Parked Car Gets Multiple Speed Camera Tickets

from the yeah,-those-work-great dept

Fri, Jan 22nd 2010 6:37pm — Mike Masnick

We've seen all sorts of problems with speed cameras -- like the time one clocked a brick wall traveling 58 MPH (watch out!). It seems that they've got a problem with stationary objects. Reader Marshall points us to a story of a guy who parks his car on a road equipped with a speed camera and has received two speeding tickets while his car was parked. Don't you feel safer now?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: parked cars, speed cameras

79 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 6:39pm

"We've seen all sorts of problems with speed cameras -- like the time one clocked a brick wall traveling 58 MPH (watch out!)."

Well, technically speaking, as the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun the brick wall is moving along with the Earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 6:54pm
  
  Re:
  At over 1000 mph. Or 0 mph relative to the camera (which is what it is supposed to be measuring).
  
  I accidentally beat one of these tickets many years ago. Like IP laws, speed limits are screwy because they are strict liability. If you have a good reason for exceeding the limit and it is not dangerous to do so (ie - conditions permit,) then you should not be ticketed for it. Cameras do a bad job of assessing such things. Cops are not perfect, but they beat cameras.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, I don't know about your state but here in California the state speed limit is 65. Anything below that is recommended and, yes, under safe conditions even if the posted speed limit is like 35 and you went 45, you might be able to get away with it if you can argue that it was safe for you to do so. But no matter what, on the freeway or on the side streets, you can not legally go above 65 miles per hour (though I believe cops must give like a 5 mile per hour buffer?).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pugs, 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't know about in the US, but here in Northern Ireland it's a monnon rule of thumb to use a 10%+1 buffer to speed limits, so in a 60mph area they won't stop you unless your doing over 67mph (in the same way, 40mph => 45mph).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Brooks (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, that is true in the U.S. as well. In fact, most states only require speedometer calibration to within 10%. If you start ticketing at 2% over the limit, you're getting to the area where overinflated (or even slightly larger) tires cause even the most law-abiding to speed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In fact, most states only require speedometer calibration to within 10%.
        
        According to what I once heard a Texas judge tell a defendant in court, speedometer error is no defense, you don't even have to have a speedometer, and you're responsible for your speed anyway.
        
        If you start ticketing at 2% over the limit, you're getting to the area where overinflated (or even slightly larger) tires cause even the most law-abiding to speed.
        
        If you're speeding, you're not really law-abiding, are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If your car is parked, on the other hand . . . .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2010 @ 5:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Still your fault apparently
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ed smith, 23 Jan 2010 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You forget that speedometers go by tire revolutions per mile. Just because a tire is sized 205/60/15 doesn't mean that all tires of that size will be the exact same diameter. Each tire maker is slightly different, sometimes by as much as half an inch. What about tires that are half worn? They are shorter. What about a slightly taller tire for better off-road performance? All these factors effect your speedometer reading. There has to be some amount of leeway in the readings. My truck is brand new and totally stock... NO modifications. The speedometer is still off by about 4 MPH. I can be going 49 and the cop will see 45 on his radar gun. Get your facts straight before you make yourself look stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris, 23 Jan 2010 @ 5:47pm
        
        "then your not really law-abiding, are you"
        "if your speeding then your not really law abiding then, are you"
        
        This must be either a cop.... or a judge.
        
        All speed limits are made as a recomended safe speed by engineer's with a margin or error accounted for. I dont know about other states, but in florida its a 15% margin. so really all posted speeds are at 85% of the recomended safe speed.(supposedly) so even at 17.65% (85% of 100 = 85. 117.65% of 85 = 100) over the posted speed limit you are just reaching the recommended safe speed of the engineers.
        
        Not to mention in my area, we have many cash cow streets in which the main roads have a posted speed limit lower than that of the neighborhoods(with driveways and kids in the streets) that criss cross them. I'd like to see the theory there. and the motorcycle(traffic) cops are always radar'ing on those streets.
        
        Even if your breaking the law(within reason) you are still perfectly safe. And isn't that the whole purpose of the law, its not our fault we have over protective parents (BIG BROTHER) to tell us that we need to operate not only safe, but within a margin of safety. Which i'm sure they developed with some leeway due to over inflated tires and speedo error. so the law in florida does dictate some leeway and generally cops give it to you. I'd be surprised if the judge was correct in Texas. Thats the problem with judges, its to there discretion to interpret the law, thats why you can appeal and see a different judge, but the issue with that is your 150$ ticket can end up costing you several hundred dollars in lawyer fees and that doesn't even count lost time at work... My opinion on traffic law...its a faulty system at best.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colg, 24 Jan 2010 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you're speeding, you're not really law-abiding, are you?"
        
        By that standard no one is law-abiding.
        The most conscientious driver will exceed the limit
        on occasion through imperfection mechanical or human.
        
        Even someone that intentionally speeds by a few MPH can operate within the spirit of the law while breaking it's letter.
        
        The former case is certainly law abiding
        The latter is open to interpretation but most officers seem
        to agree.
        
        As Officer Steve Pomper wrote in "Is there a problem officer?":
        
        "During the course of an eight to twelve hour shift, officers witness dozens of minor traffic violations. an officer can't possibly stop them all. Why? because a patrol officer's main duty is to remain clear to handle 911 emergency calls. They can't be tied up doing traffic stops all day long. And another thing: Most officers don't feel they have the moral authority to enforce the traffic code to that extreme, because even cops are guilty of minor traffic indiscretions from time to time. Let's face it, we violate some minor law almost every time we get behind the wheel. With so many traffic laws on the books, just try to drive for five minutes without breaking one. Just within the Seattle Municipal Code refrence sheet I carry with me (which doesn't contain all the infractions), I counted 334 traffic laws available for you to violate while driving.
        
        I guess by your standards everyone that drives is a scofflaw.
        
        Colg
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 5:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The "grace" margin varies by police department. When we organized a neighborhood watch in our Northern Cal community, a police officer came out to speak to our group. One of our concerns was speeding teenagers through our neighborhood (it was a "shortcut" to the local high school that by-passed a few traffic signals) due to a number of small children in our neighborhood. The posted speed limit was 25 mph. Someone asked what the grace margin was and we were informed that our local pd ticketed on 11 mph over. 36 mph seemed overly generous in a 25 mph neighborhood, but there was still a significant number of drivers going well over 36 mph so a few days of enforcement really helped. BTW, to put the problem in perspective, this was a narrow, tree-lined, two block long residential street without any lines painted on it whatsoever and cars parked on the street on non-street-sweeping days.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Peet McKimmie (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Cops are not perfect, but they beat cameras.
    
    Not just cameras. (Ask Rodney King!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bubba Gump (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:20pm
  
  Re:
  If you really want to go down that path, you have to consider how fast the sun is moving around the galactic center, how fast the galaxy is moving away from the center of the universe, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  lol yea, you know what else is moving along with the earth? the speed camera...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mmkay, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  But the camera is rotating at the same speed as the brick wall if both are stationary along with the rotation of the earth so the speed check should still be 0mph for the brick wall in this scenario.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  The brick wall should get a ticket.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As should the maker of that brick wall.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 5:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's his fault for making a brick wall on wheels, what can I say.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 5:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, the driver of the brick wall should get the ticket. But if the driver isn't the owner then both might be able to get away with it if the owner claims that the driver lives in another country and gives no information on how to track the driver.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- smart guy, 24 Jan 2010 @ 9:57pm
  
  Re:
  with the camera also moving at the same speed and therefore no difference would be indicated by the radar gun
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2010 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  that is rubbish. rot.rotrotrot
  love taylor
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:36pm

Missing data
the story lacks some data that would put this all in perspective. The simple question is "how many valid tickets are issued by this device?"

While it is unfortunate for Mr Buck ( and likely his plate is now tagged in the system for this camera ), I am confident that the vast majority of the tickets issued are valid, and that the presence of such as device (bright yellow and easy to see) has had the desired effects of lowering speed in that particular area.

I guess because mistakes are occasionally made that the entire system should be tossed out, regardless of any positive effects that might happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zeke, 22 Jan 2010 @ 7:56pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  I think you missed the point. Nothing in the article suggests the whole system should be tossed - only that when you rely on a system without human oversight you sometimes get anomalous results. Somewhere in the process there needs to someone who can make a judgment call and say 'this makes no sense.'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Griff (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: Missing data
    Zeke, you got that 180 degree wrong.
    
    The camera did exactly what it should - took a picture of a speeding car (with a stationary car also in the picture). It was the human oversight that failed - the human weak link misinterpreted which car in the picture was the speeding car.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wvpatuser (profile), 24 Jan 2010 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re: Missing data
    I think you are right and this is indeed the case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:03pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  Define 'valid'. Is that before or after they lowered the yellow light timing below legal limits? Is it less accurate than a human? What about the positive effects of Mike's mom?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:05pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  "I guess because mistakes are occasionally made that the entire system should be tossed out, regardless of any positive effects that might happen."
  
  I saw you make a post once without a straw man in it. I guess that was just because you were too busy telling us to FOAD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Anti-Mike (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Missing data
    Stinky troll bait. Go away troll.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      If you want to keep the trolling all to yourself, you'll have to lobby the government to create Troll IP so you can sue all the other trolls.
      
      Also, thanks for getting back to the whiny insults. But stinky still doesn't have quite as much punch as FOAD, so try harder next time, k?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      "Does your mommy know you're using the internet this late?" - TAM
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Me, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  Bright Yellow?
  
  LOL - What country do you live in? They are increasingly grey and barely noticeable - some states don't even require notification that they exist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Anti-Mike (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 10:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Missing data
    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01395/speed-camera_1395979c.jpg
    
    Looks pretty darn yellow to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Jan 2010 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      Up here in the north eastern part of the states (PA, OH, MD, WV, NY where I travel most) I have not seen one yellow speeding camera. I have seen plenty of cameras, but none of them yellow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OMG - yer screwed up, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:45pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  "While it is unfortunate for Mr Buck"
  
  Yep, what a shame. According to Mr Anti Mikme, the end justifies the means.
  
  Get those dang perps no matter what ... it takes. Collateral damage is acceptable if it does not affect Mr. Anti Mike or his "friends".
  
  Mr. Anti Mike lives in a strange world where the good for a few (him and his friends) out weighs the rights of the many (everyone else). In this world anything goes - if it means that the rightous have been served.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dorp, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:54pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  I am confident that the vast majority of the tickets issued are valid, and that the presence of such as device (bright yellow and easy to see) has had the desired effects of lowering speed in that particular area.
  
  As usual, you try to twist reality. The theoretical desired effect is not to lower speed in the particular 100 foot stretch of the road overseen by the camera, but to lower the speed on the streets while maintaining safe conditions. There has been no proof that the speed cameras do either of those.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - taoareyou (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: Missing data
    The desired effect is to generate revenue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2010 @ 10:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      Yup, and I'm pretty sure we all agree that they work very well indeed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:00pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  There's nothing missing here. No cries to trash the system, no knee-jerk reactionary statements about how bad it all is. Merely pointing out that these cameras have issues is not the same as what you suggest.
  
  I guess because it's Mike making the post, it has to be bad, and wrong, and shouted down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Anti-Mike (profile), 22 Jan 2010 @ 10:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Missing data
    No, sorry, but you are wrong.
    
    Taken by itself, the post is just about how one unlucky guy stupid enough to keep parking his can in the camera's direct line of site has gotten a couple of misdirected tickets (out of how many issued, we don't know).
    
    Taken as part of the Techdirt website, it is another one of Mike's kicks at automated identification, tracking systems, and the like. The logic? If a police officer looking at a still image can't figure out which car is speeding, how can an ISP tell which user is file sharing illegally?
    
    The fail is that humans (and machines) are not entirely perfect, but that in the vast majority of cases, they are right. Mr Buck got a couple of misdirected speeding tickets, and a printer got a copyright violation notice. Rather than note all the correctly directed tickets or correctly directed violation notices, Mike chooses to work the exceptions as if they are the rule.
    
    You really do need to step back and understand the underlying themes of Techdirt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James, 22 Jan 2010 @ 11:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      Actually, its sound like you're taking a bit personally. The article seems to be a commentary on the state of affairs that "seem" to affect red light cameras (e.g. Ticketing of a brick wall).
      
      The fail in your point is that you seem to believe these devices are a legitimate means to an end, instead of the revenue generating devices they appear to be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Anti-Mike (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 3:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing data
        James, there is no denying that speed and redlight cameras are often as much about generating income as they are about increasing safety. Sadly, too many jurisdictions see them are cash cows and not what they are really good for, which is changing the way the public behaves.
        
        These sorts of cameras have been around for a long time in the UK (I got snapped by one on the highway up to Edinburgh about 10 or so years ago). Painting them bright yellow and making them obvious is pretty much making it clear that it isn't just about money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing data
        Tammy, your mom is all about money. She does offer a nice recession discount though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 7:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing data
        Anti-Mike, feel free to drive through Arizona, you'll see that are actually camo colored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bassmadrigal (profile), 24 Jan 2010 @ 11:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing data
        In my experience in Germany, the speed cameras don't do anything to help safety. All it means, is in the areas where we know there is a camera, we slow down right before we get to the camera and then speed right back up once we pass it. Then there are those people who right as they see the cameras, they lock up their brakes. I have seen a few accidents happen because of that.
        
        All the cameras do, is make people slow down within a couple hundred yards of where the camera is at. Now if they were to set up an temporary camera 1/2 mile past the original one occasionally, then they would realize how many people slow down for just the camera and then go right back to speeding.
        
        I'm all for trying to find ways to make people drive more safely, but from everything I have seen while living in Germany, speed cameras don't provide that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      "If a police officer looking at a still image can't figure out which car is speeding, how can an ISP tell which user is file sharing illegally?"
      
      I'm sorry, I must have missed the bit where Mike said, implied, alluded to, or referenced file sharing in this post. Could you please point it out?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Drew (profile), 25 Jan 2010 @ 12:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing data
      I love this line here:
      
      "...the post is just about how one unlucky guy stupid enough to keep parking his can in the camera's direct line of site..."
      
      I am guessing your argument is 'How foolish of the man to park in front of his own house when he knows darn well that he could be wrongfully ticketed?' So he parks in front of his house and because of where they setup the camera he should jump through hoops to ensure he does not get wrongfully ticketed? I believe that sums up your mis-guided argument quite well. Maybe you would like a police officer to follow your car when you drive and pull you over for each infraction that a different car does?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:03pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  "I am confident that the vast majority of the tickets issued are valid, and that the presence of such as device (bright yellow and easy to see) has had the desired effects of lowering speed in that particular area."
  
  Notice the appeal to his own confidence/authority.
  
  Call me a skeptic, but your mere confidence is not enough to convince me of anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Missing data
  "how many valid tickets are issued by this device?"
  
  ZERO!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2010 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  "I guess because mistakes are occasionally made that the entire system should be tossed out, regardless of any positive effects that might happen."
  
  That is exactly correct. You were being sarcastic and that just goes to demonstrate how stupid you really are. It's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished.
  
  This country was founded on freedom, not the "common good".
  Everyone bitches left right and center about communism when it comes to health care, but when it comes to fundamental rights no one seems to give a shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Drew (profile), 25 Jan 2010 @ 12:48am
  
  Re: Missing data
  "...I am confident that the vast majority of the tickets issued are valid, and that the presence of such as device (bright yellow and easy to see) has had the desired effects of lowering speed in that particular area."
  
  I see people like you still use your own thoughts, instead of facts or studies to back up what you say. What should concern everyone is that traffics laws were designed for a person (a Police Officer) to witness an infraction taking place and then enforce the law. When you start down the dark path of letting machines police humans then you are taking 'human judgement' out of the equation, I fear for your society to come into being.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MCR, 25 Jan 2010 @ 6:42am
  
  Re: Missing data
  How can you be confident that the "vast majority" of tickets issued are valid? As you stated, there's no mention of how many valid tickets are issued. You're making an assumption based on the same incomplete data as everyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- American for freedom, 25 Jan 2010 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: Missing data
  Regardless of how many valid tickets are issued, our country's justice system was founded on the principle that it is better to set 100 guilty people free rather than convict one single innocent individual for a crime they did not commit. This automated system not only is demonstrated as wrongly indicting law-abiding citizens, but is also more commonly seen as being something that can not be argued with, even when it is wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- teh learned, 26 May 2010 @ 9:54am
  
  Re: Missing data
  exactly, its just like AIDS. Why would we try to get rid of it just because it has a few problems. Look at the great job its doing at culling the gene pool, that should count for something right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 8:51pm

A new record?
Took less than 10 posts for the thread to descend to childish name calling. Nice.

To answer one of the earlier posts, I'll bet the ratio of legit tickets to bad tickets is about the same as the ratio of crap posts to good ones.

I've even made up some data to support that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:27pm
  
  Re: A new record?
  TAM does bring out the troll in people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 22 Jan 2010 @ 9:52pm

Misdirected Blame?
The proofreading process is clearly somewhat flawed, but if the man will insist on parking his car underneath the damn thing then he's only got himself to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- yikes, 23 Jan 2010 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: Misdirected Blame?
  You couldn't be more wrong.
  Think about it and then return with some valid points to discuss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jake, 23 Jan 2010 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re: Misdirected Blame?
    I'm not saying he deserved to be hit with the fines, but parking in shot of the speed camera, inside the 'capture zone' or whatever it's called? That's going to mess with the reading. There are generally road markings telling you not to park there, in fact.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: Misdirected Blame?
  Or I dunno... maybe the state... knowing it has flawed cameras... should mark off that location as illegal parking. The person parking in a perfectly good parking spot is not to blame.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabbit80, 23 Jan 2010 @ 2:28am

Just to clear some confusion for our American friends...

Speed cameras in England have to be painted (or marked) yellow and be clearly visible. The cameras take 2 pictures with a 0.5 second interval between them. There are also markings on the road to identify scale and distance travelled between the photos. These photos are then verified by hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  "These photos are then verified by hand."
  
  Apparently, that step was skipped in this case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pesti, 23 Jan 2010 @ 8:56am

Officials here in Calif held a press conference extolling the monetary virtues of this orwellian device. Money for a broke state, keeping us safer, barely alluded to..go figure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:11am

This ranks tight up there with the Opel clocked doing north of 300km/h when in fact the radar gun had picked up an RAF tornado blasting through the valley on a low level training run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:21am

Speeding ticket from cameras
Is this Rush Limbaugh (Rash Limburger) or Mike Masnick? I don't approve of the cameras, but printing something sent you as the truth without checking it out, or at least stating that this is an unverified story, belongs to Rash. He may sue you for copyright infringement ;>)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2010 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: Speeding ticket from cameras
  Maybe you missed the painfully obvious link to the telegraph website... or maybe you didn't read the story at all and merely wanted to spout idiocies as a part of your morning routine... but when a newspaper publishes quotations from the local police admitting this occurred as claimed it is pretty reasonable to believe it happened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2010 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re: Speeding ticket from cameras
    ... or maybe you didn't read the story at all and merely wanted to spout idiocies as a part of your morning routine...
    
    Typical Gene Cavanaugh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Urza9814, 23 Jan 2010 @ 12:35pm

Visible?
What state do you people live in where these things are visible? Bright yellow? Signs pointing them out? Here in PA they go out of their way to make them _not_ visible. Hell I've seen cameras mounted on the back of traffic lights. They'll hide them behind signs, behind bushes, on the back side of an overpass...anywhere they can so you won't see them. Is pointing them out a west coast thing maybe? Because I've never seen one pointed out or made visible in any way - but I don't spend much time any further west than Ohio, so maybe it's something they do out west...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Peet McKimmie (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re: Visible?
  Actually, in the UK, they make all the cameras highly visible, but don't put film in all of them all of the time. Just having the flash go off is sufficient of a deterrent for most purposes. Up here in the |NE of Scotland, at least a couple of years ago, I'm told that fewer than one camera in three actually had film in it.
  
  (This refers to cameras out in the countryside. The ones in the cities all have film all the time, as they are the real "cash cows".)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ed smith, 23 Jan 2010 @ 1:02pm

Statistics prove that intersections with speed cameras are more dangerous than those with no cameras. People lock up the brakes on a yellow light, and end up getting rear-ended by the semi-truck barreling behind them. Here is an idea for traffic light reform, straight out of my manifesto (you know, just in case I ever have the opportunity to take over the world)

1. All yellow lights will last for a period of 5 seconds EXACTLY.

2. There shall be a period of 3 seconds when ALL lights are red during the transition period. This way, if someone still runs the light, nobody will be coming through the intersection.

3. ALL traffic lights, regardless of location will be on a traffic sensor instead of a timer. No more red light at an empty intersection at 3 am in the middle of nowhere delaying you for 5+ minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Falindraun (profile), 23 Jan 2010 @ 1:36pm

When it comes to radar speed guns, the farther you are away from the camera the less likely you are the object that belongs to the speed shown on the gun. The main power portion of the beem from an average radar gun has a circular diameter of 12 degrees to 18 degrees. Using simple geometry at 100 feet that beem is 30 feet wide (thats using a 'side angle side' geometric algorithim using 2 sides of 100 feet long and an angle of 12 degrees). The portion of the beem that is not in the main power portion of the beem is still an area of influence. Which meens if a oh for example a bird flys through that area of influence or even the main power portion of the beem and that cop has his gun set to tag the fastest moving object that he will tag the bird and not you or that tree moving in the breese or anything else really. Also unless the cop is aiming his gun with you comming directly at him it is also inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2010 @ 1:24am

There are many red light cameras and speed cameras in the city that I live in, I was for a short period of time responsible for replacing a few of them for my work, I have been in a few conversations with the designers in trouble shooting scenarios. The New cameras I helped install have no physical film, instead they are digital and send the digital photo to a computer, which automatically "identifies" the perpetrator, reads the licence plate, and prints the ticket to be mailed. (with absolutely 0% interaction or verification by any officers or persons of any kind. (unless you contest the ticket). To top that off the cameras are very stealthy, small, grey, with the only requirement being a sign no smaller than 12x18 to be posted within 200 feet of the intersection stating that a camera is in use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that_id (profile), 24 Jan 2010 @ 5:05am

I guarantee that this was an issue where the camera was picking up image/radar reflected off of the paint of the parked car of speeding cars passing by.
Solution: drive your car through mud before parking it in a speed trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
303Rick, 24 Jan 2010 @ 9:25am

Speed Cameras
In New South Wales, Australia, speed cameras are very common. The motorists are notified for 3 kilometers before the camera, and every half kilometer as you approach the camera with enormous, highly visible billboards. One would thing that the notifications would render the cameras obsolete. But in many of the Shires,Ballina for instance, the cameras are the communities largest money makers, contributing millions of dollars every year to the coffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2010 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Speed Cameras
  and hence the true purpose of the cameras, it has less to do with safety and more to do with revenue generation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sos, 24 Jan 2010 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Speed Cameras
  As opposed to Western Australia where black painted Multanova cameras are hidden behind bins, signs, trees, parked cars and bus stops with zero notification or warning.
  
  And in Victoria where you recieve a $150 fine for doing 63kph in a 60kph zone. Robbery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math Fail, 24 Jan 2010 @ 11:00pm

Re: Relative speed
Since the camera and the car are not likely to be the same distance from the axis of rotation, wouldn't the one that is further away technically be covering more distance in a period of time than the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 25 Jan 2010 @ 7:22am

Solution
Place a large sign in the window every time the car is parked stating "This Car Is Parked"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthony, 22 Mar 2011 @ 5:41am

Re:Parked Car Gets Multiple Speed Camera Tickets
For this paper, inspired me, feeling this author words into my heart.By the way,I have here sell coalitions jerseys: cheap nfl jerseys
Our product price concessions, quality is excellent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]