New York City Residents Turn City's Traffic Cameras Into Cop-Watching Tools

from the eyes-on-the-eyes dept

In New York City, the government's surveillance tools are being turned against it. This is wonderful news for all citizens who still have the power to inject accountability and transparency into a system that wholeheartedly resists it. To keep tabs on misbehaving cops, activists are using the city's cameras to watch their watchers. Lorenzo Franceshi-Bicchieari has the details for Motherboard.

A group of activists that runs a free community-owned internet service provider in New York City is now archiving hundreds of gigabytes of the city’s surveillance camera footage in an effort to keep police accountable.

The city's Department of Transportation has several publicly-accessible cameras on its website. But it's incapable of tracking anything on its own. Citizens can watch camera feeds, but unless they're willing to camp out 24/7 to catch cops doing things they shouldn't, there's no permanent record of the incident. The activists are using a script to capture feeds and remove the transient nature of the system.

The project works like this: NYC Mesh has written a tool that archives an image from every public camera every time the feed gets updated, which can be between one and 30 seconds. The pictures are then uploaded on Google Drive in bundles organized by hourly folders that have a text file containing information about the camera ID, the borough it is in, and its specific location.

It appears the DOT is aware of this additional activity. Akash Patel, who is contributing to the NYC Mesh project, told Motherboard he's noticed a significant slowdown at the site. Patel used to be able to download around 200 gigabytes of photos a day. It now appears the DOT is throttling connections to prevent mass downloading of camera images.

There isn't a system out there that can't be gamed. The government watches the cameras when it wants to keep tabs on citizens. Citizens have always had the option to ensure the watching goes both ways. A tool that automates the collection of footage is just the forward progress of technology.

License plate readers have removed the manual labor involved in running plates and/or surveilling people's movements. Facial recognition tech has made it possible for officers to obtain anyone's ID without actually approaching that person and demanding it from them. And reverse warrants allow cops to obtain a list of suspects and witnesses without actually having to canvass the area where a crime occurred.

Citizens should strive to streamline their watching of watchers whenever possible. Using the DOT's cameras to keep an eye on errant cops just makes sense. After all, it's their tax dollars that are being spent to outfit the city with hundreds of cameras and provide the infrastructure to support it.

Filed Under: nyc, surveillance, traffic cameras, watching police

State Board That Fined Man For Criticizing The Government Without A License Admits It Was Wrong

from the but-reserves-option-to-do-it-again-to-someone-else dept

Earlier this year, government entities in Beaverton, Oregon got fed up with a resident's refusal to stop pestering them about problems with their traffic light timing. Mats Jarlstrom, a red light camera ticket recipient and consequential thorn in the side of local pols, tried repeatedly to get state traffic engineers to take a look at his research on yellow light timing. They refused. And they refused in a way only powerful bureaucracies can.

The Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying told Jarlstrom to shut up by issuing him a $500 fine for practicing engineering without a license. It was, of course, bullshit. Jarlstrom couldn't alter traffic light timing and certainly wasn't sending in bids for government work while presenting himself as an engineer. He just wanted to talk about his research. But the state board wasn't interested in his work or his refusal to stop talking. Despite holding a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, Jarlstrom was told he wasn't enough of an engineer to talk about subjects he'd thoroughly researched.

The Institute for Justice picked up Jarlstrom's case, securing an injunction against the state board earlier this year. We're another step closer to a full resolution in this case, as the state board has finally conceded it trampled all over Jarlstom's rights in its efforts to get him to stop talking.

A state panel violated a Beaverton man's free speech rights by claiming he had unlawfully used the title "engineer'' and by fining him when he repeatedly challenged Oregon's traffic-signal timing before local media and policymakers, Oregon's attorney general has ruled.

Oregon's Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying unconstitutionally applied state law governing engineering practice to Mats Järlström when he exercised his free speech about traffic lights and described himself as an engineer since he was doing so "in a noncommercial'' setting and not soliciting professional business, the state Department of Justice has conceded.

"We have admitted to violating Mr. Järlström's rights,'' said Christina L. Beatty-Walters, senior assistant attorney general, in federal court Monday.

Jarlstrom will get a $500 refund from the state, but perhaps more importantly, an admission of wrongdoing -- a rarity in litigation settlements. Jarlstrom and the Institute for Justice would like to see further changes made in the state's government. They want the court [PDF] to review the laws used to silence Jarlstrom and find them unconstitutional. The state, unsurprisingly, does not. Its settlement offer [PDF] wants awards limited to its admission of wrongdoing and a refund of the fine paid by Jarlstrom. The state would still like to be able to declare who is or isn't an engineer. But it's already been used as a weapon against a critic once. There's nothing in the board's settlement offer that would prevent it from doing it again.

Filed Under: beaverton, mats jarlstrom, timing, traffic cameras, traffic lights

Oklahoma Looks To Clamp Down On Uninsured Driving With Traffic Cams And Perverse Incentives

from the like-an-ATM,-but-with-zero-end-user-interaction dept

Oklahoma is home to a large percentage of uninsured drivers. Nearly a quarter of the state's drivers get behind the wheel as latent threats to insured drivers' insurance rates. The state thinks it's found a solution to this problem -- one that will net a private company and the state's district attorney offices lots of money.

Oklahoma has finalized a deal with a Massachusetts company to use license-plate scanners to catch uninsured drivers, and the firm expects to issue 20,000 citations a month starting as early as next year.

The program, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, involves setting up automated high-speed cameras on highways around the state to detect uninsured vehicles and mailing their owners a citation with a fine of $184, according to the District Attorneys Council.

The problem isn't so much the solution -- although the solution has its own issues, like the mass collection of plate/location data. The problem is the incentives. First off, there's the company involved: Gatso USA will receive more than 40% of the revenue ($84 for each paid citation) for the first couple of years. Its percentage of the take will decline over the next several years but will never drop below $68/ticket. The company hopes to make more than $1.6 million a month through its work with the state of Oklahoma.

The more problematic incentive is this:

It will be overseen by the District Attorneys Council rather than law enforcement, and the state’s 27 district attorneys’ offices are expected to receive millions of dollars in citation revenue a year, although no estimates were provided.

Why would this go to DAs? Maybe it's the state is throwing the DAs Council a bone to shut it up.

District attorneys have complained that their revenue sources are diminishing because of state budget cuts and the drop in bounced-check fines.

I guess the DAs Council is already counting on this system to make up for lost income. There's not much worse than a tool like this in the hands of a government entity that firmly believes it will return it to its former, cash-heavy glory. The state's DAs appear to be ready to rely heavily on a revenue stream/camera system sold as a foolproof, cost-effective remedy. But the history of automatic plate readers and traffic cams is littered with tech failures. As Scott Greenfield points out, there's a good chance the DA (and Gatso) will still get paid, even if the tech is error-prone.

Tech fails all the time because we have unwarranted faith in it even though it lets us down constantly. Dirt on a plate, a cover, a bent plate, or just random errors, could turn that miraculous scanner into a weapon for the unwary. And Gatso, not to mention the cops, has a huge incentive to collect as much money as possible, because money is good.

What to do? Hire a lawyer to fight a $184 ticket? Lose a day of work, maybe lose a job because you lost a day of work, fighting city hall? The innocent will be swept into the mix along with the guilty, and it will be your problem to fix their problem at your expense.

And if a driver doesn't pay Gatso fast enough (the company issues the tickets and collects the fines), the ticket -- right or wrong -- heads to the DA's office for prosecution. Given the statements made by the DAs Council, offices will have every incentive to pursue non-payers vigorously and tack on as many additional fees and fines as possible.

A better solution would be to pay for the system upfront, releasing the state from worrying about contract breaches or mission creep pressure should the cameras fail to deliver millions of dollars to Gatso USA. And the fines should go into a general fund, rather than directly to an office with the power to prosecute. Once you strip out the perverted incentives, it's a cost-effective deterrent for uninsured drivers, give or take the system's margin of error.

Filed Under: driving, insurance, oklahome, traffic cameras

The Legal Netherworld Of Traffic Cam Tickets, Where Everything Is Both Civil And Criminal, While Also Being Mostly Neither

from the American-Traffic-Systems-Multiverse dept

Adam MacLeod, law professor at Faulkner University, was the recipient of a traffic cam speeding ticket. The problem was that he wasn't driving the vehicle when the infraction occurred. So, it was his vehicle being ticketed, but he was being held responsible for someone else's infraction.

He decided to fight it, and that fight uncovered just how crooked the traffic cam system is. Not only are traffic camera manufacturers receiving a cut of every ticket issued, but tapping into this new revenue stream has prompted municipalities to undermine the judicial system.

MacLeod's detailed report of his fight against city hall is well worth reading in its entirety. But one hint of things to come reveals itself in MacLeod's conversation with the city's attorney when attempting to figure out how one goes about actually challenging a traffic cam ticket.

I asked her whether this was a criminal action or a civil action. She replied, “It’s hard to explain it in those terms.” I asked whether she intended to proceed under criminal procedural rules or in civil procedure. We would proceed under the “rules of criminal procedure,” she answered because this is a criminal case. I asked when I could expect to be charged, indicted, or have a probable cause determination. She replied that none of those events would occur because this is “a civil action.” So I could expect to be served with a complaint? No, no. As she had already explained, we would proceed under the criminal rules.

The attorney had no way of answering this question honestly, or even accurately. What MacLeod discovered during his speeding ticket battle is that his local government -- like many other local governments deploying traffic cameras -- had created a legal netherworld between civil and criminal law where tickets issued by software were allowed to operate.

[T]raffic cameras do not always produce probable cause that a particular person has committed a crime. To get around this “problem” (as a certain law-and-order president-elect might call it), several states have created an entirely novel phylum of law: the civil violation of a criminal prohibition. Using this nifty device, a city can charge you of a crime without any witnesses, without any probable cause determination, and without any civil due process.

In short, municipal officials and their private contractors have at their disposal the powers of both criminal and civil law and are excused from the due process duties of both criminal and civil law. It’s a neat trick that would have made King George III blush.

Once a government becomes reliant on a new, legally-questionable revenue stream, the "questionable" part tends to be buried under absurd claims about traffic safety and traffic accident deaths. At this point, the entire system is corrupted. Legislators like the money. Cops like the money. The camera company (in this case, American Traffic Solutions) likes the money. Everything that needs to be done to ensure the cashflow doesn't dry up is done, including engaging in perjury.

MacLeod was finally allowed to address the proxy accusing him of speeding: the local PD. Its testifying officer buried himself (along with the city and ATS) during cross-examination.

On cross-examination, I established that:

- He was not present at the time of the alleged violation.

- He has no photographic evidence of the driver.

- There were no witnesses.

- He does not know where Adam MacLeod was at the time of the alleged violation.

And so on. I then asked the question one is taught never to ask on cross—the last one. “So, you signed an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury alleging probable cause to believe that Adam MacLeod committed a violation of traffic laws without any evidence that was so?”

Without hesitating he answered, “Yes.” This surprised both of us. It also surprised the judge, who looked up from his desk for the first time. A police officer had just testified under oath that he perjured himself in service to a city government and a mysterious, far-away corporation whose officers probably earn many times his salary.

Once you're corrupt, it's all over. The officer MacLeod questioned seemingly didn't realize his complicity in this corruption until he was directly questioned. In all fairness, he'd likely been told everything about the ticketing system was above-board, legally and constitutionally.

But once the new system -- one that is neither criminal nor civil -- is challenged, it falls apart. MacLeod reports that Alabama residents fought back against the deployment of traffic cameras, resulting in the repeal of the state's traffic cam law. Not that his mattered to the city of Montgomery's (where MacLeod resides) governance.

[M]ontgomery’s defiant mayor announced that the city would continue to operate the program. Curiously, he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions.

That went on until the state's District Attorney stepped in to shut down the mayor's rogue traffic cam program. Or tried to. A compromise of sorts was reached. Car-mounted cameras were shut down, but stationary cameras already in place were allowed to keep issuing tickets summoning citizens to the city's judicial Kafka-esque criminal/civil intersection.

Unhappy with having to (sort of) comply with state law, the mayor made it clear that cameras may come and go, but newly-found revenue streams are here to stay.

In a fit of petulance, and belying his insistence that the program is motivated by safety concerns rather than revenue, the mayor announced that the amounts of fines for ordinary traffic violations will now be tripled.

That's how the system works. The money must flow from the citizens to their government. And if the pipeline has to run right through their civil rights and liberties, so be it. Traffic camera systems are sold as public safety enhancements, but all they're really doing is transferring more money -- and more power -- to governments willing to let contractual obligations with private companies take precedence over Constitutional amendments.

Filed Under: adam macleod, alabama, civil, criminal, due process, speed cameras, speeding ticket, tickets, traffic cameras
Companies: ats

Judge Voids Tons Of Chicago Traffic Camera Tickets Over Due Process Concerns

from the duped-process dept

Being familiar with our story roster when it comes to traffic and speed cameras, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that these devices have almost nothing to do with driver safety and almost everything to do with bringing in revenue for local governments. And, with the focus being on revenue as opposed to keeping human beings from harm, the mystery for all of the corruption surrounding how these camera contracts are awarded and implemented vanishes into a story of the age-old greed of the human being.

But to really see how spectacularly these cameras fail at just about everything, we can eschew the reports on safety and the lack of their impact for the moment and focus instead on how it's quickly becoming clear that the cameras do a shitty job at the bringing-in-revenue part of the equation as well. We've seen already the staggering statistics on how many refunds have been issued for tickets issued by the camera system, but now the courts are getting involved as well. An example of this can be seen in Chicago, where a judge has ruled that camera tickets spanning back over a decade are simply void and that the city had violated the due process rights of the citizens under its care.

In a harshly worded ruling handed down late Friday, Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy kept alive a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions dollars in refunds for motorists ticketed since 2003 after City Hall “skipped a step” mandated by the city’s own municipal code. The lawsuit filed nearly a year ago accused the Emanuel administration of violating the requirement to issue a second notice of violation before issuing a determination of liability against motorists issued speed-camera and red-light camera tickets.

The suit further alleged that the city failed to specify the make of the vehicle and that city notices indicate that late penalties will be assessed if payment is not received within 21 days of a liability determination, when a 25-day grace period is required by law.

I'm from and of this city and the notion that government officials didn't bother to follow their own municipal codes and laws is so shocking that-haha, no it isn't, my god this happens all the time. Still, the true nature of greedy government is on display here, with the city being so blinded by cartoonish dollar signs dancing before its collective eyes that it couldn't see that the bullshit camera policy that it knew wasn't being used for safety reasons wouldn't even be able to pull in the revenue it wanted either, after the legal challenges.

And it's not like the city even put in a real effort in this instance. The second notice of violation provision required by law is quite simple to follow. A first notice is handed out, after all, and this provision is shampoo in nature: rinse and repeat. It's important, though, as it gives alleged traffic violators ample opportunity to contest tickets handed out by the camera overlords. Except, of course, the city clearly wanted to minimize the number of people contesting tickets, because that costs time and money, and this was all about generating revenue. This can be more clearly seen as the city haphazardly adjusted late fees for the tickets outside of the law.

Kennedy ruled that the three named plaintiffs in the case — Delyn McKenzie-Lopez; Themasha Simpson and Erica Lieschke — had “sufficiently alleged facts showing that the city’s retention of payments from determinations made without a second notice violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.”

“The alleged practice of accelerating late fees without statutory compliance is sufficient to show a violation of the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience,” the judge wrote.

And this paves the way for the plaintiffs to request class-action status for anyone who received and paid these tickets since 2003. The city will likely settle that action, of course. After all, if it were happy to pay the family of a teenager executed in the street by police a couple of million to stay silent, it won't think twice about making this whole thing go away.

But all of that does is affirm that these traffic cameras are good for nothing, as safety was never a concern and now the city is paying out as a result of tickets issues rather than collecting. Bang up job all around, Chicago.

Filed Under: chicago, due process, kathleen kennedy, speed cameras, traffic cameras

Arizona Legislators Trying (Again) To Ban Traffic Cameras

from the exceptions-abound dept

Seven years after the idea was first proposed, it finally appears as though the state of Arizona might be on the verge of a traffic camera ban.

The movement to outlaw photo enforcement in Arizona advanced on Tuesday with a 5-4 vote in the state House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Members favorably reported a measure that repeals the existing state authorization for the use of red light cameras and speed cameras.

Well, sort of. The bill is still undergoing massive invasive surgery from entities unwilling to see this revenue stream dry up. Another proposal to scale back the state's reliance on traffic cam income moved forward after being limited solely to state highways -- basically killing off cameras in only two towns along those roads. This more expansive proposal is experiencing whatever the opposite of growing pains are. The exceptions to the proposed rule are turning the bill into a hollow shell of an idea, despite the ban having widespread support from the public.

During the debate on the issue, key committee members signaled their interest in the amending the measure so that it would allow continued use of speed cameras in school zones and unlimited use of red light cameras.

The good news is that several politicians who previously supported a very generous expansion of the state's traffic camera programs have now switched sides -- including one who is a co-sponsor of the new bill. Many of these legislators who backed this expansion campaigned as "supporters of liberty" but apparently secretly harbored a soft spot for cop-less traffic enforcement and the persuasive tactics of American Traffic Solution's lobbyists. After experiencing some backlash, these legislators are now backing the new bill, which may actually scale back use of some cameras if there's anything left when everyone's done rewriting it.

Those arguing for a less aggressive cutback are apparently willing to let individual locales undercut the intent of the proposed law entirely.

State Representatives Richard C. Andrade (D-Glendale), Charlene R. Fernandez (D-Yuma), Matthew A. Kopec (D-Tucson), Noel W. Campbell (R-Prescott) and Karen Fann (R-Prescott) each suggested that as long as a city council favors automated ticketing machines, they should be allowed to hire a private company to deploy them.

The other bill -- also approved by this committee -- is nearly completely useless as there are hardly any cameras in use on state highways.


And the state's history with traffic cams is far from comforting, especially if you're someone the cameras are going to be used against. Arizona used to have contracts with Redflex -- now under investigation for bribing government officials in thirteen states -- but dumped it just as it was handing it a "Governor's Award for Innovation." American Traffic Solutions wants to pick up the slack, but it's only a "better" choice in the sense that the company hasn't actually bribed government officials. Instead, it's been responsible for millions of dollars of dismissed tickets -- some because it never sent out notices in time and others because it kept "enforcing" school speed limits when the schools weren't actually in session. The latter is especially notable because the committee approving the bill wants to carve out an exception for school zone traffic enforcement.

With the public behind a ban on traffic cams, an exception-riddled bill that does little to scale back Arizona's use of the technology can't exactly be called "representational" of the public's views. But that's seemingly not going to stop their "representatives" from gutting it anyway.

Filed Under: arizona, ban, traffic cameras

Traffic Cam Company 'Bagman' Pleads Guilty To Bribing Chicago Transportation Official

from the that's-'safety'-with-a-capital-$ dept

John Bills
Managing Commissioner
Chicago Transportation Department
30 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60602  
(312) 744-3600



Mr. John Bills,

As the Commissioner of Chicago's DOT, you are undoubtedly aware that unsafe driving kills or injures hundreds of people every year.* While not every death or injury can be prevented, there are proactive measures that can be taken to reduce this terrible toll.

*[Stats tk, but probably a lot.]

One of the best deterrents is a non-intrusive camera: one that acts as both a recording device and a police officer. (And a judge and jury, truth be told.) In fact, these cameras -- which can* monitor speed and red light violations -- perform 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, generating a possibly unlimited amount of revenue for your department, as well as for the city itself. They may also make your streets safer, both for commuters and pedestrians -- something that can be highlighted when pursuing funding.

*[The spirit is willing, but the tech is weak.]

Unlike more static revenue streams like vehicle registration feeds and road taxes, camera systems can be tweaked as needed to guard against budget shortfalls. Working in conjunction with Redflex specialists, you'll be able to avail yourself to a variety of revenue boosters like shortened yellow lights, sudden speed limit changes, unchallengeable tickets and any number of camera malfunctions or programming errors that will almost always* result in more generated revenue.

*[Caveats apply. See 135-page agreement for further details.]

