Speed Camera News

Roadside speed cameras may bite the dust!
Published Date:
04 September 2010
By RORY O'KEEFFE
Political editor

SPEED cameras could be removed from Portsmouth's roads, if a government proposal is enacted later this year.
Portsmouth City Council believes the government is set to make what it feels are unreasonable demands on local authorities, which would see the removal of the city's cameras on grounds of cost.

Council leader Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson said:ADVERTISEMENT'The government has plans which look likely to be enacted later this year, which would see us totally liable for all upkeep and maintenance of the speed cameras. Under those circumstances, they'll be impossible for us to afford to operate, so we'd get rid of them all.'

The city council's seven fixed cameras are run through the Hampshire Safer Roads Partnership, which also includes councils across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

But it pays almost £250,000 per year for membership of the group.

Each year, the council hands over all the fines it collects to central government, which then redistributes the cash to councils and groups across the country.

But new government proposals, which could be introduced as early as next month, are expected to change the rules so the cash is not handed back to councils, or is used to 'top up' the annual grants each authority receives.

Cllr Vernon-Jackson said: 'The policy just makes the cameras unaffordable, and it's hard to see how we could keep operating them under those circumstances. They would have to stop running. In the past, we have received help from the government, but this would be a cut and we wouldn't be able to afford them. '

Earlier this year, the government demanded budget cuts from all local authorities, which caused some councils, including Oxford, to pull out of their road safety partnerships, and turn off their cameras.

But Portsmouth City Council's head of street management Simon Moon denied the council would leave the partnership.

He said: 'We're committed to the safer roads partnership and have no plans which would change our involvement at this point in time. In year funding cuts by central government have been absorbed and we can continue in the partnership until the end of this financial year. Beyond this, the situation remains unclear and as with any financial commitment it will be reviewed when funding sources are known.'

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/fixed-cameras-proving-futile/1919984.aspx

Fixed cameras proving futile
MICHAEL INMAN

22 Aug, 2010 12:00 AM
FIXED speed cameras are failing to reduce accidents at Canberra traffic hot spots, with accident rates actually increasing since nine new cameras were installed in 2007-08.

But ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has defended their use and flagged the possibility of installing more fixed speed cameras throughout Canberra.

Figures obtained by ACT Liberal MLA Alistair Coe showed accidents at eight camera sites increased from 58.7 per year prior to installation to 67.9 after while pumping an extra $7million each year into government coffers.

Data for the ninth camera was unavailable.

The largest increase in the number of accidents occured at two camera sites along the Tuggeranong Parkway.

Accidents jumped from an average of 20.3 to 24.4 per year at the camera placed near the Cotter Road underpass.

To the south, accidents leapt from 21.4 to 31 per year at the Hindmarsh Drive overpass.

Figures show the two cameras reaped almost $125,000 in the three months from October to December 2008.

However, the number of accidents declined slightly at several sites.

Mr Coe said the increased accident rate, paired with fines, shows revenue-raising was the driving force behind the expansion.

''[This] evidence suggests that the current methodology, the current strategy the ACT Government has, is much more about revenue than about making our roads safer,'' Mr Coe said.

''What we're seeing here is road safety being used as a cover for a revenue-raising method for the ACT Government because of its inability to manage expenditure.''

Read more: Fixed cameras proving futile

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/paradise-valley-town-council-a-simple-solution/

Paradise Valley Town Council: A Simple Solution
Paradise Valley Town Council is holding their normally scheduled meeting on Thursday Afternoon, starting at 3 pm. If you’re wondering, the address is 6401 E Lincoln Dr, Paradise Valley, Az 85253. CameraFRAUD volunteers will be there to collect signatures for the initiative to ban photo ticketing in Paradise Valley.

Oh and what a coincidence, it seems that very initiative is on the the slate for the meeting:

We have a very simple solution to this issue: Let’s do the right thing and take the cameras down in Paradise Valley. That would save the most time, money and is the safest option. However, if it needs to go to the voters, we’ve already seen how popular our initiative is at the polling places. 1,500+ signatures isn’t that far away!
 

(Ban the Cams note:  Go to the read more and see the Maps provided by StopBigBrotherMD showing what Mount Rainier did to CHURN TICKETS!)

Before

 
After

http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2010/08/mount-rainier-brentwood-lowered-speed.html

Sunday, August 15, 2010
Mount Rainier, Brentwood Lowered Speed Limits at Camera Sites
The town of Mount Rainier recently began using a speed camera on the 3700 block of Rhode Island Avenue (US Route 1). StopBigBrotherMD has discovered that the speed limit at that camera site was recently lowered by 10mph, from 35mph to 25mph. Photos taken in the first week of August by a concerned citizen show the 25mph speed limit just north of 37th street. The speed limit north of the current camera site is 35mph, with the camera site located about 45 yards south of the 25mph sign (marked on the photo below, partially concealed by trees and other obstacles).   An image extracted from Google street view shows the same site taken before the camera deployment. Notice that the 25mph sign is not present in these legacy images.

