New York Specific Exhibits
Engineering Definition. NY Law, Article 145, Section 7201
The reason why red light camera programs exist in the first place is solely because of the incompetence of traffic engineers. The entire profession systematically commits engineering malpractice. Click on scam to understand the nature of the fraud.
New York statutes define engineering practice as the application of engineering principles. Engineering principles, by definition, are the application of physics. From Merriam-Webster:
en·gi·neer·ing noun 1 : the activities or function of an engineer 2a: the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people b: the design and manufacture of complex products <software engineering>
Traffic engineers believe that the definition of engineering is the application of specs, regardless of whether those specs misapply physics. One can charge the traffic engineer with criminal negligence and put the traffic engineer's professional license on the line. One must bring the attack to the traffic engineer becuse he is solely and legally culpable for the problem. Government and red light camera vendors simply piggy-back on his failure.
|Oct 1, 2015|
"Engineering practice is the application of the physical and mathematical sciences. (Guideline 1)
|Nov 1, 2016|
|NY3||Apr 13, 2016|
Incompetence is professional misconduct. Traffic engineers do not know the science behind their high school-level physics yellow duration equation. They systematically misapply the equation forcing millions of drivers to run red lights and many to crash. In this letter written by the inventor of New York's equation, the inventor lists the kinds of traffic movements where his equation fails, that failure consequently forcing drivers to run red lights. Examine the list. In the list you will find that Suffolk County places all its cameras at the "don't" locations. There will be no exceptions.
|Oct 1, 2015|
The MUTCD and the Brooks Engineering Act (Title IX, Section 301, Para 3) turn the traffic engineer's malpractice of setting yellow change interval and constructing traffic-control devices without a PE-certified (signed, sealed, dated) engineering plan a federal case.
The prelimary statement in a legal complaint or motion should read something like this:
Regards to the Application of Physical and Mathematical Sciences
Plaintiffs allege that traffic engineers acting in Suffolk County have misapplied physics when calculating the yellow change intervals, shortening the yellow change intervals below what the laws of physics require for the legal motion of traffic; that is, systematically causing entire populations of drivers to run red lights, thus allowing the Plaintiffs to unjustly take financial property from the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege Defendants further shortened the yellow change intervals in order to increase violations and ultimately their bottom line.
23 CFR Part 655 Subpart F declares the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as the national standard for all traffic control devices. An MUTCD standard states, "The duration of the yellow change intervals shall be determined using engineering practices (MUTCD 4D.26-03). Engineering practices as defined by the federal Brooks Act of 1972 are those adopted by the State (Title IX, Section 901 (3)). The State of New York defines engineering practices as “the application of the physical and mathematical sciences” whose purpose is to safeguard the public’s life, health and property (NY Education Law Article 145 Section 7201, Engineering Practice Guideline 1). Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam Webster’s Dictionary and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) repeat the definition. The physical science pertinent to this case is physics.
[The MUTCD requires engineers to conform to paragraphs labeled “Standard”. The MUTCD does not require engineers to conform to statements marked “Guidance,” “Support” or “Option”. Setting yellow change intervals according to engineering practices is a standard (4D.26-03). Setting yellow change intervals between 3 and 6 seconds is guidance (4D.26-14). Following the ITE publications is support (4D.26-07).]
Institute of Transporation Engineers (ITE)
ITE is the source of the misapplication of the physical and mathematical sciences. The ITE yellow change interval equation opposes the kinematics of general traffic movements, forcing drivers to systematically run red lights. The Institutue propagates the misapplication of scientific principles. ITE's Constitution, Artlcle 1, Section 3, condemns ITE's own equation: "The Institute shall facilitate the application of technology and scientific principles to research . . . ."
New York Vehicle and Traffic Law
By misapplying physics, traffic engineers have introduced a systematic malfunction in every yellow traffic indication. The malfunction occurs every time the light turns yellow. From Section Title VII, Article 24, 1111-b:
(o) It shall be a defense to any prosecution for a violation of subdivision (d) of section 1111 of this article pursuant to a local law or ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that such traffic indications were malfunctioning at the time of the alleged violation.
Regards to the Signature and Seal of the Licensed Professional Engineer
Plaintiffs allege that Suffolk County, Xerox, the NYSDOT and Nelson and Pope are constructing and erecting traffic control devices without lawful authority. No licensed professional engineer has neither signed, sealed nor dated any engineering plans for any red light camera installations. There are also traffic signals which have not been signed, sealed and dated.
The State of New York requires engineers to sign, seal and date engineering plans and specifications. (Article 145, Section 7209(1)). These plans include traffic signal plans, red light camera installation plans and traffic signal timing sheets.
"The seal and signature of a licensee on a document indicates that the licensee takes professional responsibility for the work . . . ." (Guideline 3: Section 1: Professional Seals and Signatures).
