HikeArizona.COM

I got a ticket in the mail yesterday. Here is the "evidence" against me. If I were doing 79 in the 65 as claimed, I would have been in the trunk of the car in front of me. I am car #2 behind the truck. A car from Colorado is passing me, and he may have been going 79, but I don't know. If he was, it looks like I got his ticket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3NTQrE12k

AZDPS and Redflex are clearly lying about the quality control they claim to do, and they have no problems sending a ticket to an innocent victim to help tighten the budget problem and fatten the corporate profits. If they looked at the videos as they claim to do, I never would have gotten this.

Something tells me I am not the first person to whom this has happened. Is anyone interested in starting a class action lawsuit against a company which gathers evidence for the state without a private investigators license, and has profit as its motive behind "law enforcement"?

Worry of wise advice to those travelling through Paradise Valley: There are cameras everywhere. If there is one place you don't want to speed -- besides some small town in Mississippi -- that is it ...

jeffmacewen wrote:I can't believe some of the language and hyperbole in this thread. Don't speed and you won't get in trouble, cameras or no. No one wants to be held accountable for anything they do in this country any longer!!

Ah, but when I started it, I was talking about being wrongly cited for speeding when I was not, and I was in a line of vehicles headed by a tractor trailer that was most likely not speeding, and in addition, if I was speeding, pretty much everyone else in that traffic line was as well, yet only I got a flash when I drove by. I was not, but a guy from Colorado was, and well, I went to court and the charges were dropped, but I really wish I could have met with the prosecutor and shown him my evidence. In the end, I'm glad this big brother type of enforcement is coming to an end. Breaking the law is usually wrong, but only if you are actually doing it.

Jim_H wrote:Breaking the law is usually wrong

You've got a future in politics!

chumley wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Breaking the law is usually wrong

You've got a future in politics!

What about some of the laws certain states in the south used to have? Or marijuana laws? Not all laws are universally seen as just. Murder, yeah, don't break that one.

I would join your argument were it not for the fact that you did have recourse available to you and the public interest far outweighs a few minor personal inconveniences...

jeffmacewen wrote:I would join your argument were it not for the fact that you did have recourse available to you and the public interest far outweighs a few minor personal inconveniences...

Public interest is in having fewer accidents. If the cameras cause MORE accidents, then they are not in the public interest.

I got a ticket in the mail one time. It clearly showed my son driving the car. I had to jump thru hoops to fix that. But my son kept telling me to ignore it. He was making a left turn in Mesa, and the light had turned red. This was about 5 years ago.

I got two last year, the first tickets in over twenty years.
The first was in Surprise I was going 39 in what turned out to be a 25 zone....that was just not paying attention.
The second one was in PV on Invergordon. A road I drive twice a day six days a week....that was just stupid.
I paid them both because afterall it was my fault.

azbackpackr wrote:

jeffmacewen wrote:I would join your argument were it not for the fact that you did have recourse available to you and the public interest far outweighs a few minor personal inconveniences...

Public interest is in having fewer accidents. If the cameras cause MORE accidents, then they are not in the public interest.

I got a ticket in the mail one time. It clearly showed my son driving the car. I had to jump thru hoops to fix that. But my son kept telling me to ignore it. He was making a left turn in Mesa, and the light had turned red. This was about 5 years ago.

I agree, which is why there should be an independent study done by NHTSA ro someone similar. I trust the "findings" of local government interests about as much as I trust the "findings" that the companies themselves would produce.

State Considers Eliminating Judges for Photo Tickets

Legislation filed in Maryland would have create pilot program where lawyers, not judges, decide guilt in photo ticketing cases.

Lawmakers in Maryland are upset that residents have been challenging their speed camera tickets in court. (yep - that pesky U.S. Constitution is inhibiting their money grab)
The cases, even if they go the state's way, frequently generate bad publicity. The latest solution being proposed is to eliminate the right of ticket recipients to have their day in court before an actual judge. (yep - if the Constitution gets in the way, go around it)

The state House Judiciary Committee yesterday heard testimony on House Bill 1030 which would set up a pilot system of photo enforcement justice in Prince George's County.
Under the program, a lawyer would be selected to serve as "master" to decide the guilt or innocence of those accused by a red light camera or speed camera.
(Get THIS..)This master would be paid directly from the revenue collected from finding ticket recipients guilty.
State Delegate Tiffany T. Alston (D-Prince George's County) introduced the measure on behalf of the Prince George's County government. Another pending piece of legislation would eliminate the vestige of police officer review from the photo ticketing process and allow private contractors to issue tickets on their own authority.(Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse..)

Motorists unsatisfied by the master's ruling will not be allowed to appeal for a new trial before an actual district court judge. Instead, they are only allowed to use a highly technical legal procedure to object.

"In accordance with the Maryland Rules, the defendant may file written exceptions to any or all of the master's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, but must specify those items to which the defendant objects," the legislative analysis explained. "A defendant who files exceptions may have a hearing on the record before the court, which must be limited to those matters to which exceptions have been taken."

Motorists unfamiliar with court procedures would not be allowed to plead their case directly to an impartial judge. According to the Maryland's Department of Legislative Services, the lawyer and his expenses would eventually cost $286,000 in speed camera ticket revenue. The county believes it can make up this amount by an overall increase in the ticketing system's efficiency. (Yes - by removing citizens' Constitutional rights) In fiscal 2011, the county's private camera contractors, meter maids and police issued 200,771 tickets.

Alston herself has a great deal of experience with the court system. Last year she was indicted for using campaign funds to pay for her wedding. She was then separately charged with using taxpayer money to pay for staff at her private law firm. (Why don't we make her one of the "master's" while we're at it. Likely Redflex is now paying for staff at her law firm and funding her anniversary party.)

That reminds me of the old-style (I think it goes back to Roman times) practice of buying public offices that had tax/fine/licensing revenue attached to them. The official paid for the right to collect and was allowed to pocket the proceeds.

Suffolk County, NY just announced a large expected budget shortfall. Their proposed solution? A request to install red light cameras at 50 more intersections. I don't know what they'll do if people wise up and start obeying the signals. :STP:

They'll spend all the money from the fines they do collect, trying to collect on everyone that throws theirs in the trash.....

NJ recently had an odd turn of events. The courts have suspended collection of fine for two-thirds of the deployed red light cameras. The contention is that the duration of yellow lights for those locations has not been proven to satisfy the minimum criteria spelled out in the law that authorized the red light cameras. Who would have guessed it? plz:

(FWIW, they're still taking pictures. If the yellows are found to be long enough, you're still busted).

EDIT: I should give the NJ legislature for including some common-sense checks on the motivation to trade safety for revenue. Credit also to the court for enforcing them.

Tempe suspended it's contract with Redflex last summer after Redflex sued the city for $1.3 million in fees it said it didn't get paid (based on fees collected for people going to traffic school rather than paying the fine).

Anyway, in Tempe, the red light cameras are still there (though not clicking pictures) a year later. The city has taken down the "photo enforcement zone" signs, but the cameras remain.

I don't know if it's on purpose or not. The cameras belong to Redflex, so you'd think that they would come and get them if they aren't under contract anymore. But the cynic in me thinks that they are still there on purpose. People see them, and react. It's sort of like when DPS parks an empty car on the 69 coming into Prescott Valley or on the 87 when leaving Payson and leaves it there all weekend. It does get the attention of drivers.

The camera closest to my house has also gotten the attention of vandals, but that's another story...

Or it may just cost more to come and get them than they are worth, and Red Flex may be required to install new cameras for a contract. Red Flex is all about the Benjamens, not law, order, or safety as they propagandize, so if the cameras were worth the cost, they would get them.

The local newspaper reported that one of the cameras in Show Low has been all shot up with a shotgun recently. Alas...

chumley wrote:Tempe suspended it's contract with Redflex last summer after Redflex sued the city for $1.3 million in fees it said it didn't get paid (based on fees collected for people going to traffic school rather than paying the fine).

Anyway, in Tempe, the red light cameras are still there (though not clicking pictures) a year later. The city has taken down the "photo enforcement zone" signs, but the cameras remain.

I don't know if it's on purpose or not. The cameras belong to Redflex, so you'd think that they would come and get them if they aren't under contract anymore. But the cynic in me thinks that they are still there on purpose. People see them, and react..........

The camera closest to my house has also gotten the attention of vandals, but that's another story...

I have been bugging Cory Woods, Tempe city councilman since February of this year about the removal of the defunct RedFlex camera equipment...... FINALLY, today I received this note...

"Thank you for your inquiry regarding the photo radar equipment, I’m replying on behalf of Mayor Mitchell. City staff is and has been working with Redflex to ensure their equipment is removed as part of their contractual agreement. Over the next four weeks, you will notice the housing units, cameras and flash units being removed from the poles. The next step will be for Redflex to remove the poles, foundations and conduit. Because this process involves more extensive work including restoration to prior conditions, it will likely take more time for the entire removal process to be complete. We ask for your patience as we work with Redflex in completing this process.

If you would like additional information or have questions about the process, please feel free to give me a call at 480-350-8854.

Sincerely,

Shelly Seyler
Interim Deputy Public Works Director - Transportation

big_load wrote:NJ recently had an odd turn of events. The courts have suspended collection of fine for two-thirds of the deployed red light cameras. The contention is that the duration of yellow lights for those locations has not been proven to satisfy the minimum criteria spelled out in the law that authorized the red light cameras. Who would have guessed it? plz:

(FWIW, they're still taking pictures. If the yellows are found to be long enough, you're still busted).

EDIT: I should give the NJ legislature for including some common-sense checks on the motivation to trade safety for revenue. Credit also to the court for enforcing them.

New Jersey Rubber Stamps Red Light Camera Timing


Governor of New Jersey offers strong endorsement for red light cameras as he restarts photo ticketing program.

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) yesterday gave the go-ahead to cities and private vendors to reactivate their red light camera programs. The devices were shut down a month ago after twenty-one cities caught ignoring a provision of state law requiring the yellow signal timing at camera intersections to be certified based on a statutory formula. Governor Chris Christie (R) announced the ticketing program's restart on New Jersey 101.5 radio's "Ask the Governor" show on Tuesday after receiving a text message on air from NJDOT Commissioner James S. Simpson.

"All lights are certified without a problem," Christie said. "All the lights, the red light cameras, are certified."

To be valid, the yellow time where cameras are used must be set according to the speed at which 85 percent of traffic moves, not according to the posted speed limit. Cities often set up intersections with limits deliberately set far below the actual speed of traffic, which boosts the number of speeding tickets that can be issued. The lower limit also allows yellow signal times to be shaved by a fraction of a second, which will also boost the number of red light camera citations.

A few tenths of a seconds taken away from the yellow caution period may seem minor, but it represents significant revenue. The Texas Transportation Institute concluded in 2004 that yellows shorter by a second than the ITE recommended amount generated a 110 percent jump in citations. The vast majority of those extra violations happened within the first 0.25 seconds (see chart). The Garden State governor did not deny the revenue motivation for municipalities in using cameras.

"Of course there's a monetary component to it, but if it comports with the statute and the amber light is the correct period of time," Christie said. "There's also a safety component to it."

NJDOT did not individually certify each of the 63 photo enforced locations in the state. Instead, each municipality certified itself as compliant and sent the documentation to state officials. Traffic engineers are known for performing traffic studies in non-free flow conditions in order to achieve the lowered 85th percentile speed desired by politicians. Christie bluntly responded to critics by offering a full endorsement for the use of automated ticketing machines.

"What are you complaining about?" Christie said. "You should be able to go through a red light if there's not a cop there and it's a freebie? Towns should have the right to make these decisions. As long as their red light camera program comports with the requirements of the statute, go ahead and do it."

Class action lawsuits have been filed seeking refunds of the funds collected during the time tickets were issued from un-certified locations.

@hikeaz That doesn't surprise me at all. I wonder if the courts are going to swat it down again in the next round of lawsuits. However, unlike the first installation, I've seen much evidence of actual measurements being made at intersections.

The Tempe cameras were finally taken down. I noticed it Tuesday. They left all the posts up though.