RE: ETR Forum - Traffic Cameras
"Last month, the New Jersey Department of Transportation released its report on 24 red-light camera intersections in the state and found that rather than preventing accidents, the cameras seemed to increase accident rates. In the year before the cameras were installed there were 577 accidents at those locations, versus 582 accidents in the 12 months after the cameras were installed, thanks in large part to an increase in rear-end collisions. One thing some drivers have pointed to is the seeming shortness of yellow lights at intersections outfitted with cameras. In some instances, such as in June in New Jersey, subsequent examination by local DOTs found that indeed some yellow lights were dangerously short. Now a class action lawsuit in New York is claiming that lights in the city are rigged with short yellows in order to hand out $50 tickets. States are required to adhere to the Federal DOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, which states that yellow-light timing should meet engineering standards. Most take that to mean a minimum of 3 seconds or longer according to a formula based on posted speed limit, reaction times, and stopping distances. The yellow timing formula actually recommends a 4.3-second yellow for a intersection on a road with posted 45 mph speed limit. Practically speaking, if the purpose is safety, then many intersections need longer yellows since drivers don't travel at exactly the speed limit (say 40 mph in a 35 mph zone). Furthermore, many intersections are located in less than ideal locations, on hills or curves and set up decades before red light cameras were conceived. So a 3-second yellow may not be sufficient to prevent accidents where panicked drivers are trying to avoid tickets. In fact, in New Jersey the DOT sets such lights on 45-mph roads at 5 seconds (6 seconds is the recommended maximum).
"I personally hate the entire idea of the cameras installed/run by contractors for the sole purpose of issuing tickets and making money. I think if the municipality really thinks the cameras are a necessity, they should install them and use them for accident investigation, not as a means to make money for doing nothing."
"My big issue with the traffic cameras is even if you think you're innocent it will cost you more to contest it then it does to go ahead and pay it. The one camera ticket I got I knew the intersection was a camera intersection. When the light turned yellow as I was coming to it I goosed the throttle just a bit to make sure I cleared it. I didn't realize it was a speed camera as well. The throttle goose got me a ticket where I probably would have not gotten one for the light. Ah well. Gotta love Oak Ridge's back roads, lol."
"Yall remember the Kville hero with the high powered rifle...."
CORRECT Answers:
1. Correct in every jurisdiction including Knoxville and Oak Ridge. No jurisidiction obeys the UMTCD, TDOT or TN Code which requires a traffic engineering survey before installing any traffic control device thus all traffic tickets are illegal. According to the attorney for TDOT, after a public records request filed by the Dragonater, the mandatory traffic engineerign survey speed audit was never performed on US129 "The Dragon" at Deals Gap, thus the posted 30 mph "speed limit" defaults to 65 mph under TN Code, according to the Blount County public defender's office and Blount County district attorney general.
Tennessee Code 55-8-153 Establishment of Speed Zones.
(a) The department of transportation is empowered to lower the speed limits prescribed in § 55-8-152 in business, urban or residential districts, or at any congested area, dangerous intersection or whenever and wherever the department shall determine, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, that the public safety requires a lower speed limit."No traffic or engineering study had been performed as required in order to establish a thirty-mile-per-hour speed limit. The judgment of the trial court is hereby vacated, and this case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs on appeal are taxed to the City of Oak Ridge." -COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE, CITY OF OAK RIDGE v. DIANA RUTH BROWN, No. E2008-02219-COA-R3-CV, MAY 8, 2009
"Dear Mr. Lee (a/k/a "The Dragonater"): Please find enclosed the Road Safety Audit Review of U. S. 129 from North Carolina State Line to Tabcat Bridge in Blount County, dated July 25, 2007. We have no record of a Traffic Engineering Survey and/or Speed Audit for this location."
-Marion E. Hilt, Staff Attorney, TDOT, Tennessee Open Records Act Request, February 23, 2011
2. These are FOREIGN military contractors in Australia, England and Communist China that keep over 50% of all ticket revenue = TREASON to outsource US police services, US court system and US govt, and TREASON to pay tax revenue to a foreign nation.
"Lasercraft is a member of the Public Safety Equipment PSE group of companies. Public Safety Equipment (Intl) Ltd, Registered Office, Yeadon, Leeds, England. Beijing Mag Science & Technology Development Corp, Beijing, China." -lasercraftinc.com, pse-intl.com, maggroup.org
"Redflex Group is based in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Redflex Holdings Limited was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in January 1997. Redflex Traffic Systems Inc has contracts with more then 130 USA cities, and is the largest provider of digital red light and speed enforcement services in North America." —Redflex.com
$500,000 Knoxville Redflex invoice paid to National Australia Bank - Obtained during discovery by defendant Clifford Clark, the accused redlight camera shooter (who won dismissal of his case)
3. Best defense is FREE -- ignore the ticket and never appear in court. Recognize a bluff when you see one. I love red-light camera tickets. I think all police should be replaced with traffic cameras.
"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket." -Norman G. Fernandez, attorney, How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR
"When you receive a general post letter advising you of your photo radar citation, you have the option of just ignoring it. All states have guidelines on how the citation must be served. In effect, your payment or appearance at the courthouse is your acceptance of service. By not responding to the letter, you are refusing acceptance of service. In addition, none of the departments are making personal service to anyone that lists a PO Box as their mailing address on their vehicle registrations."
-Lt "Radar" Roy Reyer, Maricopa County Sheriff Office, Phoenix, Arizona, Your Photo Radar Defense - Ignoring The Letter"The civilian board that oversees the Los Angeles Police Department has put the brakes on the city’s red-light traffic camera program. An audit last year questioned the effectiveness of the program, finding that a majority of citations have gone uncollected. Commissioner Alan Skobin says that since the courts don’t pursue drivers who refuse to pay the tickets, the camera program lacks enforcement power. The problems for red light cameras go back to 2009 when CBS2/KCAL9 Investigative Reporter David Goldstein found there is no evidence the cameras reduced accidents, deaths or injuries at the intersections where they were placed and in fact, found those numbers actually increased at some intersections."
-CBS News, LAPD Commission Puts Brakes On Red-Light Cameras, June 7, 2011"Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void. On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") @ 28-701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28-701. On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree. The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court."
-Judge Bolton, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C, Jeffrey J. TONNER v. PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT, 1 CA-CV 90-429, 171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d 448; 1992 Ariz. App., May 12, 1992TN Rules of Civil Procedure
RULE 4. PROCESS
Rule 4.01: Summons; Issuance; By Whom Served; Sanction for Delay.
(1) Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk of the court wherein the complaint is filed shall forthwith issue the required summons and cause it, with necessary copies of the complaint and summons, to be delivered for service to any person authorized to serve process. This person shall serve the summons, and the return endorsed thereon shall be proof of the time and manner of service. A summons may be issued for service in any county against any defendant, and separate or additional summonses may be issued against any defendant upon request of plaintiff. Nothing in this rule shall affect existing laws with respect to venue.
(2) A summons and complaint may be served by any person who is not a party and is not less than 18 years of age. The process server must be identified by name and address on the return.
(3) If a plaintiff or counsel for plaintiff (including third-party plaintiffs) intentionally causes delay of prompt issuance of a summons or prompt service of a summons, filing of the complaint (or third-party complaint) is ineffective. [Amended by order filed December 10, 2003; effective July 1, 2004.]
Rule 4.03: Summons; Return.
(1) The person serving the summons shall promptly make proof of service to the court and shall identify the person served and shall describe the manner of service. If a summons is not served within 90 days after its issuance, it shall be returned stating the reasons for failure to serve. The plaintiff may obtain new summonses from time to time, as provided in Rule 3, if any prior summons has been returned unserved or if any prior summons has not been served within 90 days of issuance.
(2) When process is served by mail, the original summons, endorsed as below; an affidavit of the person making service setting forth the person's compliance with the requirements of this rule; and, the return receipt shall be sent to and filed by the clerk. The person making service shall endorse over his or her signature on the original summons the date of mailing a certified copy of the summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant and the date of receipt of return receipt from the defendant. If the return receipt is signed by the defendant, or by person designated by Rule 4.04 or by statute, service on the defendant shall be complete. If not, service by mail may be attempted again or other methods authorized by these rules or by statute may be used.Knoxville Code, Section 8-1, Issuance of process.
The city judge shall issue process on the complaint of any person when it appears to the city judge that any provision of this Code or other ordinance of the city has been violated. He shall try no case until process has been regularly sued out, served and returned.
4. All charges were dismissed against Cliff Clark after a Knox County deputy sheriff confessed to shooting a redlight camera.
"I originally saw this on Pirate news dot org! John Lee (a/k/a "The Dragonater") is the best journalist in the South!"
-ljrow49, youtube comments, Cliff Clark Wins Redlight Camera Case Flying Heavy Metal Guitar Into Sunset"You've got all these speed cameras here. In L.A. people would say, 'Why don't you just shoot them out?'" -Jay Leno, BBC Top Gear (crowd cheers wildly)
Green Hornet shoots redlight scamera (theater crowd cheers wildly)"
No comments:
Post a Comment