By Jim Quirk
Staff Reporter
Capitolwire.com

HARRISBURG (Sept. 7) – A man who avoided a speeding ticket fine by showing that a device to catch speeders could be inaccurate is now raising questions about it that PennDOT waves off or declines to answer.

Lawmakers are also looking for answers to the questions raised by that engineer, Earle Drack.

The dispute is about a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation-approved device used by local police departments to catch speeders.

PennDOT says it is satisfied the non-radar device operates correctly and was properly approved.

But Drack, a trained engineer who studied up upon the device to fight traffic tickets in court says PennDOT is ignoring several basic questions he and others have raised.

Drack, an electrical engineer from Chester County who holds a Master’s degree in engineering from Cornell University, told the Senate Transportation Committee during a hearing in August that ENRADD has accuracy issues.

ENRADD, which stands for Electronic Non-radar Device, is a speed-timing device used by some local police departments in lieu of radar. Local police departments use ENRADD because Pennsylvania remains the only state in the country that does not allow them to use radar. Only state police are allowed to use radar to catch speeders in Pennsylvania.

PennDOT originally approved the use of ENRADD – which is manufactured by York firm YIS/Cowden Group, Inc. – in 1996. In 2003, PennDOT approved a wireless version of the device, which has become “the system of choice” for local departments ever since, YIS owner Jim Cowden said in a recent interview.

He said about 45 departments are using wireless ENRADD systems now.

The ENRADD wireless device uses infrared beams to determine vehicle speeds. Three-foot-long bar-like devices affixed with beams on either end are placed alongside a roadway. Speed is determined by the time it takes for a moving vehicle to pass by the first beam and hit the second beam.

The officer who operates the device, meanwhile, is able to sit in his vehicle, hidden away from traffic, while the speeds of passing vehicles appear on a digital screen before him that is part of the ENRADD unit.

In addition to pointing out accuracy problems, Drack also raised issues with PennDOT's approval process for ENRADD, and that there are potential calibration problems with the device.

Whether the committee decides to investigate the concerns with the device further, however, remains to be seen.

Mark Meyer, spokesman for committee Chairman John Rafferty, R-Montgomery, said recently the committee only planned to submit a copy of Drack’s testimony to PennDOT for review.

Accuracy problems

Drack became interested in ENRADD after getting pulled over for speeding in Chester County in 2007. He did not believe then that he was speeding, so dug up information on the device and went to court prepared to fight the ticket. Only one of the two officers who ticketed Drack showed up to court, however, so Drack did not have to pay the fine.

In 2009, Drack said he was cited for speeding again in Chester County, and received a ticket that indicated he was traveling 69 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone. Drack claimed he did not exceed the speed limit, so fought the matter in Common Pleas Court, where he successfully pointed out accuracy and calibration issues with ENRADD, and was found not guilty.

Drack told the committee that the accuracy of ENRADD is “dependent on the distance traveled between the beam breaks to be known accurately.”

The distance of the ENRADD device is assumed to be three-feet “since that is the beam separation on the roadside set by the mechanical support.”

“It is easy to see, however, that if beams are triggered by two different points on the car, say by the tires for the start beam and the bumper for the stop beam, then the distance traveled is not three feet but less, resulting in an artificially high speed reading,” Drack stated in written testimony.

He said that it has been “implied that a test-drive of the police vehicle through the ENRADD is a good way to ensure proper alignment and thus avoid bad tickets.”

However, “if the beams are set to a height that corresponds to the center of the police vehicle bumper, the device could read correctly for that vehicle even if there are several inches of height difference between beams.”

With that in mind, according to Drack, “the reading will be correct for the police vehicle but may have large errors for vehicles with different bumper heights/profiles like SUVs or pickups,” Drack testified.

"The manufacturer is aware of this problem, going so far as to tell officers via the training manual to 'avoid triggering in the middle range ... because you may trigger off different points on the car,'" Drack testified. "The problem, of course, is that what is 'middle range' for one vehicle is not 'middle range' for another."

Road unevenness and slight changes to vehicle height between the ENRADD start and stop beams could also cause erroneous readings, he testified.

PennDOT spokeswoman Danielle Klinger said in a recent e-mail message to Capitolwire that PennDOT is “satisfied that when set up and operated as directed, the unit will perform as designed for the law enforcement officials who use them.”

Cowden said that, “if you use the unit wrong, you could have problems.”

“If you use them improperly, you could get a false or inaccurate reading,” he said. “All of these devices have a human factor to them.”

He said that when his company sells ENRADD units to police departments, it requires that police officers receive proper training on how to use them.

“We as a manufacturer won’t sell them without training,” Cowden said.

Approval concerns

The independent lab that conducted testing on the wireless ENRADD system for PennDOT could not guarantee that the device would be accurate on Pennsylvania roadways.

Tom Melton, of Maryland firm Electronic Services and Instrumentation, said recently when he tested the wireless ENRADD in 2003, it was inside a laboratory and not on actual roads.

“It’s really a good system,” he said. “It could transmit the speed to a policeman a quarter-mile down the road instead of them hiding in the bushes.”

PennDOT’s policy for having a speed-timing device tested requires the manufacturer to identify three independent labs. PennDOT then chooses the lab, and the manufacturer pays to have the tests conducted.

The manufacturer, under PennDOT’s policy, is required to provide a procedure for the lab to test a particular device.

The procedure for the ENRADD unit, Melton said, involved conducting tests inside the ESI laboratory.

Klinger, in an e-mail message, wrote, “The lab sends the results directly to PennDOT. If the lab results indicate the device operates accurately and as designed, PennDOT publishes notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that the device is approved for use.”

Melton, however, said he sent the lab results only to YIS. PennDOT would not comment on why it accepted the lab results even though they were submitted to the department by YIS instead of ESI.

PennDOT, in an e-mail message from Capitolwire, was asked if it could confirm whether the lab results were ever reviewed for accuracy, and if so, whether the person had the technical background to understand the results? PennDOT was also asked if the independent lab results showed whether the ENRADD device would be accurate on state roads?

Klinger, in her e-mail response, wrote: “The Division Section Managers at the time or their staff would have received the test results and reviewed them or have had them reviewed within the extent/limitation of Department expertise; the Department reviews the results for compliance with the appropriate procedures; with regard to the actual science and technology, the Department relies on the expertise of the independent testing lab, but can certainly determine if the test results appear to be fundamentally faulty. The Division Section Managers who were responsible for authorizing the publication of the approval of the device in the Pennsylvania Bulletin are no longer with the Department.”

She also wrote that PennDOT “is satisfied that the test, conducted in a controlled, simulated environment, was sufficient to demonstrate the device would perform according to specifications on the highways in the Commonwealth.”

When it was pointed out that Melton could not guarantee the device would be accurate on state roads, Klinger only wrote that PennDOT is satisfied with the test results for both the 1996 wired version of ENRADD, and the 2003 wireless kind.

Calibration problems

Drack pointed out to the committee in August that the Pennsylvania Code “is very clear that all ENRADD EJU-91 devices must be calibrated assuming a five-foot spacing.”

ENRADD EJU-91 is the technical name for the wireless speed-timing device as listed in the state code, according to Drack. However, the previous, wired version of the device went by the same model number in the code, as YIS upgraded its creation but never changed that model number, he said.

The manufacturer’s specifications for the wired ENRADD device included calibrating it assuming a five-foot spacing between strips. The state code, in recognizing the original wired version, was written with a five-foot spacing in mind, Drack said.

The manufacturer apparently started calibrating using a three-foot spacing wih the introduction of the wireless version, Drack said. The state code, however, was never amended to recognize this change, he said.

Drack, in his testimony to the committee, said, “If the calibrations currently being done assume a three-foot spacing, then this violation of the [state] code would presumably invalidate all such ENRADD calibrations and render the citations on which they were based invalid.”

PennDOT, however, does not believe that the calibrations being used now for the wireless ENRADD devices are in violation of the state code.

Klinger pointed to section 105.56(f) of the code as PennDOT’s reasoning on why the current calibrations are not a violation. The section states: “The calibration and testing of equipment, timing strips and other devices actually used with a particular electronic device – nonradar – shall be performed under specifications provided by the manufacturer of an approved device using equipment specified by the manufacturer or equivalent substitute equipment.”

Klinger wrote that the code “was not intended to restrict the calibration and testing to 5 foot spacing, especially where the manufacturer provides a different specification for calibration.”

Section 105.56 (e) 2 (ii) of the code, however, seems clear that the actual ENRADD device – the part that calculates speeds - shall to be calibrated assuming a five-foot spacing. That section of the code states: “The elapsed time between the pulse on Outputs 1 and 2 is measured by the ENRADD using the formula V x T = 3408. 3408 is the proper constant for a 5-foot timing strip spacing.”

Using information from Drack, it was pointed out in an e-mail message to Klinger that calibrating other components of the ENRADD device for a three-foot spacing would by default calibrate the main ENRADD device for a three-foot spacing. Klinger was asked again whether using ENRADD devices that are calibrated for three-foot spacing are in violation of the code?

“No,” she responded, “Section 105.56(f) clearly defers to the manufacturer’s guidelines in calibration and testing.”

Klinger was asked in a subsequent e-mail message that if the contention that section 105.56(f) governed the main calibration of ENRADD was true, why would the earlier sections exist? Klinger was also asked whether PennDOT would go on the record to say it does not believe the earlier sections applied to the ENRADD calibration?

Klinger did not provide answers to those particular questions in her final e-mail response, which ended with, “We have no further comment on this matter.”

Police issues

The committee hearing in August where Drack testified was mostly held to hear from representatives of local police departments on the importance of allowing them to use radar.

Elam Herr, assistant executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors, and David Eshbach, police chief for Springettsbury Township in York County, were two that testified in favor of radar.

Both were asked in subsequent interviews whether they were aware of accuracy problems with ENRADD?

“No one indicated to me that there was an excessive problem with it,” Herr said. “But like anything, no matter how good ENRADD is, radar is better. If somebody does not follow the directions to set it up, there could be problems, but no one indicated to us they had excessive problems.”

Eshbach said his department uses ENRADD, but “I don’t know of any issues with it. I’m not aware of any of the issues [Drack] brought up.”

Drack said during the hearing, however, that he believes many of the people who receive bad speeding tickets end up paying them because they don’t know how else to fight it.

Herr said it would be cheaper for departments, however, to use radar than ENRADD. The cost for a radar device costs about $2,000, while an ENRADD wireless device costs about $4,000.

As for why the state doesn’t allow local police to use radar, Rafferty said in August that one of the concerns lawmakers had in the past is a fear that many small communities would use radar to generate revenues via speed traps.

Story by CapitolWire.com