 
Before 
 

After

A 25mph zone did exist previously on Rhode Island Avenue southbound, but started south of 37th street, approximately 500 feet south of the point where it is at now. Before the new 25mph sign the speed the limit in the section around the camera was still posted as 35mph.

We also discovered that there was previously a 35mph speed limit sign just south of 37th street in the northbound lane, marking the (former) end of that 25mph zone. Now that sign was removed and has been replaced by a 25mph sign a short distance away.
 

Read more: MD: Games Speed Camera Vendors and Cities Play, ALSO TOWN DENIES FOIA AT SCAMERA SITE!

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1315435_road_safety_expert_in_storm_over_speeding_joke?all_comments=1

Road safety expert in storm over speeding ‘joke’
Deborah Linton

August 30, 2010

The man in charge of re-educating speeding drivers has been slammed for joking on Facebook about breaking the speed limit.

Lee Davies, manager of the Greater Manchester Driver Improvement Scheme, made the quip on the social-networking website where he posted pictures of himself on a quad bike during a trip to the Canary Islands.

When a pal asked if he kept within the speed limits, he replied: ‘Got it to go 63kph in a 40kph zone!’

Mr Davies has now apologised and said his comments had been a joke. But drivers’ groups said his words were ‘foolish and stupid’.

Mr Davies is in charge of speed awareness courses, which are offered to drivers caught flouting road laws as an alternative to penalty points or fines.

He used Facebook to share pictures of himself with two quad bikes during his holiday.

When confronted by the M.E.N, Mr Davies said he had hired only one of the bikes and had never driven on the highway.

He claimed he had not broken any speed limits and said his comments had been ‘foolish and thoughtless’.

He said: "I can confirm that during a holiday in Fuerteventura I hired a dune buggy for private use on sand dunes, within the resort I was staying.

Read more: "RE EDUCATION" (More like Brainwash to me) chief busted by the PC police for "joking" on speeding.

Ban the Cams note:  Thanks to Camerafraud Facebook for the link!)

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196218/Ambulance-driver-could-lose-job-for-speeding-to-save-a-life

AMBULANCE DRIVER COULD LOSE JOB FOR SPEEDING TO SAVE A LIFE 

Paul Bex was carrying a liver when he was flashed by a speed camera in Lincolnshire
Sunday August 29,2010
By Chloe Thomas AMBULANCE drivers risk being charged for speeding because of a legal loophole that means their role in transporting organs is not recognised.

Paul Bex was carrying a liver from Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, to the North East when he was flashed by a speed camera in Lincolnshire.

He was driving at 112mph after being told by a surgeon that the liver was needed within three hours on July 7.

Pictured right in his vehicle, Mr Bex, 51, from Cambridge, was sent a letter by police telling him he would be prosecuted for speeding. Despite an appeal by Lifeline, his employer, he will have to appear in court.

Anyone caught speeding at over 100 miles per hour faces a 12-month ban.

Mr Bex, who has an unblemished 34-year driving record, said: “If I am charged I will lose my licence, which means I will not be able to work.

“The idea of going to court is very upsetting when I haven’t done anything wrong. I was merely doing my job.”

Dave Cooper, operations manager at Lifeline, said: “All our drivers have been trained to drive to the same standard as the police. Although I am confident that the magistrates won’t charge him, I cannot be certain.”

The law defining an ambulance hasn’t been updated since 1946, despite the fact that organ transplants have been common since the 1960s and 2,500 are now carried out every year.

It still refers only to “the carriage of sick, injured or disabled people”. That means a vehicle used to relay organs cannot be registered as an ambulance.

Even though cars used for the purpose are fitted with flashing lights, they are not exempt from speed limits.

Don Williams, president of the Ambulance Association, the drivers’ union, said: “The law as it stands is making life impossible for our drivers.

Read more: UK NEWSAMBULANCE DRIVER COULD LOSE JOB FOR SPEEDING TO SAVE A LIFE

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3245.asp

France, Germany: Speed Cameras Burned, Boxed, Bashed, Blown Up
Two dozen cameras attacked in France while a photo radar unit in Leipzig, Germany explodes.

In Savoy, France over twenty speed cameras were covered last weekend by white cardboard boxes painted with the Cross of Savoy and the slogans "Free Savoy" and "Treaty Abrogated." A separatist movement believes that the French government has no right to set up speed cameras in the region. The group's members vow to continue the attacks on speed cameras, Caradisiac Moto reported.  http://moto.caradisiac.com/Radars-la-Savoie-libre-denonce-des-radars-illegaux-966

In Bel Air, France vigilantes set fire to a speed camera at around 4am Tuesday. This marked the sixth time that the automated ticketing machine on the N134 has been destroyed since being installed in the spring of 2009. The last attack in May cost officials 20,000 euros (US $25,000), Sud Ouest reported. Police have no idea who might be responsible.  http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/08/25/le-radar-automatique-qui-attire-les-foudres-168515-4140.php

In Charente limousine, a photo radar unit that failed to prevent an accident was destroyed when it was hit by a Polish truck. The device on route 951 was destroyed, Sud Ouest reported.

