Gov. Jan Brewer Hates Redflex Photo Cams

postitUsing straightforward language to describe her views on Redflex’s beleaguered freeway scam cameras, new Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has finally let loose:

“I hate it,” Gov. Jan Brewer said Friday about the system of 100 fixed and mobile speed cameras being deployed under a contract signed last year. That came after former Gov. Janet Napolitano insisted on putting the requirement into the budget in hopes of raising money.”

The former Secretary of State, who was once directed disrespected by Redflex, continued on to say that it’s all about the money:

“I certainly don’t support photo radar as a revenue-generating solution to solving our budget,” Brewer said. “And I believe that’s what it initially was put in (the budget) for.”

The Cameras are Coming Down.


94 Responses to Gov. Jan Brewer Hates Redflex Photo Cams

  1. RPr says:

    The governor is opposed to the “Big Brother-ism” of the cameras that shoot images of all drivers that pass, regardless of whether the drivers are speeding. “It’s truly an invasion of our privacy,” she said.

  2. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    here in lies the problem…. this secretary ( which is about all she is qualified for) is under the impression that the cameras were installed to solve the budget !!!! i doubt we could get enough people to speed to solve the budget!!!!

    jan can you get me some coffee please….

  3. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    As a troll, of course you’d resort to a personal attack instead of addressing the issue. It is the classic “discredit the source while ignoring the content” approach favored by Foxnews and other professional trolls.

    Jan Brewer is far more qualified to comment on this subject then your false identity is. Nowhere in the quote did she say the scameras were the ONLY solution to the budget, only that she didn’t believe they were a good choice as A revenue generating solution.

    If you’re going to lie, try not to do so in such an obvious manner.

    Trolls such as yourself tend to purposely misquote for their own selfish interests, even when the original quote is easily accessed on the same page as their own lies.

  4. RedFlexGoHome says:

    From the same article:

    “Napolitano promoted photo enforcement of speed laws as a method of reducing accidents. But the former governor admitted she set up the law in a way designed to get people to pay the $165 tickets without question: The offenses are not reported to insurance companies and do not accumulate points against a motorist’s license.”

    So, there it is. Revenue generation, not justice.

  5. Scott A. says:

    I have recently found this site and joined the Meet-up group. I check this site often to see the latest news. One thing I have noticed is this Law A. Bidingcitizen person posting quite frequently constantly posting nothing but negative words. I think they get pleasure from arguing with people on here, its very annoying. I bet that if nobody acknowledged this person what-so-ever they would eventually stop posting. However, at the same time I’m sure they will have something to say about this post, bashing me in some way with 3 !!! marks after every other sentence. If it makes them happy, oh well, they have every right to be here as I do… It must be depressing being so negative!!!!!!

  6. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    well i dont see a direct quote from janet.. did you? and what is wrong with enticing those that BROKE THE LAW BY SPEEDING to pay the fine… by making it cheaper than if they were pulled over and cited for the same speed and did not have points on their record and therefore not increasing their insurance premiums.

    and it is not me that said this ” i certainly dont support photo radar as a revenue generating solution to solving our budget”

    thats from the mouth of the clown herself!!! i dont see anything there to indicate she thinks there are other solutions to the budget..

    but she does advocate cutting 100 million from the education budget.. which she did after she was sworn in!!! if she has her way… we will not have to worry about speeding cause our children will not be able to read to take the learners permit!!!

  7. Scott says:

    LAC, I suspect you are a very intelligent and thoughtful person who is not as bitter and angry as you come across in your posts….why don’t you meet and have lunch or a drink with one of the official anti-camera organizers in the near future? Both of you might be surprised.

  8. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scott- thanks for the strong words of encouragment!! why are you not at the big rally…. ignore me if you want… i will get over it!!!
    these tools do not have the unified strength to ignore me… when it comes to me and what i post .. i am worse than a tic to them!!! just the sight of my user name gets their attention…

  9. Scott A. says:

    LA- Does that make you proud?

  10. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Scott A

    I have mole inside of ATS who tells me Law A. is a scamera industry insider.

    This virulent troll started out spouting the ATS/Redflex PR vomit note-for-note, but has not gotten any traction there, and has since resorted to simple ad hominem attacks.

    I’m torn between ignoring them and using them as the convenient straw man they make of themselves.

  11. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i am sorry if i come accross as angry.. that would be what you are reading into it.. you are the first person to suggest this… are you a pysch?

    however, i do get quite angry when i am driving down the freeway doing the posted speed limit and some moron goes flying by me because they have the one qualification that we all have to speed at unsafe rates…. A FOOT!!! they dont care about the consequences of their actions … i find that sickening… here is just how angry it makes me… i am glad i do not own a gun!!! oops … does that make me an anfry person?

  12. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    hey scott… it is stuff like this that makes me laugh.. there is a guy here named matt that has access to all of our ip addresses… 2 days ago he ackowledged that my ip is not linked to any business and for sure not red flex… what red flex go home just wrote is an out and out lie… that is what we get a lot of here… half truths, truths left out, truths that are twisted to make their points and then of course the bold face lie… YOU WERE JUST LIED TO.. how does that make you feel … angry or happy?
    fact is i am at a pc in gilbert .. at my house… i do not work for or have ever worked for any camera company or anybody associated with the cameras.. i work at a grocery store!!!

  13. RedFlexGoHome says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen

    Most of the police officers I know (and I’m friends with a few) have candidly told me they tend to drive between 5-7mph in excess of posted limits most of the time. The same is true for most of my non-LE friends. None of these people have been in a serious accident at any point of their driving history.

    How do you reconcile that with your assertion that they are reckless? If what you say is credible at all, they would have been involved in fatalities.

    As I’ve said before, if you’re so terrified of other drivers, you need to use public transportation or just become a shut-in. We don’t need another panicky fear-biter on the road who pees all over himself whenever someone passes them.

  14. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scott you have found a site that will throw things out as facts when they are not… for instance. the pictures above with the captions.. their is a picture of a mercedes… the caption claims that is an employee’s of redflex… we dont know that… another picture is of a group of people.. the caption claims they are all redflex employees.. and that is just one example… you dont even have to look close to expose the lies and propoganda…

    then there is the picture of the dps suv..on the side of the freeway pointing down… they claim that the suv is about to roll and the dps crusier also in the picture is there to assist the terrified driver of the suv… there is nothing in that picture that suggests that suv is about to roll or that the officer in the cruiser is there for any reason.. the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the suv is on a slope pointed downward!!!

  15. Scott A. says:

    LA- I get angry sometimes too when people fly by me on the freeway. But thats their decision. Everthing we do as individuals has repercussions with the rest of society. Just as you get angry when someone drives fast by you, they might be thinking “I wish this guy would get out of my way!” I’m not saying thats the right thing to do, I’m saying what you think, and that other person think are the same. Both of you think the other person is wrong and that makes you angry. The ability to make decisions is what makes us human, you have the ability to make the decision to not let that bother you. Negative energy attracts negative energy.

  16. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    how manty times do you think i ave heard the last part of your post here? it is getting old… any speed can be unsafe and the higher the speed the more unsafe it is… i can not answer your question without observing them drive… just cause they think they are not reckless does not make it true… poll most drunk drivers.. hell they think they were not weaving !!!

  17. Im A. Shriekingdouchebag says:


    You’re all liars!!!


    I want everyone else to slow down!

  18. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scott – the faster someone goes the less likely they can control the vehicle… the ability to stop in a timely manner is compromised the higher the speed… as far as i am concerned there is no need to go more than 70 mph on our highways… and i dont care what time of day it is… to go faster is iresponsible.. imagine if we as a society just let people break any law they see fit without recourse? or with limited chance they would get caught… what kind of society would that be? would it be a place you would want to raise kids?

  19. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    forgot to tell you scott.. from time to time one of these morons will type my user name and write as though it is me… that is the kind of people that are here…

  20. Scott A. says:

    LA- I understand not everyone here posts all truths, even the people who have the same opinion as I do in regards to the cameras, thats fine, it doesn’t make me angry because I don’t care about all the back and forth playground antics. I’m sure some of the other people here are falsly accusing you of stuff, or maybe not, doesn’t matter to me. All that matters to me is I feel the cameras are wrong, period, everything else is fluff. I don’t care about stats and employees cars, you might very well be correct on the things you are saying, thats fine. It all boils down to one thing, for or against the cameras, thats it.

  21. Im A. Shriekingdouchebag says:


    Won’t someone please think of the children???


    I can’t control my vehicle over 40mph, and neither can anyone else!!!!

  22. Scott A. says:

    LA- I don’t mean any disrespect, but I find it interesting that you said you work at a grocery store. I worked at a grocery store before and I was amazed how negative the employees were. I had to get out of there, the checkers were the worst. Remember, you become what you surround your self with. I think they felt trapped and hopeless, and there was constantly employee drama. The way you present yourself here reminds me of that. Like I said, I truly mean no disrespect, just observation.

  23. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    this site was mentioned on azcentral…. so i thought i would check it out.. see over there i noticed that the anti camera group seemed to be splintered into 3 sub groups and all had differing opinions as to why they dislike the cameras.. so i thought i would see what this group had to say… they too are splintered. though to a little lesser degree..

    my message is simple… people that drive these streets, highways and freeway need to slow down.. i spent 4 years making deliveries for a small company that i owned.. the beligerant nature of those that speed infuriated me… when the cameras went up on the 101 three years ago i saw with my own eyes the speeds reduced .. then came the stats from the city of scottsdale that they indeed did save lives and reduce accidents.. ( the group here will dispute all finding from anything that does not support their cause)
    i dont care why the cameras were erected… if it was to increase revenue then fine with me.. as long as it reduces speeding.. i am fine with it… if it was done underhanded then those that had a hand in it should be prosecuted if they broke the law… if it was redflex then when the contract is up the state should evaluate all things involved with what has transpired.. if anyone from redflex broke the law then they should be held accountable… both sides throw out stats that “prove” their position, redflex and the state and anti groups …i dont put much faith in any stats… i believe in what i have seen and feel…

  24. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i have been in the business for 24 years… mostly in management… got out of that aspect 5 years ago when i started my business… i had to stay employed though for the insurance… union benefits are great… if you think that i am angry or negative… then i am not going to waste my time to convince you otherwise… to tell you the truth it is not that important to me… but know this… when someone is fighting for a cause or arguing their position… that in and of itself does not lend an insight into ones “personal side” it tends to bring out the emotions in people… and emotions attached with passion are not always pretty… or nice!!!

  25. Sick of Government says:

    LA, again, until you get your police cert, badge, glock & radar gun, stop being the speed police. It’s not up to you to control others’ actions on the freeway. If you have a concern and think someone is going too fast, give the ol’ DPS a call. You will NEVER be able to control anyone elses actions except your own. Now, move over or you’re just as bad as someone doing 85 – and just as illegal.

  26. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    thanks for your opinion….

  27. Scott A. says:

    My biggest fear with the cameras, above all else, is what they can turn into, not so much as what they are doing now. I don’t like the notion that the govenment is watching everything we are doing on camera. The camera can not place judgment on a situation. It is just as unsafe to drive 65mph when traffic is going 75-80mph, as it is to drive 75-80mph when traffic is going 65mph. People generally change lanes to go around slower cars, the more times a car changes lanes the more chance for an accident. The more traffic is all going the same speed, less lane changes, less chance of an accident. Our average freeway speed is 65mph now, but decades ago that speed would be way unsafe, given the old brake technology and lack of saftey features. Cars these days can handle much higher speeds safer than previous generations of cars. Have you ever driven 65mph in an old 50’s farm truck, then gone 65mph in a 2000+ Toyota (or the like)? Huge difference.

  28. I'm Back says:

    Someone made a good point at the meetup a couple weeks ago.

    If DP$ really cared about safety, why wouldn’t they put timers on the walk signal, like the ones at 24th and Camelback? This alerts pedestrians, but also drivers when the yellow light is coming so that they’re not caught off guard by it. Is it because it’s too expensive?

    If we are going to obsess over safety, like the camera supporters are doing, why not give the driver more advantages instead of just taxing them for “bad driving” after the fact?

  29. Scott A. says:

    I’m Back- I agree, they could do a lot more to make things safe, like what you mentioned and with longer yellows, so less people run redlights. Or have a longer gap of time before the next light turns green after a red, so if anyone did run it, the other cars haven’t left the line yet. Just a few examples.

  30. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scott.. good points… and while technology for a care has made cars safer, in case of accidents, and made them easier to drive.. it has done nothing to improve the driver… i myself dont feel that the average person has the reflexes and motor skills( they go hand in hand) to be able to control their vehicle at those speeds… how will they react if they or someone else experiences a blown tire? how will they react when someone drifts into their lane.. how can they handle that speed and do one or some of the following
    1. tune the radio
    2. talk on the phone
    3. eat
    4. drink
    5. out on makeup
    6. shave
    7. text!!!!
    8. discipline children
    9. argue with occupant
    thats just to name a few.. there are others… not many people who speed concentrate just on speeding and maybe those few can control themselves .. they can not control what others do….

  31. Scott A. says:

    What if those timers where in the yellow light bulb. So when the light went from green to yellow, the yellow light also counted down, 10,9,8,7… so as you are approaching you know how much time you have. I don’t care who you are or how good a driver you are, sometimes getting though the intersection before the yellow ends is tough. There are a lot of veriables, every intersection has different timing on the light which makes it hard to decide if you need to jam on the brakes, or carry you constat speed through an intersection (I’m not even talking about accelerating through the intersection). When you are appoaching an intersection and it turns yellow, you only have a split second to make that call, brake, or keep going. You also have to consider if anyone is behind you, you don’t want to get rear-ended.

  32. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i dont think that the dps has anything to do with those lights… that is something that each city controls.. and yes… it is all about $$$$ if its not in the budget.. you can not upgrade it…

    scott- i would just like to see people take responsibility for their actions… instead of running that light… hey how about stopping? instead of rolling through a stop sign in residential.. how about coming to a complete stop… on tueday and thursday mornings i take my daughter to school, she has to be there early for chorus… it amazes me how many people ignore the 15 mph…. as i travel to her school we usually get behind the bus… it seems to be everyday now that someone coming on either direction from the bus ignores the stop sign that comes out and go right past the bus ( i have witnessed people accelerate just to try and beat it with no concern for a kid that might be near)… a guy the other morning went around me so he would not have to stop!!! i tried to catch him after the bus moved on but i wasnt going to endanger kids lives sppeding through the neighborhoods to catch the moron..

    taking responsibility for ones actions seems to be a problem in this country… why take the blame when you can point the finger somewhere else!!! or the age old excuse.. ” well everybody else does it”..

  33. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scott.. agreed … and if you are going the speed limit that decision is easier to make and the stop easier to make than if you approach the light doing 60…. which it seems like 50-60 is what 1/3 rd of the people are doing on the surface streets…

  34. Scott A. says:

    LA- I agree completely. I think the drivers training the MVD requires is antiquated for what todays drivers face. What they require is a joke. I think drivers need to have real world training. Why do they not have training like Bob Boundrant school of high performance driving. How can you know how to handle a skid if you never been in a skid, at Boundurant they have skid cars that teach you what to do in that situation. So, it seems to me that since its the driver, not the car, the government should spend more on driver training and education to reduce accidents and reckless driving then punishing drivers after the fact. We don’t get taught correctly what they want us to do, then they punish us for it, doesn’t make sense to me.

  35. Sick of Government says:

    LAB, you have no idea of the experience/expertise of whoever is speeding by you so it’s not up to you to judge. The only thing you need to do is yield and worry less about other drivers.

    You have no idea what is going on with the other driver. They could be rushing home to a wife in labor or something. One time I had to leave downtown and get to sun city because my wife was taken to the ER with anaphylactic shock. Needless to say, yes, I sped my a$$ off so I could be with her.

    From everything I’ve read about you I think you need to go to the police academy so then you will have a chance to pull anyone over who isn’t up to “your” standards. Until then, stay right or ride a bus.

  36. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scott- you may be able to teach somneone what to do.. but can they react? as i said before.. after observing humans for 44 years.. just in general observations… i find them to be uncapable of small everyday things… that require little reflex… put them in a car doing 75 plus…. that scares me… add to that all the distractions … then there is the human element of the “thrill”… many people have that … and since only a few can fly a plane or drive a race car… the only thing they can do is push the peddle to the mettle… just observe how many people like roller coasters? how about those that sky dive, bungy jump or bridge jumping!!!

  37. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    govt- sure there are instances where speeding is necessary…your example is one… but come on.. am i to believe that even 1% of those speeding at any given time actually have a good “excuse” to endanger the lives of others..

    actually i can make a citizens arrest at anytime… i dont need the academy… and to date i have made none of those arrests… i will just continue with my own brand of speed enforcement!!!

  38. Concerned Arizona Citizen says:

    I don’t always travel at the speed limit. However, most people do not; police do not (non-emergency); firemen do not (non-emergency); city & state workers do not; the list goes on and on. When I refer to ‘non-emergency’ I’m referring to the countless times observing a police car speeding to a destination only to discover that destination is a bagel or coffee stop and those times firemen speeding to the same destinations or back to their fire station. Granted, two wrongs don’t make a right but ‘doing as I say not as I do’ should not be their unwritten mantra. What about those people traveling 10-15 miles per hour under the speed limit? I’m not sure about Arizona, but many states have ‘minimum’ speed limits since traveling to slow is arguably just as dangerous as traveling to fast. How do the speed cameras capture this ‘safety’ violation?

    We often hear about how speed cameras reduce traffic accidents by ‘x’ percent versus last year, but isn’t there more to this? Perhaps I missed the other or full reports but shouldn’t we look at accident statistics as compared to the number of vehicles on the roadway? An accident ratio perhaps? Accidents are reduced at a particular point in the roadway but how have traffic counts impacted this statistic? When comparing one year to another it is important to note more than just a general count of traffic accidents. Did the number of vehicles increase or decrease for the given point in the roadway where the speed camera was placed? What was the impact to the accident volume resulting from, roadway or near-by construction, parked police vehicle, or other activity?

    In this case numbers are simply quantitative data – just reporting and grossly incomplete at that. What about qualitative data, based upon educated research that identifies changes in trends due to external influences?

    I think it is amazing how those who are under scrutiny are allowed to justify their actions via their ‘own inspection and validation’ and not via an unbiased third-party inspection. Cities, counties, and the State of Arizona are acting as the defendant and judge on their own behalf.

  39. Sick of Government says:

    LAB, again, you don’t KNOW the reason and therefore cannot judge. Your “own brand of speed enforcement” is just as illegal as someone doing 85. I think it’s time to change your name as you have publicly stated you are not so “law abiding”.

  40. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    concerned- so you witness this under speed often? i can honestly say i hardly see it… and when i do it is on surface streets…

    the people at this site do not believe in any stat that does not support their claims… yet will cling to stats like a dingy in the ocean to one that does..

    i myself do not put any weight in any of them…

  41. Sick of Government says:

    I see it everyday traveling between 59th ave & 35th ave on the 101. As I get off at 35th, I look down and most of the time I’m lucky if I’m doing 50.

    As far as stats, why don’t we get an independent company to run some numbers. One that isn’t being paid by DPS, ATS, Redflex, etc. Hearing numbers sponsored by DPS is laughable. Just like a car commercial. Just because company A says their car is the best does not make it so.

  42. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    you are wrong sick… the flow of traffic is subjective… who can tell the difference between 65-70 or 70-75… and if i am doing 65 in my lane and you come upon me doing 85 .. then you are not going with the flow of traffic… and where does it say that i have to break the law and join the leadfoots when i am already doing the speed limit ? i am not going to move so that others can speed… where does it end… i move to the next lane and another moron comes up on me.. i move again and another… its never ending .. so .. i therefore will not start the process… as i have said.. if you come up on a slower car.. feel free to move .. there are other lanes… and slow down so you can change lanes at a safe speed..

  43. Sick of Government says:

    The law states you must yield. Simple. Regardless of how fast you “think” others need to go, that is not up to you to decide or enforce.

    I bet if you stay right you won’t have nearly as many issues as you do today. And if you do, it will most likely be because of another slow poke in the passing lane.

  44. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    gov.. i know the area .. it is always slow through have a transition coming up to the 17 north or south… it seems to be prudent and natural for people to slow down through those areas.. not to mention the assholes that make things worse by not waiting their turn and just coming to the front and cutting in forcing others to hit the brakes….

    even if they commisioned an indepedent you people would not believe it.. and you know it..

  45. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sorry thats not the way i read it… you can stop trying to convince me now….

  46. Sick of Government says:

    You know what.. If an independent company takes a hard look at ALL angles to determine numbers, I won’t have any issue believing. Honestly, I believe in the end both sides will have been correct to some degree.

    But you can’t say because there are less accidents, etc it’s all because of the cameras. Like CAC above said, let’s take a look at some ratio’s.

  47. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    when a camera is erected and that area has less accidents of course you can not be 100% accurate that it was the cameras.. but intelligent life forms can assume it was teh cause for the decline… same as the red light cameras.. when they go up.. it seems that the abuse is reduced and only a moron would argue that less red light running does not lead to less accidents…

  48. Scott A. says:

    LA- That comment about observing people for 44 years and “I find them to be incapable of small everyday things” is totally off in left field. What is that suppose to mean, you will only see what you are looking for. I believe there are some folks that fit that bill, but I see more and more people doing amazing things than ever before in my life. I think people are actually beginning to “wake up”. If you think everyone is stupid and slow and can’t handle a car, than thats your reality, not everyones reality, definitely not mine. The fact that you are compelled to voice yourself here is proof of your drive to make a change for the better, such as mine.

  49. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i am 44 years old…. in my lifetime i observe people as we all do… some observe hispanics and paint them all with one stroke… illegal… some view african americans with one stroke… criminals… some view senior citizens as grumpy… some view teenagers as rude and reckless… i have worked in retail for many years and have seen hundreds of people and had to evaluate them and their skills… if you can not do 2 things at once while waiting on a customer at a deli counter… how am i to believe that you can handle a car at 70 mph plus ….

    scott.. i have to go.. we can engage in discussion at a later time….

    govet- feel free to go lick your wounds.. i am done pounding on you for awhile…

  50. Sick of Government says:

    Just because a camera goes up and accidents go down one cannot assume they are related. Maybe there are less cars on the road, etc. Also you should note that rear end accidents do go up where cameras are placed.

  51. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    and i being able to see both sides can see that as true… and i will trade a few more rear ends i will assume tend to be involve fatalities… for less very dangerous accidents that arise from people running the red light… i can also assume that the rear enders would spike in teh beginning and become less frequest as drivers know that intersection has a camera..

  52. No One says:

    On the subject of believing the studies that are anti-camera and NOT believing the ones that are pro-camera…

    I, for one, am much more inclined to believe a study when they organizers of the study lay out their numbers in black and white and specifically state the raw data, where their data came from, how it was collected, and which items they corrected for and which they did not. Then I can review their work and see if I agree with their determination. Without a review of the data and methods, the end result delivered in a 30-second sound bite is less than worthless.

    Unfortunately, from the pro-camera camp, all I have seen is the sound bite. I have yet to see (though would be interested to see) a well-documented study for the pro-camera camp. The anti-camera camp, however, has multiple such studies, one of which is below. I have not had a chance to read through it all, but on skimming it it seems pretty thorough.

    so, let’s see… a 30-second sound bite from an organization with a definite financial stake in the outcome, or a 149-page report detailing all aspects of the data…

  53. No One says:

    Oh, and before I forget, one other thing on the pro-camera studies-

    When the ones making the study have a boatload of cash to lose, I am slightly less inclined to believe their results due to shenanigans like these.

  54. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    yes.. you have all pointed to the shenanigans a number of times…

  55. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Yes, and you have an infinite capacity to overlook shenanigans and place blind trust into entities that have been proven guilty of shenanigans multiple times. You have infinite capacity and trust in anything pro-camera despite evidence to the contrary, and immediately dismiss anything anti-camera, for which much evidence exists to support their case. You even ignore anit-camera reports from such entities as the NHTSA and the Virginia DOT because the result does not fit your preconcieved notions.

    You even reject such notions as demonstrated by the Review of Policy Research which showed that there was NO INCREASE in accidents after the federal speed limit of 55mph was repealed:

    You think, “How can that be? Driving fast is dangerous!”

    But the reality is, speed limits have gone up, and accident rates have gone down. If you’d like to post a study that shows otherwise, I’ll be glad to read it.

  56. Joe says:

    Scott A:

    “Law A. Bidingcitizen” is a character created by the ATS/Redflex public opinion machine. Their strategy?

    1) Post often, and try and paint us as “leadfooted” lawbreakers.

    2) Create an illusion that the cameras DO enjoy popular support.

    3) By posting so often, they hope they’ll inspire some sort of following among their real supporters.

    They need to do this. They are losing badly. They are hoping that some legislators will visit and see enough “pro-camera” people in the mix to curb their desire to vote to remove the cameras.

    Law A. Bidingcitizen is clearly a plant. He/she is working overtime towing the usual bullet-points found in the Redflex PR powerpoint deck. Look for the same intentional “buzzwords” in his/her rhetoric. Have you noticed the word “leadfoot” used often? I have. And I noticed this because that’s not a term I’d heard used in regularity since the 1970’s. I’m guessing that it is probably common over in, oh, say, Australia?

    Notice something else: I don’t see any blogs created to tow the “pro-camera” message. Why? No one will come, and they know it. They have more to accomplish by creating fake pro-camera characters here than a website of their own.

    Trust me, there is a conference room with a white board on the wall, and the name of this website is written in red marker in bold letters at the top. Underneath is a bunch of ideas on how to better diffuse the message we all bring across. They are trying to dillute the impact of our unanimity by filling it full of “pro” posts.

  57. I'm Back says:

    Or you’re just a lead-footed, pot smoking, gay, drunk, childish, foolish, lying clown who is putting my entire family in danger.

    Oh wait, that’s Glyph. 😉

  58. Joe says:

    Don’t forget “Republican” or “Democrat” (depending on which whacko is assuming this is a partisan issue).

  59. Joe says:

    No One wrote:
    “I, for one, am much more inclined to believe a study when they organizers of the study lay out their numbers in black and white and specifically state the raw data”

    Yes, for example, I’d love to see DPS’ “81 days” of raw data. My first question would naturally be “why exactly 81 days?” as I have a suspicion that expanding the sample period by 9 days would probably uncover an unwanted highway death or two.

  60. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Not only that, but what other changes have been made? Any changes in level or type of enforcement, speed limits, or perhaps any weather-related anomolies? And can we see the data for the past 20 years?

    A good example of why you need LOTS of data to draw conclusions is the City of Phoenix accident statistics:

    It’s amazing how much variation there is from year to year… A variance of almost 20% while the city grew considerably in area and population. The lowest numbers in 2004. Not sure what was special about 2004, but I would be suspicious of any accident data for any part of Arizona that didn’t go back at least 10 years.

  61. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    scam- when the MIB come and wisk me away … then i guess i will have wished i had believed you… you know.. that they are doing all of this for some purpose!!!! and yes i have great capabilities that keep me from conerning myself with things that i really cant control….

    joe- hey !!? can you find out where the hell they have been sending my checks? i am suppose to get paid per post…. and paid daily… you have a vivid imagination..and if you have not heard the word leadfoot used since 1970.. then .. welcome back from the coma!!! thats a long time to be laid out…

    as i have written many times… i have not supported any stats that have come out… either pro or anti… please feel free to check all my posts and check it out!!!

  62. BJ says:

    Law A. Biding… You may not be winning any arguments, but you sure are screaming the loudest and the longest.

  63. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    bj- i am not here to win an argument…. i would be a fool to think i can come here and change peoples minds…no sir i am here to protect the truth… yes i am a freedom for truth fighter… FFTF if you will… and i usually am the loudest whether its at a football game, high school college or pro or at the bar to view a sporting event….

  64. No One says:

    Wow, what do you know… we agree on something. I am glad you are not here to win an argument or to convince anyone, because you are spectacularly unprepared to do so.

    But, if I may ask, how is it that your one-man crusade for truth is so one-sided? You know for a fact that the camera companies are lying two-faced corporations, and yet you defent them at every turn. And how can you purport to support the truth when by your own admission you refuse to educate yourself of the subject at hand? Seems to me that if you really don’t know what you’re crusading against, and refuse to educate yourself, then you’re really enjoying freedom FROM the truth. It’s kind of a variation of ignorance is bliss, from what I’m seeing.

  65. Sick of Government says:

    The truth is, is that you break laws too, LAB.

  66. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    here is what i know… redflex did not reveal all that the cameras are doing…. one of their employees forged some documents….one of their employees was driving a camera van while drunk… thats it…. the rest is all non facts that this site trys to support as fact…. imo its not enough to have the entire system removed… politicians have done worse and not been punished…

  67. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    sick- we all break laws from time to time… glyph is a great example… he was an accessory to a crime…

  68. PhotoRadarScam says:

    And what you know is limited. Those two examples are just a small portion of the mistrust and fraud Redflex has comitted. But since you’re not interested in learning about them, I’m not going to bother.

  69. Sick of Government says:

    Maybe you should be changing your name then.

  70. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    cool cause anything beyond what i wroe is just the same issues just twisted and turned inside out and given a new name….

    sick- if you hate govt. that bad….. why are you wasting your energies here?

  71. Sick of Government says:

    I hate government intervention into our lives. Live free or die!

  72. Dan G says:

    A little ditty I wrote for the redflex troll and those who remember the Rawhide song:

    Trolling trolling trolling,
    LAC keeps on trolling,

  73. Joe says:

    Law wrote:

    “redflex did not reveal all that the cameras are doing…. one of their employees forged some documents….one of their employees was driving a camera van while drunk… thats it….”

    And that is what we call “the appearance of impropriety”. Private corporations that are involved in the contracting of law enforcement need to avoid such an appearance.

  74. No One says:

    So, King Hypocrite-

    Just because a politician may have done worse is not a justification. it’s like someone saying “He cut me off in traffic so I shot him.” Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    I also don’t see how unspecified actions by anonymous politicians at some unknown point in the past has anything to do with what we’re talking about. Do you care to specify which politicians you are speaking of, what they have done, and how it relates, or are you just talking in general and saying that your opinion is that politicians do bad things?

    If you’re just speaking in generalities, then I’ll ask you– do you really want to give a powerful new device to politicians who evidently (by your own words) do such bad things?

  75. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    not all politicians do bad things and if i recall the info right redflex has 400 plus people employed in this state.. some employees are going to make bad decisions… you cant point the finger at redflex and put blame on them for something one of their employees does….unless of course they knew about it and did nothing….

    its a camera that flashes and records and at this point it is pure speculation as to what is done with the images ….. in fact it is a guess on anybodies part..

  76. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    joe- govt and state contracts have never been held to that high of a standard…. that doesnt make it right… just real world!!!

  77. FrankThoughts says:

    Is there more detailed information somewhere on the documents that one RedFlex employee forged and why? I’d like for many to check that out (misdemeanor, felony or irrelevant).
    Also, what could the cameras and camera operators possibly be doing, about which we don’t already know?
    Finally, in respect to the employee driving a camera van while drunk, was he/ she on duty or off duty?
    Thanks for your help.

  78. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Falsified documents:
    There is a follow-up article somewhere where Jan Brewer confirms that this did in fact occur.


  79. FrankThoughts says:

    Thanks PhotoRadar,
    I appreciate that. Also, do you know where I can get the Schedule of Fines – Traffic (moving violations) for Metro Phoenix. I am not a resident of Arizona and I got a photoenforcement ticket while travelling through Arizona (Metro Phoenix). I guess there is no courtesy waivers for one who did not know about the photoenforcement zones (ignorance of the policy is not excusable). Also, how much notice was given to Arizonans before the cameras were activated? Thanks.

  80. No One says:

    Here’s a good one for the falsified documents:

    It really lays it out in a nice, easy-to-follow format and had photos of the documents in question.

  81. I'm Back says:

    Just don’t falsify documents and you have nothing to worry about! Oops.

  82. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    frank you did not notice the signs BEFORE and AFTER the camera? i guess excessive speeds will make you miss those things.. i myself am in favor of no warnings

  83. FrankThoughts says:

    Thanks Law A. Biden. I see your point, but my question is still out there. For whatever reason, I did not see the signs and neither did the three passengers riding with me that know that it is my habit to use Cruise Control at or near the posted speed limit.

  84. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Not to mention, an outsider might not know what “Photo Enforcement Zone” means. Last time I checked, this sign isn’t mentioned in the AZ Driver’s Manual. The signs really should say “Photo Speed Enforcement Zone.”

  85. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i dont know what to tell you then… pay the fine and you will get a thankyou note from the good citizens of az!!!

  86. geez says:

    I think the sign that says
    “Speed Limit”
    is enough

  87. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:


    F R E E D O M from the L I E S

  88. FrankThoughts says:

    G W Lawa – – you’re just leaking with sarcasm. Who was the great american that said “An unjust law is no law at all”? And “to disobey an unjust law is sometimes the highest form of being a good citizen” (paraphrased)?

  89. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    it was nobody at this site… that is for sure!!

    F R E E D O M from the L I E S

  90. None Ya says:

    Of course the stats for fatalities is going to be flawed. Cars have gotten significantly safer in the last 10 years and continue to do so every year. Everyday that passes gets more older cars off the road. So we end up with a larger percentage of cars with airbags, better safety etc.

  91. geez says:

    But when Sheriff Bubu quotes stats, it’s the gospel
    If DPS give’s you stats, oh it’s a scandle!

  92. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    i wouldnt hold my breath for an answer geez!!!

    F R E D O M from the L I E S

  93. FrankThoughts says:

    Thanks guys. I recently found out that Arizona won’t do Process of Service on out of state drivers. That is equal to or similar to a Courtesy Dismissal.

  94. colorblindwhitey says:

    Law A. Bidingcitizen. . . When will you be getting laid off from RedFlex? Your worthless posts are not going to keep them around. Back under the bridge, TROLL!!!!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: