Photo Radar Info
Alan Peterman
Portland today. Good news is that it is easily aviodable, bad
news is that it exists.
Going east on Holgate at 52nd my radar detector (an old Escort)
started picking up a constant signal. I made sure I was legal
and kept on. At 60th a smallish white van was parked with
a very interesting back window...that flashed my speed as I
passed. I decided to watch the operation for a while. There
was a electronic flash mounted on the rear of the van's liftgate
that would fire on cars when the speed displayed was 40 (in a
30 zone) or more. I did see a speed of 60 displayed at one point
when a pedestrian walked behind the van...maybe it is prone to
false readings like many other radars.
Anyway, the good news is that my 1988 era radar detector in city
mode give MORE than ample warning, so anyone with a decent
detector should have NO problems avoiding these revenue traps.
Of course, under the existing law all the tickets are unenforcable
since several provisions of the statute make the tickets easily
defeated.
Anyway, as "Phil" of Hill Street Blues put it - "Let's be
careful out there folks!"
--
Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm & work
a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com Tigard, Oregon 97224
As I get older the days seem longer and the years seem shorter!
Scott D. Peterson
>[...] I decided to watch the operation for a while. There
>was a electronic flash mounted on the rear of the van's liftgate
>that would fire on cars when the speed displayed was 40 (in a
>30 zone) or more.
Interesting. On the news I noticed the flash, and noticed that it
fires when the cars are fairly close to the van, by which time many
speeders may have slowed down. Seems likely that it remembers your max
speed and snaps your picture when you get in range (but I'm guessing).
I wonder if it's smart enough to notice if the speeding car has turned
off the road or pulled over (to let the car behind it get its picture
taken)?
--- sdp
BKL
>In article <4chlvq$7...@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) says:
>>[...] I decided to watch the operation for a while. There
>>was a electronic flash mounted on the rear of the van's liftgate
>>that would fire on cars when the speed displayed was 40 (in a
>>30 zone) or more.
>Interesting. On the news I noticed the flash, and noticed that it
>fires when the cars are fairly close to the van, by which time many
>speeders may have slowed down. Seems likely that it remembers your max
>speed and snaps your picture when you get in range (but I'm guessing).
If the speed is measured at a different time than the picture is
taken, you might have a good defense. Your questions when you are
cross examining the machine at trial will establish this :)
Actually, you will need to subpoena an officer to attempt to
authenticate the results of the machine, and have him explain how the
machine works.
However, I suspect that the photo is probably simultaneously shooting
the instantaneous speed display. People who pay attention may be less
likely to be taxed with a ticket.
The best speed enforcement (other than the basic rule of ticketing
when driving too fast for conditions) is one that catches
inattententive drivers more than attentive ones. The old pre-radar
speed trap was perfect: An alert, attentive motorist would spot the
trap and avoid a ticket, while a distracted, clueless, or impaired
motorist would be caught. If both those motorists were traveling at
the same speed, who is the greater risk to others?
--
Ben Langlotz
National Motorists Association, Oregon Chapter Coordinator
oreg...@aol.com
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/
Alan Peterman
defeatable" so I'm posting what I believe to be the entire statute. If
you examine it carefully, you'll find several loopholes. One of
them is in Section 2 (1)(a)(D) where it states all major routes into
the cities with photo radar must be posted with warning signs...which
is obviously not the case.
More importantly, Section 2(3)(a) states that anyone who sends in a
statement of innocence with copy of driver license photo will have
the ticket dismissed. The person sending the statement of innocence
CANNOT be prosecuted for perjury. Got that!
Anyway, here's the whole thing...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
68th Oregon Legislative Assembly - 1995 Regualr Session
Enrolled Senate Bill 382
Sponsored by Senators Baker and Cease, Representatives Eighmey & Markham
AN ACT
Relating to traffic infractions.
Whereas speeding by drivers of motor vehicles creates serious
safety concerns in Oregon's local communities and is a frequently
occurring driver error-related cause contributing to crashes; and
Whereas local governments require new tools to enforce speeding
laws that they are currently unable to enforce due to lack of
personnel and other hindrances; and
Whereas 'photo radar' is a system that combines a photograph of
a vehicle and its driver with a record of speed checked by radio
microwaves or other electrical device staffed during operation by
a police officer; and
Whereas the use of photo radar may enable local governments to
enforce speeding laws and improved safety in local communities;
and
Whereas this technological tool should be evaluated after
actual use by selected jurisdictions in this state; now,
therefore,
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1.
(1) The following jurisdictions may, at their own cost, operate a
photo radar demonstration project after January 1, 1996:
(a) City of Beaverton.
(b) City of Portland.
(2) Each jurisdiction operating a photo radar demonstration project
in the state shall:
(a) Provide a public information campaign to inform local drivers
about the use of photo radar before citations are actually
issued; and
(b) Conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the demonstration
project for the Department of Transportation that includes:
(A) The effect of the project on traffic safety;
(B) The degree of public acceptance of the project;
(C) The process of administration of the project; and
(D) Suggestions for design or planning changes that might
reduce traffic congestion on residential streets or use of such
streets as thoroughfares.
(3) A photo radar system operated under this section:
(a) Shall be confined to streets in residential areas or school zones.
(b) Shall be used for no more than four hours per day in any one location.
(4) The Department of Transportation shall provide an executive
summary of the demonstration projects to the Sixty-ninth
Legislative Assembly.
SECTION 2.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the jurisdictions
authorized to use photo radar:
(a) A citation for speeding may be issued on the basis of photo radar
if the following conditions are met:
(A) The photo radar equipment is operated by a uniformed police
officer.
(B) The photo radar equipment is operated out of a marked
police vehicle.
(C) An indication of the actual speed of the vehicle is
displayed within 150 feet of the location of the photo radar
unit.
(D) Signs indicating that speeds are enforced by photo radar
are posted, so far as is practicable, on all major routes
entering the jurisdiction.
(E) The citation is mailed to the registered owner of the
vehicle within six business days of the alleged violation.
(F) The registered owner is given 30 days from the date the
citation is mailed to respond to the citation.
(G) If the person named as the registered owner of a vehicle in
the current records of the Department of Transportation fails to
respond to a citation issued under this subsection, the
provisions of ORS 153.555 shall apply, and a judgment may be
entered for failure to appear after notice has been given that
the judgment will be entered.
(b) A rebuttable presumption exists that the registered owner
of the vehicle was the driver of the vehicle when the citation is
issued and delivered as provided in this section.
(c) A person issued a citation under this subsection may
respond to the citation by submitting a certificate of innocence
or an affidavit of nonliability under subsection (3) of this
section or any other response allowed by law.
(2) A citation issued on the basis of photo radar may be
delivered by mail or otherwise to the registered owner of the
vehicle or to the driver.
(3)
(a) If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a
citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by
submitting a certificate of innocence within 30 days from the
mailing of the citation swearing or affirming that the owner was
not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of the owner's
driver license, the citation shall be dismissed. A person may not
be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing in connection with
submission of a certificate of innocence under this paragraph.
(b) If a motor vehicle rental or leasing company responds to a
citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by
submitting an affidavit of nonliability within 30 days from the
mailing of the citation stating that at the time of the alleged
speeding violation the vehicle was in the custody and control of
a renter or lessee under the terms of a rental agreement or
lease, and if the rental or leasing company provides the driver
license number, name and address of the renter or lessee, the
citation shall be dismissed with respect to the rental or leasing
company. The citation may then be issued and delivered by mail
or otherwise to the renter or lessee identified in the affidavit
of nonliability.
(4) The penalties for and all consequences of a speeding
violation initiated by the use of photo radar are the same as for
a speeding violation initiated by any other means.
(5) A registered owner or a renter or lessee against whom a
judgment for failure to appear is entered may move the court to
relieve the owner or the renter or lessee from the judgment as
provided in ORS 153.555 if the failure to appear was due to
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.
SECTION 3.
This Act is repealed on December 31, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Peterman
>I've seen these things before. The most common use that I have
>hears is NOT as enforcement per se, but as warnings. In areas
>where there is a LOT of FLAGRENT ignoring of speed laws they put
>one of these things which tells drivers how fast they are really
>going. The theory is (and I think this is born out by statistice)
>that most people will slow down when given a gentle hint. Usually
>a few days or a week later, they will post a real cop thereabouts
>to start handing out real tickets to those who DIDN'T get the
>hint.
>Al
>=================================
Nope - you've never seen this in Oregon until this week. These are NOT
the big displays that just show your speed, these are manned automatic
cameras that take a picture of all vehicles over the set speed and
mail off citations that are traffic tickets unless you contest them.
If you do encounter one, you'll see it's quite different from the old
speed billboard. If you're over the set speed you'll get a mailed
ticket without being stopped by a cop.
I suppose another way to defeat this is that if everyone who got a
ticket went to court it could make the operating officer spend
many days in court for each day spent at the trap since the machine
can issue hundreds of tickets in a day. Unlikely to happen.
Al
hears is NOT as enforcement per se, but as warnings. In areas
where there is a LOT of FLAGRENT ignoring of speed laws they put
one of these things which tells drivers how fast they are really
going. The theory is (and I think this is born out by statistice)
that most people will slow down when given a gentle hint. Usually
a few days or a week later, they will post a real cop thereabouts
to start handing out real tickets to those who DIDN'T get the
hint.
Al
=================================
a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) wrote:
>Well I had my first "encounter" with operational photo radar in
>Portland today. Good news is that it is easily aviodable, bad
>news is that it exists.
>Going east on Holgate at 52nd my radar detector (an old Escort)
>started picking up a constant signal. I made sure I was legal
>and kept on. At 60th a smallish white van was parked with
>a very interesting back window...that flashed my speed as I
>passed. I decided to watch the operation for a while. There
>was a electronic flash mounted on the rear of the van's liftgate
>that would fire on cars when the speed displayed was 40 (in a
>30 zone) or more. I did see a speed of 60 displayed at one point
>when a pedestrian walked behind the van...maybe it is prone to
>false readings like many other radars.
>Anyway, the good news is that my 1988 era radar detector in city
>mode give MORE than ample warning, so anyone with a decent
>detector should have NO problems avoiding these revenue traps.
>Of course, under the existing law all the tickets are unenforcable
>since several provisions of the statute make the tickets easily
>defeated.
>Anyway, as "Phil" of Hill Street Blues put it - "Let's be
>careful out there folks!"
Gary W. Takahashi
the results of the machine.
I recall that when Bill Gates got a traffic ticket, he had his
lawyers get the police to prove that the radar equipment used was
accurate, certified, etc. WHen they couldn't do that, the lawyers
successfully got the charges dropped. I suppose one could represent
himself to do this, but I suspect it was the Microsoft threat that
made the police back off.
--Gary
--
taka...@teleport.COM
John Specht
wrote:
>
>Nope - you've never seen this in Oregon until this week. These are NOT
>the big displays that just show your speed, these are manned automatic
>cameras that take a picture of all vehicles over the set speed and
>mail off citations that are traffic tickets unless you contest them.
>
>If you do encounter one, you'll see it's quite different from the old
>speed billboard. If you're over the set speed you'll get a mailed
>ticket without being stopped by a cop.
>
>I suppose another way to defeat this is that if everyone who got a
>ticket went to court it could make the operating officer spend
>many days in court for each day spent at the trap since the machine
>can issue hundreds of tickets in a day. Unlikely to happen.
>
>--
>Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm & work
>a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com Tigard, Oregon 97224
>As I get older the days seem longer and the years seem shorter!
Alan,
This seems to have eluded your thought process, however, the most
effective way to defeat this whole thing would be to avoid speeding in
residentail and schoold zones !!! Alan, this can be dangerous.
John
**********
John Specht
joh...@teleport.com
Oregon NMA
>I've seen these things before. The most common use that I have
>hears is NOT as enforcement per se, but as warnings. In areas
>where there is a LOT of FLAGRENT ignoring of speed laws they put
>one of these things which tells drivers how fast they are really
>going. The theory is (and I think this is born out by statistice)
>that most people will slow down when given a gentle hint.
Unfortunately, the your definition of flagrant speeding probably has
more to do with the rationality of the limits than the true public
safety.
It's easy to cry that a problem exists when speeds average 35 in an
unnecessarily low 25 zone that was created not by the safety motivated
conclusions of traffic engineers, but by a bunch of self interested,
well-connected homeowners.
In my work on my neighborhood traffic safety committee, I learned
about programs in which a neighborhood association is loaned a radar
gun, license numbers are taken, and warnings are mailed. The hope is
to get the city to increase enforcement or lower limits. However, in
most instances, the city refuses to do anything because it turns out
that the violaters are mostly the residents, and not scofflaw
passers-through. Little creedence is given to neighborhoods crying
"do as I say, not as I do.)
Ron C Kirkpatrick
a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) wrote:
>I've had several inquires as to how the photo radar tickets are "easily
>defeatable" so I'm posting what I believe to be the entire statute. If
>you examine it carefully, you'll find several loopholes. One of
>them is in Section 2 (1)(a)(D) where it states all major routes into
>the cities with photo radar must be posted with warning signs...which
>is obviously not the case.
Interesting theory. The words "so far as is practicable" would defeat you.
> (D) Signs indicating that speeds are enforced by photo radar
> are posted, so far as is practicable, on all major routes
> entering the jurisdiction.
>More importantly, Section 2(3)(a) states that anyone who sends in a
>statement of innocence with copy of driver license photo will have
>the ticket dismissed. The person sending the statement of innocence
>CANNOT be prosecuted for perjury. Got that!
This should be interesting! It appears to say that if you submit the
"certificate of innocence", the charges will be dropped. Period.
I would like to see the way the courts handle this before I would even
think of trying it my self. (Which I wouldn't in any case.)
Michael Sellers
: > (a) If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a
: > citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by
: > submitting a certificate of innocence within 30 days from the
: > mailing of the citation swearing or affirming that the owner was
: > not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of the owner's
: > driver license, the citation shall be dismissed. A person may not
: > be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing in connection with
: > submission of a certificate of innocence under this paragraph.
I'm not in favor of gross speeding or trying to evade lawful methods
of stopping others from doing so, but this seems like a *mighty* big
hole in the law -- big enough to drive through, you might say.
I wonder if the news organizations know about this yet?
--
Michael Sellers Terra Nova Interactive Corp. mi...@terranova.com
(503) 625-4385 http://www.terranova.com/~sellers
** Download our free, 3D graphical MUD alpha at www.otherrealms.com **
Rob Vaughn
>This seems to have eluded your thought process, however, the most
>effective way to defeat this whole thing would be to avoid speeding in
>residentail and schoold zones !!! Alan, this can be dangerous.
I received a mailing on photo radar this weekend. It's one of those
"Myth/Reality" lists but it manages to avoid answering most of the questions
and provides no real data.
One statement made was that photo radar would only be used in residential
and school zones. Yet the vans I've encountered have all been on the
major throughways and arteries in the southeast, not on the side streets
or near the schools. Putting photo radar on the main commuting streets
will probably force some traffic onto the side streets, which are what
it's supposedly trying to protect. Allowing people to drive at a faster
speed on the major roads encourages their use, and they're largely in
commercial, not residential, areas.
My second question is with the claim that photo radar is not a revenue-
generating venture, and that the proceeds from tickets will be used to pay
off the costs only. There's no explanation given as to how surpluses will
be handled. Will they issue tickets each month until the costs are paid off,
then stop? Suppose a van issues 100 tickets a day at $100 a piece? Does
it really cost that much to operate?
Smells like a money-maker to me, all in the name of public service. If
there was some guarantee that extra income is dealt with properly, or that
location of traps was based on complaints from neighborhood residents, I
might not be so suspicious.
Rob V.
Griffy
Thanks
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,snip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,snip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>Of course, under the existing law all the tickets are unenforcable
>since several provisions of the statute make the tickets easily
>defeated.
>
Scott D. Peterson
>Remember when they first announced this? It was going to free up cops for
>*real* crime work.... yeah, sure. It's a "revenue enhancement" scheme,
>pure and simple.
I won't argue with that, but I will point out that real crime work probably
produces tons of paperwork, which a cop can do in a minivan as well as
in a donut shop.
--- sdp
Alan Peterman
Sorry - but the Traffic Division which operates the Photo Radar program
is not likely to have cops that ever do "real crime work" so there's
no way they are doing it in the van. Besides, they _ought_ to be
monitoring the machine and traffic to see that no false tickets are given.
Michael Plump
s...@acm.org (Scott D. Peterson) writes:
> I wonder if it's smart enough to notice if the speeding car has turned
> off the road or pulled over (to let the car behind it get its picture
> taken)?
The vans are manned by Real Cops, so presumably they would notice if
you tried anything like that.
_____---------------------___________________---------------------_____
Michael Plump <http://www.teleport.com/~kplump/m/>
I eat bl00d. YOU CAN TOO! send mail to mpl...@industrial.com for info
-----_____________________-------------------_____________________-----
Little Man With a Gun in His Hand
Joshua R. Poulson <j...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Consider this: If moving violations were "real crimes" then you could:
> 1) argue speeding tickets in front of a jury
> 2) be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
> 3) not be required to bear witness against yourself
Can't you do all of those things already? I seem to recall that
according to the fine print on the back of a traffic ticket
states that you do have the option of demanding a jury trial.
>Reconsider your statement. Moving violations are a special extension
>of civil suits, except they are brought by the government. Traffic
>cops are civil servants and real cops are criminal-chasers...
In which case, the seventh amendment gives you the right to a jury trial
in all situations wherein the "value in controversy" exceeds $20.
--
--
That was a well-plotted piece of non-claptrap that never
made me want to retch.
Soren F. Petersen ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ so...@teleport.com
Bud Couch
>In article <4cjmps$6...@maureen.teleport.com>
>s...@acm.org (Scott D. Peterson) writes:
>
>> I wonder if it's smart enough to notice if the speeding car has turned
>> off the road or pulled over (to let the car behind it get its picture
>> taken)?
>
>The vans are manned by Real Cops, so presumably they would notice if
>you tried anything like that.
>
vans, the equipment all points out the back window, and the cop, I assume,
is setting in the front seat. The whole idea of automating anythng is to
make the machine pay attention, and humans only fix it when it breaks. The
cop is more likely thinking of what's on TV tonight, instead of monitoring
closely which car the machine is reading and then photographing.
The real purpose of the cop in the van is to prevent (deter, whatever)
the wholesale destruction of these automated ticket issuers. If this
thing was parked alongside the road unattended, it would probaly last
about four hours, at which time a brick from a car doing the speed limit
would destroy a couple of thousand dollars worth of equipment.
They have to have alarms on the stuff, for sure. Otherwise, a little
active ECM would do the same thing, undetected... until the cop woke
up that it hadn't snapped any pictures for awhile.
Remember when they first announced this? It was going to free up cops for
*real* crime work.... yeah, sure. It's a "revenue enhancement" scheme,
pure and simple.
--
Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.|
b...@kentrox.com (192.228.59.2) | -Tom Lehrer |
insert legalistic bs disclaimer here | ... <smirk> - me |
Joshua R. Poulson
John Specht <joh...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Your additions to this thread have been amusing but not terribly
>accurate. Where do you get your informatation ? What is your
>definition of "real crime work" ? You insinuate that you have a lot
>of knowledge in this area. What is your experience with photo radar,
>Police and Police Organizations ??
Consider this: If moving violations were "real crimes" then you could:
1) argue speeding tickets in front of a jury
2) be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
3) not be required to bear witness against yourself
Reconsider your statement. Moving violations are a special extension
of civil suits, except they are brought by the government. Traffic
cops are civil servants and real cops are criminal-chasers...
--
Joshua R. Poulson, j...@pun.org, http://www.pun.org/~jrp
"finger -l j...@teleport.com" for PGP public key
Jim Fassenfelt
that makes the equipment is contracted to process the film and mail out
the citations to the alleged violators. They don't actually sell the
equipment to the police deparments, but take a cut of the revenue as
their compensation.
Pretty slick, eh? The police don't have to shell out bucks for the
equipment and don't have to look up the owners of the cars. All they have
to do is to sit back and let the revenue flow in at $99+ a pop.
John Specht
wrote:
>s...@acm.org (Scott D. Peterson) writes:
>
>>In article <1996Jan9.1...@kentrox.com>, b...@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) says:
>>>Remember when they first announced this? It was going to free up cops for
>>>*real* crime work.... yeah, sure. It's a "revenue enhancement" scheme,
>>>pure and simple.
>
>>I won't argue with that, but I will point out that real crime work probably
>>produces tons of paperwork, which a cop can do in a minivan as well as
>>in a donut shop.
>
>Sorry - but the Traffic Division which operates the Photo Radar program
>is not likely to have cops that ever do "real crime work" so there's
>no way they are doing it in the van. Besides, they _ought_ to be
>monitoring the machine and traffic to see that no false tickets are given.
>
Your additions to this thread have been amusing but not terribly
accurate. Where do you get your informatation ? What is your
definition of "real crime work" ? You insinuate that you have a lot
of knowledge in this area. What is your experience with photo radar,
Police and Police Organizations ??
>
>--
>Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm & work
>a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com Tigard, Oregon 97224
>As I get older the days seem longer and the years seem shorter!
Scott Aron Bloom
|> On 9 Jan 1996 14:32:16 -0800, a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
|> wrote:
|>
|> >s...@acm.org (Scott D. Peterson) writes:
|> >
|> >>In article <1996Jan9.1...@kentrox.com>, b...@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) says:
|> >>>Remember when they first announced this? It was going to free up cops for
|> >>>*real* crime work.... yeah, sure. It's a "revenue enhancement" scheme,
|> >>>pure and simple.
|> >
<more sniping >
|> Your additions to this thread have been amusing but not terribly
|> accurate. Where do you get your informatation ? What is your
|> definition of "real crime work" ? You insinuate that you have a lot
|> of knowledge in this area. What is your experience with photo radar,
|> Police and Police Organizations ??
|> >
|> >--
|> >Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm & work
|> >a...@qiclab.scn.rain.com Tigard, Oregon 97224
|> >As I get older the days seem longer and the years seem shorter!
|>
|>
|> John
|> **********
|> John Specht
|> joh...@teleport.com
John,
Speeding is NOT a crime in OR. Or for that matter most states! It is
an infraction! That is why you can NOT get a trial. All you get is
a hearing. Now, if you get a reckless driving, or a DUI thats a crime,
and handled completly differently. But speeding is not a crime.
If you have ever fought a ticket (I have), you must prove innocense by
a preponderance (sp?) of the evidence. There is no Innocent until proven
Guilty.
Scott
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Aron Bloom email: bl...@wv.mentorg.com
Mentor Graphics Corporation main: (503) 685-7000
8005 S.W. Boeckman Road C/4 direct: (503) 685-7996
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777 fax: (503) 685-1268
=============== Silicon Systems Division ===============
----------------------------------------------------------
RSlack777
accuracy rate could be much less than "manned" radar. If anyone has any
FACTS on this issue I would be interest in seeing a posting. One must
remember, as with any traffic citation, you still have the opportunity for
your day in court.
From the nature of previous postings (i.e. "donut eating cops") it would
seem that the underlying complaint is another obstacle in breaking the
law. One simple solution would be to not exceed the posted speed limit.
Casey L. Hopkins
RSlack777 <rsla...@aol.com> wrote:
>From the nature of previous postings (i.e. "donut eating cops") it would
>seem that the underlying complaint is another obstacle in breaking the
>law. One simple solution would be to not exceed the posted speed limit.
Heh. Catches you off guard. I passed right by this thing yesterday and
saw the nice little flash. I guess I'll have to wait and see if I was
speeding. When I noticed it, I looked down at my speedometer read 27.
-Casey
--
E-Mail: cas...@ee.pdx.edu
The Horror Web Page: http://www.cat.pdx.edu/~caseyh/horror/index.html
Member of PSU Webmaster Team: webm...@ee.pdx.edu
Howard Leighty
Regarding the new (actually not so new) photo radar now in use in
Portland and Beaverton, the proposal for the enabling legislation for a
"limited demonstration project" was introduced in the Oregon Legislature
in 1991 and 1993 and was rejected by Legislatures that had a Democratic
majority. I testified against the proposal in both of those sessions.
But persistence pays off -- especially for local governments with
virtually unlimited tax money to spend on lobbying for this kind of
revenue-generating fleecing of the public. The coalition came back
again in 1995 with the same proposal and this time they found that a
Republican majority was only too happy to pass this odious law.
It is clearly much easier to devote police and court resources to the
relatively clean and safe business of going after (alleged) minor
traffic offenders than it is to devote those same resources to serious
crimes against persons and property or going after really bad guys who
have guns and shoot back. Through the recent big publicity campaign on
this photo radar program, the city bureaucrats, in an effort to justify
their pathetic jobs, attempt to create the illusory appearance that
something real and meaningful is being done. But it's all form and no
substance. We hear a lot of their carping about how speeding is so bad
but there are never any real facts or injury statistics presented to
justify such a conclusion.
My interest in this issue stems from the fact that I am a qualified
expert witness in court regarding radar. I have testified on numerous
occasions for the defense in the courts of Oregon and Washington
regarding Doppler traffic radar as it is applied to traffic law
enforcement. My qualifications as an expert witness in radar have
always been accepted by every judge in every case (more than 50) in
which I have appeared in many different counties and jurisdictions in
both Oregon and Washington.
The Doppler radar technology used with photo radar is somewhat more
selective and shorter range than conventional hand-held or moving
Doppler radar and therefore represents a modest improvement in the
technology. Conventional Doppler radar uses either the X-band (10.5 GHz)
or the K-Band (26.2 GHz) microwave portion of the frequency spectrum.
But the photo radar uses a frequency of about 33.0 GHz.
Let's compare these three different kinds of Doppler traffic radar:
Freq. Band Beam angle(1) Max Range(2) Typical Range(3)
10.5 GHz 18 degrees 3000 feet 1500 feet
26.2 GHz 12-15 degrees 2500 feet 1000 feet
33.0 GHz 5-9 degrees 800 feet 300 feet
(1) The beam angle is the angle of a solid cone of radiation which
defines the half-power points; i.e. half the power is contained
inside the cone and half the power is in the side lobes outside
the cone.
(2) The Max Range figure is for ideal conditions of perfectly flat
terrain without obstructions of any kind and targeting of just
one single moving target; i.e. no other moving targets are
present within the zone of influence of the radar over its
entire range. Such perfect conditions are rarely encountered.
(3) The Typical Range is for more realistic conditions when there are
differences in terrain within the range, stationary obstacles, and
the presence of multiple moving targets.
It should be noted that Doppler radar is completely insensitive to
either the distance or direction of motion of a moving target. The only
information that a Doppler traffic radar can measure is the radial
(vector) component of the target velocity along the line between the
radar transmitter/receiver and the moving target. The Doppler radar is
incapable of determining whether the target is approaching or receding.
Doppler radar cannot distinguish between multiple targets that are
present simultaneously in the beam and such conditions produce readings
that are unreliable at best or erroneous at worst.
For the classical kind of traffic radar, the police officer is
responsible for making an identification of the defendant both at the
scene of the traffic stop and again in court at the time of trial.
Photo radar represents a major erosion of the identification requirement
because the citation is issued to the registered owner of the automobile
regardless of who was actually driving. The burden then shifts to the
person so accused to prove s/he was not driving the car.
We are told by the City bureaucrats that, to dispute the citation, all
that is necessary is to send in an affidavit stating that the accused
defendant owner was not operating the vehicle at the time. They also say
that the defendant must provide a photocopy of his/her driver's license
and the photo contained thereupon will then be compared to the radar's
photo (who does this? The judge? A clerk?) and the case will be
dismissed. What standards are used for making the comparison? None!!
But let's think about this for a minute. Photocopiers are notorious for
producing poor quality images. Color photos typically do not copy well.
Such images are often smeared or too dark. Additionally, it would not be
(Continued to next message)
---
þ QMPro 1.53 þ No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
Howard Leighty
(Continued from previous message)
too arduous a trick to substitute the photo of another individual
(computer graphics anyone?) on a scanned digital image of the license
and then photocopy the digitally altered printed output. The technical
possibilities of graphics manipulation stimulate a mischievous mind.
But there is another more fundamental problem. From a legal point of
view, the requirement that a person must file a statement on an
affidavit and produce a photocopy of his license is a violation of
the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to pre-trial
discovery, and thereby the right to a fair trial.
Traffic infraction cases are criminal trials and thus the defendant has
a right to have "pre-trial discovery" of the evidence that the State
will bring against him/her in court. This right to discovery is required
as part of the due process protections of the US Constitution because it
is recognized that if the defendant is not told what evidence will be
used against him/her, then s/he is effectively rendered incapable
preparing an adequate defense and that does not produce a fair trial.
Therefore, it would seem that the State must give a copy of the photo
taken by the radar to the defendant as part of pre-trial discovery.
Naturally, the State does not want to do this... particularly if the
photo would reveal that the driver's identity is impossible to determine
from the photo itself.
Rather than providing the defendant with a copy of the photo and
pre-trial discovery, the State would much rather keep quiet and get
their conviction (translated "get the money") by straight bluffing and
intimidation. That's why you have so much recent media and publicity.
The State wants to create an atmosphere of hopelessness in which all
defendants will think they cannot win and thus will just roll over and
send in their money. But I'm here to say that it is not hopeless at all.
The State has the burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) and the
defendant is not required to testify, especially not to testify against
himself. The defendant has a right to remain silent. So any requirement
that the defendant must make a pre-trial affidavit or submit a photo in
order to enter a Not Guilty plea is a violation of the defendant's
right to remain silent and right not to give evidence against himself.
Indeed, the right to remain silent begins with the first encounter with
a police officer when pulled over in a traffic stop. Despite the fact
that the police are not required to inform a driver of the right to
remain silent, that right still exists at all points of the process and
the driver is not required to answer any police questions. If the
driver makes any statement at all regarding any speed, the police
officer will usually use that statement in court and the driver's
statement alone is usually sufficient to seal the conviction. For that
reason, it is usually in the driver's best interests to say as little as
possible to the police officer and to avoid answering any questions.
Another issue is the fact that in order to go forward with a trial, the
State must first meet its burden of proof by presenting a "prima facie"
case in court. This is a legal technicality which simply means that the
State must present the judge with a minimum amount of evidence that is
sufficient to create a prima facie case, i.e. a case that appears to
be justified on its "first face" and thereby worthy of going forward
with a trial. If the State fails to present a prima facie case, then
the defense is entitled to ask for and receive a dismissal. So what does
the State have to do to present a prima facie case? Here is a short list
of the requirements in a speeding infraction case:
The arresting (accusing) police officer in court must testify on oath to
all of the following elements in order to establish a prima facie case:
1. The date of the alleged violation;
2. The time of the alleged violation;
3. The location of the alleged violation;
4. That the location is a public road in the Court's jurisdiction;
5. That the officer was in uniform and displaying a badge when the
citation was issued to the defendant;
6. That the accused person seated in the courtroom is identified as
the same person the officer stopped and identified at the scene
on the day and time alleged in the citation.
It should be fairly obvious that photo radar, by the way in which it is
conceived and applied on the street, cannot comply with items 5 and 6.
The police officer never stops the defendant at the scene and does not
make an identification at the scene. The citation is merely mailed to
the person who is registered with DMV as the owner of the car on the
basis of the photo of the license plate attached to the car.
Therefore, the officer accusing the defendant was not "in uniform and
displaying a badge" to the defendant when the citation was issued and
likewise the officer cannot truthfully make an in-court identification
of the defendant as the same person who committed the violation. The
whole process depends on a comparison of the defendant's appearance with
the image on a photograph. So how fast can you guys grow a beard or
shave it off? How fast can you ladies color your hair or cut it shorter
(or both) or find a pair of glasses or a wig to wear to court etc. etc.
A person's decision to change their appearance is a matter of personal
liberty and is a lawful act that is not, strictly speaking, "testimony".
Now let's turn to the technical issues involving the photo radar itself.
Photo radar, because of its narrower beam angle and shorter range,
Howard Leighty
(Continued from previous message)
usually presents fewer elements of attack on the instrument itself than
does conventional traffic radar. But photo radar, like its lower
frequency cousins, is still susceptible to a number of errors based on
strictly technical considerations.
In particular, photo radar is vulnerable to error by its inability to
differentiate multiple simultaneous targets. The classic case of this
situation is when a small target vehicle is nearer the radar and a more
distant target having a larger cross section (such as a semi-truck)
returns a stronger reflection signal and is the real speeder measured by
the radar. But the larger target being more distant would not appear in
the photograph and an innocent defendant in the smaller car is likely to
be photographed and wrongfully accused and convicted.
Without the benefits of the professional help of an attorney and an
expert witness in radar, most defendants simply lack the skills and
expertise necessary to properly defend themselves in court. The effects
of a conviction on the driver's record and insurance rates can be very
significant, especially when a clean driving record is required as a
condition of employment. Therefore, it is a wise course to explore all
options and consult with expert professionals in order to protect
against violation of your legal rights and prevent wrongful conviction.
I am available for consultation and/or appearance in court as an expert
witness in Doppler traffic radar. There is never a charge for the
initial telephone consultation to determine if your case is one
in which an expert witness in radar would be helpful to your case.
Referral to a qualified attorney is also available at no charge.
Y'all drive carefully now; you hear? :-)
\\\|///
\\ ~ ~ //
(/ @ @ /)
+-------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo----------------------------+
| | |
| Howard Leighty | Tel: (503) 257-1009 |
| P. O. Box 2055 | Fax: (503) 257-1009 auto-detect |
| Portland, OR 97208 | email: howard....@rainet.com |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Steve Ward
I think you'll find that there is no 'film' but rather this system is
completely digital.
Of course that makes it much easier to edit/alter the images...
Steve
--
Steve Ward, Jr., Advanced Systems Specialist
School of Engineering, University of Portland
Portland OR
st...@up.edu
s...@teleport.com
of cold out :)
---Steve