqPF9Or0&feature=player_embedded

The time to traverse the trailer length appears to be close to 1.302s.  A vehicle traveling 59mph should have moved approximately 112 feet in 1.302s, twice the trailer length.

Event #3: The third alleged violation was on 6/5/2012 with an accused speed of 67mph.  

Same interval, 0.5s.  Same distance traveled, close to 1/2 truck length.   67mph equates to traveling 49 feet in .5s, much more than 1/2 of a 53 foot truck length.
Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN5OFqCOsOc&feature=player_embedded

If this truck was traveling 67mph in a 37mph zone, we could reasonably assume the Toyota Prius following the truck must have been doing close to 67mph as well.  Here is the snapshot of that video.

67mph in 1.134s would equal 111feet (2 trailer lengths).

Event #4: Lastly, here's the images from 9/4/2012 accusing this truck of

going 70mph... twice the legal speed limit. The time interval is shown to be the same (0.500s)
Images:

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX955oWhXxk&feature=player_embedded

Video Frames:

70mph in .5s = 51ft.  70mph in 1.01s = 102 ft.  You be the judge. 

Of course in this case YOU will NEED to be the judge, because this out-of-state company cannot reasonably contest the citations before a real judge.  And even if they did and won it would not guarantee that they (or other trucking companies) wouldn't just get more erroneous tickets later.  "We don't have a representative in the area and for a $40 citation, it wouldn't make sense to have an attorney  represent us.", the company manager wrote  "Also, I don't believe the situation with the bogus camera would be have been corrected at that point anyway."  The state high court recently ruled that contesting citations individually is the ONLY way to avoid admitting guilt, banning class actions and stating that paying the fine constituted making an "admission of speeding".  This is despite the fact that some district court judges have openly stated that they will not accept ANY argument http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2011/11/prince-georges-county-court-openly.html  questioning the accuracy of a speed camera's recorded speed.  The company did write to the city and reported that they received no reply.  The impact of citations sent to commercial vehicles can occasionally be more than $40 for some people.  Some professional drivers have written to StopBigBrotherMD about how they were terminated by their employers over speed camera tickets, without being given the opportunity to contest the citations.

This is hardly the first case where speed cameras have been found to produce errors with large or unusually sized vehicles.  Optotraffic speed cameras were found to have experienced "false triggers" with certain large vehicles, including in Brentwood http://washingtonexaminer.com/md.-company-investigates-speed-cameras/article/89697#.UHG0LFEuN3U  and New Carrollton http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_jBnlDPNoSs/T168EQXTlGI/AAAAAAAAAhs/NAbsGcYi17Q/s1600/falsespeedtrigger.jpg  , although they work on an entirely different principal than the speed cameras (provided by Baltimore's speed camera contractor Xerox corp http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/search/label/ACS) which Baltimore City uses.  The town of Fort Dodge Iowa admitted that a speed camera there was issuing incorrect speed readings to trucks and other large vehicles http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/545083/Chief-cites--Bermuda-Triangle-.html  in a location they wittily referred to as the'Bermuda Triangle'.  Cameras in Australia have also seen errors with large vehicles http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/181.asp, once even ticketing a bus that was 'speeding' while parked http://www.news.com.au/national/torrens-transit-bus-driver-fined-for-speeding-at-a-bus-stop-in-tranmere/story-fndo4dzn-1226460070565.  As such, it would seem that reliability problems measuring speeds of certain types of vehicles may not be limited to a single technology. An even bigger problem is the fact that this camera is a rarity in Maryland because it actually collected enough evidence that it at least potentially could be used to exonerate someone.  Many if not MOST of the speed cameras in Baltimore do not provide video clips to defendants and were previously configured to display timestamps only to 1 second of precision, indicating an incorrect time interval of either 1s or 0s (even though the contractor (ACS) is quite capable of displaying the actual time interval on those citations with a minor software change).  A motorist receiving an incorrect citation from one of THOSE cameras would have absolutely no evidence they could use to exonerate themselves.  In Maryland, speed cameras are only required to be tested according to a "manufacturer specification", which might not prove accuracy under ALL real world conditions, and many jurisdictions and camera companies have taken an extremely lax view of their responsibility to verify citation accuracy using images.  One would hope that Baltimore City will not choose to "Fix" this particular problem by ensuring that future defendants never get access to sufficiently detailed evidence to independently verify citation accuracy.

StopBigBrotherMD.org would like to hear from This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text97403 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. anyone who believes they have received erroneous citations.