According to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Redflex Traffic Systems, a stringent review process guarantees the accuracy of every citation issued under the statewide photo radar program introduced last year. Evidence obtained this week from a confidential Redflex ticket processing manual, however, suggests that the state police and its Australian contractor may be misleading the public with such claims. “Redflex employees under our contract review the civil queue,” DPS Lieutenant Jeff King explained in a written presentation on the photo ticketing program. “If a driver can be identified based on comparisons of the license description and ‘flash photo,’ they accept the violation and a Notice of Violation is automatically printed and mailed. If photo quality is poor or face is blocked, etc., it will be rejected and placed in dormancy.”
This public statement is directly contradicted by the actual procedure described in the Redflex Procedural Manual for the Department of Public Safety, a document dated April 21, 2009 and obtained by the group CameraFraud.com. Under the heading ‘Special Notes,’ the manual outlines procedures designed to make it possible to issue tickets even when the facial photos are unclear.
“Do not reject any incidents for face issues if we can capture the plate image, send to batch,” the manual states. “If you can capture the plate image and not the face image, do not reject — send to batch.”
The next instruction suggests if more than half of the face is obstructed and the driver “would not be recognizable in person,” then the employee should reject the photo. It is important to note the distinction between having a facial photo for the citation and having a correctly identified facial photo.
Redflex is not penalized in any way for accusing the wrong person of an offense. If there is a mismatch between the sex of the driver photographed and the DMV record of the person to be accused of the violation, the Redflex manual says “Issue citation? YES.” Likewise with cases that involve an obvious age mismatch and cases where, for example, the registered vehicle is a Dodge but the violation photograph shows a Ford.
“If you have a gender mismatch, check the white box in the ‘More’ screen to see if there is another registered owner info that matches the gender,” the Redflex manual explains. “If there is registered owner info that matches the driver’s gender, add that info. If not, mark corporate/incomplete and leave any and all driver’s license and date of birth info.”
In other words, instead of automatically rejecting all tickets with obviously incorrect information — as the DPS public statements indicate is the correct procedure — the system is designed so that Redflex sends incomplete tickets to DPS in the hopes that the agency will approve the citation regardless.
It is obvious that Redflex, which is compensated on a per-ticket basis, wants to see DPS allow as many tickets as possible to be mailed to vehicle owners. The concern for maximizing ticket volume is found everywhere in the manual; the word ‘safety’ is never mentioned. This matches statements made by the company to investors.
“High-performance cameras increase prosecution rates and revenue streams,” Redflex CEO Graham Davie explained at an Australian shareholder meeting on November 30, 2006.
In statements to the press, Redflex has boasted that before any citation is forwarded to DPS, multiple human employees carefully examine the evidence to ensure it is a clear and unquestionable violation. Contract provision 8.10.2 requires “a second employee to review all violation images to ensure no misread registration plates will result in faulty citations.”
If the Advanced Quality Assurance third-level review process mentioned in Redflex sales material and contracts actually takes place, it is not described in the work flow chart described in the manual.
[Click here for monkey man story. Thanks to Dangerous Dave for the link]
I think Monkey Man has a very good point. I hope he wins, and this starts a huge precedent.
I applaud his “civil disobediance” 101%
These kinds of systems are useless frippery. Red-light and speed citations should (and where I am, are) treated like parking tickets: they can keep you from renewing your plates, but they don’t count towards your points or affect your insurance.
At best, these systems should send a notice of fine to the owner of the plate. It’s then up to the owner of the plate to charge whomever had the car at the time (spouse, child, relative, renter)—unless the car was stolen, in which case you’d be able to get the fine cancelled.
I can’t understand why they bother doing this.
ALL economic incentive should be removed from the enforcement of traffic laws – it’s the sheer definition of “conflict of interest”.
Shaker: I agree with you in concept. Law enforcement shouldn’t be allocated based on profit. However, what punishment do you propose? Maybe they should be required to donate to a CFC-approved charity? But then, you’d feel good about your infraction.
Do you guys remember when animal the muppet got caught speeding?
http://gizmodo.com/5069422/the-muppets-animal-caught-speeding-driving-police-crazy
This is classic. If they want to issue the Monkey a ticket pull him over the right way and use a cop. I see nothing wrong with his civil disobedience as long as he doesn’t cause an accident speeding with a mask on.
I’m torn. Living in Phoenix, I can say there are too many fast drivers on the highways. I generally go a bit over the limit (5-9 mph), but almost every day people pass by me (some of them are going significantly faster than me), sometimes darting dangerously between lanes.
The concept of cameras being used to slow people down isn’t necessarily a bad one, though the fixed locations only cause slower bottlenecks because people are going the same speeds before and after. But when this was turned into a for-profit endeavor, it’s no longer about public safety, it’s about the money, and that I do have a problem with.
Oh, and the guy in the monkey mask is a tool. It’s not civil disobedience when you are flagrantly breaking the law (I seem to recall that speeding was actually illegal even before there were cameras). Over 90 tickets? He’s not making a political statement, he just thinks he’s got a way around the law so he can continue doing what he’s likely been doing all along.
Reminds me of Clarkson speeding through Japan and holding up a mask of Bill Oddie every time he passed a camera.
I guess they’d be out of luck with rental cars.
It’d be civil disobedience if you got 1000 people to do this on the same night. I wonder if we could get improvanywhere on it…..
Too bad motorists will never be as organized as bicyclists.
Kyle Schellenberg:
“Reminds me of Clarkson speeding through Japan and holding up a mask of Bill Oddie every time he passed a camera.”
Exactly what I thought of when I read this.
Profit motive is a huge conflict of interest, especially when the speed/red light cameras (and a third party from private industry) get involved.
Profit motive is a huge conflict of interest, especially when the speed/red light cameras (and a third party from private industry) get involved.
Though some small towns manage even worse ridiculousness in the pursuit of speeding tickets without the help of cameras or a third party.
johnthacker:
Holy moley (can I say that?), that’s a pretty extreme case of ridiculous enforcement measures! No cameras needed. Where’s the TTAC mention on this? Worthy of a thread of its own, I reckon.