More Signal Timing Fraud on the Way in Chandler

Redflex Traffic Systems, whose red light and speed camera ticketing programs have been marred by massive technical failures, increased accidents and fraud, now say that their latest technology can predict what drivers are going to do.

If that’s the case, maybe they can decide who should be issued a driver license as well.

A fervently pro-Redflex publication out of Phoenix, AZ, The Arizona Republic, whose editor has bounced between positions at that newspaper and Redflex is cheerleading this new “break through.”

Quoted from the article about this technology being tested live during rush hour in Chandler, AZ:

The upcoming Redflex Traffic Systems technology would sense when a car is traveling too fast to stop at the red light, and it would hold cars coming from the other directions until the red light runner has passed, police said.


8 Responses to More Signal Timing Fraud on the Way in Chandler

  1. Steven says:

    This could be good news. Now we know that they can easily detect that a driver is in the dilemma zone when the light turns yellow and not give them a ticket, as well as providing an all red margin of safety.
    Public outrage as they say it exists will likely diminish since the public will not be seeing what they think is a red light runner, after their light turns green.

    No crashes, no excuses. No profits, no cameras.

    • warondriving says:

      How do we “know they can easily detect when a driver is in the dilemma zone?”

      Also, the dilemma zone only exists when there’s poor signal timing.

      • Steven says:

        If Redflex can detect that a car will likely enter the intersection on red, then they can put that sensor mechanism at the dilemma zone (wherever it might be) and use that as their “predictor”. This evidnece could then be used by the driver as a defence against the ticket.

        If I am not mistaken the evidence produced by the cameras does not currently include showing where the driver is on the road when the light turns yellow, and does not actually show the drivers decision point and whether or not they were making the correct “safe” driving decision, which is the highest priority in the law if I am not mistaken. Here in CA a driver is obligated to drive safely as determined by the conditons at that time.

        Stopping abrubtly at a yellow light is known to be unsafe and should trump running a red light by a reasonable margin.

        Most tickets (probably 90% or more) are given to drivers who are makeing a decision between safety and a ticket and that should be enough to have the tickets thrown out of court.

        I wonder if anyone has tried this defense.

  2. Dr Jett says:

    KPHO ran a glowing report on Redflex’s new “safety cameras” that are supposed to prevent collisions at intersections Tuesday night on the 10 PM news. Stephen brought up a valid point about drivers making the safest decision when approaching a light turning yellow. Redflex is just using this as a sales pitch to try to off-set the bad publicity from decreasing yellow light timing to increase profits and other scams that they have been caught doing in court.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: