Australia: 440 Tickets Refunded Due To Malfunctioning Redflex Camera

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Officials in Tasmania, Australia last week reluctantly admitted that some of its speed cameras produced unreliable readings. The automated ticketing machines on Tasman Bridge were found to be issuing speeding tickets to vehicles that were not speeding, forcing a refund of 440 tickets issued between June 5 and July 5. According to The Mercury, a test of the device against a handheld speed gun showed inaccurate readings.

In Arizona, officials have no problem with the inaccurate output provided by the speed cameras. State law require that tickets be issued to the driver of the vehicle, not simply mailed to the the first name on the vehicle registration, as is the case in many other states. The law requires positive identification based on a comparison of a driver’s license photo and the image generated by a photo radar unit. The group CameraFraud produced a ticket that Redflex Traffic Systems had mailed from the recently canceled statewide freeway camera project. The driver of a white Chevy Silverado pickup truck can barely be seen as sun glare reflects off of the vehicle’s dirty windshield, yet Redflex mailed the ticket without making the required positive identification. There is no penalty for failing to abide by the law.

In January, the same camera system issued tickets to Arizona Cardinals star Larry Fitzgerald, a black man, even though the photographs clearly showed a white man behind the wheel.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 7 comments
  • Psarhjinian Psarhjinian on Jul 28, 2010

    One point that I do like about photo enforcement is that I can test things like this. If it's a live police officer, I effectively have no hope. In January, the same camera system issued tickets to Arizona Cardinals star Larry Fitzgerald, a black man, even though the photographs clearly showed a white man behind the wheel. Now this requirement has always struck me as silly. Camera-based enforcement should be treated like parking enforcement is: it doesn't matter who was behind the wheel, there should be no attempt at demerit points or criminal charges, and the owner of the vehicle is deemed responsible for it's use unless it's been reported stolen. It seems like the facial recognition system is a sop to handle the "Well, I wasn't driving the car!" excuse, coupled with administrators who want to use it for criminal charges. Give up, already, it doesn't work.

    • JeremyR JeremyR on Jul 29, 2010
      Camera-based enforcement should be treated like parking enforcement is: it doesn’t matter who was behind the wheel, there should be no attempt at demerit points or criminal charges, and the owner of the vehicle is deemed responsible for it’s [sic] use unless it’s been reported stolen. Why the presumption of guilt on the owner of the vehicle? What's wrong with insisting that only the person who was actually driving the vehicle at the time can be accused of something?
  • Myrrh Massiel Myrrh Massiel on Jul 28, 2010

    ...is that mark webber in the second picture?..

  • FleetofWheel FleetofWheel on Jul 28, 2010

    Surely there have been cases where punk car thieves steal and joyride a car for a half hour and intentionally run past a few red light cameras(hence the devious prank) and then return the car to the place they found it. But guilt is assumed to the registered owner because the 'car' was observed committing the crime of excessive speed.

  • Seabrjim Seabrjim on Jul 28, 2010

    So if your wife does three stupid manuvers in a year and the car is registered to you, and you lose your license, then what?

Next