Why is Fairfax Lying About Red Light Cams?

rearender1From CameraFRAUD DC:

Overall in Virginia, T-bone or side-impact accidents increased 20%. Rear-enders went up 42%. Injury accidents increased 18%. Total accidents went up 29%.

Redflex, the beleaguered photo enforcement firm, is the vendor expected to install and maintain the automated ticketing machines (ATMs).


32 Responses to Why is Fairfax Lying About Red Light Cams?

  1. RPr says:

    there will be a protest on Feb 15th organized by DC camerafraud dress warm!

  2. Doc says:

    Ladies & Gentlemen- Fairfax is lying about red light scameras for the SAME reasons Arizona Department of Public Scrutiny…oops, sorry, I meant Safety…ESPECIALLY in your neck of th’ woods!

    FIRST, they ‘re TRACKING you…without a warrant, I might add. Sound stupid? Paruse this site & check th’ referances offerred up by Matt & crew. It sounds “conspiracy theory crazy”…sadly, it ain’t!

    2nd, revenue. Th’ ALL MIGHTY BUCK! Your local & state electorate has done the same thing OURS DID!!! Counted their chickens B4 they hatched! They went on a HUGE spending binge. They danced th’ BIG dance, now it’s time 2 pay th’ piper, & th’ cupboard’s BARE!

    Beware, however! They’re gonna’ give yous all that ‘ol schuck-n-jive routine ’bout “safety!” Don’t fall for that crap! Do your homework! Be vigilant! Let your elected officials know that they can & will find themselves out of a job if they travel down this road!

    Redflex is a corporation of totalitarian F R E E D O M thieves! American Traffic Solutions as well! Check out th’ contract Show Low, Az just signed with Redflex, to do th’ full monty scamera thing…INCLUDING using military grade tracking technology on Law Abiding American Citizens! That’s right, folks! You getchur picher taken even if ya’ DON’T break th’ law! AND, as an added bonus, they run yer plate for ya’! And they’ll call th’ law on ya’ if they can, ‘cuz THEY’RE a PRIVATE FORIEGN CORPORATION, THAT NOW HAS ACCESS TO ALL TH’ INFO CONNECTED TO YOUR LIC. PLATE!!! WHOOPEE!!! (& they get to keep it on a file for 5 years!!!)

    Remember…F R E E D O M ! ! !-Doc from Prescott, Az

  3. Glyph says:

    Ouch… 18% increase in injury accidents?

    Do the people cashing those checks simply not know what’s happening? Or do they simply not care?

  4. jerry says:

    “Doc”, don’t post like that here, you talk like your a true redneck. Seriously, spell check is your friend.

  5. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    doc says… blah blah blah… and he further went on to say… blah blah F R E E D O M blah blah blah…
    he then passed out from the oxygen leaving his brain at a high rate of speed…

    he was last heard whimpering the word… freedom ever so slowly and softly…

  6. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LAC, Way to avoid the issue. Hard to make a good pro-cam argument here isn’t it?

    These numbers are close to what Pinal County Sheriff was reporting (an INCREASE in accidents): http://www.azfamily.com/video/3tvextra-index.html?nvid=324071&shu=1

  7. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    at this site? i can make a case for anything… just as you guys either

    1. accuse foul play when the numbers do not benefit your cause
    2. or you take something and twist the hell out of it and pass it off as fact….

    maybe the officials of fairfax are just waiting to have their wheels greased…. i mean you have accused them of that also… have you not!!!!

  8. dgpjr777 says:

    Doc, they do not need a warrant, where the hell do you get your info.
    Also who was it that had the info about Sheriff Boo Boo standing next to the convicted Felon while giving the speech against the cameras at the Capital ? Please post the info again, I have a news station that is interested. Especially since the Felon is active with Camera Fraud. Guess what his convictions were for “FRAUD”.

  9. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    booyaaaaaa. the smoking gun!!!!!!

    doc!!! seems you have been NAILED!!!!! BUSTED for passing c.r.a.p off as fact….

    fill us in dgpr… i would assume that it has to do with the expectation of privacy while traveling on a public road, highway or freeway or interstate…

  10. Dan G says:

    OMG! It’s Law A biding the redflex ATS troll!

    Beware, he’ll whisper sweet nothings in your ears while your rights and money mysteriously vanish, never to be seen again.

  11. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    a troll is not someone who stays…. i have been here what 10-11 days… if i was a troll i would have been gone!!!

  12. RPr says:

    LAB is officially promoted from troll to shill

  13. I'm Back says:

    I wish I got paid to troll a website all day. If I did, I’d probably work on coherent thoughts and presentation of facts.

    But hey that’s just me.

  14. Glyph says:

    @I’m Back: That’s why you aren’t paid to be a troll, you’re too coherent!

  15. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    Being a troll has nothing to do with length of stay. It has everything to do with one’s conduct.

    Trolls are characterized by the following traits, and more:

    -refusal to debate on a point-by-point basis
    -claims of catching other posters in lies without supporting those claims
    -resorting to childish name-calling when unable to argue based on logic
    -avoidance of direct challenges to their posts, citing “it’s not worth my time” or other weak excuses

    I could go on, but I have a few more client calls this afternoon.

    So…you ARE a troll.

  16. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    according to your defenitions… you are all trolls!!!

    im back- you wouldnt know a fact if it came up and snapped a picture of you

  17. No One says:

    So, something was bothering me about the posts from my friends King Hypocrite and dpgjr…took me a bit but I figured out what it was. In reading Doc’s post, he indicated that they are indeed tracking people’s movements “without a warrant” (which is not in dispute)— he did NOT say a warrant was required, nor did he even specify that it ought to be (though personally I believe it ought to be, but that’s neither here-nor-there.)

    Between the two posters mentioned above, dpgjr took what Doc said and put words into his mouth, making it sound as if Doc had said it was required, when he never did. (This may have been unintentional, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt here, as dpgjr seems fairly reasonable, despite his views on the issue)

    But then King Hypocrite refutes the accuracy of those very same artificially-inserted words and attributes it to Doc. All the while, the King is accusing the anti-camera folks of skewing data or “twisting the hell out of something and passing it off as fact.”

    Wow, now there’s irony for you…or is it hypocrisy?

    Long live the King.

  18. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    you must have the brain on overtime!!! are you seeing things too? you just made something out of nothing….

    doc sure makes it sound like he feels that a warrant should be needed… or required…. so i will stick to that… cause you just called doc out on what he really meant…. and from what i have read from doc so far….i think i can guess which way he is leaning!!!

    doc- the ball is in your court!!!

  19. No One says:

    Regardless of what Doc’s positions is, my point was– and remains– the fact that I find it interesting that you accuse others of skewing facts, while simultaneously doing the same thing. I would not be surprised whatsoever if he said he thought a warrant ought be required– and I would agree with him if he said that. But he didn’t, outright state his opinion and more importantly he did not say one was actually required.

    Regardless, to steer this train wreck of a thread at least somewhat back on track, on the subject of privacy concerns–

    First, have a look at this article: http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/phoenix-local-news-120208-photo-radar-numbers.2493a4a3.html

    It specifies that in the approximately 67 days between September 26 and December 2 there were 166,176 activations of the cameras. Now, if there were 166,676 instances of it going off, how many vehicles would you expect went past it without an activation? There is of course no public source for this knowledge, as the camera companies are tight-lipped about this. But even assuming an equal number of motorists were not speeding when passing the cameras, this would mean that over 166 thousand people had their information gathered with no real reason for them to do so. And this number is incredibly low, as we all know that the camera’s activation rate is not on every other vehicle… so we are talking about hundreds of thousand, potentially millions, of instances of data collection and retention when by their own standards, the motorists involved have done nothing wrong. This seems a bit excessive, merely to catch a few speeders– especially when the actual end result, the “notices of violation” number only 40,401, and that number is reduced even further by the fact that many people do not even pay it and get off scot-free.

    So, my question is, if the end result is in the tens of thousands, why must they collect the data for the remainder of the people– ie hundreds of thousands or millions.

    Now, before DPGJR chimes in and says that there is no expectation of privacy on a public roadway, I’ll just head that one off at the pass. While there is no expectation of privacy, certain details such as my name, address, criminal history, and driving record are not normally available to anyone should I just happen to be driving down the road. In fact, certain pieces of that data are considered to be private information. If you are going to be employed somewhere, they require a signature to do a background check. They cannot pull things like your criminal history without your consent. I do not like and do not appreciate the fact that access is being given will-nilly to a nongovernmental agency for purposes unknown. Further, even if one might argue they are provided in accordance with and in support of the law, I question why this information need be archived and not immediately purged from the system once it is determined I am not breaking any law. Instead it remain in the database with no specified limits on what the data may be used for in the future.

    So, I would be very interested to hear a justification of why all this data is collected in the first place and why it must be retained. I cannot figure it out. Anyone care to enlighten me?

  20. I'm Back says:

    No One,
    I have no idea how anyone can justify any of what you’re saying.

    I appreciate your candor and well put-together post, especially knowing that certain people will tear it apart with silly accusations, cheesy one-liners and SENTENCES IN ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.

    Whatever those people say, I am glad some of us are still willing to make the arguments, even though we’ve done it so many times since this site came along.

  21. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    you asked for answers … ? i have my hand up… i dont think that anyone can enlighten you here.. i cant and anybody who tried would be guessing…unless of course someone from redflex or a state politician in the know wants to chime in… casue my GUESS is .. someone knew about the 24/7.. anyway

    justification? well i cant justify it unless i know what they are using the data for and what it is recording.. do we REALLY know what the camera is doing? it cant be snapping a photo.. so it must be recording… and what can it actually pick up? everything.. face , plate, make and model? or just make and model, at best, as a car goes by doing 50 mph plus.. ? again does anybody REALLY know? and what kind of quality is that footage? now let me ask you this.. imagine all that “footage” just who is looking at it? who has the man power to do it?
    i cant for the life of me figure out what the personal info could be for.. i can see however, the info being of use for ADOT… but not the personal stuff. things like traffic flow at what time of day and how many cars are being pushed through on an hourly, daily and weekly basis.. are you hearing me? why all the fuss if it is collecting the personal? do you or anybody really think they can do anything with it? well of course they could.. but why? see i guess the reason i am not concerned is because… i am not worried about things i can not control tomorrow… other than my financial well being and health ( even those i only have so much control) i cant control tomorrow..

    and who said they are pulling the information? just cause they have it ( if they do ) does not mean they are axcessing it..

    expectation of privacy.. i am not a judge.. i dont think anybody is here… i can only GUESS that since one chooses to drive .. then they are forfeiting their right to the privacy . talk about a slippery slope? i find it odd though that this issue is being challenged here considering what this site is advocating and promoting with glyph’s photos.. there is a word for it..but i am trying to be civil on this post.. i guess doc’s cry for freedom is only intended for the people he deems to be free!!

    now as far as access to your records… when i got my photo ticket 3 years ago or so… and it was a black guy who was driving, i am white.. i did talk to someone at redflex when i was trying to get a copy of the ticket.. i asked him why i was sent the ticket when it is obvious from the photo on my license that i am in fact not african american.. he told me that they do not have access to that.. just a name and address that is linked to that plate..

    as for the accusation that i throw out and skew the facts… i dont throw out facts.. feel free to show me a post that i have done that… i have mentioned that i BELIEVE that the cameras are slowing people down and therfore must be reducing accidents and with that deaths.. but again i have no date to back my BELIEF and have never thrown any out..

    when this comes to a ballot i think you will see that redflex is going to have to come clean on just what those cameras are recording… as there are probably a good number of people that you guys will be able to scare in the wrong direction… cause i can see a number of people forgetting the real reason behind the cameras and voting against them just on this 24/7 thing…
    and now the debate can go on!!!

  22. Doc says:

    “without a warrant”…or warrantless, if you prefer. Please allow mw to clairify. “Unjustified”. There; is that better? Now, when a cop pulls up behind me & runs my plate, that could be construed as the same thing as what the scameras do when you pass by them, & don’t get flashed. It’s “just” information gathering, right? Not so fast, however. That cop runs my plate…he’s been tested & certified by the state of Arizona, or any state for that matter, to be a law enforcement officer. He’s also not keeping my personal information in a data base for later inspection. He/she runs my plate for “wants & warrants”, it comes back clean, & on he/she goes… A major background check is usually done by most law enforcement agencys. Even after all of that, the system still isn’t fool proof. There are bad cops reported on news sites every day. But they are bad cops that can be held accountable for their actions.

    Redflex & ATS employees are un-certified, private citizens; sitting in marked DPS vans, on the side of the road, accessing private citizens information,ie; information gathering, tracking, etc., & keeping it on file for anywhere from 90 days to 5 years, depending on who’s telling the story. I personally wonder if that, in & of itself, constitutes “impersonating a peace officer”. I know Sherriff Arpio’s Deputies arrested a man 2 or 3 years ago, around Halloween no less, for “impersonating”, when the guy in question was wearing a tan top & brown pants, looking “simular” to what Maricopa County Deputies wear. Anyway, so we all already know of the redflex civilian employee sitting on the side of a state highway, in a talivan, drunk. Not just a little drunk either. Nor was he the 1st talivan operator with issues. The testiment of his charachter stands for us all to see. And in this example, my point is clearly made. The cops, through Redflex & ATS, can & do put just any old Joe in these talivans, with 2 expressed jobs to do; take care of the flashes, & monitor the tracking. However, they are also being trusted not to keep & use the information gathered for themselves. “Trusted” not to show up @ my house @ 0200hrs on any given night;(which would be a huge mistake…) trusted not to be some sort of scam artist or identy thief. Yeah, right. Whatever. I’m sorry, I’m simply not that trusting, not even of the cops.

    So, to clairify, I never said they (cops) “needed” a warrant, or that 1 was required. I don’t know if a warrant should be “required”, either. I do know that cops often abuse “reasonable suspiscion/probable cause” phrases, & maybe a little more “defination” could & should be added to these. Take that ball & run with it where you like. Never the less, the continous tracking & information gathering, using military grade technology on “law abiding” citizens is not only unconstitutional, it sets a poor standard in a country/society that is founded on the principles that ours is. So, as to you nay sayers that plague this site, I do believe you stand corrected. As to jerry, I like ta’ type this here way frum time 2 time, jus’ fer a l’il levity-n-humor. I EVEN TYPE LIKE THIS WHEN I WANNA’ EMPHASIZE SUMTHIN”! Here’s a tip…try not to worry about the semantics & instead, stay on topic.

    Remember…F R E E D O M ! ! !-Doc from Prescott

  23. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    thanks for clarifying your point…. it is a shame though that you have gone through and will go through life not trusting anybody !!! what a sad way to live..

  24. No One says:

    So, here’s the thing about monitoring traffic patterns and whatnot– they have that already in a seperate camera. Heck I think anyone can actually access them online. And, for the record, I am not against those cameras. They serve valid purpose and are monitoring something OTHER than individuals like you and I.

    What I take issue with is the fact that when high-resolution (12 megapixel) cameras are coupled with automatic facial recognition software, automated license plate recognition software, and then this data is run against various governmental databases, you can really determine a lot of information very quickly and very effortlessly on anyone who happens to have the misfortune of driving by. I do not see any above-board purpose for this information to have been collected in the first place, and when it is archived for a specified amount of time, I really begin to wonder what the true motives of this system are. Ostensibly it is about safety, but this amount of data collection and retention seems a bit of overkill for that task– and nobody is coming clean about what other purposes this data might serve.

    I also wonder why, when provided with these sophisticated software programs AND (supposedly) with governmental oversight, you can get instances such as yours where a person of the wrong color/gender/etc can get something mailed to them. I know you expressed disinterest in reading the contract as posted here on 12/5, but if you read just section 8.2.5, it specifies each citation must: “Have an electronic or facsimile or name of a DPS employee who has personally reviewed each photograph and accompanying citation on-line before it is issued.” This means that Redflex gathers the information, presents it to DPS in an online format. DPS does not collect the data, is not on site, does not oversee anything until Redflex has made the determination first– then they effectively rubberstamp it.

