DPS: “Critics’ Vocalness” led to Redflex Shooting


TASTELESS: DPS' Lt. James Warriner

TASTELESS: DPS' Lt. James Warriner

Are you a critic of automated ticketing? Have you engaged in expressing disapproval of the State of Arizona’s lucrative photo enforcement boondoggle? Would you consider yourself a “vocal” citizen, expressing your opinions and views on a regular basis?

If you answered “yes” to these questions, Lt. James Warriner at the Department of Public Safety insists that YOU may have helped lead to last week’s deadly shooting of a Redflex van operator. The incredulous comments were made to the Associated Press when Warriner, a DPS PR lackey and photo radar apologist, tried in vain to use a senseless tragedy as political ammunition against those who dare oppose his department’s will:

“Because of (critics’) vocalness, you could almost say they’ve led to this, too – because of their protests, the encouragement of people to strike out,” he said.

During a press conference last week, Warriner blurted out that “photo enforcement [is] not going away,” ignoring the multiple 800-lb gorillas in the room including challenges in the form of citizens ballot efforts (that’s plural) and a smattering of bills introduced by frenzied state lawmakers trying rapidly to end or curtail automated ticketing.

Automated ticketing has never survived a public vote.

Memo to DPS: the “vocal criticism” of government you so loathe and fear is an established right in any true, free society. The lack of such public input would be indicative of at best a banana republic, or at worst a demoralized police state.

James: The gig is up. The Cameras are Coming Down. But by all means keep rearranging the deck chairs on that sinking boat you call Photo Enforcement.

269 Responses to DPS: “Critics’ Vocalness” led to Redflex Shooting

  1. RPr says:

    didn’t napolitano say returning vets could be extremist now DPS says people collecting signatures are murders?

  2. I guess we caused this photo operator to get her head bashed in as well (today): http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,25397614-2761,00.html

    As well as this van operator to get his van pushed into a ditch:
    http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/41006657.html

  3. Stacey says:

    Freedom of speech, the first thing to go in a totalitarian society. And to think, the state police are in charge now.1984 is here again.

    Anybody seen that governor of ours? How about any of the legislators or representatives? I have seen one throughout all of this.

    Where is our city council that wants to put more cameras up? The crickets are still chirping.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      i thought your right to speed and run red lights was the first to go with the installation of cameras!!

      i thought the gov was CF’s hero!!???

      i told you people that state gov. was not going to touch this!!! noting will happen with that bill as it will die a slow death and not be revived… they are waiting on you folks to get 153,000 signatures!!!
      it is hard being correct all the time!!

      • BJ says:

        If you’re referring to HB2106, it is languishing, but the budget has made a lot of bills be put on the back burner. If it fails to move forward any further in the next 30 days, however, it’s as good as dead.

      • Stacey says:

        Well, some people were still in denial regarding their reprsentatives. I don’t think they are anymore. You are right, if the people want the cameras down, THEY are going to take the bull by the horns and sign the ballot initiative to vote on it.

        • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

          yes stacey.. i was right… the entire time…here is some more advice… for free//// quit wasting your time on this “cause”, while it may have been worthwhile… it is over, done/// put a fork in it… too many sigs to gather and not enough go getters!! or time!!

  4. geez says:

    yes but it IS ok for ya’ll to blame it on DPS and REDFLEX.

    • Pete B says:

      Who blamed it on DPS/Redflex?

      No one went as far to directly accuse anyone of doing anything to “lead up” to a shooting!

      All CF said in the paper today was that DPS and Redflex but the driver in harms way, and its pretty hard to argue against that now, isn’t it?

      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        great point geez!!! PETE there were many people that post here pointing the blame at redflex, dps.after the shooting!!!

      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/27/20090427photoradarbacklash.html#comments
        here you go Pete… a CF “volunteer” just today putting the blame on DPS and REdflex!!!

        and the admin here is just joining the blame game!!!

        • Stephanie says:

          I definitely blame Redflex for the shooting. Those vans should never be on the streets to begin with. A private company placing civilians in a roll of law enforcement with no training other than how to snap a picture and eat Doritos. I am horrified the shooting took place. Redflex had to know it would come at some point. Cameras burned, van drivers attacked, the van smashed where we are…I think the people have been speaking but due to money flow, the powers at be just don’t listen.

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            so steph… how would a trained officer have been any better protected!! it was a drive by shooting!! a vest nor gun would have made any difference!!!

            • Let’s point out the obvious:

              An officer would have been armed, he may have been more alert and observant, and the shooter may have been reluctant to shoot a PO vs. a civilian, and he may be less likely to fire at someone who is armed and who can shoot back.

        • Stephanie says:

          And I don’t know who the insurer is for Redflex, but I am having a hard time seeing them get clearance to put the vans back on the street out of fear of copycats. However, throughout this whole situation…weirder things have happened. There will be a pocket stuffed with cash somewhere.

  5. Stacey says:

    PRS,

    Did you notice this at the bottom of the story you posted:

    Comments on this story have been turned off for legal reasons.

    • Glyph says:

      Well, that article originates out of Australia, so who knows what type of laws regulate the press over there. Also, Redflex doesn’t want the public to know that ‘slightly passed middle aged’ women are operating their vans, leaving them open to attack by thugs.

      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        once again… you concentrate on things that are not happening here!!!! where are we glyph? where do you live glyph?

      • WOW says:

        Yeah Glyph maybe you should post your address again. Especially after all the tastefull comments you have left about Mr. Georgianni on the meetup page. Your true colors have sure come out these past couple of weeks.

  6. Ed S. says:

    I love our unilatteral form of fascist government. Anyone remember Mary Rose Wilcox and the Bank One Ballpark bond funding issue? The voters rejected it, the Maricopa county council held a midnight, closed-door session, threw out the voters finding and held their own vote and passed the bond measure. A taxpayer was so pissed he went to kill Mary Rose and a guy hit his arm so she got shot in the ass. I guess that’s my fault too, since I disagreed with the Nazizona unilattertal political process.

  7. ((-_-)) whut'd_u_expect? says:

    Logical fallacy, ad hominem ‘argument against the person’, this attacks those who hold a view or advance an argument rather than addressing the view or responding to the argument.
    Like this rep is saying ‘they’re bastards’, why are they @#$… WHY? This comment is same as saying ‘no comment’, but worse.

  8. I'm Back says:

    This is sickening, but very predictable. The good news is that no one cares or believes it. Since the shooting, the twitter page has gained more followers than any other week since it’s inception. The feedback has been all positive too. I just thought I’d pass that along. We are currently at 550+ followers.

    I don’t mean to marginalize what happened in any way, but just wanted to point out that the people still support us.

  9. Evapilot says:

    That Warriner guy needs to be given a 1 way ticket to Iran. I think he’d feel more comfortable/safe there. Along with the other nut jobs that believe cameras recording video 24/7 keeps them “safe.”

  10. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    IM HACK- that is almost laughable…. you expect us to believe that the feed back has been all positive when after the shooting the feedback here was not all positive …. not even close… the good news is you are in fantasy land… the shooting, while not sanctioned or endorsed by CF sure did not put the anti cam cult in a favorable light!!!

    what is the weather like in your world?

    • jessica says:

      Im just a random person in another state newly aware of the murder and the issue in your state. It is clear to me that the heated debate has fueled sickos out there, placing redflex employees in danger. That’s different than saying your group “caused” the murder, but I doubt the murder would have happened if the criticism was less vocal and extreme. We have cameras in my state in various troubled traffic areas and I’m glad- even though I’ve been ticketed myself. Car accidents are a major cause of death and injury and we need to do whatever posible to keep everyone driving responsibly. I learned my lesson with my ticket.

      • Stacey says:

        There are numerous attacks overseas and in Australia on Photo radar cameras and those that operate them. People don’t like repressive regimes.

  11. Walter says:

    Unfortunately, I think this whole tragedy has polarized the people even more than before. I think the people who are against the cameras are going to become even more vocal. And I think the people that support the cameras are also going to be more vocal. That has been proven by the number of new trolls we have on the site now. And I don’t think Lt. James Warriner’s irresponsible rhetoric is going to help tone down the debate. In fact it just adds fuel to the fire.

    DPS can blame whatever they want on the shooting. But for them to act like they had no idea that someone in the public might become outraged enough to become violent, And for them to do nothing to protect the operator, Is gross negligence on their part. There have been other attacks on photo radar operators in other states. As well as violent vandalism of “fixed” camera locations around the country and the state. Ranging from the guy with a pick ax, to a photo radar van getting rammed of the road side. So DPS can blame the “critics” all they want. They should have known something like that was likely to happen.

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      you are such a tool WALTER!!! did you have any idea walter? of course not..nobody did.. even the guys friend said he only mentioned that he out smarted the camera!!! people say that here all the time!!!

      kind of hard to protect somneone AFTER THE FACT dont you think? fact is… it could have been a DPS sworn officer in there with a vest and he would have been killed also!!!

      more facts…. while i DO NOT believe that CF supports what happened in any way… just be glorifying the antics that were played upon cam vans … makes people think they can test the limits!!

      NO THEY SHOULD HAVE NOT KNOWN something like this was going to happen….

      does the CF HQ in chandler have armed security 24/7? if something was to happen there… should they have known it was going to happen?

      walter the tool toting clown!!!!

  12. How long does it take for a comment to post here?

  13. Lt Warriner is likely right. KTAR’s Ankarlo has been railing against the speed cams for about 4 months now. He has repeatedly compared the the use of sped cams in Phoenix to Nazi Germany. And in one instance he urged people to target shoot at the speed cameras.

    This type of demonizing over time eventually generates a reaction in someone. And it certainly did a couple of weeks ago. Check out the website for details.

  14. duece says:

    Where’s Doc?

  15. MC Fischer says:

    Whoa! All of you fine citizens standing up for people who speed and run red lights and KILL the enforcement officials who are responsible for maintaining law and order? Guess I know what the priorities are in Arizona! And thanks, but I’ll stay where I am–in Germany where we also have speed cameras to keep the road hogs and speed loonies from doing more damage than they already do. Aren’t you the folks that are also up in arms and demanding the government close the border with Mexico? I think all that sun and drought are resulting in boiled brains……

    • Jonathan says:

      I have to say, I’m in complete agreement. As a former resident of Phoenix, I say it’s about time they start doing something about traffic.

