Redflex, ATS Flashes Endanger Motorists


usaIn addition to the numerous legal, ethical, constitutional, and technological issues with automated ticketing deployments, perhaps one of the most disturbing examples of unintended consequences with photo enforcement has yet to be covered by this website.

CameraFRAUD has received numerous emails from Veterans who express varied levels of concern over the use of flash units that are almost universally deployed with Redflex and American Traffic Solutions’ traffic cameras. Many of these individuals wanted to tell someone “their story” but weren’t comfortable enough with the information being published publicly.

With the sender’s permission, we are publishing the following email. The author’s identity and some details have been removed or changed to respect his privacy.

I can’t believe that I am the only Veteran who is having stress problems with these devices. Day or night the flash is similar to muzzle flashes, or an explosive device without the big bang.

If 2 or 3 vehicles go through one of these points as a group there are multiple flashes, and it is enough to send the adrenalin pumping – similar to a roadside ambush, especially the ones that are partially hidden in the oleanders, etc. One of these days someone is going to be having a bad day, and go into escape & evasion (E&E) mode, or just pull out the cannon and level the offender.  […]

The first radar van I encountered appeared to be a car with a flat on the side of the road,  Just before I go to it the guy opened the back of the station wagon […] and there was the antenna and the supporting equipment.  I was on my way to (city name removed), and don’t remember a thing about the trip until I was going through (city name removed) ! […]

I have never set off one of the devices, and have not had a traffic citation in over 35 years. These things still just give me the willies!  They serve no other purpose than revenue enhancement. Only a corrupt government would employ such tactics.  If they are worried about speed, require speed skill levels for driving.  That is where most of the problem is – unskilled drivers operating outside of their competency range…

It’s not just CameraFRAUD that questions the wisdom of flashing powerful strobe lights at passing motorists. Just ask those who hold the patent rights to the technology:

“The use of flash illumination may be detrimental at night to oncoming traffic and has the potential to cause temporary driver blindness and consequent safety risks as well as preventing authorities from deploying systems covertly.”

If you are a Veteran or other party that may have a medically-related issue to bright strobe lights, we would like to hear from you.

96 Responses to Redflex, ATS Flashes Endanger Motorists

  1. What camera companies and supports like to do is to compare the flash to lightning. I guarantee that if lightning went off 50 feet in front of you while you were driving, you would be blinded and startled. Lightning a mile away? No problem. Lightning right in front of you? Scary as hell.

  2. geez says:

    Hm,
    same ol’ easy solution.
    Don’t speed.
    They got ordered into battle, no one ordered them to speed.

    • Rainabba says:

      Why is it that so many of you sheep keep coming back to the broken record playing “don’t speed” when that’s not the issue at hand. Fraud, rights, law, freedom; those are the issues here. Go play with your iCrap and make fart sounds. That’s less offensive than your blabbering and ignorance on such a critical issue.

  3. geez says:

    oh wait, your anonymous email..
    He says alot,then quote “I have NEVER set off one of the devices”
    ya know, I’ve never been to alaska but I can tell you all about what it’s like there! Personal experience!

  4. Doc says:

    geez-And the guy in the NEXT lane, WHO’S NOT SPEEDING…still suffers from the flash, RICHARD NOGGEN!!! Be very careful about who gets ordered into battle, & what you have to say about it.

    Also, check PhotoRadarScam’s response. There’s not a whole lotta’ things to say when even the manf. noted that there’s a problem w/flash.

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

  5. timmah says:

    “Geez” seems to have problems with reading comprehension.

    The email from the Vet (thank you for your service) clearly states that vehicles in FRONT of him have set the units off, and that he never received a ticket, photo or otherwise, in over 30 years.

    But go ahead, keep attacking OUR VETERANS to support your money making scheme!

    SHAME!

  6. RPr says:

    Their own patent states the flashes cause problems LOL

  7. geez says:

    I’m not atacking veterins, I just know ya’ll will put up anything, including lies, to try to support your cause. I would bet a good number of vets actually work in those vans…

  8. Doc says:

    Oh for the Love of God Almighty & ALL that is Holy would you (geez) PLEASE shut th’ —K UP?!?!?

  9. timmah says:

    What lies? Are you accusing this Vet of being a liar?

    Why do you hate America?

  10. Joe says:

    With so many “sane” arguments on our side, why resort to this absolutely STUPID approach?

    I’ve heard of PTSD. I’ve heard of hallucinations. I’ve heard of nightmares. My own dad suffered from nightmares his whole life after his time fighting in WWII. He was up to his neck in fighting. If he were alive today and saw a photoradar flash, and it triggered a war flashback, do you know who he would be angry with? Adolph Hitler.

    He’d have so many other reasons to hate Photo Radar. He was a freedom-loving man. But he also knew where to place appropriate blame. Photo radar would have been no more responsible for triggering bad war memories than the flashbulbs on our Kodak X-15 instamatic camera.

    If we were losing this battle, I might consider pulling out all of the stops (strategically), but since we’re using military/war metaphors here, lets leave the “chickenshit” reasons in the back pocket for now, ok?

    Many of you are familliar with my posts. You know I’m with you, but please, PLEASE, don’t make me stand next to complete idiots in this fight. If this man is affected by flashing lights, that is certainly attributable to his war experiences. But you can’t possibly hang that responsibility on the shoulders of Redflex and ATS (as much as we hate them).

    We can win this fight without having to look like chickenshit assholes along the way. And be prepared for chickenshit on the part of Redflex and ATS. When the ballot proposition gets close to a vote, expect them to hit below the belt with videotaped commercials showing those affected by speeders or red-light-runners. You know, the doe-eyed blonde all-american cheerleader killed on her way to choir practice, etc. The “innocent kitten” tactic.

    If this is the tactic you want to adopt, then you can stand alone. I loves my veterans, but refuse to insult their intelligence by hopping onto this exact bandwagon.

    • Rainabba says:

      If this is such a chicken-shit argument, why are there NO OTHER lights of ANY sort on the public roadways that impede our vision even remotely to this extent? Further more, why can I not get away with flashing lights in the eyes of other drivers on the freeway in the interest of slowing them down (because in reality, these cameras don’t slow speeders down, it’s the flash that makes them realize they’ve been caught that will, if anything).

      The flash is dangerous any way you put it and disregarding veterans on public roadways in such a blantant way is insanity.

      Let us also recognize the warnings placed virtually anywhere else flashing lights are likely to occur knowingly (personal cameras wouldn’t fall into that category would they?). That’s proof that the flashes are a danger. Why should law abiding, tax paying, freedom loving citizens have to put up with that crap?

      VETERAN
      Cpl. USMC

  11. J. Tuton says:

    Yeah, what joe said! Ignore what those crazy war heros say! We have a business to run!

    –Automated Ticking Scams

  12. RPr says:

    J.Tuton/K. Finley

    Crazy war heros? Those men and women defend our constitution with their lives, from foreign and domestic enemies. (Redflex foreign ATS domestic)

  13. Joe says:

    And don’t get any ideas about insinuating that I’m pro-camera or anti-war veteran. If you do have such ideas, I’d like to give you an advance “fuck you”.

    Like I said before, we have SO MANY fantastic arguments against photo radar in our arsenal, we do not need to stick Iraq war vets on posters and try to seriously assert that a big reason to get rid of the cameras is to lessen their PTSD symptoms. I’d rather spend that mental bandwidth advocating better mental health care for war vets, and perhaps even reducing our young mens’ exposure to, oh, say REAL muzzle flashes?

    I think we can safely bet that photo radar flashes are not the only light flashes these vets will experience in their lives. Will the same people hopping onto this stupid bandwagon also be arguing their case to the makers of digital cameras like Nikon and Canon? Didn’t think so.

  14. Joe says:

    And seriously, I’d like to know which organizer of this website is the tin-foil-hat that conured-up this post. I’ll be protesting on the opposite corner next time.

  15. Dan G says:

    geez is just lawabidding with another name. Stop feeding this troll, maybe he’ll go away. Joe, you’re right that we can win this hat without this issue, but you should ease up your hostility. Geez has that covered.

  16. Joe says:

    OK Dan G, I’m off my soapbox.

  17. scott says:

    Joe, I am an older veteran without PTSD (I hope), and I can tell you the flash bothers me as much as it does many of us older folks. I think it is a totally legitimate issue.

  18. Doc says:

    Joe-With all due respect, I must say that I’m a fortunate enuff U.S.A.F. Vet that I (Thank You, Jesus) don’t suffer from PTSD, or most other Veteran ailments. However, I don’t second guess someone elses’ ailments, either. I see where you’re comin’ from, but, 12 years in the medical industry, 8 in th’ field as a Firefighter, if they say it hurts, ’till you can PROVE otherwise, it hurts. Just my opinion…

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

  19. Joe says:

    Guys, I’ve been hit by the flashbulbs myself. I hate em too. Bright flashes are a legitimate safety issue. And if you want to focus on the SAFETY of bright flashes of light, hey, amen bruther. Count me in.

    But don’t hitch your wagon to every horse that wanders by, even if it seems like it’s going in the same direction as you.

    I’m even perfectly inclined to believe that an Iraq vet DID get some memories of combat as he passed through the tali-van checkpoint. Likewise, this guy probably shirks at seeing abandoned backpacks on the side of the road, the sound of slamming doors and sudden fireworks noise, etc.

    Just don’t get any ideas of hanging your hats on this nail, because its a nail frought with instability and ridicule.

    • Rainabba says:

      Perhaps you should just reserve some of that fantastic logic of yours for a less offensive reply? Hmm?

      What good is being right if nobody gives a shit because you sound like a prick doing it?

  20. Walter says:

    I understand what Joe is saying. It is definitely a reason the cameras should come down. But it is not on the “top ten” list of reasons why the cameras should come down. Let’s focus our effort on more important issues.

  21. ((-_-)) whut'd_u_expect? says:

    All it takes is a second of distraction for things to get messy on the roadways, and just one mishap can change everything for… ever. Why would these dunces be willing to chance that?
    Folks in town can memorize the cam locations & get heads-up when near them, but tourists are clueless & in danger to sudden bursts of blinding light.
    The newly activated I-17 gore zone cams get ridiculously bright at night from reflecting off the underside of the Bethany and Indian School overpasses. Northbound traffic can be equally distracted from these Southbound-side cams, ridiculous!

  22. j.w. says:

    Ever heard of photosensitive epilepsy, the bucha effect, or strobe sickness? My mother-in-law can not drive through tunnels, past evenly spaced picket fencing or through wooded areas because the flashing of the lights gives her vertigo. I have never set one of these flashes off (or at least I have never received a ticket from one) but I have seen multiple flashes happen in rapid succession from other drivers passing me. I’d hate for my mother-in-law (or anyone else for that matter who suffers from any of these ailments) suddenly become ill and loose control of her vehicle while she is driving down the freeway because a hand full of people passed her just as she was approaching a tali-van or scamera.

  23. Rudolph says:

    I find this post very interesting and worthwhile.

    Most telling is how the anti-liberty crowd goes wild when you hit a nerve.

    I did not see as anything other than what it is- one combat veteran’s valid observations. I did not see a headline that read… “Magic formula found for success; abandon all other issues!” Good grief.

    And indecently, not only does a blinding white light at night create a safety issue (duh), light flashes have been proved to trigger seizures. The blinding white light is only one of many safety issues.

    I’ll take this vet’s concerns about safety anytime over some lamo saying (high squeaky voice): “If you don’t speed you won’t get a ticket…wahhhhhhhh”.

  24. I think it is one of the smaller reasons, but if they are going to tout safety, then it’s fair to tout danger, and bright lights flashed at short distances is dangerous while driving.

    And to another point just made – I know where about 3 cameras are located, but when I drive other parts of the valley I have to “rediscover” them every time because I don’t go to those places often. Also, this does not address mobile van units which can surprise you.

    For anyone with a video camera and a 1M or 2M candle-watt power search light, I urge you to do the following. Stand alongside a busy road (like Bell Rd). and flash motorists for a fraction of a second as they drive by. Keep doing it until it attracts the attention of a cop. If/when a cop pulls up, get clear audio of him tell you that it’s dangerous to be flashing motorists with lights. Then put it on Youtube so we can all see the hypocrisy.

  25. Joe says:

    I have heard of photosensitive epilepsy, the bucha effect, AND strobe sickness. But like Walter says (above), they are not top-ten reasons. As a matter of fact, if you find yourself pulling reasons like that out for use in the debate, then you are probably LOSING the debate.

    In other words, how many people with photosensitive epilepsy have you ever met? I’ve not met any.

    How many PTSD guys have hit the dirt and high-tailed it into a flood control ditch after passing the strobes.

    Imagine it this way: Redflex is going to pay for TV commercials showing dead, bible studying cheerleaders who have been killed by speeders. Would you propose that we show vets mistakenly running from an ambush?

  26. timmah says:

    “CameraFRAUD has received numerous emails from Veterans who express varied levels of concern over the use of flash units that are almost universally deployed with Redflex and American Traffic Solutions’ traffic cameras.”

    “Varied levels of concern” ≠ ALL VETS HATE CAM FLASHES.

    Camera fraud presented this sensitive issue correctly. The flash is a hazard.

    and God bless the vet who wrote in to share his burden.

  27. Joe says:

    Rudolph:

    In your simplistic world, anyone who disagrees with a tactic is suddenly cast into the “anti-liberty” net?

    I think the regulars here would agree that I’ve done a great job “defending the position” of this site.

    I just think it’s terribly stupid to hang the ban photo radar argument on such a weak nail as crazed PTSD vets getting flashbacks about VC ambushes from 1968.

    I think I’ve earned a LITTLE bit more respect than what you are showing me.

    This site serves as the movement’s mouthpiece. If you want to take that vet’s personal experience and perhaps reference it in a message board post, great, but to make it a main article? I can just see the laughs happening in the Redflex CEO’s office as they edit together more “dead teenager” footage for the upcoming media blitz.

    Wage strong arguments, not chickenshit ones.

  28. duece says:

    Are you kidding me? This website is losing credibility every day. Whats next?

    I am sure you would rather get pulled over by a police officer with his red and blue lights on, his spotlight shining at your mirrors, directly at your face, shining a flashlite in your eyes for 10 minutes, than getting flashed by the camera? Are you serious?????

  29. Joe says:

    Duece writes:
    “Are you kidding me? This website is losing credibility every day. Whats next?”

    Not true. We’re just debating the best way to present the issues. What credibility is lost? You mean the way you’re losing your livelihood?

    And I’ve yet to see any website that has been formed in “support” of the cameras. If you are part of such a majority, how come you all do not speak louder? Why do you not start your own website? Why? Because the cameras are coming down, and you can see it and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

  30. Doc says:

    Good debate is a healthy thing in my opinion. That’s what is currently going on here.

    My question is…what were the “Bible studyin’ cheerleaders”…wearing…?

  31. I think it’s valid to present and discuss ALL reasons, no matter how minor. It shouldn’t be the focus of arguments, but does it hurt to mention it? I don’t think so. If anyone is going to stop reading after the first topic, then there’s no hope for them anyway.

  32. ((-_-)) whut'd_u_expect? says:

    Who backs the traffic cams (besides gov’t contracts), prolly groups of private investors who are exploiting the public as a rule.
    After the cams come down the speed/velocity detecting sensors go into new production vehicles, then are later required and mandatory for all vehicles as part of a registration (at drivers own expense, you’ll be fined in order to be fined more effectively).
    One battle at a time is usually the method, and one good battle cry wins the battle, a good (and simple) one will get enough people to rally, battle won. Simplicity wins every time!

  33. Joe says:

    I just hate to use vets (that have REAL wounds, like these emotional wounds) in a pandering manner such as this. I feel like it is taking advantage of their wounds and is exploitative. Even if the cameras come down, these vets will still be dealing with the horrors brought upon by flashing lights and loud noises. When we’re done with OUR cause, they’ll still be afflicted with their issues.

  34. Joe says:

    Doc writes:
    “My question is…what were the “Bible studyin’ cheerleaders”…wearing…?”

    Redflex will be careful to show only senior pictures. Never anything from their slutty little myspace pages😉

  35. Doc says:

    Well, I for 1 am fully pissed that all we’ll getta’ see is th’ senior pictures…especially when I know they’ve got th, REALLY good, backyard sunbathin’ ones…dammitt! I think we need to start a petetion to make ’em show us THOSE! I’ll bet th’ Vets would line up to sign THAT one!!!

  36. No One says:

    Wow, good points on both sides of the issue. It does seem plausible that certain individuals will have issues with the flash. It also speaks volumes that the manufacturer makes that statement and that they filtered the ones by the airport, presumably to help with pilots being distracted– and pilots are several times further away than us drivers!

    However, on the flip side– the issue of ptsd, epilepsy, etc, no matter how real to a given individual, is also inherently unquantifiable in its current state– it’s all anecdotal– so unless studies are done with reputable organizations and there’s some hard data, this particular argument should be espoused with caution.

  37. Rudolph says:

    Joe- What did I say that made you think I was referring to you?

    If I am addressing a someone in specific, I will put the name right up front.

    I’ve got no issue with differing opinions- that’s what makes this an interesting format. I still don’t see how this vet’s concerns became such a hot potato.

    He makes a valid point.

  38. Doc says:

    THIS Vet’s concerned about the over-abundance of pictures of senior citizens, & the severe LACK on Bible reading cheerleaders sunbathing in their back yards!!!

  39. scott says:

    I agree with Doc🙂

  40. Mark S says:

    Has anyone had a one of those flashes go off when you are about 20 ft from the flash unit? I have been, even though I wasn’t the one who triggered it. I was going east on 101 near 35th ave about 8:30 PM when it went off. I was in the right lane and it went off when I was about 20 ft away from it. I was temporarily blinded for several seconds and had a flash spot in the middle of my vision for a good 2 minutes after that. Traffic was moderate at that time, but being not able to see properly was a danger to me and other drivers on the road. The flash units are NOTHING like looking at a lightning flash. These units are also stronger than flash units on regular cameras.

  41. RPr says:

    Doc has cheerleaders in his backyard? LOL

  42. Rudolph says:

    Hey Doc- would you be familiar with Doc Sarvis? You remind me a lot of him… he is a fictional character in Edward Abbey’s Monkey Wrench Gang- although he is based on a real person. ( yes, that is a compliment!)

  43. Doc says:

    RPr-No…Doc WANTS cheerleaders in his back yard…SUNBATHING CHEERLEADERS…who don’t want any TAN LINES!!! YYYYAAAAYYYYY!!!!! Also, Doc wants a keg of Kiltlifter in his back yard, Fresh Salmon on his grill…etc.,etc.,etc…

    Rudolph-I’ve never heard of Doc Sarvis. You are telling us of him, please? Many Thanks are bestowed upon you…
    …& Sunbathing Cheerleaders For Everybody!!!

  44. Doc says:

    Hopefully, the sunbathing-tan-lineless-cheerleaders have “flashes” 1 to 2 m candlepower…We’ll all be happy flashblind bloggers!!!YYYYAAAAYYYY!!!!

  45. Rudolph says:

    Edward Abbey (died in 1987) wrote about 11 books, all with a strong sub-text of freedom.

    The movie ‘THE BRAVE COWBOY’ staring Kirk Douglas and Walter Mathau (circa 1966) was based on one of his books. Desert Solitaire was another one of his best writings.

    ‘The Monkey Wrench Gang’ was his book based upon lovable eco-terrorists, or “Monkey Wrenching.” Keep in mind this was the early 1970’s and you just can not think about them in light of todays political environment. Anyway, four travelers find themselves smoking pot and” talking treason” on a trip down the colorado river- one of them being Doc. Sarvis, a cigar smoking general MD that can not stand the restrictions society places on him. He appreciates freedom and the opposite sex and by the end of the book you can’t help but love the guy.

  46. Doc says:

    I’m honored by th’ comparison. Thank You. I’ll be getting the book from either Barnes & Noble, or off of Amazon this weekend! Thanks, again-Doc

  47. duece says:

    The success of Redflex fixed speed cameras on the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona during a 2006-07 photo speed-enforcement program showed a 71 percent reduction in single-vehicle accidents, according to a recent analysis.

    The analysis, provided by Arizona State University traffic safety expert Dr. Simon Washington, also showed a 58 percent reduction in side-swipe accidents and a 40 percent drop in total injuries. Washington also claimed motorists dropped their speeds an average of 9.5 percent with Redflex cameras guarding the Loop 101.

  48. I'm Back says:

    Nice work duece. You just posted propaganda from:

    http://www.REDFLEX.com/html/usa/results_freeway.html

    This little blurb has absolutely no citation of the actual study. The reason is because said study was never published.😉

  49. Scott A. says:

    We need to have this place set up more like a forum, so people can’t hi jack other peoples names.

  50. geez says:

    No dan,
    I’m not LAB, look through his posts and mine and the difference is clear, way clear.
    Scott, you see that funny Icon face to the right of your name? You always have the same icon, if it changes, but a post is under your name, that indicates an imposter. So back to..
    No DOC, I won’t shut the F up. Resorting to speaking like that just drops CameraFraud another rung lower, just like this story. You said you appreciate good debate, but the second your debated, you jump straight to the F u’s. So, which is it?
    But ya all can continue with the ‘chickenshit tinfoil hat asshole’ stories. (Joe may be against the camera’s but I respect the guy). We’ve all seen plenty examples of lies and mis-information and ‘chickenshit’ childish stories here.
    BTW dan (and scott), notice my face icon has always been different from LAB’s. And I’m sure the mod’s here have doned the tin hat and checked on my I.P. address, they can verify I’m not LAB.
    Feel free to lose all the credibility ya’ll want, but maybe you should be double checking your facts and claims and stories before putting them up.
    Anyone can write ya’ll some crazy ass story and CameraFraud would take it as fact and post it, only to be made fools of later (then ya’ll just jump straight to the F’U’s)

  51. geez says:

    “timmah Says:
    February 25, 2009 at 12:13 pm
    “Geez” seems to have problems with reading comprehension.
    The email from the Vet (thank you for your service) clearly states that vehicles in FRONT of him have set the units off, and that he never received a ticket, photo or otherwise, in over 30 years. ”

    Oh really? Show me below.
    “I have never set off one of the devices, and have not had a traffic citation in over 35 years. These things still just give me the willies! ”

    Did anyone here bother to ask the guy if he’d even been around a camera flash? Probably not. But ya’ll are so willing to take any little crumb (truth not important) and run with it.

  52. AZGov says:

    Wow who is this Vet? I would never think a flash of light was a muzzel flash. The are both way different from each other. That Vet must of had a MOS that kept him in a office all day. Those are the kind of Vets that complain about everything.

  53. Mike says:

    It says a lot that someone who has fought for our freedoms is against these scam cameras.

    The cameras are flat-out dangerous. But DPS will never admit to the accidents they cause since they make too much money off of them.

  54. timmah says:

    “geez:”

    The whole damn email was written in context of other drivers triggering the cameras— or at least thats how I read it:

    “If 2 or 3 vehicles go through one of these points as a group there are multiple flashes, and it is enough to send the adrenalin pumping “

  55. Good news for those in Mississippi:

    The Mississippi House has voted 117-3 to ban red light and speed cameras in the state. The bill will now go to the State Senate for deliberation.

    http://www.wdam.com/Global/story.asp?S=9911327

    Wow… 117-3!

  56. geez says:

    Next ya’ll are gonna jump on the ‘how the handicap suffer because of photo enforcement’ then it will be single moms, then it will be minorities then oh well never mind, ya’ll will take anything you can get at this point…
    whens the next hamster dance video?

  57. Scott A. says:

    Does anyone know if Ron Paul is going to run for president next term?

  58. Joe says:

    geez, don’t be such a simpleton. We’re hardly grasping at straws. My point was that with SO MANY strong arguments in our favor, who needs to pull out the “Rambo flashback” argument. Even if we were in a losing battle (which we’re not), I wouldn’t use such a tactic.

  59. Joe says:

    Scott A:

    I don’t know, but I get the feeling that a LOT of people here are “Ron Paulies”

  60. Doc says:

    geez-when you start typing like LAW, I’m gonna’ ask ‘ya 2 shut up, & you NEED to do that. When you have a rational thought, I’m glad to be respectful. ie;”thank You for your service.” Rational thought. “They got ordered into battle, not to speed”…RICHARD NOGGEN thought. Not speeding-or-speeding has NOTHING to do with whether our Liberties are being raped through this totaliarianistic scheme. Many of the folks on this site have NEVER been “flashed”, myself being on that list. It’s never been a speeding issue for me…it’s a F R E E D O M issue…please try and keep up. Or, shut up…which ever.

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

  61. Doc says:

    And YES, “Don’t blame me…I voted for Ron Paul”

    Bring on th’ Bible studyin’, tan-lineless, backyard sunbathin’ cheerleaders! & Kiltlifter kegger, Salmon fillets on th’ BBQ, etc.,etc.,etc.

  62. duece says:

    To: “I am Back” Here ya go, not to difficult to find……

    http://www.ite.org/meetcon/2007AM/Session_41_Paul%20Porell.pdf

  63. No One says:

    Geez…did you read the study?

    Leaving aside the fact that your link above goes to a presentation, rather than an actual in-depth publication of a study, let’s just have a look at the slides, shall we?

    Slide 4– a nice graphic showing an alarming uptick in reported accidents. Reading the fine print, though, this is because the freeway was still under construction and parts of it were not physically in existence. Of course the numbers will go up as more is completed.

    Slide 5- website opened for comments? I don’t remember that.. perhaps I missed it, I don’t know.

    Slide 10- They are basing their information on emails to a self-described “special” email address? Was this “special” email address made available to the public?

    Slide 11- question one is too vague. Photo enforcement for…what? Red light running? Question 2 is the same. Because they mention freeways, this one is at least somewhat implied that we’re talking about speed cams, but there is nothing in any of the 4 questions listed which explicitly states this is a speed cam system we’re talking about. Question 3 is nearly irrelevant in terms of determining whether a person is pro or anti camera… it may explain how they arrived at their views, but is neutral on the supposed issue at hand. Question 4 is predicated on #3- and given that this survey was statewide, many were probably not aware and their answers therefore are irrelevant.

    Given all this, how can there be any correlation between these questions and a person’s stance? But of course slide 12 makes one anyway. Not by question, just as a snazzy graph with percentages. I’d also be interested to see which demographic was polled, as any statistician will tel you variables such as gender, income, age, can affect the results as can obvious ones such as the driving status of those questioned. This is all unspecified.

    Slide 14- look at how many were dismissed for legal reasons (judge’s motion or statute of limitations) versus how many for officer’s motions. now keep in mind that the statute is 120 days, and the length of the study is 191. That’s all I have to say about that.

    slide 18- conclusions, in the middle of the presentation, before the relevant data is even provided, muchless discussed?

    Slide 19- interesting that they indicate the program period here to go through 10/19, yet elsewhere they cut it off at 8/31. Why do you think this is? Might it be because of an inconvenient fatality or two during their period? Jumping ahead to slide 22, they left it out because there’s additional data yet to be analyzed… yet there’s enough data to make a graph.

    Slide 20- a) if the cameras were no longer operational, how were they detecting anything? Where does this data come from? b) Assuming it’s the cameras, were they calibrated any differently, since the study was no longer operational they are free to measure whatever they’d like.

    Slide 22- the first bullet says it all for nearly the rest of the presentation. They are comparing the entire 101 for 5 years, during which time it was under construction, to a small section of the 101, for 191 days. Apples and oranges!

    Also, the additional data that is under review… this presentation was dated 8/7/07, approximately 10 months past the end of the study. How much time does it take to analyze the data? Could there be something which was purposely left out?

    Slide 24- The actual numbers were about on par with the previous numbers, so they had to make up numbers to show what supposedly would have happened. Nice projections, but how were these estimates arrived at?

    Slide 26– Have a look at these numbers, then have a look at slides 24 & 25 again. Which set of numbers does it appear they are basing their percentages on? Not the actual accidents, as is implied, but the “projected” number… the non-factual construct whose lineage is not clear. Keep this in mind, as it is a recurring theme throughout the rest of the presentation.

    Slide 27- Are these people local? Other than the fact that this shares the same name, these two sections of road are entirely different. They are on different sides of the valley and as anyone who’s ever driven them can attest, have entirely different traffic patterns.

    Slide 28– This one is unclear at best. Are they comparing their “control” section to their section, or are they comparing actual vs projected again?

    Slide 30- how’d they get those numbers, and how is it that a study which is less than a year can not only be compared to 5 years of data, as noted above, but can then be manipulated into determining the per year savings? I’m no expert, but I’d certainly expect certain things to be seasonal– like snowbirds. Feb is about when they leave, and october is about when they get back. So to attempt to make a per annum statement without taking them into account is laughable at best.

    Slide 34- here’s another conclusion slide! I especially love the following two items: Number one, the crashes were reduced by 50%… A look at their own graph shows this to be false! It must be off their estimates, but does their conclusion say an estimated 50%? Nope, 50%, stated as fact. And then how their guesstimate of 10.34 million (which I believe is inaccurate, as noted above) is suddenly a “demonstrated economic benefit”– demonstrated implies that it happened!

    So, no, sorry Geez, but this “study” isn’t worth crap. Their numbers are not specified, their projections are not explained, and their conclusions are not only based on those projections but are stated as fact when they are not.

  64. duece says:

    Wow, you must not have a life…..

  65. No One says:

    Why? Because I actually read up on the subject, or because my post was more than a one-liner?

  66. scott says:

    Very well done “No One Says”. You sound like you’re familar with mathematical statistics. Bravo!

  67. The latest local camera news: They have new smaller cameras now: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/27/20090227newcameras0227.html

    I wonder if these are certified or independently tested? Or do our judges just take Redflex’ word for it that they work flawlessly?

  68. geez says:

    No one
    huh? I think you directed that message at me, but meant to send it to someone else. I’m not even sure what you are discussing.

  69. Walter says:

    Duece most be taking lessons from LAB. As soon as someone makes a comment that he can’t argue against. He resorts to personal attacks.

    Way to go Grass hopper.

  70. Joe says:

    “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

    -Mark Twain

  71. Mike says:

    “Earlier this month, the state Department of Public Safety debuted the smaller models in an effort to place speed cameras in areas where it is too dangerous to park a van, said Lt. Jim Warriner, a DPS spokesman.”

    Oh, so translation they’re going to hide the van behind a bridge or other object and just have the small camera on a tripod next to the road. How sleazy can they get? So now people will be watching the side of the road 99% of the time instead of watching where they’re driving.

    But they’re for “safety”.

  72. Joe says:

    DPS leadership clearly has itself emotionally invested in this. Even as they see the writing on the wall as far as them coming down soon, they are scrambling to deploy more and more new cameras. You’d think that “sane” leadership would at least halt any new deployment pending the outcomes of what’s in the legislature and the ballott initiative. Nope. They’re down for the count on this one. Idiots!

  73. Walter says:

    Hey everyone…duece finaly got a glimmer of a victory.

