Redflex Taken to Task in Debate


The long anticipated video of Shawn debating Jay Heiler of Redflex from Thursday is up on BlipTv. Shawn was passionate and factual, Jay was rehearsed and full of spin. The facts speak for themselves, unless you work for Redflex. In which case, why let the facts get in the way of a great scam?

Click here to view the debate.

52 Responses to Redflex Taken to Task in Debate

  1. ProCamera says:

    Thank you for posting the video of the debate. Unfortunately, the outcome of the debate did not go in your favor.

    When Shawn stated that Redflex had contractual access to yellow timing in Tempe, was called on that issue, and then read out the contract that says that redflex is able to provide specifications to the “Customer” (City of Tempe) to connect to traffic controller devices, this only showed that they were tied into the controls, not that they set the controls. Shawn just looked like a man that was spinning info.

    Then you have the point of Shawn claiming that a DPS report could be swayed to say anything, then immediately stated that a DOT report showed the info to support him. This was not a good day for camerafraud and maybe it is good that the local news did not cover the debate as well as they could have.

    • Will Kay says:

      They’re video recording the ‘person of interest’ where they can type in your name and pull up video of any time you’ve ever crossed in front of one of their cameras in any state. This is a private, foreign company doing this.” – THIS IS ABSOLUTE FACT!

      “Automated traffic enforcement is supposed to be Big Brother?” Heiler asked. “No, I don’t think so. I think automated traffic enforcement removes the citizen from the most intimate encounter he or she normally ever has with police in his or her life. It’s exactly the opposite of Big Brother.” – That’s about the stupidest answer I’ve ever hear or read about that statement. Once again, it is a known FACT that in Britian and Australia they are using these systems to monitor and track people, not just for ‘traffic enforcement.’

      F U and your unconstitutional surveillance system. The cameras are coming down.

      • The reality is, if someone has to have an encounter with law enforcement, we WANT it to be an intimate encounter. How else can you explain or discuss whatever-it-is with LE before they take any action? How else do you get instant notification that what you are doing is unsafe? How else do I know that I need to begin to take notes and gather evidence to be used for my defense?

        I would much rather have a personal encounter with a PO than be surprised with a letter in the mail weeks after an event occurs, leaving me with no opportunity to correct my dangerous behavior while it is happening and no opportunity to document things like improper or missing signs.

      • Camera Hater says:

        Just to reinforce what Jay said. I am Australian and can confirm what he says here. The sad thing is that, in a country whose legal/constitutional environment remains that of a penal colony, we DON’T have America’s sound constitutional protections. Oh, and I think that any law abiding citizen should have no problems whatsover with being pulled over. I know I don’t.

    • Jason says:

      I don’t know what debate you were watching! I think Shawn did great and actually Heil Heiler or Heil Hitler… what ever you want to call him actually made a lot of good points for CameraFRAUD during his turn to speak. He also of course came with his Redflex and ATS funded statistics. Redflex sucks! Cameras are about surveillance and revenue. Down with the Cameras!

    • Peter says:

      When I ask around at work the consensus is 8 to 2 to remove the offensive flash. Procamera needs to stand in a dark room with a camera, mirror, and observers. Then flash that camera in the mirror. Your “observers” will tell you to please stop because you blinded them with blue dots. That’s the way “non-speeders” feel when we’re punished for the sake of one and your pocket. Endangering night photo radar needs to be removed before next November. Better get your resume together, ProCamera

  2. Stacey says:

    Shawn did an exceptionally good job! Especially when he responded to the Redflex polls. lol

  3. Shane says:

    Wow … the guy from Redflex spent the whole time defending his company and really came across as an arse. I hope like hell these cameras get axed.

  4. Barmet says:

    Shawn, I just got a chance to view the debate video. I have been an automotive expert witness on a federal level and testified in a number of cases. You did a fantastic job of presenting the public view. Your most important contribution is your enthusiasm! As far as factual presentation I would be happy to assist in the next foray. I have done quite a bit of this and will share some strategies. IL Safety Advocate/Researcher for the National Safety Association.
    847-420-3511. Great First Effort

  5. Barmet says:

    Statistics or Superstition?

    According to the Temple Terrace Police, FL the number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras from when they first went operational October 2008 through February of this year was up 133 percent compared to the previous year when there were no cameras.

    No one doubts that red light cameras can reduce red light violations by some measure. What is being investigated in many places is the probability that the presence of red light cameras will raise the collision rate at those intersections.

    For another recent major example;
    Please read the article from CBS in Los Angeles, please click on the appropriate video link in the upper right hand side of the story to see the TV report as well. http://cbs2.com/goldstein/Red.Light.Cameras.2.1301941.html

    Some by about triple the former rate, at 3 intersections the accident rate remained the same, and at 9 the accident rate went down. For a safety program, these are disastrous results to have raised the accident rate at 62.5% of the intersections equipped with cameras and achieved no positive results in another 9.375% of those intersections—for a failure rate of almost 72% to achieve any positive safety gains with that camera program.

    Also please review http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-22-nov22,0,2590486.story with links to the in-depth statistics and side bar regarding an ex-alderman, I feel sure it will add to your knowledge base.

    At least 9 cities have had public votes on red light cameras which led to the cameras being banned.
    1) Chillicothe, Ohio November2009,
    2)Heath, Ohio November2009,
    3)College Station, Texas November 2009,
    4) Sulphur, Louisiana April 2009,
    5)Cincinnati, Ohio November 2008,
    6)Steubenville, Ohio November 2006,
    7)Anchorage, Alaska April 1996,
    8)Batavia, Illinois March 1992,
    9)Peoria, Arizona March 1991.
    To my knowledge, red light cameras have never withstood a public vote or referendum on their use.

    A total of 15 states have either a legal ban on the use of red light cameras or restrictions that they cannot be used in any practical sense: AK, AR, GA, IN, ME, MI, MN, MS, MT, NB, NV, NH, UT, WV, and WI. Some of these bans came about because of the high probability the cameras would raise the intersection accident rates. Others were enacted to prevent the predatory use of the cameras for revenue purposes, sometimes enhanced with improper intersection engineering such as using too short of yellow intervals.

    Traffic regulations should be designed, written and enforced to prevent traffic accidents and fatalities. An absolutely essential component to achieve that goal of preventing accidents and fatalities is the optimum engineering of all traffic regulations for safety purposes alone, using the engineering criteria that maximize safety first. In almost all cases, if the intersection engineering is done correctly, including proper yellow light intervals and the other common sense criteria, the camera vendors will have no chance to make a sale because the cameras won’t record enough violations to even pay their basic costs of operation.

    Traffic regulations and their enforcement always need to respect the Hippocratic Oath Principle: First, “Do No Harm”.

    I believe that your city, and every city that has or is considering red light cameras, needs to first review all the engineering parameters of their intersections to optimize safety with correct engineering. In almost every case, the need for the cameras will disappear.

  6. Bill Conley says:

    Camerfraud.com/Shawn 1, Redflex 0…

  7. B says:

    Hopefully they’ll be up for more debates…

  8. Jason says:

    Hey Shawn,

    I just watched the video and as someone with debate experience I just wanted to share some thoughts.

    First of all, I think that you aquitted yourself really well. It’s obvious that Heiler has more experience than you do in this sort of forum and he also works full time on the issue which are both big advantages and as a result his presentation was clearly more polished. His strategy was to project gravatas and paint you as an amateur and while it was effective to a point, he went too far and the condesencion really hurt his case I think. You did a great job of not getting riled by his continuous personal insults. You guys really were poler opposites in terms of style and while your enthusiasm was great, you might want to try to temper it a bit. Shoot for some kind of middle ground between where the two of you were last night.

    A few thoughts on the actual content of the debate.

    (1) It’s pretty clear that the thrust of the Redflex argument is that the debate over automated ticketing is really just a proxy for the argument about how seriously we are going to enforce traffic violations which effectively renders moot any consideration of the externalities beyond just the effect that the cameras have on driver behavior. He repeated this talking point several times and you never rebutted it. The point should have been made that it’s *not* just a debate over how seriously we’re going to enforce traffic violations, it’s a debate over *how* we’re going to do it.

    Something like this: Your whole premise is a canard; issues of law enforcement practices are always more complicated than just ‘how seriously’ we want to enforce laws against the crime. It’s insulting to suggest for example that two reasonable people who are both in favor of strong enforcement of murder laws can’t disagree over mandatory sentencing or capital punishment. You’re clearly engaging in a cynical bit of rhetoric in an effort to set out of bounds the whole plethora of defiecencies and issues associated with photo enforcement.

    (2) The big brother argument is clearly one that a lot of people find persuasive against photo enforcement which is why he mentioned it almost from the outset. I think that the proper rebuttel to his argument that traffic stops are more invasive than photo tickets is to point out that it’s not just the privacy of the people who recieve tickets which is violated but rather the privacy of every law abiding person who drives past one of the cameras. Kudos for bringing up the fact that they track everyone but I think that the point deserves even more emphasis than you gave it. It would have been great if you could have had him confirm or deny that Redflex in effect has the ability to track the whereabouts (to the extent that they pass the cameras) of every citizen in the state. It would also be great to have asked him how long Redflex keeps the data and who has access to it. I don’t imagine that either question would receive an honest, straight-forward answer but it would be great to have him on record with some kind of response. I do realize that this wasn’t any sort of standard debate format and that there was no direct examination but you could still use your time to ‘suggest’ that he might want to address this issue or that.

    (3) It would be great to ask him if, regardless of his own advocacy of photo enforcement, he thinks that the people have a right to decide. If he says ‘yes’ you could present him with the petition to sign. He’s obviously not that stupid though, which would force him to say ‘no’ which opens him to the charge that he thinks that he knows what’s better for people then they do themselves. This line of attack is a rhetorical win-win. The irony is that I’m actually not at all a fan of direct democracy (in fact I find it terrifying) but what the hell, I’m more than happy to embrace it when it suits my needs.

    Okay, there’s a bit more, but I have to get some work done. Let me just say one more time that I think that you handled yourself really well and look forward to seeing more of these.

    -jason

  9. jgunn says:

    I would have asked why if he was so concerned about enforcing traffic laws, why then do they only bother to enforce 2 of them and let the rest of the laws be broken at will by motorists. Wouldn’t be because those 2 laws are profitable to enforce and the others would cost Redflex and DPS money to camera enforce?

    • ProCamera says:

      jgunn,

      Is this a serious question? Speed loops are used to detect speed, cameras take pictures of the vehicles that exceed a pre determines maximum speed. Using the technology requires a “Yes/No” question to be answered. Is the vehicle speeding?

      The cameras provide a service. They can efficiently detect violators of certain established laws. That is what they are used to do. I mean, are you going to use your same argument in reference to other technology? I mean, since an officer can’t use a radar gun to detect a DUI, then obviously a radar gun is equally as worthless as a photo enforcement camera.

      • The Keeper of the Seven Keys says:

        The use of the word “technology” to describe that goat-milking scam devices is as silly as throwing the word “pain” at front of that Pinhead guy from classic horror movie.
        Moreover, legitimate “yes/no” question from your example should be, according to ARS 28-701A, “is the speed of vehicle exceeds reasonable and prudent one?”.

  10. Steve says:

    Anyone who does a search on Jay Heiler will find that this guy has been a heavy weight public relations expert for quite some time now, probably one of the best that money can buy. Shawn is like the rest of us, a citizen who believes in what he is doing and who cares about his country. I admire Shawn’s courage to take on a seasoned professional public relations person publicly, and to convey his message regardless of the significant attacks against him through out the debate. Mr. Heiler’s arguments were not believable.

    As a business owner and the leader of a large volunteer organization, Shawn has a few less hours in front of the camera than Mr. Heiler does, and it shows. After you put aside the posturing, deflecting, avoiding, distractions, condescension, and confrontations from Mr. Heiler, all you have left are the facts. Shawn did an excellent job at presenting the facts and like it or not Mr. Heiler, you’ve got to be excited if you’re going to be successful at managing an army of volunteers who work for free because they believe in the cause. Shawn clearly wasn’t hiding anything. The same can’t be said of Mr. Heiler. He came across as a cold and calculating hired gun. And I didn’t see him being asked to dig through his paperwork to prove his points.

    So one has to ask: who really won the debate? If your goal is to prove who has more experience in bureaucracy and public relations tactics (like we all value that these days), then clearly Mr. Heiler wins. If your goal is to win-over the public opinion, then Shawn was the clear winner. Next November when photo radar is banned in Arizona, maybe Mr. Heiler will be able to find a job doing something he can get excited about.

    • ProCamera says:

      Steve,

      Mr Heiler was not asked to dig through his paperwork to prove his points because he didn’t flat out lie, as Shawn did. And when Shawn attempted to show proof of his point, all he showed was that the company has to provide design information on how their equipment will connect to a traffic control device. Nothing said that Redflex would take over setting yellow light timing or inferred that Redflex would take over control of the lights.

      • Camera Hater says:

        I think you’re seeing things through your own set of totalitarian lenses, ProCamera! Shawn quoted the contract reference to access to equipment “specifications”. I think its a safe bet that that includes signal timings.

      • Steve says:

        Neither side had agreed to provide references before the debate. If Shawn had made an inflamatory accusation against Mr. Heiler’s facts and if Mr. Heiler had been less seasoned, Heiler might have looked bad, scrambling through papers looking for references. There is no oversight of any kind (other than from the victims who challenge their tickets) on wether or not the cities and states collude to change the light timings and I think that was Shawn’s point. Shawn may have good information from some source somewhere that he wasn’t prepared to present right then, to show that this is happening in Arizona as it did in San Diego. Heiler’s point was that it couldn’t be proven to have happened in Arizona and he bet heavily on the likliehood that Shawn wouldn’t be prepared to defend that point on the spot. If Heiler had been asked to bet his next ten year’s salary that it hasn’t happened in Arizona, that cold confidence would have melted in to more deflecting tactics. For Hiler, it’s a poker game and Heiler wore his poker face. When you put a heavy weight up against the average guy, you need to use a little more skill to evaluate what is going on if you want to see the truth. Otherwise you’re just like the sheep who pay the ticket when it arrives in the mail. Some times the future of your freedom and your rights doesn’t show up in a nicely packaged piece that is delivered to your door as your photo radar tickets are. You’ve got to think about what is really happening!

    • RPr says:

      Irish officials and a private consortium have signed five-year contract to deploy 45 mobile speed enforcement cameras.

      Australian cam system provider Redflex has a 16 percent stake in the GoSafe Consortium, which was awarded the €65 million ($97 million) contract.

      Redfles said it would provide its camera systems and Image and Infringement Processing System (IIPS), which “efficiently processes large volumes of infractions and caters for flexible business requirements,” the company said.

      Other GoSafe stakeholders are the Irish Company Spectra and the French company EGIS Projects SA.

      GoSafe will headquarter in Listowel, County Kerry, on the west coast of Ireland.

      • NewRomeSucks says:

        Sad. I was just there this summer and thought how refreshing it was not to have speedcams everywhere like in the U.K. My prediction, is like the U.K., the Irish will not put up with it and we will see decisive protests.

  11. Michele says:

    Fabulous job, Shawn! You did so great! I’m glad you weren’t intimidated by his belittling comments. He didn’t back up any of his facts and then required that you provide sources for yours. I also found it disturbing how he kept using the same key words and phrases over and over just like the media uses when they want to brainwash you. He was very trained in this sort of thing, you can tell. Pat yourself on the back, Shawn!

    • ProCamera says:

      Michele,

      “He didn’t back up any of his facts…”

      You must be referring to how Shawn said that a report can be manipulated to say whatever you want, talking of the AZ DPS report. Then in the same breath, he touts a DOT report to try to prove his point. Wouldn’t you think that a study made by the insurance industry and the AZ Department of Public Safety might be just as trustworthy as another government entity in the Department of Transportation.

      And asking someone to show proof when they are telling a lie, and later showing that they in fact are lying, that is expected of both parties.

      It’s funny, Shawn mentions fixing yellow light timing claiming it is in the Tempe contract, then he only provides a statement that Redflex is required to provide schematics of how Redflex equipment will tie in with the Traffic control device. Or claims that a Redflex executive was convicted of bribing city officials, when in reality, he was convicted of fraud from incidents priot to his Redflex employment.

      How many lies do you want your representative to spout off and expect the public to believe the rest of your claims?

      • Stacey says:

        Look, we all know that ATS and Redflex employ a mob/mafia mentality to carry out their extortion.

        Obviously photo enforcement employees are going to be a a sleazy lot, along with their cohorts like Napolitano who KNOW they are breaking the law but choose to ignore it.

      • Mike says:

        “AZ Department of Public Safety might be just as trustworthy as another government entity in the Department of Transportation.”

        BWahahaahahahahaaaa! HAHAHAHAA!

        ..oh… you were serious?

        How about for starters the DOT is a federal agency that doesn’t get a kickback from each camera ticket like the DPS does?

        • Malfeasant says:

          do you realize that pretty much every state (AZ included) has it’s own DOT separate from the federal agency?

          • Mike says:

            I was referring to the DOT report Redflex was quoting which if I’m not mistaken was from the Federal DOT, not the Arizona one.

            Regardless, even the Arizona Department of Transportation doesn’t get a kickback from each camera ticket like DPS does.

  12. RPr says:

    All photo radar tickets issued illegally in AZ.
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2970.asp

    • ProCamera says:

      RPr,

      You watched the debate, right? I’m pretty sure this so called lawsuit was explained just as the many others that were laughed out of court were.

      You need to have a private investigator’s license to conduct investigations for private citizens. You don’t have to have this license to provide a service for an entity already charged with criminal investigation.

      • RPr says:

        the document shows the judges order

        looks like the judge says they need a PI license

      • Procam, Please show the law that expresses this exemption or distinction.

        Would it also be true then that government entities can legally hire unlicensed contractors, lawyers, real estate agents, and other contractors?

        • ProCamera says:

          My statement went from the debate and how Mr Heiler stated that other cases were simply tossed claiming they have no merrit because they are not private investigators, they provide technology to be used by a government entity.

          To answer your question, I did not see a distinction for a private investigator in who they give their information to.

          Now consider this, most cities offer a “Crimestop” service. Where a citizen that witnesses a crime or has information regarding a crime can call in to provide this evidence and can receive a monetary reward for their services. Are we going to require that all crimestop callers also obtain an Investigators license prior to calling? Or how about a Confidential Informant that wears a recording device specifically to obtain evidence of a crime, do they also require an investogator’s license?

          • Weak! says:

            That’s extremely weak PC. Though they may provide evidence on a random or singular basis, citizens are not ***in the business*** of providing evidence collection services… RedFlex and ATS are! Just because Heiler doesn’t like the fact doesn’t mean that these companies are not bound by the law. Of course he is going to try to make the arguments look silly. That’s a standard hack tactic when you have no real answer to a point. You see… that’s one of many problems people have with these thieves. They break the law all the while claiming to enforce the law for profit. This double-standard of course rings false with people and so that is why this scam will never survive.

      • Mike says:

        “You don’t have to have this license to provide a service for an entity already charged with criminal investigation.”

        Oh, so it’s a criminal investigation now? What happened to the “it’s a civil offense so we can trample all over your rights”?

        Man, Redflex needs to hire better trolls, this one is too easy.

        • ProCamera says:

          My statement did not say that all speeding tickets are now criminal offenses. I said that the entity (DPS) is charged with investigating crimes (Criminal Investigation). This is the type of thing that people will look at and see that you are grasping at straws trying to stop a very effective way of catching people who violate a certain set of laws. No matter if those laws are a civil or criminal offense.

          • Mike says:

            It’s either a civil offense with a penalty or a criminal offense. There is no “criminal investigation of a civil offense” – that doesn’t even make sense.

            Speeding (under 20 mph, not in a school zone, etc) is not a crime – you are charged with a civil sanction against your privilege to drive (aka: your driver’s license). If you don’t pay your legally-served speeding ticket you do not go to jail, but your license is suspended instead. This is a CIVIL sanction.

            You might want to have Redflex buy you some books on how the law works here in the US – I know it’s probably different from what you’re used to in Australia.

  13. Stacey says:

    Notice the preponderance of photo radar cameras in monarchistic societies?

  14. Camera Hater says:

    Right on the money, Stacey!! It is the very servility engendered by being a “subject” rather than a citizen that contributes to so many people in the UK and Australia accepting this scam. Great point!

    Oh, and can I add my support to Shawn for a job very well done. Sure, Heiler’s greater experience showed, but your passion, your clever avoidance of personal attacks, and your not responding to his condescension and belittling of your activism as “fun” ensured you won the day.

    Coming from the “Singapore of the South” (Victoria, Australia), I can also say that Heiler’s distraction rebuttal is utter b/s. If constantly scouring the roadside for fixed cameras, covert camera cars and even disguised “wheelie bin cameras”, with your eyes otherwise glued to the speedometer to avoid a 1 mph violation, is not “distraction” I don’t know what distraction is!

    Cameras add drastically to distraction, and the evidence is there to prove it!

    We’ve hit a raw nerve with ProCamera. I’ve never seen him so active. Maybe his boss at ATS or Redflex have given him a boot in the ass and told him to get off his butt and post??

  15. Camera Hater says:

    Oh, and just a couple of final points. I would be very suspicious of Redflex’s comments about tolerances on the speed issue. Australia was one of the countries he was referring to and here in the State of Victoria (lovingly referred to as Orwellia by its more enlightened inhabitants), we have a 2 km/h tolerance (and ZERO tolerance, on some interstates). Don’t think it couldn’t happen in America, guys, and don’t think Redflex and ATS aren’t lobbying hard for just that outcome!

    Oh, and if it was all just about “rigour of enforcement”, why then in Australia do we see deliberate repeated lowering of speed limits on our highways, dramatically below the 85th percentile?? No, no. It’s about totalitarian enforcement of arbitrary and ever lower speed limits. It’s about giving government a licence to neglect vital highway infrastructure, while all the while blaming the user for the results of this neglect. And it’s about generating a gargantuan revenue stream to provide support for biased “road safety academics” and “slow news day” stories for lazy journalists, who then support the scamera regime.

    Be afraid America! Be very afraid! If you follow what’s happening here, the future will be 20 mph city limits, 40 mph highway limits, and a 0.02 BAC limit. I kid you not…

  16. Marissa says:

    Does anyone else notice that ProCamera sounds like Jay Heiler? Everytime theres a discussion on it, he keeps popping up to defend himself or Redflex. Mr. Heiler, I think people know this is you….. or maybe its Redflex’s marketing people?

  17. […] mentioning something about compliance. Heiler’s demeanor has changed quiet a bit since his debate appearance in […]

  18. oh boy says:

    ProCamera. You are a JERK. Whatever will you do when your job at Redflex comes to a not so unexpected end?
    We know you are a TROLL and most of us just skip over anything you have to say.

  19. oh boy says:

    PROCAMERA, you and the other 2 or 3 people who are for photo radar are getting your butts kicked. Like it or not, You have to get used to the idea: Photo radar in Arizona is GOING AWAY and soon.

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: