Arizona: Speed Camera Company Makes A Monkey Out of Driver ID Regs

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

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 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]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Join the conversation
2 of 12 comments
  • Johnthacker Johnthacker on Sep 09, 2009
    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.
  • Banger Banger on Sep 10, 2009
    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.
  • Akila Hello Everyone, I found your blog very informative. If you want to know more about [url=
  • Michael Gallagher I agree to a certain extent but I go back to the car SUV transition. People began to buy SUVs because they were supposedly safer because of their larger size when pitted against a regular car. As more SUVs crowded the road that safety advantage began to dwindle as it became more likely to hit an equally sized SUV. Now there is no safety advantage at all.
  • Probert The new EV9 is even bigger - a true monument of a personal transportation device. Not my thing, but credit where credit is due - impressive. The interior is bigger than my house and much nicer with 2 rows of lounge seats and 3rd for the plebes. 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, around 300miles of range, and an e-mpg of 80 (90 for the 2wd). What a world.
  • Ajla "Like showroom" is a lame description but he seems negotiable on the price and at least from what the two pictures show I've dealt with worse. But, I'm not interested in something with the Devil's configuration.
  • Tassos Jong-iL I really like the C-Class, it reminds me of some trips to Russia to visit Dear Friend VladdyPoo.