Contract Allows For Light Rail Cams


Money Money Money Money... Money! Click for .pdf of announcement.

Redflex, the beleaguered automated ticketing firm from down under, has signed a new contract with the City of Phoenix to pilfer drivers accused of… well, just about anything. The accompanying press release gleefully brags that “solution expansion” is all-but inevitable, meaning the advanced surveillance cameras will more than likely be used for so-called “secondary violations:”

During the term of this relationship, the contract explicitly allows for the solution expansion, including the enforcement of… Secondary violation capturing and processing.

Secondary violations can be anything from equipment violations (head/tail lamp, overweight vehicle) to additional moving violations (such as seat belt/child seat, tailgating, etc). No word on if such cameras will be equipped with alcoholic open-container detection, lest they capture some of their own inebriated scam van drivers.

Most amusing is the “expansion” for the City of Phoenix and Redflex into installing “light rail cameras,” which would surveil 24/7 under the guise of catching drivers who illegally cross the tracks of the mass-transportation system. Since the rail’s blazing-fast 25MPh inception, no automobile drivers have been killed and only a handful of collisions reported, which underscores the real purpose of such cameras: profit, not safety.

By contrast, what’s not amusing is the heartless double-dipping that is involved with most secondary violations. While many police officers use discretion in not “filling a ticket” with everything they legally could, a for-profit Australian company has no such heart. Light rail enforcement could be extremely lucrative, as those accused of illegal crossings could most likely also be cited for the initial “failure to obey a traffic control signal device.” Combination tickets such as these could easily exceed $500 and prove to be especially difficult for low-income families to fight.

Install away, Phoenix!  Unlike the greek myth, your photo radar cameras won’t be rising out of the ashes once the public bans them statewide in November 2010. (And that’s assuming they aren’t turned to ash sooner…)

124 Responses to Contract Allows For Light Rail Cams

  1. Stacey says:

    I can’t wait to get out of Phoenix.

  2. Glyph says:

    It’s interesting to see the City of Phoenix in bed with both ATS and Redflex for photo enforcement.

    Given that Phoenix already has a contract with ATS for Redlight Cameras, and the Light Rail camera contract went to Redflex, one get the impression that ATS wasn’t able to fit the bill on this one.

    Is ATS getting squeezed out of Phoenix?

  3. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    well if that “low income family member” is going to cross the light rail line putting peoples lives in peril…. then they deserve the fine that comes with the crime…. or maybe the innocent rail riders deserve to die?

    stacey… please dont leave phoenix for gilbert!!

    • James S says:

      I suggest you look up pious fraud first and foremost. Even IF the cameras helped save lives, the implementation is questionable (and against the state constitution, according to the state treasurer).

      How “law abiding” is that?

      In addition, you defy logic by automatically assuming the cameras and their subsequent accusations are true and correct. If gas pumps and the scales used at grocery stores need to be tested by AZ Weights and Measurements, why do the cameras get a free pass?

      To assume accuracy is assured by the company that stands to profit is a blatant conflict of interest.

    • Walter says:

      “well if that “low income family member” is going to cross the light rail line putting peoples lives in peril….”

      What peril are you talking about? What part of “Since the rail’s blazing-fast 25 MPH inception, no automobile drivers have been killed….” did you not understand? Even at full speed( A whopping 25 MPH) if the train hit a car head on, With the car traveling at normal inner city speeds.. The mass of the train against the car would only be felt as a good bump by the people on the train. The car would not fair as well as the train, but even then the car would probably not have all that much damage.

      I thought you said you were here to expose lies and miss truths. It looks to me like your spreading lies and innuendo to me.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        walter…. just because there have been no serious accidents yet does not mean that it is not going to happen…. a vivid imagination you have describing the scene as though it has been played out before… fact it there are many variables…. which you could not possibly put into your make believe theory and shake up…with this thread i didnt have to expose any lies… however, i did have to challenge some of what was written…

        james- i have agreed before that there certainly is oversight needed and making sure that the cams are “calibrated” correctly is one of them… however, you folks seem to scream malfunction with every other breath and i just can not believe that they are that unreliable… then again i take the malfunction cries with a grain of salt anyway!! and please can we not compare a gas pump to a camera? and now the state treasurer is the final say? sorry, i just dont think he has the authority….

        joshua… i did enjoy your post…. but the politicians are doing just what i thought they would…. nothing… they will wait and see if CF is able to gather enough votes…. when they can not then they wil make the comments that ” well if there was support against the cams they would have collected the signatures” so they can come out smelling like roses..

        • Walter says:

          The trains have been running for how long? And there have only been a few minor accidents.
          So where is the peril you speak of?
          Is there really so much danger that there needs to be cameras in place? Or is it just another money grab? Just like ALL the other PE cameras.

        • LawBreaker, we have proof of several malfunctions which we have provided. Where is your proof of how accurate and infallible they are? They vendors won’t even say what their accuracy and reliability rates are!

      • Bob says:

        As a driver and commuter in Phoenix, I’m sick and tired of the morons and inept drivers snarling traffic with their stupid antics and the resulting collisions. Competent, law abiding drivers aren’t going to be cited by the cameras. It’s only the idiots that have to worry about the citation.

        • Law A. BidingTroll says:

          applause!!!! applause!!! as for your above post…There is a justice of the peace in surprise who has decided to take a stand with photo radar…. i think he is dismissing most of the cases or all of them… he is going to get a lot of attention real soon as it is in his court that the AZ GOP party president, the one who was driving 109 on the 101, proceedings will be held… it should be noted here that this guy is just a JP and never was or has been a lawyer… i respect his opinion but he needs to leave it at the steps of the court house. his opinions do not belong there…

        • You are wrong here. Just look at or

          The cameras make mistakes all of the time, and the innocent are unfairly targetted. In addition, even competent, smart drivers make judgement errors and mistakes. You’re only kidding yourself if you say otherwise.

        • BJ says:

          You are a happy, blind fool.

          “As long as they don’t hurt me, I’m ok with the cameras.”

          Do you REALLY think that the cameras are ALWAYS going to leave you alone? As Redflex gets more and more revenue, they’re going to continue to pile on more “safety services.” They will be doing it to maximize profit, at the expense of common sense and any modicum of “virtual privacy”.

          Nevermind that – you don’t believe that anyways… All of their plans to monitor carpool lanes, tailgaters, license plate covers, other criminal activities caught on tape, etc. It’ll never happen to you, right? You’re God’s gift to drivers, right?

    • Malfeasant says:

      “or maybe the innocent rail riders deserve to die”

      When light rail hits car, the light rail passengers get a little jostled, but are in no risk of death. The occupants of the car are at far greater risk.

      Now let me relate a personal anecdote- yes this actually happened to me and my wife, not a friend of a friend or some crap like that. Where the light rail crosses University, just west of Rural, I was stopped just behind the light rail tracks, I was headed west- the light ahead was red, there were two cars in my lane ahead of the rail, not enough room for me to clear the tracks, so I stayed where I was. The light ahead turned green, traffic started to move, I double checked RR crossing lights, and as best I could looked down the tracks- there’s a concrete block wall there on the right that makes it difficult to see down the tracks until you are on them- and proceeded to move. As I cleared that block wall, something caught my eye- a train, about 100 feet away and closing. Still no lights or crossing arms, and here I am in the middle of the tracks. I had enough momentum at that point to clear the tracks even if by some bizarre twist of fate my engine had died, but still, it was a brief “O shit” moment. Only after I cleared the tracks did the lights and arms activate, but the train driver had hit the brakes and came to rest just beginning to block the sidewalk. So, had they already been watching the light rail cameras for that purpose, would I have been accused of crossing the tracks unsafely? Would I have even known at the time, which at least would have left open the possibility of recruiting a couple of the many other drivers available to act as witnesses? This is the problem with automated enforcement of any kind- all the equipment is assumed to be infallible by the prosecuting agency, but everyday experience shows it is anything but.

  4. joshua says:

    I am not going to begrudge a company to make money lawfully, no matter how much I disagree with their chosen area of business.

    The deal here is that the camera companies are operating lawfully.. so who should you really be pointing your pitch forks at? That’s right the lawmakers. I think if you doubled efforts on pressing the lawmakers and not focus so much on redflex and ats.. the outcome we all want (no more camera’s) will happen sooner.

    The politicians only listen to two things. Campaign donations and very very vocal public pressure.

    just my 2 cents.

    • BJ says:

      We’ve already done all that we can with the capital. I’ve been in direct contact with my reps multiple times, one of whom I know personally. Unfortunately, they have decided to pack it in on pretty much everything except for the budget. (This is primarily the fault of the GOP Senate leadership, which is demanding that all debate is focused on the budget and nothing else, shutting down most other topics for debate.) There’s not much more we can do for now…

      It looks like it’s going to have to be a prop on the ballot or nothing, barring a miracle.

      (BTW – Tin foil hat theory to chew on – the bill (HB2106) hit a brick wall when the amendment to ban all use of video footage being used for any criminal prosecutions. It makes you wonder if it was a coincidence in timing (more likely) or not (scary thought)…)

    • Joshua, they are not making money lawfully. They are not licensed and they consistently and constantly break other laws.

    • Stacey says:

      I agree.

  5. Well… with the housing market the way it is tax revenues are down so much that the cities and states are eager to do anything to make up for lost revenue.

  6. JP says:

    So what, no one will bother to pay these tickets either…the real success in this whole mess is exactly howmuch money they are making. I still can’t believe it justifies the costs.

  7. AZGov says:

    Can I ask a simple question; are all of these Australians you speak of? Every time I talk to one of the employees they don’t have an accent. In fact most are Veterans or retired police officers. So I see don’t where you are going with this. Sure they may be owned by an Australian company but so are Sony and half of the Auto industry. So why don’t you go and protest them.

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      azgov- CF and its followers just dont get it…and never will.. they refuse to acknowledge what you just wrote.. that there are many foreign companies that have established their business here.. and they fail to see that the workers are not australian but american… maybe the brass is from accross the atlantic ..but not not the others…. they also call redflex and ats employees unamerican… so that is what we are dealing with here….. we wont win and they wont win…. but the cameras are NOT coming down.. and apathy is slowly creeping in at this site…. they may boast 1600 plus members… but only 10-15 are involved….. and a recent thread begging for help while heartfelt and sincere… reveals the desperation!!!

  8. Walter says:


    It’s not that it’s an “Australian company”. I have the same problem with ATS. And they are an American company. The issue is that it’s a FOR PROFIT company doing a job that should NOT be for profit. The laws are made for the purpose of protecting the citizens. The enforcement of those laws should only be for the protection of the citizens. When the enforcement is done ONLY for profit then there is a cheapening of the integrity of the laws and the enforcement of the laws.

    There is also an issue that the camera companies are the only ones that check, calibrate, and certify the equipment they own and use. That equipment is used to take money from the public. If I go to the gas station or to the grocery store. The measuring devices that are used ALL have to be calibrated by the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures. There is no third party overseeing the accuracy of the measuring devices used by these for profit companies.

  9. AZ Flash says:

    The light rail cars are capable of running at 65 mph. They are limited by federal regulations to 35 mph through intersections and at the posted speed limits between intersections.

    When the light rail is extended west on I-10 to 79th Ave the cars will run at 65 mph.

    There have been several close calls where drivers have turned left against a red arrow and the light rail car had to go in emergency braking to stop from seriously injuring the errant driver.

  10. Walter says:

    And cameras are going to stop an errant driver how? If he made an error. He would most likely make that same error if the cameras are there or not. So how does the camera make anything safer?

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      walter-how is an officer going to stop an errant driver? please do tell…. is he going to ram his car into that car? throw his body in front of that car? is he going to draw his weapon?

    • Walter, all Law Breaker cares about is that an errant driver gets a ticket a few weeks after they make a mistakes. Redflex and Law Breaker think that people run red lights on purpose because they want to plow into someone and cause an accident. Nothing will stop people from making honest mistakes. This is one of the biggest fallacies the camera vendors want us to believe.

      • Walter says:

        I’m still trying to figure out what “peril” he’s talking about???? And just how are all the rail riders are going to die????

        As usual they are exaggerating the risks, and exaggerating the benefit of the cameras, and overstating the results of a system that does not work the way they say. I’m starting to think maybe they are compensating for something else they have to exaggerate about.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        SCAM- people make a conscience effort to not stop for the light…. please do not act like running a red light is a mistake… they dont want to get stuck and they gun it !! happens all the time!!

        please walter…. do tell what i am compensating for!!

        • James S says:

          Yes, people do “gun” it… but look up the statistics.

          People trying to “beat the light” pose almost zero harm as the intersection is still in the transition period. All AZ intersections have an “all way red” to accommodate for this.

          A simple solution is to lengthen the yellow light. Why do the automated ticketers oppose such legislation, LAB?

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            james…. you are naive… extremely naive that is… to think that extending the yellow will do anything more than prolong the light so they can still run it… people that try to beat the light ARE THE PROBLEM.. they are the ones that put themselves in the turn as another car is attempting to move forward through the intersection…. or the fool barreling down at 55 mph on surface streets and he/she knows the light is not going to stay yet do nothing to back off on the pedal… then when the light turns they increase that speed and they are nothing short of a missle coming through… but again let me make this clear… you could extend the yellow for 5 seconds and you are doing nothing more than giving them more time to run it…

          • There you go trying to sound smart again. But all you’re really doing is telling us that you haven’t read the VDOT study, the recent Texas ITE study, or Florida Public Health Review Study, among several others, all of which contradict your blatherings. You might also read The Red Light Running Crisis report for the office of the Majority Leader US House or Reps. But I know you won’t read it because you’re not interested in the truth:

            • Law A. BidingTroll says:

              or i could go to your ship wrecked site and read your nonsense!! which just gives me gas anyway!!

  11. Walter says:

    I never said an officer would. I said the cameras can’t. An error is an error. So what good will a camera do?

    ” is he going to ram his car into that car? throw his body in front of that car? is he going to draw his weapon?”

    “….putting peoples lives in peril”

    “…,or maybe the innocent rail riders deserve to die?”

    You sure have a tendency to over exaggerate almost everything you say.
    Is the only way you can argue a point is to defame the person you are talking too?
    Or to make wild exaggerations and innuendos?

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      oh walter…. get a tissue and wipe your eyes… please tell me in that post where i “defamed” you? fact is you can not be defamed as you are not famous!! since one of the issues that CF raises all the time is that they would prefer officers over cameras… everytime you refer to what a camera can not do…i feel the need to evaluate that situation and dtermine if an officer can or can not do the same… in this case the officer test failed!!!

      i have learned from the best at over exaggeration … that would be the authors of the threads at CF… exaggerations, lies. mistruths, innuendo and then of course the things that have nothing to do with the state of arizona!! but then i understand what they are trying to accomplish… you dont get people to rise to action without getting the flames of passion stirred up!! have you not realized yet walter that i am damn smart? i have had this entire thing figured out from day 1.. and have predicted most things that have transpired!! its almost like i can see the future!!

  12. Walter says:

    OMG. Get over yourself. If you have to tell people how smart you are. You probably aren’t

    You may not have said derogatory remarks in that post. However you do on a regular basis. You have told women to get back in the kitchen. You have questioned a persons character based on what you perceive as an ethnic name. You have made repeated irrelevant comments on peoples pasts just because you were unable to argue intelligently.

    BTW. Your “prediction” of the legislators waiting until the vote to see what happens so they come out “smelling like a rose” has been said over and over again by many people on this site. So please don’t try to take credit for the obvious.

  13. Freedom says:

    Law A. BidingTroll sucks big time!!!

  14. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    Mark S. Please refer to thread “Government That Works” on May 29th at 10:15 a.m. which is your post addressed to me.


    Mark S.

    For the first time, I immediately order you to cease and desist calling me a frug user or addict or an alcoholic. I do not use any drugs and never have and only drink alcohol in moderation.

    Thank you

    Jay Armer

    • Wow, a bit sensitive are we? Ordering people around? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical? You seem to have no problem slinging insults and profanities in your private emails to me and other CF members. But now you have a problem with someone else pointing out the obvious about you (and your wife)?

      Get over yourself, and find something better to do with your time.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        scam- let me help you since you stuck your nose where it did not belong. you see he in the past admitted to certain things of which i denied ever doing. soon after that he and doc started a campaign to call me a drug addict etc. etc, etc… now it seems that he thinks he has some case for legal action from something that was his own doing… as for the personal information that he posted… i never once complained to admin … i only asked that he leave my wife out of it since she has never been to this site… i have not sent an email to a member in 3 months and you scam..get what you deserve…

        sensitive and ordering people around? not at all… just want to make sure that we are on a level playing field..if the man thinks he ahs something to litigate about…. i say bring it on.. you cant cry foul on somebody….for the exact things you are doing to the person you cried foul on!!

        maybe you need to go spend a little more time recruiting ANYBODY to visit your site… since a recent post at your site means 3 weeks ago!!

        • In reviewing my archives, I noticed you sent me an inflammatory email through Twitter. Maybe you have forgotten.

          lawabidingcitiz are you gay? is that why you want a guy to follow you?
          6:30 PM May 25th

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            dont i have to have a twitter account to be able to do that? have you ever seen me post anything on twitter? and what the heck is that last sentence… what thread as i have no clue what you mean…. married 23 years this august with 3 kids… answer the question for yourself!!!

            • That was a question that you asked of me. That’s why I said it was an inflammatory email sent through Twitter. Playing dumb isn’t going to change the fact that you just got caught in a lie.

              • Law A. BidingTroll says:

                so… i asked you if you are gay? is that what you are saying!! wow really inflammatory!! want playing dumb ..just dont recall it.. and i wonder how i sent you an email through twitter when i dont have a twitter account and never post there… your the stand up guy!! explain that to me!

        • I get what I deserve? What does that mean? What have I ever done to you to warrant threats and profanities? Do you kiss your wife with that mouth?

          Your hypocritical nature was verified with public records, and your drug use is obvious to all of us who view your semi-coherent late-night early morning rantings. Sometimes you reply 4 times to the same post. What are we supposed to think? You can deny your problem all you want, I know from watching TV shows that you’ll have to hit rock bottom before there’s any chance of turning around. I wish the best for you in dealing with this problem, and I hope you get help soon.

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            scam-if you get a profanity laced email from me you know why… dont play dumb!! well you are good at it…

            …i have been cited 3 times in 28 years of driving… the first was on my 18th birthday, the second when i was 20 and the 3rd when i was 38.. however, i certainly have been pulled over for other things such as headlight out, license plate fell off my car and while driving a company vehicle that did not have current registration… i have nothing to hide unlike most of you here… i gave out my email address to which someone traced my name..who cares..want to come visit me? let me know, we can play basketball in the pool while we discuss our differences… maybe have a cocktail or two!!
            i find it amusing that you think i am on drugs just because of the hours i keep!! thats your only evidence? unlike mark though, i am not butt hurt by the accusation!! if it makes you feel better and you think that your accusations some how can tarnish my impeccable reputation then keep on keeping on!!

          • You are clearly butt hurt by the allegations. Do you remember what you wrote a few hours ago to Mark S.?

            I have no idea why you send the profane emails and threats other than you seem to get really upset when I find new articles and evidence that prove what a scam the cameras are.

            As far as your drug use, it’s not just the hours. It’s also replying to a post multiple times saying the same thing, forgetting what you’re just posted, failure to form coherent sentences sometimes, being a hypocrit, and a wife with a substance or alcohol problem. You don’t have to be a detective to draw the conclusion here.

            • Law A. BidingTroll says:

              for your information scam.. when my posts were being moderated they would appear for hours and then be gone… so i would rewrite the post… then it would appear again after i wrote the 2nd post.. my wife does not have a problem.. just like many people she was out one night having a good time and drove home… it was stupid… and anybody that has ever drank has done it..some regret it and some who did not get caught do not… she learned her lesson… you have never found anything that resembles a smoking gun… but you are such a clown you think that everything you find IS a smoking gun… why do you delete all my posts at your crap site? cause you are scared thats why!! shu fly shu!!
              HAIL THE FLASHES!!

  15. David says:

    Wow – passionate debate over a worthwhile topic – traffic safety. Thank God we don’t all think exactly alike. I think pro-photo and anti-photo can agree to disagree without the hostility and antagonistic jabs at each other.

    While this site is anti-photo enforcement, pro-photo people are inevitably going to troll and leave comments. These people are not the “enemy”. There is no “enemy” – only different people with different interests behaving differently. I understand why pro-photos praise photo enforcement as a means to get AZ drivers to slow down and also to stop running red lights – they believe it makes the streets safer.

    However, because of the “slippery” circumstances leading to the enactment of the law and the questionable means by which it is being enforced, pro-photos are immediately distrusted as having motives other than public safety behind their support. Pro-photos need to understand this dynamic and adjust accordingly – then they may be given more deference

    (remember that Napolitano slipped the photo enforcement law thru in the budget package and hence it was not studied and scrutinized by the legislature prior to passage in the same manner all other proposed laws are ((this is a matter of history, look it up)), also recall speed camera’s do not issue citations based upon vehicle speed above that which is reasonable and prudent under the conditions – the cameras do not have the ability to make such allegations. Instead the cameras issue citations to vehicles that exceed the posted limit by 11 mph in every single case as determined by DPS, and WITHOUT any consideration of the existing conditions. DPS has determined speed in excess of 11 mph over the posted limit is and every single time will be unreasonable. This is not what Arizona law says)

    Let’s respect each other’s views and try to find some common ground from where we can have constructive dialog about our true disagreements. I propose that the following can be agreed to by both sides, feel free to disagree:

    Both sides share the goal of improving traffic safety (come on now, admit it, it’s a survival instinct)

    We all get angry when our lives are endangered by other drivers.

    We all dislike getting traffic tickets.

    Traffic and vehicle regulations are created and enforced for the purposes of traffic efficiency and public safety.

    The policy of the State is that it enforces traffic laws and zealously peruses collection of traffic fines for the purpose of deterring would be (future) violators – thereby increasing public safety. Therefore, the state believes a high degree of safety will be achieved if it can deter all traffic violations.

    Redflex and ATS enforce and collect traffic fines for profit. These companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. Under their current structure, both these companies would experience financial devastation if traffic violations are severely reduced due to their own enforcement efforts.

    People have more respect for and acceptance of laws and law enforcement when they feel the same are “fair”.

    It is a part of the American psyche to “distrust” machines that affect their perceived rights and property interests.

    The ultimate decision as to what speed is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances is, by law, reserved for human opinion.

    Police officers should not be paid according to how many guilty/responsible convictions their time at work produces, as this would create a conflict of interest, whether actual or perceived – such interests being 1) Duty to protect and serve the public by means of lawful enforcement of regulations and exercise of independent judgment VERSUS 2) Desire to serve self by maximizing income received for time spent at work.

  16. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    very good post david… applause!!

    i would have to agree that the law was rushed through but it was a law that was needed. i do not agree with the reasonable and prudent… IT IS MY OPINION.. no matter what time of day and under what conditions that going faster than 75 should ever be allowed. of course the obvious are in effect.. pregnant wife to the hospital etc. etc. if the law was written at 65 mph or 75 mph.. then that is the limit…period ..end of discussion.. but too many people 55 means 65 and 65 means 75 or more…

    i also believe that the legistature should fine tune the law and hold red flex and ats accountable for certain things such as obeying the signage laws ( it is my OPINION that there should be no warning signs but nobody asked me)..i also think that either the dept of weights and measures or another state agency should have oversight on the calibration of the cameras. i do not feel that dps or any other LE should be involved in that process.. i also think that it is not a problem for the cameras to record 24/7. if it is a privilege to have a license then it is one to be able to drive on the roads and you accept whatever is deemed necessary to drive on those roads ie… mandatory road blocks, border patrol check points etc…. and cameras !!

    CF has exposed some of the things that redflex (mostly and some of) ats that they do not comply with such as signage… sometimes they get too complicated ( a grill out back with no propane tank next to car batteries!!) and try to point out things that just are not there or that mean nothing ( a van pointed downward )

    we know the elected officials are going to do nothing,,, i think they have resigned themselves to that fact now… so it is up to CF to get the signatures to put it on the ballot.. if there really is enough support to force a vote then i am all for that… however, i dont believe it will happen..and a lot if hard work by the admin at CF will go for nothing….

    now prepare yourself david to get ripped apart by the anti crowd that posts here… its not their fault, unlike myself they have no control over their emotions!! if you stay long enough you will come to realize that i am not the problem… nor the solution!!! i am not a role model for your kids!!

    • David says:


      Keep in mind it is not me with whom you disagree regarding reasonable and prudent, but rather the state legislature. AZ speed statues do not distinguish 11 mph over posted speed as creating a legal presumption of unreasonable speed. Rather the statute says a speed greater than that posted gives rise to a legal presumption of unreasonableness. So why don’t I feel lucky that DPS has given us 10 mph more than did the legislature before our speed is presumed unreasonable?

      Because so doing violates separation of power mandates found in both the US and AZ Constitutions. How? Because the enforcement practices mentioned above “de facto” raise the posted speed “limit” (speed up to which I may drive and never be presumed unreasonable), along with the presumption of reasonableness up by 10 mph above the actual posted speed. Such statutory amendment is reserved for the legislature. Stop. Read it again. Thank you. OK…….SO WHAT!!!!! The same standards apply to everyone. No harm no fowl, right?

      Well even if there were no harm, there is constitutional violation of separation of powers. But if that’s too esoteric and/or too “liberty and justice for all” to get behind, then look at a more obvious harm:

      The above mentioned enforcement practices inherently result in inconsistent and unfair application of the law, which, thereby distances the statute from its mandatory nexus with public safety and further diminishes the deterrent effect of penalties imposed for violations. Explain? Sure:

      A is driving on clear sunny Sunday morning on a 6 lane blvd, no turns in road, no other cars in sight, posted speed is 50 mph, and at point x passes photo radar cam going 61 mph – citation issued

      1 week later B, driving down same exact road, passes by same photo radar cam at point x going 59 mph but is not flashed, no citation issued. The road was wet and covered with soggy foliage blown onto the road by storm winds and hail that made visibility difficult, so B was tailgating other cars and changing lanes abruptly, just as he was passing the camera at point x, in an effort to keep his windshield clear, as both his wipers were worn and inoperable.

      You can stop laughing now. A and B’s situations were polarized to help make the point clear that under current photo enforcement practices, often drivers are not punished for driving far more dangerously (less reasonable, less prudent) than other drivers (driving safer) who are punished. How often does this happen? Who knows? The point is, it doesn’t matter how often, it matters that the current enforcement policy and practice by its very nature leads to inequitable prosecution and punishment.

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        I understand what you are saying… however, the law is the law… for instance

        a. teenager driving along going 61 in a 50 mph zone with all the clear conditions you speak of. there is no cam but the teenager gets pulled over and officer issues a ticket just because of the age.

        b. same situation, speed and other factors… adult driver… who does not get pulled over… because the cop feels they can handle the speed

        sounds stupid right and certainly objective…and it happens!!

        that is what is great about the cameras.. they dont care ..teenager or adult…

        so what you are saying is we have laws to regulate speed but they are subjective… here is the problem… everybody has a different opinion as to what is acceptable to the conditions and how fast they can go based on those conditions… so if i understand you.. in a monsoon storm that hit the freeway and everyone slows to 25 mph but we have one clown who feels that he/she can negotiate 54 ( in a 55 zone) and an officer pulls that car over and issues a speed ticket…. is that well within their rights to do that? they were not violating the posted speed limit but were certainly not driving a reasonable speed based on road conditions…

        i am sorry that our law makers have to make things so difficult…. but to me a law is a law…. if i commit murder it is murder… its not attempted murder if i kill them.. it is murder…

        i dont have or pretend to have the answers.. and i am pretty simple minded… the higher the speed the less reaction time drivers have to correct something… and i dont think the average joe has the reaction time speed in the thought process to react and correct.. basically …. people are too stupid to drive that fast… add to that factors such as blow outs and debris in the road and it is a dangerous situation just waiting to turn traggic…

        for the record… i never laughed…

        • David says:


          I agree with you that “the law is the law… for instance….”. If I understand your position, you do not agree that “reasonable and prudent” should open for interpretation but should rather be a constant that applies under all circumstances. Many states do have such speed laws whereby proof of 1 mph over posted speed is all the prosecution needs to present to the judge and then there is no defense that can beat a finding of responsible. (I believe these are called “strict liability” statutes?) I think this is what you mean by “the law is the law”. Cut and dried. No fuzziness. Therefore you advocate for using speed cameras that issue citations based upon one single factor alone – speed. Now DPS can disregard the actual “flexible” AZ speed statute and enforce Arizona law as if were actually a strict liability statute (not to be confused with the other strict liability laws where mens rea is not required) and 1 mph over posted means automatic guilt.

          I understand your disdain for uncertainty in the law; however DPS can not simply change the underlying meaning of a law simply to rid enforcement of the burdens of case by case analysis of reasonable and prudent. The law is the law. The law says that reasonable and prudent speeds are determined by consideration of the conditions that are present in each individual case.

          I understand your frustration, but would like to point out that you made my point in your last post. What you feel is “so great about the cameras, they don’t care” is also the underlying premise as to why the current photo enforcement practices are unconstitutional – Arizona law is being ignored and speed violations are being enforced by DPS according to their own application of “reasonable and prudent” which is inconsistent with the actual law.

          As to the monsoon hypothetical in your post, the police were most certainly justified in pulling over the car even though it was traveling less than the posted speed. The speed law itself is not quite so complicated, however when misunderstood, its application most certainly can be. Diving above the posted limit merely creates a rebuttable presumption (it means EXACTLY what you think it does) that the speed was unreasonable. Noting in the statute prevents police from stopping vehicles and citing drivers traveling less than the posted limit but greater than the officers interpretation of reasonable and prudent.

          The difference is this: in court if the police prove you were traveling faster than the posted speed, the judge must presume (without considering any other factors or conditions) that your speed was unreasonable but the judge MUST also allow you the opportunity to REBUT that presumption with evidence of the reasonableness of your speed under the circumstances.

          However if you are cited for speeding and the prosecution shows the judge your speed was less than posted, but still unreasonable under the circumstances, the judge may NOT presume your speed was unreasonable and the prosecution must present evidence other than your speed to prove unreasonable speed. Get it?

          Sorry if you already knew all that. Anyway, nice to see you responding rather than reacting.

          • Law A. BidingTroll says:

            ooohhh dizzzy my head is spinning… david … you are on a higher intellectual planet than I.. and i am up there with the great ones!! let me sum this up real quick… i dont have a problem with the 11 miles over the posted limit… i am not a stickler for the 1 over and throw away the key!! while that would be nice it is not practical.. i think i have come to the conclusion that there is no prudent speed anymore… on my way home tonight i was on the 60 east and at about az avenue you could see the lanes getting more congested .. and the speed slowing…. after we climbed the small hill and flattened out… the congestion was just as bad but the speed had picked up…. i was going my usual 65 but creeped to 68… yet there were clowns weaving in and out and going 75 plus!!! is that prudent… and i am sorry and will say it here… on arizonas highways there is always traffic…. and even with just one car on the road…. the limits should be enforced and if the cameras have to be the bad cops then so be it…. are you one of the following

            1. rhodes scholar
            2. police officer
            3. attorney on vacation
            4. judge on vacation

            you have too much insight to be just a normal guy and certainly more qualified than to post here!! you can certainly email me at

            • David says:


              Thank you for the preceding dialog.
              I am a normal guy.
              I am a truth seeker.
              I listen at least 2ice as much as I speak.
              I am enlightened.
              I empathize with the unfortunates who are not.
              I am lucky to have obtained the knowledge I have, and am committed to use it altruistically.
              I believe hypocrisy in our government is oppressive and should not be tolerated.
              I understand our government is a direct reflection of our populous and thereby have empathy, coupled with intolerance, for its shortcomings.
              I believe that the use of cameras by official law enforcement can be a useful tool to improve traffic safety in many ways.
              I believe AZ’s photo enforcement operation, as well as those run by various political subdivisions of the state, are being operated illegally and as such are hypocrisy.


              I am also 1, 2, 3, and 4. Maybe someday I will have the opportunity to explain.

              I’ll be around.

              • Law A. BidingTroll says:

                1,2,3 and 4?
                what are the chances i would hit them all? well i am surprised that you did not get the book thrown at you by photo scam and a few others.. then again doc must be on a long haul as he has not been here in a few days.. i am sure that doc will have something to yell about!!

                i tried that listening thing you do… and it just was not working out for me!!
                post anytime… i enjoyed it even though we have differing opinions.. you prove that people can disagree and still get along.. i did not try to win you over and you did not try to win me over…


  17. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    boys…. i have to leave at 10 and will not be back until this evening…. so when i am gone dont talk behind my back and write that you scared me off… i will be back after 8 pm tonight… count on it!!! i have a big shipment crossing the border … i have to go meet them in the desert … it can be dangerous… my stash is empty… gotta get my fix…

  18. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    Phoenix, AZ
    1,121 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

    gosh jack..sorry to hear about your experience… but i have to tell you.. it sounds like a lot of excuses to me… you could have pulled over!! and if you are not comfortable driving at night…then why do you? well… i am sure that we will recover from that lost revenue provided by you… and dont forget to pay the ticket when it comes in the mail…failure to do so will surely bring a suspened license and more fines… but the good news is that it will not be reported to your insurance company!!

    i wonder where you will go when you get flashed by the cams in CA ? sounds funny…. a driver from CA that is pushed from behind from an az drivers… hey jack..if they were driving west on the 1-10..maybe they were from some of your fellow law breakers!!!

  19. Ever get a ticket for going 36 in a 30 zone? This former Phoenix resident did. Don’t worry folks, I’m sure that level of enforcement will never find its way to this country 😉

  20. BJ says:

    Redflex surveillance technology is like a legal stalker – someone looking over your shoulder at all times whether you need or want them. Sure, they’re not physically hurting the law abiding citizens of this state (well, as long as you don’t count the possibility that the government will ever abuse the technology and wrongfully jail “wrong doers” or “trouble makers” with video evidence), but they are an obvious threat to anyone who has any self-respect.

    Don’t get it still? How about this low-brow example for the average, camera-loving Joe?

    Remember Rocky IV, where Rocky is training in Siberia, and the two Soviet agents in the black car followed him around everywhere to be sure he was “a good boy”? They weren’t touching him, hurting him, or talking to him, but they were always there, keeping him in line with their presence, using fear, uncertainty, and the threat of incarceration.

    ANYONE watching that movie knew that this surveillance was wrong, and when he finally ditched them it was a cool moment.

    Yes, it’s just a movie, but it’s a great example of why unnecessary surveillance is wrong. It captures the reasoning why without some lengthy, philosophical diatribe. You just know that it’s wrong…

    • This is the next step:

      “John Catt found himself on the wrong side of the ANPR system. He regularly attends anti-war demonstrations outside a factory in Brighton, his home town.

      It was at one of these protests that Sussex police put a “marker” on his car. That meant he was added to a “hotlist.”

      This is a system meant for criminals but John Catt has not been convicted of anything and on a trip to London, the pensioner found himself pulled over by an anti-terror unit.”

      • Law A. BidingTroll says:

        up a little late scam? what does that make you?


        this is already old news but it appears that you are a little behind anyway…. AGAIN the question begs to be answered… what does something that happened accross teh atlantic have anything to do with the good old USA?


  21. Mike says:

    There is no way these trolls aren’t on the payroll from Redflex or ATS. Ignore the trolls people – they’re just going to use the same old tired “if you’re not doing anything wrong then you shouldn’t care if you’re recorded” agrument.

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      thanks for the introduction mike… and there is no way that you are not part of the american hillbilly gonna take our country back ruby ridge tribe !!!

  22. BJ says:

    I was just talking to someone today about the cameras, and they are strongly for them for one reason (I consider this college-education woman to be reasonably educated, BTW):

    “Remember when they caught that guy that shot the camera van up? If they hadn’t had the cameras, they wouldn’t have caught him.”

    I about fell out of my chair… After explaining how the shooter was really caught according to the press reports, and asking her, “So, you’re saying that you want video cameras taping everything everyone does? You’re cool with that?”, she was done talking about it. The ignorance and FUD flowing out there may be the death knell for any movement against these cameras if someone, somehow doesn’t break through the ignorance and apathy…

    What this movement needs is two things – 1) A whole-hearted focus on getting signatures, and 2) A LOT OF MONEY. The lies and distortions that are going to go out from Redflex are going to be breathtaking in scope if this gets on the ballot, and this prop will fail if there’s not an intelligent counterbalance out there doing that in the media.

    Does anyone know a multi-millionaire that really believes in the cause? 🙂

    BTW – I have heard that HB2106 is pretty much dead.

    The reason: The GOP leadership is not going to allow a floor vote in the House, thus choking it to death. The reason isn’t clear why, but that’s the case. The GOP, NOT the Democrats, are the reason the bill is languishing and dying. I bet that emailing the House leadership and expressing some frustration about it would be a good idea right about now, but I’m not holding my breath on any change of heart. (It makes you wonder what’s really going on in the GOP inner circles.)

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      no bj…redlfex is going to roll out victims… they wont put out any more lies than CF will…

      actually the footage that was captured allowed the officer to identify the vehicle used in the shooting cause he lived in the same neighborhood for 14 years.. so without the camera he would not have been caught so quickly…

      thank god BJ that only you and those that think like you are in the right… the rest of us… are just plain wrong…is that it?

      YES….TAKE THAT TO THE MEDIA !! that will go over well!!

    • Law A. BidingTroll says:

      email all you guys want to..why do you think it is not moving forward? to repeal a law our elected officials would have to admit to a mistake…. they are not going to do that on a whim.. and ( you folks dont want to hear this) they can not see enough support against the cameras… CF had its first sign dangling and it appears it was a huge success…. the longer this has gone on the more have jumped off of the bandwagon!!! to CF’s credit..i think the initial members thought this would be over rather quickly.. and when it appeared that it was not going to happen that way the enthusiasm was lost

      there were only 2 ways to get the cameras down legally….

      1. new legislation
      2. ballot initiative

      one is dead and the other is in the ambulance in route to the ER.. and if you think that it will be revived in next years legistative session…. think again…and for all the reasons that have been written before.

      sorry… i hate to be the bearer of bad news but reality is reality

  23. geez says:

    The lies and distortion coming out of this websight are already breathtaking in scope.

  24. Lab I have to say by readin all ur comments u do know what ur talking about I couldnt see this site getting any views with out u here

  25. HOUSTONXX2 says:


  26. Law A. BidingTroll says:

    Dear CF Administration:

    I just visited your other site, AZ Citizens AGAINST Photo Radar. I would like to file a complaint. The flash from the camera so blinded me that I rocked back in my chair and fell over. Couple that with the fact I was eating an apple and I choked on the bite I had just taken. After I fell over my daughter came running in to see what happened. She too was blinded by the flash and tripped over me hitting her head on the edge of the desk. Even though i was in pain I crawled over to the phone to dial 911 however, the flash was still burned into my pupils and I could not see to dial. Luckily for me my neighbor also saw the flash reflected off of my front window as he was getting his mail. I had the fron curtains drawn and he saw that there was some type of turmoil going on so he rushed in. He was able to get the emergency call out and it appears that my daughter will be ok except for the temporarey blindness that the DR. said should go away in 4-6 weeks. So please for the sake of all others out there..shut off the flashing light.
    It is dangerous!!
    LAB Troll

    ps- is it recording those who view the site 24/7? I think it is…

  27. Law Breaking Hypocrit Troll says:

    you want drama at CF ? why ? is it your intention to take CF down so that everyone will migrate to your site.. if you want to spar with me we can certainly mdo it at your site and then it will appear that you have SOME traffic!! and yes… for erasing the posts on your site for just commenting… you did get what you deserved! and anything more you have coming to you…. you are the worst at spreading lies, mistruths and innuendo… the admin at CF does not hold a candle to you in that area… what are you going to do when you fall short on the signatures…. and why doesnt your site support sign danglings and signature drives? i will tell you… cause you are a poser…. the guys doing the real grass roots work are over there and its not doc or any of those clowns… its the admin .. how many of the functions have you attended?

    zero is what i figure!!

    • How am I taking CF down? I don’t care if people to go CF or my site, as long as the message is getting out.

      Why would I “spar with you” at my site? You never make any arguments of substance worthy of reply, let alone worth publishing. For example, you claim lies, but you never say what the lie is or show what your version of the truth is, or provide evidence to back it up. I might as well argue with a 2 year old.

      As you have obviously been unable to comprehend, PRS does not have membership and thus does not have protests and other events. It is an information-only website that complements, not competes with, CameraFraud. I promote them and they promote me as our interests are completely aligned. I have already spent many hours working with CF at many of their events.

      As PRS is not a “community” like CF is, the comment section of the blog is fairly inactive. The blog is not meant for active discussion (although it could be), it is just a place for my original content that I author myself.

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        scam… you dont even have internet traffic… let alone members… man has got to know his limitations…. maybe one day you will realize yours!

        just cause you choose to ignore my arguments does not mean they do not have content… hell the very few that have posted all you do is mock them and try to discredit them…. you know scam…nobody is right… not until the supreme court says so… and until that happens or our own legislature acts.. the cameras are not coming down

        • What, did you hack my server and peek at my traffic logs? You wouldn’t even know where to begin. Doesn’t this make you a LIAR? Talking about something you know nothing about as if it is fact? Is there any limit to your hypocrisy?

          Do you need the supreme court to rule that bears poop in the woods for it to be fact? Will you dispute that until the supreme court renders a decision?

  28. Bill says:

    Maybe it time to slow down and obey the law.

  29. Mike says:

    Maybe it’s time to get rid of the unconstitutional cameras?

  30. Judge John Keegan dismisses speed ticket case against AZ GOP Executive.

    Keep fighting the good fight Judge! According to the article, he has dismissed 400 of these cases; very interesting that Mr, Mecum found his way to that court. 😉

    • Law A.Biding Troll says:

      letting people off for criminal acts is not fighting the good fight… please celebrate and i am sure that if this goes to a vote your celebrations will be turned against you ..just as the few celebrations by a few members after the death of the cam driver got CF a little negative exposure!!!

  31. AZGov says:

    I love how everthing i write is awaiting moderation

    In response to your comment about what I wrote. You said-The issue is that it’s a FOR PROFIT company doing a job that should NOT be for profit. The laws are made for the purpose of protecting the citizens.

    I see your point so we should first get rid of cameras in banks and stores and anywhere else that a company makes a profit while protecting others.ADT, Brinks, even On Star would all fall in this catagory.
    They make a profit while watching people. Furthermore when this group says that the cameras are wrong because you are unable to face your accuser, anyone who was ever convicted of a crime because of video evidence placing them at the scene of the crime should be set free. That way all you have to do is Kill everyone in the store when you rob it and you cannot be charged because there is no accuser. If you say well the PD is the one accusing you because of the video evidence then I would say that every ticket issued by a city has to be approved by the PD first it is in the contract.

    • Law A.Biding Troll says:

      that was great AZGOV..your point was right on target…. and well made!!

      …. now it is time for them to start choking on it… i am sure that walter will have some choice words for you… when he gets flustered he starts to make no sense!! doc will be along soon also to regale us with his comments!!! i can hardly wait to see what they say!!

    • Law A.Biding Troll says:

      the reason that everything you write is waiting moderation is because some members have complained about you !! and so the administration has to moderate… dont hold it against them… just keep in mind that when you post that the ones who are replying to you are probably whinning about you …sometimes it is hard to be right all the time!! i know the feeling!!

    • David says:

      A.R.S. 38-503

      B. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a PUBLIC AGENCY shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating IN ANY MANNER as an officer or employee in such decision.

      A.R.S. 39-502

      “Employee” means all persons who are not public officers and who are employed on a full-time, part-time or CONTRACT basis by an incorporated city or town, a political subdivision or the state or any of its departments, commissions, agencies, bodies or boards for remuneration.

      “Public agency” means:
      (a) ALL COURTS.
      (b) Any department, agency, board, commission, institution, instrumentality or legislative or administrative body of the state, a county, an incorporated town or city and any other political subdivision.
      (c) The state, county and incorporated cities or towns and any other political subdivisions

      I’ll let you figure it out.

      Knowlege is power.


      • David says:


        Definitions at 38-502


        Redflex is by 38-502 definition and employee of the state
        Redflex get PAID only when a citation is paid. Redflex is under contract to testify in COURT when a citation is contested.

        All courts are public agencys….


        • Law A.Biding Troll says:

          so if i read that correct…. the photo is the evidence and the employee that appears is by law the public officer that is allowed to represent the picture.. and that officer has to make it known to the courts that they work for redlfex!!!

          no problem with me on this matter!!

          • David says:

            Yes you did read it correct, but you did not read it all. Look again at the other obligation the employee has after disclosing they work for redflex:

            “and shall refrain from participating IN ANY MANNER as an officer or employee in such decision.”

            Is presenting evidence to the court participating in any manner in the decision? Tough call… or is it.

    • Walter says:

      First off the cameras in a bank or store is TOTALY different than a PE camera. 1 the bank is NOT the government. 2 Unlike PE cameras the Bank camera is not going to send you a ticket for anything. 3 If you robbed a bank like you said. The camera evidence would only be a very small part of the evidence against you. One would expect finger print evidence, or DNA from something a small as a drop of sweat, or fibers from your clothing. There would be EYE witnesses that would describe the way you moved, Your voice, Your demeanor etc.. There would also be the money you stole. And a ton of other evidence that PROVES that it was you that robbed the bank. If the ONLY evidence the police had that you robbed the bank was a video. I can almost guarantee that you would get away with it. So your bank and PE being the same just doesn’t hold water.

      And NO. you are not able to face your accuser in a PE case. There was no one there that witnessed you, AND there is no one that can give any additional evidence that you committed the crime. Like as mentioned before the “finger print”, “DNA”,or any Other evidence of the crime.There is ONLY a camera. The person who worked on the camera only worked on the camera He can add NO additional evidence about you or the crime.

      In the so called bank robbery case there would be someone there to testify that your Finger print, DNA,…. was there and you would be able to face that accuser.

      Also the point I was actually trying to make is that If an officer hands out 25 tickets in a day. He still makes the same amount of money as he would if he handed out 125 tickets. So there is no conflict of interest for the officer to circumvent public safety for personal gain. The PE companies have every incentive in the world MONEY.MONEY.MONEY. to hand out as many tickets as they can. An officer has taken an oath to protect and serve. He did NOT take an oath to use any means necessary to increase personal wealth. The PE companies do not have public safety as their main goal They have the bottom line as their goal. And on top of that. There is NO oversight of their equipment. So if they have malfunctioning equipment they profit from it. And IF they get caught with faulty equipment. all they have to do is refund those tickets. However if You or I make a mistake we get punished. They do not.

      No LAB it is YOU that always has choice words for the people of arguments you can’t win.

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        walter- a camera is a camera is a camera… if it records a criminal act that leads to prosecution then it is what it is//// sorry you lose…. the other crap you wrote is nothing but wordds looking for a topic!! and you did not get the topic!!

        buh buy!!!!

  32. AZGov says:

    wow it went thru

  33. AZGov says:

    So you’re saying that redflex is wrong because it gets paid only when someone commits a crime and is caught in the act. In that case if redflex would get paid no matter what happens it would be ok. I am not a law school grad but i think that is what you are getting at if not go ahead a shout back.

    On a side note if you havnt notcied i love the cameras its a good way to get funding for our brave Officers. I think they deserve it.

  34. AZGov says:

    Walter what can i say except can you be my lawer when i go on a shooting rampage. I wont still anything i just want to kill a whole bunch of people. i wont even wear a mask if someone sees me ill kill them the weapon i use i will get rid of it and i will smile for every camera that i see because they cant use that evidence against me. Also do you know how many crimes are solved by figer prints and DNA not alot. Blood work takes months and then they would have to match it. Which, would not happen if they didnt have a suspect. I think you watch alittle to much of CSI ask someone who really dose the job. Video evidence is awsome you can see the persone commit the crime put the video on the news and get the person that did it.

    And as for your comment the people that work at redflex can assure you that they get paid the same ammount no matter how many tickets are given out.

    Remember T.V. is not real it takes more than 30mins to solve a case.

    And officers do take an oath but sometimes they do have to do traffic duty and are not allowed to go on any calls unless it is life threating and in there area. why because other officers will do it while they write tickets.

    • Walter says:


      I know it takes longer than 30 mins to solve a case.
      I also know that while the video is great. It is only a small part of any case. It may lead the cops in the right direction. But without ANY OTHER physical evidence there is no case. There are a lot of people that look similar. Too similar to be 100% positive that it was one person and only that person. Even if that person is driving a car registered in his/her name. A sibling, or parent, or a cousin with strong family facial features could have borrowed the car. And there is no way a camera could absolutly tell the difference. The camera can only say it looks like you. It cannot PROVE that it was you.

      I don’t get the point of your statement about an officer doing traffic duty. Does that effect the officers pay somehow? How many tickets he does or doesn’t write has no bearing on his pay. The number of tickets REDFLEX issues does affect the amount of money the company makes. and I would imagine that there are bonus checks given out for performance. Maybe not to the low level employees but surely to the higher level people.

  35. AZGov says:

    Oh and banks are FDIC insured which is the goverment and I am sure that since the goverment controls the money they controll the bank. Oh and redflex is not the goverment but the help enforce the law just like security contractors do at banks or is robbing banks not a crime

    • Walter says:

      Like all the camera supporter I have heard from so far. You are over exaggerating the risk that the cameras are supposed to eliminate. What I hear you saying is that Robbing a bank, Or committing capitol murder, is the same as a petty civil traffic violation. And that the same kind of surveillance is required for both.

      I personally am not apposed to a camera in a bank. First. The security company at the bank does not make money based off of how many bank robbers they catch. Second the bank cameras are not going to mail me a ticket for running in the lobby.
      I am apposed to cameras being used for no other reason than to make money. If they actually were there for public safety and they actually made the streets safer I would be okay with them. But they do not make the streets safer. And they are ONLY there to make money.

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        can you please come up with something on your own and quit repeating the company line? your argument in response to AZ GOV is pathetic at best ..sit down before you hurt yourself!!!

  36. AZGov says:

    Walter this comment made me smile

    There is NO oversight of their equipment. So if they have malfunctioning equipment they profit from it. And IF they get caught with faulty equipment. all they have to do is refund those tickets. However if You or I make a mistake we get punished. They do not.

    Yes there are oversights just like police have oversights on there radar equipment

    If the equipment is faulty they refund the money isnt that a good thing.

    And as for the last part what kind of mistake i am sure if the equipment is faulty and they have to refund money they would lose the contract, that would be concidered a punsihment would it not. and i dont think going 11 MPH over the speed limit a mistake.

    • Walter says:

      I think there should be fines assessed to the PE companies that use faulty equipment. They are making money illegitimately. If I used faulty equipment to charge someone money and got caught. IE…A gas station pump. Or a store scale. I would be arrested and thrown in jail. The PE co. only has to give back the money that they got caught stealing.

      How many tickets that are issued by faulty equipment get paid, and NO ONE ever knows that the equipment was malfunctioning? And who’s to say that the PE Co. didn’t know about it? and let it go until they get caught? If they get caught?

      And just what is the oversight on the PE equipment? I have never heard of, or seen any proof that anyone other that the PE Co. does anything to insure the accuracy of the equipment. I have not seen anything about it in any of the PE contracts I have seen.

      • Law A.Biding Troll says:

        i agree we need some regulations… and i disagree that the number of malfunctions is anywhere what you claim it to be… another company line… get some new material w a l t e r !!!!

        hail to the flashes!!!

    • AZ Gov, please ask the DPS when the last was that they audited or calibrated the Redflex equipment. You’re so confident that there is oversight, so please ask them what their oversight program entails as for as checking the equipment.

      • AZGovTroll says:

        Why dont you ask them i have a life and love the cams. Oh no did you hear that i think someone just hurt a tree. Hippie

  37. RPr says:

    thats one way to block a scamera

  38. Ed says:

    Don’t know what you’re complaining about with this one…

    If you’d obey the law in the first place, you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a ticket for a secondary violation since you never committed the primary one.

  39. […] American Traffic Systems (ATS) had issued the demand for the immediate payment of $50 to the “DC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,” the registered owner of the tiny taxpayer-funded Smart car. As one can see from the photographs taken by the ATS machine, Mayor Fenty was driving without due care and attention by straddling a second lane without any apparent use of a turn signal — just the sort of thing for which ATS plans to begin issuing tickets as part of the public-private partnership to boost revenue with “secondary violations.” […]

  40. Jere says:

    Generally I don’t read post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to check out and do so! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thanks, very nice article.

Leave a Reply to They will never win Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: