Speed Camera Company Admission May Mean Tickets Issued From 1997-2008 Weren't Valid
from the details,-details dept
Redlight and speed camera provider Redflex is not having a great year. The company's revenue has taken a hit due to massive opposition to these cameras, leading it to lose a major contract in the state of Arizona, while having many of its camera programs declared illegal. But things may be getting even worse. Reader Pwdrskir points us to some news coming out of a lawsuit that Redflex is dealing with from competitor American Traffic Solutions (ATS). The details of that aren't all that interesting. However, as a part of that lawsuit, Redflex had to admit that its radar/speed cameras, despite claims to the contrary by Redflex were not certified by the FCC until 2008. That calls into question every ticket issued by those cameras from 1997 to 2008. And, as the article notes, it sounds like a lawsuit is already being planned in response to challenge the validity of those past tickets.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: certification, radar, speed cameras
Companies: redflex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
good riddance
The whole company is defined as a negligence that knows what they were doing from day one, and they clearly don't do a good job in any form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we need another corporation to get involved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we need another corporation to get involved
It bother me quite a bit, the whole warrantless wire tap, and ACTA requiring the ISP's to monitor peoples actions online, is going down the same route of corporations doing the job of law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Does it really make any difference who's making money on keeping the sheep in line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Yes, because it's an indication of where things are going. Corporatism is the first step to fascism....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
So what's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Haven't you heard? Privatization is the way to go! Private corporations do everything better than the government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
> the government!
No, they just do it more efficiently, not better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Even that assertion lacks proof, and an indication of how much it might be so.
Haven't most of us worked in corporations where we have to wonder how the company survives with all the nonsense that goes on.
IMHO, big companies are similarly inefficient as big government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Like when there was that huge blackout in North America (something about Niagara?), mostly it was because they ran everything at "peak efficiency", so the slightest energy spike got the whole system crashing down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we need another corporation to get involved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Fact: Speeding kills people. It reduces your reaction times dramatically. We're not talking about jaywalking or wearing a helmet, which are "crimes" that pretty much only impact the person comitting the crime. speeding impacts the public at large, and revenue generating or not, the FINES ARE COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE by simply staying under the limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Technically, it's sudden deceleration that kills people.
the FINES ARE COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE by simply staying under the limit.
You improve speed limit compliance if you set the speed limit to the 85th percentile. Thing is, many roads have speed limits that are nowhere near the 85th percentile.
If you want to reduce the speeds people travel at, design the road for that limit. Don't design the road for one speed limit and then post it at another speed limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
I don't understand the malice people have with restricted speeds when we're talking about matters of life and death evrsus getting there 20 seconds faster. What possible explanation does one have where risking your life is more important than simply getting to a location 20 seconds later, outside of actual emergencies?
You can't seriously be claiming that road should be redesigned with the intention of keeping people traveling at 75 instead of 55, can you? That would require removing most exits and turns. Can you realistically say that if all freeways were 75 mph or with no limit we'd be safer?
"You improve speed limit compliance if you set the speed limit to the 85th percentile."
And I claim you improve speed limit compliance by fining people that go above set limits. Just as you have laws that say don't steal, or we will fine or jail you. We don't say 85% of people steal, so if we just allow 85% of thefts to occur, that solves our problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
Except we aren't talking about 20 seconds. I can't find it right now, but I remember studies showing that the national 55 limit, for example, wasted more years of people's lives in driving time than it saved in years of life. Of course, the insurance companies don't care about that if it increases profits. They're not the ones stuck doing the driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
The fines would also be avoidable by simply raising the limit. I like that option better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: we need another corporation to get involved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Redflex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bwah!
The devices may not have been FCC certified, but the principles of speed detecting RADAR are well established. If it is proven the devices were inaccurate, fine, but they're still designed to only generate a ticket if the speed is 12 mph or more over the limit, if I'm not mistaken.
A slight variation still means the tickets were valid, and the technology can't really be challenged. Sure, back in the 1980s, a lot of goofballs tried. But challenging the technology now is a no-brainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bwah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bwah!
So, if they weren't FCC certified, does that mean other signals could interfere with them? One could then make an argument for spurious signals causing faulty readings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bwah!
The whole purpose of the certification is to make sure that someone turning on their microwave doesn't cause everyone's cordless phone to go dead in a 1 mile radius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bwah!
If it lacked FCC certification then its operation was illegal and evidence obtained by illegal means is not admissible in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bwah!
> admissible in court
No, only evidence obtained unconstitutionally is subject to the Exclusionary Rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bwah!
"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. [Dressler, Joshua (2002). Understanding Criminal Procedure (3rd edition ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis]
Furthermore, such evidence is not generally admissible in court. [Gaines, Larry; Miller, LeRoy (2006). Criminal Justice In Action: The Core. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth]
The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule and, like the exclusionary rule, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence and stems from the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.
I know you claim to be a lawyer, but have you considered asking your law school for a refund?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeding doesn't kill people, idiots kill people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Speeding reduces your ability to react to a given situation in time, other people to react, given a certain situation. physics !=intelligence. Death = death, bub. Speed is a factor in 31% of traffic fatalities. I'm going to go with the number crunchers in the insurance industry over your line about idiots! Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm going to go with the number crunchers in the insurance industry over your line about idiots!
Yes, because we can expect that there would be no bias in the conclusions and statements made by the insurance industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll trust common sense over the insurance industry's paid lemmings generating figures that help prove whatever their corporate overlords want them to prove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So in 69% of traffic fatalities there was no speed involved, i.e. the vehicles were at a complete stop? Wow, that's amazing!
I'm going to go with the number crunchers in the insurance industry over your line about idiots! Thanks!
Yeah, because an industry group with vested interests is bound to be unbiased!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If none of the cars were moving then how could someone die?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comercials
It has nothing to do with saving people, it has to do with money. Making the personal choice to wear a seat belt has been taken from you because a corporation wants to make money.
Seems like a small thing but the simple choice of putting on a seat belt has become the most pressing thing in law enforcement because an industry has taken it over. That bothers me, a lot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Brother
If the vehicles were moving then obviously speed was involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Corporation is needed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All those law breakers will go free.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras Save Lives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply getting to your location 20 seconds later....? Are you serious? You must have a 4 block commute or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know if you have heard about Trapster. It’s a free mobile phone application that alerts drivers to red light cameras, speed cameras, live police, road hazards, etc. It's honestly helpful with not only preventing tickets but also getting drivers to slow down and hopefully make them more aware of upcoming ticketing cameras. All in all safer drivers are what we are all striving for.
Stefanie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Purpose of Roads
If safety is paramount, then we should ban roads and cars and never go anywhere. But our society accepts some risk because of our desire for mobility. There is a trade-off between safety and mobility.
But whenever this discussion comes up, some people argue that if something is safer, it must be better. OK, those people can just stay home, and leave the roads for those of us who want to get somewhere as quickly as reasonable.
Other commenter have noted that the engineers have designed cars and roads to be safe for specific speeds. Right. That speed should be a communally acceptable trade-off between velocity and safety. That should be the speed limit -- not some revenue-driven, entrapment, under-estimate, driven by some spineless elected officials and a corporate entity motivated by just one side of the trade-off equation. Those biased people don't want more safety, they want more violations! That makes us neither safer NOR faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras...yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If none of the cars were moving then how could someone die?
Carbonmonoxide poisoning, being shot, things like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't throw the baby out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't throw the baby out
Except, that isn't true. Studies have shown that red light cameras actually increase the number of accidents. You sound like an industry shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red light camers
Regardless it brings more publicity to the systems which means they will work even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just blame shifting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just blame shifting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
say cheese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: say cheese
I still believe in pink unicorns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get your act together, Redflex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get your act together, Redflex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]