Deprecated: Function create_function() is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/ on line 2
Surveillance cameras – trafficcameraweb

Category Archive : Surveillance cameras

‘Smart’ Cameras Are Now On the Lookout For Distracted Drivers in Australia

“Smart” traffic cameras that use artificial intelligence to try to spot people using cell phones while driving are being rolled out in Australia. The devices take a high-resolution photograph through the front windshield of each passing vehicle, and also capture its license plate. Each photograph is then analyzed by an AI algorithm. If the algorithm decides that the driver is touching a mobile phone, tablet, or another device, it then forwards the photograph to a human reviewer who confirms the violation and issues a citation to the car’s registered owner along with a hefty fine.

This technology represents one of the first significant examples of something that we have warned may become common: the use of smart surveillance cameras to take the place of human police officers in visually enforcing rules and regulations of all kinds. Except these devices won’t just take the place of human officers; they’ll make it possible to greatly increase the scale and pervasiveness of enforcement agents. No jurisdiction is going to station three human police officers on every highway mile and city block to do nothing but look for and issue citations to distracted drivers — but with AI cameras, the equivalent could easily be done.
The age of robot surveillance is around the corner and the watchers will soon far outnumber the watched.

The “mobile phone detection cameras” being deployed in Australia are made by a company called Acusensus, which says that its system can detect texting drivers at night, in all weather conditions, through sun glare, and at high speeds. According to the company, the “system hardware is compact and unobtrusive” — meaning easy to hide — and “detection can be performed in real-time to assist police operations.”
The company is currently pitching its product in the United States and Canada, though I have not heard of a deployment in the United States so far (and the company’s web site does not boast about such a deployment, as we would expect). I am not sure how many other companies sell competing products, though I would expect that any company with expertise in computer vision could develop a product relatively easily.
Certainly, the use of mobile phones by drivers is a very serious problem. As I’ve long pointed out, driving cannot be seen as a purely individualistic activity. What we do with and in our cars affects not just our safety but the safety of other people — and the amount of carnage on our roadways each year is devastating. As a result, driving is already a highly regulated activity. There is also substantial evidence that smartphone use while driving contributes significantly to that human toll.
But the arrival of this kind of AI monitoring technology presents us with larger decisions that we’re going to have to make as a society. Currently, cars are often considered quasi-private spaces, where people do all kinds of things, from eating to applying makeup to changing their clothes to — yes — looking at their cellphones.
We could decide as a society that the dangers of distracted driving are so high that we don’t want the interiors of our cars to be at all private, and declare them fair game for high-resolution photography that can be scrutinized by government officials. We have no independent information about how accurate the Australian systems is, or how others like them will be, though some false positives are inevitable. That means that every driver will be subject to having their photograph randomly scrutinized by the authorities.
We should expect that these devices will be able to pick up other things besides texting. Already the Australian vendor boasts that the system can be set to flag behaviors including “eating, drinking and smoking, adjusting vehicle settings (radio, etc.), and use of mobile and navigation devices in a holder.” Whether the AI can discriminate between a driver drinking a beer and a root beer is unclear, which means that a swig of any beverage behind the wheel could get a photo of you scrutinized by the authorities.
Photographs may expose other things as well, from the presence of guns or drugs to on-the-road sexual activities, as well as private things like reading material, intimate personal effects, and passengers and drivers adjusting their clothes in ways that reveal their bodies at times they reasonably believe they can’t be seen by others. In the absence of tight controls over the handling of photographs, some revealing photographs will inevitably be saved and shared for voyeuristic purposes by those whose job it is to review them.

In Australia, the vendor says that its system shows only images of the drivers, not passengers, to the human reviewers, though we don’t know how reliable the automated redaction of photos is, or whether other vendors would also follow this practice. In media reports (though not on its web site), the company also says it quickly deletes photographs in which the AI finds no sign of a violation. But in New South Wales, 8.5 million photographs were taken in just a six-month period; that kind of photographic database might prove valuable in all kinds of ways that a for-profit company would want to exploit. A system with the power of this one should never be deployed with privacy protections that depend on the promises and voluntary practices of a company; it should be subject to statutory protections.
If we decide as a society to allow these devices to be deployed, we might require that drivers be given notice of their locations so that they can adjust their behavior. Or, we might allow them to be deployed without public notice to better deter dangerous behavior. That would create a “panopticon effect” in which everybody must act as if they are being scrutinized by the authorities at every moment since they never know at what moments they actually will be, creating in drivers “a state of conscious and permanent visibility.”
That would represent a fairly significant change in what it is like to drive in America. If we make a decision as a society to routinely extend the eye of the state into the interior of our vehicles in this way, that is a decision that a) should be known to all, and b) made through transparent democratic processes. The decision should not be made by police departments unilaterally throwing the technology into our public spaces without asking or even telling the communities they serve. That is something we’ve seen happen with too many other technologies, including license plate scanners, aerial surveillance, and face recognition. In cities where our recommended “Community Control Over Police Surveillance” legislation has been enacted, democratic review will be required, but police departments in every city and state should leave this decision to the communities they serve.
The other thing we must consider if we decide to permit this technology to be used is where things will go from there. Already a number of companies are selling in-vehicle “fleet cameras” designed to monitor employees who drive for a living, subjecting those workers to constant robot surveillance and judgment. Personal vehicles, too, are beginning to feature cameras that monitor drivers for distraction or drowsiness.
And AI smart cameras may well end up covering much more mundane behaviors. We could find ourselves fined for such offenses as cutting the edge of a crosswalk or putting materials in the wrong recycling bin. (That latter scenario is not such a stretch; some municipal governments in the United States have already equipped garbage trucks with video cameras that monitor the bins being emptied at each residence to determine if the right materials are coming out of each container, facilitating fines for noncomplying residents.)
Aside from privacy issues, these cameras would also raise other questions:
• Would there be racial bias in their deployment patterns or in the adjudications that human reviewers make of ambiguous photos?
• Would decisions to charge based on photos be made by sworn police officers only? With red-light cameras, we saw deployments that gave vendors a role in deciding guilt and innocence — and running the program in ways that created financial incentives to increase tickets.
• Would the cameras be fair? Unlike a citation issued by a live officer, automated accusations arrive by mail (if they arrive at all) long after the alleged violation. That makes it harder for people to recollect the circumstances of the violation to dispute a charge based on errors or extenuating circumstances.
• As with red-light cameras, there are also fairness questions around the fact that a car’s owner is the one cited when someone else could have been driving it.
Stopping texting drivers to lower traffic deaths is the kind of sympathetic goal that new surveillance technologies are always first deployed to address. But, as we consider going down that road, we need to figure out where we will draw the line against automated surveillance, lest we end up being monitored by armies of digital sticklers scolding, flagging, and fining us at every turn.

WCCTV’s Redeployable Pole camera have been featured in the news, underlining the

WCCTV’s Redeployable Pole camera have been featured in the news, underlining the use of the equipment in law enforcement & community protection applications.

The WCCTV 4G HD Mini Dome was recently featured on Fox 4 News in Grand Prairie as the units are being utilized by the Police Department to assist the law enforcement with community protection applications.
Since February Main Street businesses throughout Grand Prairie are being targeted by a pickup truck driver allegedly firing a BB gun between 0430am and 0740am with the total of cases reaching two dozen.

The Grand Prairie police have released the surveillance video from the WCCTV 4G HD Mini Dome in hope to catch the vandal before it happens again.
The WCCTV’s 4G HD Mini Dome is an all in one rapid deployment pole camera, compromising a PTZ camera, local recording (up to 4TB) and wireless transmission housed in a lightweight and portable unit.
The system also features video analytics functionality including a 3MP day/night camera, and multiple channels output to allow the integration of additional cameras including thermal & LPR cameras.

The Benefits of Mobile Video Surveillance for Job Site Security

Deploying mobile video surveillance cameras for security and asset protection at job sites and compounds, as either an alternative to or compliment for security guarding services, offers multiple benefits.
From significant cost-savings and speed of installation through to quality and convenience, WCCTV’s clients are already benefitting from reliable, unmanned, 24/7 protection of high‑incident areas, transportation routes, construction sites and critical infrastructure
Below WCCTV outlines some of the headline benefits associated with its Rapid Deployment Pole Cameras and Mobile Solar Surveillance Trailers when used for real estate, commercial and residential construction job sites, freight yards, rail yards and remote sites.Cost Effectiveness
The cost of employing security guards can be incredibly expensive for clients seeking a site security solution.

A typical unarmed guard will cost between $12 – $20 per hour depending on state with an armed guard costing $18 -$25 per hour.*
This price does not include external factors such as the requirement for multiple guards to cover sites, the need for training, vetting, rest facilities and vehicles pushing hourly rates ever upwards – even before public holiday premium rates are taken into consideration.
As a cost-effective alternative, many are switching to mobile video surveillance cameras for site security. Systems such as WCCTV’s Mini Dome Solar Trailers are often anywhere up to 87% cheaper than the cost of security guards without compromising on quality or results.
WCCTV provides its rapid deployment solar trailers on a sale or rental basis, meaning clients are able to choose a package that is most financially beneficial for their projects, regardless of the duration.

Quality and Reliability
Video surveillance provides a more accurate and detailed overview of incidents on site than a security guard presence could.
This includes being able to identify intrusions in the lowest lighting conditions. Technology such as infrared, thermal imaging and video analytics allow cameras to see things a human eye would find impossible to detect.

A surveillance camera can also view a much wider area than a security guard, and with the use of multiple passive infrared (PIR) detectors, they can proactively identify any intrusion across a whole site and all points of ingress.
Surveillance cameras are always attentive, they are ready to stop and catch thieves, vandals and other would-be criminals 24/7. They don’t suffer lapses in concentration or attention fatigue. Surveillance cameras remove the element of placing trust in the alertness, motivation and ability of security personnel.   
From a technology perspective, WCCTV Dome Solar Trailers, fitted with WCCTV’s 4G Mini Dome Cameras, represent the next generation of unmanned site security in terms of convenience, flexibility and quality.
The WCCTV Mini Dome Solar Trailer is an autonomously-powered mobile video surveillance system that can be rapidly deployed at practically any location, providing security for remote sites, short-term events or off-grid locations on a temporary or permanent basis.
The trailer is fitted with up to 4 of WCCTV’s 4G Mini Dome pole cameras that have been specifically designed to deliver live and recorded video securely and efficiently via 4G LTE networks.
The units are extremely power efficient, meaning that they can do more with less power.  They don’t rely on gas generators removing the need to refuel or maintain in the field – this also offers a heavy cost reduction which we pass onto our end users.
Live and recorded footage can be accessed via wireless networks including 4G LTE, 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity, allowing users to remotely view and download the video via mobile devices (smartphone, tablet, laptop or PC) or via an existing video management system.

A Proactive and Visual Deterrent
The ideal result for anyone looking to secure a site and their valuable assets is to prevent intrusions or break-ins before they occur.
The WCCTV Mini Dome Solar Trailer stands 20ft high, providing an unmistakable visual deterrent for a would-be trespasser – they are proven to prevent criminal activity.Risk Mitigation
It’s often suggested that a benefit of using security guards is that, should they discover an intruder onsite, they can intervene and prevent a robbery from occurring.   
However, in most cases, security guards are trained not to approach a potential intruder, for concerns over safety. Options, therefore, become very limited.
Usually, in such instances, security guards ensure their own safety, before calling out Law Enforcement, the same as any normal member of the public.
Using a mobile surveillance camera system such as the WCCTV Mini Dome Solar Trailer could not only ensure a quicker response as they can be streamed to a video monitoring center, it also prevents putting a human into a risky situation where their safety could be threatened.
Rapid deployment and flexibility
It takes just minutes to install the WCCTV Mini Dome Solar Trailer at your locations, and it can easily be moved to new locations as your sites develop or applications change. It is an ideal surveillance solution for locations without any fixed infrastructure for power or video transmission.
They can also be moved around the site as they develop, meaning blind spots can be mitigated and the most appropriate areas of risk remain protected at all times.
Its completely autonomous powering means it can be installed practically anywhere providing immediate security without any infrastructure requirements for power or video transmission.

Additional Benefits
Using a WCCTV mobile video surveillance system provides a number of other onsite benefits. One major benefit is the cameras can be used to provide project overview footage and assist with health and safety applications.
As the cameras provide a 24/7 video feed, it allows clients to:
    Conduct remote site audits
    Review working procedures remotely and/or retrospectively
    Manage site access (vehicles/pedestrians)
    Manage access across site boundaries
    Issue audio alerts
Another added benefit is all WCCTV’s video cameras are time lapse video ready. The system will capture high definition images of your construction, demolition or refit projects which our team will

What are car surround view cameras, and why are they better than they need to be?

