Arizona Camera Protest

Thanks! Much appreciated as I will be in Arizona next week for a number of conferences. Then off to Atlanta ...

The link to the article on "Tire Tread Cameras" was interesting as well.

Thanks

I vacation a lot in Arizona and them cameras can be a pain. But this year i am equipped with my nuvi 660 with enforcement camera warnings thanks to this site!
Ohh and if you don't want to get tickets any more check out this site. http://www.phantomplate.com/
Its a spray that works apparently.

I totaly support the red light cameras and the cameras for speeding. Living in Az I see on the news the carnage that is wrought by violators. Why is that those that brake the law complain? BOO HOO

Hi,

I bought this too and it doesn't work. It's a scam. I sprayed the content of the entire can onto my plate (numerous coats) and my camera took the picture just fine. I took pictures at different distance, angle, indoor, outdoor, you name it.

Also, Mythbuster show has tested this out and busted their claim for beating redlight camera, speed camera. Use it at your own risk.

In McKinney TX they are considering removing a red light camera. It is not bringing in the expected revenue or even enough to pay for it. In addition it has not reduced accidents at the intersection.

The problem is that the law is imperfect. It's easier to think about it (and indeed they do teach it in criminology like this) that the law is better seen more as a white and black spectrum, rather then just black or white. If it were as easy as black or white then there would be no problem. But there is a spectrum, for example people have found that yellow lights have been reduced in areas where there are cameras. Meaning if the yellow light had been left alone (same duration as say others) or before the camera was placed there. Then the camera would not have caught those people.

Or for speeding, a car's speed will naturally fluctuate depending on the incline/decline (and traffic around them). So for a cop, they may not pull someone going 5 mph over the speed limit. (car goes on decline or somebody trying to pass someone) But a camera may (depending on if there's a tolerance level it will take).

what's the big deal of speed cams, etc. If you're not doing anything wrong you have no worries. Well here is a perfect example of what is wrong with these cams...it encourages the development of more technology that infringes our privacy and brings us one step closer to National Socialism...come the revolution I am guessing these camera will make convenient target practice

Ted

after all, the Nanny Staters and Safety Weenies cannot watch all of us "bad" people at once...BTW, I am now developing a camera to use at Burger King, McDonalds, etc....Lord help those over 4% body fat who order fries with their grease burgers...my invention will have a laser that vaporizes the offender and saves the rest of us that stay in shape the trouble of having to pay for your heart attacks, clogged arteries and strokes!

Ted

just wear a Nixon mask when you drive and they can't prove anything. Or save gas, ride a motorcycle and wear a tinted full faced helmet and you're good. Just say a friend was riding your bike.

I live in AZ also, and I fully agree with you!

A friend who is a police officer once told me that the *typical* length for a yellow light is 1 second for every 10 mph for the speed limit on that roadway. IOW, if the speed limit is 40 mph, the yellow will typically last 4 seconds, 50 mph, 5 seconds, 45 mph, 4.5 seconds. This was in Florida and it worked like a charm. Now that I'm in Arizona, I've noticed that it works almost every time here too. Can't say that it is a "national standard" but it seems to be from my limited experience...

That being said, just because I know this and I want red light cameras in my GPS doesn't mean I run red lights. I look at this as a safety issue. Hearing and reading on multiple sites (including this one) that some government entities change the timing of the yellow, making it shorter to increase revenues, I believe that these intersections are often LESS safe than those without cameras.

(I also protect myself by not stepping on the gas the instant the light turns green. I pull away slowly after looking both ways to insure there are no red light runners coming at me.)

I second not gunning it when the light turns green. Here in Arizona I was on my motorcycle and for fun gunned it at a green and the camera went off. I never got anything in the mail, but I was halfway expecting them to be able to detect "unnecessary" acceleration with the cameras.

Red light cameras have their place, I agree.

It appears neither of you live where the stationary speed cameras are located. Over 50% of the money collected for the tickets issued went to the company that installs and maintains the cameras. The balance found its way into several pockets, yet the city in which the cameras were installed (Scottsdale) must have not been too fond of the distribution as they have decided NOT to renew the contract and turned it over to the state (which is still deciding what they want to do). Currently, the cameras on Loop 101 are dead ( http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2008/... ).

Or, it could have been the liability of the flash of the cameras into the eyes of drivers (not only the violators) while they were driving at freeway speeds in three lanes of traffic. Living only 3 miles from 2 of the cameras, it is amazing the amount of freeway debris some mornings and lane closures at night at these locations.....hmmm.

It seems to me that spending money on real police officers not only increases the randomness of speed enforcement (which has been proven to be more effective than fixed sites, although it does make speed camera POIs obsolete) and will increase the number of jobs available thus helping the economy.

Conclusion: I am FOR law enforcement. I am AGAINST money making schemes in the name of law enforcement(This includes Photo Radar Vans).

P.S.(More "carnage" is committed by inattentive drivers (read cell phones, etc.) every day than speeders and red-light runners combined. BTW, if you "brake" you are not "breaking" the law.)

I believe tickets from speed and red light cameras are issued to the owner of the vehicle, not the person driving the vehicle. Unless a car has been (reported) stolen, the owner is responsible for it's safe operation. So hiding your face won't get you out of paying the fine.

http://tinyurl.com/5a5wkp

The only reason they are issued to the driver is because that's the only info they have form the license plate. With the cameras, an officer didn't issue the ticket and no one was able to verify the drivers identification. They can't give YOU a ticket for something YOU haven't done. I don't even think that can give you an unsafe operation of vehicle ticket if you were not the one operating it.

If your theory were correct, every driving teenagers parents would be getting tickets along with the teenager....which may not be a bad idea. Places a bit more pressure on the parents to teach their kids responsibility.

Hi,

If your vehicle runs a red light in New York, regardless of who is driving the vehicle, the summons goes to the owner of the vehicle. In the mail, you will receive two photos, the first photo shows your vehicle, the intersection and the red light. The second photo is a closeup/zoom image of your rear license plate.

What's bad about these cameras, people know where these cameras are located and SLAM on their brakes as soon as the light starts to change. In New York we have seen an increase in accidents at these red light camera locations.

So, the placement of these cameras have actually generated accidents at these camera locations.

As far as summonses are concerned, if the owner does not pay the ticket, the vehicle will be confiscated "scoff law".

I'm glad I don't live in NY. So what happens if someone gets a DUI in your car?

Hi,

If the driver is DUI or DWI, the driver is arrested. If the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, the registered owner is contacted and given the location of the impound so he/she can pick up their vehicle.

Mike

Studies of accidents by the US DOT has shown the number of accidents increase at intersections with red light cameras, but the number of accidents with injuries has gone down dramatically. The type of accident which rises are the "following too close" or rear enders and the T-Bone side impact crashes are the ones that decrease.

In all, traffic cameras are a mixed bag for intersection safety - property damage accidents increase, injury accidents decrease.

Hi,

Not according to these studies and I'm sure there are others.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-ca...

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_columns/rob...

As for studies that show a decrease in accidents, many were funded by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group for the insurance industry. Insurers tend to profit from red light cameras, because revenues go up with increased citations and accidents.

Cities profit from them, too. And this explains why they are proliferating throughout the U.S. Is your city risking your life just to kick up a little scratch from traffic violations?

The most recent study revealing the truth about the cameras was done by researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health.

“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health. “Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections.”

Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are associated with increases in crashes.

------------------------------------------------
Here is a quote from the Virginia DOT:
------------------------------------------------
"Virginia DOT Study Shows Cameras Increase Injury Accidents. The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents."

Mike

Has anyone on this forum slammed on the break @ red light camera intersection when light is yellow? I know I have.

Huh? What?
Those that brake the law intentionally deserve what they get, but then are you and me that things just happen to. You also have to understand that the cameras are to make the cities money and they really don't care about the carnage. So before you BooHoo the community that uses these POI's, think about who is going to help you when you need it.

Bob

Somewhere in the fed regs, the minimum yellow times are specified. If you ever contest a red light ticket, one of the things the officer enters into the record is his verification of this minimum. Personal experience.

Adding a couple of seconds to the yellow time reduces accidents even more than the cameras. This has the unfortunate side effect of reducing tickets, and revenue, and points on your license, which also leaves insurance companies unable to charge the higher premiums. It's a racket for increased revenue.

So saith the Michigan AG, whose opinion bans them in Michigan. Traffic offenses here are criminal, not civil, and must be witnessed by an officer. Our legislators show no inclination to make them civil.

So if there are those who are against red light and speeding cameras due to an increase in accidents (OK, maybe the statistics reflect that as noted, but it seems to expose another problem, tailgating, which will get you a ticket faster than speeding in some countries) and not being able to control your own car (look at the speedo once in a while, more gas uphill, less gas downhill... I know, it's hard) what would be another solution? It seems there are many who lack the personal responsibility, or feel they know better how fast they can travel, and are willing to impose their decision upon everyone else on the road, whether those people like it or not. And how many times have you seen someone go 'Yeah, I was driving too fast', or'I was on my cell phone', etc., and take personal responsibility for their actions? So if people can't control themselves, what should be done? I agree about not heading down the path of a socialist state or whatever, but something needs to be done. The death toll on US roads alone is the equivalent of 2 fully loaded 747s crashing each week. How long would we stand for that? Are the cockpit voice recorders and black boxes on planes a step toward that socialist state?

It doesn't matter what restrictions, reprimands, or enforcement strategies are used by the law enforcement. Wherever someone has the right to complain about it, somewhere on some forum someone will.

Maybe not, but in cars they are called "Event Data Recorders" and the data output have been used as evidence against the driver:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder

There are also links from there listing which cars in the US contain them...

Didn't know your car was a spy against you did you?

I'm aware that these are starting to be installed in cars now, and rather than seeing it as something spying against me, I see as being the same as the black boxes in the aircraft, just recording the facts. In an aviation safety course I took, I listened to a bunch of pilots spouting off how money should be no object when it comes to safety in aircraft, but when I wondered about why cars don't have black boxes in them seeing as how many more people are killed in them, and what if their cars were 'grounded' until you spent money to equip it with those black boxes, they thought it was a stupid idea... I guess it's OK to killed in a traffic accident.

It doesn't suprise me that more people are worried about these things spying on them and trying to disable them, than they are about taking personal responsibility for their own driving and actions. Go O.J.!

Huh???? How can you tell who's driving by the liscence plate??

Last I heard there was a lot of legal discussion over who actually "owned" these devices. Is it the vehicle owner, the insurance company, the manufacturer? I guess the argument is who can say yes or no as to whether or not the information on the device can be downloaded or accessed after a crash. If the data can be incriminating and the vehicle owner doesn't want it downloaded, but the insurance company doesn't want to pay and does want it, who wins??

Anyone heard anything about who actually has rights to these devices??

Check out this link to an article about a new lawsuit:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/abg/articles/2008/09/18/20...

The lawsuit contends that the company operating the mobile cameras in and around the Phoenix area was doing so illegally since the radar guns were not certified by the FCC for operation in the US. It m akes some interesting points, but I don't know if it will fly. Any attorneys out there want to give their opinion?

I also read a couple of weeks ago that a driver of one of the mobile camarea vans was arrested for a DUI while he was moving one of the vans to a new location! LOL!

VERY interesting article there. I saved a copy of the vehicles having these recorders. Some of my friends and family need to know they are there. And maybe it will be the little voice of restraint that keeps them from driving recklessly.

Even a GPS can track you back, you know.

That's my point. They can't tell who the actual person driving is. They can see the person who is driving, but they don't officially know who it is. They can only assume it's the person who owns the vehicle.

Your argument is precisely why the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle. Since the driver cannot be verified the next resort is the owner. The owner is responsible for who is driving a vehicle at any given time. It's then the owners decision as to wether or not the cost of the ticket is passed on to whomever was operating the vehicle at the time.

A few months ago I was told the court was dismissing red light tickets because the ticketed registered owner was denying that they were driving the vehicle at the time of the offense. I decided to sit in on a court procedure and almost half of the defendants simply told the judge they were not the driver during the offense. The judge dismissed every ticket in those cases without even challenging the registered owners statement. Conclusion: without officer involvement or a picture of the offending driver the court can not prove the registered owner was driving the vehicle and cannot impose a fine. I firmly believe the defendants in the courtroom that day saw what was happening before their name was called and changed their story to "your Honor, I was not driving the car that day" and walked away without a fine. One defendant even brought his daughter who admitted being the driver. The ticket was dismissed.

I live in Scottsdale, AZ and my short 5 mile commute takes me by two speed cameras and three red light cameras. I have never seen anything to indicate the areas with these countermeasures were any safer than other areas of my commute. In face, my wife was rear ended when a flash from a speed camera blinded a motorist who didn't see my wife before he ran into her. All too often I see traffic moving along at a normal pace (5 or so miles over the limit) only to have a traffic jam around the cameras when people slow down to 10 or 15 mph BELOW the limit to keep from being flashed. In my opinion this makes these areas MORE dangerous and causes traffic delays. What's the point?

I find the moving 'camera vans' to be much more effective. They are mobile and can't be pinpointed day in and day out. It helps keep everyone honest which is the point. I don't want to be driving at 100mph along the highway, but I also don't want to have to weave around people going 15mph below the limit just to avoid the potential for a speeding ticket. Lets just all get along!

ehhh cameras booo

Do they dismiss parking tickets on the same basis?? It is, after all, the same (ticketing the vehicle not the driver).

Why not... haven't seen one park it's self or decide where to park yet, but they get tickets all the time.

Good question! Parking tickets are a different classification, Non moving, and not heard in court. However, if you can prove to the clerk that you were not in legal possession of the vehicle at the time of the infraction the ticket could be withdrawn.

The vehicle owner receives the ticket. On the back of the ticket is a form you can fill out with the information of who was operating the vehicle. You then have to give the information of the driver so they can send them the ticket or face the fine yourself. I got one of these when my wife was driving. Bought us a couple weeks while they issued another ticket for her.

So what happens when that person denies it?

Car owner: "Nope, wasn't me. It was Jim"
Jim: "Wasn't me. It was Bob."
Bob: "Wasn't me. It was Sue."

(A year later) MVA to Owner, "Sorry your registration is suspended / can't be renewed. There's still this outstanding ticket that no one seems to want to pay. Pay it and you can keep your vehicle on the road."

The buck stops with the owner.

I do not know what happens when the person you say was driving denies it. I have never or would ever be in that position as no one other than family would be driving any of my vehicles and they would take their ticket. All I know is that is the process I have had experience with. Whether you like it or not does not change the fact that it is there and it seems to work.

I left out an important point in my original post about photo tickets... I live in Alberta, Canada.

The legal system is a little different up here. One of the differences is the legal position that the owner of a vehicle is responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle (as mentioned in the original post). I have received several speeding tickets over the past 30 years, but only one by photo radar. Unfortunately, I WAS speeding in all of those cases . So the only person at fault was me.

I still travel a lot, but I don't worry too much about speeding anymore... I drive the speed limit.

I can see both sides of the coin but I'm not a supporter of these cameras.
How many accidents have these cameras cause since August? It's just terrible. Not worth the one person (at that specific time) you are going to ticket because he/she just barely run a red light.

Coming from someone that has been in a accident due to the red light enforcement, i can tell you that I'm probably lucky to be alive. I'm dealing with doctors, insurances and all that. I have a problem with my lower spine and neck right now that will probably haunt me down for the rest of my life.

And all this because i stopped at the yellow - red light. And the guy behind me didn't think i would.

45mph hit later, well... nuff said.

You can debate this until the cows come home, but you simply have to wonder why all this has been proliferating while the States & Counties have the worst budget shortfall in a lifetime.

The debate in Maryland has been intense & so has the budget shortfall.

In short, it's an easily used human-centric argument to hide the real truth - budget problems. Remember, politicians are simply professional liars.

One Maryland resident,
Fred

GM started installing these devices in 1999 (10 Years ago). Manufacturers have been reluctant to tell customers exacly which cars have them and they won't be required to tell until 2011 by Federal Law.

Insurance Companies such as Progressive and others have been soliciting customers to allow them to wirelessly monitor the information available on these devices since 2004 by offering discounts to those that allow a sending unit (Called a Trip Sensor)to be connected.

Not only is speed information collected, but also how many miles you travel, the time of day that you travel and where you travel to.

Hey but why worry they won't eventually require you to give permission before issuing you a policy.

I mean that would never happen right!