Let me slow this down so you can understand it. The Photo Camera gives me the ticket even if my brother is driving the car. I didn't speed I wasn't even in the car, I was in bed. I wasn't even in the same county. I haven't had a speeding ticket in over 40 years.
This is even easier to understand than dirt. An officer would see right off the bat that the one driving my car wasn't me. I don't have to prove it isn't me they can tell. The Camera doesn't care. That sir is a classic case of presumed guilty until I prove otherwise. That is classic police state. That is Orwell.
I have even heard you say you think a GPS in our vehicle is a good idea so they can tell where we are and how fast we are going. Or at least you said it doesn't bother you. However we consider something like that as house arrest in this country. It is considered punishment by the courts in this country and they put a GPS on the ankle of criminals. Is there any freedom you would feel uncomfortable about giving up so you feel safer personally? Phone taps? Camera's in hotel rooms? Access to other people's medical records? Please tell us where you would draw the line?
Have you ever served our country defending other people that have lived in a police state or a Communist one? Any state were the state is more important than the citizen? It is hard for those that have fought for other people's freedom to see ours just handed over without at least voting on the issue.
"Just curious if racking up speeding tickets is the norm in here"
I haven't had a speeding ticket since I was first driving. So it isn't normal for me. I will say when San Bernardino put in red light camera's it bothered me. They shortened the time between Yellow and red to the bare legal minimum because the system wasn't generating enough to pay for itself. Yes it caught some people that pushed the red light to the pink point but the rest of us became afraid of those intersections. I found myself driving out of my way to avoid those lights. I don't like living in fear of a camera. When the light flashes because someone next to me slides through a right turn I sweat it for weeks because I know my license plate will be in that picture. I have a whole different feeling if I see an officer sitting on the other side of the street.
OK. If you and others feel that the photo radar violates our constitutional rights, then maybe someone or group will get the issue up to the Supreme Court. If it got there, and they took the case, maybe that would be precedence for those wanting to use future technology methods in law enforcment. For starters, has anyone asked the aclu to look into the matter?
This one is a funny story that shows how you could get a ticket without speeding. Someone doctors his plate and you get a ticket. And the great part? It was in Arazona. Anyone know a license plate they would like to pretend they had? Could you picture the mushroom cloud over someone's mailbox?
But we have nothing to fear even if the camera would have never discovered the mistake. It took a real live officer to fix the problem.
Yeah, some believe their Orwellian surveillance grid state, thought police, and impaired freedom of speech equals freedom (the former leads to the latter). We should not.
In my experience, 33 years of traffic enforcement, and knowing and dealing daily in those years with traffic officers, I will categorically state that approx. 25 to 30% of traffic stops made by officers are NEVER written. A stern warning is issued and subject released. This does of course not apply to serious violations, Impairment, reckless op, weaving, 20 or more over the limit, endangering others etc.
Can someone please explain how this camera will make a like distinction and issue a warning where a warning is called for, you stop someone whos record is clean for the last 15 years, nicks a red light cause he just lost his job and NEEDS a warning, not a citation.
You don't need to slow ANYTHING down so I can understand it, sir. I can follow as fast as anyone here, thank you very much and thank my mom's side of the family for a good brain.
In your "imaginary" MY BROTHER DID IT scenario, then your BROTHER would have gotten the ticket from the human for speeding, had it been a human officer stopping him. In the case of Photo Radar issuing your ticket (which is not an admission of guilt - receiving a ticket is NOT an admission of guilt) to YOUR BROTHER, then the ticket would be dismissed. So your brother and you both get a break.
But the mere act of receiving a ticket, whether by human or not, is not an admission of guilt !!! It even says it on the ticket - the act of PAYING the ticket is when you admit guilt.
As far as your personal paranoia level, let me respond on a few items you mentioned:
Anyone who has the legal right can tap my phone. I'm not talking to terrorists. I'm talking to my Mom about tennis, about the trips to the doctor she has this week, about the Suns, about the Cowboys, about how my kids are doing in school. Anyone who wants to listen to that is FREE to do so - I'm not breaking any laws. The only people who should worry about tapped phones are lawbreakers.
Security cameras are there to protect us and to help track down CRIMINALS, and many times that works. Anyone and everyone should want that kind of protection. Countless crimes have been solved using video evidence.
When it comes to allowing law enforcement to do their jobs, I'm not sure I have a line. Whatever action is reasonably focused toward helping rid the world of law breakers, then I'm for it.
The line might stop at the door to my house. I would not want anyone surveillancing me inside my home. ( Mostly because I sometimes wear my berfday suit when I'm home alone, and no one WANTS to see that, trust me. ) But there are no laws getting broken in my house, so why would anyone even want or need to see that?
Even that line is fuzzy though. I do remember the one case of a man who was murdered in his home and it was caught on his video security system and that helped catch the murderers. It would help in home invasions also.
Yes, I served my country for 6 years in the Marine Corps. I understand the historical definitions of police state and communist state. So much so, in fact, that I can easily comprehend that "we ain't even close," amigo.
"But there are no laws getting broken in my house, so why would anyone even want or need to see that?"
That's what you say. We should have roaming police vans with short wave radar and advanced thermal imaging, just to make sure that you are not indeed breaking the law.
And if you are not home, and something illegal happens as seen by the roving eye, you, as the owner of the house, will be held liable. You have to tell us who the persons in your house were and what they were up to, and if you don't, you can just pay us a nice fine.
Kyllo then appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court found that to “explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court and was joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Thomas. Justice Stevens dissented and was joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, and O'Connor.
And that's just thermal imaging. Short wave radar and reflective X-ray technology is even better. You will also be amazed at just how accurate laser aided window pane conversation recording has become.
The technology is even better than that referred in the case. How we use it as a society needs to be very carefully and deliberately decided, being mindful of unintended consequences as well.
You left out the crucial part in attempting to associate this event with Photo Radar:
"Federal agent William Elliot suspected Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home."
Suspicion of guilt of a crime was a preliminary condition. Just like when the radar reads your speed, there is a suspicion of guilt before action (the picture) is taken.
Lesson: If you are not doing anything wrong, then don't worry about getting caught doing something wrong.
.. the agent lost the case. I did not leave out any critical part because I provided the link with the entire text. I just quoted the final majority opinion.
And my point was the analogy. Your lesson has one important caveat: Who gets to decide whether there should be suspicion of unlawful activity? A roaming police van with the newest technology that obliterates privacy? What technology and to what extent should its use be permissible?
My hope is to at least have an intelligent discussion. If your mind is already made up then that's fine too. I hope that at least do you see my analogy, whether you agree with it or not.
The Supreme Court decision is a deep one with many implications that you may or may not wish to consider, and I respect your right to do that.
Well, since I don't have an ounce of paranoia in my body, I of course feel like it's OK for the police to take what other more paranoid citizens might consider "invasive" tactics.
If that guy in the case you mentioned had not been growing pot in his house, then he would have never got the attention of the agent who pushed the limits in his desire to get the guy off the street.
The GOAL was correct. The TACTIC was ruled "no fair!" But in the end, the agent was correct about the pot garden.
My point was that the suspicion, however justified, was ruled as not being sufficient to use the new technology in a way that violated the protection against warrantless search.
I, like you, think that I am an upright, productive, law-abiding member of society who has no reason to be paranoid.
The goal was indeed correct, and I hope that police continue to catch criminals because I would like to live in as crime-free a society as possible. However, they must do it without violating my rights.
Thus, while I may be innocent, but my neighbours might not be. or those in the next sub-division. So what should be the appropriate limits on potentially intrusive technologies?
Hence my analogy: If surveillance of your house even while you are not there has the potential of resulting in a citation for you, placing the burden on either naming the guilty party on you or facing a fine, is not okay, why should it be okay with photo radar?
I would respectfully reiterate your quote that while the GOAL of increasing safety is correct, and one that I absolutely agree with, the TACTIC of issuing a citation to the registered owner of the vehicle should be ruled "not fair".
"... then he would have never got the attention of the agent who pushed the limits in his desire to get the guy off the street."
So if I get the attention of a LEO because he/she has developed a desire to "get me off the street" based on his impression that I "look and smell like a pothead" and he follows me home to scan my house, do you see any potential for violating my rights?
How about if I am driving a flashy car and behaving in a "stereotypical" manner albeit entirely legal, who creates the desire in an LEO to "get me off the street"?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, is it not?
vcheng says, "So if I get the attention of a LEO because he/she has developed a desire to "get me off the street" based on his impression that I "look and smell like a pothead" and he follows me home to scan my house, do you see any potential for violating my rights?"
I'm sure that is a completely unlikely scenario. And in a police state, that might happen. But it's highly unlikely in 2009 America. Cops have bigger fish to fry than the lonely smelly pothead or two.
How about your thoughts on the question I posed a few posts back?
If surveillance of your house even while you are not there has the potential of resulting in a citation for you, placing the burden on either naming the guilty party on you or facing a fine, is not okay, why should it be okay with photo radar?
"I'm sure that is a completely unlikely scenario. And in a police state, that might happen. But it's highly unlikely in 2009 America. Cops have bigger fish to fry than the lonely smelly pothead or two."
How about this story happening right now in 2009 America:
"This is ridiculous. This is about college kids smoking pot and in no way justifies 12 officers entering a house with guns drawn to terrorize college kids," said attorney Dick Harpootlian, who is representing another suspect."
Also from the same story:
"The legal sources also questioned why the sheriff has focused resources on a raid to arrest marijuana users when the city has experienced a spate of violent crime, including several armed robberies at ATM machines in recent weeks. According to The State newspaper, there was a fatal shooting at a Bank of America ATM on Jan. 21. "
By the way, to be very clear, I am NOT a pothead, nor do I advocate the use of any drugs recreationally.
If a law was broken, then a fine should be paid. I agree. However, why should I have to identify the guilty party or self-incriminate, when it should be the police's job to do that following due process? How can one reason that I should be cited and thus be responsible for something that happened in my house (or car, by analogy) that I own and pay for and use, but was not present there at the time?
I hope you see the analogy here to photo radar. I would repectfully submit that your point of view, justified as it may seem, is too simplistic. It is not as cut and dried as one would imagine.
However, as before, I respect your right to hold that opinion. And, I would respectfully reiterate your quote that while the GOAL of increasing safety is correct, and one that I absolutely agree with, the TACTIC of issuing a citation to the registered owner of the vehicle should be ruled "not fair".
Well, if it is "Hard to understand why all the smart guys and gals on this forum have a hard time with it." then why don't you answer the questions below directly?
Why should I have to identify the guilty party or self-incriminate, when it should be the police's job to do that following due process? How can one reason that I should be cited and thus be responsible for something that happened in my house (or car, by analogy) that I own and pay for and use, but was not present there at the time?
Why should I have to identify the guilty party or self-incriminate, when it should be the police's job to do that following due process?
The "police" part of the job is to send you the ticket. Just like if a human officer gave you a ticket. In both scenarios, you were caught red-handed and you must convince a judge you had a good reason to be breaking the law.
How can one reason that I should be cited and thus be responsible for something that happened in my house (or car, by analogy) that I own and pay for and use, but was not present there at the time?
If you were not present at the time, then you do not pay a fine. At least in AZ. If the picture in the photo is not the registered owner, then the ticket is thrown out.
Hey, there's an idea for a couple of leadfoot buddies worried about photo radar tickets - each of you just drive the other one's car to work every day, and speed your buttocks off !! Then when the tickets come in, you can just go say, "Not Me, sorry Judge !!"
I got involved with the anti-photo radar effort in Hawaii. And yes, I did call the ACLU. The mere threat of an ACLU lawsuit was the final straw that forced Hawaii to cancel its photo radar program.
Yes, the ACLU has way too much pull for a bunch of whiners.
There are no reasonable, sensible objections to photo radar. It's all emotionally-based objections, and that's where the paranoia objections fall also.
Mostly it boils down to, "I want to speed and these meanies are not letting me !!!"
"There are no reasonable, sensible objections to photo radar. It's all emotionally-based objections, and that's where the paranoia objections fall also."
Then why would the State Legislature of Texas Ban Photo Radar? And I already posted the link.
The reason being innocent until proven guilty is so important is the same as when they suspended that whole Lacrosse team at Duke. You would say if they hadn't done anything they wouldn't have been suspended. And I am sure you would condemn your child if the police had descended on him and booted him out of school. However turned out the charges were false. Oh well, as you would say, only the guilty have anything to worry about. If they were arrested why give them a trail? If they hadn't done anything wrong why were they arrested? That was how Iraq worked. You only went to trial to see what your penalty was not if you were guilty or not. I suppose you would ban all lawyers because only guilty people need them. I seem to remember during the Olympics in Atlanta a security guard discovered a bomb and was promptly arrested simply because he fit the profile the FBI had for a person that might plant a bomb. The man had no record. Had never been a radical and yet he was arrested and accused of a crime he never committed, unless you were judging him because if he was arrested he "must" be guilty. He would have been better off letting the bomb go off to avoid being profiled.
I know it could never happen to anyone you know. :surprise:
Your "being guilty until proven innocent" argument is a fine one for SOME issues.
But not for this one.
If you are going to insist that the Photo Radar tickets mean "guilty until proven innocent" then you will be forced to admit that getting a ticket from a human is the exact same thing. Because it IS.
Are you willing to do that?
If so, how would you propose that speed enforcement be accomplished, if not with a human officer and not with photo radar?
What is your new, "no one ever invented it yet" system which will allow "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to traffic enforcement tactics?
My system is simple.. Humans deal with humans and as one poster with ticket giving experience suggest there are reasons not to cite which a machine can't determine. I know you don't care about the human factor but some of us do. That is why we don't just let a plane take off and land without a pilot. We could you know the technology is there.
And where did you get the idea they only issue the ticket if they see the drivers face? They use the license plate in our state and the ticket is issued to the registered owner. If all it took was to say, "someone else was driving," Balaclavas would be the new driving glove.
Your argument about "humans deal with humans" does not hold with Photo radar, because you are not denied to opportunity to deal with a human and have your legal say about your guilt or (unlikely) innocence.
In court, when contesting the ticket, you have full rights to make any argument you want to the judge, just as you would with the officer who was issuing you a ticket beside the road. ( In point of FACT, photo radar tickets are EASIER To defend, because you only have to make your argument to ONE person and not two !!! )
Here is a round-up of some well-known arguments:
If you get a ticket in the mail accusing you of running a red light or “speeding” and think it’s unjust, then fight it. As with a ticket issued by a real live traffic cop, you are entitled to your day in court and to confront the witnesses and evidence against you. Call or go down to the court with jurisdiction (this information must be provided with the summons) and request a trial date, just as you would contest a “normal” ticket - and fight it in the same way, by disputing the claims made by the camera, supported by evidence of your own and by demanding that the state produce the evidence by which it hopes to convict you of the offense at issue.
In AZ, the ticket can be dismissed if the registered owner is not identified as the driver and the owner can honestly in court say "I don't know/can't tell who that is."
Tickets where the driver's face is not clearly shown are usually not even mailed out, to avoid wasting court time.
And it must be you, not just your car. In cases involving photo radar or red light cameras, the law in most states usually requires a clear photo of the driver be produced as evidence, not merely a photo of the car’s license plate. That proves you own the car, but it doesn’t prove you personally broke any law. Just because it was your car caught on tape doesn’t mean it was you behind the wheel. The state must prove it was in fact you that ran the red light or drove faster than the lawful maximum - not just your car.
You are also entitled to see the original photo, not just the fuzzy copy that’s typically sent along with the mailed ticket. If you insist upon seeing the original, and the court can’t or won’t produce it, you can seek a dismissal on the grounds that court failed to produce basic evidence against you or that it was you who did the deed.
In short, getting a photo radar ticket is not more likely to get you convicted for speeding than a human-issued ticket would.
"...if racking up speeding tickets is the norm here..."
I've gotten 3 speeding tickets in my life 2 in the early 70's for speeding about 10 mph over the limit on empty roads where if the car had exploded it wouldn't have harmed anyone and once in 1989 at a speed trap where the limit dropped from 55 to 40 because (I think) there was an outhouse next to the road that they called a village.
The final ticket was reduced on the spot by the officer because I didn't try to BS him (I admitted that I was late for a business meeting). On the way back I got nailed again but this time a very pretty female officer let me go with a warning. I like girl cops.
With all the stupid things I did in my mis-spent youth, I never got a ticket when speeding was actually a threat to safety. I guess that is Karma.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Two stops going to and coming from the same business meeting? That almost sounds like the cops were trying to educate people that day and had no quotas to meet.
Let us try this again. If I wasn't driving in the first place I wouldn't have to prove to the human officer in the second place that I wasn't driving, period. I wouldn't have to go anywhere to contest the ticket because the person driving my car would get the ticket, period. I lose no time, I defend myself before no judge the person driving my car does. That is how it works. You don't care we understand that. You feel my having to take the day off work to go to court is a small price to pay for a Photo ticket system. The People of Texas agree with me that I should never have to prove something I never did in the first place when the solution is to have a system in place that will check the identity of the driver at the time of the infraction. That system exists, it is called a police officer. A human with recognition devices on the front of its CPU, called Eyes. Those data collection devices can tell that a 45 year old bald man is not a 60 year old man with a full head of hair. The eyes of a officer and the CPU, some call a brain, would never require me to go to court in the first place. They would require the unit, other person with ID, to receive the citation and I would never see it. That person would sign the ticket and could not leave the site till they did. I would have nothing to defend nor any reason to defend my not speeding. With your system I would have to go to court, prove I wasn't driving and not be recompensed for taking the time off. That sir is not the American way, unless you work for the IRS. Do you not see the difference?
.. nobody more blind than he who chooses not to see.
However, the right of anybody to hold their views, no matter how logically negated by evidence and facts, must be respected. Such is the power of dogmatic belief.
Overall, all views, no matter what shade, contribute to a vigorous debate, especially on issues with the potential to affect a wide swath of society.
I completely understand that YOU feel there is a difference. But you are just talking logistics and pointing out obvious differences in the details of the specific instances.
What it ALL boils down to is:
Whether or not you get stopped by a human officer or ticketed by a photo radar system, the point is that you will STILL have every chance to defend your stance.
If you choose not to defend, then you are admitting guilt.
If your state makes photo radar people take a day off to go to court and does not make "human ticketed" speeders do the same thing, well, that is a problem with the court system in YOUR state - not a problem with the photo radar system itself.
You can avoid all that by just following the posted speed limits.
In my experience, the only people I have seen who vigorously complain about photo radar are either people who are unusually paranoid, or people who want to speed unimpeded.
Very few average Joe citizens complain, because they understand that if you obey the traffic laws, the photo radar system has about as much to do with your life as a solitary telephone pole does.
Arizona to Turn Speed Cameras into Spy Cameras August 20, 2007 Arizona state police plan to turn statewide speed camera program into a surveillance network.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) is planning to turn its statewide speed camera program into a spy camera network. According to a written request for proposals sent to various speed camera companies and obtained by the Associated Press, the state police are seeking to include automated number plate recognition (ANPR) technology in its new automated ticketing system. This would allow motorists accused of no wrong-doing to have their movements monitored and recorded for use by police agencies.
The for-profit company selected to operate the camera ticketing program must also "provide computer queries" for "any law enforcement purpose as requested by the DPS designee."
Almost one year ago, DPS expressed interest in installing standalone ANPR cameras to track and identify motorists on Arizona highways. The DPS now says that it is expanding the ticketing program's role to identify stolen vehicles and locate criminals. Oakland, California recently announced a similar plan to turn its red light cameras into spy cameras.
ANPR is in wide use throughout England with every local police force equipped with at least one police cruiser capable of scanning and tracking motorists on area roads. The devices have produced mixed results with thousands of motorists accused of crimes based on misreads by the device or incorrect information in the government database. The system has also criminalized millions of motorists over routine paperwork errors.
larsb: You are accusing almost every police enforcement organization of being uninformed.
You need to learn the difference between official statements put forth because of political correctness and the truth.
And, as noted before, most police officers exceed the speed limit when traveling on interstate highways. Actions speak louder than words.
larsb: I can see no realistic expectation of the truth of that statement.
Informed drivers do.
larsb: If the safe travel speed is 80 mph, like in some areas of Texas, then the speed limit is set accordingly.
The interstate highway system was designed so that the typical domestic car of the 1950s - with single-circuit drum brakes, bias-ply tires, no safety belts or safety glass, no collapsible steering column, bodies designed without crumple zones - could travel safely at 75 mph. Today a Ford Focus or Honda Civic has more safety features and better performance than a Mercedes Gullwing of 1956. The speed limits are behind the times.
You may need to check the calendar...it's not 1956 anymore.
larsb: Speed kills, dudes. Slow down and have a better chance of living.
In virtually every case, the article specifically mentions driver fatigue or drunk driving as a cause. I fail to see how photo radar will stop those dangers. Unless one is claiming that drunks will be less dangerous if they only drive the speed limit. Good luck with that argument...
The article never specifically mentions how many accidents are the result of exceeding the speed limit or how much people were exceeding the speed limit. If the speed limit is 55 mph, and you are driving at 60 mph when the accident occurs, then speeding was technically the cause.
Also note that no mention is made of whether the victims of fatal accidents are wearing safety belts. I've noticed that virtually every story on fatal accidents now notes that the victim was not wearing safety belts.
Also note that safety belt use tends to be lower in many southwestern states, and because there isn't much use for road salt, older vehicles (especially pickup trucks) are kept in use far longer than they are in eastern and northern states. These vehicles don't have the newest safety features.
That article proves nothing about exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways (virtually everyone does, so if speed really did kill, our death rate would be soaring - but it isn't), and instead suggests that police would better target drunk drivers, and we should help drivers recognize and avoid fatigue or boredom (which, ironically, driving too slow can increase).
Yes it does, because when used to enforce speed limits on limited access highways, it targets drivers who aren't a danger and increases cynicism of government.
It's best not to waste law enforcement resources on "problems" that don't really exist.
Perhaps the AZ branch of ACLU should look into new proposed use of photo radar cameras. It would no doubt be good for someone, some group to get this whole camera issue up to Supreme Court. Let them review and give opinion on whether or not civil liberties are being violated.
Sep 17, 2008 -- Arizona rakes in the dough with speed cameras Clark gets worried whenever state or local officials say they want to protect us by putting in cameras to monitor our speed while driving. The real purpose of such cameras is to make money.
The Detroit News reports that Arizona will make $175 million this year from speed cameras. They have an Australian contractor who handles everything: installation, ticketing and collections. The contractor gets $30 from every ticket with the remainder going to the state.
In fact, Arizona decided it wasn't making enough revenue from the cameras, so they lowered the speed limit in the state to get more money! These tickets don't come with any points on your license; they're strictly against the car itself and just a form of tax.
Illinois and other states now want to install similar speed cameras. But don't believe the political hype about these cameras being used to reduce the rate of highway fatalities. They're simply designed to stock the coffers so politicians can get re-elected.
And get this -- The Detroit News reports Arizona only puts the cameras on roads that are heavily driven by out-of-state motorists. So the revenue comes from non-voters because the politicians don't want to alienate their constituents!
Clark doesn't deny that speeding is dangerous and also necessitates longer stopping distances in the event of a panic stop. But these cameras are only about the dough. If they were really intended to make you a safer driver, the tickets would be against the driver, not against the car. So get ready to smile -- you may be on candid camera!
Arizona House committee approves speed-camera ban for state highways
Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks
An Arizona legislative panel voted 5-2 in favor of a state bill to ban traffic speeding cameras on highways.
The Arizona House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted to move along House Bill 2106, which would ban the use of speeding cameras on state highways. The ban would apply to both state and local governments.
The state approved speed cameras last year and has been installing them on highways in the Phoenix area and elsewhere. Speeders pay $181.50 fines for violating speed limits.
Critics say the cameras are aimed more at revenue collection than safety. Advocates say the cameras reduce speeding, create safer roads and allow police to focus resources elsewhere.
The ban would not apply to local streets, where cities such as Scottsdale and Paradise Valley have cameras.
Traffic speed cameras are now used in 45 cities nationwide. Theoretically, bringing in revenue through speeding tickets instead of taxation while promoting public safety appears to be a win-win proposition. In reality, it just fuels more wasteful government spending.
In Arizona, speed camera revenues fund a new, optional, experimental government agency that only a few other states have tried, Clean Elections. Clean Elections provides public funding for politicians to run for office, and since it originated in 2000 has not resulted in "cleaner" elections. A 2003 study (pdf) by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found no significant changes in Arizona and Maine, the two states that initially implemented it. Other studies found little impact or even a negative effect (pdf) on lobbyist influence, incumbency, and the types of candidates who run for office.
Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano forced the implementation of speed cameras statewide promising to fix the budget, but Arizona still had the second worst budget deficit per capita in the nation last year (only California was worse). Speed cameras aren't profitable, studies have shown that government collects less than half of the amount of each ticket, and much of that is used up handling court appeals, since approximately 40% of those who receive tickets appeal them.
Government officials freely acknowledge that the purpose of speed cameras is not safety, but revenue generation. In Arizona, speed camera tickets do not add any "points" to a driver's record; hypothetically a speeder could get hundreds of tickets and continue driving without a blemish on his record. Speed cameras take police officers off the streets and put them somewhere else -- leaving more drunk drivers on the road. A flash from a speed camera is not going to stop a drunk driver, who is free to continue driving drunk. Results of studies are conflicting on whether speed cameras have actually reduced accidents.
Speed cameras are less forgiving than police officers. In Arizona, the law defines speeding as driving at a speed that is above "reasonable and prudent" under the circumstances, and states that driving above the posted speed limit is only "prima facie" evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent; it is not decisive. This is why when a police officer pulls a driver over for speeding, there is discretion whether or not to give the driver a ticket. If it is a clear day, there is no one else on the road, and the road is straight and flat, a police officer will probably not give someone a ticket for driving 67 mph in a 55 mph zone. The camera allows no discretion.
Another problem with speed camera tickets is they fail to give people proper notice as required by law. The Arizona Court of Appeals has held that any speeding ticket that is not personally served is invalid. This has resulted in an exorbitant waste of money as speed camera companies hire process servers to serve ticketed drivers, who often avoid service of process, allowing them to avoid paying the ticket. The paperwork costs add up. Other drivers avoid paying tickets by simply returning them with a notation that they were not the driver, resulting in immediate dismissal of the ticket.
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which is also echoed in Arizona's Constitution, gives the accused the right to be confronted by witnesses against him. With speed cameras, the driver is never confronted by a police officer ticketing him. So far, local governments have skirted around constitutional protections by classifying speed camera tickets as civil, not criminal violations. Efforts to challenge the tickets based on constitutional grounds that appear to have a chance at succeeding are simply dismissed in favor of the driver, swept under the rug by local governments before they can be fully adjudicated.
Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin has argued that speed cameras are unconstitutional, because they constitute a tax. Under Arizona's constitution, tax increases require 2/3 vote of the legislature. The vote authorizing speed cameras on state highways passed with only a simple majority.
Opposition is mounting to speed cameras. Vigilantes are destroying speed cameras worldwide and posting stickie notes over them. Texas has banned all speed cameras, even red light cameras, and seven other states have implemented various other laws against them. Red light cameras raise slightly different issues. There is a fundamental difference between speed cameras and red light cameras. Running a red light is a per se violation of the law -- it is always a violation of law. Whereas speeding is a subjective decision that requires the discretion of a police officer.
Arizona has certainly had enough of the "Janet Cams." Websites like StopCameraFraud.com and TheNewspaper.com are spearheading the opposition. A ballot initiative is being drafted that will ban all cameras in Arizona. Republican Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau ran on a platform of eliminating speed cameras last fall and won. Incoming Republican Governor Jan Brewer summed it up well: "It's everywhere from Costco to going to church 'get rid of that photo radar.' Everybody that I've spoken (with), other than two or three people, they don't like it."
Drivers that are not a danger? That is an opinion. If photo radar "gives" approx 10+ miles per hour lattitude, what is so hard about maintaining velocity control over one's vehicle to not exceed that margin? It would seem that drivers that cannot control their velocity are the danger.
Why is it so important or meaningful for some drivers to want to set their own speeds well beyond the posted? If their speed saves them a few or handful of minutes, how critical are those minutes in the overall scheme of a 24 hour day? What do they do with those minutes?
Maybe their state legislature has stopped taking the cool-aid? Maybe there are one or two in these forums that will volunteer to wear leg bracelets so their state government can be sure they don't mind being monitored all the time? In fact if some approve of the money making aspect of these cameras couldn't they simply pay more on their taxes to off set what they might lose? Stop claiming all of their deductions and wave a refund? That would be putting their money where their heart is.
Comments
And one for a California stop.
But never speeding (driving minivans and wagons has to help, although Outback owners apparently get tagged quite often).
Just curious if racking up speeding tickets is the norm in here (apparently it's common with at least one member in here, not to name names Elias
This is even easier to understand than dirt. An officer would see right off the bat that the one driving my car wasn't me. I don't have to prove it isn't me they can tell. The Camera doesn't care. That sir is a classic case of presumed guilty until I prove otherwise. That is classic police state. That is Orwell.
I have even heard you say you think a GPS in our vehicle is a good idea so they can tell where we are and how fast we are going. Or at least you said it doesn't bother you. However we consider something like that as house arrest in this country. It is considered punishment by the courts in this country and they put a GPS on the ankle of criminals. Is there any freedom you would feel uncomfortable about giving up so you feel safer personally? Phone taps? Camera's in hotel rooms? Access to other people's medical records? Please tell us where you would draw the line?
Have you ever served our country defending other people that have lived in a police state or a Communist one? Any state were the state is more important than the citizen? It is hard for those that have fought for other people's freedom to see ours just handed over without at least voting on the issue.
I haven't had a speeding ticket since I was first driving. So it isn't normal for me. I will say when San Bernardino put in red light camera's it bothered me. They shortened the time between Yellow and red to the bare legal minimum because the system wasn't generating enough to pay for itself. Yes it caught some people that pushed the red light to the pink point but the rest of us became afraid of those intersections. I found myself driving out of my way to avoid those lights. I don't like living in fear of a camera. When the light flashes because someone next to me slides through a right turn I sweat it for weeks because I know my license plate will be in that picture. I have a whole different feeling if I see an officer sitting on the other side of the street.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the Protected will never know.
Here are some faults with larsb’s perfect system.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2682.asp
Yes it this one isn’t in the US but the machine issued tickets and people paid them based on what the machine recorded.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1748.asp
Seems as if Texas feels it could lead to a police state.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2043757/posts
This one is a funny story that shows how you could get a ticket without speeding. Someone doctors his plate and you get a ticket. And the great part? It was in Arazona. Anyone know a license plate they would like to pretend they had? Could you picture the mushroom cloud over someone's mailbox?
But we have nothing to fear even if the camera would have never discovered the mistake. It took a real live officer to fix the problem.
Can someone please explain how this camera will make a like distinction and issue a warning where a warning is called for, you stop someone whos record is clean for the last 15 years, nicks a red light cause he just lost his job and NEEDS a warning, not a citation.
In your "imaginary" MY BROTHER DID IT scenario, then your BROTHER would have gotten the ticket from the human for speeding, had it been a human officer stopping him. In the case of Photo Radar issuing your ticket (which is not an admission of guilt - receiving a ticket is NOT an admission of guilt) to YOUR BROTHER, then the ticket would be dismissed. So your brother and you both get a break.
But the mere act of receiving a ticket, whether by human or not, is not an admission of guilt !!! It even says it on the ticket - the act of PAYING the ticket is when you admit guilt.
As far as your personal paranoia level, let me respond on a few items you mentioned:
Anyone who has the legal right can tap my phone. I'm not talking to terrorists. I'm talking to my Mom about tennis, about the trips to the doctor she has this week, about the Suns, about the Cowboys, about how my kids are doing in school. Anyone who wants to listen to that is FREE to do so - I'm not breaking any laws. The only people who should worry about tapped phones are lawbreakers.
Security cameras are there to protect us and to help track down CRIMINALS, and many times that works. Anyone and everyone should want that kind of protection. Countless crimes have been solved using video evidence.
When it comes to allowing law enforcement to do their jobs, I'm not sure I have a line. Whatever action is reasonably focused toward helping rid the world of law breakers, then I'm for it.
The line might stop at the door to my house. I would not want anyone surveillancing me inside my home. ( Mostly because I sometimes wear my berfday suit when I'm home alone, and no one WANTS to see that, trust me. ) But there are no laws getting broken in my house, so why would anyone even want or need to see that?
Even that line is fuzzy though. I do remember the one case of a man who was murdered in his home and it was caught on his video security system and that helped catch the murderers. It would help in home invasions also.
Yes, I served my country for 6 years in the Marine Corps. I understand the historical definitions of police state and communist state. So much so, in fact, that I can easily comprehend that "we ain't even close," amigo.
That's what you say. We should have roaming police vans with short wave radar and advanced thermal imaging, just to make sure that you are not indeed breaking the law.
And if you are not home, and something illegal happens as seen by the roving eye, you, as the owner of the house, will be held liable. You have to tell us who the persons in your house were and what they were up to, and if you don't, you can just pay us a nice fine.
Anybody see the analogy here?
From the link:
Kyllo then appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court found that to “explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the Court and was joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Thomas. Justice Stevens dissented and was joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, and O'Connor.
And that's just thermal imaging. Short wave radar and reflective X-ray technology is even better. You will also be amazed at just how accurate laser aided window pane conversation recording has become.
The technology is even better than that referred in the case. How we use it as a society needs to be very carefully and deliberately decided, being mindful of unintended consequences as well.
"Federal agent William Elliot suspected Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home."
Suspicion of guilt of a crime was a preliminary condition. Just like when the radar reads your speed, there is a suspicion of guilt before action (the picture) is taken.
Lesson: If you are not doing anything wrong, then don't worry about getting caught doing something wrong.
And my point was the analogy. Your lesson has one important caveat: Who gets to decide whether there should be suspicion of unlawful activity? A roaming police van with the newest technology that obliterates privacy? What technology and to what extent should its use be permissible?
My hope is to at least have an intelligent discussion. If your mind is already made up then that's fine too. I hope that at least do you see my analogy, whether you agree with it or not.
The Supreme Court decision is a deep one with many implications that you may or may not wish to consider, and I respect your right to do that.
If that guy in the case you mentioned had not been growing pot in his house, then he would have never got the attention of the agent who pushed the limits in his desire to get the guy off the street.
The GOAL was correct. The TACTIC was ruled "no fair!" But in the end, the agent was correct about the pot garden.
I, like you, think that I am an upright, productive, law-abiding member of society who has no reason to be paranoid.
The goal was indeed correct, and I hope that police continue to catch criminals because I would like to live in as crime-free a society as possible. However, they must do it without violating my rights.
Thus, while I may be innocent, but my neighbours might not be. or those in the next sub-division. So what should be the appropriate limits on potentially intrusive technologies?
Hence my analogy: If surveillance of your house even while you are not there has the potential of resulting in a citation for you, placing the burden on either naming the guilty party on you or facing a fine, is not okay, why should it be okay with photo radar?
I would respectfully reiterate your quote that while the GOAL of increasing safety is correct, and one that I absolutely agree with, the TACTIC of issuing a citation to the registered owner of the vehicle should be ruled "not fair".
So if I get the attention of a LEO because he/she has developed a desire to "get me off the street" based on his impression that I "look and smell like a pothead" and he follows me home to scan my house, do you see any potential for violating my rights?
How about if I am driving a flashy car and behaving in a "stereotypical" manner albeit entirely legal, who creates the desire in an LEO to "get me off the street"?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, is it not?
I'm sure that is a completely unlikely scenario. And in a police state, that might happen. But it's highly unlikely in 2009 America. Cops have bigger fish to fry than the lonely smelly pothead or two.
If surveillance of your house even while you are not there has the potential of resulting in a citation for you, placing the burden on either naming the guilty party on you or facing a fine, is not okay, why should it be okay with photo radar?
"I'm sure that is a completely unlikely scenario. And in a police state, that might happen. But it's highly unlikely in 2009 America. Cops have bigger fish to fry than the lonely smelly pothead or two."
How about this story happening right now in 2009 America:
from:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6862261&page=1
"This is ridiculous. This is about college kids smoking pot and in no way justifies 12 officers entering a house with guns drawn to terrorize college kids," said attorney Dick Harpootlian, who is representing another suspect."
Also from the same story:
"The legal sources also questioned why the sheriff has focused resources on a raid to arrest marijuana users when the city has experienced a spate of violent crime, including several armed robberies at ATM machines in recent weeks. According to The State newspaper, there was a fatal shooting at a Bank of America ATM on Jan. 21. "
By the way, to be very clear, I am NOT a pothead, nor do I advocate the use of any drugs recreationally.
If a law was broken, then a fine should be paid. I agree. However, why should I have to identify the guilty party or self-incriminate, when it should be the police's job to do that following due process? How can one reason that I should be cited and thus be responsible for something that happened in my house (or car, by analogy) that I own and pay for and use, but was not present there at the time?
I hope you see the analogy here to photo radar. I would repectfully submit that your point of view, justified as it may seem, is too simplistic. It is not as cut and dried as one would imagine.
However, as before, I respect your right to hold that opinion. And, I would respectfully reiterate your quote that while the GOAL of increasing safety is correct, and one that I absolutely agree with, the TACTIC of issuing a citation to the registered owner of the vehicle should be ruled "not fair".
Until then, it's an "isolated incident."
You folks are trying to tie WAY too much other stuff into the issue of Photo Radar.
Photo radar is not hard to understand.
Get caught speeding.
Pay your fine.
My 10-yr-old daughter understands that perfectly well. Hard to understand why all the smart guys and gals on this forum have a hard time with it.
Why should I have to identify the guilty party or self-incriminate, when it should be the police's job to do that following due process? How can one reason that I should be cited and thus be responsible for something that happened in my house (or car, by analogy) that I own and pay for and use, but was not present there at the time?
The "police" part of the job is to send you the ticket. Just like if a human officer gave you a ticket. In both scenarios, you were caught red-handed and you must convince a judge you had a good reason to be breaking the law.
How can one reason that I should be cited and thus be responsible for something that happened in my house (or car, by analogy) that I own and pay for and use, but was not present there at the time?
If you were not present at the time, then you do not pay a fine. At least in AZ. If the picture in the photo is not the registered owner, then the ticket is thrown out.
Hey, there's an idea for a couple of leadfoot buddies worried about photo radar tickets - each of you just drive the other one's car to work every day, and speed your buttocks off !! Then when the tickets come in, you can just go say, "Not Me, sorry Judge !!"
There are no reasonable, sensible objections to photo radar. It's all emotionally-based objections, and that's where the paranoia objections fall also.
Mostly it boils down to, "I want to speed and these meanies are not letting me !!!"
Then why would the State Legislature of Texas Ban Photo Radar? And I already posted the link.
The reason being innocent until proven guilty is so important is the same as when they suspended that whole Lacrosse team at Duke. You would say if they hadn't done anything they wouldn't have been suspended. And I am sure you would condemn your child if the police had descended on him and booted him out of school. However turned out the charges were false. Oh well, as you would say, only the guilty have anything to worry about. If they were arrested why give them a trail? If they hadn't done anything wrong why were they arrested? That was how Iraq worked. You only went to trial to see what your penalty was not if you were guilty or not. I suppose you would ban all lawyers because only guilty people need them. I seem to remember during the Olympics in Atlanta a security guard discovered a bomb and was promptly arrested simply because he fit the profile the FBI had for a person that might plant a bomb. The man had no record. Had never been a radical and yet he was arrested and accused of a crime he never committed, unless you were judging him because if he was arrested he "must" be guilty. He would have been better off letting the bomb go off to avoid being profiled.
I know it could never happen to anyone you know. :surprise:
But not for this one.
If you are going to insist that the Photo Radar tickets mean "guilty until proven innocent" then you will be forced to admit that getting a ticket from a human is the exact same thing. Because it IS.
Are you willing to do that?
If so, how would you propose that speed enforcement be accomplished, if not with a human officer and not with photo radar?
What is your new, "no one ever invented it yet" system which will allow "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to traffic enforcement tactics?
And where did you get the idea they only issue the ticket if they see the drivers face? They use the license plate in our state and the ticket is issued to the registered owner. If all it took was to say, "someone else was driving," Balaclavas would be the new driving glove.
In court, when contesting the ticket, you have full rights to make any argument you want to the judge, just as you would with the officer who was issuing you a ticket beside the road. ( In point of FACT, photo radar tickets are EASIER To defend, because you only have to make your argument to ONE person and not two !!! )
Here is a round-up of some well-known arguments:
If you get a ticket in the mail accusing you of running a red light or “speeding” and think it’s unjust, then fight it. As with a ticket issued by a real live traffic cop, you are entitled to your day in court and to confront the witnesses and evidence against you. Call or go down to the court with jurisdiction (this information must be provided with the summons) and request a trial date, just as you would contest a “normal” ticket - and fight it in the same way, by disputing the claims made by the camera, supported by evidence of your own and by demanding that the state produce the evidence by which it hopes to convict you of the offense at issue.
In AZ, the ticket can be dismissed if the registered owner is not identified as the driver and the owner can honestly in court say "I don't know/can't tell who that is."
Tickets where the driver's face is not clearly shown are usually not even mailed out, to avoid wasting court time.
And it must be you, not just your car. In cases involving photo radar or red light cameras, the law in most states usually requires a clear photo of the driver be produced as evidence, not merely a photo of the car’s license plate. That proves you own the car, but it doesn’t prove you personally broke any law. Just because it was your car caught on tape doesn’t mean it was you behind the wheel. The state must prove it was in fact you that ran the red light or drove faster than the lawful maximum - not just your car.
You are also entitled to see the original photo, not just the fuzzy copy that’s typically sent along with the mailed ticket. If you insist upon seeing the original, and the court can’t or won’t produce it, you can seek a dismissal on the grounds that court failed to produce basic evidence against you or that it was you who did the deed.
In short, getting a photo radar ticket is not more likely to get you convicted for speeding than a human-issued ticket would.
I'm pretty sure it's legally just an agreement to appear in court to answer the charges. Cops will tell you that when they ask you to sign the ticket.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I've gotten 3 speeding tickets in my life 2 in the early 70's for speeding about 10 mph over the limit on empty roads where if the car had exploded it wouldn't have harmed anyone and once in 1989 at a speed trap where the limit dropped from 55 to 40 because (I think) there was an outhouse next to the road that they called a village.
The final ticket was reduced on the spot by the officer because I didn't try to BS him (I admitted that I was late for a business meeting). On the way back I got nailed again but this time a very pretty female officer let me go with a warning. I like girl cops.
With all the stupid things I did in my mis-spent youth, I never got a ticket when speeding was actually a threat to safety. I guess that is Karma.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
However, the right of anybody to hold their views, no matter how logically negated by evidence and facts, must be respected. Such is the power of dogmatic belief.
Overall, all views, no matter what shade, contribute to a vigorous debate, especially on issues with the potential to affect a wide swath of society.
What it ALL boils down to is:
Whether or not you get stopped by a human officer or ticketed by a photo radar system, the point is that you will STILL have every chance to defend your stance.
If you choose not to defend, then you are admitting guilt.
If your state makes photo radar people take a day off to go to court and does not make "human ticketed" speeders do the same thing, well, that is a problem with the court system in YOUR state - not a problem with the photo radar system itself.
You can avoid all that by just following the posted speed limits.
In my experience, the only people I have seen who vigorously complain about photo radar are either people who are unusually paranoid, or people who want to speed unimpeded.
Very few average Joe citizens complain, because they understand that if you obey the traffic laws, the photo radar system has about as much to do with your life as a solitary telephone pole does.
http://www.surveillancetechnology.com/newsarticles/aug07/arizona-to-turn-speed-c- ameras-into-spy-cameras.htm
Arizona to Turn Speed Cameras into Spy Cameras
August 20, 2007
Arizona state police plan to turn statewide speed camera program into a surveillance network.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) is planning to turn its statewide speed camera program into a spy camera network. According to a written request for proposals sent to various speed camera companies and obtained by the Associated Press, the state police are seeking to include automated number plate recognition (ANPR) technology in its new automated ticketing system. This would allow motorists accused of no wrong-doing to have their movements monitored and recorded for use by police agencies.
The for-profit company selected to operate the camera ticketing program must also "provide computer queries" for "any law enforcement purpose as requested by the DPS designee."
Almost one year ago, DPS expressed interest in installing standalone ANPR cameras to track and identify motorists on Arizona highways. The DPS now says that it is expanding the ticketing program's role to identify stolen vehicles and locate criminals. Oakland, California recently announced a similar plan to turn its red light cameras into spy cameras.
ANPR is in wide use throughout England with every local police force equipped with at least one police cruiser capable of scanning and tracking motorists on area roads. The devices have produced mixed results with thousands of motorists accused of crimes based on misreads by the device or incorrect information in the government database. The system has also criminalized millions of motorists over routine paperwork errors.
You need to learn the difference between official statements put forth because of political correctness and the truth.
And, as noted before, most police officers exceed the speed limit when traveling on interstate highways. Actions speak louder than words.
larsb: I can see no realistic expectation of the truth of that statement.
Informed drivers do.
larsb: If the safe travel speed is 80 mph, like in some areas of Texas, then the speed limit is set accordingly.
The interstate highway system was designed so that the typical domestic car of the 1950s - with single-circuit drum brakes, bias-ply tires, no safety belts or safety glass, no collapsible steering column, bodies designed without crumple zones - could travel safely at 75 mph. Today a Ford Focus or Honda Civic has more safety features and better performance than a Mercedes Gullwing of 1956. The speed limits are behind the times.
You may need to check the calendar...it's not 1956 anymore.
Photo radar has nothing to do with that issue.
In virtually every case, the article specifically mentions driver fatigue or drunk driving as a cause. I fail to see how photo radar will stop those dangers. Unless one is claiming that drunks will be less dangerous if they only drive the speed limit. Good luck with that argument...
The article never specifically mentions how many accidents are the result of exceeding the speed limit or how much people were exceeding the speed limit. If the speed limit is 55 mph, and you are driving at 60 mph when the accident occurs, then speeding was technically the cause.
Also note that no mention is made of whether the victims of fatal accidents are wearing safety belts. I've noticed that virtually every story on fatal accidents now notes that the victim was not wearing safety belts.
Also note that safety belt use tends to be lower in many southwestern states, and because there isn't much use for road salt, older vehicles (especially pickup trucks) are kept in use far longer than they are in eastern and northern states. These vehicles don't have the newest safety features.
That article proves nothing about exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways (virtually everyone does, so if speed really did kill, our death rate would be soaring - but it isn't), and instead suggests that police would better target drunk drivers, and we should help drivers recognize and avoid fatigue or boredom (which, ironically, driving too slow can increase).
It's best not to waste law enforcement resources on "problems" that don't really exist.
http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2008/09/17/14042/
Sep 17, 2008 -- Arizona rakes in the dough with speed cameras
Clark gets worried whenever state or local officials say they want to protect us by putting in cameras to monitor our speed while driving. The real purpose of such cameras is to make money.
The Detroit News reports that Arizona will make $175 million this year from speed cameras. They have an Australian contractor who handles everything: installation, ticketing and collections. The contractor gets $30 from every ticket with the remainder going to the state.
In fact, Arizona decided it wasn't making enough revenue from the cameras, so they lowered the speed limit in the state to get more money! These tickets don't come with any points on your license; they're strictly against the car itself and just a form of tax.
Illinois and other states now want to install similar speed cameras. But don't believe the political hype about these cameras being used to reduce the rate of highway fatalities. They're simply designed to stock the coffers so politicians can get re-elected.
And get this -- The Detroit News reports Arizona only puts the cameras on roads that are heavily driven by out-of-state motorists. So the revenue comes from non-voters because the politicians don't want to alienate their constituents!
Clark doesn't deny that speeding is dangerous and also necessitates longer stopping distances in the event of a panic stop. But these cameras are only about the dough. If they were really intended to make you a safer driver, the tickets would be against the driver, not against the car. So get ready to smile -- you may be on candid camera!
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/01/19/daily50.html
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Arizona House committee approves speed-camera ban for state highways
Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks
An Arizona legislative panel voted 5-2 in favor of a state bill to ban traffic speeding cameras on highways.
The Arizona House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted to move along House Bill 2106, which would ban the use of speeding cameras on state highways. The ban would apply to both state and local governments.
The state approved speed cameras last year and has been installing them on highways in the Phoenix area and elsewhere. Speeders pay $181.50 fines for violating speed limits.
Critics say the cameras are aimed more at revenue collection than safety. Advocates say the cameras reduce speeding, create safer roads and allow police to focus resources elsewhere.
The ban would not apply to local streets, where cities such as Scottsdale and Paradise Valley have cameras.
http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/arizona-20090114-highway-speed-ca- mera-ban.1f5c990.html
Lawmakers want to ban Arizona highway speed cameras
02:37 PM MST on Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By PAUL DAVENPORT / Associated Press Writer
PHOENIX (AP) -- A group of Arizona legislators announced Wednesday they plan legislation to ban use of speed enforcement cameras on state highways.
The main sponsor, Republican Rep. Sam Crump of Anthem, said speed cameras are unfair and intrusive.
Passage would shut down a new Department of Public Safety program under which a contractor operates approximately 100 mobile and stationary cameras.
The bill as drafted would ban both state or local cameras on state highways but not affect those used on local streets and roads.
Gov. Janet Napolitano has said the cameras are intended to improve highway safety, but Crump said it's apparent the real motivation is ticket revenue.
A DPS spokesman declined comment, saying the agency does not comment on proposed legislation.
http://arizona.newsplatoon.com/2009/01/18/speed-cameras-dont-smile-for-the-camer- - a/
By Rachel Alexander on 1.14.09 @ 6:06AM
Traffic speed cameras are now used in 45 cities nationwide. Theoretically, bringing in revenue through speeding tickets instead of taxation while promoting public safety appears to be a win-win proposition. In reality, it just fuels more wasteful government spending.
In Arizona, speed camera revenues fund a new, optional, experimental government agency that only a few other states have tried, Clean Elections. Clean Elections provides public funding for politicians to run for office, and since it originated in 2000 has not resulted in "cleaner" elections. A 2003 study (pdf) by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found no significant changes in Arizona and Maine, the two states that initially implemented it. Other studies found little impact or even a negative effect (pdf) on lobbyist influence, incumbency, and the types of candidates who run for office.
Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano forced the implementation of speed cameras statewide promising to fix the budget, but Arizona still had the second worst budget deficit per capita in the nation last year (only California was worse). Speed cameras aren't profitable, studies have shown that government collects less than half of the amount of each ticket, and much of that is used up handling court appeals, since approximately 40% of those who receive tickets appeal them.
Government officials freely acknowledge that the purpose of speed cameras is not safety, but revenue generation. In Arizona, speed camera tickets do not add any "points" to a driver's record; hypothetically a speeder could get hundreds of tickets and continue driving without a blemish on his record. Speed cameras take police officers off the streets and put them somewhere else -- leaving more drunk drivers on the road. A flash from a speed camera is not going to stop a drunk driver, who is free to continue driving drunk. Results of studies are conflicting on whether speed cameras have actually reduced accidents.
Speed cameras are less forgiving than police officers. In Arizona, the law defines speeding as driving at a speed that is above "reasonable and prudent" under the circumstances, and states that driving above the posted speed limit is only "prima facie" evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent; it is not decisive. This is why when a police officer pulls a driver over for speeding, there is discretion whether or not to give the driver a ticket. If it is a clear day, there is no one else on the road, and the road is straight and flat, a police officer will probably not give someone a ticket for driving 67 mph in a 55 mph zone. The camera allows no discretion.
Another problem with speed camera tickets is they fail to give people proper notice as required by law. The Arizona Court of Appeals has held that any speeding ticket that is not personally served is invalid. This has resulted in an exorbitant waste of money as speed camera companies hire process servers to serve ticketed drivers, who often avoid service of process, allowing them to avoid paying the ticket. The paperwork costs add up. Other drivers avoid paying tickets by simply returning them with a notation that they were not the driver, resulting in immediate dismissal of the ticket.
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which is also echoed in Arizona's Constitution, gives the accused the right to be confronted by witnesses against him. With speed cameras, the driver is never confronted by a police officer ticketing him. So far, local governments have skirted around constitutional protections by classifying speed camera tickets as civil, not criminal violations. Efforts to challenge the tickets based on constitutional grounds that appear to have a chance at succeeding are simply dismissed in favor of the driver, swept under the rug by local governments before they can be fully adjudicated.
Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin has argued that speed cameras are unconstitutional, because they constitute a tax. Under Arizona's constitution, tax increases require 2/3 vote of the legislature. The vote authorizing speed cameras on state highways passed with only a simple majority.
Opposition is mounting to speed cameras. Vigilantes are destroying speed cameras worldwide and posting stickie notes over them. Texas has banned all speed cameras, even red light cameras, and seven other states have implemented various other laws against them. Red light cameras raise slightly different issues. There is a fundamental difference between speed cameras and red light cameras. Running a red light is a per se violation of the law -- it is always a violation of law. Whereas speeding is a subjective decision that requires the discretion of a police officer.
Arizona has certainly had enough of the "Janet Cams." Websites like StopCameraFraud.com and TheNewspaper.com are spearheading the opposition. A ballot initiative is being drafted that will ban all cameras in Arizona. Republican Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau ran on a platform of eliminating speed cameras last fall and won. Incoming Republican Governor Jan Brewer summed it up well: "It's everywhere from Costco to going to church 'get rid of that photo radar.' Everybody that I've spoken (with), other than two or three people, they don't like it."
Why is it so important or meaningful for some drivers to want to set their own speeds well beyond the posted? If their speed saves them a few or handful of minutes, how critical are those minutes in the overall scheme of a 24 hour day? What do they do with those minutes?
Vote
and complain on forums