banner



Home  ›  How To Dodge Toll Cameras

How To Dodge Toll Cameras

Written By Monday, May 30, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Camera for detecting motoring offenses

A Gatso speed camera. The camera's lens is visible at pinnacle left, while the large flash, used for illuminating number plates and calibration lines on the route when taking photographs, is visible on the bottom right.

A traffic enforcement camera (also red lite camera, speed camera, road rubber camera, route dominion camera, photograph radar, photo enforcement, Gatso, safe camera, coach lane camera, flash for greenbacks, Safety-T-Cam, depending on utilize) is a camera which may be mounted abreast or over a road or installed in an enforcement vehicle to notice motoring offenses, including speeding, vehicles going through a ruby-red traffic light, vehicles going through a cost booth without paying, unauthorized employ of a motorcoach lane, or for recording vehicles inside a congestion accuse area. It may be linked to an automated ticketing organization.

A worldwide review of studies found that speed cameras led to a reduction of "11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes".[1] The UK Section for Transport estimated that cameras had led to a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions and 42% fewer people being killed or seriously injured at camera sites. The British Medical Journal recently reported that speed cameras were effective at reducing accidents and injuries in their vicinity and recommended wider deployment. An LSE report in 2017 found that "adding some other i,000 cameras to British roads could save up to 190 lives annually, reduce upward to 1,130 collisions and mitigate 330 serious injuries."[two]

The latest automatic number-plate recognition systems tin can exist used for the detection of average speeds and raise concerns over loss of privacy and the potential for governments to constitute mass surveillance of vehicle movements and therefore by association also the move of the vehicle's possessor. Vehicles owners are often required by police force to identify the driver of the vehicle and a example was taken to the European Courtroom of Human Rights which found that human being rights were not existence breached. Some groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union in the US, merits that "the mutual use of speed traps as a revenue source also undercuts the legitimacy of safety efforts."[3]

Types [edit]

Automatic speed enforcement gantry or "Lombada Eletrônica" with basis sensors in Brasília, D.F

Gatso Mobile Speed Photographic camera, used in Victoria, Commonwealth of australia. The photographic camera is mounted on the passenger side dash, whilst the black box on the front is the radar unit.

Bus lane enforcement [edit]

Some jitney lane enforcement cameras utilize a sensor in the road, which triggers a number-plate recognition camera which compares the vehicle registration plate with a list of approved vehicles and records images of other vehicles.[4] Other systems use a camera mounted on the bus, for example in London where they monitor Red routes[v] on which stopping is not immune for any purpose (other than taxis and disabled parking let holders).[vi]

On Monday, February 23, 2009, New York City announced testing camera enforcement of bus lanes on 34th Street in Midtown Manhattan where a New York City taxi illegally using the bus lanes would face a fine of $150 adjudicated by the New York Urban center Taxi and Limousine Commission.[seven]

In October 2013, in Melbourne (Australia), Melbourne Aerodrome introduced seven automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) cameras in their passenger vehicle forecourt to monitor double-decker lanes and provide charging points based on vehicle blazon and the dwell fourth dimension of each vehicle. Entry and Go out cameras determine the length of stay and provide alerts for unregistered or vehicles of concern via onscreen, email or SMS based alerts. This system was the first of several Sensor Dynamics based ANPR solutions.[8] [ix]

Melbourne Airport was the outset Australian Drome to use ANPR engineering to charge buses for access to charabanc option up lanes.

Red light enforcement [edit]

A fix of pictures taken by a cherry lite camera in Luannan Canton, China, the black motorcar in the pictures ran the cherry light

A scarlet light camera is a traffic camera that takes an epitome of a vehicle that goes through an intersection where the light is blood-red. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal and the camera is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset minimum speed and following a specified fourth dimension afterward the bespeak has turned red.[x]

Red low-cal cameras are as well utilized in capturing texting-while-driving violators. In many municipalities an officer is monitoring the cameras in a live command eye and records all violations, including texting at a red lite.[11]

Speed limit enforcement [edit]

Speed enforcement cameras are used to monitor compliance with speed limits, which may use Doppler radar, LIDAR, stereo vision or automated number-plate recognition.[12] Other speed enforcement systems are also used which are not camera based.

Fixed or mobile speed camera systems that measure the time taken past a vehicle to travel betwixt 2 or more fairly distant sites (from several hundred meters to several hundred kilometers apart) are called automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These cameras time vehicles over a known fixed distance, and then calculate the vehicle'southward average speed for the journey.[13]

End sign enforcement [edit]

In 2007, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authorization (MRCA), in California, installed the first terminate sign cameras in the United States. The v cameras are located in state parks such equally Franklin Canyon Park and Temescal Gateway Park. The operator, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., is paid $20 per ticket. The fine listed on the citation is $100.[14] In 2010, a class activity lawsuit was filed against MRCA.[15]

Noise pollution photographic camera ("racket radar") [edit]

Noise enforcement cameras are used to monitor and enforce compliance with local or national vehicle noise limits.

All current designs of dissonance photographic camera follow the aforementioned basic construction: a microphone linked to an ANPR video photographic camera, mounted at a fixed location or on a mobile tripod. The ANPR camera is triggered when the microphone detects a passing vehicle emitting a sound signal in a higher place a pre-set decibel limit, capturing the vehicle registration and giving police or local government recourse to warn, fine or prosecute the registered owner. These cameras take been designed to respond to mass complaints about vehicle noise (in 2020 New York city recorded over 99,000 dissonance complaints specifically related to vehicles).[16]

Trials of noise cameras have been conducted in cities worldwide. In Taipei, fines range from US$65 to US$130, with additional fines for illegally modified exhausts of up to US$grand. The racket camera scheme won 90% voter approval; the national government then earmarked $4m to build a national network of noise cameras, including mobile cameras.[17]

Trials of dissonance cameras are conducted using 1st generation technology, which depends on microphones to measure sound. Microphones have been shown to struggle when pinpointing an offending vehicle in heavy traffic. In 2020 the U.k. Department of Send published a feasibility study commissioned from a joint venture between engineering consultancies Atkins and Jacobs.[18] The study concluded that racket cameras fail to function well in everyday traffic weather, owing to audio contamination from adjacent vehicles. The Atkins/Jacobs study was unable to consistently derive sound readings from cars travelling less than ten seconds apart from other vehicles. This limits their employ to quieter roads and delays breakeven on investment. Similar results were found in a trial in Edmonton, where local government cited technical shortcomings to explicate spending $192,000 on noise cameras that recouped $98,000 in fines.[nineteen]

Number-plate recognition systems [edit]

Automatic number-plate recognition tin can be used for purposes unrelated to enforcement of traffic rules. In principle any agency or person with admission to information either from traffic cameras or cameras installed for other purposes can track the movement of vehicles for any purpose.[20]

In Australia's Safe-T-CAM system, ANPR technology is used to monitor long distance truck drivers to discover avoidance of legally prescribed driver rest periods.[21]

The Great britain's law ANPR organisation logs all the vehicles passing detail points in the national road network, assuasive authorities to track the movement of vehicles and individuals across the state.[22] [23]

In the U.k., 80-year-old pensioner John Catt and his daughter Linda were stopped by City of London Police while driving in London in 2005. They had their vehicle searched nether section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and were threatened with abort if they refused to answer questions. After they complained formally, it was discovered they were stopped when their car was picked up by roadside ANPR CCTV cameras; it had been flagged in the Police National Computer database when they were seen near EDO MBM demonstrations in Brighton. Critics[ who? ] point out that the Catts had been suspected of no crime, however the police ANPR organisation led to them being targeted due to their association.[24]

Multipurpose camera [edit]

In 2011, a multipurpose smart enforcement photographic camera was tested in Republic of finland. This camera can cheque driving speeds, commuter wearing seatbelt, altitude between cars, insurance and taxation payment.[25]

Other multipurpose camera can check vehicles passing over the railway crossing.[25]

Other [edit]

  • Congestion charge cameras to discover vehicles inside the chargeable area which have not paid the appropriate fee
  • High-occupancy vehicle lane cameras to identify vehicles violating occupancy requirements.[26]
  • Level crossing cameras to identifying vehicles crossing railways at grade
  • Noise disturbance cameras that tape bear witness of heavy vehicles that interruption racket regulations by using compression release engine brakes
  • Parking cameras which issue citations to vehicles which are illegally parked or which were not moved from a street at posted times.[27]
  • Toll-booth cameras to identify vehicles proceeding through a toll booth without paying the cost
  • Plough cameras at intersections where specific turns are prohibited on cerise. This type of camera is mostly used in cities or heavy populated areas.
  • Automatic number-plate recognition systems can be used for multiple purposes, including identifying untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and potentially mass surveillance of motorists .[20]
  • Coach lane cameras that notice vehicles that should not be in the bus lane. These may be mounted on buses themselves equally well equally past the roadside.[28]

Stock-still photographic camera systems can be housed in boxes, or mounted on poles abreast the route, or attached to gantries over the road, or to overpasses or bridges. Cameras can exist concealed, for instance in garbage bins.[29]

Mobile speed cameras may be hand-held, tripod mounted, or vehicle-mounted. In vehicle-mounted systems, detection equipment and cameras can exist mounted to the vehicle itself, or merely tripod mounted inside the vehicle and deployed out a window or door. If the photographic camera is fixed to the vehicle, the enforcement vehicle does not necessarily take to be stationary, and can be moved either with or confronting the flow of traffic. In the latter case, depending on the direction of travel, the target vehicle'southward relative speed is either added or subtracted from the enforcement vehicle's ain speed to obtain its actual speed. The speedometer of the photographic camera vehicle needs to be accurately calibrated.

Some number-plate recognition systems tin can also be used from vehicles.[thirty]

Effectiveness [edit]

Aside from the bug of legality in some countries and states and of sometime opposition the effectiveness of speed cameras is very well documented. The introduction to The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras A review of evidence by Richard Allsop includes the following in the foreword by Professor Stephen Glaister, Director of the RAC (Royal Auto Lodge). "While this report fully lays out the groundwork to the introduction of speed cameras and the need for speed limits, its job is non to justify why the national limits are what they are; a review of speed limits to see whether they are soundly based is for another 24-hour interval. What it has washed is to show that at photographic camera sites, speeds have been reduced, and that every bit a result, collisions resulting in injuries have fallen. The government has said that a decision on whether speed cameras should be funded must be taken at a local level. With the current pressure level on public funds, in that location will be – indeed there already are – those who say that what fiddling money at that place is can be better spent. This report begs to differ. The devices are already there; they demonstrate value for money, yet are not significant revenue raisers for the Treasury; they are shown to save lives; and despite the headlines, most people take the need for them. Speed cameras should never be the only weapon in the road safety armoury, merely neither should they be absent from the boxing."

The 2010 Cochrane Review of speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths[1] reported that all 28 studies accepted past the authors institute the effect of speed cameras to be a reduction in all crashes, injury crashes, and death or astringent injury crashes. "Twenty eight studies measured the outcome on crashes. All 28 studies institute a lower number of crashes in the speed photographic camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for virtually studies in the xiv% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of eleven% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to 27% range. For crashes resulting in decease or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with well-nigh studies reporting this issue in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time. Nevertheless, the authors conceded that the magnitude of the benefit from speed cameras "is currently not deducible" due to limitations in the methodological rigor of many of the 28 studies cited, and recommended that "more studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect."

The 2010 report, "The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras A review of evidence",[31] by Richard Allsop concludes "The findings of this review for the RAC Foundation, though reached independently, are substantially consistent with the Cochrane Review conclusions. They are also broadly consistent with the findings of a meta-analysis reported in the respected Handbook of Route Safety Measures, of 16 studies, non including the four-year evaluation report, of the effects of stock-still cameras on numbers of collisions and casualties."

United Kingdom [edit]

In 2001 the Nottingham Prophylactic Photographic camera Airplane pilot achieved "virtually complete compliance" on the major ring road into the city using boilerplate speed cameras,[32] across all Nottinghamshire SPECS installations, KSI (Killed / Seriously Injured) figures have fallen by an average of 65%.[33]

In 2003 the British Medical Journal reported that speed cameras were effective at reducing accidents and injuries and recommended wider deployment.[34] In February 2005 the British Medical Journal again reported that speed cameras were an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties, noting withal that nigh studies to date did not accept satisfactory command groups.[35] In 2003 Northumbria Police's Acting Chief Inspector of motor patrols suggested that cameras didn't reduce casualties only did raise revenue – an official statement from the law force afterwards re-iterated that speed cameras do reduce casualties.[36]

In Dec 2005 the Department for Send published a four-twelvemonth report into Rubber Camera Partnerships which concluded that in that location was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions and 42% fewer people being killed or seriously injured post-obit the installation of cameras.[37] The Times reported that this enquiry showed that the section had been previous exaggerating the safety benefits of speed cameras but that the results were still 'impressive'.[38]

A report published past the RAC Foundation in 2010 estimated that an boosted 800 more people a twelvemonth could be killed or seriously injured on the Uk's roads if all speed cameras were scrapped.[39] A survey conducted past The Automobile Association in May 2010 indicated that speed cameras were supported past 75% of their members.[40]

The town of Swindon abandoned the use of fixed cameras in 2009, questioning their cost effectiveness with the cameras existence replaced by vehicle activated warning signs and enforcement past police using mobile speed cameras:[41] in the nine months post-obit the switch-off there was a minor reduction in accident rates which had inverse slightly in similar periods before and subsequently the switch off (Before: 1 fatal, 1 serious and 13 slight accidents. Afterwards: no fatalities, two serious and 12 slight accidents).[42] The journalist George Monbiot claimed that the results were not statistically significant highlighting earlier findings across the whole of Wiltshire that at that place had been a 33% reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured generally and a 68% reduction at camera sites during the previous 3 years.[43] In 2012, the town had the fewest accident rates per 1,000 registered vehicles: a result linked by the Local Dominance Member for Council Transformation, Transport and Strategic Planning to the removal of speed cameras and resultant additional funding for road condom, alongside close working with the constabulary.[44]

In Scotland, the introduction of average speed cameras take significantly reduced speeding on the A9 and A96.[45] [46]

United States [edit]

According to the 2003 NCHRP study on Red Calorie-free Running (RLR), "RLR automated enforcement can be an effective safety countermeasure....[I]t appears from the findings of several studies that, in general, RLR cameras can bring about a reduction in the more than astringent bending crashes with, at worst, a slight increase in less severe rear-cease crashes.[47] Withal it noted that "there is not plenty empirical show based on proper experimental design procedures to state this conclusively."

A study conducted in Alabama and published in 2016 reveals that Red Light Cameras (RLCs) seem to have a slight impact on the clearance lost time; the intersections equipped with RLCs are half a second less in use compared with those without cameras; and highway capacity manual estimates a shorter lost time and thus may overestimate the intersection's chapters.[10]

Controversy [edit]

Legal problems [edit]

Diverse legal problems arise from such cameras and the laws involved in how cameras tin exist placed and what evidence is necessary to prosecute a driver varies considerably in different legal systems.[48]

1 issue is the potential conflict of involvement when private contractors are paid a commission based on the number of tickets they are able to consequence. Pictures from the San Diego red light photographic camera systems were ruled inadmissible every bit courtroom testify in September 2001. The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made bear witness from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted".[49]

Some US states and provinces of Canada, such as Alberta, operate "owner liability", where it is the registered possessor of the vehicle who must pay all such fines, regardless who was driving the vehicle at the fourth dimension of the offense, although they do release the owner from liability if he or she identifies the actual driver and that person pays the fine.[l]

In a few US states (including California), the cameras are ready to get a "face photograph" of the driver.[51] This has been done because in those states red light camera tickets are criminal violations, and criminal charges must always proper noun the actual violator. In California, that need to identify the bodily violator has led to the creation of a unique investigatory tool, the fake "ticket".[52] [53] [54] [55] In Arizona and Virginia, tickets issued by cameras are unenforceable due to in that location existence no penalization for ignoring them. Still, acknowledging receipt of such ticket makes it valid and thus enforceable.[56] Many states have outlawed the use of traffic enforcement cameras.[57]

In April 2000, two motorists who were caught speeding in the U.k. challenged the Road Traffic Act 1988, which required the keeper of a automobile to identify the driver at a particular fourth dimension[58] as beingness in contradiction to the Human being Rights Act 1998 on the grounds that it amounted to a 'compulsory confession', also that since the camera partnerships included the police, local regime, Magistrates Courts Service (MCS) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which had a financial interest in the fine revenue that they would not get a fair trial. Their plea was initially granted past a judge then overturned just was so heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights establish at that place was no breach of article 6 in requiring the keepers of cars caught speeding on camera to provide the name of the commuter.[58]

Accuracy [edit]

In December, 2012, Speed Camera Contractor Xerox Corporation admitted that cameras they had deployed in Baltimore urban center were producing erroneous speed readings, and that i out of every 20 citations issued at some locations were due to errors.[59] The erroneous citations included at to the lowest degree one issued to a completely stationary motorcar, a fact revealed by a recorded video of the alleged violation.[60]

In the metropolis of Fort Contrivance, Iowa, speed camera contractor Redspeed discovered a location where drivers of schoolhouse buses, big panel trucks and similar vehicles have been clocked speeding by the city's mobile speed camera and radar unit fifty-fifty though they were obeying the 25 mph speed limit. The errors were due to what was described every bit an "electromagnetic anomaly".[61]

Where verification photos are recorded on a time sequence, allowing the calculation of actual speed, these take been used to challenge the accuracy of speed cameras in court. Motorists in Prince George'southward County, Maryland, have successfully challenged tickets from Optotraffic speed cameras where they were incorrectly ticketed at over 15 mph over the limit.[62] Still, Prince George County no longer allows fourth dimension-distance calculations as a defense in cases where "the equipment was calibrated and validated, or is self calibrating".[63] The National Highway Traffic Rubber Administration standards for "across the road radar" land that "If the ATR device is to be considered for unattended operation, the manufacturer shall provide a secondary method for verifying that the evidential recorded image properly identifies the target vehicle and reflects this vehicle's true speed, as described in §5.18.2. This may be accomplished by means of a 2d, appropriately delayed image showing the target vehicle crossing a specified reference line."[64]

In January 2011 Edmonton, Alberta cancelled all 100,000 "Speed On Green" tickets issued in the previous 14 months due to concerns about camera reliability.[65] [66]

Surveillance [edit]

Police and governments have been defendant of "Big Brother tactics" in over-monitoring of public roads, and of "acquirement raising" in applying cameras in deceptive ways to increase regime revenue rather than improve route prophylactic.[67]

Online websites, similar Photograph Radar Scam and BantheCams.org, have been created in reaction to the ascent utilise of traffic cameras. Their primary goal, as stated by BantheCams.org, is to "educate and equip local citizens with a way to combat the abuse of power now being exercised past local and state governments with the regards to the use of electronic surveillance devices."[68]

Groups like NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) have encouraged the usage of automated speed enforcement to help improve general road safe and to decrease crash rates.[69]

Revenue, not safety [edit]

  • In 2010, a campaign was ready up against a speed camera on a dual carriageway in Poole, Dorset in a 30 mph area in the United Kingdom, which had generated £ane.3m of fines every yr since 1999. The initial Freedom of information request was refused and the information was only released afterward an appeal to the Information Commissioner.[70] [71]
  • In May, 2010, the new Coalition government said that the 'Labour's 13-year war on the motorist is over' and that the new government 'pledged to scrap public funding for speed cameras'[ commendation needed ] In July Mike Penning, the Road rubber minister reduced the Road Safe Grant for the electric current year to Local Authorities from £95 meg to £57 one thousand thousand, proverb that local authorities had relied as well heavily on safety cameras for far too long and that he was pleased that some councils were now focusing on other road condom measures. Information technology is estimated that as a result the Treasury is at present distributing £40 million less in Road Rubber Grant than is raised from fines in the year.[72] Dorset and Essex announced plans to review photographic camera provision with a view to possibly ending the scheme in their counties,[42] withal Dorset strongly affirmed its support for the scheme, albeit reducing financial contributions in line with the reduction in government grant.[73] Vii counties also announced plans to turn off some or all of their cameras,[42] [74] [75] amid warnings from the country's well-nigh senior traffic policeman that this would result in an increase in deaths and injuries.[76] Gloucestershire cancelled plans to update cameras and has reduced or cancelled maintenance contracts.[77]
  • In August 2010, the Oxfordshire, UK speed cameras had been switched off because of lack of finance due to government funding policy changes. The cameras were switched back on in April 2011 after a new source of funding was found for them.[78] Following rule changes on the threshold for offering "Speed Sensation Courses" as an alternative to a fine and licence points for drivers, and given that the compulsory fees charged for such courses go direct to the partnerships rather than directly to cardinal authorities every bit is the case for fine revenues, the partnership will exist able to fund its operations from course fees.[78] Compared with the same menstruation in the previous year with the cameras nonetheless switched on, the number of serious injuries that occurred during the same menstruum with the cameras switched off was exactly the same – at 13 – and the number of slight injuries was 15 more at seventy, resulting from 62 crashes – 2 more than when the cameras were still operating.[78] In that location were no fatalities during either period.[78]

Unpopularity [edit]

Claims of popular support are disputed by elections in the US, where the camera companies often sue to keep it off the ballot, and camera enforcement oft loses by a broad margin. Automated enforcement is opposed past some motorists and motoring organizations as strictly for revenue generating. They have also been rejected in some places by plebiscite.

  • The get-go speed camera systems in the US were in Friendswood, Texas in 1986 and La Marque, Texas in 1987.[79] [eighty] Neither program lasted more a few months before public pressure level forced them to exist dropped.[81]
  • In 1991, cameras were rejected in referendum in Peoria, Arizona; voters were the first to refuse cameras by a 2-1 margin.[81]
  • In 1992, cameras were rejected by voters in referenda in Batavia, Illinois.[82]
  • Anchorage, Alaska rejected cameras in a 1997 plebiscite.[81]
  • In 2002, the state of Hawaii experimented with speed limit enforcement vans only they were withdrawn months later due to public outcry.[83]
  • A 2002 Australian survey found that "The customs mostly believes that enforcement intensities should either stay the aforementioned or increase", with 40% of those surveyed saying that they thought that the number of speed cameras on the road should be increased, 43% saying that they thought the number should stay the same, and 13% saying that they idea that the number should be decreased.[84]
  • In 2005, the Virginia legislature declined to reauthorize its carmine calorie-free photographic camera enforcement law after a study questioned their effectiveness,[85] only to reverse itself in 2007 and allow cameras to return to whatever city with a population greater than x,000.[86] [87] Citations are not enforceable due to no penalization beingness in place if they are ignored.[56]
  • A 2007 literature review of the benefits and barriers to implementation of automated speed enforcement in the US. stated that "In general, the results of [public stance] surveys signal that a majority of respondents back up automatic enforcement. However, the margins of support vary widely, from a low of 51 pct in Washington, D.C. to a high of 77 pct in Scottsdale, Arizona."[88]
  • In 2009, a petition was started in the town of College Station, Texas which requested that all red light cameras exist dismantled and removed from all of the boondocks'due south intersections. Plenty signatures were captured to put the measure out on the November 2009 full general election ballot. After an extensive battle between the Higher Station city council and the opposing sides, both for and against scarlet light cameras, the voters voted to eliminate the red light cameras throughout the unabridged city. By the end of November the red calorie-free cameras were taken down.
  • On May four, 2010, an ordinance authorizing the apply of speed cameras in the town of Sykesville, Maryland was put to a referendum, in which 321 out of 529 voters (60.four%) voted against the cameras. The turnout for this vote was greater than the number of voters in the previous local Sykesville ballot for mayor where 523 voted.[89]
  • Arizona decided not to renew their contract with Redflex in 2011 following a report of their statewide 76 photograph enforcement cameras.[xc] Reasons given included less than expected revenue due to improved compliance, mixed public acceptance and mixed accident data.[91]

Avoidance/evasion [edit]

A GPS map showing speed camera POI information overlaid onto it

To avoid detection or prosecution, drivers may:

  • Drive at or below the legal speed.
  • Restriction just earlier a camera in gild to travel past its sensor beneath the speed limit. This is, nonetheless, a crusade of collisions. Or restriction all of a sudden, which results in rear-finish crashes.[10]
  • Use GPS navigation devices, such equally Waze,[92] [93] which contain databases of known camera locations to alert them in advance. These databases may, in some cases, be updated in almost-realtime. The use of GPS devices to locate speed cameras is illegal in some jurisdictions, such as France.[94] In Australia, the use of GPS devices within the category of intelligent speed adaptation are being encouraged.[95]
  • Install active light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation jammer or radar jammer devices which actively transmit signals that interfere with the measuring device. These devices are illegal in many jurisdictions.
  • Remove, falsify, obscure or modify vehicle license plate.[96] Tampering with number plates or misrepresenting them is illegal in most jurisdictions.
  • Damage or destroy the cameras themselves.[97]

In August, 2010, a fast driving Swiss commuter reportedly avoided several older model speed cameras, but was detected by a new model, as traveling at 300 km/h (186 mph), resulting in the globe's largest speeding fine to date.[98] In the past, it was possible to avoid detection by changing lanes when SPECS average speed cameras were in use as they measured a vehicle's speed over altitude in one lane only.[99] Since 2007, measures were taken to mitigate this limitation. Although the cameras do operate in pairs on unmarried lanes (information technology is a limitation of the technology not a restriction in the blazon blessing) the government now install the cameras such that the monitored length of route overlaps betwixt multiple camera pairs. The commuter cannot tell which cameras are 'entry' and which are 'exit' making it difficult to know when to alter lane.[100] [101]

History [edit]

Device for speed command in the Hague, newsreel from October 1940

Older traffic enforcement camera in Ludwigsburg, Germany

The idea of the speed cameras dates back to the late 19th century: the 1894 science fiction novel A Journey in Other Worlds, set in the twelvemonth 2000, includes a description of "instantaneous kodaks" used by police to enforce speed limits.[102] In 1905, Popular Mechanics reported on a patent for a "Time Recording Camera for Trapping Motorists" that enabled the operator to accept time-stamped images of a vehicle moving across the start and endpoints of a measured section of road. The timestamps enabled the speed to be calculated, and the photograph enabled identification of the driver.[103]

The Dutch company Gatsometer BV, which was founded in 1958 by rally driver Maurice Gatsonides, produced the 'Gatsometer'.[104] Gatsonides wished to amend monitor his average speed on a race track and invented the device in order to improve his lap times. The company afterwards started supplying these devices as law speed enforcement tools.[105] The get-go systems introduced in the tardily 1960s used film cameras to take their pictures.[106] Gatsometer introduced the outset scarlet lite camera in 1965, the first radar for use with road traffic in 1971 and the starting time mobile speed traffic photographic camera in 1982;[104]

From the belatedly 1990s, digital cameras began to be introduced. Digital cameras can exist fitted with a network connection to transfer images to a central processing location automatically, and then they take advantages over motion-picture show cameras in speed of issuing fines, maintenance and operational monitoring. However, film-based systems may provide superior image quality in the variety of lighting conditions encountered on roads, and are required by courts in some jurisdictions. New film-based systems are still being sold, merely digital pictures are providing greater versatility and lower maintenance and are now more than popular with law enforcement agencies.[107]

Gallery [edit]

Run across as well [edit]

  • Road traffic rubber
  • Road traffic command
  • Speed limit enforcement
  • Route speed limit enforcement in Australia
  • Safety Camera Partnership
  • Traffic light
  • Fourth and Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution – which have been used to limit use of speed cameras in the Usa.
  • HOTA
  • Radar gun
  • TEDES (traffic enforcement system) in Turkey

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b Wilson, C; Willis, Hendrikz; Le Brocque, Bellamy (2010). Wilson, Cecilia (ed.). "Speed cameras for the prevention of route traffic injuries and deaths" (PDF). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (10): CD004607. doi:ten.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub3. PMID 20927736.
  2. ^ "Speed cameras reduce road accidents and traffic deaths, according to new study".
  3. ^ "Extreme Traffic Enforcement". American Civil Liberties Matrimony. Archived from the original on 2018-04-29. Retrieved 2019-02-19 .
  4. ^ "Jitney Lane Enforcement". PIPS Technology. Archived from the original on 2010-04-28. Retrieved 2010-04-26 .
  5. ^ "Bus lane enforcement". jai. Archived from the original on 2010-05-11. Retrieved 2010-04-26 .
  6. ^ "Route markings" (PDF). straight.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-01-06. Retrieved 2010-04-01 .
  7. ^ New York City Department of Transportation: Commissioner Sadik-Khan, MTA Executive Managing director Sander, Chairman Daus announce camera enforcement of double-decker lanes to speed transit Archived 2009-04-19 at the Wayback Machine, Nyc.gov, February 23, 2009
  8. ^ "Melbourne Airdrome Forecourt Redevelopment Project". Melbourneairport.com.au . Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  9. ^ "Melbourne Airport Motorbus Lane". Airdrome shuttle service, shuttle buses. VHA Airport Shuttle. Archived from the original on 2015-02-27.
  10. ^ a b c Baratian-Ghorghi, Fatemeh; Zhou, Huaguo; Wasilefsky, Isaac (2015). "Event of Crimson-Lite Cameras on Capacity of Signalized Intersections". Periodical of Transportation Engineering. 142: 04015035. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000804.
  11. ^ "Cops are finding sneaky new ways to catch texting drivers". nypost.com. 2 September 2016. Archived from the original on 3 November 2017. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  12. ^ "cam2vision - Engineering and Capability - Tech Compare". cam2vision . Retrieved 2019-10-02 .
  13. ^ "Basic Concept of Functioning". Sensordynamics.com.au. Archived from the original on 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-05-31 .
  14. ^ Pool, Bob (2007-07-12). "Stop or they'll shoot!". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2011-10-24.
  15. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 18, 2012. Retrieved May 7, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as title (link)
  16. ^ Cruz, David (2021-08-28). "Manhattan Lawmaker Proposes Beak To Curb Loud Motor Vehicle Noise Using Surveillance Radar Technology". Gothamist . Retrieved 2021-12-02 .
  17. ^ "'Noise camera' finds favor with public: officials - Taipei Times". www.taipeitimes.com. 2021-10-22. Retrieved 2021-12-02 .
  18. ^ "Roadside Vehicle Noise Measurement" (PDF). {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  19. ^ Rosove, Jay (2021-02-12). "Edmonton'southward latest vehicle dissonance reduction pilot came with challenges: city report". Edmonton . Retrieved 2021-12-02 .
  20. ^ a b John Lettice (2005-09-xv). "Gatso 2: rollout of UK's '24x7 vehicle movement database' begins". The Register. Archived from the original on 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-14 .
  21. ^ "Safe-T-Cam". Roads & Traffic Authority. May 29, 2008. Archived from the original on April 14, 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-31 .
  22. ^ "Launch of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Strategy for the Police force Service – 2005/2008". Association of Master Police force Officers. 2005-03-22. Archived from the original on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-09-12 .
  23. ^ Chris Williams (2008-09-15). "Vehicle spy-cam data to exist held for five years". The Register. Archived from the original on 2008-10-eighteen. Retrieved 2008-10-15 .
  24. ^ "SchNEWS 625 - Sussex Law try to close downward Smash EDO picture show, Big Brother United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, Depleted Uranium raid, and more than..." Schnews.org.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. Archived from the original on 2016-04-15. Retrieved 2016-06-xxx .
  25. ^ a b "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-07-05. Retrieved 2019-07-05 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
  26. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on October seven, 2007. Retrieved Oct 10, 2007. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally championship (link)
  27. ^ "Street-sweeper cameras center illegal parking". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2009-01-05.
  28. ^ Transport for London, Windsor Business firm, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL, inquire@tfl.gov.uk. "Bus lanes". tfl.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2015-03-17. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ "Hidden speed camera". English.controlRadar.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-15. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  30. ^ "Vyper Mobile ANPR System". Sensordynamics.com.au. Archived from the original on 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-05-31 .
  31. ^ "The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras" (PDF). Racfoundation.ortg. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-04-15. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  32. ^ "Annex 6 TECHNOLOGY FOR ENFORCEMENT". A notable example is in the Nottingham Safety Camera Pilot where nigh complete compliance was achieved on the major ring road into the city
  33. ^ "Permanent Casualty Reduction Scheme" (PDF). Beyond all Nottinghamshire SPECS installations, KSI figures have fallen by an boilerplate of 65%
  34. ^ S M Christie; R A Lyons; F D Dunstan & S J Jones in Injury Prevention (2003). "Are mobile speed cameras effective? A controlled before and after study". British Medical Journal. ix (four): 302–306. doi:ten.1136/ip.9.4.302. PMC1731028. PMID 14693888. Camera sites had lower than expected numbers of injurious crashes upwardly to 300 metres using circles and upward to 500 metres using routes. Routes methods indicated a larger outcome than the circles method except in the 100 metres nearest sites. A 500-metre route method was used to investigate the effect inside strata of time after intervention, fourth dimension of twenty-four hour period, speed limit, and type of road user injured. The number of injurious crashes after intervention was substantially reduced
  35. ^ Paul Pilkington & Sanjay Kinra (2005). "Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review". British Medical Journal. 330 (12 February): 331–334. doi:10.1136/bmj.38324.646574.AE. PMC548724. PMID 15653699. Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing route traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparing groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data drove may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.
  36. ^ "Cameras are for cash". The Journal. 25 October 2003. Retrieved 2008-03-31 .
  37. ^ Section for Ship (2005). "The National Safety Photographic camera Programme: Four Twelvemonth Evaluation Written report". Archived from the original on 2010-03-29.
  38. ^ Webster, Ben (sixteen December 2005). "Speed camera benefits overrated". The Times. London. The master study says that stock-still cameras reduce deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent and mobile cameras by 35 per cent. It calculates that cameras prevent i,745 deaths or serious injuries a year across United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. Only once the regression to the mean was taken into account, fixed cameras were establish to reduce deaths and serious injuries past only 873, or 24 per cent for fixed and 17 per cent for mobile cameras. While still impressive, these reductions are lower than could be accomplished past other route safety measures.
  39. ^ "RAC Foundation study backs speed photographic camera safety benefit". BBC News. 24 November 2010.
  40. ^ "Speed photographic camera support 'at all-time high'". Admiral. Support for speed cameras is running at an all-time high, a poll by the AA has suggested. According to the motoring organisation's survey of members in October, 75% now believe that the use of speed cameras is 'acceptable' – including 30% who believe their utilize is 'very adequate'. This compares with a 69% approval rating in a poll conducted in November last year, and is the highest level reached in ten years of monitoring public sentiment for the devices, the AA says.
  41. ^ "Town ditches fixed speed cameras". BBC. 2009-07-31.
  42. ^ a b c David Barrett (2010-08-07). "Speed camera switch-off sees fewer accidents". Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 2016-09-xviii. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  43. ^ "Tory Boy Racers | George Monbiot". Monbiot.com. 2010-07-26. Archived from the original on 2011-01-30. Retrieved 2016-06-thirty .
  44. ^ Katie Bond (2012-03-21). "Town tops league for safest driving". Thisiswiltshire.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2016-08-fifteen. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  45. ^ "Comprehensive A9 performance data published". Scottish Regime. 20 Apr 2018. Archived from the original on 9 October 2018. Retrieved eight October 2018.
  46. ^ "Commuter behaviour 'transformed' by A90 boilerplate speed cameras". BBC News. 2018-01-23. Retrieved 2021-02-27 .
  47. ^ Hugh McGee (2003). NCHRP Synthesis 310. National Cooperative Highway Research Plan. p. 12.
  48. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 9, 2009. Retrieved Feb vi, 2016. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as championship (link)
  49. ^ State of California vs John Allen, et al. (Superior Courtroom of the State of California, County of San Diego) ("The statute contemplated that it would be a governmental agency that operated the system, not private enterprise. The potential conflict created past a contingent method of compensation further undermines the trustworthiness of the testify which is used to prosecute cherry lite violations. The evidence obtained from the blood-red light photographic camera organization every bit shortly operated appears so untrustworthy and unreliable that it lacks foundation and should not exist admitted").Text
  50. ^ "Liability of owner for speeding and traffic calorie-free violations". Archived from the original on 2010-12-18. The possessor of a motor vehicle is liable for the contravention of section 140, 146 (1), (iii), (5) or (seven), 147 or 148 (ane) if evidence of the contravention was gathered through the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device... prescribed traffic light safety device... An possessor is non liable under subsection (ii) or (ii.one) if the possessor establishes that (a) the person who was, at the fourth dimension of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle was not entrusted past the owner with possession, or (b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence in entrusting the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.
  51. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May 6, 2011. Retrieved May 18, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
  52. ^ "(Fighting) Your Ticket - Crimson Light Cameras in California". Highwayrobbery.cyberspace. Archived from the original on 2016-07-08. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  53. ^ David Goldstein, CBS Television, Los Angeles "Are police tricking people into paying Snitch Tickets?" Archived 2011-04-23 at the Wayback Automobile
  54. ^ "The Right To Remain Silent". www.almanacnews.com. 8 Nov 2011. Archived from the original on 13 November 2011. Retrieved November 18, 2011.
  55. ^ "Something Every Consumer Should Know". www.HandelontheLaw.com. March 27, 2009. Archived from the original on October 24, 2011. Retrieved November 18, 2011.
  56. ^ a b "Ignoring is bliss: Why Virginians can safely discard scarlet-calorie-free camera tickets". The Schilling Testify Blog. November 15, 2010. Archived from the original on Dec 23, 2016. Retrieved December 22, 2016.
  57. ^ "States using ruddy calorie-free and speed cameras". www.iihs.org. Archived from the original on December 23, 2016. Retrieved December 22, 2016.
  58. ^ a b "O'Halloran and Francis five. The United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland". Cmiskp.echr.coe.int. Archived from the original on 2012-05-24. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  59. ^ "Some Baltimore speed cameras have 5% error charge per unit, Xerox says". Tribunedigital-baltimoresun. Archived from the original on 2016-07-01. Retrieved 2016-06-xxx .
  60. ^ "Baltimore issued speed camera ticket to auto stopped at reddish light". Tribunedigital-baltimoresun. Archived from the original on 2013-01-27. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  61. ^ "Chief cites 'Bermuda Triangle'". Messengernews.cyberspace . Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  62. ^ David Loma. "Business owner casts reasonable doubt on accuracy of speed cameras". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2011-04-25.
  63. ^ "Maryland: Innocence Not a Defense to Speed Camera Citations". the newspaper.com. Archived from the original on 2 Feb 2014. Retrieved xix January 2014.
  64. ^ "Speed-Measuring Device Performance Specifications:Beyond-the-Road Radar Module" (PDF). NHTSA.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-19. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  65. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on September 26, 2013. Retrieved Feb viii, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally title (link)
  66. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November five, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2011. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  67. ^ Miranda Devine (2008-03-23). "Even the Safest Driver is Existence Set Up to Neglect". Sydney Morn Herald. Archived from the original on 2008-04-thirty. Retrieved 2010-05-05 .
  68. ^ "About BantheCams.org". BantheCams.org. Archived from the original on 2015-ten-sixteen. Retrieved 2016-06-30 . BanTheCams.org was created to organize, brainwash and equip local citizens with a way to combat the corruption of power now being exercised by local and state governments with the regards to the use of electronic surveillance devices.
  69. ^ "Sit-in of Automated Speed Enforcement in School Zones in Portland, Oregon" (PDF). Westat, Inc. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-18. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  70. ^ "Group claims speed photographic camera nets £1.3m a year in fines". BBC News. 2010-07-08. Archived from the original on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  71. ^ "Acrimony at £1.3m-a-twelvemonth speed camera - Channel 4 News". Channel4.com. Archived from the original on 2010-09-05. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  72. ^ Millward, David (2010-07-26). "Treasury ready to cash in on speeding fines". The Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 2016-08-ten. Retrieved 2016-06-30 . The decision to reduce the Road Prophylactic Grant £95 million to £57 million this year means that the Regime could heighten as much equally £40 meg more than from speeding fines than information technology easily back to local authorities to reduce death and injury on the country's roads.
  73. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March xiii, 2012. Retrieved August 23, 2010. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
  74. ^ "Lack of law funds could end Southward West speed cameras". BBC. 2010-07-22. Archived from the original on 2016-01-31. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  75. ^ "Speed camera turn-off starts". Mirror.co.britain. August 2010. Archived from the original on 2011-09-17. Retrieved 2016-06-xxx .
  76. ^ Adam Gabbatt (2010-08-09). "Cutting funding for speed cameras will price lives, police force warn". Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 2016-09-27.
  77. ^ Freddie Whittaker. "Speed cameras will stay in Gloucestershire - but no more than maintenance". This Is Gloucestershire. Archived from the original on 2010-08-06.
  78. ^ a b c d "Oxfordshire'southward speed cameras to be switched back on". News Oxford. BBC. 2011-04-01. Archived from the original on 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2011-07-15 .
  79. ^ Hand, David J. (2014-02-11). The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN9780374711399.
  80. ^ DUNN, ASHLEY (1987-09-17). "Say 'Cheese,' Speeders: Pasadena to Examination Photo Radar". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 2018-08-11 .
  81. ^ a b c "Freeze Frame - The Truth About Cars". The Truth About Cars. 2005-11-14. Retrieved 2018-08-11 .
  82. ^ 'Photocop didn't play in Peoria', past Wayne Baker in The Chicago Tribune, March 21, 1991
  83. ^ Poole, Oliver (2002-04-12). "Angry drivers force Hawaii to drib speed cameras". Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 2010-06-07. Retrieved 2010-05-05 .
  84. ^ Mitchell-Taverner, Zipparo and Goldsworthy. "Survey on Speeding and Enforcement" (PDF). Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 March 2012. Retrieved 17 Dec 2012.
  85. ^ "Red-light Cameras in Texas: A Status Report" (PDF). Hro.house.land.tx.us. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-ten-11. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  86. ^ "Red-Light Cameras Return to Alexandria - Alexandria Virginia News | LocalKicks". www.localkicks.com . Retrieved 2018-08-11 .
  87. ^ "New Cherry-Low-cal Cameras in Fairfax, Alexandria". NBC4 Washington . Retrieved 2018-08-11 .
  88. ^ Rodier, Shaheen, and Cavanagh. "Automated Speed Enforcement in the U.South.: A Review of the Literature on Benefits and Barriers to Implementation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2016. Retrieved 17 December 2012. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  89. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on May eight, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010. {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally title (link)
  90. ^ "Department of Public Safety - Photo enforcement plan" (PDF). Azauditor.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-16. Retrieved 2016-06-xxx .
  91. ^ "Arizona Speed Contract" (PDF). Redflex.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-09-27. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  92. ^ "Utilise the "Waze" App to Avert Speed Traps and Police Checkpoints | Cop Cake". Cop Block. 2014-08-xv. Archived from the original on 2016-12-23. Retrieved 2016-12-22 .
  93. ^ "Costless GPS Navigation App 'Waze' Maps Live Traffic, Constabulary, and Red Light Cameras". Journalist Apps. 2013-ten-nineteen. Archived from the original on 2016-12-23. Retrieved 2016-12-22 .
  94. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-05-21. Retrieved 2017-06-02 . {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create equally title (link)
  95. ^ Australian Transport Council (2011). Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 (PDF). p. 62. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-08-ten.
  96. ^ "Vehicle license plate imaging and reading organisation for day and dark". Archived from the original on 2007-09-28.
  97. ^ "Gilets jaunes protesters 'destroy over one-half of speed cameras' in France". The Independent. 2019-01-ten. Retrieved 2022-03-19 .
  98. ^ Stephens, Thomas. "Commuter faces $1,000,000 speeding fine". swissinfo.ch. Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  99. ^ "Drivers tin can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes". The Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2011-12-10. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  100. ^ "United kingdom | Magazine | How do average speed cameras piece of work?". BBC News. 2007-10-17. Archived from the original on 2017-08-24. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  101. ^ "Drivers can avert speeding tickets...by irresolute lanes". London Evening Standard. 2006-10-15. Archived from the original on 2016-08-20. Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  102. ^ "Instantaneous Kodaks (Traffic Command)". Technovelgy . Retrieved 2020-12-27 .
  103. ^ "Time Recording Camera for Trapping Motorists". Popular Mechanics. Vol. seven, no. 9. Hearst Magazines. September 1905. p. 926. ISSN 0032-4558. Archived from the original on 2018-05-05.
  104. ^ a b "GATSO, the experts in traffic enforcement". Gatso.nl . Retrieved 2016-06-30 .
  105. ^ Data, Reed Business (1961-12-14). "Netherlands: Precision Speed Trap". New Scientist. p. 687.
  106. ^ Pop Mechanics, Dec 1969, "Smile, You Just Got a Ticket!" Michael Lamm, Page 75.
  107. ^ David Lowe (2005). The Ship Director'southward and Operator's Handbook 2006. Kogan Folio Publishers. p. 239. ISBN0-7494-4488-6. Archived from the original on 2018-05-05.

External links [edit]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera

Posted by: raulstonsommom90.blogspot.com

0 Response to "How To Dodge Toll Cameras"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel