Photo Enforcement Safety Benefits: Separating Fact from Fiction

Speed Camera Photo Enforcement

Photo Enforcement Safety Benefits: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction (Part II)

Evaluation of the Executive Summary of the Report Entitled, Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale's Loop 101 Photo Enforcement Program, Draft Summary.

Updated: 28 JUL 09, 1840EST

In my previous blog post, I laid the groundwork and context for this series of related posts.

In this part, I look at the Executive Summary of the preliminary analysis results of the fixed speed-enforcement camera demonstration program (SEP) that was "conducted" on Arizona State Route 101 (a.k.a. Loop 101) during the period of January 2006 through October 2006 (a duration of approximately 10 months).

The stated purpose of this "evaluation "program was to quantify the following five elements:

• The impact of the SEP (photo enforcement program) on speeding detections (76mph or faster)
• The impact of the SEP (photo enforcement program) on average speeds
• The effect of the SEP (photo enforcement program) on traffic safety (ie; motor vehicle crashes)
• The expected economic costs and benefits of the SEP (photo enforcement program)
• The financial public perception impacts of the program

The "evaluation" was administered (but not conducted) by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and utilized data from a variety of sources, namely the Arizona Department of Public Safety (for crash report data), ADOT itself (for data, traffic volume, and speed data), the Arizona Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems (for crash data and crash costs), the National Highway [Traffic] Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Redflex (for detection rates and traffic speeds).

In essence, the vendor standing to benefit most from a "favorable" outcome of this "evaluation" program, was Redflex itself. Does this sound a bit like asking the proverbial fox to guard the hen house?


OK. Here is where the fun begins.

The evaluation program was to look at four key time periods:

• The before SEP (photo enforcement program) period
  
• The SEP (photo enforcement program) warning period, only warnings issued to drivers
  
• The SEP (photo enforcement program) violation period, actual citations issued to drivers
  
• The after SEP (photo enforcement program) period, system no longer utilized during evaluation study
  

The Scottsdale SEP program employed 6 speed cameras on a 6.5 mile section of Loop 101 within the city limits of Scottsdale.

Now keep in mind the primary objective of the SEP program was to assess potential safety and cost benefits (of reduced speeding detections) in terms of an assumed consequence of overall reduction of crash and injury rates.

The very periods likely to have the highest rates of crashes (particularly multi-vehicle accidents or MVAs) or associated injuries are periods of high vehicle density, like those during morning and evening rush-hours, for obvious reasons.

Would you be surprised if I told you that those periods were specifically left out of the speed detection portion of the program?

The reason? Simple.

The report itself stated that during peak-hour traffic, speeds were constrained by congestion, and therefore it was highly unlikely that high speeds (defined as an excess of 11mph over the PSL of 65) were even possible!

For this "reason" speed data were discarded or not measured. In other words, the times when crashes were potentially at their highest rates, speeding could have not be a direct causation factor, but other dynamics were more likely to be, such as excessive traffic density, driver inattentiveness, poor vehicle maintenance, and/or inadequate highway engineering designs.

I find this a remarkable admission.

I suspect had that data been included, the overall "beneficial effects" of "reduced crash rates" as a they were related to speed (ie; the positive effects of the SEP program) would be have been futher marginalized.

For convenience and for the sake of Redflex being able to call their program a "success," speed data from the most dangerous periods were completely ignored! Furthermore, the report stated that empirical data sets were either extremely limited or completely non-existent.

To make up for these deficits of real empirical and concrete (independently generated) data, the "authors" instead relied upon limited data (from another section of the highway and not even in the city limits of Scottsdale!) and the reliance on complex statistical models, instead, the kind that only individuals with Ph.Ds would use.

By using data from an entirely different portion of the highway and with a reliance on "hocus-pocus" math, the underlying integrity of the report's conclusions was severely undermined.

As if this wasn't enough...

Even with the limited data and the massaged statistical analyses, their findings suggested an increase (33%) of rear-end type multi-vehicle (MVA) crash-rates (not at all surprising considering the unsafe dynamics these photo enforcement systems create, such as "traffic porpoising"), though the report also suggested a somewhat paradoxical finding that the related injuries were reduced (by 12.57%).

In reality, one would expect injuries associated with such crash-type (along with offset or head-on collisions) to be of the most serious nature (ie; spinal/neck).

The executive summary also suggested that increases in these rear-end crash types were swapped for decreases in other types (ie; potentially less severe ones). In plain english, this meant the crash reductions did not necessarily occur, but different (ie; more severe) crash types, did.

I find this an even more remarkable admission.

However, the report did indicate that this comparison of the program evaluation periods to the "before program periods" did not consider other factors that could have or would have accounted for the varying accident rates observed or calculated, such as weather or other roadway conditions (like construction zones or lane restrictions).

Even with its limited amount of concrete empirical data, the report basically concluded that the SEP program reduced average speeds by approximately 9.5 mph, during its implementation.

Now that may sound like a lot until one one considers that highway posted limits should be set to the 85th percentile of speed (according to ITE engineering standards).

Therefore, if Loop 101 had a more appropriate posted limit of 70mph or 75mph (again, only obtainable during non-peak times), then these "speed detection reductions" would have be entirely irrelevant.

Stated another way, it appears to me that the SEP program only confirmed that the appropriate PSL (posted speed limit) should be raised in accordance with normal traffic flow rates (and that it remains 5mph to 10mph too low).

The report's executive summary of the SEP report does "come clean" in certain respects:

• The "results" were based on small and incomplete [data] samples. (ie; insufficient data)
• The "results" were based upon incomplete time (ie; insufficient time where random fluctuations of crash were common and could have influenced the results substantially)
• Crash result trends were made at another site and crash data was used from high-peak periods (ie; rush-hour) even though speed detections were ignored for same periods.

Another interesting golden nugget suggested in the executive summary of this preliminary report of the 101 Loop SEP evaluation program was the admission that the highway of Scottsdale 101 (Loop 101) was already statistically safer to drive than other highways throughout the country!

Perhaps, this was the report's most remarkable admission for several reasons.

This acknowledgment, suggests the obvious: that speed, in-and-of-itself, is/was not a major contributor to highway crash or injury rates or has a limited adverse impact on overall highway safety.

Why would a city that was being actively lobbied at the time by Redflex and/or ATS conduct such a test [for/with] these very same companies who were (at the same time) forecasting huge potential profits from 'exploitation' of the marketplace?

Why would the findings (ie; conclusions) from this preliminary report be used to drive legislative policy nearly two years before the final report was to see the light of day?

Answer (to both questions): Follow the money.

How the SEP could be described as an "unqualified" success (by others not financially connected to its findings) would be a bit of a stretch.

How the report concluded (as it did later) that an increase of 33% in rear-end crashes as a result of the SEP was a "negligible" increase and an "equitable" exchange for less-severe accidents, would be a bit more than a bit of stretch.

That's enough analysis for now, because if you are like me, your head may dizzy from all the spin.

Related Reading:

• Intelligent Transportation Systems' Safety Benefits: Separating Truth from Falsehood

Related Online Discussion:

• Photo Enforcement Safety Benefits: Separating Fact from Fiction

©2009, all rights reserved. no portion of this article may be reproduced without expressed consent of the author.

Intelligent Transportation Systems' Safety Benefits: Separating Truth from Falsehood

Privacy and due-process robbing technology saturating the streets of greater Phoenix, Arizona metro area administered by for-profit industry.

Intelligent Transportation Systems' Safety Benefits: Separating Truth from Falsehood (Part I)

Updated: 28 JUL 09, 1845EST

I have long considered covering this extended and complex topic with my readers, but as it has been a challenging and time consuming task, especially when one considers how much reading and fact-checking is required, as such, it has taken longer than I had originally anticipated.

Nonetheless, I will attempt to do this subject matter justice, not just because of the high-degree of misinformation generally surrounding such studies (often by design of the publishers) but also because their objectives are routinely politically and/or economically motivated.

One Huge Benefit of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ie; Photo Enforcement Programs) is Money from your Pocket into Theirs.

My goal is to truthfully answer questions about the supposed safety and economic benefits raised by certain government sanctioned reports of Automated Photo Enforcement Systems (mis-labeled as Intelligent Transportation Systems).

A "sign" of corporate/economic Fascism (ie; Corporatism)

I am going to start this series with a look at one particular "feasibility study" undertaken by RedFlex, the Arizona Department of Transportation, the City of Scottsdale, and the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering of Arizona State University with Simon Washingtion, Ph.D (and two of his colleagues: Kangwon Shin & Ida Van Shalkwyk).

There are two reports connected with this study (formally called the SEP or Safety Enforcement Program). The first is a preliminary report which then later became the second and final report.

For the purposes of this post, I will focus on the initial report entitled, "Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 Photo Enforcement Demonstration Program: Draft Summary Report" which was originally dated January 11th, 2007, a report that can no longer be found online. Fortunately, we kept a copy as it originally appeared.

To appreciate the context of this preliminary/summary report and for the brief analysis that follows you should know that Scottsdale Arizona has long-served as a photo-enforcement friendly city (as does the entire state of Arizona). For more than a decade the state has served as host to two of the largest private and for-profit photo-enforcement companies, American Traffic Systems (ATS) and foreign-owned Australia-based company, Redflex.

Both of them have a rich and long history of lobbying government legislatures while at the same time forecasting explosive revenue (ie; sales) growth for both red light camera and speed camera enforcement to their investors.

It's also important to understand that for the purposes of ADOT's (Arizona Department of Transportation) and Scottsdale's photo enforcement exercise (SEP evaluation), much of the underlying data used (to drive the reports' conclusions) were provided by Redflex, the vendor financially benefiting from the program study.

For the sake of report integrity the data should have been independently measured and tabulated by those skilled-in-the-art and whom have little or no financial stake in the outcome.

This fundamental lapse of integrity is why at the core of the SEP, the subsequent reports' findings as well those diluted summaries which followed (used to promote such systems elsewhere), the results and conclusions proferred were fatally flawed.

I'll begin discussing/dissecting the accuracy of the preliminary report by first examining it's initial disclaimer (emphasis is mine as is text in yellow.):

The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. (This is a false claim for the underlying data was collected and presented by Redflex itself.). The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. (Indeed, the "conclusions" of this preliminary report did, in fact, precipitate state-wide legislative and regulatory supporting efforts, not just those of the City of Scottsdale). Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. (The objectives of Redflex and ATS were and continue to be the successful lobbying of these very same legislative and regulatory bodies for the support of their company's products and services with huge monetary inducements[a.k.a. glorified kickbacks] in the form of what amounts to an unconstitutional tax on motorists) The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. (This claim is entirely false, as the data provided and the objectives of the report(s) are to increase the use of RedFlex's and/or American Traffic Solutions' products and services).

Just in the preliminary report's initial disclaimer, every statement was factually inaccurate.

Now compare this disclaimer to Redflex's own "statements" in their financial report from the same period.

Redflex outlines a strategic plan to influence the legislative process.

Is it coincidence that the local city which hosts their Redflex's U.S. corporate-headquarters has undertaken such a SEP evaluation study during the same time Redflex is actively lobbying and selling their products and services? Answer: Absolutely Not.

Note top two priorities are directly tied to declining operating budgets and increased deficits (ie; tax-revenue shortfalls) to see how these studies are largely economically and politically driven (ie; there's the kickback to the politicians and the definition of their growing demographic, the U.S. taxpayer).

Unfortunately, the report's distortions/inaccuracies didn't stop there.

In future posts, I will continue dissect more of this preliminary report and the related one that followed well as the derivatives that continue to float around various government agencies and industry trade groups. When we're finished, you'll have a better sense about how safe these photo enforcement systems really are and what really are the underlying motivations behind their deployment, not only in Scottsdale but elsewhere, as well.

Related Reading:

• Photo Enforcement Safety Benefits: Separating Fact from Fiction

Related Online Discussion:

• Intelligent Transportation Systems' Safety Benefits

©2009, all rights reserved. no portion of this article may be reproduced without expressed consent of the author.

Cobra XRS R10G, R8 & Cobra XRS 9960G, XRS 9955 GPS-Enabled Radar Detectors

Cobra XRS 9960G & Cobra XRS R10G

Cobra XRS R10G/Cobra XRS R8 & Cobra XRS 9960G/Cobra XRS 9955 New GPS-Enabled Radar Detectors

Update: 08 MAR 09

Our Full Review: Cobra XRS-9960G Review

It's clear to me that GPS-enabled radar detectors—able to alert to the presence of nefarious speed cameras and red light cameras—are here to stay and Cobra certainly gets this as evidenced by their introduction of new gps-enabled radar detectors, including the Cobra XRS R10G and Cobra XRS 9960G.

For 2009, Cobra will continue following the lead established by Escort (two years ago with the Passport 9500i) with the introduction of newer, smaller, and more capable GPS-enabled radar detectors than previous Cobras, including their new flagship Cobra XRS R10G and Cobra XRS 9960G.

These new detectors, like the Cobra XRS 9960G ($389) and Cobra XRS R10G ($469), will feature Cobra's proprietary and extensive Aura^™ photo enforcement (red light camera & speed camera) database covering the United States, Canada, and Europe with claimed 100% verification of fixed speed cameras, red light cameras, known speed trap locations, and dangerous intersections.

The accretive Aura Camera and Driving Hazard database is the latest incarnation of the former U.K. company Performance Products Limited's technology—whose highly regarded Snooper^® European GPS models were equipped with the enigma database—which was acquired by Cobra in 2006.

Like other gps-enabled detectors offered which utilize another proprietary and highly regarded Trinity database (Beltronics GX65, Escort Passport 9500ci, Escort Passport 9500ix, Cheetah GPSMirror, Cheetah C100), these new Cobra models promise to provide a much higher level of accuracy and lower false rate as compared to those offered by devices relying on hobbyist provided data, since proper identification and classification of photo enforcement technology really requires trained professionals to do well.

These new GPS detectors will utilize newer, much smaller, and easier to use/update GPS modules that directly connect to the detectors and is a far more elegant solution as compared to the earlier Cobra XRS R7/Cobra XRS R9G and Cobra XRS 9950 models which required a separate cable and windshield-mounting location for their larger external GPS modules.

These smaller GPS modules (RDA GPSL55) offer the convenience of being directly connectible to your PC (via a direct USB port connection) for automated updating (SYNCing) from Cobra's online web portal on as frequent as a daily basis without the need for the entire radar detector to be removed from the vehicle, to do so. (Beltronics and Escort models have their GPS capability built-into the detectors themselves to take up less space on the windshield and are a "cleaner" approach as a result, but require the complete detector to be connected to the PC for updating).

A total of 10 radar detectors will be able to benefit from the incorporation of the Aura camera database: Cobra XRS 979, Cobra XRS 999, Cobra XRS 9845, Cobra XRS 9945, Cobra XRS 9955, Cobra XRS 9990, Cobra XRS 9860G, Cobra XRS 9960G, Cobra XRS R8, and Cobra XRS 10G.

The three Cobra models ending with a G designation, the Cobra XRS 9860G, Cobra XRS 9960G, and the Cobra XRS 10G include the GPS module and come with a lifetime subscription to the Aura camera database at no additional charge, a very nice feature, indeed.

The other seven models, the Cobra XRS 979, Cobra XRS 999, Cobra XRS 9845, Cobra XRS 9945, Cobra XRS 9955, Cobra XRS 9990, and Cobra XRS R8 will require the purchase of the GPS locator which retails for $99.95 and will require an annual subscription fee of $29.95 for continued database updates after the initial 12-month period of free updates, expires.

If you expect the need for GPS detection anytime in your future (you should), then I would recommend the purchase of one of the G designated models as the cost savings, over time, will be signficant.

Cobra's Information-Packed OLED Displays: Industry Class Leaders

Several of these Cobra radar detectors are in a class by themselves when it comes to display panels with the incorporation of the latest advancements in display technology—the OLED—which can be easily configured to suit the color schemes of most vehicles.

I only hope that the high-gloss display (which has been far too reflective)—on the windshield-mounted radar detectors—gives way to a more low-glare surface that will be easier to view in a wider variety of lighting conditions.

Cobra will also join the ranks of Beltronics, Escort, and Whistler with the augmentation of voice alerting into several of their new models.

Getting A Lot Of Things Right

If these new Cobra models continue to show real-world performance improvement with police radar, police laser detection and false-rejection (not an unreasonable expectation considering the somewhat lofty price points) I would expect them to have the potential of being compelling offerings.

In any event:

GPS-enabled radar detectors are the wave of the future.

Frankly, everything else is beginning to feel outmoded.

Happy and Safe Motoring!

Trustworthy Purchasing Source:

• XRS 9960g at BuyRadarDetectors

Related Discussion:

• Cobra XRS R10G, Cobra XRS R8 & Cobra XRS 9960G, Cobra XRS 9955 GPS-Enabled Radar Detectors

Veil Guy

Janet Napolitano Head of Homeland Security (DHS): Bad Idea

Janet Napolitano: Homeland Security Secretary (DHS), USA (United Socialists of America)

While much of the buzz with the news media has been surrounding the possible appointment of New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the reporting today concerning the appointment of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as the replacement Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), by the incoming Obama administration, is an extremely troubling preview of the kind of change that may be coming to Washington, DC and to our nation.

Is Napolitano, as the head of Homeland Security, the kind of 'change' we believe in?

This is the same Janet Napolitano that has been a long champion of increased levels of civil rights robbing technologies of photo enforcement such as speed cameras and red light cameras.

This is the same Janet Napolitano that has been an advocate of foreign corporate profit taking at the expense of the hard-working taxpaying American citizen.

This is the same Janet Napolitano whose adminstration has used law enforcement to intimidate journalists who have questioned the legitimacy of their reported findings, their 'safety campaigns,' or 'public' outreach programs.

The is the same Janet Napolitano that has embraced Totalitarianistic tactics in an attempted control of Arizona's taxpayers day-to-day behaviors.

Janet Napolitano's appointment to Homeland Security Secretary would certainly further erode our civil rights in a post 9/11 world and likely be a harbinger of ever increasing mass surveillance.

With Janet Napolitano as the Secretary of Homeland Security, expect her cronies at RedFlex and American Traffic Systems to have unprecedented levels of access and influence who push hard to take their 'safety' campaigns nationally.

George Orwell's gloomy look at one possible future: off by just 25 years!

Message to the Obama transition team and other supporters of such an appointment of Napolitano as the head of DHS (ie; Arizona Senator John McCain, now concerned about his 2010 election):

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Ron Paul, Aug 04.

It's going to be interesting to see who is going to be tapped to head the Department of Transportation. This appointment should also give us further indication of what 'change' may come (in the name of improving 'safety').

Change we can believe in? Yes! I Love Big Brother.

For all of our sakes, contact your state's U.S. Senators and tell them to reject this appointment!

Additionally, you can directly reach out to Obama's transition team (of which Janet Napolitano is a member!) and voice your concerns as they're soliciting input.

Related Reading:

• Janet Napolitano Promotes Economic Fascism, Not Safety

Speed Cameras Promote Economic Fascism, Not Safety

Speed Cameras Promote Economic Fascism, Not Safety

Updated: 04 Nov 08

Arizona's state government [Gov. Napolitano (D)] embarks on fulfilling the promises and profit projections made by foreign-owned speed camera operating companies, like RedFlex, by installing 40 mobile speed cameras and 60 fixed speed cameras (with the potential of another 100 speed cameras to be added later) with the intention of saturating the major east-west and north-south travel corridors of Arizona for the purposes of generating substantial revenue on the backs of the taxpaying public.

As I was driving home from the south Jersey shore area and through the City of Philadelphia (which like Phoenix, photo enforcement companies have setup shop with the anticipation of expanding their deployments of speed cameras—with the profits from their operation—throughout the rest of the state of Pennsylvania [Ed Rendell (D)]), I was giving some thought to one of the potential implications of their speed camera deployment, that has not been publicly discussed: these speed camera systems are set to grossly excessive and unfair "fines."

For the purposes of exploring this implication, I will cite two similar circumstances, each with a vastly different outcome:

Imagine you are traveling to work (as the responsible tax-paying and productive citizen you are) from Mesa to Sun City (two cities just outside of Phoenix) and your route takes you on the highways of Interstate-10 and Loop 101. Let's say you left at about 6am as you wanted to get a jump on rush hour traffic.

In this first example, when you are on the highway, you get into the left lane and set your cruise control to 66mph and proceed to safely travel to your destination in this manner.

Since its early enough, you find you are moving nicely along with the normal flow of traffic (which is close to the optimal 85th percentile speed of travel).

Now let's assume that a traffic patrol officer has observed your driving for several minutes and through the course of several miles (perhaps 'running' your plate in anticipation of a traffic-stop) decides to cite you for speeding (unlikely, if the traffic was generally moving at similar speeds).

In this example, you'd eventually be pulled over and perhaps be given a warning or cited for speeding. The fine for your 'indiscretion' would probably amount to roughly $100.00, you would have been detained at least 10 minutes, and experienced an immediate deterrent from the officer to actually slow down the rest of your morning commute.

In the second example, you drive in the identical manner, but this time, there is no actual law enforcement officer there are, instead, a high density automated photo enforcement speed cameras installed along your route.

During your travel you manage to unwittingly trip 10 or more of these speed cameras strategically positioned (placed for maximum revenue) on the highway in "speed zones" where the speed limits are reduced (well below sound scientifically determined thresholds of the 85th percentile speed surveys*). *Source: individual close to speed camera industry.

In this second example, again you were moving along with the flow of traffic (which may not now be as smooth as speed cameras cause traffic porpoising) but, this time you received no immediate deterrent from 'speeding' from these speed cameras, for your 'small transgression', and you make it to work in a nice amount of time.

Several weeks later you receive 10 or more speeding tickets in your mailbox, all at one time, and amounting to more than $2,000.00!

This scenario is not far fetched, as each speed camera represents its own unique violation, even if they come within very close distances and in close time proximity.

If you further exceed Arizona's speed cameras 'small' overage allowances (10mph on highways and 5mph in school zones) by a greater speed, those fines will increase dramatically, potentially exceeding $500 for each speed camera violation*! *Source: Speed Camera Company Violation Portal.

Can you imagine getting $7,000 in "speeding tickets" for one morning or $14,000 for just one morning and evening commute to and from work?

And you'll be subject to this every day of the year (that's 365 x 24).

Put another way, these unrealistically high fines would be for driving merely 11mph the posted limit of 55mph—66mph—for a single duration of about 15 minutes. Ever done that before?

Sound absurd? Don't think it's possible? I wouldn't bet on it, at least in the short-term, not if Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and her cronies at RedFlex have their way (that's their pipe-dream, as clearly articulated in their past annual shareholder reports).

Consider that Arizona imposes a fine, not to exceed $2,500 for a Class 1 misdemeanor*. *Source: Arizona misdemeanor fines.

It only takes one, with a reasonable level of intelligence, to see that these speed camera fine structures make no sense (but they do make a Helluva lot of money). To wit, RedFlex's earnings rose 25% for FY '08 and their operating profits rose an even more dramatic 45%, during the same period. (Source: RedFlex's 2008 Annual Report)

These results are even more telling when one considers that many economists agree that our economy has been in a recession and that these results do not take into account the additional revenue (ie; profits) from the statewide deployment of 100-200 new speed cameras that Arizona is just now beginning to undertake.

RedFlex's 2008 Annual Report Excerpts (with my annotation and emphasis):

Again new records have been set, by substantial margins, in relation to all standard measures of financial performance. More specifically, record results have been achieved in terms of revenue, earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA), net profit before tax (NPBT) and net profit after tax (NPAT). It is particularly pleasing, and worthy of note that such record increases were achieved despite significant adverse foreign exchange conditions. Approximately 80% of the company’s business is based in the USA. Between the start and the finish of the financial year the US dollar declined in Australian dollar terms by approximately 13%. That being the case, the financial records established by Redflex are all the more commendable. Since the end of the 2007/2008 financial year, there has been a significant improvement in the foreign exchange situation, from a Redflex viewpoint at least which hopefully augurs well for the balance of the current financial year.

Whilst Redflex is clearly a high growth operation, it is pleasing to record that corporate maturity and stability continue to evolve. Encouragingly, the company’s senior management, which has served us so well, has remained in place as a committed unified team albeit with some valuable additional appointments being made in light of the company’s rapid growth. Hopefully such managerial stability will be maintained in years to come.

USA LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT

Nationally, the legislative environment is becoming more favourable and the overall level of political resistance is receding as the technology grows more widespread and familiar [as government desperately attempts to fill severe budget shortfalls during this recessive period]. The most likely scenario is that this trend holds in the year ahead, although reversals remain possible.

The following is a review of legislative activity in the USA over the past financial year:

• In Arizona, despite significant threats, including a ballot measure to ban the use of automated speed enforcement on state • highways, and complex budget issues, legislation was passed which included a state-wide freeway enforcement program. This leadership position by the State of Arizona opens the landscape for other states to replicate this state-wide model for speed and red light automated enforcement.
• Efforts to restore operations in Minnesota [Gov: Tim Pawlenty (R)] and Iowa [Chet Culver (D)] with enabling legislation have not yet been successful. Redflex will continue these efforts in the next legislative session and will endeavour to garner improved support from cities and the police unions for the safety benefits that are offered.
• Despite numerous competitive vendors’ efforts, enabling legislation in Florida [Charlie Crist (R)] has not yet been enacted. Legal opinions indicate that automated enforcement in the State of Florida remains illegal. Some competitors have proceeded at risk with early programs.
• Ohio [Ted Strickland (D)] was relatively trouble-free compared to recent years in the state. A bill covering signage and yellow light intervals, which Redflex did not oppose, was passed in June.
• In New Jersey [Gov: Jon Corzine (D)] legislation allowing pilot programs was passed and signed into law.
• Massachusetts [Gov: Deval Patrick (D)] is also considering enabling legislation, and at this time the session continues and the outcome remains unknown. Redflex’s retained lobbying resources are working closely with cities to win passage of the legislation.
• The Texas [Rick Perry (R)] legislature sits in session only every other year and 2008 was an off year. An opponent is planning another legislative attempt to ban the technology in 2009, and Redflex continues to engage support in that state.
• A difficult period in New Mexico [Bill Richardson (D)] stabilised with the passage of legislation to channel excess funds from automated enforcement programs to a state level safety program. A panel was assembled mid-year in Albuquerque to determine the efficacy of the city’s safety program. Preliminary data [ie; cooked 'results'] that the Redflex program is improving community safety.

The percentage of camera systems which are currently not operational as a result of legislative and legal issues has decreased to less than 5%, from around 8% last year.

So there you have it, RedFlex, in no uncertain terms, is crafting a framework to expand their operations, revenue, and profitability to other states, suggesting as Arizona goes, so does the rest of this great nation.

For them, the United State's taxpayer is their target demographic (with the explicit enablement/encouragement by the government). Notice how RedFlex characterizes 'threats' [to its profitability].

It is clear that the of ultimate objective photo enforcement companies is speed camera revenue—with red light cameras (which can also be tasked as speed cameras with speed-on-green technology) as their initial foot-hold.

At a time when government is intruding more and more into our daily lives, our economy is in a free-fall, and many taxpayers may be struggling to make ends meet this is exactly what Arizona, RedFlex, and ATS intend to do: absolutely bilk, the taxpayer.

I believe eventually the public will ultimately reject these nefarious government/private business relationships and create a climate that is untenable to the would-be supporters of these corrupted relationships, but it will take time.

I, for one, am doing my part to blow the whistle on these guys (and gals) and expose them for what they truly are: economic Fascists.

Consider that certain government and private individuals connected with these systems deployment have been reported as having their own license plate registrations exempted from the fines these red light camera/speed camera systems automatically generate!!!

The sooner more people become aware of the facts and circumstances behind these ostensible 'safety' programs, the sooner we will rid our society of these evil and dehumanizing systems.

Faces of Evil Perpetrated for Greed:

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. Timothy 6:10

If you work for these organizations, consider forgoing the high salary/compensation plans and pursue a more noble path...you'll sleep better at night.

If you don't, please get involved, spread the word, vote the supporters out of office, pressure the media to report the real-facts and expose their fraud.

We owe it—not only to ourselves, but to our children, and to the memory of our nation's forefathers—the kind of society we leave to/for them.

Tomorrow is the day of an historic election and will likely mark a new era of even BIGGER GOVERNMENT (regardless of the outcome).


Vote the proponents of these companies (regardless of party affiliation) OUT OF OFFICE.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Ron Paul, Aug 04.

Related Reading:

• Speed Camera Photo Enforcement: For Safety or Profit?
• Speed Camera Enforcement: Undermining our Civil Liberties
• Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS)
  

©2008

Speed Cameras & Photo Enforcement Cause Crashes/Accidents: The Other Side of the 'Safety' Campaign

Photo Enforcement & Speed Cameras Cause Crashes & Increase Accidents

Not withstanding my long campaign against the profit-driven motives of photo enforcement companies like RedFlex and ATS (among others) to co-opt willing cash-hoarding and due process, civil rights destroying administrations such as that of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, I have also expressed concerns about the negative effects of photo enforcement itself which create additional hazards from their use (stemming from asymmetrical situational awareness) for drivers on the road and the inability of supporting administrations to be truthful with their voting constituencies.

Case in point, just recently, a story (demonstrating speed cameras cause crashes) has surfaced on the Internet suggesting that the internationally acclaimed BBC squashed a story that they prepared which addressed a European speeding crackdown which is utilizing speed cameras (in this instance, photo lidar-based speed cameras).


BBC Report: Speed Cameras Cause Crashes & Increase Accidents

A segment of their story also included some real video footage, taken by these photo-lidar systems, in which inattentive speeding drivers (and their poorly maintained vehicles) crashed as a result of their over-reaction to their approach to these systems.

Instead of giving its viewers a balanced look into the resulting circumstances, the BBC (under what I assume was undue pressure from camera proponents) killed the report.

Even more disturbing is another UK-transport department report that suggests that "panic" braking is a common driver response and that crash rates have increased by a whopping 55% along corridors where photo enforcement speed cameras are implemented.


Speed Cameras Cause Crashes & Increase Accidents

But what is most disturbing are the reports that the department attempted (unsuccessfully) to prevent their report's findings from becoming available to the public.

Arizona would be wise to consider this, as they embark on a most "ambitious" photo enforcement program to saturate certain highways with an unthinkable level of both fixed and mobile speed cameras to augment an already exorbitant amount of red light cameras and speed-on-green cameras, which are not only inefficient/ineffective systems for improving traffic safety, but actually create the same kind of dangerous safety hazards—which stem from asymmetrical situational awareness—which results in the cyclical disruption of normal traffic flow (traffic porpoising).

Unfortunately, I suspect the power of greed will continue to overwhelm sensibilities.

When greed is combined with a false (falsified) ideology, truth is often the first casualty.

In a time when we're all experiencing a global economic crisis and the likely expansion of government involvement and control in our daily lives, I can only hope the day will soon come when these administrations see the error of their (fascist/totalitarianistic) ways.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Ron Paul, Aug 04.

I wish PBS Frontline would conduct a thorough examination of photo enforcement...

Related Reading:

• Speed Cameras Promote Fascists Organizations

© 2008

Cheetah C100: GPS Mirror Capability in Small Form Factor

New Cheetah C100 GPS Detector

For viewers who watched Al's recent news interview about the Cheetah GPS Mirror , you know that Cheetah hinted of a new smaller unit.

Well today, it was made official: Cheetah is further enhancing their product offering with a new smaller GPS detector (red-light camera, fixed camera, mobile speed camera) that mounts (like a radar detector) to your windshield/windscreen and provides the same performance capabilities and interfacing abilities as their Cheetah GPS Mirror.

Suggested retail for the unit is $249USD, but unlike the radar detectors from Escort/Passport (Escort 9500ix and Escort 9500ci) which offer an update subscription service (for a fee) to the Trinity Database, the Cheetah C100 includes a lifetime subscription update service as a no cost option.

This is a very compelling product offering, as the Trinity Database should be updated on Trinity Database-enabled detectors on a monthly basis due to the fluid nature of changing red light camera, fixed camera, mobile speed camera locations as greed-driven photo enforcement companies and cash-strapped municipalities routinely look to extract the most revenue out of carefully selected locations.

For frequent airport-bound travelers like myself, the new Cheetah C100 will certainly be something I will pack and use in my rental cars in unfamiliar towns.

Veil Guy

Arizona photo enforcement citation loop holes result in a reported 20% dismissal rate

Arizona Photo enforcement loophole (flaws) dismisses 1 in 5 tickets (20%)

I was recently contacted by an Arizona ABC News affiliate, ABC 15 News (KNVX-TV Phoenix).

It would appear that I am not the only one who has been receiving flawed photo enforcement citations which fail to meet the long-established standards of due process of law, as codified in our U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The good news is, a high percentage of flawed photo enforcement traffic citations are being tossed out, as reported by ABC 15 News investigative staff, Dan Siegel (investigative producer) and Joe Ducey (investigative reporter).

The bad news is, this is only the beginning of what most assuredly will be a long-battle between individuals utmost concerned about their civil liberties and the political "climate" of where the promises of "safety" come before everything else (except.. of course, corporate profits and budget short-falls).

I am confident that the powers-that-be, will continue their fight to further erode our already fragile civil liberties.

KNXV-TV Phoenix, further reports that Arizona is one of only four states where photo enforcement tickets (ie; photo radar speed camera) count against the licensed driver of the vehicle, although no detail was provided as to how a rear-view photo of a vehicle's license plate can be used to accurately identify the driver.

It's been reported that Arizona, requires that photo enforcement tickets need to be personally served, by process servers, within a 3-month period (90 days) before becoming invalid (dismissed).

While the Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, may have managed to ostensibly make a 'valid' argument for red light cameras, speed cameras on the notion that the implementation of these technologies provide reductions in man-power [of law enforcement personnel, which can be used for other law enforcement duties, as does the City of Philadelphia], when this claim is examined more closely, it appears to be a disingenuous claim, especially when one considers the additional man-power required to serve, by individuals, these automated photo enforcement tickets.

When will the "insanity" end? The answer is Arizonans are going to have to put up with these disingenuous safety measures until the 2010 election year. Let's hope that when the time comes, the voters of Arizona will decide its time for a positive change from business as usual. Perhaps, Arizonans, should call for an immediate referendum on this matter, before Phoenix ends looking like London, England (the rich irony of this situation!)

I hope both Dan and Joe, of ABC 15, will continue to dig deeper in their ongoing investigation of the full impact photo enforcement has upon the residents of Arizona and our nation, at large.

Big Brother, our should we call her Big Sister

Fair warning, guys, prepare to be intimated by certain legislators, lobbyists, politically-minded law enforcement officers, and yes, Janet Napolitano's own administration—who are hell-bent on implementing these speed cameras and related technologies at whatever the "costs" (to our individual freedoms), without a full and proper public vetting processes, and most importantly without regard to the safety and well-being of the voters. And, I am not just talking about traffic safety.

The full text of Dan and Joe's article, can be located, here:

Arizona Photo enforcement loophole dismisses 1 in 5 tickets (20%)

Bottom Line: Expect further erosions to your civil liberties by the likes of Arizona Governor, the state's legislative and political arms to further erode of Arizona residents' right to due process of law, as a means to close this "loophole."

Again, I remind my readers:

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, April 23, 2007

Related reading:

• Arizona Photo Enforcement: Expect $165M in Unconstitutional Taxes

Veil Guy

Effect of Speed Camera Enforcement—According to the IIHS Status Report: Speed

Updated: 22 NOV 08, 1351 EST

The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) just released a special issue status report on speed, which 'promises' the 'positive' effects of speed cameras while ignoring its negative ones.

The overriding sentiment of their report is simply SPEED KILLS, and automated photo enforcement (red light cameras, speed on green, speed cameras) effectively reduces speeds and therefore promotes highway safety, slower drivers, and reduces collisions and fatalities. Sounds nobel (automated speed reductions), indeed, but...

This report ignores key societal implications (privacy concerns of red light cameras) and officially "green-lights" red light cameras and other automated enforcement technologies in the US, such as speed on green and speed cameras while ignoring a host of other larger contributing factors to these fatalities, the profit-motive behind the companies (mostly European) which promote their use in this country, the automotive manufacturers equipment safety improvements, roadway conditions, along with poor/reckless/careless driving behavior, and most-importantly the corrosive impact of the application of these emerging technologies have on our long-cherished civil liberties.

Nor does IIHS status report address the technical flaws (let alone the legal flaws) in these systems as they are currently deployed (described in the following three reports):

• Don't take the law enforcement officer out of law enforcement
• Machine Bears False Witness
• Red Light Cameras: Our [Lack of] Privacy Doesn't STOP There
  

This report also sources France, a socialist society, which has not historically sponsored an individual citizen's Bill of Rights.

For those interested in reading more, please refer to the following article:

IIHS Status Report: Speed—Effect of Speed Camera Enforcement

If you are a US Citizen, not familiar with a pesky old-document—your bill of rights, may I suggest a refresher*?

At least we now know where the (for-profit) insurance industry stands on this issue.

If you are too young to remember WWII, can you say neo-fascism?

Since we're collectively living in a post 9/11 society, let us not forget these sacred words:

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, April 23, 2007

Veil Guy

*Is the reason we are forgetting our country's Founding Fathers, because the Bill of Rights is fading**?

**Perhaps this is something made to order for Lou Dobbs (of CNN).

PS: I hear the faint whispers of George Orwell (author of Animal Farm and 1984), please let us let his soul rest in peace.

Update: 01 FEB 08, As Reported by Google News

• NMA's Official Response to IIHS Status Report Special Issue: Speed

Related Reading:

Do speed cameras actually increase accident/crash rates?

© 2008