In Leipzig, Germany vigilantes used explosives to destroy a speed camera last Sunday at around 12:30am. The device had been located in the Sudvorstadt district between Paul-Gruner and High Street. Police have no idea who was responsible, Leipziger Volkszeitung reported.
 http://nachrichten.lvz-online.de/leipzig/polizeiticker/lauter-knall-schreckt-anwohner-in-suedvorstadt-auf--blitzer-gesprengt/r-polizeiticker-a-45761.html

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3242.asp

Photo Ticket Firm Redflex Approaches Zero Profit
Australian red light camera giant blows $137 million in photo ticket revenue.

Despite collecting A$137 million in revenue from automated traffic ticketing, the Australian photo enforcement giant Redflex Traffic Systems yesterday announced its net profit before tax had fallen to a mere $442,000 for the first half of 2010. Redflex remains the number one player in the US market with US motorists providing 79 percent of the company's ticket revenue. Redflex management, however, blamed recent losses primarily on "considerable public opposition" to photo radar and red light cameras in the US.

Earlier this year, public protests organized by the group CameraFraud.com helped convince Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to shut down the statewide photo radar program run by Redflex. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3202.asp This cost the company $13.1 million in expenses and write downs. Similarly, as cities elsewhere in the country have decided to cancel their photo ticketing programs, Redflex has been forced to write down another $2.8 million in canceled contracts. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3216.asp

"Citizen-led ballot initiatives at both municipal and state levels are potential threats," the company warned.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp

Redflex explained to Australian investors that it would fight back against the public through a "managed media interface." In Arizona, the company cited the creation of the Safer Arizona Roads Alliance as a front group to advance the firm's corporate agenda in the guise of a non-profit "grassroots" organization. Redflex highlighted a similar effort it is undertaking in Illinois through a "group of advocates."

Read more: Newspaper.com: Redflex profits down, HAS FRONT GROUPS IN AZ AN IL

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/08/covington_city_council_says_no.html

Covington City Council says no to traffic cameras
Published: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 6:02 PM     Updated: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 6:05 PM

Two days after hearing a presentation on the possible use of mobile speed vans or red-light cameras to curb speeding and collisions in Covington, City Council members - many citing public outcry - adamantly spoke out against the proposal and said they would never endorse it.

With a majority of council members against it, the proposal appears to be dead in the water.

At Mayor Candace Watkins' behest, Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix, which ran Jefferson Parish's red-light cameras from late 2007 until January, gave a presentation to the council Tuesday night on its services. Watkins stated from the outset that she was for the mobile speed vans, not red-light cameras.

She has said speeding is "the single greatest complaint I have heard as mayor." And Covington Police Chief Richard Palmisano has said he can see Redflex traffic systems helping the city and his department, by curbing speeding and freeing up officers for other duties.

Jefferson Parish froze its red-light cameras program amid revelations that lobbyists who had helped Reflex get the parish's business were sharing revenue from the resulting traffic tickets.

Read more: Covington City Council (LA) says no to traffic cameras

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/08/covington_city_council_says_no.html

Covington City Council says no to traffic cameras
Published: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 6:02 PM     Updated: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 6:05 PM

Two days after hearing a presentation on the possible use of mobile speed vans or red-light cameras to curb speeding and collisions in Covington, City Council members - many citing public outcry - adamantly spoke out against the proposal and said they would never endorse it.

With a majority of council members against it, the proposal appears to be dead in the water.

At Mayor Candace Watkins' behest, Redflex Traffic Systems of Phoenix, which ran Jefferson Parish's red-light cameras from late 2007 until January, gave a presentation to the council Tuesday night on its services. Watkins stated from the outset that she was for the mobile speed vans, not red-light cameras.

She has said speeding is "the single greatest complaint I have heard as mayor." And Covington Police Chief Richard Palmisano has said he can see Redflex traffic systems helping the city and his department, by curbing speeding and freeing up officers for other duties.

Jefferson Parish froze its red-light cameras program amid revelations that lobbyists who had helped Reflex get the parish's business were sharing revenue from the resulting traffic tickets.

Following the presentation to the Covington City Council on Tuesday night, council members expressed some concerns and asked questions to Charlie Buckels of Redflex, who attempted to relieve their doubts. No council member at the meeting explicitly stated that they were against the notion of speed vans.

The vans use roof-mounted radar and video equipment that zooms in on a vehicle's license plate number if a vehicle is traveling more than a certain amount over the speed limit.

By Thursday, several council members said they'd received calls from enraged constituents lambasting the idea.

"You'd think we were putting up a nuclear plant or something," quipped Councilman Trey Blackall. "I have never had to respond to an issue like I have had to do with this one. I am not voting for this proposal."

"I think over the last two days we have just seen how people feel," he continued. "Just the mere mention of having a meeting to talk about something like this sparks this type of comment. It's just one of these issues that touches people nerves... and it just doesn't seem to be worth the effort."

Several other council members took umbrage at the suggestion that the council had even considered the proposal, and pointed fingers back at the mayor who had brought it to them.

"There was never any mention of the council considering this issue and the only way it ever would be considered is if someone brought it up as an agenda item," Councilman Lee Alexius said in a heated email. "I don't see any council members doing that and if the mayor or police chief wanted to do so it would be acted on then. I repeat, it is not being considered by the council for implementation!"

Councilman Mark Sacco said he thought it was improper for the mayor to even bring up the proposal, in part because Buckels stated that any contract with Redflex would have to be a five-year contract.

"I don't think that this mayor or any mayor for that matter, in their last term outgoing, should look at doing a contract that extends beyond their term," Sacco said, referring to the fact the Watkins will not run for re-election next year. "The meeting is something we did at the request of the mayor. We didn't ask for it. We did it because she asked us to look into it."

"There are a lot of issues with this mobile speeding or red-light camera system, and it is just not something that I see beneficial right now," Sacco continued. "I am emphatically against it."
Sacco, along with other council members, said that speeding is a problem that would be better handled by the police department than cameras.

"Yeah, I think it should be handled by our police," Councilman Clarence Romage said. "I think it just needs to happen in house, with more aggressive tactics."

Romage, who said he is "150 percent against" the idea of speed or red-light cameras, said he'd investigated the matter before the meeting and came in already against it. In fact, he said he strolled in about 20 minutes late precisely because of that negative disposition.

Councilman Marty Benoit said he also arrived at the meeting with his mind already made up.

"I appreciate the presentation made at the work session by Mr. Buckels of RedFlex, but nothing was shown to change my view at this point," Benoit wrote in an email. "However, I am always willing to assess any new data or findings that may be presented for future consideration."

Council President Matt Faust said Thursday afternoon, "I am not in favor of turning Covington in ticket town USA. "I don't think we have a big enough problem that warrants automated ticket writing machines."

"We need to address budget issues separate from finding ways to raise money through speeding tickets," Faust added.

Faust said that if Palmisano "feels there is a particular area of town that has safety issues due to speeding then I wish he would come to us and give us those statistics so then we could make an informed decision on which is the best way to address the problem."

Councilwoman Francis Dunn did not attend the work session and in an email to the newspaper Thursday she did not state her position on the matter.
 

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/paradise-regained-election-day-signature-gathering/

Paradise Regained Election Day Signature Gathering
It’s time to bring the cameras down in Paradise Valley! The initiative paperwork will be filed for Paradise Valley this week which means it’s time for us to get out and start collecting signatures! For Paradise Valley we need about 1150 valid signatures.

Our plan is to gather most if not all of the signatures by getting signatures at polling places for the primary election on Aug 24, and we NEED your help! This will be the easiest and best opportunity to reach out to known-good, registered Paradise Valley voters.

IN ADDITION TO COLLECTING SIGNATURES – we will ask voters to collect signatures for us and give them signature sheets with instructions to mail in to us to help multiply our efforts.

Details are on the Meetup page. Please visit the page and RSVP ASAP! The $10 cost is OPTIONAL and helps pay for a petition gathering t-shirts.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3239.asp

(Ban the cams note:  We wonder if the town will "lower" the speed limit on I 95 for "safety" next to 55 mph.  They seem to think they are their own country.  It is only a matter of time before this gets in front of a court where the COURT WILL HAMMER the town!  The only question is how long before a judge gets to hear it.  Not long I suspect!)

8/23/2010
South Carolina: Renegade Mayor Issues Illegal Photo Tickets
Ridgeland, South Carolina issues photo tickets despite attorney general rulings finding the program violates state law.

The mayor of Ridgeland, South Carolina is taking a stand in defiance of a state law that bans the use of speed cameras anywhere in the state (view law http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3176.asp). Mayor Gary W. Hodges earlier this month began issuing speeding tickets based on evidence provided by an automated traffic system set up in a recreational vehicle parked on Interstate 95 despite warnings from lawmakers.

"The program is up and running," Hodges announced at an August 12 meeting. "There are those at various levels who think this is a bad thing -- I for the life of me can't figure out why people have a problem with this."

The automated speeding ticket issuance system is run by a for-profit company called iTraffic which was established by the founder of Nestor Traffic Systems, which went bankrupt last year. The company is hoping to use Ridgeland as a base to expand throughout the state. Both Hodges and iTraffic hope Ridgeland becomes the start of a trend.

"Once this system is up and running over the long term and it's picked up by other municipalities and counties across the state -- and there are four major ones that are looking at it right now, they just didn't want to get caught up in this publicity vacuum -- once it becomes a common thing as in Florida where they've had signs [that say] 'airplanes enforcing speeds' for years," Hodges said.

Hodges defended the iTraffic program against a number of complaints he has heard, including that the system is nothing more than a modern-day speed trap nabbing travelers making their way on a key north-south interstate route.

"It's a large van -- it's not a police car behind a tree or anything like that," Hodges said. "It's very obvious. It's clearly out in the open."

Residents, however, report the vehicle frequently parks below overpasses, and there are no warning signs placed in advance of the vehicle. Hodges lashed out at the state lawmakers, especially state Senator Larry Grooms and Representative J. Todd Rutherford who championed the law banning photo enforcement.

"We have a couple legislators, they're from other jurisdictions -- one's from Charleston, one from Columbia -- they're still meddling in our local issue down here," Hodges said. "They still do not know the facts."

Both lawmakers had written to state Attorney General Henry McMaster about the speed camera program. Hodges first learned that McMaster's office determined that Ridgeland's program was illegal from reading about the issue on TheNewspaper (view story http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3226.asp). He then attacked the ability of McMaster and his office to issue a proper legal finding. (Ban the cams note,  The mayor is really addicted to the potential cash, ain't he!)

"There's two recent attorney general opinions about this -- one late June, one early July -- we did not know this until yesterday," Hodges said. "I got it off this website that there were two fresh attorney general opinions dealing strictly with this issue in the town of Ridgeland... I thought it was pitiful that we got these off the Internet.... We've looked at them. They don't apply... It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It's just inadequate information based on an inadequate question asked."  (Ban the Cams, they "don't apply", makes you wonder what world this mayor is living in.  HE reminds me of those IRS Tax protesters who try to declare themeselves immune to the IRS).

Hodges vowed to press forward with his ticketing despite state pressure to terminate the program.

"Why not use technology to save some lives, and to help pay the bills of the town," Hodges said.  (Ban the cams note:  SAVE LIVES, YOU MEAN LIE to everyone don't you Mayor (IN UK recent reports are showing speed cameras CAUSED 28,000 more CRASHES!  http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/191443/Speed-cameras-may-have-caused-28-000-crashes   They only truthful statement you made was "pay the bills", which is why you did it!)

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=14688

Why it's right to challenge speed camera claims
Friday, August 20, 2010

 The public should be wary of claims of 'success' by the road safety industry regarding speed cameras – or 'safety cameras' as they prefer to call them, writes Malcolm Heymer, former highway engineer and traffic management adviser to the Association of British Drivers

When the Association of British Drivers (ABD) was formed in 1992, its founder members feared that the introduction of speed cameras would threaten the road safety culture that had given Britain the safest roads in the world. Events have shown those fears to be well founded.

The first cameras were installed where studies showed that high speeds had contributed to accidents. Subsequently, however, they became an automatic response to accident problems, regardless of their causes – a camera was often cheaper than an engineering solution. But the misuse of speed cameras really took off when the 'cost recovery' scheme was rolled out nationally in 2001. This enabled 'safety camera partnerships' to reclaim the costs of enforcement from the income raised by their cameras, which proliferated.

The cost recovery scheme incentivised empire building by the partnerships, which adopted the term 'safety camera' in an attempt to justify their activities. Creative accounting was used to increase the expenses reclaimed, and cameras were often sited where the most drivers could be caught exceeding the speed limit, rather than where accidents had occurred. Speeding penalties rocketed.

Allowing enforcement to be funded from fines was bound to lead to abuse, so the cost recovery scheme was terminated in 2007. But this did not mean the end for the camera partnerships, however, because they were still able to claim an annual grant from the Treasury.

Ever since cameras have been deployed in large numbers, the partnerships have claimed they have reduced accidents significantly. An evaluation of camera effectiveness, published in 2005, claimed a 42 per cent reduction in KSI (killed and seriously injured) casualties in the vicinity of cameras. Tucked away in an appendix to that report, however, is an evaluation of the 'regression-to-the-mean' effect (RTTM). Most cameras were installed after an upward blip in accident numbers, which would be expected to fall again to the long-term average, even without any action being taken. This is the RTTM effect, which was found to account for three-fifths of the headline claim!

In addition, there has been increasing under-reporting of non-fatal casualties in recent years, evidenced by comparison of official police figures with those from hospital admission records. With roughly 10 serious casualties to every fatality, the KSI trend is heavily influenced by the diminishing reporting of serious injuries. There is also the long-term trend of reducing road casualties. When all these factors are taken into account, the reduction due to cameras is small or non-existent.

While cameras have had little beneficial effect, even at camera sites, the fatality trend for Britain as a whole suggests they have been detrimental to road safety, as feared by the ABD's founder members.

From 1950 to 1995, the fatality rate per hundred billion vehicle-kilometres (which allows for fluctuating rates of traffic growth) fell at a remarkably consistent 7 per cent per year. The rate over the subsequent 11 years, the height of the speed camera era, fell to a third of that.

The adverse effects of cameras are not just the obvious ones, like a driver braking sharply on seeing a camera. Far more serious is the excessive focus on speed limit enforcement, which sends the subliminal message that rigidly observing speed limits is the key to being a safe driver. This is not the case – drivers must take responsibility for adjusting their speed to the conditions, sometimes slowing to well below the speed limit.

At the same time as cameras were proliferating, many speed limits were being lowered. International experience shows that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile level – the speed that 85 per cent of drivers would not exceed anyway – to achieve maximum compliance, the smoothest traffic flow, the lowest spread of speeds and minimum accident frequency. Speed limits set below this level lead to poor compliance, bunching of traffic and frustration, resulting in more accidents.

Many speed cameras, both fixed and mobile, are deployed to catch people exceeding speed limits where they are unreasonably low and no danger is caused. Average speed cameras do nothing to stop drivers going too fast at danger spots, while forcing them to drive unnecessarily slowly elsewhere. The use of vehicle-activated signs, which flash a warning if drivers approach a hazard at too high a speed, are a much cheaper and more effective solution than speed cameras at genuine high-risk sites.

It is notable how quickly many local authorities have decided to reduce or abandon their use of speed cameras in the face of budget restraints, suggesting they were not convinced of their effectiveness anyway. The vested interests in the road safety 'industry' are predictably forecasting carnage on the roads, but there is no evidence to support this view. The ABD hopes that the demise of speed cameras will turn out to be a rare silver lining to the cloud of recession.
 

http://www.cleveland.com/roadrant/index.ssf/2010/08/most_school_zone_signs_earn_a.html

Most school zone signs earn a grade of incomplete: Road Rant
Published: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 8:00 AM     Updated: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 4:37 PM
 John Horton, The Plain Dealer

Ohio BMVTwenty mile-per-hour school zone speed limits return to many neighborhoods this week during "restricted hours." What times would that be? Oh, that's going to require an educated guess, folks.

Most towns don't share that little tidbit of information with motorists to help keep the kiddos safe as they walk to class.

They don't have to, either. State law specifically says no special notice of hours must be posted. (What about flashing lights, which also can give drivers a heads-up to slow down? Those are optional, too.)

Lawmakers did manage to provide a vague guideline for school zone hours, setting it as times "during school recess and while children are going to or leaving school during the opening or closing hours."

Camera-issued speeding tickets show that East Cleveland aggressively enforces the 20 mph speed virtually all day in front of the city's schools. (A police department representative, however, said the reduced speed is only in effect during 11/2-hour periods in the morning and afternoon. She couldn't explain the citations issued outside of those hours.)

Parma considers the 20 mph limit in effect during arrival and dismissal times plus lunch and recess, according to the city's photo enforcement program coordinator. Road Rant asked for specific hours for at least a single school. That information was not provided given the apparent complexity of the answer.

The issue's not that difficult in Beachwood, though. A motorist passing the community's high school on Fairmount Boulevard sees an easy-to-read sign specifying 20 mph school zone hours in the morning (7:15 to 9:30 a.m.) and afternoon (2:15 to 4 p.m.) Similar notices stand around other public schools in the city, police Commander Patrick Sullivan said.

"If the goal is to protect the children," Sullivan said, "why wouldn't we tell you?"

Exactly.

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/scam-vans-caught-speeding-running-red-lights/

Scam Vans Caught Speeding, Running Red Lights

Racing to the scene of the next potential lucrative revenue stream, ACS photo vans were caught speeding and running red lights
Not to be outdone by American Traffic Solutions and their City of Mesa traffic law scofflaw caught last week by CameraFRAUD volunteers http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/ats-van-caught-speeding-failing-to-signal/ , it appears Denver’s fleet of scam vans are driven with even more wreckless impunity.

Employees driving the surveillance instruments were caught speeding, parking illegally, and running a red light by KWGN, the local FOX affiliate.  http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=camerafraud.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2thedeuce.com%2Fnews%2Fkdvr-photo-radar-vans-park-illegally-txt%2C0%2C1223864.story&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fcamerafraud.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F08%2F20%2Fscam-vans-caught-speeding-running-red-lights%2F  or http://www.2thedeuce.com/news/kdvr-photo-radar-vans-park-illegally-txt,0,1223864.story

Denver’s racket is run by Affiliated Computer Services, a government-contracting conglomerate that also dabbles in the lucrative field of extortion by mail and fraud by deception— otherwise known as automated ticketing.

ACS was purchased by Xerox last year, and some believe that IBM

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3231.asp

UK, France: Speed Cameras Burned, Smashed
UK speed cameras burned while French speed cameras fail to prevent accidents and get hammered.

Speed cameras in Buckinghamshire, England have been attacked so many times that officials have spent £28,358 (US $44,215) on repairs in the past twelve months, according to Mix96 radio.

The automated ticketing machine on the A41 was hit on July 27, 2009 for £8050 (US $12,551) in damages. The Elmhurst Road camera was hit December 12, 2009 for £8150 (US $12,707). The Aylesbury Road camera was hit three times between November 10, 2009 and February 24, 2010 for £4373 (US $6818) in repairs. The Slough Road camera was hit March 17 for £323 in damages (US $503). the Beaconsfield Road camera was hit May 6 for £7462 (US $11634) in damages. No damage estimate is yet available for the August 10 attack on a Wycombe Road camera.

A speed camera in Jura, France was left as a pile of wreckage after it failed to stop a collision at 8:20am on Thursday. The device had been busy issuing tickets on the RN83 when a driver swerved into the guardrail to avoid hitting another car. The swerving vehicle ended up slamming into the radar, which left three injured, Le Progres reported.

In Unac, France a pair of British citizens attacked a speed camera Monday night, La Depeche reported. While smashing the device, a police car arrived and caught the pair who were given suspended sentences and community service.
 

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/redflex-exposed-aus-medias-field-day/

(VIDEO HERE:   http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/video/#de39a4da-7367-4852-b6b6-83213d00c843  (BAN THE CAMS NOTE:  WATCH THIS VIDEO!  ENDING IS OUTSTANDING!)

Australian Media Slams Redflex

It’s hard to find a mainstream media piece as perfect as this one. Enjoy the video and post your comments below.

Good: The lovely Tracy Grimshaw of A Current Affair asks the question of automated ticketing: “Life savers or just revenue raising cash cows?” CameraFRAUD as well as FireRedflex.com are mentioned in the story.

Better:

Quotes from the video: ”Governments all around the world are in a lot of debt, they have to raise more money, and what better place to raise money than from penalties and speeding fines.”

“The cars are unmarked and there’s no warning sign until after you’ve driven past, and even then it’s tiny.”

REPORTER: “What do you do to pass the time when you’re sitting in here?”

REDFLEX DRIVER: “We watch the instrument.”

REPORTER: “And you need all three of you in here to do that?”

REDFLEX DRIVER: “That’s correct… at the moment…”

Best: The closing video of the UK show ‘Top Gear’ using a vehicle-mounted rocket launcher to take out a Gatso scam cam.

Ban the Cams note:  Don't expect this to last too long.  The legislature BANNED PHOTO ENFORCEMENT THIS YEAR by a WIDE MARGIN!  I wonder how long before the SC Goverment PUTS THE KIBOSH on it!  Bets anyone?????

I just goes to show HOW ADDICTIVE PHOTO ENFORCEMENT IS. Photo Enforcement really is the DRUG ADDICTION OF TOWNS!  The town can deny all day long they want, this photo enforcement scam is being done for CASH!  Time for INTERVENTION BY THE STATE!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3226.asp

8/10/2010
South Carolina: Town Defies State Law Banning Traffic Cameras
Ridgeland, South Carolina begins speed camera program in direct defiance of state law and two attorney general rulings.

Ridgeland, South Carolina wants to deploy a speed camera to ticket out-of-state drivers as they pass through the seven-mile stretch of interstate within the tiny town's limits. The plan angered the state legislature to such a degree that it unanimously enacted legislation in June to prohibit photo enforcement -- except during declared state emergencies (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3176.asp). The Ridgeland town council refused to back down.

"As of yesterday, the iTraffic system is up and running," Mayor Gary W. Hodges said last Tuesday. "We are going to make this community so that when people come through here on I-95... they know they're going to be safe... Whatever we need to do as this evolves, we're going to do it."

The town council unanimously voted to use $16,000 in drug interdiction funds to purchase the used vehicle that the for-profit firm iTraffic will use to generate citations. Bill Danzell set up iTraffic in Ridgeland after his previous photo enforcement venture, Nestor Traffic Systems, went bankrupt. The new venture looks to target the estimated 1000 vehicles that pass through the town's 70 MPH zone at 81 MPH or more -- enough to generate $40 million.

"About the money," Hodges said. "I want everyone to rest assured that the town handles the money from the citations. The town and the town alone handles the money. So please keep that in mind."

The problem that Hodges faces is that, since 1996, state Attorney General Henry McMaster and his predecessors have made it clear that photo enforcement is illegal in South Carolina (view opinion). A specific law was enacted in June for the explicit purpose of prohibiting the mayor's plan. State Senator Larry Grooms wrote to McMaster asking whether iTraffic and Ridgeland were violating the law by using certified mail to send speeding tickets to photographed drivers. The attorney general's office responded on June 28 that under the new law, this is not allowed under any circumstances.

"Moreover, as specified in R. 312, '[a] person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation,'" McMaster wrote ( view opinion, 61k PDF file). "There is no provision for use of certified mail in such circumstances."

Read more: SC TOWN BREAKS STATE LAW OUTLAWING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT, puts Speed Cameras on I-95

Ban the Cams:  Another Town trying to use any technicality to STOP THE PUBLIC FROM VOTING!  What happen to all those "polls" that claimed that people "supported" scameras?????  I guess those POLLS WERE A LIE!  OTHERWISE YOU WOULD LET THE PUBLIC VOTE!

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunmessenger/2010/08/law_director_tells_south_eucli.html

Law director tells South Euclid traffic camera group it is doesn't have enough petition signatures
Published: Saturday, August 07, 2010, 12:06 PM
 Jeff Piorkowski, Sun News
 

It’s a case of petition déjà vu in South Euclid.
Last week, for the second Time in the same week, Law Director Michael Lograsso declared that there were not enough valid signatures on petitions to put a charter change attempt on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.
The first time involved a petition drive on the part of the political action committee Citizens for Accountable government, who want voters to decide whether City Council can ever again change the income tax credit allowed residents who work outside of South Euclid.
Later in the week, Lograsso said a drive by those seeking to eliminate traffic cameras in South Euclid fell short of valid signatures.
Clerk of Council Keith Benjamin said that of 544 signatures that were turned in by the traffic camera group, 419 were valid.
That 419 amount seemed like more than enough for the drive’s organizer, Grant McCallum, who is of the belief that only 251 valid signatures are needed, as 251 represents 10 percent of those who voted in the last mayoral election in 2007.
As he did in the matter resolving the tax credit, Lograsso’s legal opinion is that because the traffic camera group is attempting to make a charter change — it wants to add a 14th article to the city’s charter banning traffic cameras — that 10 percent of the city’s total registered electorate must sign a petition.
Lograsso said that 1,640 valid signatures must accompany the ballot request.
“These are elected officials who are sworn by oath to uphold the city charter,” Benjamin said of any suspicion on the part of petition signers that the city doesn’t want the issue on the ballot. “That’s our city’s constitution.
“If it (the petition drive) was done like our charter says it must be done, nobody would have any problem with putting it on the ballot.”
Lograsso sent a letter to McCallum dated July 30 in which the law director points to Article 11 of the city charter in which it is stated that “not less than 10 percent of the registered electors of the city, setting forth any proposed amendment to the charter,” must sign the petitions.
McCallum points to the Ohio Constitution, Article 18, Section 9, to back his belief that the 251 signatures were all that was necessary.
McCallum said he sent a letter Friday to Lograsso asking that the law director examine the Ohio Constitution and then give another legal opinion on the ballot matter.
“We want this to go on the November ballot,” McCallum said.
The petition group, according to McCallum, had no trouble getting residents to sign their petition against the traffic cameras. The group is being guided in its efforts by the Cincinnati-based organization COAST, which has successfully fought the implementation of traffic cameras in other Ohio cities.

Read more: South Euclid trying to DENY A VOTE by the PUBLIC on TRAFFIC CAMERAS!

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/new-study-speed-cameras-cause-bad-driving-increase-crashes/

New Study: Speed Cameras Cause Bad Driving, Increase Crashes

We’ve known since they first appeared, but now it’s official: Speed cameras cause bad driving. A recent poll by UK car insurance provider Liverpool Victoria, 81% of drivers said they looked at the speedometer instead of the road when a camera appeared, and 5% admitted to braking suddenly when in sight of a camera. Liverpool Victoria managing director John O’Roarke was quoted as saying, “…while they may reduce speed they also appear to impair driving ability or, at the least, concentration on the road. As this report shows some drivers behave erratically and, at worst, dangerously around speed cameras.”

(poll:  http://www.lv.com/media_centre/news/news?detailid=3428 )

We agree, as free-flowing traffic with driver’s attention on the road is safer than having even a small portion of drivers distracted and driving erratically.

In another report, Express.co.uk reports that cameras have caused 28,000 lives in the UK over the pas 10 years, as cameras have been cited as the official cause of 1% of all accidents.  http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/191443/Speed-cameras-may-have-caused-28-000-crashes

To prove the point that the opposite is true – that removing cameras reduces accidents – the Telegraph reported Saturday on newly reduced data from Swindon (UK). Swindon turned off their cameras 9 months ago, and similar to Arizona, experts predicted a bloodbath. Redflex’s Shoba Vaitheeswaran predicted, “…watch for a large increase in aggressive, dangerous driving” after Arizona ended its statewide contract. Instead, the opposite has happened. Since the cameras were turned off, injury and fatality crashes were down by 4% and 50% respectively in the entire area. At the camera sites themselves, fatalities dropped from 1 to 0 and non-injury accidents dropped from 13 to 12. We expect similar results in Arizona.

Governor Brewer: Helps us improve road safety here. Let us vote on photo enforcement!