…But not if the Redflex camera is blocked by post it notes.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
So jgunn resorted to less ‘technical’ means to defeat the camera’s?
Post it notes, ya. another thing that was blown out of proportion and found out not to be true
Hmm, Redflex and DPS try to F over us by “technical means” and we are not supposed to return the favor? What comes around goes around I always say. All’s fair in love and war. I always drive the speed of prevailing traffic for safety reasons which a lot of the times can be over the BS numbers posted on the sign, so it’s nice to be aware of the scam cams. Go look up 85th percentile speed on wikipedia. Anyway, that is pretty awesome. I didn’t even know the camera was inside the van, I thought it might be up on that pole thing on the top of the van.
I guess that happens when you leave a car abandoned on the side of the road.
Please feel free to help yourself to the taking of the thousands of dollars worth of cameras and electronics located within this vehicles.
To assist in your endeavor, please find the engine running with the keys in the ignition. If you’re ambitious, just drive off with the whole damn Ford Escape.
haha aptly named vehicle
Parking on the side of the road is illegal… they should be towed.
We just need to find a tow truck operator with enough balls to tow one of these things out to the middle of the desert.
Contact the county sheriffs office for the county that the van is parked. The Sheriffs Department has jurisdiction on the freeways within their counties.
Neither Maricopa or Pinal county Sheriffs like the cameras. Put the pressure on them to tow one of the vans.
Pinal County Sheriff has already placed parking tickets and orange stickers on the parked redflex vans when they are parked in his jurisdiction. Of course redflex moves them when that happens so they haven’t been towed or impounded by him, yet.
really? Pictures or proof please. Fiction writer of this thread award to you.
Saw it a couple of weeks ago when I was headed to Tucson on highway 87 just south of Florence. This was about 9:00 in the morning. I didn’t have my camera with me, otherwise I would have taken a picture. It had an orange sticker on the back window and what looked like a couple of pieces of paper under the drivers windshield.
It was gone when I was headed back into town about 3 hours later.
Photo enforcement isn’t allowed on tribal land, nor has ever been anywhere near there except for on the I10.
Photo enforcement isn’t allowed on tribal land…
Proof please. I’m not trying to be a smart-ass. I just wasn’t aware of such a restriction, and would like to see a source.
There is no restriction on tribal lands. When Pinal county still had their contract with redflex, the vans were along 87 all the time. People who drive that highway always speed. I know I have a few times. It is sometimes faster then I-10 when going south.
It is a state highway and is patrolled by both Pinal County and AZ DPS.
Glyph, call DPS and ask them, then you tell Mark what they said.
Mark, you said this was a couple weeks ago, along 87, so it HAD to be a DPS photoenforcement van, not a pinal van, so stick with the story. So please GLYPH, (or anyone!)call DPS and ask if they are allowed to park on tribal land or EVEN if they have ever been on the 87!
Besides, not even DPS is stupid enough to leave a van in that area overnight.
Redflex, the consultant to DPS, is the one that decides on van placement. DPS DOES NOT own the vans, redflex does. Redflex also had a say on placement of the permanent cameras, not DPS.
So your telling me DPS has no say in where the vans go, it’s Redflex that decides where to put the vans? Ok.. You seem to know everything about the whole photoenforcement program..
Still waiting for glyphs answer on that phonecall…
So Scam ! are cops who are on the side of the road ilegally parked? since redflex, ats work under the authority of the dps on the freeways, they are exempt from that… I know it troubles you to admit that, but it is true.
No smartass, the law specifically states an exemption for peace officers. The law does not state any exemption for contractors working under peace officers or police agencies. And those who have exmpemptions, cannot grant exmptions to others. Only the legislators can do that through new laws.
the whole system defeated by a post-it note LOL
Kinda reminds me of the Ewoks beating the Empire in Return of the Jedi. All that $$$ spent on technology by the evil empire, defeated by 10 cents worth of sticky notes.
Time to ban post-it notes. They are clearly very dangerous to road conditions.
Highlight of my day. Too funny!
Hey, lets support speeding on our highways. How about you clowns go out and knock down all the stop signs and support all traffic violators.
why is it you pro camera people are always suggesting criminal behavior?
All one has to do is go to the discussions page ( where songs are sang around the fire) and find any thread that talks about someone damaging the the cameras. Its like cheers at a stadium. Criminal behavior against the cameras is celebrated by the anti crowd !!
I also suggest that the people of Iran who want true democracy break a few laws and overthrow their government. Is there anything wrong with that?
Your reply is very clearly prejudiced. Why do you assume that all anti-camera citizens are either habitual speeders, supporters of speeding, or both?
That is the tactic of those without an argument. Rather than produce valid reasoning and logic, you simply characterize supporters as “bad” or inherently “evil” in order to deflect attention away from the lack of logic, reasoning, and proof. It’s trolling 101.
I think you are missing the point. The matter that they are trimming a little fat off the US Constituation (I assume you have heard of this document), by dismissing due process does not bother you?. This is how it starts.
It has come to the attention of: myself, the public, probably your neighbors, and to a greater degree your family. You are a foolish minion who, for some strange reason is defending the cowardly actions of a corupt police force enabled by the profit driven services of a foreign firm. You sir, should go live in a place were you would be more suited. The UK possibly? Your departure from our community would be a great enhancement to the lives of the aforementioned parties (especially the poor sob who may share a fence with you). But judging from your poor use of grammar and punctuation, I’m sure it’s probably not the greatest of neighborhoods. But I’m sure when you pass a scam cam sightly faster than the activation speed, those generous creeps at Redflex will take your opinions into account. Hell, they may think that you are such a great guy, that they may even give you a kiss after they are finished doing what ever you kind of guys like to do (I’m not making any judgements, this is 2009 after all).
We are better than you,
And they didn’t send a helicopter out to catch the assailant?
I thought a vehicle could only be parked on the side of the freeway if it was an emergency. Someone mentioned that cops can park there, but when have you ever seen a cop car parked unattened for hours on the side of the road, I always see them with officers either in the car with the lights on, or standing by someones passenger side window, not parked, with no lights on, and a sunscreen in the windshield. Bring on the Post-it notes! Hey, its not damaging anything right?
I have a write-up on this at http://photoradarscam.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/redflex-above-the-law/
PRS… It comes down to your opinion…. vs… DPS and every other law enforcement agency. name a municipality that doesnt allow them to park on the side of the road? it is obvious that dps takes the position that they are marked with DPS insignia so they are allowed and it does not matter who or what is inside.. without dps even saying so i think the case is quite clear that they can and will do it… i have seen the following cities do the same… phoenix, mesa,scottsdale, tempe and maybe chandler ( i may have been on the tempe-chandler border)
are all of these cities wrong as well? i think the answer is clear…. you are wrong !! you lose !
sorry mark….i dont believe for a second that dps has NO say in where the fixed cameras go.. but of course you have some kind of proof to back up what you wrote……right?????????????? yea !!
since they are wrapped in dps signage they can go on the side of the road, they can go on top of a mountain !! they can even put them in the middle of a divided highway… why is it so hard to figure out that dps has taken the position that because they say dps on them…. they feel they can go where any dps cruiser can go?
@thegeez, I tried placing this response under your comment, but there didn’t seem to be any room left, so I’ll just post it down here.
First off, when I asked you for ‘proof please,’ it was a legit request for a source. Your reply was to simply call the DPS and ask them. I’m inclined to believe that had I stated something as fact and you asked for a source, you would’ve called shenanigans on a similar just call and ask response.
I called the number on DPS’ Photo Enforcement Contact page. After spending ten minutes on hold, I spoke to a woman named Cheryl who informed me that she had no information on the placement of roadside vans, and referred me to the DPS website. Then I called DPS’ main switchboard, and was transferred to an Officer Palmer. He informed me that DPS routinely parks the vans on tribal lands, based on the tribe’s agreement with the state for enforcing the law on the freeways. Off the top of his head, he was able to name the i10 that runs through the O’odham rez between Phoenix and Tucson, the 101 that runs through the Salt River Pima rez, and the i17, presumably through the Yavapai rez.
So, yes… DPS’ radar vans can be placed on tribal lands.
On another note, Redflex has significant input as to where their equipment is located. Look at this document from the city of Sultan, WA. The document states that Redflex studied three intersections, and found that there weren’t enough violations occurring to meet Redflex’s criteria, and Redflex declined to install cameras.
Safety or Profit?
Glyph, thanks for clearing up the tribal lands issue.
As for redflex, if you owned them wouldnt you want to be able to have a say as to where they are placed? Afterall, it is their resources that go to the installation of them.
Mark tried to imply on another thread that DPS has zero say so on where they get placed and I find that hard to believe. I would imagine that they get together and locate the best sites that serve both interests.
With redflex it may be all about profit and who can blame them? I believe they call it free enterprise.. they are not in this to lose money !!
so 15 citations in a 12 hour period. i think that is quite fair.
as for the fiscal part… as i have mentioend many times, a municipality has to account and designate where projected income will be used… there is nothing new in that .. so determining where potential income from fines will be distributed is not some smoking gun proving that it is all about money !!
i have 16 ttickets all on purpose ..now there hunting me down…what do i do ?keep hiding out ??
i got % in one day ..hahahha .im sorry
I still stand with they can’t be on tribal land. That is why certain areas never see van’s, for example the northern part of the 347…
Redflex may be the vendor, but DPS still runs the program, of course they tell them where to go, and neither one would want to leave a van on the 87 south of florence. In fact no one here would want to sit out there overnight ha!
And, of course they put redlight camera’s and speed camera’s in the most active areas, that’s obviously where there’s a problem! Why would they put a camera where there isn’t a redlight running problem? Has nothing to do with the money..
“and,of course they put redlight camera’s and speed camera’s in the most active areas, that’s obviously where there’s a problem!”…..”Has nothing to do with the money..”
The real question is why is one intersection more problematic than another? The same drivers that drive through one intersection are the same drivers that drive through the other intersections. So why is one different then the other? If the drivers are the same. Then it must be the intersections that are different. In design or something else that causes that intersection to be more prone to accidents. So I think the real solution to making the intersection safer is to re engineer the intersection and remove the real cause of the danger. The cameras only exploit the cities poor intersection design. And it’s the average citizen who has to pay. So it has everything to do with the money.
It would be funny to overwhelm one camera with citations. So many that they couldn’t possibly process them all.
ummmm dps picks where redflex vans go….also dps photo vans are not allowed on tribal land…and umm dps rules the highway no matter what county it is in.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,226 other followers
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Blog at WordPress.com.