Speed Cameras lack required FCC Certification

Just like the mobile cameras that were uncertified they will just receive certification. FCC Certification is just to ensure they do not interfere with radio signals not the accuracy of the speeds detected. The mobile tickets pre-certification were not dismissed.

Ya, that's what Redflex said in the link I posted above; and, that, no doubt, is one of the consequences of not having FCC certification; but is it the only one?

1. When Redflex, who is the so-called 'Expert' on Speed Cameras, admittedly didn't know something as basic as the difference between 'FCC certification' and 'FCC compliance', what faith can we have in anything they say about speed camera operation?

2. When they break the law to develop equipment to prevent breaking the law, what faith can we have in anything they say about speed camera operation?

It may be true, but I'm waiting to see if there are any dismisses in speed camera cases which cite this certification violation as a defense before I say "it won't matter". A good lawyer could make a difference of Aye or Nay. (Arizona isn't the only state using these illegal cameras.)

Funny thing ... now Redflex is using that old excuse "I didn't know I broke the law!" and expect the law to believe it!

RT

I don't believe there is a law requiring Speed Cameras to be FCC certified. All that means is that the FCC or their testing lab. has tested and certified that this camera model is compliant with FCC requirements.

There is a law that requires them to be FCC compliant. In other words, they must meet FCC requirements as to RF radiation and interference with other electronic equipment.

The FCC does NOT test or certify a camera model's accuracy.

jwj

There are several websites saying different. One site said 'Grabel went one step further to make the argument that Redflex intentionally violated the law.'

Another said 'The idea Redflex, after having illegally imported, marketed, distributed and used the AGD-340 on behalf of DPS, can wash its hands of that conduct by saying it did not know the law.' Sounds to me like there's a good possibility Redflex broke the LAW. I suspect the courts will determine this.

Serveral sites refer to "required government certification" (not compliant). Even the president of Redflex admitted the radars should have been 'FCC certified'.

It looks like there will be some 'legal' answers coming from the courts in the near future! They usually have the final say!

RT

the courts are gonna refuse to hear the cases because the ticket writers are gonna cry bad economy and need the money.

No, but the maker of the camera has to have the radar tested and certified to meed standards. It's called type acceptance testing.

If you could just say "Oh, it's FCC complaint" and not have anything tested, well, that's just illegal. It would be a lot cheaper since test labs probably charge $20,000+ to do the test.

If you don't pass you can pay again.

I am readying a product (not radar) for exactly this testing. The cost? $24,000.

Here's more 'shenanigans' by our friends at Redflex:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2464.asp

RT

Dear RT,

That is such a travesty. There should be an arrest warrant issued for Cheryl Krough. She violated a public trust and should serve time. It is not enough to lift her notary licence.

david

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2008/...

Redflex is a scam. Read the above link! The driver of their photo radar van was drunk! Unbelievable. That company is a fraud, as well as their revenue enhancement machines.

That story is a few weeks old.

One thing, Gov. Napolitano is moving to Washington DC to be the attorney general for Obama, so after she's gone maybe we can get rid of those cameras in Arizona. I hear she was behind all that.

I suggested passing a law setting the fines for any automated traffic enforcement violation to $5, and 100% of that to go only to affordable housing.

None to run the cameras, none for the state or the city. They'd have to pay Redflex from other money.

Heh. They'd have those things ripped out of there in 2 days.

I heard people have been putting post it notes on the lenses, and shooting them with silly string. Heh. I love it.

You must have missed the original post date. This thread was started the morning of November 16th, the day that article hit the press.

RT

The FCC today released a public notice stating it has terminated the investigation into Redflex's use of uncertified radar devices in their speed cameras. They will be required to pay a $22,000 fine.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2734...

There is a lawsuit in Dallas in which a Judge has ruled that the vendor is in violation of a Texas code. Link is below: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/st...