Home Forums Discuss NMA Issues Technical Aspects of a Photo Red Light – defense

This topic contains 4 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  slyguy 5 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #176589638

    Anonymous

    Hi all,

    I want this thread to focus on WHY the camera’s should not be admitted into evidence. I have found numerous engineering studies (ITE) refuting the one expert.

    Also, the photo red light system is simply an IT system set up with a profit motive and sales and marketing claims. Companies I work for pay me big bucks to review and validate/dipute the claims of our IT vendors. They invariably oversell the systems.

    Many states have professional engineers for Electrical, mechanical, civil, and traffic engineering. Thier license is contingent on ethical and legal behavior. So they usually will not sign off on ATS or RedFlicks system. Some states like New Jersey REQUIRE a state licensed engineer to do this.

    If a state licensed traffic engineer has not certified the system to comply with all ITS standards, all MUTCD requirements at the state and federal level, and all state traffic laws. I would argue (and will argue) the system is simply hearsay evidence….

    As the cop heard the police chief say, who heard from RedFlex salesman say, who heard from the RedFlex engineering staff (non of whom likely graduated from an ABET accredited engineering school), and NO licensed or accredited engineer has reviewed the plans for the installation much less designed the plans for that red light.

    And all vendors hide thier flaws, I have worked in labs where they showed me which tests to do or not do depending on what they are trying to prove or disprove…for instance do not compare SSD drives for small read/write…but for long sequential reads if you want to prove them fast.
    Red Light camera companies always put the camera behind the car, instead of at 90 degrees to hide the fact of the true location of the car.

    Most red light camera tickets are for under 2/10 th of a second. For calculations, traffic engineers assume it takes a full second for the driver to recognize the change and think about moving thier foot off the brake…by now you are through the intersection…where is the safety violation if you are gone before anyone can possibly cross your path.

    There are study’s that refute the studies the camera companies use to justify this…including one done by a state department of transportation and an ITE peer reviewed study and presentation….the studies that have been refuted have refused to address the concerns…and all the positive studies seem to have the same author.

  • #176596751

    3yrIID
    Participant

    Probably not a good option but you can buy a spray to apply to your tag and cameras can’t record the tag number.
    Do a Startpage search for; PhotoBlocker Spray.
    Use at your own risk.

  • #176591345

    Anonymous

    Probably not a good option but you can buy a spray to apply to your tag and cameras can’t record the tag number.
    Do a Startpage search for; PhotoBlocker Spray.
    Use at your own risk.

  • #176596758

    slyguy
    Participant

    dont run a red light….slow down when approaching a traffic signal and use caution.

  • #176591352

    Anonymous

    dont run a red light….slow down when approaching a traffic signal and use caution.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Log In or Register