Surround view cameras could be the next big thing in automotive safety. They cost more and do more for safety than the long-delayed rear camera that will be required on all 2018 cars. A properly implemented surround view system — with cameras on all four sides — will guard against backover deaths as well as more commonplace damage when you scrape a fender or alloy wheel.

A surround view monitor, or around view monitor system, stitches together a birds-eye view of your car from overhead and shows a moving image on the car’s LCD display, along with parking lot lane markings, curbs, and adjacent cars. The best systems reinforce the visual information with sonar that warns if you’re too close to an obstruction, whether its behind or in front. They payback comes more from the cosmetic savings (fewer crumpled fenders), since the lives saved represent just 0.5% of all highway fatalities.

How surround view cameras work

Infiniti and Nissan pioneered the Around View Monitor (their term) in 2007 on the Infiniti EX35. It’s on nearly a dozen of their vehicles vehicles, including the subcompact Nissan Versa Note and the compact Nissan Rogue SUV (above). One camera is in the middle of the front grille. Two more ultra-wide-angle cameras look down from the side view mirrors along the flanks on the car. A fourth is just above the license plate. Software stitches the four images together and inserts an image of your vehicle in the middle. It’s as if you have your own autonomous drone hovering 50 feet above the sunroof, sending an image to the center stack.

How does it work day to day? As you back down your driveway you can see if your car is centered. If you have your driveway mastered, you may not be familiar with a friend’s driveway, especially one that has a curve, or runs downhill to the street and can’t be seen through your rearview mirror. If you back or nose into a parallel or perpendicular parking space and you don’t have a self-parking system, you can perfectly center your car in the middle of the spot, perhaps the only car at the mall so parked, and stay within the legal 6-12 inches of the curb on-street.

On most cars, the parking view comes on automatically when you put the car in reverse. Hit the camera button and it also shows the view when you’re moving forward. The camera typically only works below 5 to 7 mph.

Bells and whistles

Some vehicles provide multiple views. Nissan, which has been at it longer than anyone, offers four. The Birdseye view is the default and shows all four sides. There are front-only and rear-only views, the rear-only view being much the same as what you’d get if you just had a rear camera. The front-side view, which Nissan offers, shows the view of the right side of the car and projects a dotted line representing the width of the car; use that to keep from scraping your wheels on curbing.
Some automakers offer a wide and an ultra-wide front or rear view, and SUVs may have a close-up rear view that’s straight down, to help in hitching up a trailer. These may be on rear-camera-only cars, too.
BMW (above) has a wide aspect ratio center stack display, as much as 10 inches diagonal, and it can show the surround view and a proximity graphic when it detects objects, with green-yellow-red indicating how close you are to needing bodywork. German automakers, who build their cars for the unlimited-speed Autobahn, also build them for creeping out from alleys and place cameras ahead of the front wheel arches looking out to the side; the companies give a split view on their center stack LCD. Making sense of the view is an acquired skill.
On top of around view, Nissan now offers moving object detection. Sensors watch for objects that move into the path of the car and alert the driver with a chime. It can be a bicycle, pet, or toddler who ran out of the house to say goodbye to mommy.

What could automakers do for an encore?

Especially at the high end, automakers compete to add features and safety, or at least convenience. Land Rover prototyped an X-ray vision system called Transparent Bonnet that “sees” through the hood of the car, which is already big and high, and obstructs vision further when you’re climbing a hill. Most off-road SUVs have downward facing front cameras. Land Rover goes one better with a downward facing camera that appears to show the road directly under a semi-transparent hood as wheel.
High-end SUVs could add a fifth camera at the top of the liftgate for a less distorted rear-facing view. You’d still need a low-mounted camera for close-in work because the slanted backs of most SUVs would be blind for 2 to 5 feet behind the car. The camera could also be an alternative rear view camera, for instance when the back deck is piled high with baggage. Tesla and other automakers are working on digital rear view systems; they could stitch side and rear cameras for a seamless wide view.
Simpler tweaks would make surround vision and rear vision cameras useful. They would benefit from lens cleaners, either a blast of air or a squirt of water. Too often lenses are foggy, dirty, or wet and don’t show a usable image. Backup lights need to distribute more light more evenly; the quality varies greatly.

Why surround vision beats what NHTSA is ordering

About 210 people die each year in backing accidents vs. 33,561 traffic fatalities in 2012 (it doesn’t report 2013 fatalities until just before Thanksgiving this year). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed requiring cars have a backup camera since 2008. The current backup camera mandate finally locks in 2018 as the date when all vehicles sold in the US have a backup camera system. When the widebody Hummer H2 became the first vehicle with a backup cameras in 2004, a camera cost an estimated $150, plus the cost of the display device. By 2018, they’ll be under $50 for the camera, and many cars will have LCD displays for infotainment, so that cost is already embedded in the car’s base price.
NHTSA’s rulemaking will save just a handful of lives. NHTSA estimates the backup systems will reduce the 210 fatalities that by one-third – only – despite an automaker expenditure of $750 million or more each year (15 million vehicles produced times $50 per car). Many motorists won’t look at the displays and others who do won’t see a person because of water, dirt, or sunlight on the camera or the LCD display.
Gentex mirror cameraNHTSA’s mandate will allow small LCDs inset into rear view mirrors. My experience is those LCDs are too small to be useful but it may be how automakers meet the mandate on the cheapest trim lines of each model, the one with wind-up windows and no USB or Bluetooth. The PR image you see here is more legible than you may experience and the child filling that much of the screen is only a few feet away.
The surround view cameras do better than the rear-camera NHTSA mandate in in two ways. First, the side view may pick up children and others who approach the car from the side. Also, the cost of the surround view system — $250 to $1000 — probably pays for itself with fewer fender benders and scraped curbs. Who doesn’t over a decade have at least one low-speed incident? You may not report it because the majority comes out of your pocket via the deductible, but you pay in reduced value at trade-in time.

Putting a price on safety

You can’t put a price on a child’s life, most anyone would say. But the legal system and grieving families will try. Here are some broad figures: If each death pays $1 million, for instance (probably less because of the limits of insurance policies), then the cost to insurers and motorists is $150 million for the 150 lives lost. Meanwhile, the approximately 15 million vehicles built in 2018 with $50 rear cameras will cost an extra $750 million. It takes a decade to turn over the majority of the US vehicle fleet and $7.5 billion will have been invested in cameras. The cost per life saved could would be several million dollars if the cost only considers lives saved; there are also reduced low-speed, rear collision costs that need to be factored in.
The economics look better if you have an around view system because it does at least as good a job helping you spot pedestrians and a superior job preventing crumpled fear and front fenders and bumpers, scraped sides, and damaged alloy wheels. It’s possible that the cost of the surround view system will pay for itself over the decade the vehicle is in service compared to your insurance deductible and higher rates if you report several parking lot accidents.Our recommendation: get surround view and sonar
For the ultimate in safety, look for a car that has surround view, around view, or 360-degree cameas. That includes BMW, Infiniti, Land Rover, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan. Test the car early or late in the day when the sun is more likely to strike the display; some will wash out. That’s why you also want a car with rear and hopefully front parking sonar. It picks up cars, rocks, fire hydrants, and people. I believe sonar provides more safety for people and things than a camera, but that’s not what NHTSA is ordering.
(In the future, the cameras could also detect pedestrians. Subaru on cars such as our Editors’ Choice Subaru Forester uses a two-camera system, called EyeSight, to detect and stop for pedestrians in front of the car. They’re more complex, and costly, than today’s rear cameras.)
Start your car search with Nissan and Infiniti, who have the majority of their fleet covered, including the Nissan Nissan Leaf EV, Nissan Murano, Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Quest, Nissan Rogue, and Versa Note, and the Infiniti Q50, Infiniti QX80, Infiniti QX 70, Infiniti QX60, and Infiniti QX50.
You may also want a car with self-parking. A car that automatically steers into a parking space typically has sonar for situations where it can’t self-park. The first self-parking cars backed you into a parallel parking space and in more recent models into a perpendicular parking space. Ford just announced the 2015 Ford Edge will also pull you out of the parking space. But self-parking doesn’t work all the time, which is why you want surround view, too. Go with belt and suspenders.

High-tech cameras replace door mirrors on every variant.

The so-called “Side Camera Mirror System” is similar to the virtual door mirrors seen on top-of-the-range versions of Audi’s new E-Tron electric SUV, and uses rear-facing cameras and small screens in the cabin to show drivers the view down the car’s flanks. In the case of the Honda, the cameras sit in housings just below the window line, with their images fed back to six-inch screens at either end of the dashboard.

Honda claims the system will help the car “retain a modern, clean and simple design,” which already includes stepless A-pillars and flush-fitting “pop-out” door handles. The company also says the side cameras will not protrude beyond the wheel arches, unlike conventional door mirrors, which could prevent the car from fitting through gaps or into garages.
And the advantages don’t stop there. Honda also notes that the cameras are more aerodynamic than conventional mirrors, improving the car’s efficiency and range. And there are safety advantages, too, with a choice of “normal” or “wide” views available for the driver to select. The wide view is said to reduce blind spots by half, while even normal view provides a 10-percent improvement.

Honda is also planning to integrate the reversing camera system with the mirrors, projecting guidelines on to the six-inch displays to help drivers maneuver. And to prevent the cameras becoming clouded by water or dirt, they will have specially designed housings that stop water droplets appearing on the lens, which will also feature a water-repellent coating.
In a statement, Honda said: ““As well as improving visibility, these compact cameras reduce aerodynamic drag by around 90 percent compared to conventional door mirrors. The result is an approximate 3.8-percent improvement for the entire vehicle, contributing to the models’ overall efficiency and range. Furthermore, there is a significant reduction of wind noise compared to normal side mirrors at higher speeds.”
The Honda E electric car is expected to hit the roads at some point in 2020, with the full production version’s reveal slated for later this year. However, prospective customers can already make a reservation or register their interest in the new vehicle.


    Side Camera Mirror System delivers design, safety and aerodynamic benefits    Camera images are relayed to interior screens ergonomically positioned for drivers view    Reservations for priority order of the Honda e are now open in selected European Markets
Honda has confirmed that the Side Camera Mirror System seen on the prototype version of the new Honda e urban electric vehicle will be standard when the car enters production. The technology, a first in the compact segment, brings significant benefits for styling, safety, aerodynamics and refinement.
The Side Camera Mirror System replaces conventional side view mirrors with compact cameras providing live images to two six-inch screens inside the vehicle. These screens are integrated at either end of the dashboard, ergonomically positioned to ensure a natural feel and vision for the driver.
The next-generation camera technology helps the car retain a modern, clean and simple design, and complements the stepless A-pillars and flush ‘pop out’ door handles also confirmed for the production version of the Honda e. Unlike conventional side mirrors, the cameras are contained within the width of the car and do not extend beyond the wheel arches.
As a result, not only is visibility improved, but also the compact cameras reduce aerodynamic drag by around 90% compared to conventional door mirrors – an approximate 3.8% improvement for the entire vehicle that benefits the car’s efficiency and range. Furthermore, there is a significant reduction of wind noise that is normally generated by side mirrors at higher speeds.
The camera unit housings are also deliberately shaped to prevent water drops on the lens, with a water-repellent coating on the lens surfaces to deter any other residual water build up.
The optimal positioning of the Side Camera Mirror System cameras delivers a host of safety advantages. The driver can choose between ‘normal view’ and ‘wide view’ via the vehicle settings, extending the field of vision further than with conventional side mirrors and reducing blind spots by around 10% in normal view and approximately 50% in wide view. Further benefits are experienced when reverse gear is selected, guidelines appear on the side view screens in addition to an enhanced camera angle, expanding visibility.
Brightness levels on the interior displays are automatically adjusted based on the prevailing light conditions. Extensive testing and development have been undertaken to ensure the Side Camera Mirror System delivers superior visibility in poor weather, low-light and night-time conditions with no dazzle or glare. This provides drivers with greater clarity and awareness of surrounding objects than conventional side view mirrors in all conditions.
Honda’s new compact electric car is a bold step for the brand in terms of design and technology, and forms part of the brand’s strategy to feature electrified technology in all cars it sells in Europe by 2025. It will feature a competitive range of over 200km, ‘fast charge’ functionality providing 80% range in just 30 minutes.
Inside, the spacious, contemporary interior creates a comfortable lounge-like feel with an intuitive and customisable dual touch-screen interface to keep passengers engaged with their connected lifestyles. The car’s sporty rear-wheel drive set up, advanced electric powertrain and high-performance battery, delivers a fun, dynamic driving experience.
The production version of the Honda e will be unveiled later this year and customers can make a reservation for priority ordering online in UK, Germany, France and Norway or register their interest in other European markets on the Honda national websites.


Video Surveillance for Traffic
Traffic cameras are an innovative and extremely functional use of video surveillance technology. You’ve seen their footage during traffic reports on the TV news. They’re atop traffic signals and placed along busy roads, and at busy intersections of the highway. Whether they’re recording traffic patterns for future study and observation or monitoring traffic and issuing tickets for moving violations, traffic cameras are an explosively popular form of video surveillance.Advantages of Traffic Surveillance Cameras
Aid commuters – Traffic cameras placed at common congestion points on highways, freeways, interstates and major arteries often share feeds with news outlets – both radio and TV, which in turn pass them onto commuters in the form of traffic reports. Normally, traffic flows do not vary much from day to day, but in the event of a severe accident or road closure, a traffic alert can be extremely valuable for a time-crunched commuter.

Valuable data – Traffic cameras that simply monitor car flows on roads and major arteries are often maintained by state departments of transportation. Along with monitoring the roads for accidents or major closures, footage from traffic cameras is influential in decisions regarding future road development and construction.
Enforce laws – Cameras used to enforce speed and red light laws are effective in catching moving violations and issuing tickets.
Encourage safe driving – Visible surveillance cameras posted at intersections can encourage safe driving habits and discourage moving violations.Risky Aspects of Traffic Security Cameras
Weather – Whether they’re monitoring intersections or looking out for traffic jams, traffic cameras are subject to damage caused by weather. Heat, wind, rain, snow and ice can all damage or ruin a traffic security camera.
Accidents – Since they’re placed on busy roads and intersections, there is also a chance that accidents could damage traffic cameras.Configuration Considerations for Roadway Cameras

Traffic monitoring cameras and red light or speed cameras have different purposes and therefore desrve seperate consideration when installing. Consider the following when looking to install traffic monitoring or red light camerasFor traffic surveillance cameras:
    What are the major roadways in your area?    At what time is traffic in your area the heaviest (aka “Rush Hour”)?    Are there certain features in roadways where traffic naturally congests?
For speed and red light cameras:
    Are there any particular intersections in your area where accidents and violations are common?    Are moving violations a particular problem in your area?
Setup Advice for Traffic Surveillance CamerasFor speed and red light cameras:
    When installing cameras, make sure that all areas of the intersection are covered. Usually, cameras are placed above the signals or mounted on each corner of the intersection    Consider installing a flash or other light source for night recording    Consult with local law enforcement to find the most troublesome intersections    Make sure your cameras are placed and calibrated to record the license plate data off of violating cars.    To protect cameras against the elements, place them in environment-controlled housings.

For road surveillance and monitoring cameras:
    Place cameras so they overlook common congestion areas    Make sure cameras have adequate visibility and a good view of all lanes involved    Temperature and humidity controlled camera housings can help protect the camera against weather.

12 Tips for Beating an Arizona Photo-Enforcement Ticket: Updated for 2019

(UPDATE: The original article ran in 2016, but was updated in February 2019.)
Legal loopholes make it possible to escape punishment for a speed- or red-light-camera ticket in Arizona. Hundreds of people, at least, do it successfully every year after being flashed by the cameras. As of February, 19 cities in metro Phoenix had photo enforcement equipment, but only six are actually using it to ticket people: Chandler, El Mirage, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Phoenix, and Scottsdale. (El Mirage is currently scheduled to deactivate its system in July 2019.)

To win, you need to know how the game is played.
Having researched the topic for years, New Times hereby offers — free of charge! — the following list of tips and tricks to avoid a photo-enforcement ticket. Just promise to drive safely, then read on …

Tip 1: Ignoring a Notice of Violation Can Result in Your Case Being Dismissed
By law, after a ticket is filed in court, a municipality has 90 days to nail you. The first thing a city will do is to mail you a notice of violation, asking you to sign and return a waiver (along with, ideally, a check to cover your fine).
No muss, no fuss. But no teeth, either: You have no legal obligation to sign the waiver. That’s because state law requires that a ticket must be delivered in person in order to stick.
If you don’t sign the waiver, a process server might come to your home.
If the process server catches you at home, you’ll pay more on top of the fine. For instance, Mesa will plunk another $60 on top of a $283 speeding ticket. Scottsdale adds $50.

So it becomes a wager: If you’re served, you lose a few extra bucks. But if you “win,” you pay nothing. Under state law, the case will be dismissed, with no consequences, 90 days after it entered the court system.
(And take note: That’s not 90 days after the alleged violation date. It may be a week or two after, maybe more. This extra time has tripped up many would-be server-dodgers who thought it was safe to open the door…)
Tip 2: If No One’s Home, No One Gets Served
“It’s real simple,” says Tom Zollars of Superior Process Services. “Don’t answer your door.”
Generally speaking, a process server can’t leave the ticket at your door. Under Arizona law, a citation must be given to the defendant or a “person of suitable age” who lives at the home. (Courts have interpreted “suitable” as someone 14 or older.)
Translation: To improve the odds of success, roommates and family members must play along. If they open to the door to a server, it’s game over.
Tip 3: Make It Seem Like Nobody’s Home — Ever
Process servers tend to go where they think they’ll find their quarry. On the flip side, they may avoid returning to a residence that doesn’t appear to provide a likely payoff.

So keep the car in the garage and shut the blinds.
This serves two purposes. One, it makes it look like no one’s there. Two, it provides you with a cloak of invisibility. Because if a server sees you inside and recognizes you as the violator, you’re done for, even if you don’t answer the door. And servers usually have a copy of the violator’s driver’s license photo.
Video cameras and peepholes can be utilized to distinguish process servers from guests. And if the doorbell rings at an odd hour or on a holiday, take note: It could be the server.
(One caveat to bear in mind: Process servers don’t only deliver tickets. They may bring important documents you actually need.)
Tip 4: Beware of Scottsdale
The city of Scottsdale fights back. If you blow off a violation notice in Scottsdale, the city will file an alternative-service motion showing that a server attempted to deliver the ticket three times — in the morning, the afternoon, and the evening, all on separate days. Once a judge grants the motion, the process server will tote the citation to your residence and tape it to the front door.
At that point, you’ve been legally served. Other cities only rarely resort to this practice.
Still, it’s not a total deal-breaker. While the city may use such motions in as many as one-third of the cases that require process servers, your case could fall through the dragnet, resulting either in no alternative-service motion, or no process server at all. If the server comes, though, expect to pay more for that ticket.
Tip 5: Once in a While, a Process Server Might Cheat
How many kids in your fourth-grade class said they wanted to be a process server when they grew up? Process servers tend to get paid for each ticket they successfully deliver. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some may interpret this as an incentive to, shall we say, pad their stats.
You can challenge a bogus process service in court and, if you win, cause the server to lose his or her license. Maybe you could even get your ticket thrown out.
In order to keep tabs, you can check the status of a ticket on the state’s court site or the court site for the city that sent the notice of violation. If the site shows the ticket has been served but you know better, you should contact the court immediately. (Otherwise, your driver’s license may be suspended.)
Tip 6: Live in a Gated Community

Tom Zollars, our aforementioned process-server pro, says he and his ilk tend to have trouble getting past gates that require a code to unlock.
A guard at the gate might open up for an insistent process server with bona fide court paperwork, especially if the server calls police for help. But that same guard could also alert a resident to the presence of a server, giving time for the fugitive to shut off the lights and shut the blinds (see Tip 3) or skedaddle.
Tip 7: This Isn’t Your Grandpa’s Car, It’s Just Registered to Him
One of the best ways to beat photo enforcement used to be to simply drive a vehicle that’s registered to someone else.
Before sending out a notice of violation, photo-enforcement workers compare the violator’s face with the driver’s license picture of the vehicle’s registered owner. If those don’t match, the city may mail a letter asking the vehicle owner to rat on the violating driver, or it may not.
If a husband drives a vehicle registered to his wife, or vice versa, a spouse may not ever receive a notice. Same goes for age mismatches. Private citizens are under no legal obligation to tattle on who was driving their car when it was photographed running a red light.
A few years ago, police recently acknowledged to New Times, cities began taking extra steps to try and ID drivers in the photos. That means this tip could fail you.
In response to recent questions, police now say they do extra research if someone disputes the identify of a driver, comparing the MVD photos of all licensed drivers in a household, or using publicly available databases to match the person in the violator photo.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that Tip 1 still applies to anyone receiving a notice of violation in their name.
Tip 8: Register a Vehicle to a Corporation
Cities often mail notices of violation to corporations (if they don’t toss the violations outright), politely asking the firm to identify a violating driver. Such notices can be safely thrown in the trash, because corporations can’t be served a ticket that by law must be issued to an individual person.
Don’t own a business? Registering a limited liability corporation costs $50 in Arizona.
To give an example, New Times received a letter from a man in 2017 who had received a speeding notice from Paradise Valley. The notice included a photo of him behind the wheel, but was addressed to the registered owner of his car — his LLC. His home address is the same as the corporation’s address, but neither his name nor driver’s license number appeared on the violation notice. He told New Times last week that no process server ever showed up.
“If I still had the company, it would be a fool proof way to dodge photo radar,” he said.
However, as with Tip 7, police have begun identifying some of the drivers in photo enforcement pictures by comparing photos of insurance holders, or even the principal officers of corporations. In another letter received last year, a Scottsdale motorist sent New Times images of a Mesa photo ticket that showed his vehicle was registered to his corporation, but the notice was mailed to his personal name and address. He was indeed the motorist in the violation photo, so it seems that Mesa police conducted extra research to find his name.
The good news, though, is that corporations are still likely getting away without paying most of the time. A 2015 audit by Scottsdale of its photo enforcement system, the most recently conducted in that city, showed that corporations only identified drivers 45 percent of the time.
Tip 9: Don’t Use a Home Address When Registering a Vehicle
Anti-photo-enforcement activist Shawn Dow recommends that when registering a vehicle, one should use a private mailbox that has a physical address.
“They cannot process-serve the mailbox place, and they cannot do a motion for alternative service to anyone,” Dow says.
Problem is, renting a mailbox costs money. If you’re doing it just to avoid speeding tickets, you may need to seek professional help for your lead foot.
Tip 10: Live Out of State? That’s Great!
Cities routinely mail photo-enforcement notices to violators who live out of state. Many such violators dutifully pay up.
You, however, are no dummy.
In theory, Arizona cities could pay process servers in other states to deliver their tickets. In practice, they don’t.
Make no mistake: Left unpaid, a ticket issued by a real-live police officer will go into default and stay in the system for years. Not so photo-enforcement violations, which vanish — (see Tip 1) — 90 days after being filed.
Rental-car companies that receive Arizona photo-enforcement notices may identify the driver for police, causing the notice to be redirected to the person who rented the car. If the renter lives out of state, the notice can be chucked with an almost-certain chance of dismissal owing to lack of service.
Tip 11: Use a License Plate Cover
Makers of highly reflective or “light-bending” license-plate covers claim their products can blind a photo-enforcement camera, making the plate impossible to read.
Whether they actually work is another matter.
On Track Manufacturing Corp. boasts that its Original Protector license-plate cover is “designed to defeat conventional photo radar cameras mounted low on the side of the road.” An operator at the manufacturing company, however, says the product is not guaranteed to ward off a camera ticket.
Tip 12: Fight the Ticket in County Court
The best way to avoid paying a photo-enforcement ticket is to not run red lights and to always drive less than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
The second-best way is to read Tip 1 through Tip 11 above.
When all else fails, consider going to court.If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.SHOW ME HOW
Tickets can be expensive. Arizona law requires red-light runners to take Traffic Survival School in addition to paying the fine or signing up for defensive-driving school.
But savvy defendants sometimes beat the rap. Rather than writing a check, you can request a hearing. A municipal judge will nearly always take the side of the city and its photo-enforcement vendor, whose representative might even testify against you. You’ll probably have to launch an appeal in Superior Court.
A solid argument might win the day. (It would help to bring along a lawyer.) Even though the challenge might cost you more than the fine, the satisfaction of beating city hall — and the faceless machines — might be worth it.
(UPDATE: Soon after this article was re-published today, two readers brought up interesting points. One said that registering a vehicle to a trust might help beat the system, too. Another reader asked about masks: All we can say there is that it may work a couple of times, but police don’t appreciate people committing multiple violations in masks, and may take action for such repeat offenders as they did in 2009 for a man tripping the cameras while wearing a monkey mask.)

Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit.

In April a BMW racing through a fruit market in Foshan in China’s Guangdong province knocked down a 2-year-old girl and rolled over her head. As the girl’s grandmother shouted, “Stop! You’ve hit a child!” the BMW’s driver paused, then switched into reverse and backed up over the girl. The woman at the wheel drove forward once more, crushing the girl for a third time. When she finally got out from the BMW, the unlicensed driver immediately offered the horrified family a deal: “Don’t say that I was driving the car,” she said. “Say it was my husband. We can give you money.”
It seems like a crazy urban legend: In China, drivers who have injured pedestrians will sometimes then try to kill them. And yet not only is it true, it’s fairly common; security cameras have regularly captured drivers driving back and forth on top of victims to make sure that they are dead. The Chinese language even has an adage for the phenomenon: “It is better to hit to kill than to hit and injure.”

In April a BMW racing through a fruit market in Foshan in China’s Guangdong province knocked down a 2-year-old girl and rolled over her head. As the girl’s grandmother shouted, “Stop! You’ve hit a child!” the BMW’s driver paused, then switched into reverse and backed up over the girl. The woman at the wheel drove forward once more, crushing the girl for a third time. When she finally got out from the BMW, the unlicensed driver immediately offered the horrified family a deal: “Don’t say that I was driving the car,” she said. “Say it was my husband. We can give you money.”
It seems like a crazy urban legend: In China, drivers who have injured pedestrians will sometimes then try to kill them. And yet not only is it true, it’s fairly common; security cameras have regularly captured drivers driving back and forth on top of victims to make sure that they are dead. The Chinese language even has an adage for the phenomenon: “It is better to hit to kill than to hit and injure.”

This 2008 television report features security camera footage of a dusty white Passat reversing at high speed and smashing into a 64-year-old grandmother. The Passat’s back wheels bounce up over her head and body. The driver, Zhao Xiao Cheng, stops the car for a moment then hits the gas, causing his front wheels to roll over the woman. Then Zhao shifts into drive, wheels grinding the woman into the pavement. Zhao is not done. Twice more he shifts back and forth between drive and reverse, each time thudding over the grandmother’s body. He then speeds away from her corpse.
Incredibly, Zhao was found not guilty of intentional homicide. Accepting Zhao’s claim that he thought he was driving over a trash bag, the court of Taizhou in Zhejiang province sentenced him to just three years in prison for “negligence.” Zhao’s case was unusual only in that it was caught on video. As the television anchor noted, “You can see online an endless stream of stories talking about cases similar to this one.”

“Double-hit cases” have been around for decades. I first heard of the “hit-to-kill” phenomenon in Taiwan in the mid-1990s when I was working there as an English teacher. A fellow teacher would drive us to classes. After one near-miss of a motorcyclist, he said, “If I hit someone, I’ll hit him again and make sure he’s dead.” Enjoying my shock, he explained that in Taiwan, if you cripple a man, you pay for the injured person’s care for a lifetime. But if you kill the person, you “only have to pay once, like a burial fee.” He insisted he was serious—and that this was common.
Most people agree that the hit-to-kill phenomenon stems at least in part from perverse laws on victim compensation. In China the compensation for killing a victim in a traffic accident is relatively small—amounts typically range from $30,000 to $50,000—and once payment is made, the matter is over. By contrast, paying for lifetime care for a disabled survivor can run into the millions. The Chinese press recently described how one disabled man received about $400,000 for the first 23 years of his care. Drivers who decide to hit-and-kill do so because killing is far more economical. Indeed, Zhao Xiao Cheng—the man caught on a security camera video driving over a grandmother five times—ended up paying only about $70,000 in compensation.
In 2010 in Xinyi, video captured a wealthy young man reversing his BMW X6 out of a parking spot. He hits a 3-year-old boy, knocking the child to the ground and rolling over his skull. The driver then shifts his BMW into drive and crushes the child again. Remarkably, the driver then gets out of the BMW, puts the vehicle in reverse, and guides it with his hand as he walks the vehicle backward over the boy’s crumpled body. The man’s foot is so close to the toddler’s head that, if alive, the boy could have reached out and touched him. The driver then puts the BMW in drive again, running over the boy one last time as he drives away.
Here too, the driver was charged only with accidentally causing a person’s death. (He claimed to have confused the boy with a cardboard box or trash bag.) Police rejected charges of murder and even of fleeing the scene of the crime, ignoring the fact that the driver ran over the boy’s head as he sped away.
These drivers are willing to kill not only because it is cheaper, but also because they expect to escape murder charges. In the days before video cameras became widespread, it was rare to have evidence that a driver hit the victim twice. Even in today’s age of cellphone cameras, drivers seem confident that they can either bribe local officials or hire a lawyer to evade murder charges.

Perhaps the most horrific of these hit-to-kill cases are the ones in which the initial collision didn’t injure the victim seriously, and yet the driver came back and killed the victim anyway. In Sichuan province, an enormous, dirt-encrusted truck knocked down a 2-year-old boy. The toddler was only dazed by the initial blow, and immediately climbed to his feet. Eyewitnesses said that the boy went to fetch his umbrella, which had been thrown across the street by the impact, when the truck reversed and crushed him, this time killing him.
Despite the eyewitness testimony, the county chief of police declared that the truck had never reversed, never hit the boy a second time, and that the wheels never rolled over the child.  Meanwhile, one outraged website posted photographs appearing to show the child’s body under the truck’s front wheel.

In each of these cases, despite video and photographs showing that the driver hit the victim a second, and often even a third, fourth, and fifth time, the drivers ended up paying the same or less in compensation and jail time than they would have if they had merely injured the victim.
With so many hit-to-kill drivers escaping serious punishment, the Chinese public has sometimes taken matters into its own hands. In 2013 a crowd in Zhengzhou in Henan province beat a wealthy driver who killed a 6-year-old after allegedly running him over twice. (A television report claims the crowd had acted on “false rumors.” However, at least five witnesses assert on camera that the man had run over the child a second time.)
Of course, not every hit-to-kill driver escapes serious punishment. A man named Yao Jiaxin who in 2010 hit a bicyclist in Xian and returned to make sure she was dead—even stabbing the injured woman with a knife—was convicted and executed. In 2014 a driver named Zhang Qingda who had hit an elderly man in Jiayu Pass in Gansu province with his pickup truck and circled around to crush the man again was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Both China and Taiwan have passed laws attempting to eradicate hit-to-kill cases. Taiwan’s legislature reformed Article 6 of its Civil Code, which had long restricted the ability to bring civil lawsuits on behalf of others (such as a person killed in a traffic accident). Meanwhile, China’s legislature has emphasized that multiple-hit cases should be treated as murders. Yet even when a driver hits a victim multiple times, it can be hard to prove intent and causation—at least to the satisfaction of China’s courts. Judges, police, and media often seem to accept rather unbelievable claims that the drivers hit the victims multiple times accidentally, or that the drivers confused the victims with inanimate objects.
Hit-to-kill cases continue, and hit-to-kill drivers regularly escape serious punishment. In January a woman was caught on video repeatedly driving over an old man who had slipped in the snow.  In April a school bus driver in Shuangcheng was accused of driving over a 5-year-old girl again and again. In May a security camera filmed a truck driver running over a young boy four times; the driver claimed that he had never noticed the child.
And last month the unlicensed woman who had killed the 2-year-old in the fruit market with her BMW—and then offered to bribe the family—was brought to court. She claimed the killing was an accident. Prosecutors accepted her assertion, and recommended that the court reduce her sentence to two to four years in prison.
This light sentence would still be more of a punishment than many drivers have received for similar crimes. But it probably won’t be enough to keep the next driver from putting his car in reverse and hitting the gas.

How do speedtraps work and how is the violation proceed?

Speedcameras in Finland. Source:  
There are a total of some 955 speedtrap boxes on the roads and highways of Finland, but only 120 of them are equipped with cameras at time, according to Trafi, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency. Speed cameras are useful tools to catch the drivers speeding automatically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The greatest benefit is that no policeman needs to stand by the road to detect speeding.
How do speedtrap work?

Speedtrap fixes the speed of all passing vehicles. If the driver exceeds the posted speed limit a digital picture of the vehicle and the driver is taken. The camera can take photos also in the night time. To prevent the flash dazzling the driver a flash with a red filter is use. The red flash is visible to the driver and and also signals that the speeding is fixed.
Although each flash doesn’t automatically mean speeding. To put it differently if you drive within the permitted speed range and you see a flash from the speed camera it may also mean that the camera is turning on and off. This is done three times a day.What are the speed limits when a violation is proceed?
To point out, in Finland speeding fines are linked to income, with penalties calculated on daily earnings. This means that high earners get hit with bigger penalties for breaking the law.

2 interesting facts: 1) Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman, was caught doing 103km/h in an area where the speed limit is 80km/h, authorities turned to his 2013 tax return, the Iltalehti newspaper reports. He earned 6.5m euros that year, so was told to hand over 54,000 euros(!!!)
2) In 2002, an executive at Nokia was slapped with a 116,000-euro fine (!!!) for speeding on his Harley Davidson motorbike. His penalty was based on a salary of 14m euros.1
So spending can be a costly business for wealthy Finns…
In fact, the speed limits in Finland are higher than in Sweden and Norway and motor roads have a max speed of 120 km/h. In general the common speed limits outside urban areas are 100 km/h. Speeds are often reduced during winter (october-april). 2
Source: happens after the speed camera has captured you speeding?
As a matter of fact, an automated speed camera in comparison to speed measurements by a police patrol include efficiency. Indeed thanks to the camera, there is no need for a police officer to stop the car after speeding was detected.

When incident of speeding was recorded by an automated speed camera a fine notice is generally signed in a digital format.
The fine must be paid or disputed within 30 days.What if I get a traffic fine in a rental car?
First of all, it is important to notice the car owner or the company you rented the car from what has happened.  In case you do get a ticket on your hire car, it’s worth paying it swiftly, because you’re likely to pay extra fees if the authorities contact the car hire company about an unpaid ticket. 4
To dispute a fine, contact the traffic authority that issued it. You should find the contact details on the fine notification. 

What is a red light camera?

A red light camera is a camera on a pole mounted a few metres back from an intersection that takes a photo of vehicles that enter an intersection after the traffic light has turned red. For the camera to not be triggered, the vehicle must stop behind the white stop line, or already be fully in the intersection when the light turns red. The photo is taken of the back of the vehicle.
Red light cameras work by detecting when a car crosses the line while the light is red. You will sometimes see them flash if emergency services vehicles pass through a red light.
Some cameras can only detect red light runners and they will be signposted like this:

Whereas others can detect red light runners and speeding. They are usually signposted like this:
The speed cameras can detect speeding regardless of whether the lights are red, yellow or green.
The red light cameras are there to discourage people from running the red light, and thus risking a collision. They are installed at high-risk intersections (usually those that have experienced five serious crashes in five years caused by red light runners). They operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The photograph vehicles that go through a red light, then a penalty notice is sent to the owner of the vehicle. The owner can then either:
    Pay the fine    Advise the State Debt Recovery Office on a statutory declaration the name and address of the person driving at the time of the offence.    Advise the State Debt Recovery Office they want to have the case heard by a    court.

The camera only takes a photo if you cross the stop line more than 0.3 seconds after the light has gone red. This means that if you have already entered the intersection on a yellow light, it won’t trigger the camera. Heavy vehicle drivers must be aware that their trailers could trigger the camera.
Two photos are taken. The second one is taken approximately one second after the first one and proves whether a vehicle continued through the intersection or just happened to not quite stop before triggering the camera. Police at the Traffic Camera Office determine whether an offence was committed.
The date, time, lane position and amount of time the light was red for are imprinted on the photo. If the camera monitors speed, too, your speed and the local speed limit will also be provided.
It’s a $415 fine if you are caught on the camera.
Running a red light puts other vehicles and pedestrians at risk.
All speed cameras and red light cameras are tested and calibrated every year to maintain accuracy.