December 23, 2010
The same group who sued the Department of Homeland Security and TSA on behalf of a pilot who was not allowed to do his job because he wouldn’t submit to an irradiating body scan or invasive groping, has focused its attention on red light scameras.
This is just another reason to stay tuned in 2011 for the continued fight against “Big Brother’s” assault on our personal liberty.
November 23, 2010
A motorist recently received a photo red light ticket in the mail for allegedly running a red light by a trivial 0.2 seconds at the Scottsdale Rd. and Shea Blvd. intersection in Scottsdale. Interestingly, none of the photos taken clearly show the driver. This didn’t stop Scottsdale Police Officer Debra (Debbie) Wood from signing the citation and declaring “I hereby certify that I have reasonable grounds to believe, and do believe, based on my examination of digital images and data associated with this violation, that the person named herein committed the civil traffic violation listed above.” According to ARS 28-1561.B, a false certification is perjury.
We have to wonder how Debra Wood was able to identify the driver of the vehicle in question with most facial features hidden by the vehicles sun visor and rear view mirror. In fact, it’s not even possible to identify the gender of the driver with any certainty. We know that Arizona courts have ruled on at least 3 occasions that a gender match alone is not sufficient to establish reasonable grounds of belief required to issue a ticket. So how exactly did Officer Wood identify the driver?
In the pursuit of filling Scottsdale and Redflex’s coffers, it appears to us that Officer Wood knowingly and purposefully committed perjury, as the images simply do not provide enough information (reasonable grounds) required to identify the driver and thus to issue a ticket legally. If ever tried and convicted, Officer Wood is at risk of losing her POST certification.
September 20, 2010
The freeway camera system was shutoff in July, and Redflex official spokeswoman Shoba Vaitheeswaran was quoted saying, “This should be a wake-up call to everyone in the community to be even more careful and watch for a large increase in aggressive, dangerous driving,” implying that the Arizona freeways would never be safe again without cameras snapping photos of drivers. Shoba was undoubtedly hoping that drivers had forgotten that the freeways were just fine before the states’ failed money-making scam began.
Now two months after the camera shutoff, KTAR is reporting that there has been NO CHANGE in driving habits according to the director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, Alberto Gutier. “I haven’t seen any changes in behavior, I don’t see people sort of flying down the highways, although I’m sure it exists some places.”
News/Talk 92.3 KTAR’s traffic reporter, “Detour Dan” Beach, believes drivers are taking advantage of the speed cameras disappearance. But even so, it does not appear to have made the roads any more dangerous, as Beach says that he has not seen an increase in crashes.
August 4, 2010
Ever since the British government announced and end of funding support for speed cameras across the country, headlines have been announcing the decisions of towns and villages across the country to end their automated ticketing scams. While the government has always insisted that the cameras are about safety, it is definitely apparent that no one wants to actually pay for this alleged benefit as location after location is announcing the end of their camera programs.
The move is not without its critics who conveniently ignore data that shows the decades-long trend of improving road safety slowed significantly after the saturation of scameras across the land:
“Using the road casualty rate from 1978-1990 it can be estimated that 1,555,244 more road casualties have occurred from 1991-2007 than would have if the 1978-1990 trend had continued.”
These same experts are predicting a bloodbath after the end of the program, in a desperate attempt to get motorists to wonder how they ever survived without cameras taking pictures and mailing fines to the owners of vehicles. These critics also ignore the results of Swindon’s decision last year to end their camera program. Six months after the switch off, there has been no increase in accidents, as well as other reports of increasing accidents.
Here in the US, Yucaipa, CA and Costa Mesa, CA recently ended their red light camera programs, as TheNewspaper.com has reported. Yucaipa was so desperate to end their contract that they paid Redflex $198,000 for the privilege. According to city data, Costa Mesa saw accidents INCREASE after installing cameras.
July 23, 2010
In photo enforcement programs across the country, the claims continue to be made that “each violation is reviewed by an officer” before a ticket is mailed. The reality is that violations are either NOT reviewed by officers or the standards of evidence are much lower than anyone would imagine. In many cases, the camera companies and the municipalities are just eager to bring in a check so they send out a ticket regardless of the consequences to the innocent.
Take this recent AZ DPS photo ticket, for example, where it is not even possible to distinguish any features of the driver whatsoever (click on photo to enlarge). This didn’t stop Redflex from mailing the bogus ticket in the hopes that someone who didn’t know better would help them boost their profit margins.
According to the IIHS, the driver of the vehicle is NOT the owner of the vehicle over 28% of the time, which means that photo enforcement has a built-in 28% identify error rate even before we consider equipment malfunctions, corporate-owned vehicles, missing/ineligible plates, and system and processing errors.
Imagine for a moment what this country’s founders would say about a law enforcement system with a built-in error rate greater than 1 in 4 where the recipient must prove that he wasn’t driving in order to be found innocent. Imagine if you would re-elect a local sheriff if their department arrested the wrong person over 28% of the time. When did Arizona decide that a law enforcement system that heavily burdens the innocent is what we want?
Oh that’s right, the people or Arizona have never voted on this issue! Jan Brewer: Put photo enforcement on the ballot!
May 19, 2010
One of our CameraFraud volunteers recently captured the below photo showing 2 DPS scamera vans hiding on a freeway, lurking in the shadows underneath an overpass.
This just goes to show that Arizona DPS continues to ignore recommendations issued by ASU Professor Simon Washington Ph. D. (and others), which state in part:
“the placement of cameras in close proximity to high information load locations (e.g., on- and off-ramps, underpasses, billboards, weaving sections, directional signs, etc.) should be avoided.”
“Placement of cameras in sight-restricted locations should be avoided.”
Of course, if it’s not about safety and all about the money, why would they listen to some silly
suggestions comprehensive analysis from an ASU professor and colleagues?
Perhaps DPS is trying to rake in as much revenue as possible before they are forced to abandon the scamera game.
If you’d like to read more, we previously covered the ASU study in the following articles:
DPS vs. Prof.: At Odds Over Cam Locations
DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life
Thanks to Stacey for capturing the photo used above.
April 27, 2010
Be careful what you wish for, or you might just get it. The residents in the area of the 11600 block of southbound Bullard Avenue of Surprise, AZ are now regretting their requests for photo enforcement. Monday was the first day of issuing tickets from Redflex’s new photo enforcement trailer for the City of Surprise. The residents didn’t anticipate the controversy that comes with photo enforcement, and the fierce support for CameraFraud’s efforts that accompanies our protests in the form of honking, as well as the loud noise caused by the generator inside of the unit, in addition to the extra, random flashes of light all hours of the day.
But Surprise citizens and visitors also got something they weren’t expecting: photo enforcement lottery tickets! It turns out that you never know if the trailer is working or not. During the day-long protest, we observed at least a hundred false flashes with no cars around as well as some cars that were going fast that did not get flashed and others that were going slow or creeping along that did get flashed. We didn’t have a radar gun to definitively check speeds; however, we captured 3 incidences on video where the cameras flashed for absolutely no reason.
We can’t blame the police. They don’t own, operate, or maintain the equipment. They are under contract with Redflex who has full responsibility for operating and maintaining the equipment, and who gets a cut of every ticket issued. No wonder it goes off so much! Redflex is paid to gather evidence for the police to issue citations for non-commercial vehicle owners exceeding the posted limit. Think of it as a private investigator, but without the license! But when we informed the police who stopped by to check in our protest, they didn’t seem to be concerned. I guess that’s one of the perks of outsourcing your job to another entity.
If you live in Surprise or drive through Surprise, contact the Surprise police department and let them know that you are concerned about being caught by a malfunctioning machine and ask them how they know it’s working properly. You can email email@example.com or call 623-222-4000.