I did what?

6/30/09: UPDATED W/ Response from Verschoor, see below

Thayer Verschoor, R-(eally?) Gilbert was the lone wolf in attempting to reverse a proposed ban on automated ticketing that has been working its way through the State Senate.

Verschoor should know better than any legislator how unpopular photo enforcement is with constituents: his hometown of Gilbert is the only major city in the East Valley to not use the revenue-enhancing systems on their streets and roadways.

So why did he do it? We have no idea, but you’re welcome to contact his office and ask. Post the response you get, if any, in the comments section below.

Thayer Verschoor
Phone: (602) 926-4136
Fax: (602) 417-3220

Verschoor’s response:

This was Andy Biggs Bill. He drafted an amendment in my name to remove the Photo Enforcement Ban from his bill if it looked like the the Photo Enforcement Ban was going to cause his bill to die. The bill came up for consideration while I was in the House of Representatives reviving a bill of mine that had died the night before. The amendment was offered even though I was not there. Had I been there I would not have offered the amendment because his bill was fine and I do not support photo speed enforcement. Hopefully that is clear.
We thank Thayer for his prompt response. In addition, Mr. Verschoor has agreed to be a guest speaker at our next monthly meeting.

25 Responses to THAYER THE BETRAYER?

  1. RPr says:

    The yellow left-turn signal at the intersection lasted only three seconds, but town policy states yellow lights should last 4.5 seconds, Town Manager Jim Bacon said Thursday.

    lowering yellow lights again redflex?

  2. Joe says:

    RPr: Why assume the bad guy is Redflex? PV stood to earn plenty of money, so it’s certainly reasonable to assume they did the tinkering.

    • RPr says:

      your absolutely right. its Total Fraud

    • Chuck says:

      Both parties are in collusion.

      That is why there is a conflict of interest.
      Both parties gain financially, at the expense of Due Process, a civil right.

      The New Due process: Process this, the money is due.

  3. Joe says:

    We should suggest this as a case for The Goldwater Inst.

  4. In my opinion, anyone caught shortening yellow lights should be prosecuted for criminal endangerment. Whoever did this put lives at risk for profit.

    • Joe says:

      I agree with you, but you know that’ll never happen, as it’s the traffic engineers that ultimately do the tinkering. But there IS civil court recourse that people can enact, and I hope they will. Fraud has been committed.

    • Glyph says:

      Agreed. The City of Paradise Valley should be held responsible for any left-turn related collision that occurred in that intersection during the time that the yellow light interval was shorter than the time mandated by their own policy.

      I can’t believe this isn’t a criminal matter.

  5. BRENT says:

    It’s not just this intersection.. This is actually really common, I’ve also noticed it in Phoenix and a few places in Snottsdale.

  6. Zebra says:

    Just to let you know what the “official” response will be. They will say that the 4.5 second is for STRAIGHT THROUGH yellow. That they can make the left turn light shorter because it is ‘assumed’ that drivers will be going slower because they are turning.

    It’s BS, of course, but they have issued tens of thousands of tickets at Oracle and River here in Tucson…95% of them turning left. And lagging left turns are the least likely scenario to cause an accident.

    The real answer is Redflex is taking a page from the ATS training manual.

    • Chuck says:

      What type of intersection is it? Is it a PROTECTED Green, or a permitted green?
      With a protected green all conflicting traffic is gated CLOSED(RED)
      The roadway may be designed to accommodate higher speeds on the turning radius.
      A complex intersection with multiple lanes will have a longer yellow light.

  7. thegeez says:

    traffic lights have nothing to do with the camera companies, it is the cities transportation engineering department.

  8. Mark S says:

    We need to keep an eye on this intersection. I am sure redflex is not happy with this as this intersection was their cash cow. I am sure when this all blows over in a few months and everyone has forgotten about it, they will lower the yellow timing.

  9. Stacey says:

    We probably should just start timing lights at all the intersections with cameras.

    • RPr says:

      1 guy with a camera saved Arizona citizens $200,000

    • Chuck says:

      The cameras are there already. Problem is redflex puts the information you could use, in an unusable format.
      Someone needs to raise issues of Spoliation of Evidence.
      Substantive Due process is denied to the defense.

  10. Chuck says:

    What this proves. When the photoradar Officer presents evidence about the reliability and the accuracy of the Traffic Control Device as required by State Law, The evidence in this case is clear, it was not in compliance. Of course the judge would have rejected defendants appeal, to disallow this from being offered as evidence.

    Of course other jurisdictions will say this was an isolated case.

    The fact remains how would a defendant rebut the assertion that the Traffic control Device was in compliance.

    Photoradar enforcement does not provide substantive due process rights.

    This is why the tickets are reduced to a standard of a misdemeanor; the standard of proof is reasonable. Doing this, the Municipalities do not allow the defendant the right to discovery.

    You have no ability to expose Judicially acceptable theft.

    You have no right to demand from the Camera Company the REAL EVIDENCE.

    I found out, the format the camera company used for electronically recording the alleged violation, did not allow for an independent review, a clear violation of my rights to rebut the only witness to an alleged violation.
    I attempted to prove the yellow light was improperly set, by using frames per second the Camera Company recorded; it would have been an easy task. Except the officer blocked any attempt for discovery in order for me to receive from the camera company a reproduction of the event, in a usable electronic format, so my expert witness could have rebutted the States only witness.

    This is contrary to the Federal Rule. Dealing with electronic recordings in matters of law.

    How do we get the Arizona Supreme Court to safeguard our Rights to assure Due Process?

    The other problem I suspect will be getting more attention. When and how do you prove you never received the mailed ticket and the process server falsifies service?
    If you fail to appear you are in default. Eventually will the Cities have cash cows available to harass.

    Does any one know? What we as citizens must do to prevent this abuse? Will it cost me thousands of dollars, years from now?

    Someone needs to bring a class action suit against PV for punitive damages. The Madoffs and the actions of Municipalities cannot be a matter of “Sorry we got caught. Sorry you spent 8 hours going to traffic school. Sorry you took off from work, losing pay, to fight your ticket.
    Otherwise what would prevent any city, lax in the Engineering Department, or cities erecting illegal Traffic Control devices?
    The law states as a driver I must obey legally erected Traffic Control devices. If the only punishment for the Cities if they are caught, they must give back the money collected, where is the deterrent?

    • Walter says:

      My GF’s Daughter requested a sopena for the records from the process server. We want to see where he was on the day he claims to have served her. (6 days before he actually did). The judge denied her request. So now she only has the witnesses that were there when he did serve her. Not much of a defense. The word of an officer of the court against a half a dozen people who would be considered biased to the defendant. And denied any information that might possibly prove the server lied.

  11. Joe says:

    Chuck, what format does the camera company use for the video? Were they refusing to hand over the data, or wer they just not able to deliver in a format you could review? There are not very many proprietary video codecs out there (they are expensive to self-develop), so it might just be a matter of finding the right tool to enable you to review the footage.


    • Chuck says:

      I will try to locate the email I received from two different tech support groups. I am afraid it may be gone though.

      The first occasion I had to view the video was at the court. The officer played it on his player, the moment the light changed from green to yellow then from yellow to red. I told the officer to stop. Being unable to play in reverse or frame-by-frame was impossible with his equipment.
      I then pursued through the Judge, stating the limitations of the officer’s equipment made it impossible to ascertain the frame-by-frame account of the incident.

      For example if the recording device used by Redflex was operating at 28.9 seconds or 29 frames per second it would be a simple matter of counting the frames from the start of yellow to red. Counting the frames would tell you the seconds the light was yellow.
      The officer’s equipment I believe is a purposeful spoliation or withholding of exculpatory evidence.
      When the Judge told the officer to get me a copy, you could tell this officer was out for blood.
      When I took the Disc home and ran it through other software products such as Quick Time Pro and others, the Redflex format was impossible to convert. I then searched the Yellow pages to find someone with more sophisticated equipment.

      I’d like to say but I can’t remember. These outside expert companies can convert MPEG to AVI? But certain MPEG used by video companies to transmit data cheaply use MPEG 2? Of course the format Redflex uses cannot be broken down or converted with such accuracy.

      What I discovered using my limited ability, was that the Redlex Camera could have just as easily have been my witness proving the Yellow light was 2.8 seconds long. But of course Redflex wouldn’t want to be used as a witness against the Municipalities Engineering Department. If the engineering Department thought the information gathered by an outside firm, could be used against their departments, how many would reject the use of these devises? Doing all they could to discourage their use.

      Redflex is not a neutral witness its decisions are motivated by profit. The only witness of any violation is biased. Its video format is biased.
      When I confronted the Officer for the second time and reported that I wanted the entire Video and not just the sample of evidence taken to bolster the States adversarial position. I was told I would get no other electronic data. Was I denied because of inability or was I denied because of financial considerations.

      Granted breathalyzers are used in criminal cases, but the courts and the use of electronic tools is so New. The courts have stated repeatedly the defense does not have to rely on the sample taken by the State. It should be likewise for Photo radar.

      Sixty days after an alleged violation deprives plaintiffs the opportunity to rebut the States evidence. Was the photo radar signage clearly visible the day of the alleged violation? Was the timing mechanism functioning properly, the moment the violation occurred?

      How would you ever know? Having no way to go back that many days, to prove the States case, you may have discovered rebuttal evidence. But the delay deprived you of the opportunity to gather rebuttable evidence

      Is the Officer relying on Engineering to have properly set up the equipment? As evidenced by PV, fining innocent drivers who suspected something was wrong but was told they were guilty, because the engineering department couldn’t possibly be wrong.
      I did not have to pursue that defense because the Process Servers had gone past the allowable time and my case was dismissed.

      This dismissal was also quite disturbing when the officer asked me to prove I had not received the personally served notice. How was I supposed to prove an unprovable. Except the day my wife had papers shoved at her, we wrote the time and day of Service on the Papers. I had no other proof I was served to late.
      I could easily see how the Municipal Courts will put drivers in default, all evidence destroyed and accusations made for failure to appear. No need to raise Constitutional issues to be reviewed by a higher court. “You re in default, a warrant has been issued. Pay now for the default status or hire an attorney for a thousand dollars.” Either way the courts have become contemptuous jerks.

Leave a 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: