Intense Backlash Against Arizona Speed Cameras

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Intense Backlash Against Arizona Speed Cameras"

Beverley Mills
5 years ago
Views:

Intense Backlash Against Arizona Speed Cameras by TED ROBBINS February 17, 2010 text size A A A When it comes to photo enforcement speed cameras, Arizona has gone all in.

1 Intense Backlash Against Arizona Speed Cameras by TED ROBBINS February 17, 2010 text size A A A When it comes to photo enforcement speed cameras, Arizona has gone all in. There are 36 fixed cameras in the Phoenix area, and another 40 mobile camera vans sit on the side of highways around the state. Enlarge in this part of the valley," he says. Ted Robbins/NPR One of the three dozen fixed speed enforcement cameras lining the highw ays around Phoenix. The cameras went up across the state's highways in November Since then, Department of Public Safety spokesman Bart Graves says drivers have been slowing down and paying attention. "For a good year after they put the cameras here, they had no fatal or serious collision calls Statistics for last year show highway fatalities dropped 25 percent statewide that's 81 fewer deaths. The cameras may or may not be directly responsible for the drop in highway deaths, but there's no question they're responsible for an increase in state revenue. More than 650,000 tickets were mailed last year from Redflex, the private company that has the photo enforcement contract in Arizona. At $181 a pop, it added up to $37 million to the state's coffers. That's actually a lot less than the state thought it would make. In fact, if you do the math, you'll figure out that only a tad more than a third of the drivers who got tickets in the mail paid them. Operators at Redflex stay busy dealing with disgruntled drivers. Workers at the company have been harassed so much, they don't want their names used on the air. Employee harassment is just part of the hostile response in Arizona over statewide photo enforcement. Since state law requires that citations be served in person, drivers routinely ignore tickets. Arizona also requires clear photos of license plates and faces one Phoenix driver avoided paying 37 speeding tickets by wearing a monkey mask. It's even gotten violent. A 68-year-old man is set to stand trial for pulling up to a photo van and firing five shots into it. It resulted in the death of a worker operating the photo radar van. That was an extreme incident. The main complaints are that photo enforcement is an invasion of privacy, that it's unfair, inaccurate even illegal and that Redflex is just in it to get its cut. The company makes about $30 per paid ticket. But Redflex spokesman Jay Heiler says a law enforcement officer looks at every violation before it goes out. "There is no desire on the part of Redflex, and no incentive, no motive, to send notice of violation npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor 1/5

2 to people unless there's been a violation. If we did that, we would go out of business immediately," Heiler says. Redflex, which has its headquarters in Australia, is the largest photo enforcement company in the U.S. It has contracts with jurisdictions in 22 states. Its U.S. base is in Phoenix, so Heiler sees and hears the opposition firsthand. He says the arguments against photo enforcement are smoke screens. "Our technology is providing a wider span of enforcement for traffic laws. That's what people really don't like," Heiler says. Opponents have gotten the attention of politicians. Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer discounts the effectiveness of photo enforcement. She says the system was misleadingly implemented by former Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano as a way to raise money. "That is exactly the only reason it was established on the roads in the state of Arizona was to generate revenue. And it's inherently wrong and un-american," Brewer says. The governor says she won't renew the state contract with Redflex when it expires this summer. Meanwhile, several bills to kill the program are moving through the Arizona Legislature. And a citizen's group is collecting signatures for a November ballot measure to outlaw statewide photo speed enforcement. Related NPR Stories Series Overview: How Safe Are Our Roads? Nov. 22, 2009 Wash. Residents Use Radar Guns To Catch Speeders Nov. 12, 2008 comments Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information. Recent First Anonymous Frank (Frank_the_Underemployed_Professional) wrote: If Arizonians really dislike it, then perhaps they'll just vote any politicians who fail to oppose the cameras with legislation out of office. I hope they people rise up and fire these bozos. Sat Feb :44:32 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Grace Sheffield (EndTheOccupationNow) wrote: For anyone believing that speed limits,cameras and speed traps aren't linked to revenue are very naive. Regardless of what the ADOT person quoted in this article said accidents on that one bit of road, there are no studies to show that cameras had any affect on that. It is merely anecdotal evidence. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor 2/5

3 People should remember that Arizona is not a pedestrian society and is not population dense. That is why there are long stretches of road without lights. I should also mention that I do not consider myself "above the law". I have deserved every ticket and warning I have received. I have probably gotten more warnings than most. No complaints; my complaints are the use of cameras that officials have admitted are used for revenue not safety. They also replace actual police officers that while sitting waiting to catch a speeder, can answer emergency calls. We don't need the few we have left to be replaced by cameras and idiots that monitor them. Fri Feb :54:24 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Rob Foran (AuntBarb) wrote: Cut speeding and use the revenues from speeders to help pay for the cameras that catch them? What exactly is wrong with that? I cannot take seriously the charge that cameras are a cash cow for governments, I doubt that speed cams or red light cams do more than offset the considerable and rising cost of enforcement. And as far as intrusion into one's privacy, let me remind detractors that they are driving automobiles on public roads. From the article above, a quote from Arizona Public Safety spokesman Bart Graves - "For a good year after they put the cameras here, they had no fatal or serious collision calls in this part of the valley...". Still don't like speed cams? If people didn't break the law by speeding, we wouldn't need them, would we? Fri Feb :40:11 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Recommend (0) Michael Sammler, you make an excellent point. I heard a statement recently by a local politician that if a police officer is out arresting criminals and preventing crimes, he's a cop, but when he's handing out speeding tickets, he's simply a tax collector. The larger point is that, all too, often, in traffic courts, there is an a priori presumption of guilt and the defendant is rarely heard. Does this mean that we don't go to court and fight a unjustified citation? Absolutely not! This is not "arguing with a police officer," but exercising your constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. It makes no difference if the deck is stacked against you. If makes no difference if it cost taxpayers' money; it's going to cost the same either way. BTW, I'm a careful driver. I do not speed. I've never got a speeding ticket. I did get a citation for running a camera-enforced toll booth a couple of years back. It was a bad picture and half the license number was blurred. Someone at DMV examined the photo and decided my car's number was the best match, ignoring that the make/model didn't match. I hadn't been on that toll road in months. I was told I had to prove this. A incredulous traffic judge threw the case out. Fri Feb :28:56 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Recommend (4) Michael Sammler (Michael1975) wrote: Hey Reality Check, I have been to traffic court. It was obvious I was assumed guilty upon showing up. I never npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor 3/5

4 even got to speak. I asked several times to state my side of the story but was always intrupted by the traffic enforcer until the judge fined me. Your argument sounds like you just want to get out of tickets. If it is obviously you in your car speeding, why should you get to argue with an officer and waiste their time and our tax dollar? Arguing with the police is not your right as a US citizen. You can always take a ticket from the camera to court. That is your due process, even though that does not mean your rights are protected or you are assumed innocent. 1984? Really? Preventing speeding and accidents is a slippery slope to totalitarianism? How does it remove checks and balances of government? Fri Feb :54:25 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Rich Clark (RC_Rob) wrote: As I listened to this report I couldn't help but think that the negative response to being ticketed for speeding by a camera is symbolic of a more pervasive decay in our society. We our so concerned with our own rights, that we fail to recognize the rights of others. Two years ago a driver going 75 miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour zone lost control of their vehicle and slammed into the rear passenger door of my car where my infant daughter was in her car seat. Thankfully we just had minor injuries, but the point is that the driver of the other vehicle was so concerned with her "right" to drive as she wanted, that she failed to recognize the right I should have of transporting my family safely. I also see this sense of intitlement permeating the classrooms that I teach in at a university. This country was founded by great individuals who realized that their is more to life than the needs of the individual. As citizens of the U.S. we have inherited a great legacy, but as soon as it inconveniences us (a minor traffic violation designed to keep the general population safe, and admittedly increase revenues) we complain and consider it unjust. I can't help but wonder where we are going as a society. Thu Feb :39:11 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) "The problem with the anti-camera people here is that they think they're above the law and entitled literally to a free pass because their particular infraction is 'to floor it'." This is an unfounded generalization. How can you know this? My opposition has NOTHING to do with me wanting carte blanche to drive like a maniac. But if the police want to cite me for a traffic violation, they must do so with a police officer, not a camera stuck up on a pole. That way, I can refute the charge if it is false and challenge the police office to produce proof that I have indeed committed the infraction of which I am accused. This is my right as a U.S. citizen. (repeat that to yourself until you get it) And, when I walk into that traffic court, the default presumption is that I am innocent. I don't have to prove it. This is a right that we have had since Magna Carta. Thu Feb :51:08 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Recommend (3) Seems that a lot of posters here need to read Orwell's "1984" - not to mention The Constitution of the United States of America. There is no definitive, independent evidence that speed cameras save lives. There is ample evidence that they increase revenue from fines. I say that they violate our right to due process and just about every rule of evidence in jurisprudence. Many courts are agreeing with me. So does the ACLU. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor 4/5

5 Thu Feb :20:17 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Travis Corne (ninja_michelangelo) wrote: To Rob Haupt's comment: Thanks for the info. Thu Feb :47:18 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) Recommend (0) Rob Haupt (rob81) Corne: // The idea was: What if your car is being borrowed by someone in your family or a close friend? In some U.S. jurisdictions (primarily California and Arizona) the law requires that the camera needs to obtain a photo of the driver's face, of sufficient quality to convince the judge that he is convicting the actual driver, not someone else who had access to the vehicle. Other than that, you're SOL Thu Feb :42:41 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) View all comments (81)» npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor 5/5

COLUMBIA'S FIRST BAPTIST FACES LAWSUIT OVER FORMER DEACON'S CONDUCT

1 of 8 1/17/2014 6:06 PM State, The (Columbia, SC) 2002-05-26 Section: FRONT Edition: FINAL Page: A1 COLUMBIA'S FIRST BAPTIST FACES LAWSUIT OVER FORMER DEACON'S CONDUCT RICK BRUNDRETT and ALLISON ASKINS