I had a newspaper reporter e-mail me last week because she was writing an article on red light cameras and told me she had found my website http://NoTrafficCameras.Info opposing the cams. So she called me up and we chatted about the cams for about 20 minutes. I then e-mailed two guys I know who do great work on this issue. Geo McCalip who runs the awesome website HelpIGotATicket.com http://helpigotaticket.com (I very highly recommend this site, which taught me how to beat tickets. It's a piece of cake. I've beaten 6 tickets and had 2 friends beat theirs too.) Another activist runs http://HighwayRobbery.net, which is probably the most comprehensive website on red-light traffic (s)cameras in California. Geo called the reporter up and she included him in the article as well.
The article ran Sunday in the Press Enterprise newspaper. The primary problem with the article, as I see it, is the lying headline, which claims these cams reduce accidents, when actually the exact opposite is true; a simple google search will reveal thousands of official city, state and fed documents outlining how these cams actually cause acccidents and increase danger to motorists, not to mention increa$e revenue for the cities. For example in San Diego, their own traffic engineers admit that the cameras cause a 62% INCREASE in rear-end accidents! [See link below]. This study is one that I referred to and the reporter had the link. Did she include mention of it? No.
However, at least she did include mention of some 'resistance' to these cameras. I'm also disappointed that she didnt mention my site by name so that people could verify what I say about the cameras and verify the data for themselves, since I source everything that is on my page. However she did mention helpigotaticket.com which will in itself probably cause the loss of thousands of dollars in state revenue if even just a few people go look at the site. ;-)
One last thing. Often times when I tell people about how I beat tickets they will say "HOW DID YOU GET AWAY WITH IT!?" I point out that I didn't quote "get away" with anything, that it is encumbent upon the state to prove your guilt, not vice versa, and that we have the presumption of innocence, not guilt, in this country. A citation is not a conviction, merely a request to appear. Try not appearing and they will lock you in a cage. This is why i resist every ticket and force the state to comply with their own laws. In my experience, they fail nearly every time.
I recently had a friend, Sylvia, who had fought a ticket for the first time, after I told her about my success using the free info on helpigotaticket.com. She beat an almost $600 speeding ticket, without taking ONE MINUTE off work, (she did whats called a TRIAL BY DECLARATION, through the mail) and she didnt spend ONE PENNY. (she had gotten a 'bail waiver'). When I saw her the next time she had a smile from ear to ear and told me "I won! I beat the ticket!" and gave me several high fives. I asked her , "now Sylvia, will you ever plead 'guilty' to any ticket again?" To which she replied, 'HECK NO!'
It is so beautiful and meaningful to see the fires of liberty and resistance lit in a person new to the freedom movement. To me, this was better than a team 'winning the superbowl' or other such nonsense. Traffic tickets may seem petty but actually most of it is for revenue and is therefore by it's very nature, tyrannical. A petty tyranny, perhaps, but a tyranny nevertheless. These tickets costs motorists thousands, once their insurance goes up for three years if convicted, and thus oppresses families. This is why we should make the state prove their case every time.
We have cameras stalking our every move, nanny state cops peering into everyone's windows to see if their belt is latched or if they 'dare' to talk on the phone. Of course it's 'for our best interest' because after all, the benevolent pappa government has only our best interest at heart, right?
The article link is below. Also, links to some of the data included on my site.
Keep up the good fight,
Inland Empire 9/11 Truth
Protest Obama & Mccain August 16th
SOURCE: San Diego Photo Enforcement System Review PB Farradyne January 14, 2002 Chapter 6 Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements SECTION 6.1.2 LONGER YELLOW CHANGE INTERVALS FIGURE 6.1 PAGE 79
July 24, 2002 - CA Camera Report: Privacy Problems, Short Yellow, Revenue Motive
By Richard Diamond,
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
202-225-6007 / www.freedom.gov
A new report by the California State Auditor proves several important points:(1) Most red light camera violations happen within the first second of yellow; (2) Serious privacy problems exist; (3) Revenue is officially one of LA's camera motives. The report can be found here: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/pdfs/2001125.pdf [
1 ] Cities banking on inadequate yellow time
According to the report, "a significant percentage of the issued citations are for red light violations that occur within one second of the light turning red." (p. 43). What this means is that if the yellow light is extended a mere second, the majority of the red light running problem goes away, as we have found happen in several communities including San Diego, and Fairfax, VA.
[ 2 ] Privacy Problem
"Our review found at least two instances where vendors misused photographs taken by red light cameras. In one instance, a photograph that showed a bicyclist being struck by a vehicle in San Francisco was posted in the hallway of the San Diego Police Department." Page 21
[ 3 ] Los Angeles Admits Money is their Motive
Page 26 has a chart that indicates "Increased revenue" is a criterion for intersection selection for Los Angeles.
In Inland area, more accident-reducing red-light cameras on the way
06:56 PM PDT on Sunday, August 3, 2008
By GENE GHIOTTO and PAIGE AUSTIN
Critics say the cameras generate revenue for a city under the guise of safety. Supporters say the cameras cut down on broadside collisions.
Martin Hill has devoted a Web site aimed at fighting the spread of red-light cameras in his city.
The cameras violate privacy and prompt drivers to slam on their brakes, triggering rear-end accidents, he said.
Similarly, Geo McCalip operates helpigotaticket.com, a Web site he said is devoted to debunking the devices and helping motorists fight tickets. The purpose of the cameras is to generate income for a city under the guise of safety, he said.
"It's strictly revenue," McCalip said. "It's all about money. If it were really about safety, they'd increase the yellow lights."
However, an opinion issued in June by the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division One, in San Diego, upheld a San Diego County Superior Court ruling that red-light cameras are legal.
For many Inland law enforcement officials, the safety improvements justify the cameras.