Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Nah, it was the lobbyist from the sign company lining the mayor's pockets.
The answer to all our prayers, or total disappearance of freedom to travel?
Yes.
Yes.
That is what I am afraid of, and I think that this "Yes" is more far-reaching than the same answer to " Tea or Coffee?" as the old joke goes.
Or simply some rich old piece of garbage property owner who thought cars going past his fiefdom at 20mph was too much and wanted to break up the flow, and lobbied the city to get his way. That's the way this society works, you know.
Prove your claims of educated decisions by these "traffic engineers". I can drive through a city and see very little to support it, just like with arbitrary speed limits and asininely-designed roadways.
Yes, your claims of experience are less than impressive to my eyes.
Carry on...
No doubt erecting and maintaining needless signs are good make work projects for overpaid public sector workers too...just like the maintenance and observation of data from CCTV networks is a good way to keep the worthless employed.
I guess those fat-cat, lying, cheating city council members trying to "waste money on silly stop signs and keep the maintenance department uselessly employed" didn't make it this far west yet.
Stop signs have NOTHING to do with road safety, right?
Could be that the city/township/county/state you live in is most incompetent in the whole of US. I rarely see questionable signs in my area of State nor other parts of State or nearby States I frequent. Maybe a local group motivated drivers (on the left coast) of like mind, say Drivers Against Photo Radar and Stupid Signs (DAPRSS), could start a movement to make their case and bring reform they desire.
Every stop sign does not relate to road safety, no, and slowing to 2mph instead of stopping at a deserted stop sign has nothing to do with road safety either.
Real change isn't created by mere elections...never has been, never will be.
That would be a respectful attitude. Oughta consider it.
I guess I was raised to respect authority.
And just think of the unintended consequences. Well, you can't think of them, but you get my drift.
Trust but verify. Respect but question.
I think I'm channeling the old bumper sticker discussion that got lost in the archives years ago.
That you for the very well worded post Steve_Host.
One of the thoughts that comes to mind is whether some of the consequences that at least you and I can foresee are indeed intentional, and just hiding behind a grab of safety or some other ruse to make them acceptable.
The future is going to be interesting indeed!
It's a nice theory, but when badges are not gained via legitimate competency, they lose a lot of value.
Respect must be earned.
Okay here is what they have:
ASLD - automatic speed limiting device - like cruise control except the inverse, you activate it and your can can't go any faster than the set speed. This gets a safety point in EU scoring.
Speed sign recognition - camera sees speed limit sign and can either automatically or with driver intervention set the ASLD to that speed.
Adaptive Cruise Control w/automatic braking - car speeds up and slows down with traffic on the freeway...if speeds get below a certain speed, it drops out and the driver has to take over.
ACC w/stop and go - has the ability to stop and start again, based on some criteria that varies between automakers. This won't work for things like stop signs because the system can't "see" if there are other cars waiting for their turn.
There are also systems like Volvo's "City Safety" that will brake for you if it thinks you are not paying attention and are at risk for a frontal collision.
Riiiiight. At best, it was a band-aid for poorly designed traffic flow in an urban area. At worst, some neighbor complained to the point they installed a stop sign.
There is a stop sign where I grew up that is at the base of someone's driveway. We made it a point in high school to either skid to a stop there or side step the clutch there in an mode of transportation when encountering that stop sign.
In Michigan, I can think of several places where there are endless stop signs for no reason. Its because they are cheap and compensate for lack of planning. Things like "traffic calming devices" and "perceptual countermeasures" work much better while not waisting fuel, time or money.
The other thing that drives me nuts, as long as I am on a rant. and its tied to red-light cameras a little, is lights that are not timed. You can't just stick traffic lights in willie-nillie. Idiots. Take a class in urban planning. Counties in Michigan should be sued for how much fuel they make their constituents waist every year at lights that should be timed better, or not there in the first place.
Don't know situation in Mich. But, I have seen in various suburbs around Chicago over the years that the "people" bring it on themselves. This is in residential areas, not commercial. When efforts to "educate" drivers to slow down and not exceed posted 25 or 30 fail, the "residents" along the affected streets petition their govt and get stop signs at every intersection to slow down the speeders.
If drivers cannot regulate their behaviour and their vehicle to posted 25 or 30, then traffic "control" devices such as stop signs are implemented. Govt is responding to the safety needs of the residents living along these affected streets to control irresponsible actions of some drivers.
Don't see it that way. Again, maybe it is an upper left coast thing and competence varies region by region.
Actually, from what I have experienced, observed, I would say that the local and county highway/road authorities in my area have shown incredibly more competence than the fools currently in control in DC.
Unfortunately, the traffic engineers just don't have enough money to do everything and get all the signals coordinated like that one. They do have cameras on something like 80 or 120 major intersections and they can override the signals remotely if they see traffic flow problems or bottlenecks in an area.
Politicians may be idiots, but the bureaucrats keep things running pretty smoothly when the pols keep out of their way. And I think that photo radar isn't something that a traffic engineer decides to implement to calm traffic, but something driven more by revenue.
When I used to live in Sacramento, CA, they implemented a lot of neighborhood 3 way stop signs I'm sure in an effort to appease blue hairs that own Buicks.
As a Teenager, I made a point of disobeying those "NEW" stop signs that were utterly useless except for wasting gas, by simply ignoring them. I didn't even yield, I just ran them at full speed and ignored them. Also, my average speed may have been about 40 before the stop signs (speed limit was 30 or 35 I forget), but after the stop signs, I averaged 50 MPH on that road. So the signs don't work, and have the opposite effect of what was inteneded by the OLD FOLK. I"m a perfect example.
Traffic Court makes a mockery of the justice system, and since most people's only experience with court is from Traffic Infractions (hopefully they are law abiding in other areas), it is there only exposure to the justice system, and it breeds nothing but contempt, disrespect, and a disbelief in law enforcement and the justice system.
If you think the OJ trial made the justice system look bad, you are out of touch. Go to traffic court some day and watch the trials; it is a complete joke, and makes a mockery of our constitution.
I for one, have no respect for law enforcement officers, and it is due to the very reasons described above.
Why just recently, a Santee Sheriff decided to issue me a ticket for not seeing an obscure and unsubstantiated "no u turn symbol sign" at a left turn lane on a divided 6 lane road (3 lanes each way) Why the NO U TURN sign is there I have no idea. I'm upset it was not posted in a very visible spot and can be easily missed.
I'm upset 2 motorcycle sheriff's officer's were lying in wait in the parking lot for people to miss that "hard to see" no u turn sign. I'm upset he issued me a ticket for a non-safety related manuever.
I demanded the County Seat as my place to appear in court which is the LAW and has a vehicle code requiring the officer provide the County Seat if requested by the citizen. It has been upheld as an ABSOLUTE right by the CA appeals court and is case law/precedent. The officer proceeded to BREAK The law and the VC and deny my request.
I noted on the ticket that "Officer REFUSED County Seat Requested" and signed the ticket.
The officer became irate and said I defaced the ticket and was impeding his investigation because he might have to write another ticket. He opened my driver side door without my consent and performed an illegal visual search in doing so. He then said , you know what? and walked around my vehicle. Keep in mind I had already signed the ticket, but when he came back a couple minutes lateer, he said I had 2 more violations, one for bald tires with too little tread depth (this was recently so it's almost summer in an area where it almost NEVER rains ie. not a safety issue) and that my radar detector is not allowed in the center of my windshield. He handed me back the citation with now 2 offenses, (he only added the bald tire VC violation) for which I obviously never signed to appear in court.
So he committed prosecutorial misconduct, in committing charge STACKING, obviously in retaliation for my exercising and assertion of MY RIGHTS, which now makes this a CIVIL RIGHTS violation on the officer's part, and all this over a SIGN violation ticket? Do you know he actually threatened to take me into jail for defacing the ticket that I did sign (mind you), and threatened I'd be stuck for 3 days in jail before the "too busy" magistrate would see me.
I find this to be PAR for the course for most traffic officers out there.
Do you think the "it was just a mistake" defense will hold up in court?
Everytime I'm speeding above the speed limit, it was JUST A MISTAKE Officer.
I'd love to see that one work. I was mistakenly driving above the underposted speed limit judge!
Of course shills will not have a problem with this technology, but ALL sane individuals should be concerned about the use of technology that CANNOT be made to work reliably, as shown time and again.
from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2405820/Cameras-record-incorrect-speed- - s
Cameras record incorrect speeds
By TIM DONOGHUE - The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 13/05/2009
Police have been forced to waive speeding tickets losing thousands of dollars in revenue because their new digital speed cameras are clocking motorists at twice their actual speeds.
A police spokesman has confirmed the new mobile cameras, which were introduced nationally in January at a cost of $4 million, were wrongly clocking the speeds of larger vehicles. Some tickets were issued for twice the vehicles' true speeds.
As a result, police have stopped processing infringement notices for high-sided trucks and buses in effect giving those vehicles temporary immunity from speed camera fines. They have waived at least 133 tickets after complaints, including 10 proven cases of inaccurate readings.
Acting national manager of road policing Inspector Peter McKay dismissed suggestions that tickets for normal-sized cars were also being waived, but admitted staff were scrutinising all photos and readings, particularly from large-sided vehicles.
"If there appears to be any anomalies, we will not process any infringements," he said.
"To ensure no one is disadvantaged, no photos of large flat-sided vehicles typically buses and trucks are being processed at the moment."
Lawyer Tony Ellis said police would need to be certain on technical grounds that the Australian-supplied cameras were correctly measuring speeds, otherwise they would "leave themselves open to a challenge by some enterprising motorist or lawyer. They could bring a challenge on the basis that the cameras are incorrectly calibrated".
He also questioned the police definition of a large vehicle. "What about a van which is between a large vehicle and a car? There does seem room for querying what is going on."
The problems emerged soon after the 43 digital cameras were introduced nationwide in January.
National road policing manager Paula Rose said last December that she expected the new cameras to result in more tickets, and motorists would receive their infringement notices more quickly.
About $36m was collected in speeding fines last year. Mr McKay refused to say how much was being lost through the waivers.
The radar beams from the cameras have been deflected from the sides of large vehicles to nearby metal objects and back doubling the recorded speed.
"It appears initially the cameras were set incorrectly and this has resulted in some incorrect [high] readings," Mr McKay said.
"We are talking about introducing a fairly sophisticated piece of equipment ... it is reasonable to expect some teething issues."
Mr McKay could not say when the problems would be resolved.
There were 536,995 speed camera tickets issued in the 15 months to April 15 more than 25,000 fewer than during the period from January 1, 2007, to April 15 last year.
Road Transport Forum chief executive officer Tony Friedlander was unaware of the speed camera problems.
Bus and Coach Association chief executive Raewyn Bleakley advised her members to be careful if disciplining drivers who had received speeding tickets in recent months because of the uncertainty.
Automobile Association spokesman Simon Lambourne said it was imperative that the problem be sorted out quickly. "If people are speeding, they should be caught."
CLOCKING UP
* $36 million was collected by police and the Justice Department in speeding fines last year.
* The 43 new digital cameras, mounted on the roadside in modified people-mover vehicles, were introduced in January, replacing 31 old mobile, wet film cameras.
* The decision to expand the speed camera programme was part of an attempt to lower the road toll to less than 300 by 2010.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2775.asp
New York Appeals Court Strikes Down Warrantless GPS Spying
Ruling by New York Court of Appeals calls the warrantless GPS tracking of motorists a massive invasion of privacy.
The New York State Court of Appeals yesterday disagreed with Wisconsin's second-highest court in ruling that police may not use Global Position System (GPS) tracking devices without a warrant. A divided New York court found that the state police violated the law when officers placed a device known as Q-Ball on the van belonging to Scott C. Weaver on the morning of December 21, 2005. This device wirelessly transmitted an up-to-the-minute history of the vehicle's every move over the course of sixty-five days. Police never obtained a warrant for the surveillance, but the evidence obtained was used -- along with the testimony of a witness -- to convict Weaver of participating in a K-Mart burglary.
In evaluating the legal situation, the New York court -- like its Wisconsin counterpart -- turned to US v. Knotts, a 1983 US Supreme Court case involving a modest beeper-like transmitter. The New York judges departed from the reading of the Wisconsin judges by distinguishing the powerful capabilities of modern surveillance.
"Knotts involved the use of what we must now, more than a quarter of a century later, recognize to have been a very primitive tracking device," Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote for the 4-3 majority. "The device was, moreover, used in a focused binary police investigation for the discreet purpose of ascertaining the destination of a particular container of chloroform. And, in this application, during the single trip from the place where the chloroform was purchased to the Knotts cabin, the beeper was fairly described by the court as having functioned merely as an enhancing adjunct to the surveilling officers' senses; the officers actively followed the vehicle and used the beeper as a means of maintaining and regaining actual visual contact with it. The technology was, in this context, not unconvincingly analogized by the court to a searchlight, a marine glass, or a field glass."
Such a narrow use of technology could not be compared, the court argued, with the broad power promised by a GPS unit with a tracking memory and precision beyond anything a police department could do with live surveillance.
"GPS is not a mere enhancement of human sensory capacity, it facilitates a new technological perception of the world in which the situation of any object may be followed and exhaustively recorded over, in most cases, a practically unlimited period," Lippman wrote. "The potential for a similar capture of information or 'seeing' by law enforcement would require, at a minimum, millions of additional police officers and cameras on every street lamp."
The majority found that allowing police unsupervised access to this powerful technology was not "compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty." It also found that the most troubling aspect was the ease with which police could create a profile of the political, religious and social habits of any target. The US Supreme Court in 1983 even suggested that the Knotts ruling may have been different had the technology allowed for "twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen in this country... without judicial knowledge or supervision."
The New York majority also struck back against the well-worn concept of "diminished expectation of privacy" that is so often used as an excuse to intrude on the rights of the motoring public.
"It is... quite another (thing) to suppose that when we drive or ride in a vehicle our expectations of privacy are so utterly diminished that we effectively consent to the unsupervised disclosure to law enforcement authorities of all that GPS technology can and will reveal," Lippman wrote. "We, of course, have held in reliance upon our own Constitution that the use of a vehicle upon a public way does not effect a complete surrender of any objectively reasonable, socially acceptable privacy expectation."
The majority concluded that it was absurd for the state to argue that no search occurred in Weaver's case. It also found no possible "emergency" exception could apply to a surveillance operation that lasted sixty-five days. To prevent the possibility of being overturned by a federal court, the majority made clear that because the US Supreme Court has not ruled on GPS that it was relying on the privacy protections of the New York Constitution.
"Without judicial oversight, the use of these powerful devices presents a significant and, to our minds, unacceptable risk of abuse," Lippman concluded. "Under our state Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual's whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause."
The full text of the decision is available in a 70k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: New York v. Weaver (Court of Appeals, State of New York, 5/12/2009)
Reminds me of a police chase clip shown/reshown on cable tv numerous times. A young guy and his girl friend passenger are being chased by a police officer with police car having video camera facing forward and recording. The young man is driving a pickup and has an alegedly stolen lawn mower rider in its bed and is speeding, driving recklessly and will not pull over and stop. The pickup driving at "Full Speed", maybe 60 or more, goes through a stop sign and is hit broadside by a semi truck maybe going 60. Man and his passenger killed instantly. To extent that semi driver was hopefully not injured, and no other motorist or pedestrian was injured/killed, justice was served.
Photo radar for speed and stop signs would not be necessary if there weren't those incredibly irresponsible drivers who "grossly" violated speed limits or wantonly ran through traffic control devices such as stop lights and stop signs. Blame photo radar on these folks.
“The protection guaranteed by the Amendments [the Fourth and Fifth] is much broader in scope [than the protection of property]. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth”
"That such a surrogate technological deployment is not - - particularly when placed at the unsupervised discretion of agents of the state "engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime" (Johnson v United States, 333 US 10, 14 [1948]) -- compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty would appear to us obvious. One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person's progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit's batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations -- political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few -- and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits. When multiple GPS devices are utilized, even more precisely resolved inferences about our activities are possible. And, with GPS becoming an increasingly routine feature in cars and cell phones, it will be possible to tell from the technology with ever increasing precision who we are and are not with, when we are and are not with them, and what we do and do not carry on our persons -- to mention just a few of the highly feasible empirical configurations."
"This being so, the Court quite reasonably concluded that the technology "in this case" (Knotts, 460 US at 282 [emphasis added]) raised no Fourth Amendment issue, but pointedly acknowledged and reserved for another day the question of whether a Fourth Amendment issue would be posed if "twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country [were] possible, without judicial knowledge or supervision"> (id. at 283). To say that that day has arrived involves no melodrama; twenty-six years after Knotts, GPS technology, even in its present state of evolution, quite simply and matter-of-factly forces the issue."
"An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of transportation to and from one's home, workplace, and leisure activities. Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the streets. Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel. Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. As Terry v. Ohio ... recognized, people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks. Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles."
"Technological advances have produced many valuable tools for law enforcement and, as the years go by, the technology available to aid in the detection of criminal conduct will only become more and more sophisticated. Without judicial oversight, the use of these powerful devices presents a significant and, to our minds, unacceptable risk of abuse."
But how do the businesses selling the photo/redlight/radar speed services to the political entities know which of the hundreds of intersections in a small town to have cameras at? They don't put cameras up at ALL intersections and stop signs or else they might actually have a chance of capturing pictures of the hardcore criminals like that. Of course, are we to believe that they pay the tickets for the camera businesses? Brooklyn Bridge for sale if we believe they do!!!
Indeed this points all the more to having real policemen on the patrol to note the funny things that happen that make them suspictious so they stop a vehicle before the driver runs through a stoplight.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
OK, we all drive and encounter and notice someone running a red light - not yellow - after the offense was comitted. How can anyone, including a cop, possibly predict who will run a light and stop them before the crime. If vehicle is operating within law and appears legal, stop lights working, etc, cop has no authority to pull someone over.
Also, consider efficiency. Can't possibly afford live police persons to catch all of the offenders. A combo of police and technology, with adequate controls and supervision, is most cost effective. As others have pointed out on this board, if you don't run red lights nor go more than 10 over limit, don't have to worry about photo radar.
It would only be fair to note the several others have also pointed out the grave constitutional issues and violations of due process that these machines raise. "Don't have to worry" is simply WRONG.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I would say in order to "grossly" violate a stop sign or stop light, there would have to be another vehicle around to which you were supposed to yield to. If there isn't another vehicle around, then running the stop sign is not "really" a violation in my book, but is certainly not a GROSS violation.
I can admit I've ignored stop signs, but even at the signs I routinely ignored due to their uselessness, I still obeyed them if there was another vehicle coming from another direction and yielded the right away. I only ignore the stop sign if it IS SAFE to do so. That can never be a gross violation. SAFETY should be a forced and enforced CRITERIA of any supposed/alleged traffic violation.
Except of course, when the human officer or photo radar malfunctions, which apparently is quite often and not unusual.
Also, officer's can make up any excuse they want to pull anyone over. They have over 40,000 excuses written into our CA vehicle code. Why do you think the California VC needs 40,000+ entries? Do you really think that's necessary, or is it something to give a cop an excuse to pull anyone over?
I'd go with the latter explanation.
I dont' run stop signs when running that stop sign would potentially cause an accident. I only do so when it is SAFE to do so, and that means no accidents.
Time has proven me right.
Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics
Improving our Drivers, Roads, Speed Limits and Enforcement
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2791.asp
Texas Senate Endorses Freeway Spy Cameras
Legislation mandating federal and state police surveillance cameras on Texas state highways nears passage.
The Texas state Senate voted Monday to give federal, state and local authorities the ability to track and identify every passing vehicle on state highways. The provision calling for "automatic license plate identification cameras" was slipped into the Senate version of the must-pass Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) reauthorization bill.
The provision was not part of the bill introduced in the state House of Representatives, whose less sympathetic members will have to accept or reject the entire 1274-page compromise hammered out by a conference committee. The House voted yesterday to instruct its conferees to insist that the House-passed ban on red light cameras remain in the final text.
The Senate's surveillance camera proposal promises taxpayer funds to the same private companies that operate photo radar and red light camera systems threatened by the House bill. License plate readers use the same basic technology as automated ticketing machines. Instead of tracking, for example, only those who exceed a certain speed threshold, the plate readers will store a video image of the front passenger compartment and rear license plate of every single passing vehicle. Optical character recognition software identifies the registered vehicle owner and allows for easy indexing of the time and location of travel for each person identified using the highway.
The Senate-passed bill gives police broad authority for the first time to use this information to prosecute any state or federal crime, as long as it is not a traffic violation "punishable by fine only." The bill also specifies that the cameras may be used to find suspects in amber alert cases, missing senior citizens and those accused of killing a police officer. The capability to search for suspects is exactly what troubles one civil rights group.
"Proponents will argue the readers are looking for bad guys -- drug smugglers and other criminals -- but the cameras cannot distinguish between your SUV and a drug smuggler's SUV," the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement. "The readers are technology and as with any technology, they have a tendency to make errors. In this case, the implications are traffic stops of drivers misidentified as suspects wanted for serious crimes."
In some cases, those errors can turn deadly. On May 19, 2008 a Northumbria, UK police officer received an Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) alert about a passing Renault Megane automobile. Believing the vehicle could be driven by a dangerous criminal, the officer began following the Renault and hit speeds of 94 MPH in a residential neighborhood without using his siren. After cresting a hill, the police Volvo slammed into and killed sixteen-year-old pedestrian Hayley Adamson who did not see the police car coming. It turns out the database was wrong and the driver being chased was completely innocent. (View video of the incident up to the moment of the crash).
British authorities have been using ANPR for several years, working to centralize ANPR data to allow police to keep tabs on criminals and political opponents. A data center in North London offers real-time, nationwide tracking capability. Australian and American red light camera companies hope to offer the same centralized tracking services in the US.
The license plate provision attached to the TxDOT sunset bill passed the full Senate last month without debate as Senate Bill 1426. The language was drafted by state Senator Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands). View the full text of the surveillance camera provision in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: House Bill 300 excerpt - Senate engrossed (Texas State Legislature, 5/28/2009)
That is very scary. But, maybe precedence already set by some cities, such as Chicago, having cameras placed in various parts of the city that have high crime rates. Innocent and law abiding citizens walking through these areas are watched and probably recorded.
Believe that the Chicago cameras send images to a monitoring site where presumably there is some recording and retention of video. Mayor Daley authorized these. Never heard that former Chicagoan Obama, Constitution expert and now President, protested this camera system as violation of Constitutional rights. Must be OK.
This affects us ALL, and we ALL better have an input into the process or we will ALL regret the consequences for a loooooong time to come.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2795.asp
Italy: Police Raid Speed Camera Company in Fraud Scandal
Italian police find 81,555 speed camera tickets worth $16 million were fraudulently issued.
Italian police yesterday raided the Brescia headquarters of a speed camera manufacturer accused of fraud involving seventy municipalities throughout the country. Officers from the Guardia di Finanza, the law enforcement arm of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, seized computers, cameras, sensors and fifty speed cameras as evidence.
Salerno prosecutor Amato Barile ordered the raid after discovering evidence that Velomatic 512 photo radar units bearing the same individual serial number were being used by different municipalities located hundreds of miles apart. Under Italian regulations, each camera used for issuing citations must be properly calibrated and approved. By cloning serial numbers, the company avoided testing requirements. Prosecutors also believe that some of these cameras were calibrated in such a way that motorists adhering to the speed limit would receive citations.
As a result of a criminal conspiracy, 81,555 tickets worth 11.3 million euros (US $16 million) fraudulently issued between 2007 and 2009 have been canceled, refunds will be given and license points will be removed. The consumer watchdog group Codacons wants permanent changes in the law, including banning the ability of municipal governments to pad general funds with photo ticket revenue and a minimum five-second yellow warning time at intersections. In January, the makers of the T-Red brand of red light cameras were similarly arrested for fraud after prosecutors found motorists were being trapped at signals with short yellows with improperly certified equipment.
"That yet another seizure has happened on the national territory demonstrates how municipalities are using illicit means and violating the law in order to make cash," a group press release stated.
Yesterday's raid was given the code name "Operation Devius." The investigation is ongoing.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2796.asp
Maine Bans Photo Enforcement
Maine governor signs into law a total ban on red light cameras and speed cameras.
Maine last week became the fourteenth state to ban the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. Governor John Baldacci (D) signed into law a bill introduced by Representative Richard Cebra (R-Naples) that prohibits the use of a "traffic surveillance camera to prove or enforce a violation" of traffic laws. Cebra's measure sailed through the legislative process with almost no opposition at any stage of the process.
"While on the surface these cameras may appear to increase public safety, recent studies have shown that they actually increase the occurrences of accidents at intersections where the public is aware that there is a camera," Cebra said in a statement. "The placement of these cameras is also a civil rights issue, creating the issuing of a summons and possible fines and jail time to the owner of a vehicle and not necessarily the actual driver of the vehicle. In many places around the country, these cameras have become nothing more than a money-maker for municipalities."
The issue of automated enforcement was first raised in March by state Representative Donald Pilon (D-Saco) who wanted to give municipalities the right to install red light cameras throughout Maine. His idea backfired. When Pilon's bill came before the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, not one member voted in favor of the proposal. Cebra followed up with his prohibition measure which was greeted with unanimous committee approval in April. It cleared the full state Senate under a suspended rules procedure used for non-controversial measures, but an amendment was added in the House to allow the use of toll road cameras. Thus modified, the legislation cleared both chambers on May 21 with overwhelming support.
The law formally takes effect ninety days after the legislature adjourns, which would be September 15 according to the latest schedule. Earlier this year, Mississippi and Montana enacted photo enforcement bans. View the full list of states that ban traffic cameras.
Article Excerpt:
LD 1234
An Act To Regulate the Use of Traffic Surveillance Cameras
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 29-A MRSA Section 2117 is enacted to read:
Section 2117. Use of traffic surveillance cameras restricted
The State or a municipality may not use a traffic surveillance camera to prove or enforce a violation of this Title. For purposes of this section, "traffic surveillance camera" means a device that, in conjunction with a lighted traffic-control device or a lane direction control device, as described in section 2057, subsections 1 and 3, or a speed measurement device as described in section 2075, subsection 4, automatically produces one or more photographs, one or more microphotographs, a videotape or any other recorded image of a vehicle at the time the vehicle is operated in violation of state law.
This section does not apply to a photo-monitoring system, as defined by Title 23, section 1980, subsection 2-A, paragraph B, subparagraph 4, used by the Maine Turnpike Authority for toll enforcement purposes.
Effective 90 days following adjournment of the 124th Legislature, First Regular Session, unless otherwise indicated.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law on May 19 Senate Bill 277, allowing the use of speed cameras in highway work zones and within a half-mile radius of schools, which means that they can be placed on freeways under these conditions."
Speed cameras on U.S. highways? (CNN)
Just more evidence that it is about the money grab hiding behind an argument for safety that only the gullible could believe in, methinks.
Poorly written part in link article post 1719. Restricted access highways and school area are distinct.
Don't know how anyone could criticize using speed cameras in school zones or construction zones on highways. Too many highway workers get killed or injured by drivers that go way over the construction zone speed limit. It would be extremely expensive to post adequate number of police at all construction zones while workers are present. Speed cameras are a cost effective way to "control" dangerous speeding drivers in these zones.
Safety costs money, including posting officers wherever needed, simple as that. One cannot use the old "it costs too much for proper law enforcement" argument as an excuse for taking short cuts with civil liberties.
Further, please keep in mind that about half of worker fatalities and injuries in work zones are caused by construction accidents, NOT drivers exceeding the speed limit.
For an example reference, please see:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-128/
which states that:
"Highway and street construction workers are at risk of fatal and serious nonfatal injury when working in the vicinity of passing motorists, construction vehicles, and equipment. Each year, more than 100 workers are killed and over 20,000 are injured in the highway and street construction industry. Vehicles and equipment operating in and around the work zone are involved in over half of the worker fatalities in this industry.
Historically, efforts to reduce vehicle-related worker injuries in this industry have focused on improving traffic control devices and work zone configurations to minimize confusion of motorists passing through the work zone and to limit collisions involving motorists. The premise has been that by minimizing traffic collisions in work zones, worker injuries are minimized. However, fatality data indicate that workers being struck by a motorist passing through the work zone account for only half the vehicle-related fatalities among highway workers."
My only concern here with reference to the posted story is that poorly written laws can and do form the basis of subsequent abuse by local officials offered corrupting monetary lures by scamera companies to maximize profits, safety and the original intent of the law be damned.
Phrases like "don't know how anyone could criticize" only serve to degrade intelligent discussion and are best avoided, but that's just my opinion.
Exactly right. It's being used politically since the last election and even today in articles I was reading.
All it takes is a police car doing duty in a construction area. People traveling on highways from out-of-town follow the speeds of the locals. When there never are policemen in the construction areas the locals go wild.
While trying to justify mailing bills or tickets to people from out-of-town for driving as do most people when traveling sounds caring, the real goal would be money-making. If they only bill local drivers that would be okay--if we're wanting to play the PC game.
> is that poorly written laws can and do form the basis of subsequent abuse by local officials offered corrupting monetary lures by scamera companies to maximize profits, safety and the original intent of
Many bills federal have been written with the intent of different interpretation in the future and are being interpreted differently than presented to congress originally. ADA laws, e.g., fit that bill (no pun intended).
The goal of the camera companies is to get their billing abilities into each category and expand them giving pittances to the local politicians hungry for money to spend to buy votes. That's what it is.
The camera companies are doing what retired policemen and detectives did for a good while. They are pseudo police agencies similar to the businesses of retired policemen which supplied undercover agents to try to induce high school students to sell them drugs. In most cases the kids wouldn't have solicited selling drugs but the agents used entrapment heavily so they could make their arrests and justify their bills to the local police or prosecutors. Camera companies are the same ilk of criminal in blue.
Just put police cars out there and they will do wonders.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nothing wrong in using technology to help enforce laws when manpower is inadequate to continuously monitor drivers while workers active in construction zones.
While there have apparently been abuses of the photo camera system, that does not mean that it should be banned. Weed out the abuses. It is up to legislatures and dots to sort out and improve the management and operation of speed camera systems wherever used.
Photo camera system has been used for years on the Illinois Tollway system to document and fine toll payment violators.
However, technology is a double edged sword. What is wrong with photo radar is the potential for abuse that has been realised time and again and mentality of helping to "control drivers" and "continuously monitor drivers" without regard to due process and civil liberty concerns. This technology is the first step to many dangerous consequences for our society and must be stopped, in my opinion.
We can agree to disagree about this for sure.
Poor management of construction sites, poorly laid out detours and signage, and a lack of adherence to standards cause most of the injuries and fatalities, for the worker as well as the drivers.
There is plenty of data/research/info on how to properly do it, the industry just isn't motivated.