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.

       

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 stories 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.

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.

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 law suits.

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 camera 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 camera 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.

If you get cited for a red light photo ticket, contact us at TicketBust.com or call us at (800) 850-8038. For Spanish, please visit Combatesuticket.com or call (818) 584-3689. For more information on how TicketBust can help to beat your cell phone ticket, visit fightcellphonetickets.com or call (800) 850-8038.

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 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 which protects the environment and contributes 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 storm water 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.

If you get cited for a red light photo ticket, contact us at TicketBust.com or call us at (800) 850-8038. For Spanish, please visit Combatesuticket.com or call (818) 584-3689. For more information on how TicketBust can help to beat your cell phone ticket, visit Fightcellphonetickets.com or call (800) 850-8038.

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 principal 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 reason why the case against you should be dropped. - blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

If you get cited for a red light photo ticket, contact us at TicketBust.com or call us at (800) 850-8038. For Spanish, please visit www.Combatesuticket.com or call (818) 584-3689. For more information on how TicketBust can help you beat your cell phone ticket, visit fightcellphonetickets.com or call (800) 850-8038.  Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

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 a red light runners and will have 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. 

Boulder, Colorado's new photo enforced parking program capturers images of vehicles, and notes the exact time and place each image was recorded.  The city is using technology called AutoVu made by a company Genetec based in Montreal, Canada.  The device is a vehicle-mounted camera that can recognize license plates as a parking officer is driving by without stopping. An integrated computer system compares the plates to a database of parking violations, and can pick out vehicles that have been parked too long in pay-to-park or neighborhood parking zones. Boulder City officials plan to use the cameras to for criminal investigations as well. Boulder purchased the camera for $46,000.

Related Stories:
Parking Ticket for Street Sweeping
Parking Ticket Photo Enforcement

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.

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.

Previously there was no case law on the subject of red light cameras and now finally there is. The case People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 was decided this year and is now precedent (pre decided cases on the same subject) to future red light camera tickets on issues relating to the admissibility of evidence and hearsay rules on red light camera ticket cases.

In Khaled, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographic evidence which contained hearsay evidence concerning the matters depicted in the photographs including the date, time, and other information-- since the foundation for the introduction of the photographs and the underlying working of the automated red-light traffic enforcement camera system was outside the personal knowledge of the officer testifying in court--the evidence failed to establish each foundational fact and the photographs could not properly be admitted under any hearsay exception.

If the ticket mailed to you has a Certificate of Mailing stating it was mailed by an employee of the camera company and does not state that the camera company is a public employee or that they are otherwise employed by a public entity; if the person or persons who maintain the system do not testify; if no one with personal knowledge testifies about how often the system is maintained; if no one with personal knowledge testifies about how often the date and time are verified and corrected; if the custodian of records for the company that contracts with the city to maintain, monitor, store and disperse these photographs does not testify; if only the officer testifies on general information on how system worked based on his training and is unable to testify about the specific procedure for the programming and storage of the system information, then be sure to cite this case (case cite is People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1) as reason why the citation should be dismissed.

The principals contained in the Khaled decision have created evidentiary hurdles for the Prosecution which could result in a significant number of red light camera tickets being dismissed. - blog submitted by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets.

If you get cited for a red light photo ticket, contact us at www.TicketBust.com or call us at (800) 850-8038. For Spanish, please visit www.Combatesuticket.com or call (818) 584-3689. For more information on how TicketBust can help to beat your cell phone tickets, visit www.fightcellphonetickets.com or call (800) 850-8038.

Red Light Cameras Reek of Corruption

Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. Voters again rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections in November of 2011.  So what is motivating city officials to go against the will of the people they represent?  Money under the table and corruption?  You might have to start asking yourself some common sense questions why there are so many red light cameras in the US when the citizens overwhelmingly object to them. We estimate there are over 1,200 municipalities who have installed almost 7,000 red light cameras in the last 15 years.

In Mukilteo, Washington 70% of the voters banned the cameras and in Anaheim, California 73% voted against them. Earlier in 2010, 61% of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, 86% of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November 2009 elections included three votes: 72% said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. 66% of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the 1990's, speed cameras lost by 66% of the vote in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64% of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.

This smells like corruption at its finest. Red light camera companies like ATS and RedFlex have poured millions of dollars into campaign slush funds supporting politicians who back them. Sounds pretty dirty to me when the business of taxing citizens is almost a $1B revenue per year business.

We would like to ask for your help and leak tips to us on which city officials might be guilty of taking money under the table to get cameras passed.  We will post your tips and let Federal Officials begin to look into the corruption.  There is only one way to curb this corruption and that is to make the information public.

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 current 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 which would permitor authorize any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City ofAnaheim. The term, “red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system” meansand 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 ofthe 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 theauthorization, approval or installation of any red light camera or other automated trafficenforcement system in Anaheim; 2) acquiescing in any action or decision of anothergovernmental 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 inAnaheim; or 3) approving, authorizing or entering into any agreement or taking any other actionof any kind that would result in the installation of any red light camera or other automated trafficenforcement system in Anaheim, including any such agreement that would result in the Cityreceiving any revenue from the installation of such camera or automated system.

If adopted, this measure will prohibit the installation of red light cameras or otherautomated traffic enforcement system in Anaheim without subsequent Charter Amendmentapproved by the voters of Anaheim. s/ Cristina L. TalleyAnaheim City Attorney

California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 authorizes the installation of automated trafficenforcement systems, commonly known as red light cameras, at intersections or other placeswhere vehicles are required to stop, such as crosswalks. Any governmental agency that desiresto operate red light cameras must meet certain requirements, such as 1) identifying the placementof the cameras by signs that are visible to approaching traffic, 2) regulating the minimum yellowlight intervals, 3) making a public announcement of the existence of the camera at least 30 daysprior to its use, and 4) issuing only warning notices for 30 days prior to issuing citations basedupon 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 andregulates 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.

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 complete use of cell phones but 28 states have baned 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:

No Phone Zone States

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 a 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.

Related Stories:
Cameras May Enforce Texting While Driving
Photo Enforcement & Distracted Driving