DPS Press Puff Piece Praises Cameras, not Cops

postit“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
-Mark Twain, referencing Benjamin Disraeli

In an attempt to shore up support for their much-maligned photo enforcement program, the Arizona Department of Public Safety has released a “study” showing that their revenue cameras are supposedly “saving three lives a month.”

The absurd claim is made within a press release that starts by insulting their own Officer’s efforts in a “thanks, but no thanks” manner:

“Thanks to the work of… the increased number of DPS Officers on state highways has resulted in increased enforcement in the last few years. Accordingly, DPS has seen a steady decrease in collision numbers statewide.”

Instead of crediting the hard work of their own “boots on the ground,” DPS is championing the brain-dead idea that all accident reductions are due to photo enforcement. Intellectually-dishonest “statistics,” such as those presented by DPS, ignore the fact that correlation does not imply causation.

By comparing numbers without looking at other variables, such as the fact that people are driving less and that accident numbers were already on the decline, DPS is purposefully engaging in a campaign of deceit in their attempt to win public approval of their failing surveillance system.

DPS’s problem (cum hoc ergo propter hoc as it is known in Latin) can be exemplified in the following chart obtained by CameraFRAUD.com, where the increase in global average temperature is clearly attributable to the significant decline in numbers of pirates over the last 189 years.


105 Responses to DPS Press Puff Piece Praises Cameras, not Cops

  1. Glyph says:

    And to think I had been crediting the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the decrease in crashes!

    I’ve seen this graph before, but interpreted it as “pirates just can’t take the heat,” But now the solution is crystal clear… More cameras, Less cops!

  2. RPr says:

    reminds me of the hunt highway fiasco http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2410.asp

  3. photoradarscam says:

    Also not mentioned in this update is the fact that accident rates have pretty much been decreasing even WITHOUT cameras. This is due to better roads, safer cars, and other factors. http://photoradarscam.com/noncrisis.php has a good list of reports showing that cameras INCREASE accidents.

  4. photoradarscam says:

    One more thing – it’s no secret that part of the Redflex proposal is an emphasis on doing PR to “sell” the cameras to the public. This is clearly part of that PR campaign.

  5. Helldigger says:

    Also in today’s news, there have been fewer and fewer illegal border crossing invaders to contend with. The least recorded in 26 years.

    Fewer illegals equates to fewer crashes and deaths more than any other statistic.

    That alone decreased the death toll by 5, that means the cameras were responsible for 2 additional deaths.

    Try again DPS, you are pissing in the wind.

  6. Glyph says:

    Fewer dead cops this year too. Was that because of the cameras?

  7. j says:

    i do know about the overloaded vans full of migrants going camping or visiting family rolling over on the freeway and people ejewcting and dying but it is stupid to throw illegals into every blog. we get it u hate illegals. but seriosly is 2 months long enough to have serious data. all i know is i hate photo radar cameras and driving a car is inherently dangerous if people are that scared of getting hurt they should not drive. or ever even leave the house. if anybody is paying attention it starts getting real scary when they start talking about how the photoradar system can be modified for other purposes

  8. j says:

    what happened to my comment?

  9. j says:

    i am not the on meesing up your website

  10. Derek says:

    OK, that’s fine. The DPS Photoradar system has traffic moving smooth now, most people are no longer speeding like fools, accidents are way down, etc. Great, then conduct a reduction-in-force RIF of 75% of the Highway Patrol Division of the DPS and lay them off because we don’t need them anymore. I keep hearing that these cameras are freeing up their officers for other duties. What ‘other duties’ The last time I checked, doing traffic and writing tickets was the entire reason a Highway Patrol exists. The use of these cameras is just plain un-American. If we don’t stand up to this now, we’ll be like London, with government cameras on every street and shopping area. All in the name of ‘public safety’. Keep the European ways in Europe!

  11. photoradarscam says:

    If the freeways are safe now, the cameras can come down.

  12. photoradarscam says:

    It’s always great when you can cherry pick your data. Why 80 days and not 90 days? Why not wait until the year is over and use annual statistics? Because the numbers wouldn’t look as good.

  13. dgpjr777 says:

    Quit crying and don’t speed. Never have seen a web-site with so many cry-babies. It would not matter if the stats were right or wrong you guys would bitch anyways about the cameras. Keep them, I am for them !

  14. jgunn says:

    I finally figured out why they picked AZ to be the speed cam state. Arizona is consistently dead last or thereabouts in public education. They found the state with the most uneducated rubes to pull a fast one on. Basic science and logic is not a factor for a lot of people in AZ. Hence there is actually some public support for the cameras. There should be a law against taking advantage of people like this.

  15. Ross from Redflex says:

    Bingo JGunn. You best move whilst the gettin’s good. It’s our town now. BONZER!!

  16. Curious George says:

    jgunn must be a product of the educational system here in Az – along with the rest of you whiny morons who can’t get a clue and drive at the posted speed limit. The photo cameras are for you cameravandal.com idiots.

    Speed, and pay Redflex – who gives a hoot what they do with the money? As long as they take it out of your pockets! Meanwhile, the rest of us will simply drive at the posted speed limit and not worry about the cameras.

  17. j says:

    when the cameras get scary is when they start talking about other uses

  18. photoradarscam says:

    Curious George, the videos here must really make you mad:

  19. Glyph says:

    Actually, Arizona and the Phoenix area are the ‘testing ground’ for lots of sneaky government projects.

    Phoenix became the 5 largest metropolitan area in the US pretty much without anyone else noticing (unless you live here). That’s a large amount of people who are representative of the whole nation, all in one place.

    Experiments along the border? Predator drones? Civilian Law Enforcememnt enforcing Immigration Law? Statewide freeway cameras? There’s NO WAY they’d try that in California.

    I believe it is my duty as an American to monkeywrench these projects. And NOTHING scares these people more than a camera!

  20. Evapilot says:

    Get your license plate photo proofed…that way, you won’t have to worry about tickets. And it also gets back at the loser “slow down” crowd. So when I get flashed for speeding (3 times so far…with no tickets 🙂 I’m giving a big F-you to arizona, and a big F-you to the slow morons thinking that I just got a ticket.

  21. Kevin says:

    It’s clear as a bell. The vast increase in global warming is directly proportionate to the hot air that Curious George, “Me” and AzKenpo are spewing. I think the only thing these guys have in common is that the 5th grade was their senior year. Do you hear the quacking? It’s a duck folks. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Janet NapoliTaxo could not balance the budget, so she taxed you. I can’t wait to see her go, so the rest of the nation can see our famous “border” Governor. Something tells me she can’t balance her own checkbook, let alone Arizona’s

  22. 4409 says:

    2 words….. Bitch slapped

  23. AA says:

    Has DPS learned everything they know from Saddam Hussein’s information minster? http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/ Even I could come up with better misinformation than DPS can.

  24. Kenny S> says:

    It was all pretty simple to start with.
    Lower and stabilize speed limits through out the city so that drivers are not gun shy about going from 55 to 65 for a few miles………… then back down to 55 !
    That combined with the cameras has brought our freeways to 62mph crawl !
    That would have saved our state millions.
    I would have cheered for it!

    One guy………one white truck…………a wrench…………..a bunch of old 55mph signs.
    It was too easy………….K>S>

  25. dgpjr777 says:

    Hey Kevin I see your IQ rating is still in the single digits. lol Leave the poor duck alone, I really think you have a problem.

  26. DG says:

    AZKenpo – so tell me, is there any way we can be against the cameras and not be perceived as crying by you? There is a difference between complaining for the sake of complaining and complaining to wake the public up to the threat our government faces. Sadly, you perceive the first scenario. We are for the second.

    Also, why do you assume that if we are against the cameras that we are automatically for speeding? We ALL know that all we have to do is cover our face with a mask, hat, sunglasses, etc. so as not to be identified. Once again, you miss the point. Most of us are AGAINST speeding and also AGAINST the cameras. But the cameras represent our government not viewing us as people with liberties but piggy banks to be raided mercilessly. Instead of a responsible government, we are saddled with their responsibility, and that’s not why we elect them.

    Line up with the rest of the sheep AZKenpo. You apparently are free and will only be kept free by the exertions of those better than you.

  27. PhotoRadarScam says:

    DG, Don’t forget, everyone who opposes cameras is also a reckless speeder.

  28. DG says:

    You’re right Photo. I’m a closet speeder and you’ve busted me. Even though I have 0 (read: zero) speeding tickets, I must still be punished, rights violated, and assumed guilty in a Mickey Mouse court of law.

  29. Joe says:

    “Why 80 days and not 90 days?”

    Because 90 days would drastically change the statistics. Just 1-2 accidents will severely skew the statistics in such a short sample period. It’s absurd to release a “study” with less then 3 months of data to work with. At least increase the time period to one year and get in a full range of seasons.

  30. Joe says:


    Civillian law enforcement DOES enforce the border. ICE/Border Patrol agents are civillians. Sworn civillians, but still civillians.

  31. Helldiger says:

    There have been numerous global studies on these cameras.

    Here are a few.


    Every one concludes that the accident rate increases.

    Although there are fewer angle crashes, there is an exponential increase in rear end crashes.

    The cumulative result is an increase of property damage and loss of life.

    Phoenix is no different; APS is blowing smoke up the citizenry’s ass.
    You might be fooled by their statements, but the truth will be self evident.

    The cameras are designed to increase revenue under the guise of safety, or, you can be the fool and pay your new shiny taxes. The courts are rigged, have fun talking to the wall when you get a bogus ticket in the mail.

  32. PhotoRadarScam says:

    More fun with statistics. Phoenix area accident statistics:

    From 1995 to 2005, accident numbers varied by about 20% with the lowest number in 2003. Funny how that can be, there were no speed cameras back then!

  33. P-1 says:

    If it is all about safty , as they claim ………cut the ticket fines in half….. say 50.00 a ticket

  34. Joe says:

    DPS is fighting hard to keep these cameras as it is their budget that is paying for them. So expect them to release raw statistics presented as studies.

  35. Jackie Sutherland says:

    DPS has lowered itself to a complete fuc%king joke and so are these stupid ass courts which are nothing more than a lynching office.

    Fu%k those DPS officials and the officers who support this camera shit, Fu%k em all

  36. Glyph says:

    Dear Joe,

    Thank you for pointing out my gross error. I was referring to the use of non-federal law enforcement to enforce immigration laws on a large scale, like we’re seeing with the MSCO right now. WITHOUT entering into a debate about Sheriff Joe or immigration issues, I wanted to point out that we’re seeing things being tried out here in AZ that are ‘experimental’ and arent being applied anywhere else in the country.
    Hopefully my error didn’t detract from that point.

  37. guttersn1pe says:

    If DPS is so confident in their statistics, why not release the raw data? It loses all relevance when the stats they prepare support their own point of view.

  38. unknowme says:

    Well boys you know its not nice to talk about people behind there back. Maybe we should confront them? I mean if there in our life ltes get in theres

  39. RPr says:

    http://www.azcentral.com/ has a poll down on the right hand side

    the question

    Do you believe statistics from the Arizona Department of Public Safety that show a drastic drop in fatalities on freeways in areas subject to photo enforcement?
    Total Votes: 1707

  40. jim says:

    80 days is not enough time for a good study. also if u check the information accidents were down by 30% but if u check adot traffic was also down 33% during this time period compared to last year. i think people are driving less

  41. Gort says:

    It’s really scary how you clowns purport to believe in all these conspiracy theories – photo cameras are a money grab, and if everyone drives at the posted speed limit, the cameras will “malfunction” and ticket you anyway. Then there’s the fear that the mysterious govt is using Az. as a testing ground – using UAV’s to spy on you..

    And of course, you dismiss DPS’ statistics… Funny – you dismiss outright any data that supports the cameras but hold as gospel anything that supports your notions… Pretty convenient.

    I suspect that most of you jokers are not really adults, but are actually over-indulged ASU students. You certainly sound like a bunch of whiny-faced children.

  42. photoradarscam says:

    Gort, I guess you then would dismiss the reports on http://photoradarscam.com/noncrsis.php that show that accidents INCREASE when cameras are installed?

    I guess you dismiss the videos and articles at http://photoradarscam.com/malfunctions.php that clearly show these machines malfunctioning?

    And I suppose you dismiss the AZ republic article a few weeks ago that Showlow is going to use cameras to track the drivers that pass by?

  43. Curious George says:

    If there’s any increase in accidents, its not due to cameras – its due to poor driving habits that you clowns seem to condone. Typical CamerFraud driver behavior: Speeding down highway, sees photo camera, slams on brakes… Same thing happens when you see a DPS officer stopped by the side of the road. Its not the cameras, idiot, its your poor driving!

  44. dgpjr777 says:

    Bravo Curious George, you are right, but most of these clowns will not see it that way. This web-site was deisigned for these whiney speed demons that will complain no matter what facts are presented to them. We just need to be just as active and make sure the cameras stay.
    It is funny how they whine about the brake lights and so on. I drove up to Payson the other day and there were two DPS cars about one mile apart and people hit the brakes as they approached the cars. At least the cameras are marked well ahead of time. Oh well can’t keep these cry-babies happy no matter what.

  45. I'm Back says:

    Curious and AzKenpo. How do you KNOW who is out on the road and which websites they visit? Do you have some kind of database of speeders and camerafraud.com posters? I’m just “curious.”

    It’s actually a real question. You two seem to know everything about us based on our opinions and what you see on the road. That’s actually a sign of someone who is very ignorant and overly judgmental. “This person must be________ because they say, do or look like _________.”

    So with that spirit in mind, why don’t you two have fun driving 5 miles under the limit in the left lane, making pointless rules in your HOA meetings and calling the cops when you hear a dog bark. WE ALL HATE YOU SO GO AWAY. How’s that? Maybe you’re the one that is a clown, idiot or crybaby. Sorry to take your argument away from you, but it’s the best you’ve got, other than making undue assumptions about people you’ve never met.

    We are trying to have an intelligent conversation and a society and all you seem to want is to play nanny in a Police State. Enjoy your pathetic, boring lives. We’ll make sure to preserve the freedoms that you really don’t deserve because you don’t seem to want them.

  46. I'm Back says:

    I meant to throw dgpjr777 in there too. You’ve really hit a crescendo lately too. Go look that word up. Did any of you take any college courses at all? If so, were they all accounting classes? Do you have anyone who can stand your company? Because after all you must be a bean counting loser who drives under the limit and is afraid of everyone if you support the cameras. Is anyone else really tired of this broken record argument? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    Here’s another word you can look up. It’s called “irony.” Yes I realize the irony of my attacks on you 3 using the same worthless logic based on the fallacy of composition.

    How about this one guys: Have a great time working at Redflex/ATS and say hi to everyone in your Scamera Meeting because you probably work for them.

  47. DG says:

    Bravo I’m Back!

  48. Glyph says:

    Hey dgpjr777…

    Hope you didn’t lose my address, you know, just in case you feel like calling me a moron again or want to mouth off to my face.

    I know, you’ll try to turn it into some kind of gay joke, but we all know you’re the only joke in here.

    p.s. hope you had a good holiday visit with the fam.

  49. Joe says:

    “DPS spokesman Lt. Jeff King said he didn’t know why AAA Arizona would question the study.”

    Uh, idiot, because I think AAA would absolutely LOVE to be able to publicly support your cameras, as they almost always side with the supposed side of “safety”, but they probably first want to trust that your conclusions are based on a thorough examination of all relevant data points. When your friends can’t trust your data, you can’t expect to win-over any new converts.

    Notice how they point-out that the first loop 101 cameras actually increased rear-end collisions. Actually, I’m smart enough to know that you can’t rely on this short a sample period to even conclude THAT (as much as I’d love to be able to conclude it). I just know from my own anecdotal experience that the impatient “weavers” who make sudden unplanned lane changes kill more people and cause more accidents than pure, in-control, competent “speeders”.

    “King said he would be contacting Gorman soon.”

    No doubt in an attempt to get him on board to help him “sell” this short-sighted system

  50. Glyph says:

    It just occurred to me that if DPS could cook their books as well as they cooked up these stats, we’d have no idea they were operating in the red.

    MAybe DPS should give up on the whole law enforcement gig and go into accounting. Sneak one of them into the NFL and the Cards would win the SuperBowl… in July!

  51. Curious George says:

    “I’m Back” wants to know how I know who is on the road… Unfortunately, some of you camerafraud morons are out there. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read from your posts and get an idea of where you’re coming from with regard to driving habits.

    As for mkaing “undue assumptions about people you’ve never met”, uh, who is calling the kettle black?

    Make your own ASSumptions, tiny brain.

  52. I'm Back says:

    Hahaha that sounds pretty accurate. I hope our new Gov cares more about this state than Manet Napolitano and Mary Manross did.


    Wow, that one felt good. BTW, where are the trolls today? Gathering various police phone numbers so that they will be ready to make noise complaints tonight and scour the ‘hood for underage drinking?

  53. I'm Back says:

    Ok Curious, I am officially done with you. That’s about the poorest attempt at an insult and you obviously didn’t read everything I said. If you did, you would have come to the “irony” part.

    Nice try though. Keep playing, but you’ve discredited yourself and I am washing my hands of you.

  54. jasund says:

    It’s really annoying to hear the same thing over and over and over again; “just slow down”, “don’t whine”, “you’re a baby”, “you just want to speed”.

    Believe it or not, there is a VERY large group of people who, at the very least, question the morality, ethics and philosophy of photo radar. Had you taken the time to read posts here or on other sites such as AZCentral, it’s possible you would recognize this fact.

    Instead, you are obstinate. You do even consider that there valid, reasonable, logical and intellectual arguments against photo radar that deserve consideration.

    Your train of thought is no different from a racist’s. You pass judgment with zero forethought and you make unsubstantiated assumptions about people. You do not read nor listen to what most of us are saying. I have state multiple times that I tend to drive with the flow of traffic. The normal flow of traffic is always faster than the speed limit and is most often more than 10mph over the posted limit, thus most people speeding most of the time.

    Many of us believe photo radar is simply another way for the Government to bilk money from honest people (since the tickets are so easy to get out of, only honest people pay them). Real criminals are hard to catch . We have asked for speed studies (on the 51 for example where a 4 lane highway with an HOV lave has a speed limit of 55mph). We have asked that photo radar be put to a vote (at no time has the public ever had an opportunity to vote on photo radar). We have noted that a foreign company has been granted the right to enforce domestic law. Further, we have noted that an employee of this foreign company who is by no stretch of the imagination licensed, much less qualified to enforce the law is enforcing it (a VERY frightening precedent indeed). We have drawn attention to the fact that speed limits must be set lower than is reasonable in order to both keep RedFlex profitable and to generate substantial income for the state (speed limits set for the speed that road is engineered for or set at the speed than most cars drive would eliminate any profitability from photo radar) We have noted that even if one protests the ticket, they are unable to challenge their accuser face to face in a court of law (a right protected by The Constitution). We have questioned what the future implications may be for a program such as photo radar (if photo radar were to continue unchallenged, what would be next?).

    I personally find it unconchinable that so many people are so closed minded and appear to motivated by such a strong agenda that they are unable to even remotely consider that there just might be a reasonable cause to listen. Instead, the number one reply I read is, “just slow down and you won’t have a problem”. While this may true, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

    I suggest that rather than post on these boards and call people names, you take a moment to try to develop a coherent thought using reason and logic and then draft a post. Try to engage us, me, or anyone in a rational discussion about photo radar and then you can begin to establish credibility.

    Until then, quit behaving like an immature child, don’t call people names, don’t tell anyone to just slow down and devote just a few minutes to thinking before writing.

  55. Curious George says:

    Oh yeah, “I’m Back” – I read that part. Pretty lame, even for a college freshman.

    As for jasund, who argues that there are “valid, reasonable, logical and intellectual arguments against photo radar that deserve consideration” – okay, there may be. I’m still waiting for one; they are certainly missing on this site.

    Shall we review?

    “It’s not as much fun” – quote from a 20-something protester. You call that a reasonable argument?

    “Its a money grab” – Well duh – the whole object of the game is to discourage speeding. I don’t care who gets your money, just as long as it comes out of your wallet – you want to driver dangerously? Then pay for your stupidity.

    “Its a scam – the cameras malfunction and are not calibrated” – Yes, there have been reported incidents of malfunctions, and when it happens, the citations are dismissed, a fact that you clowns tend to ignore. The assertions that the cameras are not calibrated are untrue – a fact you jerks won’t accept, but here’s a little tidbit: Redflex doesn’t need to alter the cameras – there’s enough stupid drivers like you who continue to speed even with the cameras present.

    “Its an invasion of privacy” – Funny, I don’t see you jokers protesting at bank ATMs, convenience stores, shopping malls..

  56. Joe says:


    Is spelled “unconscionable”.


  57. I'm Back says:

    Very well put Jasund. The problem is that we have posted so many well crafted mini essays like yours since the inception of this site and they keep coming back with the same name calling and faulty logic. Look at that post by Curious George in reply to me.

    He couldn’t even comprehend that I was poking holes in his form of arguing by lowering myself to his level. I’m almost 100% convinced that the majority of posts in favor of Photo Enforcement are by employees of Redflex and ATS. They are amusing in their simplicity and silly insults. I was just called a “tiny brain.” That’s very intelligent discourse indeed.

    We try and try, but these ridiculous posts are starting to get the better of me. I left this site for a long time as a poster and just continued on as a reader, now I’m Back because I’m tired of logging on to see these same people clogging up this website with nonsense when we are here to have an actual debate without made-up facts and conjecture. It’s really getting old.

    If you people really feel this strongly in favor of Photo Enforcement, why don’t you come up with your own Pro Photofraud website, so that we can call you names and question your intelligence AND TYPE IN ALL CAPS?? Do you know why you won’t? It’s because you don’t actually beleive in a cause and we do. You are just listening to your public officials who have allowed our cities to become over-built, over-budget and corrupt during a fake housing boom. Get a clue, seriously.

    Go ahead, call me an idiot or a tiny brain again! It makes your arguments sound so legitimate.

  58. Joe says:

    One could also probably show a statistical link between speed reduction and the economic slowdown, as people are less apt to be reckless with their cars when money is tight. DPS has no credibility releasing numbers such as these. And what would happen if we were to expand the sample period 5 days on either end? Probably a lot, as the department can cherry pick the results.

  59. Joe says:

    Seriously, we need to employ a better way of identifying those who post from a DPS, Redflex or ATS’ IP addresses and labeling them as such.

  60. RPr says:

    notice how kenpo changed to dpgjr777? LOL

  61. jasund says:

    oops. Joe is very right, misspelled unconscionable. Apologies. Was typing fast and googles it and that came up first. Funny thing, how many people have misspelled that word.

    I got dinked the other night on AZCentral. Someone commented that they agreed with most of my points, but the misspellings in my post took away from my credibility.

    Although, those errors were typos. I type fast and I think fast and I didn’t spell check the post. Thomas Jefferson was an admitted bad speller.

    This, I own up to. Completely my mistake. Thanks goes out to Joe for calling me out on it.

    I hope you (plural) can look past the spelling error and evaluate for the content.

    I promis, I’ll neve mispell unconscionable again!

  62. jgunn says:

    So in a somewhat non scientific observation that has probably more accuracy than DPS’s bogus statistics:

    On the way to some yummy Los Dos Molinas today going north on the 101 there was a photo scam van between the San Tan and the US 60. Everyone was doing 70 or so in a 55 (the cameras slow people down? OOOOOK) Saw the flashy yellow sign on the side of the road and slowed down before the valentine 1 started to alert to the van. All is well, right? So we eat sum grub and on the way back going South on the 101, almost exactly where the van was parked was an accident. So much for the cameras not causing any accidents like DPS says. The traffic of course was backed up for miles. What a crock of lies DPS is spewing forth to justify the cash grab.

  63. jasund says:

    Darn it, screwed that up as well!

    oops. Joe is very right, misspelled unconscionable. Apologies. Was typing fast and googled it and that came up first. Funny thing, how many people have misspelled that word.

    I got dinged the other night on AZCentral. Someone commented that they agreed with most of my points, but the misspellings in my post took away from my credibility. That was a post poking fun at the DPS report. It got 22 thumbs up and 1 down. I guess a few people liked it!

    Although, those errors were typos and not misspelling as is the case with this mistake. I type fast and I think fast and I didn’t spell check that post, my bad. Thomas Jefferson was an admitted bad speller (not that I am in any way comparing myself to Thomas Jeffeson).

    This, I own up to. Completely my mistake. Thanks goes out to Joe for calling me out on it.

    I hope you (plural) can look past the spelling error and evaluate the post for its content.

    I promis, I’ll neve mispell unconscionable agin! 🙂

  64. DG says:

    Curious has topped his obstinance yet again! Rather than argue the points made here with substance, he simply labeled everything “lame” and dismissed it. Childish. You have done so because you cannot possibly intellectually argue that there is any good reason for the state to violate our rights as put into the US Constitution.

    Curious yes, we shall review:
    “It’s not as much fun”- – true, but nobody here is arguing against the cameras using this argument (except you). In fact, just from where are you citing this information?

    “It’s a money grab” – – also true. However you say it’s for safety. It is not. It’s to cover the fiscal irresponsibility of our state governor, Janet Napolitano. She’s trying to make you responsible for balancing the budget rather than do so herself. This will only encourage further fiscal irresponsibility from our government. We are hardworking taxpayers who EARNED that money. We are NOT walking piggybanks to be raided whenever the state needs a bailout from failed policies.

    “It’s a scam”….”citations are dismissed etc.” – – yes, we all read that. What you don’t get is that once you get a ticket, if you can’t prove or don’t protest a malfunction, they won’t refund your money. If a camera is in error, once that flash goes off, you are GOING to lose time, money, or both. Regardless of whether or not you’re innocent.

    “It’s an invasion of privacy” – – Also true, but I have NEVER and I repeat NEVER gotten a ticket from a bank ATM, convenience store, or shopping mall. Also, you quite well miss that these are all PRIVATE establishments that can do whatsoever they want on their properties, we DON’T have to shop there. In contrast, these cameras are put on PUBLIC roadways that are necessary to get to work so we can pay taxes which, apparently, do not satiate the greed of our government. Public and private. You are arguing apples and oranges. As the roads are payed for with public taxes that we all pay, we have every right to protest how that money is spent.


  65. Joe says:

    I wonder, if there is an accident, is the guy in the van trained to render any kind of first-aid, or does he just call “the real DPS” and keep clicking away? That’s on eof the sick things about these pseudo police vehicles. They’re marked “DPS” and colored just like the vehicle of a sworn peace officer, yet the guy inside is just some schlub chomping on Taco Bell while he works the laptop. When we see a marked police vehicle, we should be able to expect a cop if/when we need one.

    It also seems to be a rather unsafe job for the poor schmuck that has to sit in a van awaiting his eventual turn to get slammed by a jacknifing semi truck.

  66. jasund says:

    Granted, I have read many nonsensical posts by people who say things such as “F the cameras” and “down with the Nazi state”. Similarly, I have read many posts such as yours calling people names like “tiny brain”, “whiner”, “you clowns (pretty judgmental I think, although like Kramer I am afraid of clowns!), and “jokers”. Of course I really like Marci’s favorite response, “just don’t speed and you won’t have a problem” (already addressed in the previous post, which would require you to read the entire thing).

    Frankly, although you relent that perhaps there are indeed reasonable arguments worth consideration against photo radar, you, sir, lose all credibility by also saying you have read non here nor anywhere.

    On another train of thought, your ridiculous quotes, such as “It’s not as much fun” from a 20 something protester, I’d love to see a reference where read that. Your post is a clear affirmation that you have made assumptions just as a racists would. You assume anyone who questions photo radar is stupid (such a statement itself actually being stupid). Oh, and I forgot, apparently we are all jerks too. That’s pretty funny. If you knew where I worked and what I did and what I could do for you in real life, boy would you bite your tongue, lol.

    Finally to address your invasion of privacy remark. I don’t think anyone here is claiming the current set up for photo radar in Phoenix is an invasion of privacy (Payson on the hand is another questions). I’ll try to say it vvveeerrrryyyy sssssllllloooowwwlllyyyyy so maybe you will actually use your mind to think about what I’m going to say. Please keep in mind, you have every right to disagree. One of the biggest concerns I have is the precedent photo radar sets. If I am correct, and speed limits are intentionally set lower than is reasonable (a concept shared my many including a renowned statistician in Texas) in order to make the venture profitable, the most frightening implication is that companies such as RedFlex will continue to develop new, more advance, more invasive and more detrimental methods of enforcing domestic law in an effort to not only maintain their current revenue, but to increase it. Thanks to our political pundits who are entirely infatuated with photo radar, the likely hood that they will gain these approvals with the powers that be (certainly not the people by the way) is exceedingly high.

    The ONLY chance that the people of Arizona will have is if these measures are brought to a vote, which although sincere efforts are being made to achieve this, I suspect is very unlikely.

    So in the end, probably the best course of action is to just deal with it. Those against photo cameras may indeed by the greater majority and they certainly have the loudest voices, as long as the ability exists to extract money from honest people, the cameras are here to stay (a very unfortunately prospect).

    Now, I realize this is a long post and I suspect you (curious George) will not take the time to read it in its entirety. But if you do, by all means, please respond with something intelligent. That would be a 100% improvement on what I have read from you so for.

    Best of luck.

  67. Curious George says:

    Well, Joe, I image the guy in the van would simply let Natural Selection take its course – like that guy who rode his motorcycle at a high rate of speed along Shea Blvd….. went to CameraFraud heaven – now he never has to worry about photo cameras. And we have one less twit on the road who thinks its his right to go as fast as he wants…

  68. photoradarscam says:

    At the end of this video, it shows 2 accidents CAUSED by cameras:

  69. jasund says:

    Sorry, first part got cut off.

    Curious George,

    Did you not read the entire post? I wrote an full paragraph raising questions (which I have raised dozens of times and never had any significant response to) regarding the right and wrong of photo radar. You even admit there may indeed me reasonable and logical arguments to be considered. Yet you also said you have not read any on these blogs.

    How can that be? Are you only reading posts in favor of cameras? Please, feel free to surf back through AZCentral articles on the cameras over the past month. You fill find a dozen posts by be and dozens more by others addressing these very topics.

    Not once have I said, “I just want to speed” nor have I said “anyone should be allowed to do what they want”. Rather, I have posed thought out, logical, rational arguments questioning the ethics, morality, economics, politics and philosophy surrounding the cameras. I have also read dozens of posts addressing the same issues.

  70. Not Amused says:

    Curious George Vocab Guide

    Idiot: Speeder
    Tiny Brain: One who speeds
    Twit: definitely a speeder who killed himself
    College Freshman: Poster on Camerafraud.com
    Clowns: someone making a logical argument
    Moron: person who disagrees with CG

    Keep it up. This is fun!

  71. dgpjr777 says:

    Glyph, I see you have not grown up yet. Too bad look in the mirror for the joke. Such a tough guy WOW……grow up just like I said before. You are the type that just can’t take it when someone has something to say that you do not agree with.
    Glad to be back and argue with you, love it. Keep the cameras !

  72. I'm Back says:

    Decided not to answer me huh? That doesn’t surprise. Get your own cause and learn another word besides, “clown” you CLOWN. HAHAHA.

  73. I'm Back says:

    PS If any of you “clowns” want to have a nice debate, I’ll be staying at the Pointe Tapatio tonight and enjoying New Years Eve from the Terrace over-looking the city that you claim to care about.

    I’ll make sure to have my college degree and my FINRA Series 7, 63, 66, 9 and 10 with me in case you want to call me an idiot. I will be the only white guy with a big group of Indians(from India) who are way more successful than any of you could ever dream of because they understand how to maintain a budget, unlike your heroes, Napolitano, Manross, Sheriff Joe, DPS, ATS and Redflex.

  74. jgunn says:

    Finally a “feel good” story for photo radar haters. It’s nice that they are raising limits on the I10 to a proper 85 percentile speed limit. At least that would be great if true. This is a great way to fight back against the photo cams until the can get permanently banned. I heart ADOT. I checked the site and it is hard to tell if ADOT is the same as DPS or a separate group or what.


    The speed limit on another stretch of Interstate 10 in Phoenix is going up.

    The Arizona Department of Transportation said Wednesday it will raise the limit to 65 mph from 55 mph between 24th Street near Sky Harbor International Airport and the “Stack” Interstate 17 interchange.

  75. photoradarscam says:

    What? How can it be safe to go 10mph faster next week that we could go this week?

    Going fast is dangerous! How can they possibly allow this to happen?

    It’s nice to know that driver aptitude has suddenly changed such that it’s suddenly safe to go 10mph faster.

  76. Curious George says:

    PhotoRadarScam – How did photoradar “cause” the accidents? Did they jump out in front of the cars? Nooo – it was as I said previously – motorist is speeding, sees camera, slams on brakes. Its not the cameras, its poor driving habits – habits that you seem to condone.

    Rather than address poor driving habits, you’d rather blame speed enforcement methods – it doesn’t matter if its a photo camera or an real live DPS officer. That’s why you guys have no credibility.

  77. Curious George says:

    jasund, the quote from the 20-something protester was printed in the Arizona Republic which ran a story on one of camerafrauds protests. Also, the argument that photo radar is an “invasion of privacy” has also been printed in the Az. Republic as well as argued on this very site.

    Also, I am very aware of how speed limits are arrived at – I know all about speed zone surveys, 85th percentile rules, etc. I also know that the 85th percentile is not the only criterion that traffic engineers should use – there are many other factors that are taken into consideration, such as terrain – hills, curves, etc; previous accident history, where excessive speed was a factor, and so on.

    Since you’re such an authority on this topic, enquiring minds want to know: What do you consider to be a prudent speed limit on, say Loop 101? The Beeline Highway (SR87)? Loop 202?

  78. Curious George says:

    Regarding posting protocol on this site, I find it curious that you guys take affront when I use the same tactics employed by most of the frequent posters here. You don’t like name calling, but you do the same. You dismiss and ridicule any posts that run counter to your agenda, yet you complain when others do it to you.

    One can have an intelligent discussion on the topic of photo cameras, speed enforcement, etc. But it doesn’t seem to be possible on this site.

  79. jgunn says:

    Someone jamming on the brakes upon seeing a photo radar camera to avoid a hefty fine is my definition of a wise person. It would take a drooling idiot to not slow down for the camera and receive a nice 200$ ticket in the mail a week later. What the F do you expect people to do. I’m glad people actually have the smarts to try and avoid BS tickets from the cameras.

  80. Curious George says:

    jgunn proves my point – thank you jgunn. You asked “what the F do you expect people to do”? Well, if you’re driving at the posted speed limit you don’t have to do anythig except keep on going.

    Do you actually think its smart to slam on the brakes when you see a photo camera or a law enforcemen officer? If you do, then YOU’RE the problem, not the cameras.

  81. Glyph says:

    dgpjr777, go back and read the thread…

    I have no problem with differing opinions. YOU CALLED ME A MORON, I simply invited you to say that to my face. YOU disagreed with me and decided to insult me

    The invitation stands. Put up or shut up.

  82. No One says:

    Curious George–

    Have you absolutely never ever sped in your life, even by accident? I expect you have if you have ever driven before. Now imagine if you suddenly realize you are speeding. What do you do?

    Most people (if there’s no cameras around) would slowly decelerate to the speed at which they intended to travel. If there are cameras around, many would hit the brakes to decelerate quicker and reduce the possibility of geting “caught.” This is what is being seen around town right now.

    Regardless of who thinks what about why this is happening, the fact is this is exactly the net effect. You tell me, is this safe? Is forcing a sudden deceleration on our freeways the best way of handling this issue?

    You see, it’s not about anyone condoning a specific style of driving, or advocating anything— it’s about making sure that real-world conditions are accounted for and that attempts at safety are not counterproductive. Right now, anyone that drives can tell you people slam on their brakes at the camera zones. Cameras = artificial bottlenecks and people slamming on their brakes, causing an unsafe condition. This is the effect in the real world and that’s a fact.

    You can call the drivers doing this unsafe, stupid, speed demons, product of Arizona’s educational system, or anything else, but that’s skirting the real issue. The issue is not who does it or why. People ARE doing it– so the issue is one of how to either prevent it or mitigate the damages. Taking down the camera would prevent it– so unless you have a different idea other than namecalling, taking down the camera would seem to be the best course of action on that particular issue.

  83. dgpjr777 says:

    Glyph, you also insulted me to start with so grow up and shut up. Your boring me with your childish challenges.

  84. mighty1 says:

    No One I don’t see why you all keep complaining about the braking when cameras are present. Again they are well marked by signs ahead of time. If a marked patrol car is sitting on the side of the road it causes the same reaction if not worse by people hitting their brakes. You cannot convince me its a camera problem, its the people driving. You can have cars pulled over on the side of the road and you have people slowing down causing back ups and so on anytime of the day just because people sometimes brake just for anything. Come on now you see it everyday, again at least the areas with cameras are marked.

  85. Glyph says:

    No, I questioned your credentials. Come on over, flash your badge, and put an end to this whole thing…

    or just shut up.

  86. No One says:

    Mighty– the braking issue is just one of the myriad of issues present, but it’s also one that Curious G seems to disregard entirely. When you say it’s just like a police car pulled over, and it happens every day, you are exactly right. It does happen every time there is an artificial disturbance in the traffic flow— and that’s the point.

    See, a police cruiser only has his lights on when needed. Usually an officer is right there, manytimes outside the safety of his vehicle and the lights are to protect the officer. So, you have the brake effect, but it is for a purpose– to alert drivers and protect the police officer. A camera zone is ALWAYS there causing a disturbance in the traffic flow, even if not providing safety for someone on the side of the road. Why specifically, purposefully introduce additional bottlenecks if not for the safety of the officer?

    Additionally, police lights are specifically designed to catch attention and alert all drivers within visual range that something is happening up ahead and they need to pay extra attention. While there are yellow signs posted for the cameras, they are not nearly as attention-getting as the bright flashing multi-colored lights the police use. Therefore, there is much more of a possibility that one driver will catch the warning and one will not. IE one person hits his brakes, the other doesn’t and disaster ensues.

    So yes they are very similar in that they both create a bottleneck and make people hit their brakes, but they use a different mechanism and one has a specific purpose (of which no one will argue the relationship to safety) and the other has a completely different purpose whose relationship to safety is still hotly debated.

  87. mighty1 says:

    I disagree, they can be sitting there without lights on in the median and cause the same disruptment with the flow of traffic. Granted that is one of your many arguments but not one I will ever agree with from reading your web-site comments.
    The people flying past the yellow signs deserve the tickets as far as I am concerned. The speed out here is totally ridiculous on the highways. If people cannot slow down when the signs are posted, oh well pay the ticket. Remember in the state of Arizona you sign that paper that states its a priviledge to drive not a right.
    To me this is a no win situation, really. You are always going to have people complain about whatever the state does when money is involved. To me let the people that violate the law pay the money, and yes I have gotten a ticket for speed and ever since then I have slowed down, so whats the big deal.

  88. RPr says:


    Are you also willing to video tape every driver in order to catch the few people that run a red light?

  89. Curious George says:

    The rather long and tedious justification for hitting the brakes when seeing cameras (or law enforcement officers) doesn’t change the argument that its poor driving habits that can cause accidents, not the cameras themselves. If you’re driving within 10MPG of the posted speed limit its a non-issue – there’s no reason to hit the brakes. And yes, people slow down whenever there’s something unusual in the environment – cops on the shoulder sharing donuts, animals running across the road, anything out of the ordinary.

    And to answer someone’s question, yes, I’ve speeded. Yes, I’ve even gotten a ticket for speeding. Yes, I deserved it. But I finally decided to stick to the posted speed limit – the difference arrival time is negligable, and I no longer worry about cops, cameras, whatever. If you get stuck behind me, deal with it. If Sheriff Joe’s deputies can live with my driving at 65 on the Beeline, so can you.

    But we’re not really getting at the heart of the issue. The problem is that Arizona has had a chronic problem for years with both red light running as well as excessive speeding. The appliction of cameras to deal with the situation is simply that – an attempt to address a problem, nothing more.

    According to you guys, the big bad evil empire (aka city, state govt, DPS – pick your your bully), just came up with a solution on their own to a non-problem, merely as a money grabbing ploy. Sorry, but I can’t swallow this – its B.S. and all of you know it – you just don’t want to admit it. You have other agendas. From reading some of the posts on this site and reading the articles in the Az. Republic I suspect that it isn’t a single agenda – several people are fighting the cameras for different reasons.

    Are the cameras intrusive? Yes. Are they an invasion of your privacy? Yes. Is it any different when getting pulled over by a law enforcement officer and getting a citation? No. Some of you may, and the operative word here is MAY, argue that using live cops to enforce the speed limits are preferable – sorry, but to me its the same.

    But clearly, some of you don’t think that there should be speed limits at all. Some of you think that you can drive safely at whatever speed you choose – no surprise there. Hopefully there’s only a few people who intentionally go out there and drive at speeds that they don’t feel confident driving.

    But where do you draw the line? I noticed that nobody volunteered to answer my questions about what wouldl be a prudent speed limit for, say loop 101, 202 or the Beeline Highway – I suspect that nobody wants to have a speed limit at all. But to remove the speed limits and cameras takes us to a place where none of us really wants to go.

    So lets have a discussion about the real problem – dangerous driving and what to do about it, rather than whine about civil liberties and so on. We lost a lot of freedom and privacy a long time ago and nothing, short of destruction of our civilization, is going to change that – we’re being monitored all the time, and in ways you’re not even aware of. So its really silly to all of a sudden point to speed cameras and complain about invasion of privacy.

    I’d really like to hear from you folks about the issues I’ve raised – what constitutes a reasonable speed limit? How is it best enforced given obvious contraints on enforcement resources?

    Lets have a serious, intelligent discussion for a change – otherwise nobody is going to take you serously.

  90. jgunn says:

    OK, so phoenix is the safest city to drive in with 1 million+ population. No other 1 Million + city even came close in the rankings. So where oh where did we get the notion that phoenix is like the most dangerous city to drive in. Can someone please cite the statistics? Cause it seems like the issue of traffic safety was totally blown out of proportion in the opposite direction to justify rolling out cameras to make a boatload of cash for Redflex and the state. Here you go, just the facts. If you have other FACTS to justify another position, please post them here.

    Cities with More Than 1 Million Residents
    For the second consecutive year, drivers in Phoenix are the safest big city commuters according to Allstate. Drivers in Phoenix can expect to bump into another vehicle on the roadway every 9.7 years – slightly more frequent than the national average. And, New York City moves to number three on Allstate’s list of cities with populations greater than 1 million people.

    75. Phoenix, Ariz., is 3.6% more likely to have a collision compared to the national average (9.7 avg. years between collisions).

    113. San Diego, Calif., is 11.9% more likely to have a collision compared to the national average (8.9 avg. years between collisions).

  91. No One says:

    Mighty1–We’ll just have to agree to disagree, and that’s OK. That’s actually not my biggest issue with this. If you really want the breakdown of my personal reasons behind my opposition of the cameras, please have a look at the Show Low thread posted a couple weeks back. I got on a bit of a roll (several times throughout the thread) and posted nearly all my objections in great detail.

    Curious G-

    On the subject of speed limits, my personal opinion, or anyone’s personal opinion for that matter, is not really relevant to this issue in my mind. I’d see it raised to 70 like in California, but that’s neither here nor there. The “heart of the issue” as you put it is quite simple– there’s a few questions that ought to have been answered before work began and one which has yet to be answered.

    1) how unsafe were the roads,
    2) how much more safer would the new system make them
    3) what are the associated costs of the “improvement” and
    4) are these associated costs worth whatever potential gains may be made?

    and last, number 5: Once the system is in place were gains actually made, and if so were they on par with what was expected?

    Now, we can sit here and debate the finer points of all of these, but , so I’ll focus on numbers 1 and 3.

    1) I think we have some extremely safe roads, I have been driving in this city for 16 years and have never had an accident in it. (I did have one accident but that was on a dirt road way outside town and is therefore outside the scope of this issue). I have never personally had a problem, nor have most people I know and those have had an issue were minor. To my knowledge other than one kid in Jr high who played chicken with a car and lost, none of my family or acquaintances have lost their lives to a vehicle accident. Seems pretty safe to me! And the post above, with us being an average of 9.7 years between collisions, would seem to support that.

    2) How much safer could they be is related directly to question 1– and there’s always room for improvement, but again 9.7 years between collisions doesn’t leave a whole lot of room!

    3) much of the money generated goes to redflex, the rest to a black hole. The governor’s office has already budgeted 90 million from this program for next year– and that’s their take. So realistically we the citizens are expected to pay over well 100 over million dollars a year. That’s a pretty big price tag! And then there’s of course the cost of being served, and additional court costs, and any number of other costs. It’s difficult to place a dollar amount here but I’d guess that 150 million is probably conservative. But we’re not done there. There’s issues with our rights as citizens, privacy concerns, (which before you say it’s just like an ATM please have a look at my comments under the pickaxe attack thread), constitutionality issues (which involve more court costs), and of course the fact that numerous other principalities have been caught red-handed purposely rigging the system for profit. (I have yet to hear anyone say why our government is any better than theirs or explain what sort of safeguards are in place!)

    So, now we’re to the heart of hearts. Is it worth the associated costs? Does it make the roads that much safer? Given the relatively slim margin for improvement, and the large amount of risks, I cannot say yes. Now some people are fond of saying that “if it saves one life it’s worth it”– and that’s an admirable sentiment from an individual. But from a governmental entity, that is one small step removed from “the ends justify the means”— and even if the issue for the government is safety (which I do not for one second believe it is) I for one do not feel safe at all when a government gets remotely close to that precipice.

  92. No One says:

    One other thought… in business we have Six Sigma and one of its central ideas is the DMAIC cycle–

    Define the problem, Measure it, Analyze the data, Improve whatever you’re setting out to improve and Control the results. I would think that as a matter of policy D M and A (or the government’s version thereof) should have should have been done prior to implementation of the cameras. To make a major shift in law enforcement without some sort of analytical process like the DMAIC cycle would be negligent to say the least so I assume there’s some sort of documentation out there. I as a citizen would like to see it, as I expect it would answer a number of the issues raised here such as what numbers or statistics were used to define the initial problem of the roads being so “unsafe.”

    Anyone know how to make a Freedom of Information Act request (or its appropriate equivalent)?

  93. j says:

    i took some advice from this site and googled redflex. anybody who thinks redflex is so honest should google them and see what kind of trouble these guys are in all over the place. what a pack of schemers and liars.

  94. j says:

    and ats has all kinds of issues also when u look them up. i guess when it comes to government and these groups u just have to apply the birds of a feather flock together rule.

  95. Curious George says:

    jgunn, I’m surprised that you think Pheonix is one of the safest cities to drive. I did a little snooping on the web – admittedly I didn’t spend too much time, but according to usinsuranceonline.com:


    Arizona is ranked 13th highest on money spent on auto insurance, which agrees with my experience. I’ve lived in a number of states: California, Colorado, New Jersey, Pennsylvania – I paid more for insurance here in Az. I’ve lived here for 18 years now, and I recall reading lots of news articles, years before the cameras were introduced, that Arizona had one of the highest incidents of red light running and accidents due to excessive speed. In my own personal experience, in the last ten years, I’ve been incolved in 3 accidents (none were my fault) – just my bad luck perhaps…

    Anyway, don’t know what to say about this matter except that I still don’t subscribe to the notion that city/state govt decided to manufacture a problem just so they could institute cameras to fleece the public. You’re giving them far more credit than they deserve. Believe me, they’re not that sophisticated – I’ve dealt with city managers and traffic engineers before..

    No One, I have just a couple of comments. I don’t think the roads here in Arizona are unsafe per se, but I’ve experienced a perceptible aggressive attititude when I drive in Scottsdale, say on Shea Blvd. Via Linda, and, prior to the installation of cameras, on Loop 101. Since the introduction of cameras on Shea and the 101, there’s been a noticeable difference in driving habits – for the better.

    As far as the revenue generated by cameras, citations issued by real-live cops, etc. I don’t really care where the money goes. The whole point of fines is to motivate bad drivers to change their behavior.

    I’ve argued this before and continue to do so: There’s a simple solution to getting rid of the cameras – simply curtail the revenue stream. If the cost of keeping the cameras operating gets close or exceeds the revenue coming in then they will go away. Yeah, I know, you’re going to respond that the operators will fiddle with the settings so law-abiding drivers will get citations. This is untrue, and again, you know it even if you won’t admit it. But even it was, I contend that there’s a simple, straightforward way to deal with that – these are mechanical devices and its easy to establish whether or not they are working correctly.

  96. Ross from Redflex says:

    Some of you blokes trust your government waaayyy too much. 😉

  97. No One says:

    It has been specifically documented proven and reported by reputable news services that that at least six cities have indeed messed with the timing of red light cameras and shortened them when the cameras weren’t making enough money. This isn’t conjecture or hearsay, it’s a fact. And again, I ask what evidence do you have that our government will not perform a similar trick? What have you seen that I haven’t?

    I think we are looking at it from the exact opposite perspective. You are looking at it as a safety system which “just happens” to rake in millions of dollars. I see it as a cash cow which “just happens” to have some perceived connection to public safety.

    If the money was just an unexpected bonus, the government would not have it already accounted for and basically spent before it even came in. I’ve said it before and I will say it again— any actual benefit, life saved, child molester captured, etc etc etc is nothing more than a byproduct, an afterthought. And to see such important topics relegated to the backburner in favor of the Almighty Dollar makes my blood boil.

  98. photoradarscam says:

    If just saving one life is worth it, then it would be “worth it” to reduce the speed limit to 10mph everywhere. That would save thousands of lives undoubtedly. Is it worth it?

    I say no, it’s not worth grinding society to a halt to save a small number of lives in a very safe transaportation system.

    Insurance rates are not a good indicator of safety. Insurance rates are set by a number of factors including competition, marketing expenses, market share, regulatory costs, and other businesss factors as well as expense-related costs such as THEFT RATES, vandalism rates, as well as accident rates. AZ is notorious for vehicle theft and hit-and-run by unlicensed motorists, which I suspect is the biggest contributor to insurance rates here being what they are.

    Any engineer knows that you do not rely on PEOPLE to modify their own behavior. You change the SYSTEM or ENVIRONMENT to get the desired behavior out of people. If you want safer intersections, it’s well proven that lengthening the yellow-light times is quite effective. If you want safer roads you install speed bumps, engineer embankments to handle certain speeds, add lanes, change striping, change signage, etc, etc. Fines and other “punishments” make for lousy deterrents, just ask any safety inspector.

    Our public officials implements photo enforcement without a proper analysist of the problem. Using 6 sigma or some other established process for analyzing the “problem” of unsafe roads would have been a proper start. Proper data should be collected and a proper root cause analysis performed. If the findings mirror the 2008 NHTSA Accident causation survey, then officials would know to pursue avenues directed at driver error and driver distractions, NOT speeding. Instead, our officials have gone off and made decisions without proper evidence, analysis, and no stated goals. This would never fly in the corporate world.

  99. me says:

    Jgunn, post the police report of the wreck you saw on the 101 you claim was caused by the photo radar van. Do it or you have lost all credibility.

    Ross from Redflex, you government would probably censor this website

    photoradarscam, the speed limit on the 10 is going back to 65 due to construction ending in the area. Oh by the way, if one life isn’t worth it, I hope for you it doesn’t turn out to be one of your loved ones.

  100. photoradarscam says:

    If one life is worth it, then why are we all driving faster than 10mph? We can save at least 1 life if we all drive 10mph.

  101. No One says:

    So, “me…”

    How exactly is it that anyone can “lose all credibility” if they cannot prove their sources or the argument they are making? He said he SAW an accident, not that he was involved. Why would he be able to rattle off the police report number if he didn’t get it to begin with? Before you say it’s a matter of public record (which I don’t know if it is or not) you can look it up for yourself if you’re that interested.

    Sorry, for being a bit snippy but I am getting a bit tired at the pro-camera people always asking for “proof” when the fact is, I have yet to see a pro-camera argument that’s supported by hard data and unadulterated statistics. Nor have I seen one which comes remotely close to addressing the privacy and constitutionality concerns of the issue and no one has even attempted to explaining away the fact that a multi-million dollar adjustment to the way the law is enforced was not run by the populace, it was just pushed through.

    Fact is, when you have a system which has been in place and working for decades, the burden of proof should always be on those who wish to change the system. (IE your side of the fence).
    Not to mention the fact that you are on an ANTI-camera website and if you’re going to post here you probably ought to be ready to defend your position. Therefore, sorry, but you have the burden of proof on this whole issue.

    Address the issues I raised above, else YOU have lost all credibility. How d’ya like them apples? 🙂

  102. I'm Back says:

    Seriously “Me”,
    I just come on here for fun and to rub it in the faces of all these pathetic AZ people. We are taking so much of their money, it’s unbelievable. It doesn’t really matter what “my government” would do, Arizona’s government is the one I’m really fond of.

    I think No One is probably right, the tide is turning the other way now, but it will happen so slowly that there will be plenty of money to go around before it does.
    You blokes have a pretty lousy economy anyway, so it might be time to focus on places that actually have some decent jobs left. It’s hard to get blood from a turnip and most of these call center monkeys and waiters/waitresses/bartenders can’t even afford the $181, let alone an extra $130 on top of it.

    It was nice to know you AZ and the photo enforcement isn’t over by a long shot, so keep those wallets ready. Oh, and slow down, it’s all for safety and get a life.


  103. me says:

    those apples? like another poster said, ya’ll like to dish it, but can take it back.
    You want to argue DPS’s statistics and ‘facts’, but ask for proof of a so called accident because of photo radar and….. and….? hm, irony.
    I was just asking for like you said, something that’s supported by hard data.

  104. No One says:

    Sorry, I got off on a bit of a tangent there, but the point I was trying to make is that a police report is most likely not available since he merely “saw” the accident and was not a participant. To my knowledge there is not a database out there which is both accessible to the general public and allows one to obtain a police report on a traffic based solely on location and time.

    So given that there’s no way to obtain a report, the statement that he’d “lose all credibility” unless he came up with one struck me as a bit much.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: