KM107 Peplum Knit Dress Black Multi
Karen Millen Bodycon Dresses
Karen Millen Print Dresses


Not saying its happening just that it could and there incentive because there no way to question the camera and the process of the system.
Bluff City last month shut down the offending camera and began the process of tallying refunds. Records showed that more than 1,300 tickets had been issued by that camera, which monitors the southbound side of the section of Highway 11E. Of those, 640 had already been paid.
In the first incident, the Bluff City Police Department fired an officer who allowed a reserve officer to review and approve hundreds of tickets after the law took effect. The law requires potential violations captured on camera to be reviewed and approved by an officer who is certified under the state's Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission.
?6 million lawsuit over speed camera enforcement program Knoxville News Sentinel
The premise of the traffic cams and the fines ARE NOT ABOUT SAFETY BUT MONEY! With an outside company running the works and them only submitting what they think are violators for review. What's to stop them from altering the video/pictures of the lights showing the red/yellow/green to suit there agenda of profits. The camera and lights don't move It would not be hard to alter such small area of the pic by changing the color of the lights. Then rerecord the pic/vid with the meta info of the original pic/vid making it imposable to tell if its been altered.
The city estimated it would have to refund some $12,000 in collections as a result.
Chris Cawood and Jonathan Kelly Proffitt a $6 million proposed classaction lawsuit against Bluff City and its mayor, Irene Wells, and the Arizonabased traffic camera firm American Traffic Solutions Inc.
The lawsuit alleges Bluff City dropped the speed on the section of Highway 11E that is subject to the speed camera enforcement program without performing "an engineering and traffic investigation pursuant to statute and, therefore, was negligent in assessing the need for (a) speed reduction on Highway 11E. Such reduction was much lower than required, thus creating a 'speed trap.'"
The lawsuit alleges the city and the firm are conspiring to violate the Fair Debt Collections Act, state law and the city's own ordinances by imposing an administrative fee of $40 on top of the $50 fine imposed for motorists allegedly captured on the city's two speed enforcement cameras on Highway 11E. The plaintiffs further allege the city and firm are "threatening criminal prosecution for contempt of court and suspension of driver's licenses" if the fees and fines aren't paid.
With today's picture editing software and computers tech its not imposable. But with money as an incentive. Altering a few pictures per day per camera adds up to a lot of money over the year for everyone involved.
Attorney Dan Stanley has filed on behalf of motorists
The premise of the traffic cams and the fines ARE NOT ABOUT SAFETY BUT MONEY! With an outside company running the works and them only submitting what they think are violators for review. What's to stop them from altering the video/pictures of the lights showing the red/yellow/green to suit there agenda of profits. The camera and lights don't move It would not be hard to alter such small area of the pic by changing the color of the lights. Then rerecord the pic/vid with the meta info of the original pic/vid making it imposable to tell if its been altered.
Not saying its happening just that it could and there incentive because there no way to question the camera and the process of the system.
Bluff City and American Traffic Solutions have until Oct. 27 to file a formal response to the lawsuit. Neither attorney J. Paul Frye, who represents Bluff City, and attorney C. Crews Townsend, who represents American Traffic Solutions, responded to requests for comment Thursday.
Oh Tennessee law, you're such a naughty little thing. You're so complicated and hard to figure out. So flippant in some regards (like drunk driving and other forms of murder), yet so crazily obsessive in other areas (like gambling). Such a bad lil' hypocrite you are, Tennessee law, with your: "You can come to MY casino (featured at any local convenience store) but you cannot gamble on a poker game in your own home!"
The action also alleges the city created a "speed trap" on the section of Highway 11E under enforcement by the city's cameras by dropping the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph less than a mile from where the cameras are posted.
As always, my dear censors, I offer my thoughts and prayers. That's it! I'll think and pray for them.
With today's picture editing software and computers tech its not imposable. But with money as an incentive. Altering a few pictures per day per camera adds up to a lot of money over the year for everyone involved.
City officials have said they believed their program was grandfathered, giving them until 2015 when the contract with American Traffic Solutions expires to make the change. However, an August state Attorney General's opinion opined that no such grandfather provision was included in the new law.
The second incident came when the city was hit with complaints, similar to those in the lawsuit, that one of its two cameras was positioned less than a mile from a sign that signaled a drop in the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph. The new state law bars the placement of speed cameras within a mile of any 10mph drop in the speed limit.
I think that if this little town needs to raise funds, perhaps they should try finding some poker, bunko, bingo, and/or pool games where folks are betting. They should also target people who play the lottery.
An Upper East Tennessee town's already troubled traffic camera enforcement program has hit another speed bump a federal proposed classaction lawsuit.
I recieved a speeding ticket Aug 2010, from this photo radar on Hwy 11E, everycar around me was doing the same speed and it was raining I've always been very careful in the rain plus was driving a rental car as I was on vacation.
The city's traffic enforcement program was already embroiled in controversy in two separate instances involving a new law that took effect in July and imposes limitations on red light and speed camera enforcement programs.
Wait, gambling on little scratch cards and 'pick 5 numbers' games of chance are legal, though, right? In fact, the government actually is 'the house', right? They make the lion's share of the proceeds, isn't that how it works?