    So he has to wave his flag on every thread he can find. It would be nice if he would keep on topic.

    Too bad It will have no effect on what the county attorney thinks.

  74. Yes, the PR machine is ramping up. Too much negative press about cameras must be countered. Call up the Republic and run another story saying how safe cameras make everything.

    Do they think we’re idiots when they make these statements?

    “Those people, of course, can be cross-examined,” he said. “It’s the same kind of thing we have … when you do alcohol content of your blood: the Breathalyzer is certified and the technician is put on trial.”

    What he fails to mention is that the technician is present when the machine is being used. The machine is calibrated for every reading, and the officers also observe the behaviors and other aspects of the individual.

    You’d have the same issues as photo radar if you had random people walk by an unattended, unmonitored breathalyzer and blow into the device, walk away, and then a month later try to arrest them for public intoxication based on a photo and a machine reading.

  75. dgpjr777 says:

    Joe, do you honestly think that they are investing in something that is going to go away? There are alot of issues going on right now within the Government for the cameras and against.

  76. I'm Back says:

    It’s going to “go away” from the Grand Canyon State, so that we can drop that nasty “Surveillance State” nickname.

  77. dgpjr777 says:

    I’M back – I would not bet on this issue,there are alot of people for the cameras also.

  78. scott says:

    Why can’t we all just get a chance to vote on this issue?

  79. dgpjr777 says:

    Scott, I agree with you and just let the people vote on this issue and then everybody just shut up after it’s done. Some of the issues that people bring up are good concerns by the Pro and Against Radar people out there. Trouble is most of the people against the cameras are people pissed off because they got tickets for speeding. I work in the court system now and to watch people come into court and lie through their teeth about what happens is amazing. What is even better is when Officers pull out their tape recorders and play what actually happened during the stop and the Judge really gets them. That is the samething here, most of the people complaining about getting cited were speeding and they deserve the ticket.

  80. geez says:

    Exacty DGpjr
    That’s the reason these people got mad when they found out that the video camera’s recorded every violation.
    ‘Uh ya judge, um it wasn’t me, it was a semi that passed me’
    judge ‘ok, well lets watch the video’
    ‘uh ya judge actually I don’t remember if it was that day or another day, um I maybe be thinking of another time uh uh uh oops’. BUSTED.
    they like to blame it on privacy, but it’s only because people don’t like to get caught in their lies.

  81. I’m 100% against the scameras and I’ve never gotten something in the mail from them. And if they have a video of 2 cars passing over the sensor at the same time, who’s to say it was your car or the other one? If there was a real cop around they would know for sure and there wouldn’t be any question. Way too many holes in the scamera process…

  82. geez says:

    You mean like on top of each other or something?! Pretty silly to think the system doesn’t know what lane had the violator. Hm, system says it was the middle lane, so let’s watch the video and watch the middle lane. wow… boggles the mind…

  83. Doc says:

    So, last night on KPHO TV5, they did a report on the scameras flashing dangerously under th’ bridge @ Bethany Home Rd. Of course DPS continues to show their DISHONESTY, touting the “safety” factor…
    whatever…
    Again, when is SOMEBODY gonna’ put a muzzle on cmdr woodward?!?

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

  84. Vince says:

    Im not sure Cmdr. Woodward really believes all this crap…he’s just protecting his money own self interests.

  85. Doc says:

    Yo Vinnie…good point. People USED to believe that cops were above that kinda’ crap…welcome to th’ new millinium…

  86. […] know nothing,” both DPS and Redflex seem to have never heard of anything as silly as a driver being distracted by a bright flash, or worse–an actual cause-and-effect collision. Yet one only needs to look […]

  87. Doc says:

    DPS’s credability just keeps sinkin’ deeper into th’ mud of average, everyday, greedy, criminal- slimeballs…the very type of people they’re SUPPOSED to protect us from…go figure.

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

  88. joe joe says:

    the camera only takes a photograph when a violation has occurred.

    quoting San Francisco Supervisor Susan Leal on the issue of camera privacy.

    Asked about the privacy issue, Leal, said, “I consider an invasion of privacy to be 3,000 pounds of steel hitting me when I’m not expecting it.”

  89. […] it have been parked on the side of the road, causing temporary blindness of a motorist due to the scamera flash and was […]

  90. I found this web site at yahoo and line this articles. Already bookmarked.

  91. düğün fotoğrafçısı…

    […]Redflex, ATS Flashes Endanger Motorists « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

  92. What’s up to all, it’s truly a nice for me to pay a
    visit this website, it contains precious Information.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: