Arizona to eliminate speed-enforcement cameras on freeways

[Sgt. Slaughter]

If they only did this before I got my picture taken yesterday on I-17...*sigh* Hopefully more will follow.

Arizona's controversial experiment with speed-enforcement cameras on state freeways will come to an end this summer, when the Department of Public Safety allows the program to expire.

The DPS sent a letter to camera operator Redflex Traffic Systems this week, informing officials that their contract will not be renewed.

The 78 fixed and mobile photo-enforcement units around the state will be turned off after July 15. Decisions on when and how the cameras will be removed have not yet been made, Redflex officials said.

City photo-enforcement contracts, which deal with speed and red-light cameras, are not affected by the move.

The program incited vandalism against traffic cameras and even violence since its inception two years ago.

Vandals took Silly String, sticky notes and pickaxes to cameras after they were installed.

Last year, Thomas Patrick Destories was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting of Redflex technician Doug Georgianni as he sat inside a DPS-owned photo-enforcement vehicle. Destories has pleaded not guilty.

Advocates of the cameras, including some DPS officials, have released studies indicating that the cameras save lives and reduce crashes.

Those studies have been vigorously disputed by camera opponents, who argue that the cameras increase collisions while infringing upon constitutional rights.

In its letter to Redflex, the DPS said that ending the contract represents "a change in the agency's focus," said Shoba Vaitheeswaran, a Redflex spokeswoman. The DPS on Wednesday did not respond to a request for the letter, nor would it comment on the issue."We're undoubtedly disappointed in the decision," Vaitheeswaran said.

She cited a DPS study from October that said the cameras resulted in a 19.2 percent drop in fatal collisions, saving 24 lives. The same study said the cameras allowed DPS officers to make more traffic stops and arrest more criminals.

The DPS has scheduled a complete audit of the system's impact on safety and driving behavior to be completed in the fall. Photo-enforcement supporters had hoped the review would be complete before state officials made any decision about the system.

Opponents of photo enforcement cheered the decision.

"We're happy that DPS will no longer be violating Arizona citizens' constitutional rights," said Shawn Dow, chairman of a November ballot initiative to ban the use of photo enforcement statewide.

Financial motives

Controversy has swirled around photo enforcement on state roads ever since then-Gov. Janet Napolitano included it in the 2009 state budget.

Napolitano envisioned a system of up to 100 cameras that would generate $90 million in revenue a year. She said the program was designed to improve traffic safety, not make money.

But the idea of the cameras as moneymakers drew strong criticism, and they did not meet revenue projections.

The cameras snapped more than 2 million times in an 18-month span from September 2008 through the end of March and issued more than 1.2 million citations.

But only about 30 percent of the citations were paid, generating about $63.5 million in revenue, which went into a fund the Legislature controlled.

Among those who criticized the financial motives of the system was Gov. Jan Brewer, then-secretary of state.

"She did not support the state photo-radar system because it appeared from the beginning to be designed exclusively as a revenue generator," Paul Senseman, a Brewer spokesman, said in an e-mail.

At one point, Brewer had leaned toward letting voters decide whether to keep the cameras.

But after Brewer became governor last year, she appointed a new DPS director, Robert Halliday, who said photo enforcement's reputation was damaged from the start after Napolitano publicly touted the program as a revenue generator.

Halliday also wanted an independent analysis of the program's safety benefits, which he thought were overstated.

Legislative opposition

Even before Brewer appointed Halliday, the program had been the subject of numerous attacks from conservatives in the Legislature.

In the session that ended last week, lawmakers sent Brewer a bill that would ban photo enforcement within 600 feet of a posted speed-limit change, with the exception of a school crossing. It also would prevent a traffic complaint from being filed in court unless a person was personally served with that complaint.

Given the DPS' move this week, the bill would be moot on state freeways. But it would still affect programs run by cities.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, also would ban people from applying any covering or substance to their license plate that makes the plate illegible.

Brewer has until Tuesday to sign or veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law without her signature. The measure, if it became law, would go into effect July 29.

Meanwhile, opponents of cameras are still gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would ban the cameras statewide. The signatures will be filed July 1, said Dow, the campaign chairman. "The cameras are coming down," he said.

Arizona to eliminate speed-enforcement cameras on freeways

[retdetsgt]

I thought it odd they used a Redflex employee to work the radar. We use police officers, they're the ones actually signing the ticket. It's a good gig for some old uniform guys who are just waiting to pull the plug.

I wonder how many of the legislators got nailed by it?

[Rlong1985]

Well living in the UK these things are everywhere, and they do make you slow down when you say O ****! I dont see a problem with them and could be linked with plate req software for felony suspects. You have no right to privacy when on a local and public highway.

[fatboyjim154]

I hate them. They only have one real use and that is to raise revenue.
They only make people slow down in the 2 hundred metres either side of the scamera. The Gov't have reduced Traffic officers and use these things to 'police' the roads.

As for linking plates to records, we can't do that here with the Gatsos, CCTV yes, but they can't enforce speed. Although local councils and Transport for London use them to prosecute Bus lanes infractions.

[MikeG]

I thought it odd they used a Redflex employee to work the radar. We use police officers, they're the ones actually signing the ticket. It's a good gig for some old uniform guys who are just waiting to pull the plug.

I wonder how many of the legislators got nailed by it?

I don't know who signs the tickets. redflex guys used to sit in the cars until that guy got killed. Now they are all unattended. I don't know who signs the tickets.

DPS just got a new director. He's republican and the prev was dem. Not sure why speed cameras fall on political lines but they do. Same with gov and legislators.

Latest fad is people sandpapering off the reflective background paint on their license plate. This washes out the contrast when the flash goes off.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

I started wondering about the Equal Protection Clause in regards to this. Now that we know there is a date that these cameras will go away, is it constitutionally copacetic to be issuing citations for speeding up until the day they're shut off?

[retdetsgt]

I started wondering about the Equal Protection Clause in regards to this. Now that we know there is a date that these cameras will go away, is it constitutionally copacetic to be issuing citations for speeding up until the day they're shut off?

Probably not since it's a policy change, not a change in speed laws themselves.

Even though I got nailed by one, I don't particularly have a problem with photo radar or photo red lights.

Here, there was a brief upsurge in rear end collisions when they first installed the photo red light in Portland, but the people waving that statistic around didn't mention anything about the reduction in t-bone crashes in intersections.

And speeding is speeding. MADD will never admit it, but speeders kill more people than drunks. Just about every time I get on the I-5, I see at least one moron driving at least 20 over and weaving in and out of traffic. And at least around here, they set them for at least 10 over in town so they aren't getting innocent people.

[MikeG]

I started wondering about the Equal Protection Clause in regards to this. Now that we know there is a date that these cameras will go away, is it constitutionally copacetic to be issuing citations for speeding up until the day they're shut off?

Ahh, but they only really worked when people voluntarily sent their money in anyway.

Besides, it's civil citations anyway and while not an expert, I didn't think a lot of the constitutional criminal protections applied. Sometimes 5 over is okay. Sometimes it's not. Courts don't seem to worried about that.

I hate the speed cameras on freeways. Speed only kills when people are going different speeds. 75 and 75 is fine. 75 and 45 kills. People going from 75 to 45 when they see the camera is dangerous and there is no way to fight that instinct. Speed kills at intersections but it seems it's usually because they can't stop in time for a red light.

I don't mind the red light cameras, though it is interesting where they draw the white line for the intersection where they want you to stop and the red line for the camera where the intersection legally begins. I don't like it because if I use the white line for a reference of if I could stop, it really has no bearing on whether I entered the intersection. That's sometimes a good 30 or 40 feet. But I've never received one.

[retdetsgt]

I hate the speed cameras on freeways. Speed only kills when people are going different speeds. 75 and 75 is fine. 75 and 45 kills. People going from 75 to 45 when they see the camera is dangerous and there is no way to fight that instinct. Speed kills at intersections but it seems it's usually because they can't stop in time for a red light.

Which is why they have speed limits and exceeding the speed limit can cause fatal wrecks. Speed kills in intersections because of the laws of physics, not because they can't stop in time for a red light.

And driving 75 in a 45 is moronic. I have zero sympathy for anyone doing that. If they kill someone doing it, they should spend many years in prison.

Obey the speed law and you have no problem, do you?

[MikeG]

Which is why they have speed limits and exceeding the speed limit can cause fatal wrecks. Speed kills in intersections because of the laws of physics, not because they can't stop in time for a red light.

Fair enough. My point is that fatals at intersections are usually t-bones or head ones after swerving, correct? One car is essentially going 0 mph, the other is at 30, 40, 50+.

And driving 75 in a 45 is moronic. I have zero sympathy for anyone doing that. If they kill someone doing it, they should spend many years in prison.

It's the other way that I was talking about. On the freeway, cars go 75-80. Speed limit is 65. When they first see speed cameras they instantly break to 45. Now you have someone doing 45 in a 65 and others doing 75 in a 65. That's what causes the accidents. It's okay if everyone is going 45. It's okay if everyone is going 75. It's not okay if some are going 45 and some are going 75.

Obey the speed law and you have no problem, do you?

[/quote]
Nope. I've never had a problem with it. The only place I've felt uncomfortable doing the speed limit was crossing texas. I was doing 65-70 and the left lane had semis passing me at a significantly faster speed. It was late at night and I was in the slow lane. After a number of semis came up behind and getting very close before passing, I decided it was much safer to drive at the same speed as the semis. They were doing 95. At 95, I didn't pass anyone and I was passed only a few more times.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Obey the speed law and you have no problem, do you?

I have a lead foot. I'd prefer to blame it on the driving done for the job, but that would be disingenuous of me.

AZ has "reasonable and prudent" speed in many places, not an absolute speed limit. You can driver in excess of the posted speed limit and still be reasonable and prudent in your speed. However, you can also drive below the posted speed and be cited for "Speed not R&P" especially if traffic is severely slow.

[Rlong1985]

"We're happy that DPS will no longer be violating Arizona citizens' constitutional rights," said Shawn Dow, chairman of a November ballot initiative to ban the use of photo enforcement statewide.

Can any one explain why these people are citing the constitution? The right to privacy is the only admendment that I can think of they would use to fight this and that is a REALLY weak arguement.

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987); This dealt with pictures of license plates but I think the case and the basic marits apply here.

[retdetsgt]

It's the other way that I was talking about. On the freeway, cars go 75-80. Speed limit is 65. When they first see speed cameras they instantly break to 45. Now you have someone doing 45 in a 65 and others doing 75 in a 65. That's what causes the accidents. It's okay if everyone is going 45. It's okay if everyone is going 75. It's not okay if some are going 45 and some are going 75.

I have never seen that happen, that is cars brake to 45 mph in a 65 mph when they see a photo radar unit. It's no different than when they near an overpass or some other place where a cop is hiding and suddenly see him. People do hit their brakes, but nothing to that extent, they drop to the posted speed limit. If there is a rear ender, it's because some moron was driving too close and too fast.

People are killed not because of police, red lights or any other traffic control device. They are killed because someone is driving faster than they are able to maintain control of their car. The majority of officers we've had killed on duty weren't killed as a result of gunfire or any other direct contact with a criminal. It was because the were driving too fast for the road conditions and lost control of their vehicle.

You can rationalize all day long looking for another reason for fatal wrecks, but the bottom line is, someone is driving in a reckless manner or completely have their heads up their respective asses.

[retdetsgt]

I have a lead foot. I'd prefer to blame it on the driving done for the job, but that would be disingenuous of me.

There is something to be said for that. We do get an attitude of impunity after a while and start to think we can drive anyway we want to. I'll admit to that.

I dunno, at some point it dawned on me that I wasn't getting to my destination any appreciable amount sooner by driving over the speed limit. I made a conscious decision then to quit playing with fire and stay at least within 5 mph of the posted limit. Doing that hasn't made my life a bit worse and frankly, it's reduced my stress level a bit, especially when I arrive to where I was going.

[WilliamTomFrank]

What is a speed limit?