It seems that the Australian company has been using unlicensed radars in their speed detection units. [Hat tip to an Eye reader who sent us this story] The funny part is that Redflex was turned in to the Feds by a competitor.
In August [2008], rival camera vendor American Traffic Solutions noticed that Redflex had imported and was using German DRS-3 and British AGD-340 in violation of a federal law (47 USC Section 302a) requiring the devices to be certified by the FCC. The FCC standards are designed to ensure that devices that transmit radio signals do not interfere with television and radio reception or with critical public safety systems such as air traffic control (view ATS complaint). The Redflex response was, in effect, that it had made an honest mistake (view Redflex response). ATS continues to challenge the validity of the contract the Arizona Department of Public Safety entered into with Redflex while the company was legally unable to offer speed camera ticketing services.Here's the problem... Redflex systems have issued thousands of tickets to thousands of people in districts all over the country using unlicensed equipment. That means that potentially MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars went into government coffers all over the country using illegal radar equipment. If the FCC in the regulatory capacity found that Redflex was operating these systems illegally, it wouldn't take long for some industrious attorneys to start suing the governments using the equipment for the return of the collected fines, attorney's fees, and perhaps punitive damages. Who knows, Redflex could have even found itself on the wrong end of a class action lawsuit.
No matter what happened, there'd be hell to pay for Redflex and more importantly, governmental entities all across the country. So instead of doing their duty and enforcing the law as well as their own regulations, the FCC entered into a consent agreement that ended an uncomfortable investigation and sent Redflex on their scam-era way after they made a "$22,000 donation" to the U.S. Treasury.
In express reliance on the covenants and representations in this Consent Decree and to avoid further expenditure of public resources, the Bureau agrees to terminate its investigation and dismiss the Complaint."Expenditure of public resources" - that pretty much says it all. The FCC would have you believe that they are trying to save money by ending an investigation. What they were really doing was protecting a bunch of local governments from being sued and potentially losing a whole bunch of money (read resources).
It seems back in December the FCC determined that just like AIG, Redflex and their governmental clients are all too big to fail. Hey, it really doesn't matter if they all were operating in violation of the law... does it?
----- More on the FCC Decision -----
Arizona Resumes Freeway Speed Camera Use - thenewspaper.com
Redflex Pays FCC $22,000 for Illegal Radar Use - thenewspaper.com
FCC Conspires to Protect Ticket Camera Corporation - motorists.org
16 comments:
Once again, the Lie takes a strand of truth and then exagerates its position. The links you provided to the thenewpaper.com article clearly indicates the uncertified radars used in the vans were applicable only to the pilot vehicles used in Arizona's DPS pilot project while in competition with ATS for the statewide contract and not applicable to, "thousands of tickets to thousands of people in districts all over the country using unlicensed equipment," as you indicate. Further, with just a little more investigation on your part, you would have learned that ATS has dropped their challenge of the Arizona DPS contract. Hate the sytem, but get your facts straight.
Violation of the law?
I think everybody is guilty of that .... Including our leaders!
I'm not so sure Redflex is out of the woods on having individual lawsuits or a class action lawsuit being brought against them.
If you look at the consent decree at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/rdfconsentdecree.pdf
page 4 paragraph 14 (Final Settlement) states:
The Parties (Redflex and The FCC) agree that the decree does not constitute either an adjudication on the merits or a factual or legal finding or determination regarding any compliance or noncompliance with the communications act of 1934.
Having worked for a local company that manufactures RF equipment I can tell you that obtaining FCC certifications can cost tens of thousands of dollars and take months in some cases. If one of our competitors had been allowed to violate these requirements, it would give them a huge advantage in bringing new products to market.
I'd also like to see a FOIA request as to Redflex's compliance with the decree as stated on page 3 paragraph 8.
There is also another question that seems to have been completely overlooked here. If the radar system being utilized by Redflex operate similar to the radar systems the police use for speed limit enforcement, there could be more issues.
A few years ago I was stopped, on my motorcycle, for going 75mph in a 45mph zone, clocked by police radar. Even after I was able to show that the radar had not been calibrated in six years, I was convicted by the local city court judge.
Not being one to lay down on my rights, I went to the UNM law library and found in the congressional record that these radar systems were designed to target at minimum compact cars with metal bodies.
Well, motorcycles are smaller than compact cars and don't have metal bodies. Motorcycles don't reflect the radar signals accurately enough to give the radar a valid reading. In the process of appealing my conviction to the county court, our city's DA dropped the charges.
How many of these Redflex tickets have motorcyclists received?
Comment #1 left out some very important information.
The referred to article also stated that a requested copy of the certification from the Arizona DPS was
declined and that the $750,000 in fines generated by the KNOWN uncertified pilot project systems have not been refunded to the citizens.
Looks like a lawsuit to me. Put Redflex out of business.
Well wasn't the city's reason for not getting a competitive bid for this program based on "there is only one vendor"? Looks to me like this American Traffic Solutions has been around for a while - did they bid on the ABQ camera work? And if Redflex was inappropriately awarded this contract without going through a competitive bid process, doesn't that also negate the contract and all the resulting tickets?
Schultz came from Scottsdale.
Red Flex came from Scottsdale.
Ahhhh, send em both back.
If Schultz returns to Scottsdale, who will protect us and lead APD? A few years back Marty wanted to buy tickets for the homeless so they could go elsewhere. Maybe it's time to load a few Railrunner cars up with our favorite government officials and re-route them to Scottsdale. And have Sheriff White make sure they don't jump off before the border!
Just a few more comments about the previous posters who bring about intelligent topics for discussion. There indeed was a competitive bid process for the system but Red Flex was the only vendor to respond. And in as much as you despise our Chief, here's a newsflash for you: the system was authorized as a pilot program here at the bequest of Lt. Haarhues and during Chief Gallegos' tenure; while Chief Schultz was already in Scottsdale. And to the poster about the motorcycle, as I recall running radar, doppler with the Falcon series handhelds, the radar wanted to lock on the larger object and I never experienced problems locking onto a motorcycle, maybe an old lady on a roundabout, but not a motorcycle.
In response to the single RFP response comment: When there are several vendors who provide a service and only one vendor responds to an RFP for a very lucrative contract you know something is wrong. Either it wasn't advertised, RFPs weren't sent to other potential vendors, there was a bid lock (some term or condition in the RFP that only Redflex could provide) or there were politics involved.
Given the magnitude of the contract, when only one vendor responded the RFP should have been re-issued.
I never said radar would not lock on a motorcycle, I said the law does not require that it does by design. Therefore, how can the law (speed limits) be enforced against motorcycles with it?
Besides, officer, I think you prove my point in your argument "the radar wanted to lock on the larger object". When I was clocked, a van with a large flat radar reflective area passed me going the other way. The flat radar reflective area of the rear doors of a full size van is probably 600 (underestimated) times larger than that of the "rounded" radar reflective area of the front of my motorcycle.
Let me put it another way. If a company is making radar systems for a profit, I can guaranty they won't spend money making it work accurately beyond the design requirements. If they do, their competitors would put them out of business fast.
Especially so, when the customer (the government) is going for the lowest bidder. Why do you think Redflex was the only manufacturer to respond to the city's contract?
What about the pilot project here? I bet those were KNOWN unlicensed system also. I much $$$ was stolen from the public in New Mexico?
A few years ago I was stopped, on my motorcycle, for going 75mph in a 45mph zone, clocked by police radar. Even after I was able to show that the radar had not been calibrated in six years, I was convicted by the local city court judge.
Not being one to lay down on my rights, I went to the UNM law library and found in the congressional record that these radar systems were designed to target at minimum compact cars with metal bodies.
Well, motorcycles are smaller than compact cars and don't have metal bodies. Motorcycles don't reflect the radar signals accurately enough to give the radar a valid reading. In the process of appealing my conviction to the county court, our city's DA dropped the charges.
How many of these Redflex tickets have motorcyclists received?
your such a hero. Fight it man, fight it.
what about my moped with turbo? will it catch me speeding? with or without my helmet?
Any officer who would be part of an organization (APD) that supports subjecting citizens to a for profit program (RedFlex), has been corrupted by simple association. Think about it officer-there is no justification.
First it was just red light violations but that wasn't enough profit for RedFlex. So, they added speeding violations.
Now, they will be adding the capability of tracking the whereabouts of individual vehicles utilizing license plate number recognition. This will be initially sold as an aid to solve Amber Alert cases and locate stolen cars. The long term plan is to have this capability in all 21 states where RedFlex currently has systems deployed.
I bet $Marty and his ilk would love to have this kind of information on anyone who would oppose them-including you officer. Not to mention that kind of information being held by an offshore company that is not obliged to abide by United States law.
Apparently RedFlex, unsuccessfully and illegally, had attempted to deploy this capability in Arizona. They had to pull the reader after it was discovered and they were reminded that it did not comply (was illegal) with their contract with the state (by a citizen/lawyer).
Unfortunately, New Mexico's citizens don't have as much clout as our scameras are only subject to municipal government oversight. Hmm, I wonder why?
How long-officer-will you corrupt yourself in being involved with a proven and ongoing law breaking company like RedFlex?
Radar is driven by the doppler effect. Youre stupid because the doppler effect is always in favor of the motorist....meaning if its not accurate then its not accurate in your favor. The redlight cameras are not radar..they have sensors in the pavement that makes a loop and measures your speed. The reason the DA office didnt fight you was not because you were right but because they didnt have the resources at the time. Let look at it this way...hours off work...hours at UNM researching your case... the money to file your appeal...for a ticket you could have paid $36 court costs and went to a 4 hour driver improvement school....YOU WON BIG. Wish there were more like you out there.
The fine I would have had to pay was around $200.00. I would have also had to pay a substantial increase for my insurance for 3-5 years. That would have probably been another $500.00 at least.
It cost me $20.00 to file the appeal and I only spent about an hour at UNM doing the research, that I still have. I think it was worth my while.
I also believe the reason(s) the DA dropped the case was because the local judges don't like seeing their decisions overturned. It was a "save face" and "don't set a precedent" call.
If the RedFlex speed systems don't use radar, then why did they get in trouble with the FCC?
Post a Comment