No official of New York, or of any city, county, town or village therein, charged with the enforcement of laws, ordinances or regulations shall accept or approve any plans or specifications that are not stamped (Article 145, Section 7209(1)).
New York Vehicle and Traffic Law
Without signature, seal and date from a licensed professional engineer for a traffic control device (traffic signal and/or red light camera), the traffic control device is neither official, has not placed by lawful authority or does it comply with lawful authority. From Section Title VII, Article 24, 1110:
(c) Whenever official traffic-control devices are placed in position approximately conforming to the requirements of this chapter, such devices shall be presumed to have been so placed by an official act or direction of lawful authority, unless the contrary shall be established by competent evidence.
(d) Any official traffic-control device placed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and purported to conform to the lawful requirements pertaining to such devices shall be presumed to comply with the requirements of this chapter, unless the contrary shall be established by competent evidence.
|Dec 24, 2016|
|NY6||Apr 4, 2016|
|NY7||Apr 13, 2016|
|NY8||Apr 13, 2016|
|NY9||Apr 13, 2016|
Statement which Stephen Ruth Gave to the Police When Police Arrested Him
|Apr 7, 2016|
Xerox is the parent company of Affiliated Computer Services (ACS). ACS runs Suffolk County's red light camera program.
|Oct 18, 2015|
|SC2||Oct 18, 2015|
|SC3||Oct 18, 2015|
In 2012, Amendment 3 was added between Xerox and Suffolk County where Suffolk County asked Xerox to build up to 400 cameras. Xerox insisted on a minimum guarantee of 25 tickets per day or Suffolk County would have to pay Xerox about $2,000 for each under-performing camera and $17.25 for each ticket issued. That means that if there are 100 cameras that do not produce enough tickets, Suffolk County would be obligated to pay more than $200,000 a month to Xerox.
|Oct 18, 2015|
|SC5||Oct 18, 2015|
You Just Need a Pair of Balls and a Painter's Rod Extension
Suffolk Lawmakers Want To Shutdown Red Light Cameras
|Oct 6, 2015|
Suffolk GOP Looks to Halt Red Light Cameras, Calls for Investigation
Gilbert Anderson is lying. There is a quota. And traffic engineers did shorten the yellows and/or shorten the signal light cycle so that red lights confront more drivers during the day. The moment one hears, "We set them to according to traffic capacity", you can guarantee that traffic engineers shortened the yellows. To increase capacity, motorists must see more green light during the day. The only way to see more green is for engineers to shorten yellows. Shortening yellows to improve traffic flow is standard procedure for every traffic engineer in the country. Capacity goals trump legal motion of traffic goals every time. So "yes", you can count on it that traffic engineers have shortened the Suffolk County yellows within the last ten years. To find out for sure, you must obtain the "traffic signal plans of record" in effect at each intersection during the last ten years.
Note that is not necessary to use the argument "they shortened the yellow lights." This whole website is about the fact the federal guidelines, just as they are, force drivers to run red lights. When an "official" says, "We are setting the yellows to the federal guidelines", those guidelines guarantee that the government/red light camera vendor will make millions of dollars every year.
Gilbert Anderson is a professional engineer. Because he is a P.E., the State of New York should hold him to a higher moral code. Suffolk County residents need to swear out a complaint against him with the New York Board of Regents. Lying is not professional conduct. Overclocking an intersection forcing drivers to run red lights is not in the "public's welfare" either.
Goal: Remove Gilbert Anderson's professional engineering license.
|Oct 6, 2015|
Shortened Yellow Lights to Meet Ticket Quotas
|Oct 6, 2015|
Steve Bellone, County Executive, Defends Red Light Cameras
|Oct 7, 2015|
Red Light Robinhood Fired Up Over Cameras
|Oct 7, 2015|
Red Light Cameras - Public Access TV
|Oct 20, 2015|
Fire Chief Peter McArdle of West Babylon, NY
At this Oct 29, 2015 Suffolk County Legislature Hearing, the fire chief discovers the difference between the safety of traffic and the legal motion of traffic. Chief McArdle sees that red light cameras, somehow, exploit the latter and disregard safety.
|Nov 4, 2015|
New York Red Light Camera Laws
|Oct 24, 2015|
Notice to Suffolk County
Suffolk County violates Title 7, Article 24, Section 1111-b, subdivision (o). This law states that the accused is off the-hook when he can show that the traffic indication is malfunctioning. The traffic yellow indicition, in the very least, are malfunctioning. Traffic engineers use the wrong functions (literally, mal-functions) to set yellow light indications.
|Oct 24, 2015|
Suffolk County Local Law
Article VII, Section 54 allows a vehicle owner to not pay the fine while not ratting out the driver.
|Mar 25, 2017||SC-L4||
Suffolk County - 3 Minute Speeches
|Nov 18, 2015|
Suffolk County Red Light Camera Safety Report - 2014
|Apr 25, 2016|
New York Attorneys
These attorneys understand the misapplied physics in the federal standards which force drivers to run red lights.