Tempe’s “Bait and Switch” Photo Radar Statistics

photoradarscamWhat happens when government officials tout statistics without challenge or critical review from the “Fourth Estate“? You get an irresponsible and sorry excuse for reporting from the Arizona Republic, as recently exposed by PhotoRadarScam.com.

No surprise: the Republic has never flinched from obvious conflicts of interest, such as keeping the revolving door open between the paper and Redflex regarding the employment of former Redflex PR flack Michael Ferraresi.

CLAIM: “(Tempe) Police: Crashes down 16% in Tempe since camera program.”

FACT: “…Injury crashes decreased only 1.84% and fatality crashes increased 43%.”

Action Alert!

Call the Republic 602-444-NEWS and demand they stop distorting the truth.

Then, call Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman at 480-350-8865 and remind him that Election 2010 is just around the corner…

41 Responses to Tempe’s “Bait and Switch” Photo Radar Statistics

  1. Here’s another effort we need to get behind. The Casa Grande City council is going to vote on photo enforcement in May: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20297826&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6

  2. I'm Back says:

    We are nearing 500 followers on the twitter site, with more and more people spreading the messages I’ve been posting, and links to the site all the time.

    I think I can safely say that the cameras are responsible for that phenomenon.

  3. URignorant says:

    Maybe you should read all the reports before making writing articles. Some articles you have claim the industry reports a decrease in accidents are related to poor data gathering. Other articles only claim that accidents in the city increase (Tempe article). Please do a better job of reading these articles and posting them with appropriate headlines or we are being as ignorant as these bullies we complain about. You are really starting to make those of us for freedom look bad. Please clean up the act.

  4. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    urIGNORANT… would you agree with me that this site has a tendancy to ommit the truth? which really is the same thing as lying.. they accuse the az republic of the exact same things they do!!!

  5. dgpjr777 says:

    Funny how anyone that submits statistics for cameras are totally wrong, but if it’s against the cameras they walk on water. AMAZING!

  6. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    im back- 500 followers means nothing… this site has over 1500 members,,, and it means nothing as only about 10-20 of you post anything!!!!

  7. […] an alarming increase in fatalities despite a nationwide downward trend, the City of Tempe is preparing to give millions […]

  8. Nunya Bidness says:

    Please we need more groups like this to support the rights of criminals. Yes, speeding is breaking the law, and therfore a criminal act. Guess the next support group should be for people who shoot up school campuses, I mean it wouldn’t be a crime if the campus wasn’t there, right? So speeding isn’t a crime as long as you don’t get caught. Why don’t we just do the prudent thing, make every traffic violation a minimum 1000.00 fine, and then impound the car until both the impound fee and fine are paid. Maybe you jackass’s should stop supporting criminal right and start supporting the rights of law abiding citizens to be safe from reckless jackass’s speeding down the road.

    • alucard says:

      This argument carries with it the presumption that all speeders are criminals, and this is not the case. In fact, the majority of “trials” involving speeding are civil cases, not criminal.

  9. No one is supporting speeding. We are opposing enforcement methods that DON’T WORK. Photo enforcement has claimed 28 lives in Arizona. How you can justify 28 lives in exchange for an automated ticketing system is unconscionable.

  10. Support photo radar says:

    This group does seem to omit the truth as another poster had stated. The reason for photo radar is to reduce speeding. If you go over the posted speed limit, you are breaking the law. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and slow down. There is no problem with photo radar. It helps police as they don’t have the resources to catch every speeder. There are many dangerous speeders on the roads and the police can only do so much. They can’t catch most of these speeders as they have to be in the right place at the right time to catch them.

    It seems like people don’t take responsibility and complain about photo radar because they get caught speeding. Here’s your solution. Abide by the speed limit and you have nothing to worry about!

    • I'm Back says:

      1. You ARE NOT breaking the law if you go over the posted limit. We live in a state with a “Reasonable and Prudent” qualifier for Speed.

      2. There are many, documented problems with photo radar

      3. Just follow the Constitution and you will have nothing to worry about

      4. That was a great regurgitation of talking points by camera supporters. Are you real or just a robot posting comments on anti-camera message boards?

    • It would be easier to support PR if it hadn’t already cost Arizona 28 lives (http://photoradarscam.com/ArizonaTicketCamerasCost28Lives2009.pdf)

      And to add to what Im Back said, you are assuming that the speed limits are set corretly to begin with. Speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile speed, and in most cases they are not. In this situation you make the behavior of the majority unlawful and create a dangerous situation with wider variations in speed, which is not as safe as having everyone travel the same speed.

  11. Support photo radar says:

    I followed a link to this website and I was shocked at the blatant bias and misinformation against photo radar.

    1. The speed limit is the LIMIT. If you go over, you risk getting a fine, simple as that. That is why it is called a LIMIT. That’s the maximum speed that you are allowed to go BY LAW.

    2. By “no problem with photo radar” I meant that I have no problem with it’s use. I’ll admit there are problems with photo radar but it will catch a lot more speeders. Speeders need to take responsibility for their actions and there are too few police officers to make sure every speeder gets caught.

    3. Give me a break with the constitution spiel. The constitution was adopted in 1787 and some of it is outdated. The constitution also says you have the right to bear arms which is antiquated and needs to be amended. Stricter gun control is needed. But I’ll take a wild guess and say you’re probably against that as well.

    4. You come rushing to defend your bias against photo radar and your closing point is that I am just regurgitating points by camera supporters? No, I am not regurgitating points, I posted on a website that I feel is misinforming people.

    In conclusion, if people abide by the speed limit, photo radar wouldn’t be necessary. Photo radar is being implemented because this will never happen. Photo radar will catch a lot more speeders. In the long term it will reduce accidents because it will cause drivers who have been fined to think twice about speeding.

  12. I'm Back says:

    You’ve said nothing that hasn’t been repeated and discredited over and over again on this site. Maybe you should do some more reading and research. We can all see through your rhetoric and you’ve already contradicted yourself with point #2. You did not say that and it’s not what was how the point was conveyed.

    There are many, many problems with Photo Radar and that’s why this is the #1 blog regarding photo traffic law enforcement and is constantly read by people like yourself who are shocked at how mislead they’ve been and are denying the truth because of it. It’s okay though, we will protect your rights for you so that you don’t have to.

    • Support photo radar says:

      All this site seems to be is a bunch of rhetoric and misinformation to protect people who break the law.

  13. Support photo radar says:

    I read that PDF, among others I found from the same author and the information is clearly biased. One part states, “Readings from August 2008, on I‐10 near Yavapai Street, recorded average daily travel speeds of 68 MPH. This means the posted speed limit should be 75 NOT 65 MPH. I‐10 at Cheyenne averages 72 MPH, meaning almost nobody agrees with the 65 limit.”

    NO! The speed limit should stay the same. No matter what the speed limit is, drivers are always going to go a few MPH over the limit as they won’t get stopped. If the speed limit was raised to 75MPH then drivers would start going 78MPH. Also, if you don’t agree with the limit then DON’T DRIVE! Driving is a PRIVILEGE and not a right. A lot of people seem to forget that.

    The author tries to support his theory by using information from one year to the next. There is no way of predicting how many accidents there will be any year. So just because accidents shoot up 50-100 in a year when photo radar is established does not mean that photo radar was the cause. It could be any number of reasons.

    As far as the radar companies making money, they’re a business, that’s what they do. If they weren’t making money they’d go out of business, same as any other business. I don’t agree with corporate greed though. Look at the oil companies. They are raking in billions of dollars of profit each quarter. We’re getting gouged at the pumps just so the oil companies can keep getting richer. On that subject, the faster you travel, the higher the rate of fuel consumption thus wasting more fuel and hurting the environment (and your pocketbook).

    Also from that PDF, “TV and Internet footage showed drivers panic braking in the presence of STCs, resulting in potentially deadly crashes.” The reason that they are “panic braking” is because they KNOW that they are going too fast and don’t want to get a ticket! So it’s their fault (and not photo radar) if they get into an accident. It seems that a lot of people don’t want to accept responsibility for their own actions nowadays. Talk about misinformation.

    I could continue to pick apart the author’s flawed logic but I don’t have enough time.

    • Your assertions regarding speed limits fly in the face of the ADOT publication: http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp

      ADOT says that the behavior of the majority of vehicle operators is successful and that these drivers will naturally driver at a safe speed REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE POSTED LIMIT IS. You are advocating one of the “widely held misconceptions” that ADOT warns about: The speed limit signs will slow the speed of traffic (and that this will decrease accident rates and increase safety). Clearly, you need to do more research.

      The camera companies have already proven that they cannot be trusted with enforcing laws for profit. They have already been found guilty of falsifying court documents, purposefully altering equipment, and all out fraud. In this day and age of Enron and Madoff, what on Earth makes you want to trust these companies with law enforcement?

      And as for the footage, I and just about everyone on here has seen people who were NOT SPEEDING panic brake at the sight of cameras. Don’t try to pretend like it’s only the violator who panic brakes. Almost EVERYONE does it regardless of their speed. This is a reaction that WOULD NOT occur if the cameras weren’t there, so obviously the behavior is caused by the cameras. Get rid of cameras, and get rid of panic braking. But if you want to believe that people will still panic brake in the same locations with the cameras gone, then you’re a lost cause.

      • WOW says:

        This is just a funny web site. I am in full support of photo enforcement. As for the post by photoradarscam, April 27 at 12:41pm, people panic break even when there is a cop on the side of the road. So that being one of your arguments we should take all cops off the road as well? Also you have to realize that if you succeed in taking all the photo enforcement cameras down they your taxes will go up to hire more officers to work the streets, which will have more people panic breaking and quite possibly raising the number of accidents. Photo enforcement is not breaking any rights of the people it is helping the people from griping about higher taxes.

      • Why would taxes go up if cameras come down? We survived just fine before cameras, we will be fine without them, and have lower accident rates to boot.

        And if you think photo enforcement is not breaking any rights of people, you must not know anything about the constitution.

  14. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    SCAM- you never answer me when i pose this question…. speeders also slam on teh breaks when they see a cop, either driving or running radar… are we suppose to do away with all cops on the roads and running radar? is it the cops fault that someone slams on the breaks?

  15. Mark says:

    I drive from Glendale Ave north to Union Hills every night from work or other activities around 8 to 10 p.m. for the last 4 years. Until the photo radars were installed, I had to contend with semi’s (along with other drivers) going 75 to 85 mph, every night weaving through traffic(speed limit is 65 from around Cactus north). Since the 2 or 3 stationary photo radars were installed, I have not noticed this happening. Plus, I have not had my windshield chipped every other month because of other drivers driving fast and weaving through traffic, saving me money and my insurance company money. Plus, driving as previously stated is a PRIVLEDGE not a RIGHT. I think that is why you have to get a license to drive from the state??? So the intrusivness in to your right to privacy, is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I agree that “serving” the ticket is something to be desired. Additionally, I have to ask you people who want to get rid of these cameras, if you had a choice, would you like the officers to be parked along a highway in a cruiser with it running (wasting natural resources) to catch a speeder, or actually doing other asspect of his or her job or tax dollares going to the likes say crimes against children, spousal abuse, drug dealers, ect?? Because that is one of the public benefit in this argument that seems to be missing. Remember you have a finite amount of human resources, so you (government) have to choose how best to use it. I would prefer that these human resources be used on these other crimes than on speeding.

  16. Are you saying the US government has the right to track and surveil innocent citizens? Since when?

    And are you suggesting that they have removed patrol cars from duty because of the cameras? Has DPS fired any staff because of cameras? DPS claims that this has not happened. Are you claiming that DPS patrol cars are no longer pulling people over for speed violations? I want DPS making stops for traffic violations – this is how they find a lot of people who have committed other crimes. I fail to see how having cameras frees up any officers from traffic duty. If anything, getting rid of cameras will free up the officers that spend all day tending to photo enforcement duties.

    • Mark says:

      The funny thing is that since the camera’s have been up in the small area that I do drive 5 nights a week, there has been less cruisers observed. Granted they may have been relocated to other areas of speeding concerns.

      The governments has no right to track it’s citzens? Do you have a social security number, did you give the DMV your correct address, do you file your taxes with the state and federal government? You obviously drive on the freeways, so you are being tracked by the Department of Highway cameras that everyone can see on the internet. So, you are already being tracked prior to the PE cameras were added.

    • Mark says:

      Oh one additional thing I forgot to add. DPS has been requiring DPS staff, including officers, to take an additional 9 days off unpaid (the source: a memo that was shown to me by a DPS frient). So they have been cutting the number of cruisers albeit not because of the cameras, but budgetary items.

      Secondly, you did not address the cost of to me and my insurance company for repairing chipped windshield. Which the insurance company surely only raises my rates not yours or everyone else who has insurance.

  17. geez says:

    PhotoRadarScam Says:
    “No one is supporting speeding. We are opposing enforcement methods that DON’T WORK. Photo enforcement has claimed 28 lives in Arizona. How you can justify 28 lives in exchange for an automated ticketing system is unconscionable.”

    But if a pro-camera person posts some statistics we are lying and being sheeple to the state.

  18. Geez, I posted the source. If you have problems with the data feel free to pick it apart and let’s discuss it. Why do camera supporters never want to discuss specifics?

  19. Jim says:

    PRS, Mark is correct about driving being a privledge and not a right which trumphs the intrusion card. People can argue the same for mandatory seatbelt use and the ability of police officers to stop drivers over for the non use reason only. The privledge factor will win everytime.
    Each side too can quote all the facts they want, the figures can be manipulated to favor both arguments. The only thing left to do is what a poster suggested above. Get elected to a position where you can change the law. Until then I suggest you obey the speed limit and stop for red lights.
    I going to sit back and wait for my own CameraFRAUD.com “other locations coming soon” website.

    • Jim, NOTHING trumps the constitution, which never gives the right of the government to track and surveil innocent citizens. The constitution wins every time.

      As far as the data, yes, it can be manipulated. What is clear is that PE is not a conclusive safety benefit. In the absence of safety improvement, it is nothing more than a cash cow. Especially when there are low-cost engineering improvements that can be made to increase safety dramatically (i.e., lengthen yellow light times). The safety improvements for yellow light time adjustments cannot be disputed… the results are overwhelmingly effective.

      And it’s not necessary to get elected to anything, and we are working to change the laws… through our representatives and ballot initiatives. Haven’t you noticed?

  20. geez says:

    Ya, and when I post sources ya’ll still deny it.
    When I posted the source about injury accidents going DOWN in Pinal, not increasing Like Bubu said, the only response I got is “well Bubu said so…”
    It does NOT matter what statistics or facts or sources we post here, you all will claim differently and make excuses etc. about how the anti camera folks sources facts etc. are right. Because ‘Bubu’ said so….
    Ya’lls problem with ‘projection’
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
    is so out of control it’s amazing. Anything a pro-camera says ya’ll deny and fight so hard against, and then turn around and do it yourselves.

    • Geez, Your memory must be failing you. It’s all documented here: https://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/dhs-assumes-control-of-camerafraud/#comments

      The data you posted wasn’t applicable to the discussion. The data didn’t cover the time periods or the locations you were trying to refute. You even claimed that Babeu said something other than what he acutally said.

      Here’s the exchange:
      Yes I know Bubu’s stats.
      Pinal photo radar went into effect mid 2007.
      In 2006 there were 24 fatalities involving speed.
      In 2007 there were 12 fatalities involving speed.
      and that includes…

      My response:
      Listen to the interview again. (link posted)
      Babeu: “We’ve actually seen from 2007 to 2008 our actual injury accidents and fatlities actually doubled in the areas in Pinal County where photo radar was used.

      So tell me geezer, why do you think it’s valid to compare your 2006 and 2007 stats for the WHOLE county to Babeu’s 2007-2008 stats which are isolated to the photo radar locations?

      Please justify the validity in doing this. Also if you would please justify stats for injuries/fatalities where speed is only a factor and not the cause. For example, if a drunk driver is speeding and crashes, the cause is the DUI, not the speed, and there is no way a camera is going to help such a situation.

  21. SlowerTrafficRight says:

    How about we address the real problem? Speeding drivers isn’t it. It’s bad drivers.

    Drivers who are doing 45 in a 55: bad drivers, cite them for impeding traffic.

    Drivers who are staying the left hand lane for reason other than passing: cite them for impeding traffic.

    Trucks especially and other vehicles that pass each other with a 2 MPH differential speed, taking several miles to pass: cite them for impeding traffic.

    Traffic would flow much smoother and be much more safe if people thought about how their slow driving in the left lane disrupts traffic.

  22. Jim says:

    Florida contemplated the “move over” law (regardless of speed) on the interstates turnpike and major arteries. The state did this for two reasons 1. drivers who have bad vision use the yellow line on the left to help them stay on the road 2. Drivers who wanted to force others to obey the speed limit by blocking them out of the fast lane. Of course the state was thinking of using cameras to enforce this potential law. Can’t have it both ways or can we?

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      i choose to slow leadfoots down myself by holding to the posted speed limit in the furthest right lane!!! if you dont lie it… there are lanes to the left…. feel free to move to one of them!!!

      • Mike Waters says:

        Spoken like a true self righteous TROLL!

        I suppose you have looked up the stats on that practice?

        The NTSB (NATIONAL) list that kind of self righteous vigilantism as being second only to drunk driving in causeing fatalities!

        Killed anyone to soothe your ego lately?

        Does Redflex pay you a bounty?

  23. […] began to proselytize their “opinions” as fact and have law enforcement organizations publish them to local and regional media. This, in effect, legitimizes the program. By comparison, if a […]

  24. Good article! You can track all kinds of accident statistics on our site.

  25. roofing contractor lees summit mo…

    […]Tempe’s “Bait and Switch” Photo Radar Statistics « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

  26. Denver limousine Service…

    […]Tempe’s “Bait and Switch” Photo Radar Statistics « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

  27. Israel Revay says:

    They devise an experiment exactly where I use energy on my parrots. The cards are dealt 1 player at a time following proper dealing order. Sure, become less accessible instantly.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: