|
General » rec.autos.driving » Surprise - Photo Enforcement Malfunctioned Giving 100s of False
| Surprise - Photo Enforcement Malfunctioned Giving 100s of False [message #792653] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 03:54 |
|
If the cameras weren't so obviously malfunctioning, do you think the
Government would have the integrity to find its mistake and rectify
it?
http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0129p hotoflub0130-ON.html
589 speeding tickets dismissed over faulty equipment
Scottsdale is dismissing nearly 600 speeding citations issued in
December and early January after finding photo-enforcement equipment
on Shea Boulevard was flashing too eagerly.
Some 589 motorists who received citations will have those citations
dismissed and their driving records corrected, city spokesman Pat
Dodds said Tuesday. Of that group, 35 had paid fines or fees to attend
traffic school. They will receive refunds.
Flubs in the program are uncommon but do happen, Dodds said. "We've
had glitches before, and when we do, we correct them," he said.
The dismissed citations were for drivers clocked at more than 11 mph
over the speed limit between Dec.7, a few days before the equipment
apparently began malfunctioning, and Jan. 4, when the cameras at Shea
and 120th Street in Scottsdale were shut down.
Scottsdale police had received complaints from motorists that they
were cited even though they had not been speeding on Shea, Dodds said.
The problem was traced to a bad sensor embedded in one of the three
eastbound lanes, said Josh Weiss, spokesman for photo-enforcement
vendor American Traffic Solutions Inc.
The sensor was replaced and the cameras reactivated Jan. 16, he said.
"It's extremely rare for one to go bad," Weiss said. "As a result, it
didn't allow us to verify the exact speed a driver was going."
The Shea location was one of three sites added when ATS took over the
city's photo-enforcement contract in July. ATS has checked its
equipment at other Scottsdale locations and on the Loop 101 and found
it is working correctly, Weiss said.
The impact of the dismissals on city and ATS revenues was not
immediately available. Scottsdale City Court fines for going more than
9 mph over the speed limit range from $165 to $210 per citation. ATS
receives $22.50 for every speeding citation that results in a violator
pleading or being found responsible or attending defensive-driving
school.
|
|
|
| Re: Surprise - Photo Enforcement Malfunctioned Giving 100s of False [message #792664 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 09:02 |
|
On Jan 29, 7:54=A0pm, Jason Pawloski <jpawlo... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> If the cameras weren't so obviously malfunctioning, do you think the
> Government would have the integrity to find its mistake and rectify
> it?
I'm guessing that they were probably inundated with complaints about
this particular camera, since it issued close to 600 erroneous
citations in a 4 week period. Conversely, if there was a camera
elsewhere that generated 1 or 2 complaints of inaccuracy in the same
time period, the city might chalk it up as someone who just doesn't
want to pay the fine... The loudest wheel gets the grease.
Still, it brings up a few interesting questions:
How often do they test these cameras for accuracy, and if so, how do
they test them?
Seems to me the only way to truly field test the accuracy of the speed
cameras would be to drive past the detection point at various speeds
below, at, and above the speed limit, and compare the reading to that
of another reliable speed detection method, such as radar, laser,
etc.
In doing so, begs the question: Is ATS or the city of Scottsdale
thereby breaking the law(by speeding) to make sure their photo
enforcement is accurate, so they can issue speeding citations?
|
|
|
| Re: Surprise - Photo Enforcement Malfunctioned Giving 100s of False Tickets [message #792677 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 17:12 |
|
"Justin Rhodes" <JustinKRhodes [at] gmail.com> wrote
On Jan 29, 7:54 pm, Jason Pawloski <jpawlo... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the cameras weren't so obviously malfunctioning, do you think the
>> Government would have the integrity to find its mistake and rectify
>> it?
>
> Seems to me the only way to truly field test the accuracy of the speed
> cameras would be to drive past the detection point at various speeds
> below, at, and above the speed limit, and compare the reading to that
> of another reliable speed detection method, such as radar, laser,
> etc.
If I was testing it, I'd get a radar/laser gun and compare speeds
of passing cars displayed by it and the output of the camera's sensors.
>> The problem was traced to a bad sensor embedded in one of the three
>> eastbound lanes, said Josh Weiss, spokesman for photo-enforcement
>> vendor American Traffic Solutions Inc.
>>
>> The sensor was replaced and the cameras reactivated Jan. 16, he said.
>>
>>" It's extremely rare for one to go bad," Weiss said. "As a result, it
>> didn't allow us to verify the exact speed a driver was going."
I don't know what world this Weiss guy lives in, but it's not the
real world. Sensor loops and their amplifiers die all the time.
There's a traffic signal on one of the main routes from my house
that I have to call the DOT on about twice a year. Either a bad
amp or short in the wiring in the junction box.
Seems like bad engineering for a camera system to not fail safe.
Floyd Rogers
|
|
|
| Re: Surprise - Photo Enforcement Malfunctioned Giving 100s of False Tickets [message #792678 ] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 18:33 |
|
>> Seems to me the only way to truly field test the accuracy of the speed
>> cameras would be to drive past the detection point at various speeds
>> below, at, and above the speed limit, and compare the reading to that
>> of another reliable speed detection method, such as radar, laser,
>> etc.
>
> If I was testing it, I'd get a radar/laser gun and compare speeds
> of passing cars displayed by it and the output of the camera's sensors.
>
Wouldn't it just be easier to use a GPS system to verify the speed camera
accuracy? My GPS system is cheap, yet offers speed readout in TENTHS of a
MPH. If the GPS says 53, the speedometer says ~53, the camera says 64, then
there is a problem with the camera, obviously. -Dave
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 02:24:04 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.05642 Sekunden |