Choosing the best traffic camera solution for your city is a daunting decision. We at Redflex believe we can offer what many of our competitors can't, or at least likely won't. In addition to our traffic camera "expertise," we also offer the following:

• A condominium in Gilbert, Arizona
• Deep, deep, deep, deep, deep discounts on hotel rooms, car rentals and meals
• Debt consolidation plans for select transportation officials
• Multiple personal finance options

We realize your have your choice in traffic control systems, but would like to remind you that only one company can offer you up to $570,000 in cash over the next eight years.


Sincerely,


Martin "Bagman" O'Malley
Senior Consultant

Redflex Traffic Systems
Phoenix, Arizona
866 703-8097

[h/t velox -- and, yes, if you hadn't figured it out yet, this is satire, but based on a true story]

Filed Under: bribery, chicago, john bills, red light cameras, speed cameras, traffic cameras

'Revenue Generating' Traffic Cameras Forcing Governments To Refund Millions Of Dollars

from the not-working-out-quite-the-way-they-thought-it-would dept

Technology saves time and labor, but is as ultimately fallible as the humans it displaces. Thanks to the efficiencies of technology, mistakes can now be made faster than ever. Municipalities which have turned over traffic enforcement to cameras probably hoped to generate funds much faster than it could with an un-augmented police force. Instead, they're finding themselves issuing refunds, deactivating faulty cameras, fighting with contractors and investigating corruption. Not much of a payoff.

Two more stories have appeared (nearly simultaneously) showing the incredible number of tickets a set of cameras can rack up in a short period… and the amount of funds generated that no one will ever be able to claim.

The first comes from Nassau County, New York, where overenthusiastic speed cameras enforced school zone speed limits while school wasn't even in session.

Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano has dismissed $2.4 million in speed camera tickets issued over the past month, amid outrage from residents who received thousands of tickets from cameras at six school locations.

Mangano said cameras at five locations malfunctioned, spitting out tickets on days when school was not in session. Cameras at a sixth location -- in Elmont -- went operational prematurely.

Mangano went even further than this, declaring amnesty on all tickets issued this summer. Anyone who paid a ticket will be issued a refund and any unpaid tickets will be forgiven. Nassau County has contacted the contractor -- the infamous American Traffic Solutions -- presumably to ask it why its cameras can't be calibrated to issue school zone tickets only when school zone speed limits are actually active. The county officials declined to say whether they'd be asking ATS to refund its share of the "lost" revenue, which is 38% of every fine collected.

Of the $2.4 million the county will be refunding, only about $800,000 of it is for tickets issued while school wasn't in session. The other two-thirds is a good faith writeoff to help the county push through its installation of even more cameras.

In April, state lawmakers approved legislation allowing Nassau and Suffolk to install one speed camera in each of their school districts. Nassau will install cameras at 56 locations. Suffolk, which plans to roll out its program in mid-2015, will have 69 sites. Motorists that travel more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit receive an $80 ticket.

Not only will more static cameras be installed, but the county is also planning to send roving traffic enforcement cameras out on a tour of area schools.

Officials could not say how many districts will have mobile units, which can be moved to schools throughout the district at the county's discretion. The mobile units consist of an unmarked van with two cameras and a radar machine.

Nassau residents don't seem nearly as pleased with this expansion, especially not after having their mailboxes filled with bogus tickets. But I doubt the complaints of the citizens will be able to overcome the dollar signs in their representatives' eyes.

The speed camera program is expected to generate $25 million or more annually for [Nassau County]... Suffolk expects to generate $6.8 million from the 46 cameras in Western Suffolk, where the county provides police service, said county spokeswoman Vanessa Baird-Streeter.

Those are some pretty large numbers, provided the county isn't periodically forced to issue a ton of refunds. Given American Traffic Solutions' track record, it would behoove these county officials to cease counting their revenue before it's extracted by traffic robocops.

Meanwhile, over in New Jersey, malfunctioning systems installed and maintained by -- yes, you guessed it -- American Traffic Solutions have forced the state government to ask courts to throw out 17,000 tickets because drivers were never informed of their alleged infractions. (h/t to Techdirt reader Vidiot)

The state lawmaker who today brought the issue to the public’s attention — Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon —said it's is just the latest example of why New Jersey’s red light camera should not be renewed when it reaches its December expiration date.

“This wasn't 5 or 10 or even a couple of hundred instances - this total breakdown affected almost 17,000 motorists,” O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) said in a statement. "These companies incessantly tout the supposed accuracy and consistency of their systems - when the only thing consistent about the camera company representatives is their blatant misrepresentation of what the equipment does and how accurately it does it."

Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the state Judiciary, said that the issue was brought to its attention by the company — American Traffic Solutions (ATS) — on Aug. 10. Under New Jersey law, Comfort said, drivers must receive notices of the infractions within 90 days.

Once again, the screwup is all ATS. Apparently, a "server configuration change" resulted in ATS sending out no violation notices from May 28 to June 30, turning 17,000 potential moneymakers into 17,000 potential dismissals, thanks to exceeding the 90-day notification window.

An ATS spokesman spun this as a "technical issue" that only "impacted" a small percentage of issued tickets. (Oh, and the automated revenue generator is apparently called a "red-light safety camera" in ATS jargon.) Two things: if 17,000 tickets is only a small percentage of tickets issued, then ATS is definitely firing off way too many tickets. Thing, the second: it's only ATS having problems with its servers.

Automated Traffic Solutions operates traffic cameras at about half of New Jersey's 76 intersections that are equipped with them. The other company, Redflex, did not have the same problem.

Of course, Redflex bribes local politicians to secure contracts, so it's not as if this company doesn't have its own issues -- ones that also negatively affect the citizens being policed by unreliable camera systems.

As noted above, Assemblyman Scanlon indicated he'd rather not renew the state's contract with ATS. Given Redflex's moral turpitude, it might be prudent not to renew its contract either. But this would leave the state with very few options for low-cost revenue generation -- and once localities become hooked on a source of income, there's very little chance they'll give it up readily, no matter how corrupt/incompetent/terrible it is.

Filed Under: failures, nassau county, refunds, speed cameras, traffic cameras
Companies: american traffic solutions, ats, redflex

Misleading Scientific American Report On Traffic Cameras

from the not-always dept

Tom sent over a report saying that redlight cameras aren't just about making money for local police (and the companies who sell redlight cameras), but that one study in Barcelona found that the city saved a ton of money due to fewer accidents. Now, what I find interesting about this is that it seems to contradict nearly every other study we've seen on this subject. Study after study after study after study after study has shown no decrease in the number of accidents... and in many cases an increased number of accidents. So is there something that Barcelona did differently with its cameras that resulted in a decrease in accidents?

After digging in, it looks like some of this may just be bad reporting by Scientific American's Cynthia Graber. First, she focuses the article on red light cameras, but the actual study she discusses was for speed cameras. I'm surprised that Scientific American would mix up the two, since they're clearly different. Second, as some people pointed out in the comments to Graber's story, the study happened over a two year period during which unemployment in Barcelona shot up drastically, potentially leading to fewer cars on the road, especially during rush hour periods when accidents are most likely. In other words, while this might be some evidence in support of speed cameras, at best, it shows a correlation, and the causal factor may be something entirely different, such as the amount of cars on the road.

Filed Under: accidents, barcelona, redlight cameras, speed cameras, traffic cameras

Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK

from the feeling-safer-yet? dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about plans in the wealthy coastal town of Tiburon here in northern California to photograph and record the license plate info of every car entering or leaving the town. It kicked off quite a debate in the comments, and now comes the news that the town is moving forward with the plan, despite complaints about civil liberties and privacy violations. Of course, it's worth noting that just as this plan is moving forward, reports out of the UK are indicating that law enforcement there has been abusing traffic cameras for purposes well beyond traffic monitoring. They're using traffic camera images of traffic around political protests to note cars that appear at multiple such events, and placing them on some sort of terrorist "watch lists." Police are apparently going through the database of images and "marking" certain cars, which then allow them to be searched in the fight against terrorism. Not that there's a big protest culture in Tiburon, but this certainly shows how a simple traffic camera effort can escalate into something that is much more questionable from a civil rights standpoint.

Filed Under: abuse, civil rights, privacy, tiburon, traffic cameras, uk