    Now, you’ve already been informed recently about the Abshire brothers in Lafayete Louisana, and how Redflex specifically and purposefully faked their documentation. Reading through the contract, I see very little safeguard against something similar happening here. After all, DPS’ role is solely to rubber stamp things, to give it the appearance of legitimacy. Additionally there is nothing documented either here or anywhere else I have seen that show any consequences for cases where they are wrong. If they’re right, or if the person doesn’t fight it, they both get money. Tens of millions of dollars worth of money. If they’re wrong AND the person fights it, they get no penalty. Why not try it?

    It seems like precious little oversight of the use of an extraordinarily powerful tool. It also seems to me like a significant conflict of interest to have a for-profit company with a checkered past running the thing, and a state government with a huge budget deficit supposedly overseeing this company but receiving tens of millions of dollars off the deal.

    There is simply too much money at stake, too little accountability, and not enough transparency for me to have any hope of this system NOT being misused.

  25. No One says:

    Whoops, hit enter too soon. It’s not a matter of not trusting anyone. If I didn’t trust anyone, I’d believe that everyone was a speeder and out to run red lights on purpose if given half a chance and therefore I needed to be protected by a camera system. 🙂 Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

    No, seriously, what it’s actually about is taking the principal players’ past histories into account, taking their current actions (such as insisting it is “all” about the safety) into account, taking the transparency (or lack thereof) into account, taking into account the high potential for issues anytime that much money is around, and realizing the potential problems engendered…then weighing all that against the possible benefit, and making a stand accordingly.

  26. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    and everything you wrote makes perfect sense ….
    and i cant say that i disagree… and here is where i piss you off…. but with all you wrote i still want the cameras to stay… and address the other issues as their contract comes up…. if it even gets that far… when is the soonest this can go to the ballot?

    and dont get all bent out of shape cause i was honest!!

  27. No One says:

    Hey, at least you acknowledge some of the issues. My question to you, if the problems are to be addressed once the contract it up, the biggest issue in my opinion is the conflict of interest and lack of oversight. How would you expect this to be takne care of? Kind of a thorny question, isn’t it?

    The simple fact is, when both the contractor and the overseer have multiple tens of million dollars at stake, you need 3rd party oversight- and when we’re talking about Arizona laws, towns and counties are effectively trumped (even pinal which ousted some cameras cannot oust them from the state highways) and the Federal government is not the one to enforce Arizona law… so who else is there? The obvious answer is the citizens, but given that this was foisted upon us without a vote and there is next-to-no visibility on the program’s scope it is extraordinarily clear that they do not want us in on this.

    So, where would you propose this oversight comes from, and how would you suppose their impartiality is assured?

  28. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sorry.. those answers most certainly could not come from a troll like me….
    i dont have the “how to” for the solutions…. i would just agree that solutions need to be implemented with the next contract… and in order to bring in a 3rd party… which will take a bite out of the profits.. the penalty will go up…. somewhere out there is a company with the knowledge and expertise to handle oversight… i would think that a few of you here seem very in the know about these cameras…. grab a few of your buddies and start a company….

  29. Dan G says:

    lawablinding, the only non-troll point you have EVER made was that we should all ‘just drive the speed limit’, of which I certainly agree. We all should. Your problem is that not a single point made by anyone in contrast for you is a plea to be allowed to speed, yet you seem to believe so. You are still a troll, yet you seem more worried than ever about keeping your redflex job because you frantically try every trick in the book to deter us. The cameras are coming down!

  30. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    dan i learned ahwile ago that i can not deter you folks.. so again i am here to defend the truth for those that want the truth and not just camerafraud spin!!!

    when do i get off troll status? is there a time line i have to wait out? or as long as i keep exposing the lies i will always be a troll?

  31. Snarky the Troll says:

    Yes, please stop calling him a troll he is an insult to trolls everywhere and if you dont stop we will sue for SLANDER!!!

  32. I'm Back says:

    @Snarky the Troll

    Nice name!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: