Arizona Ticket Cameras

As it would take to vote the politicians out, that thought it was a good idea to install them in the first place.

That is the root cause of the problem in the first place. Politicians looking for the fast buck from the people to redistribute the wealth.

Since you don't live here, they can't serve you. The tickets are mailed out and since they won't send a process server to an address outside the state, you're free and clear. These cameras are for Arizona residents only.

Speed all you want...

At least in front of the cameras. If a cop pulls you over, that's another story.

I just got a speed camera citation in the mail here in Phoenix for almost $200 for a whopping speed of 67mph, right after merging onto a FREEWAY on-ramp!!

Steevo,

You may have left the valley by now but in case not (or if you return) there's good news and bad news.

The fixed freeway cameras offer a large fudge factor (12 mph) so you'd have to be doing 77 in a 65 zone before there's a chance of receiving a ticket.

Now the bad news, the same isn't true for those sneaky little white vans with cameras mounted inside. At least they're required to post signs warning that the van is parked ahead. As long as the driver is paying a minimal amount of attention there's plenty of time to slow down.

Only the most paranoid bother to pay the fine anyway. As another forum member has posted, in Arizona, recieving a citation in the mail isn't considered being legally served so, until someone shows up at the door to formally hand you the paperwork you're not obliged to pay.

Cheers

But if they serve you, you pay additional "fees" on top of the fine, including the "processor fee".

Like parking tickets, there might be a penalty for not paying the ticket the next time you pass through there. Unpaid parking tickets in Chicago gets you a boot. I guess if you never intend to go back through there.....

Last weekend, I noticed several of those white vans, each with a sign posted some distance before it saying "photo enforcement zone".

The exception was the one just past the California border on the eastbound 10. It was the first one in the state.

There was a sign, yeah. But in that particular case the sign didn't seem to be more than a couple hundred feet from the van. It was *much* closer giving *much* less warning than all the other signs I saw.

It was so close on the way back on Sunday I looked at it, and the van and the sign were both there, together.

I bet the law calls for those signs to be a certain distance before the enforcement van, and in that case it was probably not complaint.

Does anyone know how much warning they have to give you?

One sign needs to be approximately 300 feet behind the photo van. The second needs to be "more than 300 feet". That means that one at 300 feet and another at 301 feet is in compliance even if it isn't in the spirit of the regulation.

The law likely says it has to be at least 300'. I haven't seen laws written with the words "approximately" in them too often. Probably not at all.

I feel pretty sure that at that particular site there was only one sign, and it wasn't 300' away.

Is anyone going by the I-10 eastbound by the border, if convenient check it out. Take a picture. Call the highway patrol and have the officer document the distance.

That particular speed trap was quite different from all the others I saw. And there were a lot.

Here is A. R. S. 28-654
Photo enforcement zones; signage; standards; citation dismissal

http://tinyurl.com/ygqaw5d

"1. At least two signs shall be placed in a location before a photo enforcement system. One sign shall be in a location that is approximately three hundred feet before the photo enforcement system. ... "

"Except as provided in subsection F of this section, every local authority or agency of this state using a photo enforcement system shall adopt standards and specifications that indicate to a person operating a motor vehicle that a photo enforcement system is present and operational."

I wonder if that applies to the ones run by the state contractor, Redflex, on behalf of the Arizona Department of Public Safety? Clearly the state wouldn't be included in the definition "local authority or agency". It's a state agency, not a local agency, like a city. Was that section ever intended to apply to this case? Sounds like a badly written law. Wouldn't be the first!

One of those "Gotcha" loopholes. Vague wording that is open to interpretation. Unless you have a photo that "clearly" shows that the sign/s were not "approximately" 300 feet from the van, you will not win a speeding ticket case in court.

We can thank our ex Governor Janet Napolitano ( good riddance ) now in charge of Homeland Security for Obama for all the cameras. Our present Governor is working to try to get rid of them.

It is all about the money that is generated.