Portable Navigation Device Sales are Slow

Portable Navigation Device sales are apparently weak this holiday season according to the analysts. Are PND devices losing consumer interest faster than expected because of other GPS devices?  Retail strength appeared biased towards mobile phones, tablets, TVs and gaming.  iPhone and Android devices were strong and Blackberry and Nokia (Navteq) remained weak.   PND devices may be losing interest more quickly than analysts expected and the price cuts are deep expecting subscription sales to make up the difference. However, very few of them have any differentiated content strategy to sell the data.

Wedbush analysts were watching retail traffic at Best Buy where the auto/GPS section was relatively desolate looking and it took time and effort to locate store personnel.  Displacement from smartphones and in-dash navigation systems continue: Garmin nüvi 255WT and TomTom XL350TM both 4.3” devices priced at $99.99 (TomTom also includes life time maps update).  The lowest priced PNDs were the Garmin nüvi 205 3.5” for $79 and the TomTom Ease US 3.5” for $59, both at Walmart. Follow up checks showed Garmin’s priced just under $100 with competitive products priced at $79.99. At one big box retailer, we calculated allocated shelf space for PNDs as follows: TomTom 32%, Magellan 32%, Garmin 20%, Insignia 12%, and Mitac 4%. However, they saw some separate standalone displays for Garmin and to a lesser extent, TomTom. While they believe TomTom will once again garner share gains on Black Friday, and believe both Garmin and TomTom will suffer from a declining PND market. Wedbush notes that Garmin did receive additional shelf space in the Outdoor/Fitness section, though they also saw Polar making a bigger push into GPS watches with a more sleek design.  Here are the latest PNDs available on Amazon.com.

Do Red Light Camera Tickets Apply in the Snow?

running red light in snow storm
Yes, You Can Still Get a Ticket in the Snow

Yes, it is possible to still get a ticket, but police review each case. Police officers don't suspend red light cameras during bad weather. However, they do have someone who reviews videos of each possible infraction and evaluates whether a ticket should be issued. Police take into consideration if a driver makes a legitimate attempt to stop and also evaluates road conditions.

We frequently receive emails from winter drivers who ask us if they will receive a ticket in a blizzard, ice storm, or during poor weather conditions. These drivers usually plead that they could not stop safely before the intersection because of the snow, ice, or water on the road.

If you think you may have received an unjustified ticket sometimes a successful defense some have used in court is the 'out of necessity' defense for running the red light. This defense basically brings the idea of a dangerous situation at hand. When you tried to come to a stop, your car began to slide on ice or water and you had no choice but to run the red light. You could go on to say that by going through the red light, it was actually safer to have done so as opposed to sliding uncontrollably into traffic, stopped vehicles, or pedestrians. Pictures would go a long way here. It is recommended to drive back to the scene as soon as possible and return with a camera. Take pictures of the icy or wet road and anything else that could boost your story's credibility.

We would appreciate hearing stories from drivers below in the comments section of the blog who received a ticket during poor weather conditions and contested the ticket.

Each Camera Earns $90K per Month in New Jersey


Linden City officials tell The Star-Ledger of Newark that the city has collected more than $800,000 in fines in the first three months of issuing tickets. Almost 20,000 tickets have been mailed out. Linden has cameras in operation at three intersections, two on Routes 1 & 9 and one on Route 27. The fine is somewhere between $75 to $140 as reported by drivers.

Linden police officer said the cameras appear to be improving safety as well. Sgt. Michael Babulski said there has been only one accident at the intersections with the cameras since they were activated.

3 Years of Red Light Camera Ticket Refunds from a Class Action Lawsuit

red light camera sign
Class Action Suit Seeks To Refund 3 Years Worth of Red Light Camera Tickets Issued In Santa Ana, CA  

The July 2010 Supreme Court decision (People v. Park) ruling in favor of the motorist ticketed for a red light camera ticket in Santa Ana, CA because the city lacked compliance with the requirement of Vehicle Code section 21455.5 (b) (that a municipality authorizing an automated enforcement system at an intersection comply with the prescribed warning requirements prior to issuing citations) appears to have opened the floodgates for litigation and paved the way for class actions lawsuits.

This is likely why the cities of Santa Ana, CA, and West Hollywood, CA sent letters to the court in hopes of persuading the court to de-publish the decision, but it was to no avail as in October 2010, the Supreme Court denied the cities’ requests for de-publication.

Now, motorist Robert Plumleigh ticketed in Santa Ana at one of the sixteen cameras enforced intersections where the city had failed to provide the required 30-day warning period, seeks to have all such illegally issued tickets refunded.

The suit seeks to refund tickets issued to motorists at the sixteen cameras enforced intersections in Santa Ana, CA between May 2003 and November 25, 2009. The class action names the Santa Ana Police Chief, the Santa Ana City Attorney, and Red Flex (out of state camera company) as defendants, though Red Flex seeks to get out of the lawsuit, one reason being the warning period law allegedly does not apply to a private company.

Plumleigh's lawyer was given until December to file for class certification.- blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Parking Ticket for Street Sweeping

The California Legislature Intends to Allow Street-Sweeper Automated Enforcement Systems: Assembly Bill 2567-blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets. The intent of this bill introduced by Assembly Member Bradford this year is to allow a parking citation for a street-sweeping violation to be issued, much like a red light camera ticket. The ticket would be mailed to the registered owner of any vehicle parked during designated hours of operation for a street-sweeping parking lane, supposedly unless the vehicle is parked after the street is cleaned (even if this is during the restricted hours).

Just like the law for red light camera tickets, there would be a required public announcement of the automated parking enforcement system, a required 30-day grace period where only warning notices are mailed, only a designated and qualified employee could review the photos and the photo evidence would be confidential and available only to public agencies to enforce parking violations, and the ticket would have to be mailed to the registered owner within 15 days of the violation date. Just like with red light camera tickets, the registered owner would be given the opportunity to fill out and send back an affidavit of non-liability.  The City of Boulder, Colorado already uses the parking ticket photo enforcement system.

The legislature’s reasoning is that street-sweepers collect excess pollutants from roads and streets like trash and chemicals which provides environmental and sanitation benefits that protect the environment and contribute to the general health of the people. According to an analysis by the District of Columbia Department of Public Works, a street-sweeper in a one-mile range can remove approximately 10 pounds of oil and grease, pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, and heavy metals. And the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works submitted a technical report in 2004 pushing for stricter enforcement of "no parking" regulations and street-sweeping to help prevent harmful pollutants from entering stormwater drains.

Street-sweepers play an important role in society but is the legislature going too far in allowing for the installation of camera enforcement systems on street-sweepers? It seems there’s no end to what automated enforcement can be used for.- blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Lack of Warning Notices = Tickets Dismissed

2010 Court Decision Could Result in Significant Number of Red Light Camera Tickets Being Dismissed 

People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, is a recently published case that can be cited and used as precedent (pre-decided cases on the same subject) for all future red light camera tickets, and luckily courts are to adhere to precedent under the legal principle of Stare decisis (not unsettle things which are settled).

Park addresses the issue of warning requirements.

In Park, the defendant was ultimately found not guilty of violating VC§21453 because the photographs depicting the defendant’s vehicle moving through a red light were gathered through an automated enforcement system whereby the issuing City of Santa Ana had not issued warning notices for “each new camera” installed in the city. This published court decision stands for the rule that the issuance of warning notices for the first camera installed in the City, and not for subsequent new cameras, does not satisfy the requirements set forth in VC§21455.5 (b). Typically cities are required to issue a thirty-day warning period which apparently did not happen.

If it comes up at your trial that the city that issued your ticket did not send warning notices for the camera which took your picture or for each new camera installed in the city, only the first one, then be sure to cite this case (case cite is People v. Park (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9) as the reason why the case against you should be dropped. - blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Columbus Red Light Video Cameras


20 new red-light cameras will continuously be recording video. The Ohio city already has 18 red ligth cameras installed throughout the city. They will take pictures of red-light runners and will have a video to support the case. RedFlex is the company behind the camera operations and will be deploying the cameras throughout the city.  This should benefit other drivers around the city as well.  These photo enforced intersections commonly have fender bender accidents and the video monitoring the intersections can now be used as accident evidence.  This city claims the video will be used to monitor crime in the area but we don't this will have much impact.  PhotoEnforced.com commonly receives questions such as how to do we view accident videos from cameras?  Having video available will be great for the citizens of Columbus but companies like RedFlex will have to make it easy and transparent for drivers to access and use the video without a lot of bureaucracy and government paperwork. 

New Speed Cameras Can Verify Insurance & Seat Belts Instantly


The latest weapon in speed camera technology can verify speed, insurance and seat belt all in one swoop from up to 150ft away. It is the first to detect multiple offenses at the same time and is connected to police computers via satellite, so that prosecutions can be started within seconds of any offense. The camera is being tested in Finland and is expected to be deployed across Europe from 2013, with each unit costing £50,000. How long will it take these cameras to come to the US since insurance is such a huge part of our driving economy.

First Court Case of Photo Evidence Dismissed

red light camera ticket

2010 Marks the Year of the First Published Case on the Admissibility of Evidence in Red Light Camera Cases-blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

Anaheim Voters Ban Red Light Cameras

photo enforced banned

Measure K has passed and now prohibits the Anaheim City Council from using red-light cameras or other automated traffic enforcement system. The city does not currently use red light cameras or photo enforcement and this is simply a Here are the details:

Anaheim Measure K prohibits the City Council from enacting an ordinance that would permit or authorize any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim. The term, “red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system” means and includes any automated traffic enforcement system, as that term is used in California VehicleCode Section 21455.55 or any successor legislation, which is used to enforce any provision of the California Vehicle Code.

Measure K also prohibits the City Council and any City officer or employee from 1)taking any action in his or her official capacity that would directly or indirectly result in the authorization, approval or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in Anaheim; 2) acquiescing in any action or decision of another governmental agency or failing to object to such action or decision, resulting in the authorization, approval or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in Anaheim; or 3) approving, authorizing or entering into any agreement or taking any other action of any kind that would result in the installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in Anaheim, including any such agreement that would result in the City receiving any revenue from the installation of such camera or an automated system.

If adopted, this measure will prohibit the installation of red light cameras or other automated traffic enforcement system in Anaheim without subsequent Charter Amendment approved by the voters of Anaheim. s/ Cristina L. Talley Anaheim City Attorney

California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 authorizes the installation of automated traffic enforcement systems, commonly known as red-light cameras, at intersections or other places where vehicles are required to stop, such as crosswalks. Any governmental agency that desires to operate red-light cameras must meet certain requirements, such as 1) identifying the placement of the cameras by signs that are visible to approaching traffic, 2) regulating the minimum yellow-light intervals, 3) making a public announcement of the existence of the camera at least 30 days prior to its use, and 4) issuing only warning notices for 30 days prior to issuing citations based upon the information obtained by a red light camera. California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5also sets forth guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the red light camera system and regulates the disclosure of information obtained from the system.

Red-light violations accounted for nearly 40% of the 2,397 accidents at Anaheim intersections between 2007 and 2009. In all, there were 12,858 traffic accidents during that period.

Cell Phone Ticket Laws

Ban on Handheld Phone Use in 8 US States

If you get a cell phone ticket while driving the fine will range anywhere from $20-$125 depending which State you are ticketed in. There is now a ban on handheld phone use in 8 US States while hands-free use is still permitted: 8 states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregan, and Washington & Washington D.C and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from hands-free cell phone use while driving.  30 states have banned text messaging for all drivers.  No states have banned the complete use of cell phones but 28 states have banned the usage of phones by drivers under the age of 18.

An officer may cite a driver for using a handheld cell phone without any other traffic offense taking place. Drivers who receive citations will receive a non-moving violation ticket although it appears on your DMV record, it does not have any points. You can always fight cell phone tickets and request a trial. You are more encouraged to fight cell phone tickets if you can prove that the call you made prior to the citation was to an emergency service provider. The law reads as follows:


CVC 23123(a) "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving."

Vehicle Code: 23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.

(b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call.

(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Topics

A93820014BS Abu Dhabi accidents ACLU ACS Advertising Aha Mobile AI Airsage ALPR ALPR Cameras Android Apple Arizona Atlanta ATS Attorney Australia Auto Insurance Baltimore Belgium Beltronics Bikes Bribe Brooklyn Buy Buying California Camera Vans Canada carplay Carpool Cars CDOT cell phone Chicago City Council Class Action Cobra Colorado Connected Signals Connecticut construction contracts Corruption courtesty notice courtesy notice Crashes crime Crosswalk crowdsourcing Culver City Dangerous Intersections Dash Cam Data Database Des Moines Distracted Drivers DIY DOT download Drivers License Driving Instructor Drowsy Drunk Drivers Dubai DUI E-ZPass England Escort Europe Facial Recognition failure to stop Fake Cameras FasTrak Fighting Tickets Finance Fines Fleets Florida FOIA Ford France freedom of information act request Garmin Gatso Georgia Germany Glendale Google Google Maps Government GPS Angel GPS Navigation Guest Writer Hawaii Here Highway Robbery Highways HOV Cameras How To humor Illinois Injury Inrix Insignia Instagram Insurance Insurenet iOS IOT Iowa iphone iRadar Italy Iteris Joe Biden Laser Craft Law Suit Laws lawyer Left Turns legal Legislation License Plate Local London Long Beach Los Angeles Loud Exhaust Louisiana LPR Cameras Lyft Machine Learning Magellan Maine Maintenance Manhattan maps Marketing Maryland Massachusetts Microsoft Minnesota Missouri Mitac Mobile Ads Mobile Apps mobile speed zone MTA Navigation Navigon Navteq Nestor Netherlands New Jersey New Mexico New Orleans New York New Zealand News NHTSA Nokia NTSB Oahu Oakland Ohio Parking Parking Tickets Parks Peasy Pennsylvania Phantom Alert Philadelphia Phoenix Photo Notice photographs POI Points Poland police Politics Poll Portugal Privacy Progressive Web App Protest Radar Railroad Reckless Driving red light cameras RedFlex RedSpeed redzone refunds Removing rental car tickets Repairs research revenue Rhode Island Ridesharing Right Turns rolling right turns Russia Sacramento Safe Speed Safety Safety Cameras San Diego San Francisco San Jose Scam Schools Seat Belt Seattle secutity settlement Shutting Down signs Snitch Tickets solar Sound Cameras Spain speed cameras Speed Vans State Ban stop sign cameras Street View Students subpoena Subscription Supreme Court Surveillance Switzerland Taxi Technology TeleAtlas Telematics Tennessee Tesla Texas Texting Tickets Tips Toll Road TomTom Tracking Traffic traffic attorney Traffic Camera Traffic Lights Traffic Safety Traffic School traffic tickets Traffic.com Trapster Trial by Written Declaration Trinity Trucking trucks UAE Uber UK Unpaid Ticket Vehicle Occupancy Verra Mobility video Vigilant Violation Fines Violation Info Violation Speed Virginia Vision Zero Voters warning devices warning notice Washington Washington DC Waze Wikango Xerox Yellow Lights YouTube