      Today’s news had two stories in it that I found particularly interesting. The first was a raid on a company employing illegal immigrants. These are people who (right or wrong) are trying to survive as best they can. The result of the raid was basically a company seriously hurt, a community that’s declared a state of emergency, and countless families in disarray.

      And how many of you cheered that those criminals are finally getting what’s coming to them? Yes they broke the law. Yes, they should be punished for that. Well guess what folks. It’s against the law to go faster than the posted speed limit. It’s against the law to drive through an intersection when you have a red light.

      They break the law, and a company gets people who will do what most people won’t, and children and families get a better life. You break the law, you might get where you’re going 5 minutes faster, assuming you don’t kill someone on the way because you’re better than everyone else and the law doesn’t apply to you.

      So, just out of curiosity how do you decide which laws to obey and which laws not to? It’s ok to steal 50$ but not 51$? You can steal a car more than 5 years old? It’s ok to kill 5 people but not 6?

      Yes, people aren’t perfect. You can’t stick to exactly one speed all the way, and you might misjudge the amount of time you had on that yellow light. And the cameras take that into account. If you can’t stay less than 11mph over the speed limit, then you’re not paying enough attention anyway. If you’re tail end is just leaving the intersection when the light turns red that’s one thing, but if you haven’t even entered the crosswalk when it turns, you either weren’t paying attention or you were playing the odds and lost.

      If the threat of cameras cause people to pay more attention and be more careful, even if it is just to avoid a ticket, then good. If getting a ticket makes someone think twice before gunning it for that yellow light, good. It’s easy enough for things to go wrong even when you are obeying the law – a kid darts into the street right in front of you, the rain makes the road a bit slick, etc. – that why would you want to add to the risk?

      • psy says:

        The voice of reason. Thank you for posting this. I agree with all of the above. Opponents to law enforcement remind me of bratty children who dont want to play by the rules. I dont think they deserve the (adult) privilege of driving at all.

  16. AntoninScalia says:

    Look, the whole photo enforcement program is unconstutional, since private companies are working at the behest of the goverment, and filling the shoes of police. We know it is illegal, we also know that nefarious individuals who are not sworn officers (IE employees of ATS / Redflex have access to your personal information. Great place for a stalker / rapist to take a job to get a fix on his potential victims.

    Now the bad a photo radar operator gets killed, now it allows the goverment/redflex/ats to categorize the killer as a protestor, i.e. we are like him, he is like us, now we are deamonized by our facist goverment. Suddenly the anti-protester / pro camera bleeding hearts are receptive to laws to protect, and not intefere, intimidate, etc. This could potentially be pivotal. State could pass a knee jerk law which could mimic / parallel interfering with a peace officer, more than likley it would be overturned in supreme court, but until then….

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      it is not unconstitutional until the supreme court of the land says it is!!! do you need a lesson is government ? and the judicial system? at this point it is not on the calendar to be heard and with as slow as the justices work w are looking at 3-4-5 years!! until then the cameras will stay up!!

      • You don’t need a ruling to know something is unconstitutional. You just have to know how to read.

        • Jonathan says:

          Just out of curiosity, have you tried to read the constitution?

          As for the argument about it being unconstitutional because “private companies” are doing the work, allow me to read from said document.

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

          And, to clarify, “MILITIA – The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.”

          Now personally I think that we should take a big bottle of white out to that particular ammendment, but as long as it’s still there, I’m not above exploiting it to prove a point.

          • geez says:

            Well if you like to follow some document written in 1787 (over 200 years ago), that does not in one way take into account advancement of society and technology etc… etc.. and written by some guys who not a single person here knows what their mental condition, health or what was going through there heads and antiquated ideas….
            At the time it may have been a great idea to live by. but it’s now 2009.
            And the folks her at CF LOVE to cry “constitution wahawah” whenever someone disagrees with them. Sounds like the original ‘sheeple’ to me.
            Don’t you love how they call azcentral piss poor names, until azcentral comes up with something possible anti-camera, then azcentral is CF’s frontline story and hero’s?

            Sure, I’ll be a troll, CF’rs can be chamelions.

          • What’s wrong with having a well regulated militia? If you don’t understand the purpose of this part of the constitution then there is no help for you. The militia is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the people and the government. Our founding fathers understood this well. When the govt is afraid of the people, it means liberty. When the people are afraid of the govt, it’s tyranny.

            The advancement of technology is no reason to take away personal and fundamental rights and freedoms.

            And geezer, you’re not a troll.

  17. seethemsquirm says:

    Well we can all thank god that Nappy is out of our state showing how smart she is (www.firenapolitano.com).

    Now it looks like it’s time to give DPS an enema.

  18. Bob says:

    Cry and complain all you like – the facts are undeniable. There has been a huge decrease in traffic fatality rates in Arizona since the cameras went up. There has been a continued decline in traffic collision rates since the cameras went up. If you don’t believe me, check the statistics yourself.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/18/20080818trafficdeaths0818.html

    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/4_AZ/2007/4_AZ_2007.PDF

    Those of you complaining about the cameras only want to speed without consequences. Stop whining and drive the speed limit. I do and the cameras have only one impact on my life. They make me and my family safer.

    • Mark S says:

      Bob,

      There has been a decline in all traffic in all states, even Arizona, since even before the cameras went up in Arizona therefore there will also be a reduction in accident and fatality rates.

      I guess no one can use common sense that since traffic is down over 3% that accident rates and fatalities will also go down.

      I guess the butterfly effect is working here. Cameras go up in Arizona so accident rates go down in Maine. Makes sense to me. NOT!!

      • Bob says:

        I suspect you did not understand that I wrote there was a decline in the fatality RATE – not just a decline in fatalities. Did you even bother to look at the statistics. Or would you understand them if you did?

        We are killing fewer people per mile traveled. 18% fewer fatalities per mile traveled. With fewer collisions (again, per mile traveled).

        I agree with you in one respect. Common sense is seldom used.

    • Actually, Photo enforcement has claimed 28 lives since 2001. The fatality rate would be even lower if it weren’t for PE.

      http://photoradarscam.com/ArizonaTicketCamerasCost28Lives2009.pdf

    • BJ says:

      You are a fool that believes what you want to believe. Deaths are down across the nation.

      “They make me and my family safer.” – You are a fool.

      • Bob says:

        I guess its a little hard to understand. Yes deaths are down across the country. However, in AZ, death RATES are down. The difference probably seems insignificant to you – but it is not.

      • No Bob, you are the one who does not understand. Death rates are also down significantly across the country. And besides cameras, DPS also added 200 officers over the past 3 years and we enacted tougher DUI laws. I know you want to praise the cameras, but there are many other more important factors here.

      • Bob says:

        BJ,

        As I happened to have the spreadsheet open, I thought I’d come back and provide the numbers. In the US, the fatality rate declined 3.5% in 2007. There are year to year variations (it was up 2% in 2005 for instance). In AZ, the fatality rate declined 18.4% in 2007. This is well above the historic year to year random variations. This is a significant decline.

        I know how inconvenient it can be when the facts don’t support your argument. Too bad.

        • That’s fine, but the statewide photo program didn’t start until Oct/Nov 2008. There was only minimal PE in place before then. Not to mention in 2007, crime rates were way down, illegal immigration was way down, and DPS was finishing the addition of 200 more bodies, in addition to tougher DUI laws and the Teenage Driver Safety Act.

          You can keep trying, but for 2008, only 4.2% of fatal crashes were due to speed in excess of posted speed limit. Clearly, any significant reduction in fatalities had to have ocurred for reduction of other causes, becase at 4.2%, there isn’t much improvement to be made.

          http://gtsac.org/GTSAC/Studies_Reports/PDF/Governors_Report_2008.pdf

        • No reply to this one, eh Bob?

          • Bob says:

            I had not seen your post until now. I did not know the roll-out month for Az DPS until I just skimmed the report you referenced.

            However, reading the report, I noticed that the roll-out date you posted was for Az DPS, not any local municipalities which had been using photo enforcement before that time.

          • Shows how much you know. There were no significant amount of cameras in place prior to 2008. The handful on city streets would have no appreciable affect one way or the other in the total statewide annual numbers. We didn’t hit critical mass until 2008 when CF was started.

    • Walter says:

      BOB.

      How can you honestly believe that the state Photo enforcement program is the reason for an 18% reduction in fatalities. The state program is almost entirely in Maricopa county. The 18% reduction is state wide. Can you honestly make the argument that the 18% of state wide fatalities were reduced by a program primary isolated to a specific county, Not even an entire county, But an isolated metro area. Also national studies have shown that “speeding” accounts for less than 5% of all accidents. So how can speed cameras, even if they were 100% effective at stopping speeding, Reduce fatalities by more than the 5% of accidents that “speeding” is responsible for? Your numbers just don’t add up.

      Besides that. If you credit the whole reduction in fatalities to Photo Radar. Then what does that say about the other public safety programs? Like the new DUI laws? Or the stricter enforcement of seat belt laws? Are those programs so ineffective that they account for 0%? How about the fact that higher and higher percentages of cars on the road are equipped with safer options like air bags? If you credit some of the percentage to those other programs. How do you separate what program accounts for what percentages? The best way I can think of is if you compare the accident stats for Nevada (without Photo Radar) to Arizona (withe Photo Radar) There is virtually no difference. So it seems to me that Photo Radar is pretty ineffective at saving lives.

      So your “Photo Radar is about safety” is completely false. Photo Radar is all about MONEY!!!! and nothing else. The program was passed in a BUDGET package pushed by governor Nappy. She was NOT pushing a public safety package. Last time I checked BUDGETS dealt with MONEY not public safety.

      • Addtionally, during the same time period, LAs Vegas, which has no cameras, saw a similar reduction in accident.

      • Bob says:

        To address you point by point:
        1. I don’t have the population statistics close at hand – but I would guess that 90% of the state population lives in Maricopa county and that 90% of the miles driven are in Maricopa county. That first objection you raise is easily dismissed.

        2. From the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute: “The results indicate that four driving states/behaviors are associated with an increased risk of being involved in a crash or near-crash. First, driving at inappropriate speeds was associated with nearly tripling the odds of being involved in a crash or near-crash (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.7 – 4.8) relative to driving at appropriate speeds.” You claim speeding accounts for less than 5% of crashes. Do you know anything about driving and the studies of crashes? If you are just making up the numbers – let me know and I’ll leave you alone.

        3. I never credited the entire 18% reduction to photo radar alone. The reduction has occurred since the cameras went up – but there could have been other contributing influences. Did you read the links I posted? If you are not interested in knowing anything about the issue – then just ignore the evidence and the reporting. That will make it easier for you to maintain your biases.

        • Bob, your math is quite a bit off. According to the 2007 Arizona Crash Facts Summary, Maricopa County claimed 66% of all crashes for the state, so your 90% number is quite an exageration, assuming population and miles driven is somewhat proportionate to the number of crashes by county.

          From ADOT in the same study, the driver error of “exceeding lawful speed,” which is the ONLY driver error cameras can detect, was only a cause in 0.46% of accidents. Yes, less than one half percent. And the number above of less than 5%, comes from this NHTSA study: http://www.nhtsa.com/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/NMVCCS/811059.pdf And if you want to talk about the VDOT study, the agency’s most recent report lists “speed too fast” as the driver error that caused 2.9 percent of crashes in 2007.

          • Bob says:

            Thank you so much for supporting my point. I didn’t have that statistic available. Did you realize your numbers supported rather than contradicted the point I was making?

            Even though most of the miles driven and residents are in Maricopa county, only 66% of the crashes occurred in Maricopa country. The cameras which are mostly in Maricopa country appear to be working.

            I haven’t looked into the studies you post. However, I have spent a great deal of time looking into the VTTI study. Their conclusions looked very solid to me.

            Thanks for the references. I WILL take a look – but it will take a few days.

            Bob.

            • I was trying to keep the response factual. 90% is an exaggeration. 66% is more realistic. That still doesn’t tell us much about the alleged 18% reduction. What does tell us a lot is the response I just posted with the numbers for Las Vegas, where for 4Q2008 in the Southern region they experienced I believe a 40% reduction in fatalities, and in all other categories the reductions tended to be 10-20% as well. The Nevada numbers come very close or reflext the same trend that Arizona reported. We used cameras and they didn’t. My contention is that the Arizona results would be about the same if not even a little better without cameras.

  19. seethemsquirm says:

    The flipside of this is that gun related violence has increased since the cameras were installed. I’m sorry but I don’t have a lot of faith in statistics that are reported by proponents of ANYTHING.

    • Bob says:

      Many who don’t understand the statistics feel the same way. Thankfully, they never let that lack of understanding get in the way of their arguments.

  20. Dan G says:

    Hey seethemsquirm – our government spending has also gone through the roof since these photo cameras were installed. Non sequitir? NO….
    The point that the camera supporters, and especially the one in Germany miss, is that in this country we have RIGHTS. The trolls are the only ones to ever use the term ‘right to speed’ then mock us for supposedly believing that we had that right. We do not. The rights involved are the rights to due process, the right to face your accuser(s) in a court of law, and the right to be served by an officer of the law. What about the double jeopardy law? I will say this again: WE HAVE RIGHTS. No mere trivialities to be done away with in the name of $$$.
    Here’s an idea that our pinhead ex-governor missed: instead of hiring redflex and sending our much needed money to australia and violating our rights, why not hire many more highway patroll officers? Tickets raise revenue, so the additional officers could be paid by the revenue created. No skipping out or tossing tickets in the trash. NO rights would be violated by additional officers. The roads would be safer than with fixed cameras since you would never know where the police were. Additionally, NO CAMERA CAN EVER REMOVE AN DANGEROUS DRIVER FROM THE FREEWAY. A cop could. And the most important point of all w/this idea: cops instead of cams would take this site down!

  21. Dan G says:

    Oh I forgot to mention: since the cameras sent money from the valley to Australia, Australia sent Hugh Jackman to the valley! Coicidence? I think not! Hugh Jackman is an obvious redflex plant….

  22. Bob says:

    No camera can ever remove a dangerous driver from the road. Congratulations on having identified the most obvious fact in the history of debate. What can the camera do? It can identify the dangerous driver.

    DUH!!! How can this be so hard to understand?

    • How can a camera identify a driver? All it can do is take a picture. The only way to truly identify someone is to pull them over and look at their ID.

      • Bob says:

        Gee – I guess I was just so wrong. And I thought that DMV could look at the picture and compare it to your drivers license photo. Is the process perfect? No, it is only good enough to decrease the Az traffic fatality rate by 18% in one year.

      • Glad you can admit your mistakes.

        And did you know they accomplished the same reduction in Las Vegas without cameras? Amazing.

        • Bob says:

          Check the NHTSA reports and get me a link. I’d like to see the stats on Nevada and Las Vegas.
          Thanks.

          • Usually I’d say Google it yourself. I can’t find the stats that I saw, but here’s the report for the 4th Quarter 2008 for Nevada statewide which is broken down the Southern region. They had great improvements – similar to DPS’ 80-day numbers – in almost every category WITHOUT USING CAMERAS.
            http://nhp.nv.gov/Safestats/2008_Reports/4th_Quarter2008.pdf

            Amazing.

            • Bob says:

              Yes – amazing. Did you even look over the report you cited?

              What is amazing is that I have to keep repeating that IT IS AN 18% REDUCTION IN FATALITY RATES, NOT IN NUMBERS OF FATALITIES!

              If you don’t understand the difference, let those that do conduct the debate.

              • Yes, it is amazing that similar safety improvements can be achieved without cameras. Glad you agree.

                I’ve already addressed the rest in a new post at the bottom.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      bob- their tin hats are fitting a little more snug nowadays!!! thats how!!!

      welcome friend of the cameras!!!

  23. Joe says:

    This man should lose his job for that statement.

  24. seethemsquirm says:

    Dan G,

    it is easier to hire a contractor, who in turn hires a contract worker….. this way when someone gets brutally murdered, DPS/State of Arizona/Redflex and all wipe their hands of responsibility and walk away unscathed.

    I will continue to use my anti-camera devices to avoid tickets until they come down. They have a “right” to take my photo, I have a right to avoid my photo being taken (well, they can get my photo, they just can’t track the vehicle to me or me to it)

    I was being as idiotic as the rabid supporters in using my example of gun violence increasing. Come to think of it, you are correct, spending has gone through the roof since they went up… oh and get ready for an increase in your az state payroll taxes.

    • Bob says:

      A fairly careful reading of the US Constitution failed to reveal any such right. Are you sure?

      So many are shouting about their rights when the photo is taken while the law is actually being violated. Are you as concerned about the violation as you are about your so called rights? Or are you only concerned about continuing to speed with impunity.

      The photo radar cameras never take my picture. My so called rights never seem to be violated.

      • Why would this be a matter of speeding with impunity? The police can still pull you over for speeding.

        Your rights are being violated when they track and surveil you. They track and surveil ALL drivers whether they are breaking a law or not.

  25. frank ton says:

    call dps and tell them how you feel about them calling you an accessory to murder…

    602-223-2000 (main Switchboard)

    ask for Lt. James Warriner

    why do they have a memorial to Doug on the front page of thier website? if they really thought he helped protect human life, they would have trained and equiped him to deal with the perrils of such a noble cause.

    police enforce law, contractors make money.

  26. Joe says:

    I find it very interesting that, in a polarized situation such as this, that Lt Warriner would essentially throw gasoline on the fire by making such an incendiary statement.

    Photo Radar will go away if we, as a society, determine such an action, and he will comply with the results. Perhaps we can get Sherriff Joe to explore and investigate the relationship between thugs such as Warriner and the lobbyists of Redflex.

  27. Stacey says:

    I am tired of hearing that those that those who oppose photo radar are criminals that promote violence. It is a boring generalization.

    A Redflex employee was caught drinking and driving a photo radar van. Does that mean Redflex promotes drinking and driving.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/09/09/20080909kpnx-photovan0909-CP.html

    • True. But I think a case can be made for those that do commit violence or vigilantism against the speed cams, are encouraged by right-wing radio hosts…on KTAR.

      • Joe says:

        “Encouraged” in what manner?

        • Firstly, Ankarlo had not condemned previous acts of vandelism (that I could find). Second he said this:
          “[Speed cams] were removed after proud Texans grabbed their guns and went target shooting. Such an uprising won’t be necessary here if we kill them via our political opportunities first.”

        • I think you’re giving too much credit to morning talk show hosts. And one man’s vandalism is another man’s civil disobedience. I’ll advocate for propery damage over violence any day. In the Texas statement, it sounds like he’s recounting a true historical event. Are you saying he’s doing something wrong by telling us about an event that actually happened?

          • Again he said: “Such an uprising won’t be necessary here if we kill them via our political opportunities first.”

            Aside from choice of words (to kill) the cameras…I admit, it’s not so direct. But I think some would consider this encouragement, nonetheless. What if I said “We won’t have to burn your house to the ground, if your neighbor moves away”? I doubt you would consider this as benign.

    • Stacey says:

      Yeah, no friggin personal responsibility in this country. Blame a talk show host for your own poor judgement.Free speech is going down the drain in America.

    • Bob says:

      No – those who oppose photo radar are not criminals promoting violence. They are criminals promoting speeding and running red lights.

      • Dan G says:

        Bobby, you really need to slow your over-generalizations and assumptions right there…
        First, I am NOT a criminal. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
        Second, being against photo enforcement does not automatically equal being FOR speeding. I am highly against speeding and red light running. I just don’t think that violating rights is the way to solve this problem.
        You seem to be pro-safety and therefore you support the cameras.
        I am also pro-safety and would prefer more POLICE OFFICERS.

        • Bob says:

          It’s cute to use Bobby as opposed to my name. However, that does not address the issue I raised. Most of those posting to this site are angry because the probability that they are going to get caught breaking the law has gone up since the cameras were installed.

          I’m not certain what right has been infringed by the cameras. Would that be the right to break the traffic laws with impunity?

          I’m very much in favor of police doing things that require a police officer. The cameras are doing a good job reducing speed, red light running and traffic fatalities. This seems to me to be a good thing.

          • Bob, then you have not done any research. We’re all spending hundreds of hours and our own money on a cause “just so we can speed” without getting caught. Yeah, that’s it. Smart one.

            The rights that are being infringed are explained at http://PhotoRadarScam.com/summary.php

            • Bob says:

              I see the possibility that one right might be infringed – the right to equal treatment under the law.

              The second right mentioned on the page you linked is “no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process …” Obviously, the use of the camera does not deny you due process. No right has been infringed. Go to court and argue your case if you wish.

              Third and fourth rights are identical to the first – not all receive equal treatment.

              There are no other constitutionally protected rights mentioned on the page you linked.

              I would agree that in a perfect world, I would prefer that every individual exceeding the speed limit receive a ticket. Removing the cameras will not accomplish that goal so I suspect you agree with me that this is not a reason to remove them.

              So – from a constitutional rights point of view, you and I appear to be in complete agreement. Thanks for the support.

              • Actually you missed the point about being denight the right life, liberty, or property without due process. You have to analyze the possibility for erroneous deprivation under his law enforcement system. With PE, the potential is too great for errors to be made. And then the system provides an inadequate opportunity for defense. You also ignore the rights of innocent people not to be tracked and surveilled by their government.

                • Bob says:

                  How is the possibility of erroneous deprivation any different when a police officer pulls you over. Do you think they never make a mistake.

                  And how is life and liberty at stake in this debate? The court system does not take either life or liberty for traffic violations. Are you exaggerating for effect or do you really think this is a capital crime?

                • Bob says:

                  And further, I’m not being tracked and surveilled. My picture is not being taken. I obey the speed limit laws. Having your picture taken while in violation of the law does not seem like any rights violation to me.

            • Bob says:

              And thinking about rights –

              How about my and your right to get home alive tonight! Does anyone here get the distortion of priorities. Your right to speed with near impunity versus your and my right to get home alive.

              What happened to your priorities?

              • Driving is an inherently dangerous activity, and so are many other things. No amount of cops or cameras are going to change that. If you’re not willing to take the risk then you need to find a padded cell to live in.

                And who is talking about the right to speed with impunity? What happened to human enforcement and proper road engineering?

                • Bob says:

                  Lets have proper road engineering and all the human enforcement we can afford. I have no problem with those proposals.

                  Lets also do what we can to reduce the danger of driving. Reducing speed and red light running will reduce that danger. The cameras can and do help reduce speed.

                • Bob, I’m going to reply at the bottom since it is too narrow here.

          • Oh, and the cameras DO NOT do a good job of reducing red light running and fatalities. Fatalities in Tempe increased 43% after cameras were installed, injuries down only 2% in a year where the national trend was much greater due to less driving.

            RLC in TN failed to reduce accidents: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2760.asp

            Sheriff Babeu in Pinal county took down cameras because fatalities and injuries doubled where cameras were installed.

            The reduction in speed due to cameras is only temporary, and is more likely to cause accidents because they disrupt the normal flow of traffic. ADOT says that roads are safer when everyone drives the 85th percentile speed, but the limits are set much lower than that.

            So you tell me what the best way to address this “problem” is. Don’t you think that adjusting speed limits and yellow light times, which are both PROVEN solutions would be a better solution than enforcement, for which the effects are temporary?

            • Bob says:

              I don’t know anything about what happened in TN. I do know what happened in Arizona. An 18% decrease in the traffic fatality rate since the cameras were rolled out. Not an 18% decrease in fatalities – an 18% decrease in the fatality rate (fatalities per mile traveled). That cannot be explained by claiming fewer miles were traveled as the rate is per mile traveled.

      • Well said Dan.

        In addition, we oppose photo enforcement because it has been found to CAUSE accidents. PE has already claimed 28 lives in Arizona. How can anyone NOT oppose these death machines?

  28. I’m not saying to absolve the killer of the crime. Nor am I saying that Ankarlo should be held legally liable. I believe in the First Amendment.

    I’m just saying maybe that KTAR should reconsider promoting this type of speech which encourages vigilantism and unfounded fear.

  29. Louisiana says:

    And next will our governments start acting like china did? Are they trying to make the case for social chaos……

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm
    : Massacre in Tiananmen Square
    Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic protest in Peking’s (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.
    Tanks rumbled through the capital’s streets late on 3 June as the army moved into the square from several directions, randomly firing on unarmed protesters.

    The injured were rushed to hospital on bicycle rickshaws by frantic residents shocked by the army’s sudden and extreme response to the peaceful mass protest.

    Demonstrators, mainly students, had occupied the square for seven weeks, refusing to move until their demands for democratic reform were met.

    The protests began with a march by students in memory of former party leader Hu Yaobang, who had died a week before.

    But as the days passed, millions of people from all walks of life joined in, angered by widespread corruption and calling for democracy.

    Tonight’s military offensive came after several failed attempts to persuade the protesters to leave.

    Throughout the day the government warned it would do whatever it saw necessary to clamp down on what it described as “social chaos”.

    But even though violence was expected, the ferocity of the attack took many by surprise, bringing condemnation from around the world.

    US President George Bush said he deeply deplored the use of force, and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she was “shocked and appalled by the shootings”.

    Amid the panic and confusion students could be heard shouting “fascists stop killing,” and “down with the government”.

    At a nearby children’s hospital operating theatres were filled with casualties with gunshot wounds, many of them local residents who were not taking part in the protests.

    Early this morning at least 30 more were killed in two volleys of gunfire, which came without warning. Terrified crowds fled, leaving bodies in the road.

    Meanwhile reports have emerged of troops searching the main Peking university campus for ringleaders, beating and killing those they suspect of co-ordinating the protests.

    • Stacey says:

      I tell you what, I watch my back now. When you go up against a foreign corporation that forecasts the potential for billions in profits and you are one of the people trying to stop them it makes you a bit suspicious. Anyone remember Karen Silkwood?

      • Louisiana says:

        What we learned from the Karen Silkwood story – don’t go it alone. Have a group of people with you. Like this campaign. There’s safety in numbers.

        • Stacey says:

          Hey Louisiana,

          It is good to see you here. You should JOIN US ( at the top of the page) at meetup and come on over to the forum.

          Also, just ignore Law Abiding Citizen. He is CRAZY.

        • Law A. BidingTroll says:

          so when stacey goes and gets her tin hat adjusted … she should have a friend go with her?

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        no !!! tell us about her!!!

  30. Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

    is it just me or do i see posts from some pro camera folks!!! by the way, pro camera folks I am a friend not a foe!!! anything you want to talk about please feel free to email me at armer22@yahoo.com!!! even you anti tin hats…. but you have never taken me up on it before…. i am sure that will not change now… cowards never lose their strips( the yellow streak that is)

    where is doc stacey? guess the MIB got him!!

    and you just keep right on watchin your back!! first it was me that was stalking you, now its reflex( in your own mind)… tell you what sugar…. you are not worth the time or energy!!! and you AINT NO KAREN SILKWOOD!!!

  31. Doc says:

    Doc’s right here. Warriner’s village called…they’re looking for their idiot jack booted thug. I say this moron’s exactly why dps’ reputation is in th’ toilet. He needs to go hang out with j-no th’ albatross. Th’ scary thing is that he’s got a badge AND a gun. Never mind that these losers put civilians into dps marked vehicles, which is tantamount to impersonating a police officer, WITHOUT proper police protective gear and training. I’ll toss this happy sh!t RIGHT BACK in this man’s lap! His bullsh!t actions are coming home to roost, & he’s just lookin’ to find any scapegoat he can, ‘cuz just like our current government in D.C., GOD FORBID his ilk will take any responsibility for their poorly thought-out actions…motivated by GREED! In his microscopic mind, if he can make us appear bad, then it’s a victory for him. Not so much, richard noggin!

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

  32. Stacey says:

    Just finished reading the Redflex/Department of Public Securites contract. Redflex brags about helping DPS with their talking points and media propaganda. Doing a shitty job.

    They also brag about getting in good with the local media, especially the newspapers.

    Wanting to make things easy for DPS, they will write articles promoting photo radar for DPS as they have done for other law enforcement agencies. And they have some real nice slogans for billboards -Saves innocent lives. Doesn’t ticket innocent people.

  33. Louisiana says:

    There was an increase in consumption of milk products by 35% at the same time there were a decrease in the number of accidents that had red light cameras by 18%. This must mean that there is a statistical correlation that drinking more milk reduces red light running. (insert sarcasim here).

    • Mark S says:

      ROTFLMFAO! That is FUNNY!

      Remember, statistics show that statistics can show whatever they want the statistics to show.

    • Bob says:

      The difference between your funny milk – accidents example and the photo enforcement – accidents situation is that there is a plausible connection between photo enforcement and accidents.

      While it is true that correlation does not imply causation, it is just as true that correlation does not preclude causation. That is a subtle difference that often seems to elude the poorly informed.

  34. Natalie says:

    LAB – You know there are other places that you can be social networking, Myspace, Facebook…find old friends from High School…You should try it!

  35. Doc says:

    I was up late last nite. Just takin’ care of business around th’ house. My Wife’s still not 100%. Off topic, I’d just like to say that Wives simply Do Not get paid enuff! What my Wife does after she gets home from Work, Before she goes to bed, well, took me ’till almost 1:A.M. last nite to do. She’s in bed by 10:P.M.. But I’m gettin’ it done! Th’ house is clean, laundry’s caught up, Dinner, dishes, all of it.

    Rememberin’ when, & lookin’ forward to my Wife, bein’ 100% again REAL SOON!-Doc from Prescott

  36. Michael Milstead says:

    Here is my kind of politician:

    T.B. Bechtel, a City Counselor from Newcastle, Australia, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

    HIS STATEMENT: ‘If hooking up one rag head terrorist prisoner’s testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel-shagger will save just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say,’

    ‘Red is positive, Black is negative, and Make sure his nuts are wet.’

  37. Just slow down and the problem will disappear.

    11mph? This is a joke. I Germany, city speed limit is 50km/hr = 35mph. One can get a ticket if one goes 51km/hr. Hence the name “limit”. So stop complaining and slow down. Or pay up.

    • Or just wear a mask.

      Seriously, you’re going to have to do better than that tired old argument.

    • Bob says:

      The same is true in every jurisdiction in the US. You can be ticketed whenever you exceed the speed limit by any amount. You can also get a speeding ticket even when you are not exceeding the posted limit. The posted limit is a maximum speed under ideal conditions. You are required to slow whenever conditions are less than ideal. Yes, you can receive a speeding ticket going 40 mph in a 45 mph zone.

      • Walter says:

        Can the cameras give out a ticket for doing 40 in a 45? If it’s rainy with high winds and poor visibility? To me that would seem more dangerous than doing 76 in a 65 on a bright sunny day with little to no other traffic.

        The cameras are there to generate revenue for the camera companies and for the cities and towns that put them there. The state put them up as part of a BUDGET package. NOT as part of a public safety package.

        That means MONEY NOT SAFETY was the motive behind installing the cameras.

        • Bob says:

          You may think so and you may shout it from a soap box if you want to. The cameras are saving lives by encouraging people to slow down and stop for red lives. It does not matter if you don’t like this fact – because it is a fact. They may indeed raise revenue for budgets and companies. I don’t care. What I care about is that they are saving lives. Thats enough for me.

        • Law A. BidingTroll says:

          of course they put it in the budget… it is a projected income.. just as tax revenues are projected!!!

          bright sunny days we have plentry of…. little or no traffic…. not so many of those times!!!

  38. Doc says:

    Spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat…

    Pencils made j-no lie to her constituants…

    Photo Radar make$ better con$tabulary…

    on&on&on&on&on…

    Prayin’ that we have any FREEDOM left aftr our elected official$ get thru with us…Doc from Prescott

    • Bob says:

      I don’t know who j-no is and I don’t care about Rosie whomever.

      Photo radar DOES MAKE A BETTER CONSTABULARY! They do that by freeing police officers to do other work that can be done by the cameras. The camera can detect speeding and issue a ticket – the exact same job done by traffic cops. That frees them to do more demanding police work. The cameras can do that job for far less money than it takes to hire a police officer. And the ones we have hired are doing other work while the cameras are on duty 24/7.

  39. Please explain how police are “free to do other work.” Are they no longer pulling people over for traffic citations? You do realize that many, many crimes are found and solved because of routine traffic stops. Are you alleging that the police have reduced the number of traffic stops because of the cameras? DPS and city police departments insist that this is not the case.

    The camera cannot detect speeding as defined by arizone statutes. The cameras can only measure speed. They cannot do the same job as that done by cops, because the cops also identify if a person has an outstanding warrant, valid insurance, a road-safe vehicle, etc., etc., as well as a cop POSITIVELY identifies the driver, even if they are driving a commercial vehicle, out-of-state or out-of-country vehicle, rental car, wearing a mask, etc. etc.

    • Bob says:

      “The camera cannot detect speeding as defined by arizone statutes. The cameras can only measure speed.”

      How is that unrelated to speeding as defined by Arizona statutes? Nothing in the use of cameras prevents police officers from doing everything you seem to want them to do. They can continue to pull people over for routine traffic stops. They can continue to identify is a person has an outstanding warrant. Everything you seem to want can continue to happen.

      The cameras just allow something else to happen. In addition to the continuing work of the police officer, additional speeders are ticketed.

      • Just as I expected. You ignored the question: How dot he cameras free up officers “to do other work?” Because the answer is, they don’t. The officers are still doing the “same work” they’ve always done. Not “other work.”

        It’s unrelated to speeding as defined by the statutes because the statutes require a judgement call. Cameras cannot make a judgement call.

        • Bob says:

          The other work referred to was not sitting at the location of the camera holding a radar gun. That other work could be sitting at some other location or doing some other type of work. Satisfied?

          As far as a judgment call is concerned. What?

          From ARS 28-701
          B. Except as provided in subsections C and D of this section or except if a special hazard requires a lesser speed, any speed in excess of the following speeds is prima facie evidence that the speed is too great and therefore unreasonable:
          1. Fifteen miles per hour approaching a school crossing.
          2. Twenty-five miles per hour in a business or residential district.
          3. Sixty-five miles per hour in other locations.
          C. The speed limits prescribed in this section may be altered as authorized in sections 28-702 and 28-703.

          • Sorry, no, I am not satisfied. DPS officers are performing the SAME activities with or without the cameras. And your argument about location holds little water because DPS insists that they still patrol the areas with cameras the same as they always have. You have failed to describe how DPS is “freed up” from regular traffic patrol in order to “focus” on more serious crimes.

            You forgot 28-701.A: A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is REASONABLE AND PRUDENT under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing….

            Reasonable and Prudent is a judgement call.

            What?

  40. […] descended upon DPS headquarters today to express outrage over the department’s recent incendiary comments regarding opponents of automated […]

  41. Doc says:

    So, for those who weren’t payin’ attention in class…j-no is short for (insert drum roll, HERE) Department of Homeland Security head, & FORMER (thank GOD!) Arizona Governor—Janet Napalitano…I can’t believe ya’ didn’t know that one.

    Photo Radar DOES NOT make a better constabulary. Try & keep up, if ya’ can, huh?

    Remembering to try & be polite to th’ new trolls…
    Doc from Prescott

    • Bob says:

      If I wanted to refer to Janet Napalitano – I would probably spell out “Janet Napalitano.”

      Photo radar DOES make a better constabulary. It frees the police up to do work that cameras cannot while the cameras continue to detect speeding. The cameras are much less expensive than the yearly salary of the police officers that would be needed to replace them.

      By the way – do you realize the “you” and “ya'” have the exact same number of characters and keystrokes? What is the point?

      • You still have not explained how cameras free up police “to do work that the cameras cannot.” They are still doing the same job they always have.

        • geez says:

          wow…. not to hard to understand.
          Let the camera’s handle the majority of speed incidents and the cops can concentrate on dui’s etc…
          boggles the mind..

        • So you’re saying that the cops are ignoring speed violations now in order to “concentrate” on DUIs?

          • Bob says:

            PhotoRadarScam,

            It’s the details. Everyone always misses the details. Those 6 little characters: “etc…”

            When you miss the details, you miss the message. Pay attention!

          • I didn’t miss the details, I thought my point was just as valid. Change my above comment to say ‘…”concentrate” on DUIs, etc…’

            You’ve still failed to demonstrate where there has been any demonstrable relief of traffic duty because of cameras.

            • Bob says:

              I have not tried to demonstrate it. I don’t have access to police deployment records for the state. What I have done is provide a logical argument in support of my point.

              The point being that a police officer does not have to be at a particular location to measure speed if a camera is installed at that particular location to measure speed. Have you noticed any police cars parked underneath the photo radar cameras with radar guns? No? Do you think thats a coincidence?

              You might, but I don’t.

            • You still have failed to argue that officers are freed up. If there were 10 officers precamera and there are still 10 officers and they are doing the same activities, no officers are freed up from any workload. Whether it’s speed detail within a mile of a camera or on a road with no cameras, it’s still speed detail.

              And yes, they still patrol the same stretches of highway and I have seen multiple times DPS working speed patrol within a half mile or so of a camera. As I have pointed out, traffic stops achieve much more than handing out speeding citations and are critical to overall law enforcement. DPS cannot afford to stop making routine traffic stops, including speedin citations, even where cameras are installed.

  42. Bob,
    RE: Reducing speed and red light running will reduce that danger.
    This is false. Uniformity of speed is more important than the speed itself. Just refer to ADOT: http://www.dot.state.az.us/Highways/Traffic/Speed.asp
    Also refer to what happened when the national 55 speed limit was repealed. According to you, it would have been a bloodbath. Instead, accident rates actually went down. Same thing in Montana. They abolished day time speed limits for a while. Another bloodbath was predicted but never materialized.

    And for red light running, a vast majority (I believe 80%+) of all red light camera violations are for violations in the first half second after a light turns red. These violations are not dangerous. The dangerous violations are the ones that occur many seconds into a red light, and those happen because of people not paying attention, not because of blatant disregard for the law. How is a camera going to stop someone who is not paying attention? How many red light accidents do you think are actually caused by people intentionally running the light?

    You say, I don’t know what happened in Tennessee. Well, read the link and you’ll learn what happened. Accidents and fatalities went up because of cameras.

    And you say you want to “reduce the danger.” What accident/fatality rate would be acceptable to you? We can achieve 0 if we ban cars altogether. We can probably get close to that with a national 10mph speed limit. But we have to be realistic. What is an acceptable level, and who’s to say tht we aren’t already at that level?

    RE:I do know what happened in Arizona. An 18% decrease…
    Again, read the Nevada data I posted for you. They saw results similar to Arizona without using cameras. Last year 42 (IIRC) states saw significant fatality rate reductions just like Arizona. Few, if any of those states, run any significant photo enforcement programs. It’s amazing what how much safer it is when the roads are less crowded. Look at the annual data going back a few decades. You’ll notice a natural fluctuation of at least 10%. If the cameras worked so well, the results would be more decisive.

    • Bob says:

      Reducing red light running will not reduce the danger of fatalities? I’m sure you simply mis-typed. No normally intelligent person could possibly assert something so ridiculous. I see tens of cars running red lights daily on my commute. Whether in the first second or not, it is dangerous and I am in favor of anything that can get it to stop. And most of those cars entering the intersection a second or two late, have sped up to speeds that are stupidly unsafe, usually 10 to 20 mph over the limit (I would guess).

      I did read the link to the TN study. I believe I responded someplace above.

      Uniformity of speed is important and if anyone had bothered to read the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study I referenced earlier, they would have learned that inappropriate speed was defined as too slow as well as too fast.

      However, all things being equal – slower speed for all involved will reduce fatalities. Car crashes are energy dissipation events. The energy being dissipated increases with the square of the speed. Double the speed and you quadruple the energy. That’s why slower is safer.

      • Bob,
        It is NOT dangerous to run a red light during the all-clear (all-red) portion of the light cycle, which is usually about a second. It’s not a good idea, but with no cross traffic starting yet, there is little real danger.

        Your response to the TN study was a terse “I don’t know what happened there.” Basically a refusal on your part to admit that there is real evidence that cameras don’t work. Keep your hand in the sand if you wish.

        You have either contradicted yourself or failed to qualify your comments. Slower is not always safer. Again, the national speed limit of 55 was repealed, states increased their speed limits, and fatality rates WENT DOWN. It turns out that going faster is safer.

        I know what you’re saying. But you throw the phrase around to decieve. More accurate would be these two statements: The chance of surviving an accident is greater at slower speed. The safest speed to drive is the 85th percentile speed.

        • Bob says:

          It very dangerous to run the red light in the 1 second delay before green. You’ve probably not noticed people turning right on red. When the cross-traffic light turns red, and both directions are red for a short time interval, many people start their right turns. And as I pointed out, most people running that red light have sped up to stupid speeds.

          Somewhere up above I did respond to the TN study. I’ll do it again. What all of you seems to have not noticed is that the TN study documented a decline in traffic fatalities and crashes. What we have documented in AZ is a decline in traffic fatality rates. TRAFFIC FATALITY RATES! What part of this don’t you understand?

          SLOWER IS ALWAYS SAFER! Collisions are energy dissipation events. Double the speed and the energy that must be dissipated goes up by a factor of 4. That is why slower is always safer. You don’t want to believe that because you either never took a physics class and don’t understand it or because you don’t want to slow down.

        • Turning right on red is a constant possibility, not just during the all-clear. Drivers turning right on red almost always execute this maneuver with extreme caution and look to see if traffic is coming first, so there is minimal probability for error here. IIRC, less than 1% of all accidents occur with someone turning right on red.

          I understand perfectly what you are saying about the rates. vs. fatalities, but it seems you don’t want to understand them either. It’s a reasonable assumption that miles-driven in TN has stayed the same or decreased, just as it has nationally. Therefore, if the number of injuries and fatalities stays the same or increases, the fatality rate also INCREASES. The conclusion is the same. Cameras are making the streets MORE DANGEROUS in TN. What part of this don’t you understand?

          And now, slower is not *always* safer. Driving 30 down the freeway with everyone else at 65 is MORE dangerous than driving with the flow at 65. And again, fatality rates DECREASED when the nationwide speed limits INCREASED.

          What you are talking about is the odds of surviving an accident once you’re in one. What I’m saying is that you’re less likely to be in an accdient if you drive with the flow of traffic, REGARDLESS of the speed.

          • Bob says:

            Your assumption may be reasonable or not. It might be even correct or incorrect. Regardless, your conclusion does not follow. Not only does it not follow, I can’t even follow your logic. Find the data and post a link.

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            however. there are many people due to lots of reasons that can not drive with the flow of traffic once it reaches speeds beyond 70 mph!!!

  43. Doc says:

    P R S-You are a M A C H I N E ! ! ! As to my referring to Mizz Napalitano as “j-no”, well, when she does ANYTHING AT ALL to deserve respect, I’ll be th’ 1st guy to show it. UNTIL then, not so much. If you can’t keep up, Bob, don’t post. Cumments from her such as,”crossing the boarder isn’t a crime per se…”, when she’s the person in charge of SECURING OUR BOARDERS…hopefully, you get th’ idea. And lastly, while I know that all th’ politically correct folks want everything controlled by th’ government, & every little thing conforming to their standards…

    I’m gonna’ be non-compliant! After all,I’m a Family Lovin’, Bible clingin’, gun totin’, Chopper Ridin’, Non-Helmet wearin’, Constitution believin’, Capitolism LOVIN’, FREEDOM FIGHTIN’, Whisky drankin’, HELL RAISIN’, Life savin’, wound fixin’, broke appendage splintin’, Rite Wing Xtreemist! I’ll type th’ way I bloody damn well feel like, Thanks!

    Typin’ any ol’ way I damn well please…
    Doc from Prescott

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      bible clinging? for what purpose? you have demonstrated here that you certainly do not live a god fearing life!!!

  44. Bob says:

    Well, ain’t ya’ jus’ a goo’ ol’ countr’ bo’.

    If this is the quality of the intellect on the other side of the debate, I suspect the debate will be short.

  45. Bob,
    RE: Officers make mistakes too
    On occasion they do, but the severity of the mistake is much less and the cop will actually show up to court where you can both present a case. A cop visually estimates speed and then verifies it with equipment. IF they don’t match, he takes another reading. He will never accidentally cite someone for going 88 in a 65 (criminal speedin), as a malfunctioning camera recently did, costing an innocent citizen many hours of time and two days off of work for court. With instant notificaiton, the driver is able to immediately take pictures and gather necessary evidence for defense.

    Furthermore, the equipment vendors will not publish the accuracy and error rates of the cameras and the program. They are capable of generating mass quantities of errors, while an individual officer may issue a handful of erroneous tickets in his career.

    No exaggeration. Life and liberty are at stake because people can lose their driver’s licenses, and that may mean their livlihood – as a result of an erroneous ticket.

  46. Bob,
    RE: I’m not being tracked and surveilled.

    Your ignorance is showing. The cameras capture video 24/7 of EVERYONE. Some cameras look up and store the license plate number of EVERYONE who drives by. Some even employ or may soon employ facial recognition.

    Yes, even YOU are being tracked and surveilled.

  47. Bob says:

    I don’t know for certain if my information is being stored at all, or for how long if it is, or for what purpose if it is. I do know, for certain, that I’d rather have that then the wild west bumper car demolition derby we’ve had for so long in Arizona.

    There is no right to privacy while on public roads in this country. I have read the Bill of Rights. Carefully. No such right is granted. Some expectation of privacy when in your own home used to exist (before it was eliminated by the Bush administration), but none ever existed in public. That is why it is called public, not private.

    • If you don’t know then don’t you think you should find out before speaking out about it?

      Maybe you should sped some time reading the DPS-Redflex contract, the Redflex product brochures, and the archives on this site.

      I have never claimed a right to privacy violation, but I do have a right not to be tracked and surveilled by the government when I amnot being suspected of any crimes.

      “Bumper car demolition derby” is a laughable exageration. If the roads were actually that unsafe, you would not be driving on them.

      People are crappy drivers no matter where you go. Laws will not change this. Education and training will. As I drive around the city, people driving “too fast” are the least of my concerns. The simply go around me and are gone. The real problems are the people who are not paying attention and who do not yield the right of way and who do not signal. Cameras are of no help here.

      What other liberties and freedoms are you willing to give up for safety? People die in sky-diving every year, maybe we should outlaw that. People misuse cutlery and injur and kill themselves and others, maybe we should pass laws about how sharp a knife can be. Where do you draw the line? Maybe the US is not the best country for you?

      • Bob says:

        PhotoRadarScam,

        If you don’t actually know, you should ask. I’m not used to people debating an issue when they don’t know anything about it.

        For all of the years for which I have data (2002 through 2006 and 2007), the traffic fatality rates in AZ were nearly 50% above the national average and were 2.5 times that of the best state. That’s 1.5 times the fatality rate of the national average. Bumper car demolition derby is exactly what it has been.

        However, in 2007 some things changed. A huge increase in photo enforcement occurred and the DUI penalties were increased. It is very difficult to tease out the relative influences, but I do know that there has been a minor affect on DUI incidence. In 2007, for the first time in my data set, the AZ fatality rate came down by a significant amount. In 2006 we were 1.46 times the national average. In 2007 we were 1.23 times the national average. We cut the value in half. In one year.

        Either angels from heaven above came down and sprinkled magic fairy dust on all our cars or some other influence came into effect. You believe the magic fairy dust explanation?

        • If you’re “not used to people debating an issue when they don’t know anything about it” you’ve just admitted to doing it yourself.

          It sounds like you’re trying to fool us here, but you’re not. Yes, AZ may be above the national average, but what is the standard deviation? Are the numbers normalized for population and population density? It’s a lot easier to avoid accidents when the roads are much less crowded. My wife and I have been driving here for over 10 years without accidents, so it’s hard to believe that we’d be able to survive the “demolition derby” this successfully if it was as bad as you say.

          “Your” data set? Let’s stick to published data. Your numbers are not germain to the argument. The state program was only in effect for 2 months in 2008, and it was just getting started. Any results were likely a result of everything BUT cameras.

          • Bob says:

            The numbers are normalized. I have consistently been reporting the fatality and accident rates. Not total numbers. Numbers adjusted for vehicle miles traveled.

            1.5 times than the national average and 2.5 times the best state rates. That sounds like a demolition derby to me. I didn’t make up those numbers.

            Did I mention we have been 1.5 times the national average for every year I could find data for? Until 2007?

            • You’ll have to find some simpler folks to dazzle with your numbers.

              The average fatality rate in the US in 2007 was 1.40. AZ was at 1.69. (hardly 1.5 times 1.4). The standard deviation is .38, so AZ is above average, but well within the norm.

              Again, not the bloodbath you are claiming.

              • Bob says:

                Yes! Exactly! In 2007 there was a significant decline in the fatality rate. As I mentioned above in more detail, in 2007 our delta to the national average was cut exactly in half. I think I may have mentioned (10 or so times!) that 2007 was a significant departure for Az.

              • Yes, and it was done WITHOUT CAMERAS!

  48. Louisiana says:

    This is for BOB – because he thinks we have no right to privacey. Of course BOB is wrong….

    _____________

    Main article: Privacy laws of the United States
    The idea of a right to privacy originated in America. Louis Brandeis (later a Supreme Court judge) and another young lawyer, Samuel D. Warren, published an article called ‘The Right to Privacy’ in the Harvard Law Review in (1890) arguing that the constitution and the common law allowed for the deduction of a general “right to privacy”.[4] Their project was never entirely successful, and the renowned tort expert Dean Prosser argued that “privacy” was composed of four separate torts, the only unifying element of which was a (vague) “right to be left alone.”[5] These elements were

    appropriating the plaintiff’s identity for the defendant’s benefit
    placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye
    publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff
    unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion of solitude of the plaintiff

    Health Information Privacy Accountability Act — Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    Financial Services Modernization Act (GLB), 15 U.S. Code §§ 6801-6810
    Final Rule on Privacy of Consumer Financial Information, 16 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 313
    Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S. Code §§ 1681-1681u
    Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692

    [edit] See also

    [edit] Legislation
    Privacy Act of 1974 (US)
    Electronic Communications Privacy Act (US)
    Privacy Act 1988 (Aus)
    Data Protection Directive (EU)
    Data Protection Act 1998 (UK)

    • Bob says:

      By the way, it’s Bob. I’m not sure what your intent is when you capitalize my name.

      The bill of rights grants no such right. And none of the laws cited above provide for an expectation of privacy when you are driving on public roads.

      However, I will concede that there are some specific rights to privacy that have been legislated in some specific instances. None, however, extend to driving on public roads. Even if there were, rights granted by the legislature can be rescinded or amended by that same legislature.

  49. Joe says:

    Las Vegas casinos already employ face recognition technology so that they can collectively ban card counters and cheaters from their properties. The technology works, and it will not be long before it is used on a daily basis in America. That is, unless we take preemtive action against it.

  50. Louisiana says:

    BOB – this is for you also………….

    Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings’ acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages.

    Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator’s physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person’s private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person’s private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary.”[6]

    Restrictions against the invasion of privacy encompasses journalists as well:

    “The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office.”[7][8]

    • Bob says:

      Louisiana,

      These cases and laws you are referencing do not apply in this situation. When I am driving on a public road, I am not the subject of or a character in a novel. I am not at my doctors office with my medical records on review. I am not a plaintiff in a legal proceeding. The situations you keep bringing up are not the situation under discussion.

      However, as I conceded above, I concede again. There have been some expectations of privacy legislated. However, none apply to driving on a public road when the invasion is a photo and speed measurement.

  51. Louisiana says:

    BOB – here’s some more

    Although the word “privacy” is actually never used in the text of the US Constitution,[19] there are Constitutional limits to the government’s intrusion into individuals’ right to privacy. This is true even when pursuing a public purpose such as exercising police powers or passing legislation. The Constitution, however, only protects against state actors. Invasions of privacy by individuals can only be remedied under previous court decisions.

    The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    The First Amendment provides a right to free assembly, broadening privacy rights.

    The Ninth Amendment declares that the fact a right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right.

    The Supreme Court recognized the Fourteenth Amendment as providing a substantive due process right to privacy. This was first recognized by several Supreme Court Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision protecting a married couple’s rights to contraception. It was recognized again in 1973 Roe v. Wade which invoked the right to privacy to protect a woman’s right to an abortion.

    [edit] References

    • Bob says:

      Louisiana,

      I’m trying to understand your point of view. Are you against all police monitoring of speed? The police officer observes you, your appearance, your facial features and measures the speed of your vehicle. It seems to be similar data to that collected by the camera. Are you arguing that the police officer is violating some right to privacy? Do the police require a warrant (oath or affirmation as stated above) to measure your speed? And another to measure mine?

      • Louisiana says:

        Police is Louisiana are prohibited from using this technology (32:365 (b)) because of the constitutional infringments and right to privacey issues I posted earlier. So why then would we allow a private company, from another country (Redflex) to profiteer with a survellience device that we specifically prohibit the police from using? It’s not logically that our local governments believe they can skirt the constitutional protections afforded to citizens state and federal authority. In reality, the only police authority a local government has is what granted to them by the state. This authority was asked for by the local governments and the Louisiana legislature denied the request 5 times. The locals did it anyway knowing full well, they don’t have the authority.

        • Law A. BidingTroll says:

          that it is a foreign company means nothing… many many foreign companies do legal business here… just like redflex!!!

          • Louisiana says:

            A foreign company fror another country hired to police and act in the capacity of law enforcement over Americans means something. Would you like a foriegn military brought in to police Americans using electronic survelienc? As long as statitics show improved public safety, using your logic, then that should be fine. I’m not o.k. with that.

        • Bob says:

          Private companies and citizens are free to do many things the police are prohibited from doing. This has always been the case. Surely you are aware of that fact.

          However, if the private concern is acting on a contract with some governmental agency, then their authority would seem to be me to be limited to the authority of the govt agency. I am, however, not a lawyer.

          At this point I’m wondering if you and I are debating two different issues. Are you located in the state of Louisiana, debating from that situation? I’m located in the state of Arizona and am debating from our local point of view.

          If, the state/local government authority to operate these cameras is lacking, then I will want to contact my state legislators immediately to provide the needed authority. Is that your point – that in the state of AZ, authority to operate these cameras is specifically prohibited in some state law, in the state constitution or by some court decision?

          • Louisiana says:

            This is prohibited under LS 32:365(b) and our police can’t do it. Our local gov’t cannont create civil relationships or abridge power of police (i.e. La Supreme court ruling)…so yes we have a private company contract to local gov’t and exceeding the authority local gov’t has.

            • Bob says:

              Louisiana,

              When I posted a response to the story at the top of this page, I thought I was responding to an AZ story and that the comments were about AZ. I don’t know anything about your situation in Louisiana. I haven’t followed traffic statistics or the justifications for cameras in your state.

  52. Doc says:

    Bob-Don’t you worry none ’bout MY intelligence level. As we’ve seen here 2day, yours is lackin’. If you’ll check your facts, you’ll see that dps cmndr woodward stated in a hearing of th’ state Transportation commitee back in late Jan. 09, that everybody was bein’ tracked “24/7, & we’re keepin’ it for 90 days.” (that’s called a quote…you can locate the definition of that word on websters.com…)

    So, when your intelligence can keep up with the likes of Photo Radar Scam, Louisiana, Joe, Mark S, Stacey, kandaris, myself, & many others, feel empowered to type away your opposing points of view. ‘Till then, ya’ just look like another dumb ol’ troll to me…& yer posts prove me right.

    A day without learnin’, is a day WASTED-
    Doc from Biskitt…oops, I meant Prescott

  53. Louisiana says:

    I wonder if the reason the vans were pulled off of the road after the event you had in Arizona, is because Redflex’s workers’ compensation carrier may have been surprised to learn that Redflex had employees working as quasi “police officer” My instinct tells me that the carrier could have been under the impression that these were data entry clerks, which is a code 8810, very low costs and low risk. I have been wondering about that since I know how impossible it is to get workers’ compensation insurance for private security, bouncer, types of class codes. Has anyone in Arizona asked to see Redflex’s Insurance certificate to find out who’s their workers’ comp carrier is? Also, could someone find out if their workers’ comp has been cancelled or, if it’s still in place.

  54. Louisiana says:

    BOB:

    It’s whether or not I have an expectation of privacy, not if you or someone else believes I should have an expectation.

    In my car I have an expectation of privacy. It’s an extension of my home and my personal space.

    Private contractos don’t have a right to invade my personal space and expectation of privacy. Even if they have a contract with government to do so.

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      then dont drive!!! it is real simple louis!!

      • Louisiana says:

        Sorry – your solution that I simply not drive is not acceptable. In fact, it’s child like. There are serious constitutional issues that need to be resolved by a court. This is a slippery slope and we need to stop it. Of course, I’m only thinking of you and the constitutional protections you deserve and are entitled to LawA biding Troll. I’m law abiding too. And, Redflex isn’t the law in the matter.

        • Law A. BidingTroll says:

          funny…. their cameras are!!! nice to see one of you tin hats admit that the highest court in the land needs to make a ruling!!!

          ok …. drive with foil on every window including the front!!! that will do it!!

    • To add to Lousiana’s comments, he’s on to something with the private contractor thing. Private contractors do not have the right to profit off of your likeness. This is why people on TV shows either have to have a release signed or their face is blurred out. If not, those people can sue for damages. This is an interesting link I found. I don’t know how legit this is, but it seems to have merit. http://freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=045928

  55. Bob says:

    Louisiana,
    You might expect almost anything in your car. However, your expectations may not match reality.

    In this case, I think they do not. I understand that we disagree. I don’t think you will get very far arguing your point of view with the courts or the legislature.

    Your home may be your castle, but your car is just your car.

  56. Louisiana says:

    My home is my castle and that extends to my car. Court cases already exist – look under gun rights.

  57. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    bob…. you will only get frustrated talking to scam clown!!! but do check out his pathetic, no traffic, web site!!! not even sure why he keeps the lights on there… nobody visits and since he spends all his time here???? nobody home either!!

  58. Doc says:

    Great! Then ALLLLL th’ trolls can leave…since there’s nobody here…and all.

    Bob…there is a legal expectation of privacy inside your vehicle. Proving your sheepleness. You should check out…9th grade civics class…dope!

    Remembering American History Class, & HONORING those that died to keep us free!
    Doc from Prescott

  59. Doc says:

    Is “Bob” just a troll…or another personality of law breakin hypocrite? Are these two, one in th’ same? Are they/he/she/it related to ‘Sybil’? Are they ‘Sybil’? Or is this how th’ Aussie’s always act? Scameras, no private possession of ANY firearms, NO motorcycle clubs, surfing with great white sharks…God these people are DUMB!

    Scameras are 86’d! Doc from Prescott

  60. Doc says:

    PRS-I stand corrected. Thank You. His lack of understanding regarding th’ U.S. Constitution however, is concerning in that he sleeps under the very protection that document provides. Well, I guess he’ll figure it out someday…or my hypothesis is correct, & he’s another personality living inside of law breaking hypocrite… Oh well, enuff typing of these 2…

    Doc from Prescott

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      doc- differences of opinion regarding the constitution do not make your interpretation right and everybody else wrong/// many times the supreme court has had to interpret the document and make a ruling that settles said argument.. since they have not been asked to review photo radar and render a decision/// it is just differences of opinion from many people!!! hey.. but in your little corner of life!! you can think what you want !! just dont try and tell me that i can not do the same!!!

  61. Bill Conley says:

    Lt. Warriner,
    From one police officer to another, you are an embarrassment…

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      if you had any real guts bill…. you would not do it here.. maybe a phone call or a letter!!!

      bill the cop clown!!!

  62. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    louis- well you may have a point if they were in vans marked redflex!!! but they are not.. and for all we know most of their employees are american!!!! you better start getting O.k. with something…. you are not going to have much of a choice!!!! that is ….if you come visit here!! what they do in your state means nothing to me!!!

    • Louisiana says:

      In Louisiana they are marked Redflex, or should I say “Safe Speed”. Redflex refuses to allow the PI board do FBI background checks on their employees. At least one was arrested because of outstanding warrants and other leagl problems, while she was an employee of Redflex. I suspect, they’re not doing proper background checks on employees in Arizona either. So you see Law A. biding, you really don’t know if they’re American or not, do you?

      We’ve already learned out lesson in Lafayette….google the words “El Hage Lafayette Louisiana” and then tell me that I shouldn’t always worry about who people hire and what position of power they are put in, and what data they have access to.

      Law Abiding, you should really learn from other peoples mistakes, if might save your life.

    • Walter says:

      LAB have you ever heard of the concept called precedence? It’s where a ruling is made in one case and it effects how the laws are interpreted in other cases. While it is not always directly applied state to state. It does sometimes influences the way other states make their laws. I think Photo Radar could very easily be one such case. Where the views in one state could have an effect on the way another state looks at Photo Radar.

      So you keep living in your little bubble thinking that nothing can get in and hurt you. Meanwhile we will keep working to protect your freedoms from your own ignorance.

  63. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    yes …i have heard of it… usually applies to civil, criminal cases …. and it has nothing to do with the legislature!!! you may think a lot of things… as i… and until our elected officials say yea or ney … or until CF forces this to the voters… we each just have an opinion..

    you walter are not fightinG for my freedoms or rights!!! that comment made me puke!!! the guys in uniform are fighting for us… you sitting at a computer magott..while they are on guard 24\7 makes me think that you have taken on a cause greater than fighting terrorists and people that want to kill us on our soil!!

    YOU MAKE ME ILL!!!

  64. Vince says:

    Law, why not support a vote?

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      vince … i will cut you some slack cause you are new…. it has been my contention all along that i welcome a vote by the people//// couple of issues… anti cam will never get enough signatures to force it!!! AND the elected clowns will never paass a law to get rid of it!! it is a political …. for lack of a better term!! time bomb!!!! that will be defused !!!

      im sorry that you chose the losing side!! better luck next time clown!!!

  65. Michael Milstead says:

    Vince, Law is scared that his side will lose.Just like it has every time it has been put to vote of the citizens.

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      not too concerned MM about what happens in other states …. where are you from clown>? my guess is waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy EAST of here!!!

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      i knew a guy once from AZ…. last name same as you.. first name/// bob!!! do you know him!!! real prick… guess you are related!!!!

      MM clown!!!!

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      MM not scared at all!!! would not be here if i thought i was wasting time!!!! fool!!!!

  66. Michael Milstead says:

    Law I’m right here in Glendale.Originally from Maryland

  67. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    and that means what to me? since your name is not BOB you are safe!!! but still MM clown!!!

    good night clown!!!!

  68. Walter says:

    LAB.

    You are a moron.

    You ask the guy where he’s from. And when he tells you. You act like you don’t know why he’s telling you.

    Also. You seem to spend a lot of time on this site. It seems to me you are afraid we are going to succeed in our efforts. And you are doing everything you can to try to stop the inevitable. You just sit around and type smart a$$ remarks trying to be obnoxious. Knowing full well it will have absolutely no effect.

  69. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    Walter clown!!! i have no doubt that you will not collect enough signatures!!! my hope is that the legislature does the right thing and takes a look at PR and adjust the law to satisfy some of the concerns among people…. i think some type of oversight rules is over due!!!

    walt clown..you worry about you i will worry about me!!!

  70. Walter says:

    LAB

    To me your comments seem like a little kid with a scoop shovel and a bucket out on the beach. Building a sandcastle. Trying to stop a hurricane from coming ashore.

    • Mark S says:

      Walter,

      LAB sounds like he is drunk or methed up, or both.

    • Yes, and then you make your drunk wife drive!

      Law Breaking Troll and Law Breaking Troll Wife!

    • Mark S says:

      MR. ARMER,

      Just because I TRIED meth back in the 80s did not make me an addict. I used it for about 3 weeks. I stopped using it because METH changes people for the worse. At lease I was able to realize it and stopped!

      I am an upstanding member of the community and work in Technology for a local school district.

      Any more negatives from you mouth about me will land you with a SLANDER suit slapped across your face.

  71. Louisiana says:

    Bob – I know you think the cameras are saving lives. But, I disagree. I think they’re killing people via the increase in rear end collisons. Greg Mauz says so too. He’s studied this for twenty years for the National Motorist Association. He said “people will die because of the decision to install traffic cameras”

    On another note, we in America have died for the sake of our constitution,and we are currently being killed for the sake of another constitution (i.e. Iraq). But, you would want us to forgo a few constitutional privledges because you believe that traffic cameras could save a life. Tell that to a soldier, or the parent or child of a dead soldier..

    • Louisiana, it’s not just rear-end collisions. When the regular flow of traffic is disrupted by cameras, people are distracted by focusing more on their instruments than on the roads, making more lane changes to get around the paranoids, drivers hiding their faces, etc., and a whole myriad of other poor driving habits and this causes more than rear end collisions, not to mention the temporary blindness caused by flashing lights.

      It’s much safer to have people driving with the flow of traffic with their eyes on the road than have their eyes glued to their speedometer.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        scam- the way you describe things… i dont know how any of us are able to drive with those cameras!!! its just crazy!!!

  72. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    once again it is just your opinion that PR violates the constitution!!!!

    i say it doesnt you say it does…which one is correct?

  73. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    you people keep throwing out stats about the cameras increasing reae end collisions!!! i would have to agree that with the roll out of cams at an intersection that there would be an increase… however, i dont think that it would be something that continues and grows from month to month and year to year… once people are aware of the cam they take the necessary precautions….

    it really is too bad that we have not idea how many lives the cam are saving…. we dont know that because people have slowed down and therefore those accidents that were prevented do not show up cause they never happened!!!

    none of you still are able to answer this question… when a cop is running radar or is set up at an intersection looking for red light runners…. people slam their breaks on when they see them also…. so why not just do away with cops doing those jobs? i mean if an accident occurs cause some fool decides to hit the break cause of the cop… is it the cops fault? you people say that it is the cameras fault in those situations!!! PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS !!!!

    • Louisiana says:

      What about people visiting you city from out of town?

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        well … i dont know about you.. but when i visit another state that i am not familiar with… i usually tend to be very cautious…. meaning their inner streets and freeways that run through and around the city i am visiting!!! of course thats just me!!! these assholes that keep reporting about the tickets they are getting here… thats too bad….but oh well!!! next time slow down!!!

        • Louisiana says:

          And do you think that the penalty for the mistake of driving 11 mph over the speed limit in an unknown state should be a bright light suddenly flashed in your face at night, causing you temporary blindness and causing you to wreck, and possibly be injured or injure someone else, is the correct punishment? Or, is that cruel and unusual punishment for that offense?

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            i dont believe for one second that the little flash causes anyone other than a complete morom to lose control!!!

            • Louisiana says:

              happened here with people who have eye disease and are senstative to light and sudden extreme changes in light. No one was hurt yet – but, that’s just a matter of time

          • Bob says:

            I’ve never driven in Louisiana – but in the Phoenix area where I drive, no one ever drives with dark adjusted eyes. There are far too many street lights for anyones eyes to adjust to the dark. There isn’t any dark. So the lights don’t blind anyone. They cannot blind someone with eyes adapted to the light level found around street lights.

            • Louisiana says:

              You are wrong BOB

              • Bob says:

                No – I’m not. It is not possible to blind someone with that flash when their eyes are adjusted to the brightness level of street lights here in Phoenix. Out in rural areas on state roads, certainly. But not on city streets and highways. It does not matter if you disagree. It doesn’t happen.

              • Ever have your pic taken in the middle of the day? Yes, flashes can still be blinding.

            • It’s not just blindness. It’s also surprise factor. There’s a lot of old people driving around and people with PTSD. The last thing you want to do is surprise them with a bright flash of light.

    • Louisiana says:

      Also, police officers equipment doesn’t have the flash of light – so no people aren’t slamming on the breaks like they are for these cameras.

      • geez says:

        when your flying down the freeway and suddenly spot a cop car hidden behind a bush what do you do?

    • Louisiana says:

      People are blinded by the flash. In fact, we had a state statute that says that you cannot flash a light in the face of a driver…but Redflex doesn’t care about that and they do it anyway.

      They park their vans at night in remote dark areas on back highways. These back roads are narrow with big ditches on each side…… then they flash you with a very bright light in your eyes. So you go from a very dark highway to a sudden bright flash. I’m sure you blink when someone even takes your photo with a little camera at night, even when you know it’s about to happen. Imagine if you didn’t expect it and the flash was much much much much brighter.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        aaahhh…the cameras are off to the side of the road here… i would guess it is the same there… big difference to a light shined in your eyes than a flash that last how long? a split second… that is not straight at your eyes!!!

        • Louisiana says:

          lets say it’s probably as long as a yellow light seems to be lately………..

          LAB – I know what my community experiences and as I told BOB, please don’t question what’s in my heart or my motives, I haven’t questioned yours. These are the facts as I’ve experienced them. Just because you and BOB don’t have the same experience doesn’t diminish my truth or my reality. I suspect that neither you or BOB, are the second coming all knowing “One”.

      • Yes, Bob must not ever drive the Carefree highway, or other highways around town that are dark. But he’s the expert, he drives every day.

  74. […] the violent murder of  Doug Georgianni. Officials at DPS used the tragic death of Georgianni as a politically-fueled publicity ploy, attempting unsuccessfully to undermine the ongoing efforts of those who oppose automated […]

  75. Bob says:

    I drive in this town every day. I’m on highways driving through multiple photo radar installations several times every week. I have never seen anyone slam on the brakes going through the photo radar sites. Not once, not ever.

    So many are shouting about the huge increase in rear-end collisions due to the photo radar. Well – I hate to bring actual data to the discussion because I know how inconvenient that can be. But since the roll-out of photo radar, AZ had a decrease in the crash RATE (as well as a decrease in the number of crashes). That is, we have had fewer crashes per mile driven since the cameras were installed.

    I don’t think the data will have much of an impact on the debate here because few people posting to this site care about whether or not they are right – they just care about their anger about having to slow down a little.

    • Louisiana says:

      BOB

      There is equally impressive data that says you’re wrong. Everyone here wants safe and fair driving policies. Drivers, and members of this board, don’t want to be subjected to dangerous government policies that could get people hurt or killed, incrimentally infringe on constitutional protections or be slapped with a hidden tax.

      That said, please don’t question my motives or what I care about. I don’t question yours.

    • You lie or you drive with your eyes glued to the speedometer. Everyone has seen the panic photo radar braking.

      Where is your 2008 data? Still dragging out those 2007 numbers, before PE was in any real effect?

  76. Louisiana says:

    Photophobia

    Some people are born with a lack of pigment in the eye, ocular albinism, and this causes glare. Eye diseases such as cataracts, macular degeneration and uveitis can cause glare. Other eye problems such as conjunctivitis and corneal problems can also cause difficulties with glare. There are some conditions such as meningitis that cause light to be painful.

    If you start to experience light sensitivity then it is always best to have it checked out by an optometrist as it may be the first sign of an eye disease which may need treatment.

    If the onset of the light sensitivity is very sudden, then it should be checked as soon as possible in case it is the first sign of a more dangerous condition such as meningitis.

    Some drugs taken for other conditions can also cause light sensitivity for example tetracycline, an antibiotic, and digitalis, a drug which is used for heart problems.

    http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_light_sensitivity.hcsp

  77. […] will DPS learn that real public safety isn’t a politically-motivated profit-based […]

  78. […] the actual person suspected of violating applicable law? We’re sure that the politically-neutral DPS (insert laugh track here) will be the first to support any effort to remove driver-responsibility […]

  79. gratuit jeux says:

    supers info, toujours de tres bon articles , merci pour ce post !

  80. […] Lieutenant James Warriner then attempted to use the tragedy for shameful political gain by blaming anti-camera opponents, casting fault away from where it belonged: the shooter, and those who put Mr. Georgianni in […]

  81. […] opponents. When a horrible act of violence claimed the life of a photo radar company employee, DPS seized the opportunity to blame their opponents for being too […]

  82. PaperCraft says:

    PaperCraft…

    […]DPS: “Critics’ Vocalness” led to Redflex Shooting « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: