Cable Co. Billboards Target Photo Radar


Some decision maker in Cox either has a sense of humor, or has to drive this stretch each day. Cox has numerous offices located along Black Canyon Freeway. Note the “Photo Enforcement Zone” sign visible in the second picture:

I-17 Southbound @ 7th St:

Of course, we’d prefer to see a series of Cox billboards with mascot “Digital Max” violently dispatching the boxes to an untimely afterlife through a variety of methods. After all, we’re sure there’s a special layer in hell for both defective cable boxes and scam cams.

24 Responses to Cable Co. Billboards Target Photo Radar

  1. RPr says:

    how many cox employees will donate to end photo radar

  2. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    none..they dont get paid enough!!!!

    and can someone please tell me how this means that cox is targeting photo radar….???? more spin !!! and lies

    will it ever stop…. why yes it will… when camerafraud gets their initiative smoked at the polls!!!

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

  3. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    jason richardson of the suns may be joining your group soon!!!! he has patrick henrys syndrome!!!

  4. Glyph says:

    On the NB i17 near Deer Valley Rd (definately in Redflex HQ’s neighborhood) are a couple of those electronic billboards, and they were showing that same image (among others).

    Yeah, I think someone at Cox has a sense of humor.

  5. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    yes that is all it is and it in no way means that cox is targeting photo radar as suggested at the top!!

    i guess i just dont understand why whoever writes it can not just write what it really is!!??

  6. timmah says:

    LAB Said: “and can someone please tell me how this means that cox is targeting photo radar….????”

    Only Law Abiding could see billboard-sized words and still not see the handwriting on the wall.

    The article didn’t say Cox was anti-photo radar, it just said that photo radar was “targeted,” you know, like as in referenced, mentioned, discussed, brought up?

    “targeted: to make a target of (“targeted her for promotion”)

  7. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    thats a stretch!!!!!!

  8. No One says:

    haha, that’s funny…then again nearly anytime the cameras are the target of satire it’s all good in my book… especially when it’s a big company doing the targeting!

  9. […] sense of humor and may even serve to warn drivers of the upcoming speed camera.  Visit Camerafraud.com to see pictures of the billboard. It’s worth a view.  See it in person on I-17 at 7th […]

  10. PhotoRadarScam says:

    Do not feed the troll!

  11. Doc says:

    No F R E E D O M loving American citizens want ’em! Their very existance violates so many Ammendments to the Constitution, it ain’t even funny. BUT, they sure work good in Communist China! I hope Redflex’s fiscal budget for 2010 includes MOVIN’ Expenses! ATS can go with ’em!

    Remember…F R E E D O M ! ! !-Doc from Prescott

    DON’T FEED TH’ TROLLS!!!

  12. geez says:

    What parts violate the constitution?
    The part where you get mad cause you got caught?

  13. No One says:

    Geez– did you not see when they were declared so by the court, or did you just forget?

    Here’s a link to the actual judgement, and it is explained quite nicely for inquiring minds such as yourself.

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/az-arrowhead.pdf

    (As a side note, I would ask that prior to going off on a tangent about how he is “just” a JP, take a look at the reasoning behind what he is saying. My take on his ruling is that the law, and its penalty, ought to be the same no matter what method of enforcement is used… should you feel differently please feel free to elaborate.)

  14. geez says:

    Oh, the one whining about people having to pay less?! So, if they had to pay more then it would be constitutional? Ya, he is just a JP (and likely someone he is close to got caught)

  15. No One says:

    No, if the dollar amount were more, that would of course not make it any more constitutional. (I expect that was a rhetorical question, but in case it wasn’t I’m erring on the safe side and answering it anyway).

    It’s about the difference. There is no reason that the consequences– including both the dollar amount and the points on a person’s license– ought to be any different solely because of what method is used to determine the infraction. That is unconstitutional, any way you slice it, for reasons stated in the judgement.

    Again, if you disagree with this, please by all means specify.

  16. geez says:

    ok then No One…
    your first paragraph just killed your argument.
    Next

  17. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    why yes… the idiot jp … whom is not even a lawyer…. let me make this clear for you…. he may sit in judgement of people… but he could not go into a court of law and represent anybody but himslef….

  18. J.W. says:

    why yes… the idiot [LAB] … whom is not even a lawyer…. let me make this clear for you…. he may sit in judgement of people… but he could not go into a court of law and represent anybody but himslef….

    I fixed it for you

  19. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    it didnt need fixing… i made my point quite clear and it was a zinger!!!

  20. No One says:

    It doesn’t matter what I said in my post nor does anyone’s opinion of the JP. These have essentially no bearing on the issue at hand which is the uncontitutionality of the cameras.

    I thought the question posed earlier was clear, but let me make it clearer: The cameras have been declared unconstitutional for some very specific reasons, the text of which is linked to above. Can you refute the logic behind the ruling?

    That is the question. Leave everything out of it and refute the logic, as anything else is irrelevant.

    If you cannot refute the logic behind the judgement, then you cannot say that the cameras aren’t unconstitutional. It’s as simple as that.

  21. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    REALLY no body!!! SO WHY ..IF THEY HAVE BEEN DECLARED SUCH….. WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN REMOVED? HELLO MCFLY!!!!??? A JP IS NOT GOING TO SET PRECEDENT AND DECLARE SOMETHING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND GET AWAY WITH IT FOR LONG… HE IS BEING GIVEN A LONG ROPE AT THIS POINT … I HOPE HE CHANGES HIS MIND BEFORE HE HANGS ON IT!!!! and to tell you what a fool you are would be a waste of time…. you have already proved it!!!!

  22. geez says:

    note to all,
    I am no longer continuing any involvement in this conversation.

  23. No One says:

    okey dokey!

    (Hey, you asked…)

  24. I was just searching around about this when I came by your post. I’m simply stopping by to say that I really liked reading this post, it is very well written. Are you going to post more about this? It looks like there’s more fodder here for later posts.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: