Sticking It To The (Camera) Man: Inventor Develops License Plate Frame That Defeats Red Light Cameras
from the i-see-your-functional-flash-and-raise-you-two-xenon-strobes dept
Tech is all about disruption. When a problem presents itself, someone will find a way to route around it. Red light cameras, the controversial jackpot generators favored by certain law enforcement agencies, are the problem. The solution?Jonathan Dandrow has developed noPhoto, which renders the pix snapped by those revenue-generating robo-cams useless. The technology behind noPhoto is fairly simple. At the top of the gadget, which doubles as a license plate frame, there’s an optical flash trigger that detects the flash of the traffic-light camera. That trigger sets off one or both xenon flashes in the sides of the noPhoto, so when the traffic-light camera opens its shutter, there’s too much light and the picture of your license plate is overexposed. Big Brother can’t read your plate.Some will argue that technology like this will only be used by scofflaws wishing to run red lights. But as the inventor points out, there's plenty of shady activity on the other side of the camera, not the least of which is some more erosion of civil liberties.
“I just had a lot of reservations about the cameras,” Dandrow says. “They are trying to circumvent the constitution.”This isn't just an overreaction from minor league anarchists. Once the camera has "decided" you're guilty, that's it. Arguing your innocence is next to impossible. Case in point: this woman's ordeal with being falsely accused by a red light camera.
As Gary Biller, the president of the National Motorists Association, recently wrote in U.S. News and World Report, traffic-light cameras violate “several key tenets of a citizen’s due process rights,” because there is “no certifiable witness to the alleged violation,” and so therefore, “the defendant loses the right to cross-examine his accuser in court.”
The New Star-Ledger’s Bamboozled column has the story of a woman whose license was suspended by authorities in New Jersey for a red-light ticket, even though the car in the photo is clearly not hers — oh, and she hadn’t even been in the Garden State in more than a year when the violation occurred.Despite having moved from New Jersey to Colorado 18 months before being ticketed, she still had to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to clear her record and get her suspended license back. Starting with the city staff in Edison Township calling her a liar and a long game of paperwork tennis between the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and the township, it finally reached the point where the driver realized it would be easier to pay the fees than travel 1800 miles for a court date. Appealing the ticket runs $75 plus fees and a personal appearance. The final breakdown? $200 to restore her license plus $81 for the ticket and $33 in court costs. $314 to clear a ticket issued to the wrong person.
Despite the obvious flaws in the "camera-as-cop" system, there's a very good chance Dandrow's noPhoto will be forced off the market before too long. There's already a law against obscured license plates. But will that hold when the license plate is only obscured when being photographed? The other angle will likely be "concern" about "safety," as if this bit of civil disobedience will lead to rampant red-light running. Will some people ignore red lights if they have this equipped? Sure, but I doubt they'll use it to drive through heavily-trafficked intersections against the lights. This will most likely result in a few more "California stops" at quiet intersections. If the cops don't like this, maybe they should consider the example they set when they flip the light bar on momentarily to blow through traffic signals.
If this disruption hastens the demise of the rightfully-maligned red light camera, so much the better. The cameras, which some municipalities adore for their money-making ability, have been linked to increased accidents and shady law enforcement activity, like issuing tickets signed by a deceased patrolman, lowering the yellow light time to increase the chance of violations, and lying about the length of a red light to hide the fact a bogus ticket had been issued. Fighting back against technology being used badly for lousy ends with a simple, effective solution is the best kind of disruption.
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: blocking, license plate, red light cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You know that (California) if you buy a used car and it has past tickets you must pay them, or you can have your car towed, and then you must ask the previous owner for the money (or you can sue them for it and who wants to do all that). You might argue, but you can go to the DMV and do a car history check ... for like $30. What a scam.
Enough is enough. These counter flash overexposure measures are a bad idea and are indicative of a much deeper problem, our unwillingness to tame our government and make them act in our interests instead of their own. It's amazing how they can afford to have these expensive camera systems but they can't afford to have something simple like a warning light (or time clock) placed 100 (or whatever) feet before a main intersection notifying drivers that they should begin their stop now because they won't make it for the light or telling them that they have plenty of time and can continue through the intersection (not a patentable idea). This would do a lot more to prevent accidents than the nonsense we have now. and what about adjustable/digital speed limit signs so that the speed limit can be increased during favorable conditions. But no, the whole purpose of our parking and traffic laws is centered more around revenue generation than anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fact is, our government is out of control and the solution isn't 'workarounds' that they'll ban, find workarounds to, and further penalize you for. It's protesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.wtop.com/41/3034979/New-cameras-to-watch-cameras-that-watch-you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
INCEPTION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think you can compensate for a massively overexposed feature no matter how good the camera, especially since license plates are designed to reflect a lot of light. The whole plate (if done properly) would just be a solid rectangle of glare. Maybe someone who knows more about photography can weigh in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those bullies and jackasses that made life miserable in school...guess where their jobs are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revenue
They also post the parking signage in such a way that it's like solving an algebra word problem to figure out if you're legal or not. There's one in Santa Monica that's especially ridiculous. Half a dozen different prohibitions and conditions that require signs six feet tall to list them all-- No Parking 6A-10P Mon-Thu, etc.-- and when you finally figure them all out, you realize the only legal times you can park there are two hours in the middle of the night. How much easier would it be just to put up one sign that says Parking Allowed Only 2AM-4AM? Of course that would be easy to figure out and wouldn't result in all that revenue from the confused people who couldn't properly figure out the multitude of purposely obtuse signage and end up parking wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Revenue
> people with motor homes from staying/living there.
That's fine, but if they're going to prohibit parking any time but a couple of hours in the middle of the night, just say *that*. Don't put up a half dozen signs with different restrictions and times that make the driver have to construct a flow diagram to figure out what's legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, since those don't work, that means this doesn't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
But ignorance doesn't get in the way of a feeble story here at Techdirt.
On other hand, the AC at #1 and #3 has sense: it's just the fanboy/troll/pirates here who don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
What would we do without your infinite insight into the inner workings of the most complex issues facing our world today ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: or had a bit of sense,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
But stupidity doesn't get in the way of a pathetic argument here from out_of_the_ass.
On the other hand, the AC at #1 and #3 has sense; it's just out_of_the_ass and the other trolls here who don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
> if at all. Relies on first detecting a flash at the
> least, so if other models use low-light or IR
> cameras, doesn't work at all.
Easiest thing to do is take your tags off altogether. Seems like every third car here in L.A. is driving around with no tags at all. Just those paper tags that advertise the car dealer where it was bought. As long as your car is actually registered, the fine for not displaying tags is only $20 and that's if the cops even bother pulling you over for it at all. Most don't.
So just take the tags off and occasionally pay a $20 fine (maybe) and never worry about a $300 ticket for running a red light or violating the express lanes or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Had you read the comments there, or had a bit of sense,
Non-douchebag version:
"it's possible that system wouldn't work well, if at all. Relies on first detecting a flash at the least, so if other models use low-light or IR cameras, doesn't work at all.
I also think that the AC at #1 and #3 has sense in what he's adding to this."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$350?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why NJ fought so hard:
As it is the system is far too profitable for them to want to mess with it, or allow it to be messed with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why NJ fought so hard:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search Marc Stevens you'll find what you need on the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The camera's cost most cities nothing. The deal is the company will install the cameras for nothing and accept a large payoff out of the fines in return. This forces most cities to automatically jack the fines to cover it and give themselves a boost as well.
It's a scam, plain out. The city gets money, the camera company rakes it in, all at the cost of the driver.
Rear end accidents are rampant because there is not enough time from the yellow light to brake to a stop before the red if you are traveling the speed limit. The car behind you is going to nail you good if you are in front.
Several cities are having fights with the camera company as the citizens don't want them and the companies have a contract the city can't get out of.
For those in favor, first time you get one of these tickets for several hundred dollars, smile and think. Without the camera it might have only been $50.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
low-tech solution
Never got a red-light ticket either - not that I've ever deserved one, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: low-tech solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: low-tech solution
> (both ways) without a front plate.
Not surprising. Since many states don't have front plates, it would be odd indeed if the Canadians denied admittance to anyone who didn't have one. Kinda hard to have one if your state never issued you one.
"Sorry, sir, you're from Florida and since we require a front tag here in Great White North, so we're going to have to ask you to turn around and go home, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: low-tech solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know at some point it will come to this when some red neck gets a ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the cameras take no just one photo, the take a framed set with different exposure settings, like any modern Digital SLR, they can even take a short 1 or 2 second video of you.
so not only will you be fined for running a red or amber light (not that bad a thing), you'll be up for far more serious charges and a criminal record..
the best way around it, dont run the lights,, is it really that hard to abey the law ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not anywhere I've ever heard of.
So if you rob a bank and do anything other than immediately turn yourself in, they can not only charge you with a crime, but avoiding police detection, also?
Don't be absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though I seem to remember it can't be used if it means you would incriminate yourself, and required active concealment too?
But I'm sure this AC will absolutely report any crime they have EVER done to the nearest LEO post haste since they love to 'abey' the law Bwahahahahahahaha
Question: how does one mispell obey as abey? The a & o keys are nowhere near each other ever!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And that only applies when *actively* being chased by the police. You can't be charged with evading arrest simply for sitting in your house after you commit a crime and not turning yourself in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the law relies on devices proven multiple times to be completely unreliable and arbitrarily unfair, it is a citizen's duty to not "abey the law", because the law is unreasonable.
But hey, you're a fine specimen of a shitstain who thinks that he's above the average Australian in terms of intelligence; of course you wouldn't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you such a perfect driver that such things can't happen to you? Such a minuscule percentage of citations issues by these profiteering, scamming devices are for the behavior they're allegedly sold to prevent--the deliberate running of red lights while posing a threat to safety.
It's a racket, it is all about profit, and you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by pretending it to be otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can see why this could be dangerous. It's not the traffic that's stopped. If you're making a right-on-red, there could be pedestrians in the crosswalk. If you're rushing to turn before the other traffic goes you're not going to be paying as much attention to the crosswalk and will be more likely to hit someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds as much of an urban legend as flashing your high-beams works. I've never seen nor heard of anyone actually doing that, and it smacks of anti-cop bias, as does the whole concept of ticket-dodging.
The implementation may be bad (for-profit companies running the cameras), but the idea of punishing people for creating safety hazards is sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about cops start using flood lights to blind any camera being used to record them? Fair play, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you've never seen this, it may be because you don't live in a place that has something called Rush Hour. I see it all the time in Pittsburgh. I've also had a cop turn on his lights just so he could pass me on a blind turn. If you see a cop with just his lights on crossing an intersection or passing someone, that's what they're doing. If they're actually going somewhere, then their siren is on.
This is not an urban myth, this is quite common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Police response is dictated by various codes given by the dispatchers. If they're running full code, they use lights and sirens. Other codes call only for lights. Or no lights or sirens at all. In those cases, the cops will use their lights to expeditiously clear intersections, then turn them off as they approach the target location for tactical reasons. To the cynical bystander it looks like they just didn't want to sit at the light.
Regardless of the reason, you can't know without having heard the radio call what the reason is for the lights and your claim that a siren is required 'if they're really going somewhere' is nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will, since I worked with local law enforcement on many occasions and have been in radio cars when this sort of thing happens.
> We've had a few officers get caught running
> their lights just to get to the station faster at the end
> of their shift.
So exactly how does that mean every instance of using lights to clear an intersection equals abuse? And it certainly doesn't validate your silly claim that a siren is required 'if they're really going somewhere'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe you're either a) sheltered, or b) pushing a pro-cop agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are talking about warning oncoming traffic about a speed trap you just went past by flashing your brights, then that's not urban legend. I used to do it all the time and have been saved from a speeding ticket or two from this. Cops get pissed off about this, but there really isn't much they can do about it.
The practice fell out of favor with most people sometime in the 90's, I believe, when there were plenty of rumors floating around that gang members were selecting their victims of gang initiation rituals by driving around with their headlights off and the first person who flashed their brights at them was the unlucky winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fist hand witness here. Happens all the time in a city, usually when a cop wants to ignore a 'no left turns' or 'no uturns' sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got pulled over in Houston once because I hadn't cleaned off the good ol' Iowa dirt off my license plates. Living on a gravel road can do the same thing as all that fancy technology. So why don't you just tape over your plate and be done with it?
I've gotten camera tickets, and I don't like them at all. But despite my dislike of camera tickets, I would never support circumvention measures. If someone feels like they don't have to obey the law AND they don't want to pay the consequences, then they really aren't safe to be on the road with.
The law that says that license plate has to be unobscured is one of those unenforced laws. I wish they would either enforce it or repeal it. Whether it is red covers or license plate frames, the fact is that I can't read your license plate half the time. Moisture, snow and street dirt can make the cover opaque. So your fellow citizens whom you just cut off in traffic can't call you in either. It's not just the police who need to see your plates.
Even frames obscure information on some state's plates. Just leave off that stuff, and use a novel strategy to avoid tickets (other than camera-issued) -- Just pay attention! You will not only see the police car ahead, but you will be a safer driver.
Thanks for sharing the road!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> perfectly legible except for a microsecond where
> there is too much light for the camera to handle.
And even then it's still legible to human being looking at it. It's just not photographable for that brief moment in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've seen jailhouse lawyers with better logic than that!
Any system can be subverted. It is up to citizens to make government accountable. And government is not accountable today, so whose fault is that? Get off your duff and do something about it -- other than playing jailhouse games with flashes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a new thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a new thing
> Europe where I'm from.
It's been my impression that it would be quicker and more efficient for you guys in Europe to just list the stuff the government lets you do rather than the stuff it doesn't. It would be a much shorter list.
Not that America is much better these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call it "only in US"
But, techdirt reader would say "you don't blame technology, you blame (ab)user". Hint: guns are abused match frequently, where's outrage about "police abusing guns"?
Running to red light is real, very dangerous thing. Hard to protest false accusation? Protest broken legal system. City officials turning it to profit center? Fight corruption (US is democracy, right?).
But obscuring license plate is offense in same category as speed radar jammer - fun until you caught.
And clam about " circumvent the constitution" is complete nonsense. What is this "no certifiable witness" ?! Camera IS "certifiable witness", it's a f..ng camera, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I call it "only in US"
And in some jurisdictions this kind of circumvention *is* illegal. In others, it isn't, so could be seen as 'harmless fun'. And as numerous posters have indicated, it might not work at all. In the end, the user/driver is responsible for what they do, and should be held (accurately) to account. So should police and government officials, especially if there are suspicions that they themselves are bending the law or blindly using cameras inaccurately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.indiegogo.com/noPhoto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/01/21/Speed-camera-tickets-parked-car/UPI-66911 264102518/
the speeding ticket cameras need some lovin too.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100121/0946107858.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Camera Defeated By Ape Suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Camera Defeated By Ape Suit
So there is no court to appeal to because it isn't a moving violation. The ticket is issued by some company out of state and not by the city. You can write to them with a sob story, but they'll eventually get their money. I was going to check their website to get the details, but they have broken links. What an outfit - they shouldn't be using technology at all.
OTOH, there is a true story that is relevant. Back in the early 70s in Iowa City, First National Bank was robbed. The police report said that the robber was wearing a gorilla mask, a bright yellow raincoat and rollerskates. He left the bank and disappeared into the crowd. I loved Iowa City back then. The crowd was very colorful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red light cameras have problems and horror stories, to be sure. But red light cameras have also led to reductions in the running of red lights. Speed cameras have led to reduced speeding. These are good things, because they lead to fewer and less serious injuries. Are there devious cops who fiddle with cameras or traffic lights to play gotcha? Sure. Should they be called out on it? Yes, and I'm sure TD will be there to do the calling. I don't expect TD to run posts about that awful crash on the other side of town the other day, where some guy ran a red light and smashed into a pedestrian/mini-van full of kids/little old lady. That's just the kind of local news that happens every day. But could you at least acknowledge the blatantly obvious? That drivers who run red lights are breaking a perfectly sensible rule (red=stop; green=go) designed to prevent crashes and injury, and that often, their actions result in serious harm?
I'm going to start a Kickstarter project myself, that I promise will be far more effective that this snake oil flashbulb doohicky. It's called "Don't run f-king red lights." Early contributors to the project will get (a) a reminder that the best way to avoid a red light camera ticket is to stop running red lights, and (b) that's it, that's all you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have a citation for these assertions? The articles I have read kind of say the opposite:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-25/news/30320420_1_red-light-cameras-automated-red-l ight-enforcement-red-light-intersections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about Wikipedia for a reference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera#Studies_and_politics
Most of the referenced studies show a reduction in injuries by around 30%. Focusing on the number of accidents misses the most important part of the story. The point of the cameras is not to reduce accidents but to reduce injuries. Intellectually honest observers can see the difference between these two measurements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I looked through some of that data and I'm sure that's true.
That data is very conflicting - some show increases in injuries, others don't. A lot depends on the specific intersection.
The point of the cameras is not to reduce accidents but to reduce injuries.
Not so sure of that. It's really about money. The municipalities want to generate revenue and the insurance companies want reductions in claim payouts. I would venture a guess that a rear end crash would be a cheaper payout than a right-angle collision.
Intellectually honest observers can see the difference between these two measurements.
Right. I was looking at the serious injury numbers and like I said, those numbers seem to be vastly different at different intersections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't believe that anyone would intentionally run a red light, at least not after it has been red for a few seconds and the cross traffic has started to move. I can only imagine that those people must have gotten distracted and not seen the red light at all. Wouldn't the cameras have no effect then? Maybe the thought of the tickets sits in the back of people's mind and raises their alertness around intersections. Not saying it actually works, just a theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the even bigger threat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you visit California or live there
Everyone living in California, or visiting, needs to know about Snitch Tickets, which are fake/phishing red light camera tickets sent out by the police in an effort to fool the registered owner into identifying the actual driver of the car. (Over 30 CA cities use them, and in some they are more than half of everything the city mails out.) Snitch tickets have not been filed with the court, so they don�t say �Notice to Appear,� don�t have the court�s address and phone # on them, and usually say, on the back (in small letters), �Do not contact the court about this notice.� Since they have not been filed with the court, they have no legal weight whatsoever. You can, and should, ignore a Snitch Ticket. If in doubt, Google the term.
Also, a REAL camera ticket from ANY city in Los Angeles County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored tickets to the DMV. (This was revealed in multiple LA Times articles last summer. It is applicable ONLY to cities in LA county.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Globalize it
Who's going to stop that, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beautiful Example...
As for people claiming "there are studies that show red light cameras reduce people running red lights", there are also studies that show they increase car accidents.
There has also been a creeping trend of governments reducing the length of time the light is yellow in order to boost revenue from the red light camera tickets.
The red light camera's set up horrible incentives that just build upon more State force/coercion.
I say bravo to the individual that created another fantastic way to "break bad".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had red light cameras here in Houston, TX. Instead of a photo, it recorded about 5 seconds worth of video which they send you as part of the ticket. I'm sure you could have the video reviewed by the court if you wanted to contest it. Maybe it doesn't work this way everywhere but an officer reviews the videos and decides whether or not to send a ticket. The cameras were eventually removed by a ballot initiative.
Statistics are tricky things. People read that the cameras have increased accidents and conclude that they're reducing safety. But are all accidents equal? If you only look at those accidents involving injury, the cameras have actually reduced those accidents. It's pretty obvious what's happening. People are stopping quickly to avoid the tickets which is increasing the number of rear-end collisions. At the same time, the number of T-bone collisions have gone down since people are more aware of the lights, leading to less serious injuries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
traffic cameras
But you would have to have the strobes charged so they are available on a moments notice, do you charge them when the brake is touched? I would think the circuit wouldn't like holding the charge for long periods of time without burning out something. I know my strobes wouldn't like it. But they are bright. For home made, look for aircraft strobe lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where did you find that information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera defeating License Plate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Camera defeating License Plate
Sounds like these flash towards the license plate to overexpose it, so no problem there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even worse than you thought!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Camera Accidents
Obviously the red light camera will cause rear end collisions as motorists panic stop at the last second to avoid getting a camera ticket mailed to them. All it takes to set up a city for a lawsuit is a letter to the city clerk notifying them that a red light camera poses a traffic hazard that could result in accidents. Once they have been warned, the court will hold them liable for the damage resulting from their failure to remove the distraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Due Process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]