PhotoRadarScam's comment history

PhotoRadarScam said...

It's unfortunate the ban will not happen, but at least the cities will have to conduct engineering studies. I hope that the law is written so that the studies are legitimate and done by REAL contracting firms rather than camera companies. To Librul, "speed was a factor" does not mean that going a few mph slower would prevent the accident. In fact, "speed was a factor" doesn't even mean "speed above posted limit." Cameras are a pathetic replacement for real law enforcement. Cameras have a built in 28%+ error rate because they don't even identify the driver. The OWNER is NOT the DRIVER over 28% of the time, and this doesn't include processing errors or machine malfunctions. Pathetic. The cameras are NOT about safety or law enforcement. They are about making MONEY.

May 21, 2011 at 8:13 p.m.
PhotoRadarScam said...

The cameras are a scam to make money. These things are very inaccurate and make plenty of mistakes, burdening even innocent drivers. Over 28% of the time, the registered owner is NOT the driver so they are citing the wrong person, and they are not notified for several weeks or months! How does that improve safety? It also drains money from the local economy with much of the funds going to out-of-state companies. The cameras must go! Cops, not cameras!

March 1, 2010 at 1:35 a.m.
PhotoRadarScam said...

They are right. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. If they serve the public, then they should save everyone the election and BAN THEM NOW. There are locations in TN that have seen an INCREASE in accidents (Clarksville):

Make the roads safer and get rid of them!

January 12, 2010 at 12:04 p.m.
PhotoRadarScam said...

I hope the officials saw what a joke of law enforcement it is, and saw the scam for what it is. I hope they do their research and talk to honest police officials from places like Pinal County, Arizona where the Sheriff removed speed cameras after accidents DOUBLED and that they see how desperate police officials can be like the LAPD who disguised and tried to hide data about LA's red light cams which resulted in an INCREASE in accidents. I hope they question why traffic engineers weren't given the opportunity to assess each location and make recommendations on how to improve safety at each location - how local officials thought that they were qualified to determine that the cause was lack of enforcement.

Notice how they cherry-picked data: "helped lower fatalities from 37 in 2006 to 21 in 2009." Let's see the numbers for every year! And they like to say that even though traffic may slow down for a 1/2 mile radius in a few select locations that cameras are the reason... Of course it's not the poor economy or unemployment or gas prices that is causing LESS TRAFFIC.

I hope they see what a joke it is to fine the OWNER of a car and not the DRIVER. And further, to fine them WEEKS LATER instead of immediately. And how easy it is to avoid photo tickets by using plate covers, towing trailers, using temporary plates, trailer hitches, etc. What a joke.

I won't even get into the shameful legal aspects of automated ticketing, or the abysmal accuracy rate of the equipment (which the vendors won't publish), or the lack of a regular audit or maintenance program by a state or local government entity to ensure honesty and calibration.

Cops not cameras! Take them down!

January 5, 2010 at 1:27 a.m.
PhotoRadarScam said...

“All you have to do is obey the law,”

Yeah, right. What about having to take a day off of work to go to court if the machine malfunctions? What about when you have to hire a lawyer to fight your ticket because the machine malfunctioned? What about the evidence tampering and falsification that the camera company has been found guilty of before? What about when YOU are not the driver but YOU get the ticket anyway? What about the tracking and monitoring of all people who pass by a camera REGARDLESS OF GUILT? What about the INCREASE in accidents caused by the cameras?

December 7, 2009 at 2:15 a.m.
PhotoRadarScam said...

The accident shown in the video would not have been prevented by a camera. What may have prevented it, is if they had lenghtened the yellow light time by a second. This is low-cost and highly effective solution. This is also how we know this is a money grab.

“We want to look at the numbers over several years,” he said. “We really need at least two years to make any conclusion.”

For some reason, he's unwilling to look at the proven effects of adjusting yellow and no-green times. He's also unwilling to ackowledge that the results are the same in TN as they are everywhere else they've been installed. Why does he think TN will be different?

It's all about the money.

April 20, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.