DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life


trolls

DISGRACE: I-17 Underpass at Bethany Home Rd

Safety be damned.

DPSRedflex continues to show their true colors as they deploy automated ticketing machines (ATMs) in hazardous locations to maximize revenue.

DPS’s newest scam: 1-17 southbound at Bethany Home Road. The cameras are located under the overpass, creating a dangerous situation. During daylight hours drivers face entering the darkness of an overpass only to be confronted with the possibility of a powerful arc-weld flash.

Previous studies, including one performed by ASU Professor Simon Washington and commissioned for the State of Arizona (page 137), directly caution against this type of installation:

Design of [photo zones] should consider the element of surprise to drivers and should aim to minimize it.

For example, the placement of cameras in close proximity to high information load locations (e.g., on- and off-ramps, underpasses, billboards,
weaving sections, directional signs, etc.) should be avoided.

Placement of cameras in sight-restricted locations should be avoided.

gore-van1

Many police officers have been seriously injured or killed due to drivers stopping in gore and transition areas like these.

More troubling is the deployment of the DPSRedflex “tali-vans,” which are responsible for what can only be described as driver terrorism due to their typically close proximity to traffic, blindingly bright strobe lights, and false use of DPS’s badge insignia and vehicle design.

Alert CameraFRAUD readers notified us of this van parked on the Loop 101 northbound, only a few hundred feet in front of the Southern overpass. The van, which was monitoring Loop 101 traffic, was illegally parked in the gore area between the 101 and the US-60 to 101N transition ramp. As seen in the picture, the van is only a few feet away from traffic on both its left and right side.

These hazards are the rule, not the exception: just yesterday, CameraFRAUD volunteers captured a precarious situation where a foolish DPSRedflex van driver almost rolled their vehicle on the embankment of the 1-10 west approaching 43rd Ave.

Pro-camera apologists argue they want safer roadways, but the actions of those in charge of deployment show it’s all about the money. It’s imperative that these revenue generation schemes end within the Grand Canyon State. If you haven’t already, we urge you to get involved with the ballot measure outlawing photo enforcement by joining our Meetup group.

The Cameras are Coming Down.

About these ads

171 Responses to DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life

  1. Doc says:

    Maybe dps is tryin’ to help us out by gettin’ their own reflex flunkees KILLED!!! That’s real nice of ‘em, as long as they don’t kill any of us in th’ process!

    Remember…it’s all about “s a f e t y ! ! !”
    Doc from Prescott

  2. Glyph says:

    If you or I are caught crossing the Gore Point as it’s called, it’s 9 points on our driver’s license.

    Ironically, the penalty is so high because years ago a DPS officer was killed by a driver crossing the Gore Point. Now, Redflex Tali-Vans can park there with impunity.

  3. Brent says:

    These are also (in progress) being installed on SR51 north on Shea, and several other underpasses north of there.

    WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE ANOTHER SERIES OF DEMONSTRATION SOON.

    ORGANIZERS OF GROUP: PLEASE DO NOT LET OUT MOMENTUM FADE…

  4. Jane Fitzsimmons says:

    When is the next event??? Redflex seems to be turning up the heat on their illegal activities as they know they’ll probably get their revenue-spigot turned off later this year… Why haven’t we had another sign-wave recently?!

  5. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    you people rail against where those cameras are placed however you held a protest on an overpass?

    “driver terrorism” ??? is this a joke.. people drive these freeways at close proximity all day long.. much closer than the distance from that camera van and yet i dont see you refer to that as ” driver terrorism”..
    thats called “freeway driving”… the 1-17 is a great example!!!

    reading your posts and articles is better than going to the improv !!!!

    and by all means lets have another rally!!! maybe this time right smack dab in the middle of the “stack”

  6. Glyph says:

    Patience everyone… developments are developing =)

  7. jgunn says:

    What will the camera lovers say when some innocent family runs into the back of one of these brick walls a few feet from 65MPH traffic? Will they find an excuse to say it is still about safety then? Unfortunately I might guess they would find some lame excuse as they always seem to have one no matter how bad the cameras become. They already are excusing taping everyone speeding or not, 24/7 for 120 days. They excuse the cameras ticketing innocent motorists yet again in Scottsdale. I’m not sure what could be much worse than that.

  8. Glyph says:

    I saw that earlier today… You live by statisics, you die by statistics!

  9. geez says:

    Looks like the van is parked in the gravel area BEFORE the gore point, way to twist it to what ya’ll wanted though. Besides, if it’s so dangerous and illegal to park there, how did ya’ll get the picture? Hhhmmmm….

  10. Uncle Slam says:

    It does not require a majority to prevail,
    but rather an irate and tireless minority,
    keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.

    Sam Adams

  11. No One says:

    Dear L.A. Citizen–

    On your question of “you people rail against where those cameras are placed however you held a protest on an overpass?”

    There is a big difference, because nobody at the protest was holding up strobe lights aimed at the passing traffic. And it was during the day, as opposed to at night. I can damn near guarantee you that if the protest happened at night and protesters attempted to replicate the cameras, with a similarly-powered light up on the overpass and began randomly flashing the traffic below, people would be ticketed if not hauled off to jail for public endangerment.

    Instead, the protest was people legally congregated and displaying signs– verymuch different than that which is being opposed.

  12. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    are we talking about the cameras that are off to the right in that top picture? sorry … but a cameras placed off to the right are not “aimed at” passng traffic… now we clarify “aimed”.. of course a camera has to be aimed at something to take a picture.. you all are making it sound like it is meeting them head on….. and blinding them…

    and there is a big difference between a strobe light and the cameras flash

    here is the truth… if you hold a protest anywhere near a street or on an over pass.. then you are no better than what you accuse the camera companies are doing!!! the headline to this article proves it.. of course you cant see it … cause what you are doing is for all citizens… and red flex is part of the evil government!!! the evil empire!!!

    when it goes to polls…you will lose…. bad!!
    uncle slam… sorry bud… in a democracy majority rules at the polls….

  13. I'm Back says:

    Are these drivers really that ignorant? Who would WANT to put their own life in danger to do this kind of work? What a complete joke.

    The next time I see something like what’s shown in that picture, I think a call to OSHA would be in order. However you feel about the cameras, that’s just a sad situation. It actually makes me feel bad for the driver if they let their employer treat them like that.

    I know some of the Redflex and ATS employees who read this blog feel the same way I do. You folks should speak out but I understand why you don’t. Find another company to work for if you can! Your life is not worth a job like this.

    The last time it was just a tire that hit one of the vans on the side of the freeway. Next time it could be a car.

  14. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    this part of the propaganda… the misleading information… in no way was that dps suv in anyway about to roll over!!! not even close!! that is either a ford explorer or a chevy trailblazer… not very high off of the ground…where that suv was positioned on that slope the only way it rolls over is if you have people push it over… iresponsible journalism at is finest!!!

  15. I'm Back says:

    It looks like it was pretty close to going over that embankment. Rollover or not, it would have been pretty ugly.

    You might want to work on your reading comprehension before your next post mate. ;)

    It said, “…CameraFRAUD volunteers captured a precarious situation where a foolish DPSRedflex van driver almost rolled their vehicle on the embankment of the 1-10 west approaching 43rd Ave.”

    I don’t see the word rollover nor do I see the vehicle referred to as a van.

    Make sure to check out the new twitter page at
    http://www.twitter.com/camerafraudaz!

  16. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    in both articles is it referred to as a van .. it is an suv… not a van…. and i certainly do not see the driver of the “van” outside ( nor do i see them inside) as one would think that if you thought you were going to roll you would get the hell out….

    so to clarify it is not a van…. unless of course that is not the picture that goes with the article… i mean that is the 43rd ave. exit… right!!? can we agree on that? it is a pic of a dps suv that i cant even say for sure if it is a camera suv! can you ? and it is off the side of the freeway on the landscape embankment… and there is another unit … and i see the officer in that car… that is all that can be taken from the picture as it is posted…. but someone took a lot of liberties to reak into it more than was there!!!

  17. I'm Back says:

    I don’t know why you’re arguing over semantics here when the real propaganda masters are Redflex, DPS and ATS.

    We don’t make up phony stats and skew poll results. That’s what the other side does.

  18. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    the topic was this picture… i am arguing with what is being written that the picture represents.. you were too until i blew you out of the water…. and i dont know about phony stats or polls… again that is your opinion … the people that reported the findings call it their opinion based on their findings… i dont put any faith in them and when you uncover the “fraud” then i will agree that it is fraud…. however it doesnt change my view… and it is simple ….i dont care why the cameras were erected…. they are doing what i think they should do… slow people down and save lives…. as you can read… i have not pointed toward a poll or stats to try and make my point… it will come to a vote and my other opinion is that you will lose and lose big….

  19. I'm Back says:

    If you had been paying attention to this website all along, you would have seen all the instances of fraud in photo enforcement that have been uncovered. I am not going to look back through all the pages to find it. I’ll leave that up to you.

    That SUV pictured was on an unstable, slanted and gravely surface with its wheels are pointed down towards an embankment. If you want to argue that there’s no chance that thing could have rolled and it did not cause a danger or hazard, then go right ahead. Why was a police car there to assist him? Were they just making nice?

    I still feel that you really have something to lose here, otherwise you would not be making the type of arguments that you are. You’re diverting attention from the real issue and then glossing over your own faulty argument, which is basically, “the cameras are for safety and they’re saving lives.”

    We argue that they are not for safety and are actually increasing erratic driving and accidents in some cases. The facts are out there, but you keep falling back on the same rhetoric. That’s fine, but it’s not effective. Come back with something of substance.

    People who work on this site spend a lot of time gathering materials and putting information out to the concerned citizens of AZ. We have nothing to gain by the cameras coming down other than the preservation of our liberties, and yes, some notoriety in the process. To the victor go the spoils. You complicity is quite aggravating and your conjecture is quite tired.

  20. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen, come clean about your ties to this industry.

    I know a developer for ATS who frequents this site, and is encouraged by his employer to post pro-camera diatribes under multiple names.

    You have every right to voice your (employer’s) opinion, but com clean about your own ties.

  21. I'm Back says:

    I’m pretty sure Law A is one of those multiple posters, but of course, I cannot prove that. He is in “the grocery business.”

  22. No One says:

    I believe the point here is that there are better places to place a camera than on the overpass– and whether you are for or against the cameras I do not see how anyone can disagree with that.

    But, let’s just clarify mr LA Citizen–

    “here is the truth… if you hold a protest anywhere near a street or on an over pass.. then you are no better than what you accuse the camera companies are doing!!!”

    We are ‘accusing’ the camera companies of irresponsible placement of cameras, potentially endangering drivers. So, by your own statement, people picketing peacefully and legally is endangering drivers.

    Think about this- picketing the sidewalk is a common scenario. That’s near the street. Holding a charity carwash is usually accompanied by young women in bikinis waving signs. That’s near the street.

    Would you have these things banned, too, in the name of safety?

    And also, if the protest placement is bad and dangerous, please explain how the placement of the cameras, devices which are specifically designed and built to purposely catch unaware drivers and flash a bright light at them, is any better– Regardless of your Bill-Clinton-esque diatribe on the definition of the word “aim!”

  23. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    lets start with redflexgohome: it will not matter what i respond to you cause there are some that just will not believe it… i have never signed on here with another name nor do i work for redlex or any other company that has anything to do with these cameras… my living is not derived from anything to do with the cameras… i work graveyards for a grocery store… thats it!!

    imback- all your claims about fraud are just that.. claims and they are not proven and until they are.. i am not buying into it… as for the pic… i dont see any assisting going on.. where are you getting that.. if they were assisting…. then they forgot to assist.. since being from the payson area growing up i am very familiar with off roading… and that suv is not even close to rolling… not a chance..
    THERE ARE NO FACTS OUT… just like the pic… you are passing it off as being something that it is not.. and call it fact…. thats why i am here.. i only tell you my position over and over again so that you will remember it… you seem to lose sight of it… now i will stay so that i can challenge things such as the inacurate description of what was going on in that pic… besides how much fun would it be if all you guys did was agree with each other..

    no one says- no i would not ban them… but i would tell the protesters that they are legally responsible if their protest causes an accident becasue the drivers attention was distracted due to the protest.. and there is a big difference as i explained between a stationary object .. it is not holding a sign or moving about…. and if that flash causes you to lose control … then you dont need to be driving…. what does it take to flash… less than a second? come on!!! get a better argument….
    the word aim is important as it defines where the placement is… i noticed that none of you disagrees as to where those cameras are placed by the overpass… it appears that one is not even under the road but just outside of it… maybe cause that camera catches the drivers picture and therefor not flashing the face while the other camera catches the palte.. i dont know i am just speculating!!!

    just curious.. did any of you get waved to slow down and then fillped off on the “60” at about 12:45 around the 101 north entrance today? that was me!!!

  24. geez says:

    Law,
    You will see a ton of speculation and pulled out of the blue ‘facts’ on here, but everytime you ask for proof you will get ignored, believe me. I’ve asked many times, and nothing.

  25. PhotoRadarScam says:

    If you want the protestors to be held liable for accidents supposedly caused by the protest (which I have yet to see any), then you would have to agree that Redflex should be responsible for any accident caused by the cameras.

    I can personally tell you that I am distracted by them. Not by the flash, but by their mere presence. I used to focus on driving, the traffic around me, etc. Now my anxiety level is much higher, I am MUCH more concerned with watching the speedometer every second, what the posted speed limit is (praying I don’t miss a sign), where the cameras are, and hiding my face as I go by them. I am a much more dangerous driver now, and statistically I am probably much more likely to get cause or be involved in an accident because I am no longer focused on defensive driving. I have a clearn record and haven’t had an accident since I was a teenager.

    Incidentally, last week I passed by a rollover accident less than 1/2 mile past a speed camera. Got a nice photo of it. So much for making the roads safer.

  26. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    thats your guilty conscience…. tell me just where do you have to go in such a hurry? does 75 compared to 65 make that much of a difference to you? why dont you just slow down and take a few years off your life from the stress!!! i dont know what to tell you… other than you can end the worry by just obeying the posted speed limit…. i passed 3 of the speed vans today coming back from gold canyon…. i didnt have to worry one bit and never had to take my eyes off of the road cause i was doing 65 the entire way!!

    wrecks happen all over the freeways…. by the cameras and away from them… please dont try to equate an accident by the camera as the cameras being the cause… i can just as easily say that a wreck away from a camera was the cause of some jerk speeding!!!
    i stick to the theory that a stationary object can not cause an accident…. you can twist it all you want …. it doesnt work for me!!!

    i just read your post to my wife, the second paragraph… she is laughing he ass off right now!!! you may want to try the improv on monday nights… it is amatuer night!!

  27. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    can anyone answer this for me…. does the administrator of this site live in arizona? now i already know your next question and i am one step ahead of you…. i understand that red flex is from australia? is that correct? i myself would perfer to see american companies running it and even better yet an arizona based corp… but govt bids are not set up that way!!!

    i just hope that the person in charge here is not running it from another city in another state.. and really is just looking for numbers for his\her movement!!! i hope you are all not just tools!!

  28. Ross from Redflex says:

    They are tools!!!!

    TOOLS!!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  29. camerafraud says:

    Law A: CF started in Arizona and most everyone involved, including the Meetup members, live here.

    Just a note: You’re welcome to show up to our next demonstration with counter-protest signs. (Hell, show up to the sign making party and we’ll help you make them!)

    I also think you would agree that the ballot measure we’re supporting is a great idea: People can then vote yes or no to photo enforcement. As it stands now the people never got a vote.

  30. Glyph says:

    I don’t work in grocery, I didn’t grow up in Payson, so I guess I’m not an expert on any subject. But I took the photo, and I know what I saw…

    The vehicle is a Ford Escape, the bottom rung of Ford’s SUV line. The vehicle is clearly occupied as seen here. Finally, one can see that the vehicle is between the proverbial “rock and a hard place” here. Clearly, the Redflex vehicle’s left front tire is about a foot away from the ledge. The left rear tire is up against a concrete enclosure of some kind, probably for a water valve.

    Should anyone contest the position of the tires, I’ll post clearer pictures of those as well.

  31. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i am all for the ballot and have mentioned that i feel that is where this is headed…. i dont think many politicians are going to touch this hot potatoe!!! and when it does i think that the anti cameras are going to have problems deciding on what the platform will be…. between this site and azcentral there seems to be 3 factions within your group
    1. people who just flat out want to speed and the cameras are stopping them
    2. the ones that think this is big brother , i call these people the conspiracy freaks
    3. then there are those that feel that it is not about safety but about $$$

    not many people admit to flat out breaking the law… but the other 2 are split pretty even…

    the pro camera group seems to be united…we want speeds reduced and this is the best way!!! very simple!!

    then the financing… the pro group will be funded by the camera companies…. amoung others… you know they have unlimited funds…

    who will fund the anti group.. i think that is major concern for anti group… with out money how are you going to advertise the message? demonstartions are a good start!!! but will lack mass appeal that a tv ad can generate….

    finally the voters… what age group will be anti? you will not have the voters that turn out in the biggest numbers- the elderly.. 55 plus group… you know they are gonna turn it down 7 out of 10 ..maybe more.. the anti will have the 18-35 group.. but their voting record is dismal…. you may match the same amount as the elderly 7-8 out of ten but their numbers will be way less at the polls.. that leaves the 35-55 crowd…. you will have the men… but not the women…. and who is more likely to vote .. a man who works or a stay at home mom? i really believe that at the polls it will be crushed!!!! the mutiny will be quashed the uprising will be turned back!!!

    i am glad to see that it is arizona grown…. applause for that!! and i just may take you up on turning out!!! i will make sure that somewhere on my sign Law A. Biding citizen is on there!!! so you know who i am…. but .. after the gig .. i suggest we all go have a few beers together!!! seriously!!!

  32. Glyph says:

    I don’t work in grocery, I didn’t grow up in Payson, so I’m no expert in anything. But I did take the pictures, and I know what I saw.

    The Redflex vehicle in the picture is occupied, as evidenced by person sitting in the driver’s seat. Further, in this picture, The Redflex vehicle’s left front tire is about a foot from the ledge. The vehicle’s left rear tire is up against some type of concrete enclosure, probably for some type of water valve.

    Once someone disputes the location of the tires, I’ll post better pictures of those as well.

  33. Ross from Redflex says:

    The problem is that the state legislature and now a high profile Judge are against us.

    Don’t worry though, we are “working” with them to try to “smooth things over.” Amen about the money, we’ve got plenty of that, thanks to Janet.

    You Camerafraudsters are finished. Law Abinging and I are going to dance all over your pithy ballot initiative. I’ve heard you’re going to get 225k signatures. Exactly how many people vote in this state anyway? I’m sure not everyone who signs the petition is against Photo Radar, right????

  34. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    the only view i had was from the one at the article i did not know i could click the picture and have it enlarged…now with that said…. do you seen panic in the face of teh guy in the suv? i dont!! do you see any sense of urgency from the officer in teh cruiser? i dont!!! i see an suv and i have no idea why he is there and i see a cruiser and i have no idea why he is there… i could offer a few suggestions and thats all it would be… next time please .. be late for work… you can make up the time by speeding.. and ask those involved just what is going on…but again… i do not see that vehicle in any danger of rolling over or rolling into traffic through that concrete barrier…. and the concrete “thing ” behind the left rear tire has nothing to do with the picture… he has clearly past it !!!!

  35. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    ross- i wouldnt say the legislature is anti cameras… i think that many of those politicians do not want to commit either way…. i can only name 2 that have thrown support either way… i am sure there are more…. and i am not sure that i will dance… i may sway a little… and do a little break dancing… nothing too strenuous!!!! but i do think they will raise enough signatures and i am sure that not even 1/3 rd of those will make it too the polls!!

    if there is corruption i have to have faith that it will be uncovered…. and if the entire goal was to generate revenue for the state i am fine with that as long as people slow down and that is not corruption!!! its not like they asked us anyway!!! right?

  36. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    glyph.. i went back and looked .. until you made it available to close in on the suv.. it was not available.. or not so i could do it!!! thanks for making the close up available!!

  37. Glyph says:

    Does this help?

    …and NO, I won’t make myself late to work for something like this. If I worked in grocery maybe, but not in MY line of work.

  38. camerafraud says:

    The Escape “SUV” is on Ford’s “CD2″ platform, shared with the Mazda 626. They are not rugged and are not designed for steep, gravel inclines.

    There’s no question that if the vehicle slipped out of gear and went over that concrete barrier, the vehicle would become unstable and create an even more dangerous situation (to at least the driver or passing vehicles).

    Don’t forget the flying spare tire incident.

  39. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    geez guys… we can argue this all day and get knowhere… the fact is there is no… zero panic expressed from the driver of either vehicle… is it really that hard to admit? i mean really!!!???? dont you think that the guy in the suv if he thought he was in any danger would get the hell out of the vehicle? again if the suv was further up the incline there may be an issue…. no matter what the design.. that suv’s profile is not much higher than that of a car…. the only variable would be if it was lifted and it clearly is not!! and since it is not upside down i can only assume it did not roll!!!

    yes i know glyph… your job.. whatever it is …. blows mine away!!!! what can i say… i bow down to you!!! i dont even know why you respond to the likes of me!!! i am honored….

  40. Glyph says:

    Nobody said there was a state of panic, the driver simply got himself into a position he couldn’t get himself out of. But between the Redflex vehicle on the embankment and the DPS vehicle on the side of the road, they backed up as much traffic as any CameraFRAUD protest ever has. And I never said my job is better than yours… YOU said “next time please .. be late for work… you can make up the time by speeding…”
    I don’t speed, I don’t run red lights. But I DO love my civil liberties, that’s why my camera does battle with theirs. Oh, and my g/f works in grocery. I listen to her describe her job and it sounds very competitive, even more so in this economy. She puts in lots of hours, has to motivate employees in several different departments, keeps a close eye on things like overtime and shrink, and answers to people who haven’t worked in a store for years. She can however, show up a little late once in a while…
    I’m not dissing your job.

  41. Redflex Corporate says:

    There is nothing to see here, there is no van, this is only a dream! Our stock isn’t plummeting! La-la-la-la!

  42. Scott says:

    Law and Redflex….Jesus is watching you guys and taking notes.

  43. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LA, If you drove back from Gold Canyon going 65 the whole way you most assuredly sped through the 55mph zones. While I attempt to drive the speed limit, the state tries to make everything as difficult as possible by changing the speed limit every few miles. Is it 55 or 65? Make up your mind. Like I said, I have to pray that I don’t somehow miss a speed limit change.

    And yes, going 65 instead of 55 makes a big diffence. It cuts roughly 10 minutes off of a 60 mile drive. Over a week it’s almost an hour. Maybe you want to spend an extra hour in your car every week, but I don’t.

    If you want to see a stationary camera cause an accident, watch this video:

    And if that’s not enough, I now have to worry about camera van speed traps. Tonight I entered the loop 101 northbound at Cactus, and between where I entered the Loop 101 and the camera van, there was not one speed limit sign. I have it on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qr__j5fHzs

    If it really is all about safety, wouldn’t it be MORE SAFE to simply have a speed limit sign at every on ramp to let drivers know how fast to go? How can it be fair to cite drivers for driving above the posted limit when the limit isn’t posted? Don’t you think you can generate more tickets if you “forget” to post the speed limit?

  44. Uncle Slam says:

    My God, how I tried to read all the valuable bits of wisdom posted by Law A. Biding Citizen, but I’m sorry – I can’t. It just huffs and puffs and I can’t take it.

    Ultimately though, I’d like to boil it down to one response he had to a post of mine. I succinctly (please look up that word, L.A.Biding) posted a quote from Sam Adams, one of America’s forefathers:

    “It does not require a majority to prevail,
    but rather an irate and tireless minority,
    keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

    …. to which his response was to call me “bud” and say “democracy wins at the polls”.

    Well, my friend, if you belive this is so, then I guess you will have no opposition to signing the citizens initiative I’m circulating. Put it to a vote. And please stop crying.

    Uncle Slam

  45. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    glyph- she works at frys…. right? ok i am done with the suv is rolling… its going knowhere….

    scott- he died a long time ago… so i dont know how he could be watching…..

    scam man- going home from gold canyon… as i left it was 55…. dont remember it drop below 55 after that… you really serious about the cactus road incident? film it in the daylight…. i couldnt see a sign even if it was there from your video.. and the other video…. if people dont speed like assholes then stuff like that will not happen…. and just so we can compare apples to apples… that car was doing well over 100 mph…. there is a difference between their speeds in europe and ours…

    slam man- you want me to sign.. no problem… if it helps gwt it on the ballot… i am all for that… tell me where you will be setting up shop… and thats a great line by adams….. and i am sure it will inspire the few when taking on the masses…. but what i said was fact… majority rules at the polls… please try and convince me that i am wrong… i want to see how you spin this ..

  46. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LA, in your above post you claimed you were going “65 the whole way.” Now you’re saying it was 55mph, which means you were speeding. Not so law abiding now are we? Nothing worse than a hypocrit.

    You can drive the Cactus road stretch any time you want – there’s no sign. And if I bet you the camera van isn’t there today, so filming it in the day isn’t going to work. Now you’ll notice in the video all of the signs show and glow quite nicely. There are no large rectangular white signs. If you think I’m lying about this then you’ve got other problems.

    And for the cameras causing accidents, you have some amazing perception skills to be able to identify the speed of the drivers in the video as well as the posted limit. Not sure why or how you had such a problem with my video with the great video analysis you performed on the crash video. How do you know they were speeding? It isn’t just people exceeding the posted speed limit who slam on their brakes when they see a camera. Everyday I see people driving the speed limit slam on their brakes and slow down BELOW the speed limit when they see cameras. It is a natural reaction.

    Got any other excuses, hypocrit?

  47. Scott says:

    Guys, just try to understand LA….He is confined and needs to ventilate. It is so sad.

  48. guttersn1pe says:

    Regardless whether the SUV pictured was in danger – my perception is it’s an incredibly stupid place to park your speed van. How many miles of highway are in AZ??? This was the best place he or she could find to park? It definitely calls their judgment into question.

    As to stretches of road where there are no speed limit signs and speed vans parked along there – drive a little more. It happens all the time. I get on EB 101 at Tatum Blvd and they regularly park a speed van along the exit ramp to 56th street. I get to the speed van before I get to a speed limit sign. This is nothing new for Redflex.

  49. geez says:

    Pretty Ironic how ya’ll go out and take video of drivers, trying to make fools of them and bash them for what they do… Then suddenly your all concerned for their safety and well-being.
    We know, next week you’ll twist it back around to fit your arguments.

  50. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scam man- as you leave gold canyon,,it is 55 and since my cae does not accelerate right to 65 u the time i got out of the 55 zone i was probably near 55-60…..is this really an issue? the point i was making was i didnt have to worry about slowing down when i saw the camera cause i was not speeding.. you know you guys might be more credible if you didnt always twist things…

    as for the speed signs not posted before the van.. on our freeways its always 55 or 65 unless in a construction zone…. so you have nothing to worry about …. it only snaps the photo at 11 miles over… stay at 65 if you are not sure and you will be safe!!! now wasnt that easy? problem solved and no spin!!!!

    gutter- please refer to the above paragraph…. follow that and you are home free with no worries!!!

    boys i would love to play with you all day but i have a super bowl party to attend…. i would imagine though i am surrounded by the anti stadium crowd… and to that i say…. the people spoke!!! hey!!! and the majority won at the polls… funny how that works!!!spin that one uncle slam!!!!

  51. RedFlexGoHome says:

    The bottom line for me is this: ATS and Redflex can program their cameras to snap your photo and stamp any speed they want on it. Nobody can check the validity of the citation, as there was not a live officer to verify the speed.

    Any developer could write software to issue fraudulent tickets using these cameras. There is no guarantee of honesty from a company which makes money on every ticket paid.

    We need more police, not more revenue for ATS and Redflex.

  52. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LA, if you’re going to come on here and claim that you are “law abiding” and then admit to breaking the law – because any pro-camera person will tell you that 1mph over the posted limit is inexcusible, illegal, and inherently unsafe – you are a hypocrite. I didn’t have to twist any words – anyone can go back and read your posts.

    And yes, I agree that there are many places where they place camera vans before a recent roadway entrant would see a speed limit sign – I have seen it before as well. This practice must stop. I would ask any judge how they can legally enforce a posted speed limit if the limit isn’t posted! Whether or not there is a 11mph enforcement buffer is irrelevant. I’ve seen areas in construction zones (and the video clearly shows construction barricades) where the speed limit is lower than 55 so it’s anyone’s guess what the limit is at any given stretch. If an officer pulled you over for doing 65 in such area and he could verify that there was no posted limit and beause your speed is reasonable and prudent, my guess is you wouldn’t get a ticket – and that’s how it should be. There’s no substitute for judgement when things aren’t so black and white.

    Cops, Not Cameras.

  53. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    hey can we all agree that was a great game?

    ok moving on

    go home- well the only thing that i think to be done is have the cameras technology monitored…. by an outside agency… i understand what you are saying…. but there is no evidence that is happening .. i am sure there is a way to verify the “setting” on the cameras…

    let me help you on the other issue…. when you see construction… just go to 45 right away… you will cover all bases that way… then when you see the limit posted… you can then adjust!!! and keep it at 65 everywhere you go and you will be safe…outside of construction zones that is…
    there.. issue resolved… see how easy that was?

    scam man- are you done now? you are making a fool of yourself.. i am embarassed for you…. once more.. when my car can do 0 to 65 in less than a second … then you got me… otherwise… you are just trying to make an issue out of a non issue!!!!

  54. guttersn1pe says:

    Speed limits are a recommendation based on many factors. As I’ve stated before, going the speed limit in a snow storm will most likely result in a citation by a real officer. And arguing that you were going “the limit” won’t help. It’s defined as speed reasonable and prudent for conditions.

    That also means that on a clear, sunny day with little traffic, it’s probably reasonable and prudent to go 75 or 80. It’s something a camera can’t judge.

  55. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    the problem for me with your comment is… i dont feel that half of all drivers are objective enough to make that judgement…. and how about this scenario.. person speeding ( 75-80) down the 51 at 6am on a sunday morning… sunny outside.. and no traffic to speak of…. officer on the side of the road thinks as you wrote… no worries… 5 minutes later an accident is reported… either single car or multiple … officer see’s its the car that he just let speed on by without stopping !!! what then?

  56. Sick of Government says:

    Speed isn’t the factor is most accidents.

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp

    Maybe the “person” had a heart attack, fell asleep, was busy with their significant other, etc.. So, regardless of speed the accident would have still occurred.

  57. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    whatever…. hell maybe a space ship came down and fired a laser that froze the instruments and seized the engine!!! you guys will prostitute yourselves before you admit that speeding causes accidents!!!

  58. Sick of Government says:

    Did you notice WHO wrote the report? It wasn’t me or any other poster here, it was the US Department of Transportation. See the tag line here??

    “US Department of Transportation study finds only five percent of crashes caused by excessive speed.”

  59. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    I never mentioned construction in my post, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    The burden of proof for honesty falls on ATS and Redflex. The software developer I know from ATS openly admits that his firm operates outside the law.

    “It’s not constitutional, but it’s good for the my company and my paycheck.”

    In essence, whether or not one is “law abiding” is a moot point when a private, for-profit firm acts as judge and jury with no oversight.

    One of the legal protections we enjoy as Americans is the right to confront our accusers in a court of law. This system denies that right, as it is impossible to get a copy of the firmware which governs the devices which issues the citation.

    If a police officer issues a citation, I can confront and cross-examine.

    All other concerns aside, these cameras erode our rights. If you were, as you claim, simply striking a blow for safety, you’d be demanding more police officers on the job, not more cameras to replace them.

    As it stands, you are a transparent shill for Redflex/ATS, spouting their talking points note-for-note.

  60. Mark S says:

    Just want to warn of another scam that Redflex is starting to do on the freeways out of town. Saturday night, when I was headed to Black Canyon City, Redflex had a scamera placed right after Moores Gulch. A half-mile down the freeway, they had another scamera. The thing that caught my attention was the signage for warning of the scameras. There was a sign a half mile before the the first one and then 300 ft before the first one. There was no sign a half mile before the second one, but there was a sign 300 ft before the second one. The only thing I can think of is the second sign for the first one was the first sign for the second one. Seems like a great way that they abide by the law to scam people. I think Redflex is getting scared of the pending legislation and is trying to maximize it income before any of the legislation passes.

  61. Joe says:

    TIME TO STEP THINGS UP.

    Since JoP Keegan is now dismissing all photo radar tickets in his jurisdiction (west side alongt he loop 101), we should encourage everyone to “interact often” with the cameras on the 101 between 75th Avenue and Interstate 10. The more “interaction” they get from us, the more soon-to-be-dismissed citations that Redflex will have to process and be denied compensation for.

  62. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    go home- name your source .. otherwise dont write it.. otherwise it is he said he said!! no proof at all!!! your accuser IS the camera… i know it is hard for you to understand… and you probably never will but when the will of the people is expressed at the polls…you can take it up with them!!
    and unlike you .. i realize there will never be enough officers … never…

    mark s- if i had my way there would be no warnings!!! in fact i would use only the vans and off set the extra overhead for vans and employees by raising the ticket price to match those given out by an officer..

  63. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    joe- you do that!!!! go rack up those tickets!!!

  64. guttersn1pe says:

    LAC – in your scenario – the person speeding 75-80 down the 51 who crashes (even if speed was the sole cause) still crashes with the cameras. He/she just gets a ticket 30 days later in the mail.

    With hundreds of thousands of “flashes” – clearly these do not stop people from speeding. They also don’t stop reckless drivers, distracted drivers, drunk drivers, etc. I’m far more concerned about someone driving drunk than someone driving 75 mph on the freeway.

  65. geez says:

    Gutter
    I can’t afford 181$ plus fees evertime I feel like going out and speeding. If you can, more power to ya.

  66. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i think you are incorrect…. i do indeed think that people are slowing down…. go to azcentral and read the posts on this issue… they admit to slowing down!!! and the leadfoots dont like it….

    your right they dont stop all that other terrible behavior… but that stuff is subjective and can only be measured by a human… hey if they had a camera that could detect DD’s …. they would be up already!!

    that scenario was if the cameras are not up… its about what can happen if we let drivers decide what is a prudent speed!!! and then allow them to do it in front of an officer!!!

  67. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen:

    Name my source? Right…so you can fire him. How about naming yourself first?

    Your argument is paper-thin. The cameras eat up public money better spent on police officers.

    A non-human device cannot be an accuser in a court of law, as they do not have rights, and cannot be cross-examined.

    You fail to address either of these arguments directly…because your legal department has not issued you new talking points to do so.

  68. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    you guys really need to get off of the “i work for the camera guys” … really it is getting old…
    my point was dont throw out bull crap that can not be backed up… if you cant name him then shut up about what you say he said!!!

    how do the cameras eat up public money? are you kidding… they are costing the state nothing… the camera companies pay for the install and maintain them… all they do is create revenue!!!

    well if the camera not being the accuser is not going to hold up in court… we will know soon enough… can you sat supreme court!!!! they may get around to it in 10 years or so!!!

  69. Joe says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen:

    With the only judge hearing such cases in the west valley dismissing all tickets as unconstitutional, there is literally nothing to lose other than precious processing time and perhaps some distorted statistics.

  70. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    glad you are willing to take the chance…. dont know if he can be instructed not to throw them out… if he could … well i would hate to have 10 tickets and no judge to derail them!!!! ouch!!!

  71. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    So, who pays for the court costs and the process servers? Redflex? ATS?

    NO. Public money does.

    FAIL

  72. Joe says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen wrote:
    “your accuser IS the camera”

    Then have the camera get sworn, file a case, and have the camera show up to testify and press the case. But I have not yet read about any cameras showing up to court. You see, they are inanimate objects.

  73. Joe says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen Says:
    “dont know if he can be instructed not to throw them out… if he could … well i would hate to have 10 tickets and no judge to derail them!!!! ouch!!!”

    He has full discretion to throw them out. Both the county and state attorney’s offices have stated that they have no plans to seek opposition. I’m not even sure that they have the right to do that anyway, as to improve efficiency at this level of court, appeals (both sides) are quite limited by design. We generally can’t appeal, but neither can they.

  74. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    they are represented by the photo they produced .. it does not have to say a word… a picture speaks volumes!!!!

  75. Joe says:

    “they are represented by the photo they produced .. it does not have to say a word… a picture speaks volumes!!!!”

    Who is the “they”? THEY did not operate the camera, and THEY can not testify as to its accuracy, calibration, etc. THEY can not be cross examined. THEY can not be questioned about vendor credibility. THEY know nothing of your case other than a report downloaded off of a server.

  76. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen wrote:
    “your accuser IS the camera”

    Again, your argument hinges on a theory that is ignorant of how these cameras work.

    There is machine code held in firmware which is executed by the processor that controls the system. This code could be written to stamp any speed Redflex/ATS wants it to, depending on the revenue needs of the company at that time.

    Unless each citation comes with a complete dump of the machine’s memory at the very second the photo is taken, there is no guarantee the speed indicated by the citation is valid.

  77. Joe says:

    And there is no possible way to impeach the firmware. A fundamental part of this is the lack of human interaction. At least with cop-radar, we get a cop testifying that he read a screen that indicated the speed of the accused.

  78. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    go home- is everything a conspiracy with you? i feel bad for you that there is nobody you trust!!! what a crappy way to go through life…. always wondering who is out to get you!! sad ..very sad…

    cute joe… the camera is the accuser.. the photo is the evidence… with a picture and a picture of the license plate …. there really is nothing to question the camera about… this other crap about redflex and the other setting it to whatever they want is all just accusations…. and unfounded!!!

  79. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LAC, you are a piece of work.

    If I ever get a photo ticket, I would like to confront the following:
    1. The person responsible for maintaining and operating the equipment.
    2. The person responsible for collecting the data from the machine.
    3. The person responsible for processing and altering the photo (crop, etc).
    4. Anyone else who handled the machines or the evidence.

    Anyone of those people can alter the evidence as they see fit – or as their manager directs them to in order to improve their profitibility. The least I’m entitled to is to ensure that the evidence was not tampered with.

    And as far as your advice to just go 45 right away when entering a construction zone – that could be illegal as well. Reasonable and prudent applies to driving slow as well, and if a cop sees you driving 10 or more under late at night on a highway, chances are you’re going to get pulled over.

    And as far as the cameras being free, the legislature is proposing to appropriate over $4M for the courts for processing photo citations for FY 2009. Free is awfully expensive. That doesn’t even address how much the photo enforcement unit of DPS costs to operate. Want to guess how many millions that costs?

  80. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    geez- all that for something when you know you broke the law!!! you are a joke…. take responsibility for your own actions….

    of course there will be administration costs…. hopefully fines will be raised to compensate for all this spending… i will include that when i wirte the letters to the politicians … i will mention that the guys at this site think the fines are not enough to cover the costs!!!

  81. Scott says:

    LAC: With loving tenderness, I suggest you increase your daily dosage of Lexapro to 20 mgm before you have a complete break down…

  82. Ross from Redflex says:

    I’m getting a lot of new followers every day on the Camera Fraud Twitter page. Everyone pass the word on.
    http://www.twitter.com/CameraFraudAz

  83. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LAC, How would I know if I was guilty of speeding two months ago? I can’t remember any of my daily commute drives from last week let alone last month. If they are going to wait a couple of months to serve me to let me know I did something wrong, you’re damn right I’m going to question it.

    How do I know their flunky equipment operator did everything right? How do I know they didn’t alter the image to bring in more revenue? Once I get those answers I can change my plea, but I’m not going to admit to speeding when I a) don’t remember doing it and b) when a for-profit company with a financial stake in my “guilt” is telling me I did something wrong.

    I’m glad there’s still gullible people like you in the world who don’t question anything. By the way, I represent a long lost relative of yours who left you $2M. I just need you to send me $5000 so I can get you your check.

  84. No One says:

    LA Citizen– I have to hand it to you. Really.

    The issue here is the placement of the cameras, and the obvious question of “is this the best and safest placement of a camera?”

    In your posts, on this thread, you have systematically danced around all sorts of other issues, without ever addressing the original issue. You have also been able to sucker a number of people, myself included, into dancing with you.

    Not many people (especially in the pro-camera camp) can do that without being transparently obvious they are avoiding the relevant question at hand.

    My hat is truly off to you, I am impressed.

  85. Glyph says:

    “The picture speaks volumes…”

    Funny, MY picture didn’t speak volumes. I had to defend it, show other pictures, zoomed in, and at different angles.

    Y’know Law, I tried.

    I tried seeing it your way, tried giving you an out, tried putting myself in your shoes, but NOTHING has appeased you. NOW I believe you work for a camera company, where previously I had given you the benefit of the doubt. The standards you have for yourself aren’t nearly as high as the standards you have for us here on CameraFRAUD. Please… start your own website and spew your rhetoric there. This forum is for like-minded individuals and sensible debate.

  86. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen Says:

    go home- is everything a conspiracy with you?

    No, it’s a simple matter of reality. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Have you been under a rock for the last decade? Greedy corporations have acted without oversight to bankrupt whole towns, kill innocent citizens and defraud retirees. Is it so difficult to imagine that these same morally bankrupt corporations, allowed to operate with impunity, would “bend” the rules for a little more profit?

    You’re either a shill for the industry or incredibly (willfully) naive.

  87. geez says:

    I’m all for the camera’s, even I say LAC needs to go…..

  88. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen:

    I’ve re-read some of your posts, and it’s pretty transparent what’s going on here.

    I understand Glyph’s disgust, but I must respectfully disagree…sort of. I believe in free speech. I support your right to post here. However, if you want any measure of respect, you should come to us in the spirit of honest debate, not as some lame, transparent astroturfing effort.

    Address arguments directly, in a point-by-point rebuttal based on logic. Identify your employer and your title. You’ve squandered a chance to build a bridge with the public, and maybe even win over a few naysayers.

    You failure.

  89. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    wow!!! i am speechless.. first let me address the moron that is writing things with my screen name… that is to say the least very childish….

    you are correct , absolute power does corrupt…. the example that you list. what has been done about those situations? nothing!!! take a look at the bank execs getting bailed out by us…. they gave themselves millions of dollars in bonus… and our government is so outraged…. they have done nothing…. if i was president.. i commission the fbi , round these theives up and charge them with fraud… i mean how can you get a bonus… when your institution failed!!! now, what the hell do you guys think that i can do about it here in gilbert? not a thing!!! hell i sent andy biggs an email 12 days ago… have not heard a word… what a joke… he is suppose to represent me.. he cant even defend himself on an email.. it may require 5 minutes of his time….
    my point is … you folks can rally all you want about this issue.. and you just might get somewhere.. maybe…. atleast you founded a group and are trying…kudos to you….
    but let me make this clear…. every single time you distort the truth or twist things…. dont deny it .. you knwo you do it… you take away from what you are really trying to accomplish…

    and the same goes with the accusations of who i work for… i guess you would not be throwing mud if i wasnt peircing the armour with good points…

    how can i make point by point rebuttals when you guys twist things and throw out numbers that you can not back… have you seen me throw out stats? no cause i dont know if they are facts….

    on top of that… it doesnt matter what the state does or what someone says…. you guys have to make a conspiracy out of everything…. EVERYTHING!!!
    it really is like arguing with a child sometimes…

    i am here for 1 reason…. to make sure that i challenge the distorted facts you throw out…

    thanks for the invitation to leave…. i think i will pass…

    glyph.. your picture did speak volumes .. right after you sent more images !!! what you tried to imply with the first photo … just did not jive….well it was ok with all of you until i challenged it… then you had to send more photos even though it did not help your argument….

    by the way… i love it when you guys call me names …. it shows frustration on your part!!! kind of like driving in the fast lane and doing the speed limit… i enjoy slowing em down!!!

  90. I'm Back says:

    http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1037385

    Bi-partisan support growing for the bill to ban photo radar from AZ highways.

  91. Kenny S> says:

    The best fix for the tali-vans is a gooloud horn right when you’re next to the drivers window.
    That will make ‘em jump!

  92. Malfeasant says:

    lac, still avoiding the main points of camera placement, let’s get back to that- your interpretation of placement seems to only include where the box is placed- placement also includes which direction said box is facing. Bright light is aimed at driver, that’s the whole point, to get a clear picture of the driver. True the flash itself lasts only a fraction of a second, but the effect of a flash in your face at night lasts several seconds, during which a lot can happen- yes i speak from experience, no i am not a chronic speeder, this was once about a year ago, going 1mph over the trigger speed- or so the “ticket” said, my speedometer tends to read a little high (meaning i’m going slower than it says, if the logic is too hard to follow, and i generally keep my speed around 5 over, maybe grazing 10 when it’s late at night and there’s nobody around)… anywho, it was damn near blinding, and quite surprising, and therefore distracting. Had it been a real cop that pulled me over, possibly making my wife and I late for work, it would have left more of a lasting impression even if he/she only gave me a warning. As it turned out, this “ticket” had no teeth- I felt no obligation to pay it, and didn’t. It was a year ago, and in the meantime I have been able to renew my reg with no trouble. so therein lies my biggest problem with cameras- no i don’t like being pulled over, but my responsible side says it’s more effective in the long run.

    i want to point out one comment you made in particular- “have you seen me throw out stats? no cause i dont know if they are facts”
    in one of your posts, you claim the cameras are saving lives. this is not fact, in fact there are many who think the opposite. speed is a factor in the severity of an accident, but rarely is it a cause. i have had a few accidents in my life, one was solely my fault, most were not at all my fault, and none but one involved speed over 15 mph. The only one i ever had where speed was even part of the cause was when i was trying to make a left turn light while the bulk of traffic (going straight) was stopped. someone in the lane to my right suddenly decided she wanted to turn left as well. i was only going 30, well below the limit (40 or 45 i think?), but in this situation it was still greater than reasonable speed- that no camera would have stopped me from doing. nobody was hurt, and even though insurance might have pinned it on her for changing lanes without looking, i knew that had i not been trying to beat that light, i would have been able to avoid her, so i couldn’t in good conscience claim to be innocent- no police were involved, and her car was not noticeably damaged, she didn’t see any need to report it, so we went our separate ways. i take it as a learning experience- i will never do that again.
    i’m straying from the point as i am wont to do. the point is that speed alone is only a small part of the sequence of events leading up to an accident. i once went 115 in my car, does that make me a bad person? if i did that with even one other car visible, maybe. but with not a soul in sight, and visibility many miles, it made me young and irresponsible, but not much of a danger to society. those who drive 55 when the bulk of traffic is doing 40 are far more likely to cause a wreck involving someone else. speed alone is not a huge danger, but a great difference in speed is. cameras will not slow down the maniacs who really need to be stopped, because they will be the first to figure out how the system works and how to get away with their behavior. they will slow down the sheep who are afraid of their own shadow- and that creates a dangerous condition.

  93. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    ok do we agree that the cameras are not placed directly in front of a driver? they are placed in a drivers peripheral vision… and even that is only true for some drivers. example… if i am on a 3 lane or plus lane freeway… and i am in the middle lanes, the cameras on either side are not in that vision. i think the cameras that are placed on the divider are the ones that are closest to being in the peripheral vision. and i cant speak for you..if you say it was “damn near blinding” then it is so… maybe you were on a stretch of freeway that is not well lit, therefore making the flash appear to be coming straight out of the night, instead of light coming from a dim light.. maybe your eyes are sensitive ti light- i dont know… what about the oncoming lights when we drive the streets at night… or the light that shines off the rear view mirror when a car is behind you? there are so many distractions on the road!!! why are you guys not against cell phones? why are you not pro non blow out tires? do you people think that the flash that is generated was not tested to see the effects it would have? i just dont buy it… i would bet there was a lot of tests done on every aspect of these cameras… i am sure that nobody wanted to leave themselves exposed to a law suit…
    what i do buy into is… not overexaggerating the “distraction” from a camera…or the light from a camera. the cameras are no different than a person being replaced by a machine… the person and their salary is replaced by a machine that is more cost effective… but the cameras were more than that.. they are an aid to law enforcement… what can be wrong with that.. the perfect world has 1 cop for every 1 person… we all know that is not reality.. how many law enforcemnt officers are in this valley… all departments? all city, sheriff and dps? and how many citizens…? what do you think the ratio is? and you are lucky it has not caught up with you. i mentioned on another thread i also got one.. but it was not me… wrong color.. who’s fault was it.. the driver for sure and the rental car company for just giving them the name of the primary driver, which was me.. i did what i was suppose to do and still had to pay the fine!!!

    they are saving lives.. and when i see some figures i will post them.. and then as tradition with this site, you will all tell me that the fix was in and they are swayed to back the position of those reporting the findings…

    this is subjective… yes people doing 45 or lower in traffic probably tend to be the reason others get impatient and do stupid things… notice that i did not say they are the cause,, they are not… it is the impatience of others that leads to the accidents.. imho speed on the freeways causes the accidents.. they may get a ticket for failure to control the vehicle but they failed cause they were going to fast…
    let me explain it this way..

    aids is a virus that causes the bodies immune system to shut down and not fight off infections…

    so when someone dies that has aids .. the official cause of death is always something else…but the underlying cause was… aids!!!

    people speed and they can not control the vehicle they are driving due to the high rate of speed.. sometimes their high rate of speed makes others be unable to control their car…
    if we made the punishments for speeding the same as they are for drunk driving ( which i would be in favor of) then we finally might start getting the attention of those that just cant not do the posted speed limit… if we made it a 10 day tent city visit for doing 11 over… the message just might start getting through!!!!
    now… for those that believe i work for redflex or the other company… take a look at when i post.. it is at all tims of the day.. sometimes even late at night.. now i guess it could be argued i am using the pc at work… thats valid… but when i post at 6:30 am and then at 11 pm… well that would be a lot of hours at work dont you think?

  94. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    People like yourself need to embrace public transportation. The last thing we need behind the wheel is another panicky, hesitant driver who pees all over themselves every time someone passes them.

    Take the bus (or the new light rail) and let the rest of us get on with our day.

  95. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    im back- then mr. campbell and his fellow politicians… need to put safeguards and oversite into the system… and i would put the camera company on notice… that anything… anything that comes as a surprise or was not revealed ie… cameras recording 24/7… can result in the immediate termination of the contract!!!

    but i am not sure that even that would make some of you happy!!!!

  96. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    go home… let me guess .. you are one of these macho guys that drive a truck jacked 4 foot off the ground… thinking that somehow will make up for the size of your penis!!! i knew i had you pegged!!!

    tell your wife sorry to hear about it!!!!

  97. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    I drive a showroom-stock Honda Civic EX. The largest vehicle I’ve ever owned was a Jeep Liberty, which was too inefficient for my tastes.

    For someone who cries about the “childish” tone of posters here, you do little to elevate the discourse.

  98. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    well then dont come to a gun fight with a knife!!!!

    usually i can ignore the drivel from cowards like yourself and sometimes i have enough and feel the need to fight back…. guess you found out which mood i was in at that moment!!!

    you see malfeasant and i were engaged in a good debate… there really was no need for you to join us with that comment…if you added something positive to the conversation there would have been no need for me to react as i did!!!!

  99. Scott says:

    LA…If your argument was “I just want to make a living in this economy”…..many of us would understand..

  100. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    Your adolescent, shrieking tone is a good indicator of your driving style.

    You are unable to do more than one thing at a time, and are easily shaken.

    No wonder you want everyone else to slow down. Take the bus.

  101. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    well i would have to disagree with you… but i will say your aggressive rather reckless style here shows me that you are concerned with only you!!! everybody else be damned!!!!

    and i lost my adolescent tone when i was 43, or last year!!!

    again , give my apologies to the wife!!!!

    scott- check the time of the posts my friend… go back and look if it really bothers you that much!!! i think i started posting a week ago or so!!!!

  102. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Despite all of your personal attacks, you still avoid the issues I raise.

    Admit that the software which controls the cameras can be easily written to falsify citations.

  103. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    just to clarify.. last evening 2/2 there were 2 posts attributed to me 6:03 and 6:04 … i was not the author of either post!!!

  104. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i am sure it can.. i never said it couldnt… but i also said that the state needs to be sure that some type of oversite is in place… now if i really worked for the cam comp.. do you think i would write that!!!!

    you pointing the finger at me about personal attacks is easily dismissed when the before post is read…

    i dont attack…i defend !!!! read for yourself!!!!!!

  105. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    IGNORE ME AND I GO AWAY!!!

  106. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    another childish act…. post on 2-3 at 12:18 was not me!!!

  107. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Why is it when someone opposes the cameras that it’s a conspiracy theory? Why shouldn’t we suspect illicit and illegal, immoral, and unethical acts when there are DOZENS of reports of impropriety by camera vendors.

    Read about it at http://PhotoRadarScam.com/trust.php

    Doesn’t it concern you in the slightest that Redflex was found falsifying documents used in court to convict motorists?

  108. No One says:

    LA Citizen–

    yes please do praytell, does that bother you at all, that the only piece of evidence in a court case is not only able to be falsified but indeed has been? This is is actually NOT a conspiracy theory, it is a documented and proven fact.

    You go on and on about the danger of someone driving 66 mph in a 55 zone, what about the very real and much more insidious danger of when a populace no longer can trust that the law enforcement and judicial system will live up to its expectation?

  109. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sounds to me like redflex and ats need oversite.. so why not rally for that? the articles do not sway me, it certainly disappoints me that govt can just assume they are doing things on the up and up… the cameras need to stay and practices to stop the corruption need to be implemented…

  110. PhotoRadarScam says:

    It’s not just the need for oversight, don’t you see?

    Only the “honest drivers” – those driving their own cars who pay their tickets when they get them – are even affected by the cameras. Everyone else either never gets cited or served, or they know how to defeat/avoid the cameras and they continue to flaunt the laws. And honest drivers who are unlucky enough to get a ticket from a cop AND a camera pay twice for the same offense! How does any of this belong in America?

  111. Malfeasant says:

    law- the problem is there has not been oversight. Not that I would feel better if there were, I still don’t like being watched 24/7 regardless of whether or not I’m doing anything wrong.

    Your continued argument about camera placement makes me wonder if you suffer from tunnel vision, yet another reason you should not be driving. My peripheral vision covers nearly 180 degrees- not in any detail at that limit, of course, but if there’s movement it will catch my attention, and if there’s a bright flash anywhere ahead of me, it will cause my pupils to contract, along with a momentary disruption in my ability to see in the dark, that’s one thing our eyes do exceedingly well is adjust to varying light conditions- but there is a delay. Oncoming low-beam headlights are not nearly as bright as the flash, though high beams certainly get close. HID headlights I think should be outlawed, thankfully they seemed to be a passing fad. Even so, an oncoming car with high-beams doesn’t generally appear out of nowhere within 30 feet, one can usually see it coming out of the distance and start to squint, hold a hand up to shield one’s eyes if needed, but the eyes have time to adjust- the camera flash catches you with your eyes wide open, pupils dilated to let in the most light. The pupils tend to constrict faster than they open up, because as far as the body is concerned, bright enough light can immediately cause permanent damage to the retina, while dim light just means you can’t see for a moment.

    Anywho, this is just one reason why the cameras are a bad idea, there are many more. As I said before, I don’t like the idea of being watched 24/7. I don’t like surveillance cameras in convenience stores or banks, but I am willing to accept their presence because I understand the business’ need for them- their benefits far outweigh their drawbacks- but don’t think for a moment they automatically solve every crime- any security expert, cop, or lawyer will tell you a camera alone rarely leads to identification of a perpetrator- the cops still need to investigate and find the person- the camera just helps to confirm what the person did. Sometimes a camera will help to id a suspect the police already had, but rarely will it crack a case with no other leads. The traffic cameras are different- they may not identify you as a person, but their 24/7 video feed with optical text recognition will log your plate number, and in this city that’s pretty close. That I have a big problem with. Even if they can log plates of stolen cars and lead police to them, I don’t feel it is worth the risk of abuse. Even if redflex/ats/the state don’t plan to use this data to nefarious ends, if the information exists, someone will try, and may succeed, to steal it. Crap like that happens every so often- many years ago i worked at radioshack, who here remembers the cuecats? a little barcode reader that some company was giving out for free, the idea was you could scan your favorite product’s barcode and their software would take you to an informative website- pretty useless function in my mind, but it was free so lots of people were willing to play around with them. The shady part was, to install the software, one had to register with name, address, phone number, email address, and maybe more, which was all stored in a database, along with a log of all the stuff you scanned. The idea was they would sell this information to advertising companies who could then target you specifically- at least I think that was shady, some may think that’s business as usual. The problem was, some hacker found a way to download all that stuff directly from their website, so tons of people’s personal information was made available to random people all over the internet. It’s not about what you have to hide, it’s about what your information is worth. If it’s worth that much to somebody, it’s worth protecting.

    Ok, enough of this rant. I don’t think of myself as a conspiracy nut. I don’t care who killed JFK. I don’t worry about fluoridated water. I don’t believe the bush administration perpetrated 9/11 (though it certainly used the hysteria to its advantage in eroding our freedoms- read the patriot act sometime, it’s scary stuff!)

    I don’t like government turning over law enforcement to a for-profit company- the company wants to maximize profit, which comes from crime- so there is an incentive to increase crime! not necessarily by catching more of the people doing bad things, but catching people doing good things and fudging the numbers to make it look bad- or pressuring the city/county/state to criminalize behavior that was previously tolerated. whether or not you believe this has happened or will happen, the potential is there, and that is bad enough. it’s like leaving a loaded gun in your kid’s bedroom- it doesn’t mean for sure the kid is going to pick it up and shoot himself, but it’s still a damn stupid thing to do!

    you talk about a perfect world having a 1:1 citizen to police ratio- i fear that world a great deal. My ideal is a world where everyone is accountable and responsible for their own actions, and NO police will be needed. of course that ideal is contrary to human nature, police are very much necessary, but never in such high numbers. i have a problem with machines replacing humans- in repetitive tasks that don’t require thought or decisions, i can’t argue with you there, whatever is most efficient will win, i’m all for efficiency. But until machines can take into account all factors, and make a judgment call, they have no place replacing humans in those situations that require judgment, and law enforcement is one of those areas.

    and again, you argue that speed causes a loss of control of a vehicle. i disagree. speed effects stopping distance and overall stability, this is true. but again, there are too many variables to pin everything on speed. that one time i went 115mph, the road was smooth, the curves were gradual, at no point did the car feel like it was on the verge of losing control- i have been more out of control going 15mph in snow. I’m not disagreeing that speed can be _a_ factor in an accident, but it is rarely the sole cause, therefore singling it out as the sole point of enforcement is a cop-out, excuse the pun.

    and for the record law, i agree that the person posting in your name needs to grow up. I’m sure the moderators can tell which ones are real and which aren’t, how about changing the name to Imp Oster?

  112. Joe says:

    The soul of wit, breivity is.

  113. Joe says:

    Redflexgohme wrote:
    “Admit that the software which controls the cameras can be easily written to falsify citations.”

    Even worse, being that electromagnetic fields are being employed to help trigger the camera, it is absolutely possible that electrical interference can create false positives. I’ve seen several cars get flashed, completely isolated from other traffic, while driving well under the posted speed limit. If the road sensors have a hiccup and tell the processor that the speed is at or above the threshold, the camera triggers and the supposed high speed is recorded.

    All of the sheeple out there automatically think that if the camera triggers, the violation is genuine. This is far from the case. Most of us have now witnessed the cameras misfiring.

  114. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    malfeasant- real quick then i will repy more later.. as i do not understand how one quick flash can cause you people to spin out of control or almost lose it altogether..the same people that say they can handle the 75 plus mph!!! i dont get it…. i have been on teh roads at night, seen the camera flash… doesnt bother me one bit!! in fact i say yaa hoo !!! and try to locate the dumb ass sob that just got nailed….if i was you guys i would be 2 feet from the wall and doing hail mary’s!!!

    i knew i would get this answer… “i dont trust the oversight”.. well then… i dont know what to say… there are those that are never satisfied…!!!!

    but alas!!! i have a simple solution!!! dont go over 65 in a 65 dont go over 55 in a 55…. so that when you get that phantom ticket.. you can know for sure it was not you… from what i can gether there are almost none of you that can feel that way !!!

  115. Malfeasant says:

    law, one flash doesn’t make me spin out of control, but it is blinding for a second – in which time a car could change lanes, for example. i’m not claiming some huge hardship, it is mainly an annoyance, but it is an unnecessary annoyance, therefore if it did happen to lead to an accident, it would be especially pointless.

  116. PhotoRadarScam says:

    “i knew I would get this answer… “i don’t trust the oversight”… well then… i dont…”

    We’ve already shown you a case where our Secretary of State caught Redflex falsifying court documents, and they’ve caught camera operators driving drunk! So how is it that YOU trust them? Have you ever heard the saying, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?” They have fooled us more than once!!!

    “dont go over 65 in a 65 dont go over 55 in a 55…”

    Sorry, that won’t work. As we’ve demonstrated Redflex sets up vans that take your picture before you even see a speed limit sign. Can’t drive the limit if you don’t know what it is. You can drive a REASONABLE AND PRUDENT speed though. Problem #2 is that the machines malfunction. Do you really think they are 100.0% accurate? Do you really think there’s never been a camera operator who has setup the speed limits wrong? How are you going to defend your ticket a month or two later if you’re innocent and the machine malfunctions?

    LAC, Please answer all of these.

  117. PhotoRadarScam says:

    LAC, I’d also like to point out that while you say you wouldn’t be blinded by the flash, you say that you look to see who that person was who got flashed.

    Is that NOT a distraction? Is it a safe driving behavior to take your attention away from the road for a few seconds just to see who got flashed? Don’t you think that’s a little unsafe to be doing?

  118. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i think we all do things that take our attention away from the job at hand.. i am 44… never been in an accident… i am a very defensive driver… i can look around and still control my vehicle…. i think switching radio stations, using a cell phone, taking a drink of water…. they are all unsafe and we all do them… kudos to those that dont…

    if you enter a freeway in this valley and you dont know that it is either going to be 55 or 65 then i cant help you…. so being prudent is the best option.. if you see a van and did not see a posted limit… then go 55 until you see the 65…

    i can only assume they are 100% accurate… just as i can only assume that a cops radar gun is accurate.. just as when i make a deposit at the atm… i can only assume it is accurate… and when i get groceries i can only assume.. now some of those i can check… the receipt from frys, the deposit… and the only way i can be sure of the cameras is to go the speed limit… and if i get a ticket i can argue it and know that i was not in the wrong… i am on the 60 freeway everyday.. for 4 years i drove 1000 miles a week making deliveries for the small business that i owned…. i passed those cameras on the 101 atleast 4 times a week and i NEVER got a ticket and i did the speed limit all the time…. i had no worries as i was doing nothing wrong….

  119. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Just as I suspected. You avoided the questions.

  120. geez says:

    Lac looked to see who got flashed, and PRS busted his butt about it. Meanwhile, PRS changed his radio station, answered a call, looked for a cd he wanted to listen to, glanced at the pretty girl in the car next to him, a quick look at the nice sunset, looked down to see if he spilt a little soda on himself, checked out the buger on his pinkie…
    shall I go on?

    I hope non of you never drive during a thunderstorm. Wouldn’t want the lightning to permanently damage your retina’s or startle you and cause you to wreck.

    Oh and then Joe see’s a couple people driving slow get flashed! What a scandle that once and awhile they fire off a few test shots to make sure everything is functioning correctly. ya’ll do want them testing these things right? right?

  121. kittywings says:

    I meant to go to bed ages ago, but I got so caught up in reading these responses that… here I am still… at 2:24 am.

    LA Citizen, I feel like you might be Sarah Palin “in disguise.” Just because you speak (read: type) after someone asks you a direct question, doesn’t mean you are answering it. No, the cameras are not DIRECTLY in front of the cars, but they are AIMED in our direction. I didn’t know until this evening that they were taping 24/7. I am now quite happy that I slow down and cover my face/flip off the camera (because I’m classy!) whenever I go through them. This brings me to another point… for those of us who drive the same way back and forth every day, you know where the cameras are. So, if you want to speed, you can as long as you slow down in the correct spots.

    It disturbs me that you have the “I just assume that they are 100% accurate” point of view. You could be taken advantage of so easily. If you lived in the Revolutionary War times, you probably would have gone over to the Red Coats because you didn’t want to take the chance of getting in trouble… actually, you never would have left England… but then again you DO seem a bit Puritanical… hmmm….

    I will also go on record by saying that I am a lead foot. I tend to go about 20 miles over the speed limit (not on purpose… just feels right), I also walk fast… actually… I do EVERYTHING fast. I just have to go the same speed as my brain… or at least I try to. NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT!!! Now, I am not saying that I don’t pay attention. I don’t drive like a jackass. However, I don’t understand why people who intend to drive slow, drive in the fast lane or carpool lane when there is no traffic. These people will never move over to let someone else pass them. I think those people (and I assume you are most likely one of them “LA”), take issue with other’s who don’t live their lives in fear, etc. The perfect word for these people (in my humble opinion) is “NERDS” (but not the smart kind). I guess that’s the closest I’ll get to name calling…

    Anyway, I’m getting off-topic… AND SLEEPY! I just hope I don’t have nightmares about people who refuse to listen to reason.

    BTW- I’ve been in a few accidents myself and they were all caused by old ladies not paying attention. One when I was stopped at a red light and she slammed into me going 40 and squished me between her car and a SW Gas truck, and another when a lady decided to come into my lane when I was already occupying her chosen area. So yeah, that speeding is AWFUL!

  122. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    kittywings: how silly you are… my going the speed limit does not mean that i fear going faster…. it means that i can not control anybodies actions but my own… therefore i have to be aware of not only what i am doing …. but what others are doing.. i have not been in an accident because i avoided them… with that said i could certainly be involved in one tomorrow… either my fault or not…. yes you do drive like a jackass… anybody doing 85 in a 65, or 75 in a 55 is just that…does that mean on surface streets you do 40 in a 20? what makes you think that where you are going is so much more important than taking a life.. because girlfriend… you may think you are an adreneline junkie…. but i guarantee .. you are not really in control of that vehicle… you are just along for the ride…. and you are spot on… if i can slow you down in the fast lane while i am going the limit…. i will do it everytime… keep in mind there are lanes to the right… feel free to use them…

    ooops maybe this is better:
    yes the machines could malfunction!!! and yes i would not like it if they did… and i got a ticket.. and i would defend myself just as i mentioned earlier.. and the judge is probably going to make me pay the fine.. and i certainly would not be happy… but i would pay it….

    sorry.. must have missed the “proof about the sec o state… what do you mean by court documents.. and really if the van driver was “driving drunk” what does that have to do with anything… other than the person is a complete moron.. and there are many stages of intoxication .. .08 means squat… dont tell me you have not had a long evening that went to the morning and then had to go to work… and luckily you didnt get pulled over cause you might still be intoxicated… for all i know that is the case here.. or it could be worse…. hell if they were to speed on the way to set up the camera, that has no bearing on it either….
    there are you happy?

  123. Malfeasant says:

    law, i don’t like resorting to namecalling, but you are a jackass. I don’t necessarily agree with kittywings defending going 20mph over the limit, but people will do it with or without the cameras- a reasonably safe driver is going to keep to the right when not passing, and if you end up in the left lane then see someone coming up behind you, it’s on you to move over if you can, not them, regardless of how you feel about their speed. Passing on the right is unwise and unexpected- though not always wrong, depends on the situation. Obviously if some wad like you is going 60 in the carpool lane while the bulk of traffic is going 65-70, one doesn’t have much choice. The bottom line is, exactly as you said, you cannot control anyone’s actions but your own, so stop being a belligerent ass and move over. If you want to drive the speed limit, that’s fine, I have no problem with that, just understand that some people won’t no matter what, and deliberately getting in their way does more to create an unsafe condition than letting them pass.

  124. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    ohh.. so next time i am at circle k and witness 2 people run out the door with beer.. i am suppose to look the other way? not try to stop it or atleast get a plate number? i get in their way on the road to screw with them second ( i mean even crime fighters have to have some fun) … and first
    to keep them from speeding which is breaking the law!!! i cant help it that i enjoy it!!!

    so they can be belligerent about their speed as in the case with kitty .. but i have to step aside and just bear and grin it? not on your life i wont..

    how is passing on the right unwise but passing on the left is not? i will be scratching the head on that one for awhile!!!

  125. I'm Back says:

    Nice find.

    Creating a hazard by driving slow in faster traffic to “make a point” with somebody else on the road does not improve safety.

    Here’s a rule of thumb for all my fellow motorists:
    Whenever you are “making a point” with someone else on the road, 100% of the time you are creating a more dangerous situation. No matter how right you think you are, it just makes matters worse.

    If someone is driving too slow, you could flash your high beams to get their attention, but if they don’t move over, tailgating does not make the road safer.

    If someone is driving faster than you, acting as a moving speed barrier or “pace car” does not make the road safer.

    It’s just that easy.

  126. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    oh did i mention? if you flash em at me… i drop it 10 mph!!!! and if you tailgate me…. oh we dont want to go there!!! thats when the fun really begins!!!

  127. I'm Back says:

    Thanks for making my point even stronger. People who support the cameras actually do not care about safety.

    Some may think thst by supporting cameras, you support safer roads. The person who just posted above me obviously does not care about the roads being less hazardous. He is a hazard ;)

  128. Malfeasant says:

    law flaunting citizen, obviously the significance of my links hasn’t penetrated your cranium. AZ state law says keep to the right except to pass- you previously argued that one cannot pick and choose which laws to obey- this leaves you 2 choices to save face:
    1. come off your high horse, admit one does pick and choose which laws one wants to obey, since you do it yourself, and concede that if one ignores speed limits, one is not automatically a bad person
    2. hold your position that law is law no matter your personal feelings, obey this one like you claim to obey all others, and from now on, stay out of the left lane.

  129. I'm Back says:

    Give some people enough rope and they end up hanging themselves.

  130. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    come on now… the first 2 sights tried to appeal to my sense of fair play… sorry.. i dont have any sense or fair play…. and i dont really care if someone wants to road rage on me…. i will take my chances that he can not hit me with a bullet as he trys to navigate at 65 plus while trying to fire!!!

    the other is the az statute.. and it says a lot but the part that refers to me is…. “normal speed”… see what you are failing to understand is what is normal speed…. usually there is only 1 or 2 assholes trying to do 85 plus… thats the guys i am trying to slow down but if i happen to catch a 75 plus in my net, good for me…. 65 or 75 !!!! as far as i am concerned it is close enough to normal for me… so i will tell you this … if i have to break the law to prevent another from doing so .. i am fine with that….
    please let the name calling begin!!!!
    never said that a person that speeds is a bad person.. just an asshole…. not unlike myself…

    i chose #1…. what did i win?

  131. Sick of Government says:

    If you fail to yield then you are just as bad as someone who does 85 if not worse. The left lane is not the cruise lane, it’s the passing lane. If the only thing you are passing is wind then move over. :)

  132. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    thats your opinion… i will hold to my belief that someone doing 85 poses much more of a danger than i doing 65 in the hov lane or the “fast” lane!!!

  133. camerafraud says:

    LAB, I don’t see in statute where it says “slower traffic, keep right UNLESS you feel like enforcing the laws you see fit.”

    In fact, the law is clear:

    28-723. Overtaking a vehicle on the left
    The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:

    1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

    2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

    28-721. Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions
    B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

  134. No One says:

    LA Citizen–

    You know, I absolutely love the persistent comparisons. You get pinned on a particular point, and suddenly you compare it to something else, which may or may not be remotely related and then try to turn the conversation in that direction.

    With regard to your latest such attempt: Regardless if someone doing 85 is “more” of a danger than you doing 65 in the fast lane, you doing 65 in the fast lane is still a danger if other traffic is trying to get by. Further, it is still illegal. Slowing down 10 mph if they tailgate you is even more dangerous and (though I cannot say this for a fact), probably more illegal.

    As you yourself pointed out earlier, the only thing you can do is control your own actions– and yet you specifically admit to taking actions which are both dangerous and illegal, while preaching to others.

    So, Mr Non-Law A. Biding Citizen…

    You’ve been PWNED!

  135. No One says:

    Oh, and as to your question at 4-something about what someone meant by court documents and the secretary of state– google “Abshire brothers” and lafayette louisiana.

    I don’t need to point to a specific site, you’ll find plenty of good, reputable news sources that picked up on this story. The boiled down version is as follows:

    Basically a “notice of violation” was given, and Mr. Abshire felt it was incorrect. He went to court to fight it, and Redflex showed up, but their paperwork different than what was given to Mr Abshire. On looking into it, the law they say he violated wasn’t even on the books at the time of the supposed violation! Further, a Redflex moron notarized that he had personally seen some of the documents, when at the time of the supposed witnessing, he was here in AZ instead of Louisiana and physically could not have seen it– but he notarized it anyway. With all this, our secretary of state (now governor) Jan Brewer revoked his notary privileges, and when she tried to call Redflex on this debacle during a meeting, one of their reps wrote a nastygram on a post-it note. (Thus inspiring the “postit note bandits”)

    So, redflex falsified documents in a court case, purposefully misused their notary privileges, and when caught was rude and disrespectful to the secretary of state. And this is a company we’re supposed to trust.

  136. kittywings says:

    I’m not saying I PURPOSELY drive 20 mph over the speed limit, but it just so happens that when I’m driving at what feels like a “normal” pace, it HAPPENS to be approximately 20 mph over the limit. I ALSO will tell you that 80 mph is pretty much the fastest I ever drive because I no longer feel comfortable above that speed. I agree with everyone who thinks that people like LA Citizen are causing more of a problem by doing their best to “uphold the law.” I don’t tailgate, but the people who purposely hit their brakes when someone is too close are dangerous… they even specifically tell you not to that in driving classes.

    I wonder sometimes when you get in these heated debates with people online, if you were to meet them in person if you would dislike them as much.

  137. Glyph says:

    He wouldn’t be nearly as mouthy if he got to meet us/me in person, that’s for goddamn sure.

  138. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    of course kitty…. once you met me and you talked with me ..hell you would look around and not even notice that you didnt like me… which of the following is keeping you from being attentive to your speed…. you may choose multiple answers as i am sure there is more than one thats fits your unique situation..

    1. eating
    2. drinking
    3. switching music stations
    4. reading romance novel
    5. putting on makeup ( my favorite)
    6. shaving… anything
    7. yelling at the car next to you for going so slow (he was doing 65)
    8. texting!!!
    9. talking on the phone with one hand and twisting your hair with the other hand
    10. trying to pick up the lit cig you just dropped on the floor board!!

    come now dont be shy sister… which of these occupy your time while you endanger other drivers from point A to point B

    of course you dont tailgate… you drive right through them!!!!

  139. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    oh glyph… you are so…… macho… !!!

  140. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    no wonder that governor want to be doesnt like the cameras… she got bitch slapped and was not happy!!!
    i guess when you appear to be as dumb as she does.. people will want to see if it is true…

  141. dgpjr777 says:

    Whoever put the picture of the van above better learn where the Gore area starts : It is not parked in the Gore, in fact the person taking the picture is violating the law.

  142. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    dgpjr… finally a friend!!! his name is glypg… according to him he is easy to locate..name address all that stuff!!! he will cave like a sand castle to the incoming tide!!!! he wishes to be a martyr but is really just a martyr-BE!!!

  143. I'm Back says:

    “Many police officers have been seriously injured or killed due to drivers stopping in Gore and
    T R A N S I T I O N areas just like these.”

  144. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    many??? is that more than 1 ? is that 2 or is that 20…ANOTHER guess thrown out as fact and hoping that it sticks to something??? you guys like to throw out numbers with out backing it up!!!

  145. dgpjr777 says:

    Police Officers have been killed in numerous situations and places. Highway crews park in those locations also. I am saying you people post somethings that are not true and full of BS. Again as far as I can see the person that took the Picture is the law violator.

  146. Sick of Government says:

    Another law violator is the one who fails to yield.

  147. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sick…. so you can throw the first stone?

  148. Sick of Government says:

    Just calling you on it. Time to stop being a hypocrite.

  149. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    I CALLED MYSELF ON IT !!!! are you really that clueless? and i asked you… can you throw the first stone? OF COURSE NOT!!!! nobody can!!!

  150. Sick of Government says:

    So does that mean you are going to stop slowing down in the passing lane and just move over and leave other drivers alone?

  151. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    just as soon as they do the speed limit…. AND LISTEN TO ME.. I ONLY SLOW DOWN WHEN THEY EITHER TAILGATE ME OR FLASH THE BRIGHTS!! OTHERWISE I ENTER THAT LANE DOING THE LIMIT, WHATEVER IS POSTED !!!

  152. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sorry sick… i gotta go… i will pound on you later… go see a dr, about all the wounds i have inflicted!!!!

  153. Sick of Government says:

    So, then you are being a hypocrite by not failing to yield. LAB is a law breaker everyone. Regardless of what others do, staying in the left lane and impeding the flow is illegal.

  154. Sick of Government says:

    *Yawn*

  155. Sick of Government says:

    Also, until you are a certified police officer and get your badge, glock & radar gun, stop being the speed police.

  156. No One says:

    You know, don’t I recall a certain someone making snide comments about someone from camerafraud “showing their badge”? And here’s our pal admitting he tries to be the policeman and slow others down. And then there’s the whole illegality of it, when he is (supposedly) a “Law A Biding citizen”… and speaking of law abiding, when provided with specific evidence of a law being broken by his beloved camera companies, suddenly that’s no big deal. Kind of hypocritical, no? And this is of course in addition to other hypocritical instances, like objecting to namecalling, but turning around and doing it himself to an unaffected 3rd party…

    From now on, I shall know you as King Hypocrite. All hail (perhaps heil would be better) the King!

  157. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    actually one of you posted a link to that law… i read it and determined that since i AM doing the posted speed limit …. i am not in violation !!! yep thats right … and when i have to slow down to defend my right to life…. cause we all know that tailgating can cause an accident and just like some of you that are really sensitive to those flashes .. i am sensitive to someone flashing their brights at me!!! it creates a dangerous situation and i have to slow down…. get my composure back!!

  158. Snarky the Troll says:

    I agree with Law Abiding Citizen. Drove by one of those sign twirly guys today and nearly crashed…he was waving and twirling it all around I think its vertigo, is that the right word? Scared the crap outta me, I need to sue for mental damages. Maybe they could just give me one of their condos for free???

  159. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    I think it will be easy to prove that you were mental way before that happened to you!!!

  160. [...] CameraFRAUD brought to you in January regarding unsafe placement of cameras near overpasses (”DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life,” Jan 30 2009). The kicker? The man raising the placement question is the Professor commissioned to do the [...]

  161. [...] Apparently, the new “enhanced security” changes made by Redflex and American Traffic Solutions to their automated ticketing vans consist of a modern version of ding-dong-ditch: park the vehicle, leave a note on the window, and get the hell out of there as fast as you can. (Not that having an untrained private contractor in the van is any better during an emergency, especially when they aren’t even allowed or able defend themselves while being placed in danger by their employer.) [...]

  162. [...] It’s hard to say for sure what kind of work is being done here. Perhaps these are new commercial vehicles getting fitted with DPS dress so they can falsely impersonate real law enforcement vehicles. Or perhaps they are being fitted with Redflex’s latest in “driver safety”: a note saying the police look-a-like vehicle is unoccupied and to call 911 if there’s an emergency… like a car accident… caused by a flash of burning, bright strobe light. [...]

  163. [...] If you’d like to read more, we previously covered the ASU study in the following articles: DPS vs. Prof.: At Odds Over Cam Locations DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life [...]

  164. “giornalismo civico|journalisme civique|シビックジャーナリズム|pilsoniskā žurnālistika|periodismo cívico|नागरिक पत्रकारिता|civic journalism|burgerlike joernalistiek|gazetarisë qytetare|periodisme cívic|公民新聞|עיתונאות אזרחית|სამოქალაქო ჟურნალისტიკაში|”…

    [...]DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[...]…

  165. Black Friday Camera Ads…

    [...]DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[...]…

  166. perder peso says:

    perder peso…

    [...]DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[...]…

  167. BB Guns for Kids…

    [...]DPS and Redflex: No Regard for Human Life « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,188 other followers

%d bloggers like this: