Redflex Investors Call AZ Program “Failure”


postitRedflex’s statewide “photo enforcement” program in Arizona is being called an expensive failure by the beleaguered firm’s own investors.

Apparently, these photographic pirates are upset that the “take” from their heist wasn’t what they were expecting:

“Hunter Hall has concluded that, so far, the ‘Arizona statewide’ program has been an expensive failure. We attribute responsibility for this outcome to a board that we believe is ill-equipped to handle contracts of such significance.”

The backlash against automated ticketing in Arizona, including a proposed statewide ballot initiative outlawing the cameras, now threatens the Australian firm’s 11 other lucrative contracts with municipalities throughout Arizona.

171 Responses to Redflex Investors Call AZ Program “Failure”

  1. It might help Redflex if they were honest with their shareholders. Contrary to the “rigged” polls they hire showing overwhelming support for photo enforcement, the truth is, it has never survived a public vote and faces real opposition. The latest poll in OH shows only 30% support, which is consistent with most polling not conducted or sponsored by ATS or Redflex.
    http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/4691271

    • Dr Jett says:

      Every time that we take petitions out, we always get an overwhelming majority who sign the petition and let us know that they are doing so to get rid of photo radar. “Is this to get rid of photo radar? I’ll sign it.” People register to vote who do so specifically to vote against photo radar. I never saw this kind of fervor to sign a petition when we put the last 10 initiatives on the ballot for 2008.

      • ProCamera says:

        Do you inform the people that your petition and ballot initiative also removed red light cameras? Or do you hide that fact in hopes that hatred for freeway speed enforcement will wash over the approval of red light and school zone enforcement?

        • Glyph says:

          The answer to your question is twofold…

          1) The wording of the Citizen’s Ballot Initiative is attached to all of the petitions, in accordance with Arizona State Law, so petitioners can read what they’re signing.

          2) The wording clearly states that the petition is to put all Photo Enforcement (that includes Camera Vans, Freeway Cams, and Redlight Cams) to a statewide vote.

          So, in answer to your question… YES, people know that CameraFRAUD’s petition applies to Redlight Cameras.

        • Bryan R says:

          When I’ve collected signatures, I’m not hiding anything. I’ve always said quote, “It bans all photo enforcement in the state of Arizona.” Also, be rest assured that when/if this gets on the ballot, Redflex will be SURE to educate the public on that point in a one-sided smear campaign.

          BTW – if the unvarnished facts about red light cameras came out (especially about how yellow light lengthening cuts accidents more), there wouldn’t be any opposition to removing them either.

        • photoradarscam says:

          No one likes red light cams either. How could you, when the cameras have caused accidents to double: http://www.azcentral.com/community/peoria/articles/2009/08/31/20090831gl-peoredlight0831-ON.html

          • photoradarscam says:

            Of course, Procam has no response to defend his support of cameras in light of a DOUBLING of accidents.

          • ProCamera says:

            Sorry, stepped away. You did read the article. Have you been to the area in Peoria where the cameras are in? 67th Avenue From Northern to Greenway has been under construction the entire time of this study. So obviously there is goin to be more traffic on 75th and 83rd avenue (Where the cameras are) during these time frames. You might also note that this article doesn’t tell what type of accidents are happening at these locations. Red Light accidents (mainly rear end collisions for people stopping short) are not mentioned as the type of accident that is increasing.

            You see, unlike you, I am one of those people that take a look at articles and actually look at the data to support it. I don’t think that Cameras are the end all / be all of traffic enforcement. But they are a very useful tool. And they “SUPPLIMENT” the work that the patrol officers do on a daily basis. Do they reduce the number of accidents? Well, being that there is human involvement in accidents, I couldn’t say that they do. There are studies that show stats to support both sides of that argument.

            Do they reduce speeds? Undoubtedly yes, because i drive the traffic every day. And my 25 mile commute has been cut down by 15 minutes each way because the stop and go no longer exists so everyone goes a steady 50-60 during rush hour.

            And common sense tells you that if speeds reduce, reaction time increases, and the severity of accidents will go way down. (And have).

          • I am very familiar with that part of Peoria – enough to know that the construction was just an excuse. There are 4 intersections with cameras, and they weren’t all affected by contruction. The article and the data does lack a lot of detail, but does that detail really matter when accdidents DOUBLE? We’re not talking a small margin – we’re talking DOUBLE.

            If you can’t say that cameras reduce accidents, then why support them? There are some proven, effective engineering measures that are ALWAYS effective at reducing violations and accidents – one example being adjusting the red light timing as Peoria did and saw fantastic results.

            And if all you want to do is reduce speeds, there are many ways to do this without cameras. Heck, you might even try lowering the speed limits if people are driving too fast.

            The problem with using common sense like you attempted to do is that people don’t always consider all of the important aspects. While it makes sense that driving slower would result in a less severe accident, study after study has shown that the SAFEST speed is the 85th percentile speed, regardless of what that speed is. Smooth flowing traffic at any speed (which we used to have) is much safer than great speed variation and slowing down and speeding up as we now have due to the cameras.

        • Stacey says:

          Without a doubt I let people know exactly why we are going after the red light cameras. They increase accidents, and a number of states have been caught shortening yellow lights. Tsk, tsk.

          • Rich says:

            I’ve just been informed that I was snapped by one in Tucson, at Nogales and Valencia near the airport. The yellow light there is definitely shorter than it was prior to cameras being installed. They’ve also added a fourth line beyond the old stop line and the two crosswalk lines. This was added to catch all the drivers who learned that once you’ve crossed the first stop line, you keep going. “Moving the goalposts” is a very close analogy. And they’re doing so specifically to criminalize drivers who thought they knew the rules and drive within them.

  2. And the privacy concerns that everyone is so quick to dismiss is captured quite well in this new article:
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2933.asp

    • Dr Jett says:

      EVERYONE should READ THIS article. Roger Sawley says that he is based in the USA and I think that we should get his email and mailing addresses and let him know how much Americans appreciate his efforts to SCREW US. We should also let the Redflex board of directors know how we would like to show our appreciation of his efforts by TARRING and FEATHERING HIM before we DEPORT him to Australia as a TRAITOR. Realistically, emailing the board of directors a copy of the emails to Roger Sawley would work.

    • ProCamera says:

      PhotoRadarScam,

      I’m sorry, but your link goes to the web site “TheNewsPaper.com”. All the articles have no author atributed as writing the piece, (much like Camerafraud.com) so many people will discount them as just a biased anticamera blog. I mean, I wouldn’t go to that site to get information any more than I would go to the RedFlex website and expect to get unbiased info.

      • hahahaha

        The funny thing is that there are so many articles and studies out there that have authors, that it doesn’t matter.

        Just because the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media with their fancy press passes and websites pushes the nonsense polls and data as fact, doesn’t make them more credible. In fact, they should be taken to task.

        It reminds me of all the Real Estate Boom propaganda that the Republic splashed all over their pages along with full spread ads by home-builders pushing their bubble-priced chicken wire and stucco homes.

        Keep sticking your head in the sand buddy. It’s easier to live that way then to question “authority.”

      • photoradarscam says:

        The only reason you’d discount TheNewspaper.com is because you don’t want to believe what’s published there. TN is not claiming to be a news source. In this particular article, TN tells you where all of the facts and information comes from. You can follow the sources and form your own opinions.

        The crux of this article is a letter sent to the Nanaimo Daily News byt the Office of Privacy Commissioner. You can go to that newspaper’s website and read the letter for yourself if you don’t believe TN’s reporting of it. Here’s the link for you if you’re lazy like Ernie: http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/upfront/story.html?id=42a7cc1a-c7eb-498a-b60a-ba1046eb5c58

        The article – just like the other articles on TN – goes on to reference other events and information for which links and sources are provided for someone like yourself to investigate further.

        Does it really make a difference if it’s CNN or TN that tells you about the Commissioner’s letter? Regardless of who tells you about it, now you know it’s out there, and you can read it for yourself. Have you found any false claims made by TN? What evidence do you have that TN is falsely reporting or making up claims not provided by other news sources? Please show us.

        • ProCamera says:

          “TN is not claiming to be a news source.”

          Yeah, that name “The News Paper”, that couldn’t be a claim to be a news source.

          I discount them just like I discount any other blogger that cherry picks data and changes stories to highlight their agenda.

          Just like I wouldn’t quote Redflex, neither would I quote TheNewsPaper as a source of facts.

          • photoradarscam says:

            Then where to you get your facts from? The AZ Republic? Where do you think they get their info from? Redflex – a source you said you wouldn’t quote yourself. Is it more reliable if the AZ Republic regurgitates a Redflex press release? And let me guess, you’d trust DPS, the people who ? Everyone has a side, everyone has an agenda.

            There is no investigative reporting any more. No one is out gathering data and facts independently. The best you can do it read an article and check their sources to the best of your ability. TN does a fantastic job of providing sources and references for all of their claims. You can visit their sources and read their references and draw your own conclusions. It’s the most honest approach that I can think of. What more could you ask for?

        • ProCamera says:

          From your highlighted article on the original post, it says the following on how privacy can be infringed upon.

          “In the same year, Edmonton Sun columnist Kerry Diotte personally experienced how such systems could be used against political opponents. According to court testimony, police angered by Diotte’s criticism of photo radar accessed an electronic database in a failed effort to frame Diotte for drunk driving.”

          The link attributed to this statement links to another “TheNewspaper” article. The link for that article links to a “Non-Existant” Edmonton Sun article. But don’t worry, since TheNewsPaper wrote it, it must be true.

          • LoneWolf says:

            A lot of news companies pull their articles after a certain amount of time. In AZ Central’s case, they pull them after a couple of months and then offer the archived articles for a fee.

          • metelhed says:

            Right, just like azcentral posts all pro-camera articles on the front page of their site but IF they bother to publish something anti-camera it’s posted in a not-so-accessible area, as in the case of Peoria’s red light camera study. You can’t even access that article any more without paying them for it.

          • photoradarscam says:

            Are you questioning that the article ever existed? It’s impossible to keep all of those links updated, but the reality is that most newspapers archive their news articles after some period of time.

            Please do tell us, what news sources have you found that hold up to your elevated standards?

      • guttersn1pe says:

        If you’re looking for the pro-camera blog, try azcentral.com – they’ll post anything Redflex sends over as “news”.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Websites like that are necessary to counter the bias often seen in mainstream media such as AZ Central. More and more people are turning to these types of websites for news they often don’t see or hear from the other side of various issues such as photo enforcement and politics. These websites don’t make stuff up, unlike mainstream media which has been known to fabricate stories from time to time.

      • Jason Mann says:

        I didn’t trust thenewspaper website as well so I did some searching on the internet & came across this document on redflex’s own website stating on page 7, last paragraph of #2 of the PDF that they disagree with the shareholders ‘that this has been an ‘expensive failure”. I’m happy to see that it was on redflex’s own website http://www.redflex.com/public_documents/asx_announcements/2009-10-15%20AGM%202009%20Final.pdf

        • LoneWolf says:

          thenewspaper.com summed it up pretty nicely. I didn’t read that document thoroughly because it was boring and all that really stuck in my head the entire time was unqualified directors and money.

  3. LoneWolf says:

    It doesn’t matter if they replace the board or not. The entire program is a failure, period! Possibly one of the reasons they’ve come short of the 8 million is because they’ve been caught in the act of cheating: shortening yellow light times, sending off tickets to wrong owners in hope that the recipient would acknowledge the ticket anyway, illegal placement of the PR van signs, calibrating the scameras to capture at speeds a couple mph under the legal limit, and whatever else.. That’s obviously a lot of lost money when the city or state has to refund it back to the people who were wronged by Redflex (ATS is no different). The investors sound as if Redflex isn’t cheating enough… or maybe they don’t know the proper way to cheat and actually get away with it. It appears that the investors just want their money regardless of what it takes to get it.

    • ProCamera says:

      The reason they have fallen short is the requirements made by the state of Arizona in identifying the driver and not treating the ticket as a vehicle assessed ticket like in other states.

      When treated like a parking ticket, the Responsible Owner of the vehicle receives the ticket assessed to the vehicle. Just like a parking ticket, it doesn’t matter who was driving when the speed infraction occured (or who parked and didn’t feed the parking meter), the owner gets the ticket.

      If it were treated like a parking ticket, then they would not need the process servers. They would be able to recoup every ticket or just suspend the vehicle registration until payment is received. And they would be able to get payment from all LLC’s PO Box addresses, and Rental cars as well.

      But because Arizona made it mandatory to identify the driver, it made it nearly impossible to recover the tickets, especially when people are willing to dodge the process server by not answering their door when someone knocks.

      • LoneWolf says:

        You’re not far off track. But one of the main reasons so many people are trashing their tickets is because of the fraud involved: Cheating by the companies that manage the scameras, a system that’s more about money than safety, the tickets are hard to dispute, cameras malfunction, there are privacy concerns, there are constitutional issues, the state outsources its law enforcement to companies and civilians, etc.. More people might not have as big of a problem with photo enforcement if it were conducted by actual DPS officers, all laws were abided by the DPS, no cheating, it’s all about the safety and not the money, discretionary warnings could be issued instead of tickets, and people could have a fair dispute through court.

        • ProCamera says:

          The reason people are trashing the tickets is not because they think they were defrauded. It is because they think they can get away with not paying for their crimes if they live their dishonest life and dodge the process server.

          I mean, personally, I would rather be able to answer my door in front of my friends than to have to explain why you never answer the doorbell when it rings in fear of getting served a photo ticket.

          I guess some people just have different moral standards. That is the difference between the people who see a shopping bag in a shopping cart that was left at the store in the parking lot. Some people will just take the bag, some people will leave it where it is at, and some people will take it in the store and tell the store that they found it left in the parking lot.

          Something tells me, there’s alot of people who either take the bag, or leave it in the parking lot that comment on this site about how cameras infringe on their ability to be free from being caught breaking the law.

          • LoneWolf says:

            You come up with some of the most irrelavent comparisons. Someone took his/her hard-earned money and paid for that bag full of groceries. It’s only right to take it back to the store and hope the customer would come back for it. Photo enforcement, on the other hand, is fraud. People who receive tickets regardless if they were speeding or not shouldn’t have to pay them simply because they’ve been victimized by an illegal system that never should’ve been implemented here in the states. You can’t compare these 2. Criminals and foreigners have no right whatsoever to enforce our traffic laws and to issue tickets to average, honest, hard-working American citizens. And I’m sure your sheepish friends would be very impressed that your answer your door. My friends would be laughing at both you and your friends.

          • photoradarscam says:

            The reason why people trash their ticket is because it is because PE is a law enforcement joke. There is nothing immoral or unethical about it. 1. There are no witnesses, and no one can vouch that the equipment is working properly at the moment of the alleged incident. 2. No one is positively identified or notified at the time of the incident. 3. No one (or at least most people) cannot remember in detail (especially the speed they were traveling at any given point) for the entire journey down a road a week or longer ago to even know for themselves if they were doing anything wrong. And then you have scenarios where you have two people driving the exact same speed at the same time and location, but one of them gets a ticket and the other does not simply because because he’s towing a trailer or has out of country (or state) plates, or a trailer hitch blocking his plate, a plate blocker or any other number of conditions preventing photo citation, it is no wonder that no one takes them seriously.

            If you want to talk about morals and ethics, explain how ethical it is to target only those people driving their own cars with unobstructed plates?

            Face it, the inherent shortcomings of photo enforcement will always prevent it from being taken seriously. It is nothing more than a money maker. When the PE system is inherently dishonest, how do you expect the general public to respect it?

            • ProCamera says:

              As for the “Ethical” aspect o targeting only people driving their own vehicles with unobstructed plates, you need to look at your own elected officials and not the camera company for that one. If the laws were like they are in Philadelphia PA, they would ticket the vehicle owner on all notices, the First Class mail receipt would serve as “Service” for the court, and ALL VIOLATIONS would either get paid, or suspend the registration. Then it would be applied fairly. No points, treated like a parking ticket. Even rental cars get them and the Rental agencies just charge the Credit Card associated to the rental agreement.

            • Yeah, you skipped a few items there Procam. Even if they targetted the owner, you still don’t know who the owner is if they are out of country plates, if plates are missing, obstructed, etc. Nice try.

              And you have yet to explain how punishing the wrong person for a crime increases safety.

      • photoradarscam says:

        Procam, There has been no change in the requirements for the program. Any and all projections should have taken into account the enforcement process. Company management is a failure.

        But why would you want to cite anyone but the driver? How effectively could that possibly be? Do you have 2 kids? If so, the next time kid A does something wrong, punish kid B and let us know how that works out for you.

        • ProCamera says:

          Then what good are parking tickets? I mean, if you don’t cite the guy who actually parks the car, how will they ever learn to stop parking and leaving thier car without putting money in the meter? Oh yeah, the parking tickets use the guilt associated with loaning a car to someone and then charging the owner for their actions. But nah, nobody would ever learn to slow down if it was their friends who got the speeding ticket.

        • photoradarscam says:

          Let me point out that you ignored the first half of my post, so you must not have a response to that one.

          Parking tickets are a whole different story than traffic tickets or criminal matters. Parking is a service, and it’s understandable that if the person who violated the terms of the parking service isn’t available, the service provider (usually a city) should be able to obtain payment for the service (or violations of terms of service) from the property (car) owner. This does not compare to actively performing an act that falls outside of some established guideline (such as exceeding the posted limit).

          But if I get your logic, if someone uses a knife from your kitchen to stab someone to death, then we can just put the owner of the knife (you) in jail because the person who did the killing will learn not to kill again when you get sentenced for murder. Did I get that right?

          • ProCamera says:

            Sorry, but it works on the same basis as the speeding violations. There is a Law that states it is illegal to park outside the limits provided by the prepaid meter. To leave your car parked without time on the meter is a violation. The city has legislators have deemed that it is ok to charge all parking tickets to the vehicle owner for payment.

            It is against the law to exceed the posted speed limit that was put in place by the director of DPS. If a vehicle is found exceeding that speed, the vehicle can be charged and a fine assessed to the owner of the vehicle.

            Sorry, but Parking is not a provided service. If you park on the roadway in a no parking zone, or outlast the limit on the meter, you violated a city law. You didn’t steal parking services. You violated a parking ordinance. And the parking ticket isn’t assessed to the perosn that parked the car, or you could get out of a ticket by simply stating that you didn’t park your car there.

            • LoneWolf says:

              When DPS pulls someone over for speeding, they ticket the driver because the driver was speeding, not the owner. When does DPS ever mail off a ticket to the owner because someone else driving his/her car was speeding? In the case of photo enforcement, why should the owner be responsible if the driver doesn’t pay the ticket or acknowledge receipt of it? The owner had nothing to do with the violation. Should the owner cover the ticket and then turn around and punish the driver (relative or friend) or worse, file suit against that person to recover the cost of the ticket? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.

            • It seems that you really like to ignore valid arguments in the hopes that no one will notice.

              Again I’ll ask, if you’re trying to modify driver behavior, how does it help to fine the person who isn’t driving?

              Since you apparently believe that the property owner should always be the guilty party for a crime, maybe I should go ahead and borrow some of your stuff to commit crimes with. Maybe that will teach me a lesson when they come arrest you.

              • ProCamera says:

                I would not lend anything to you afte the first time I received a ticket for on something that I let your borrow. Kind of like the parking ticket idea. Don’t want PhotoRadarScam to illegally park your car, then don’t let him/her use your car. Don’t want them to speed in your car, then don’t let him drive your car.

        • ProCamera says:

          Since you think I’m avoid the first part of your post. Ther has been no change in the laws surrounding the traffic, except now First respondes need not worry about camera violations. Also, the state and the company (Redflex) may have counted on the honesty of the citizens of the state to accept that they were caught when they receive a notice in the mail. And instead, a bunch of people decided that being caught by a camera, that they are no longer responsible for their actions and decided to avoid being served instead. Like a common criminal.

          • LoneWolf says:

            And the people of Arizona were counting on a fair, honest, constitutional system of photo enforcement that was all about safety and not money. It’s a shame it didn’t work that way. tsk tsk..

          • And since this wasn’t Redflex’s first-ever contract, management should have known how to run an effective program and what kind of results to expect. Instead you have management who bungled the program from the start, over promised, and under delivered.

            • LoneWolf says:

              Of course, management probably didn’t factor in organizations like CF that expose their little deep, dark, dirty secrets to the public. As a result, bad publicity kinda hurt their bottom line. I think they underestimated CF’s ability to inflict some damage on the PR industry. They might not admit it, but I believe anti-scamera organizations are a huge threat to the industry. Perhaps that’s why proscam is working relentlessly to try and make us eat our words.

            • ProCamera says:

              Show me where else they have photo speed enforcement and the city/state requires facial recognition of the driver.

              • LoneWolf says:

                Who cares? Most of us live in AZ. If the people of those states wish for us to help them change their laws, we’ll offer what assistance we can.

              • Matt says:

                California…..and they ONLY allow RLC’s and NOT Speed SCAMeras or ANY other photo enforcement type. Hell, I hope they axe even those at this point!

      • guttersn1pe says:

        But it’s not a parking ticket – so why treat it like one? It’s an alleged moving violation. Of course, if you’re suggesting we treat all moving violations like parking tickets (i.e. no points, etc.) then you may have some support.

      • anti-big-brother says:

        Interesting concept to cite the owner of the vehicle for a moving violation when it cannot be proven that he was in control of the vehicle at the time the violation happened. Lets see…..That would mean you could be charged for an extreme DUI, lose your license, serve time in jail all because you loan a vehicle to someone?….. uh, NO, I think the law is just how it should be, non-moving violations against owner of the vehicle, moving violations against the driver of the vehicle regardless of ownership.

        I will accept ANY photo ticket in which they can clearly identify me and my plate, ain’t gonna happen! Been flashed at least a dozen times in the past 9 months and have never seen a ticket yet. My anti-camera defenses are working great!

        • ProCamera says:

          You can’t prove that the owner parked his car in front of a meter for too long, but he will get a parking ticket either way.

          And in other states, that is exactly what they do with photo tickets. They issue to the owner of the vehicle. No face recognition is required. And they don’t have all the added cost of process servers.

        • And those are the truly money-hungry states/cities.

  4. […] Redflex Investors Call AZ Program “Failure” « CameraFRAUD.com … […]

  5. What percentage of issued red light camera and speed camera tickets go unpaid and why?

  6. 05GOAT says:

    I’m really looking forward to the day when Redflex closes it’s doors…that will be a good day.

    I’ve been a regular visitor of the site, but I can’t find any information on how may ballot signatures have been collected. Can somebody point me in the right direction?

    • LoneWolf says:

      I’m not sure you’ll get that number here. If the number is near the quota, volunteers might slack off thinking we have plenty of time to get the rest. (think about what often happens in the second half of football games) If the number is too low, people might think their signature won’t count then give up because it looks hopeless, and the trolls here would give us never-ending hell because of it. All I can say is “Many”. Whether or not any volunteers wish to display the actual number is up to them..

    • Mike says:

      What he said. I can tell you that probably 90% of the people I talked to at the State Fair last Friday were highly opposed to the cameras. I lost count of how many sheets of signatures I collected – I had 3 different clipboards rotating throughout the day!

      • 05GOAT says:

        Fair enough, and the logic makes sense. Thanks!

        • Jason says:

          It would be great if you would also volunteer to help us obtain signatures if you can! We have a monthly meeting… Sign up for the meetup and you will be invited…

          Jason

      • LoneWolf says:

        I participated at the gun show a few weeks ago. We collected signatures from approx. 7 out of 10 people that walked by. The rest were probably from out of state, unregistered as voters, too young to vote, pro-camera, and a few claimed they already signed the petition at one of CF’s other gatherings. There’s no doubt that 90% of the people want the scameras to go away. In spite of what the pro-scamera people believe about their make-believe Mickey Mouse polls, there were LOTS of seniors signing the petition as well. I believe there was an equal number of people of all ages and both sexes.

  7. Dr Jett says:

    Procamera,
    This is not a parking ticket, it is allegedly a moving violation and moving violations always identify the driver. It doesn’t make sense to give the photo radar companies free rein to reinvent our laws just because they would make more $$$$$$$$. As I have mentioned before, we have not heard one peep about the real primary cause of accidents; lack of driver education and ability. Can you push your vehicle to the limits in an emergency. Probably not, because like most people, you don’t have a clue about what I’m referring to and you are part of the problem.
    If you are really interested in strict enforcement of laws, why not move to Russia or China because they enforce laws the way you want them. The USA was founded on principles written up in the Constitution. You may not be familiar with it, but it doesn’t say that private citizens need to be under the government thumb because that was the reason for the American Revolution 200 years ago. Try a google search and read it for the first time in your life.

    • Camera Hater says:

      Right on the money, Dr Jett. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of training. As people know, I am Australian and have just gotten back from a month in the States. Now I know your training system isn’t perfect, but I know in a lot of cases, students have access to formal driver education in schools. That’s a lot better than the virtual zero we have, other than on-the-road instruction. And the difference, in terms of vehicle control quality, courtesy and adapting to the road conditions was dramatic.

    • ProCamera says:

      Dr Jett,

      Your argument is trying to get rid of Cameras because they somehow put you under the government thumb. I guess, to you, if the government used technology that is available to enforce the laws that that technology is able to enfoce, then that equates to being under the government thumb.

      Then you complain about lack of driver ability. Sorry, but it isn’t like the state has decided to take away student driver funding to pay for more cameras. Sure, I agree that we need to teach defensive driving to everyone. Teach things like “your foot should hover over the brake and coast through an intersection, check both directions when a light turns green before proceeding through, THE CENTER LANE IS A LEFT TURN LANE AND NOT A MERGE LANE!!!! All vital information to stop most accidents that occur in the roadway today.

      But just because a camera can’t catch a reckless driver, or perform a field sobriety test, doesn’t mean that the ability to cath people exceeding the posted speed limit should be stopped. Contrary to your belief, but you don’t have the right to exceed the speed limit. And if your circumstance can justify your speed to a cop, then it should also justify your speed to a judge on a photo ticket.

      Oh yeah, and you might have forgot, but the contry was founded in the 1700’s. You know, long before motorized vehciles were invented. Long before anything went 50+ mph. And long before the need to regulate the roads with laws so that idiots with a lead foot and a belief that they “Can push their vehicle to the limits” have endangered the LIVES of those around them.

      • Dr Jett says:

        Pro cam,
        Although, we do agree on driver training, I am not talking about the lack luster programs currently available. If you don’t know how to push your vehicle to the limits, then you have no idea how far you can take your vehicle to avoid an accident. It has nothing to do with a lead foot or endangering anyone elses life. I’ve told you before about taking a reading comprehension class. Photo radar has nothing to do with speeding and everything to do with government surveilance.

        • And it wouldn’t hurt to have PSA’s on something other than seat belts. How about a PSA on not using the center lane to merge? Or signalling? Or any other number of common violations.

    • ProCamera says:

      Dr Jett,

      Also, this may not be a parking ticket. And in Arizona, moving violations are treated differently than in other states. We say that the identity of the driver must be found.

      But look at Philadelphia, PA. By law, the ticket is issued to the registered owner. The RO can get out of the ticket if they can prove it was someone else, that the car was reported stolen, or they were not the owner at the time of the violation. Simply mailing the notice of violation by first class mail to the address of the vehicle is suffice to say they were “Served” with the notice.

      In Phily, if they request a hearing, they don’t tie up the courts, they have a hearing officer that is not a court judge, no rules of evidence apply, and the hearing is final unless the person wishes to appeal the decision to traffic court. Then and only then does it become a cost to the courts.

      • Dr Jett says:

        Pro cam,
        Why don’t you move to Philly where you would be happy with the way they enforce laws. You seem to know how their courts work there. I already mentioned Russia and China as good places for you. THIS IS ARIZONA AND WE DON’T WANT TO CHANGE OUR LAWS FOR YOU. If Redfux won’t pay you enough money there, then appeal to their sense of fair play. Oops, that won’t work because their business plan is ROB THE PUBLIC AND LIE ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES.

    • ProCamera says:

      Dr Jett,

      One more thing.

      The revolutionary war was waged so we can separate from a government in which we had no representation in. We didn’t have a say in what happended, we didn’t benefit from the protections granted by the government, but were endlessly taxed on everything by England.

      Speed cameras are not a tax. Your elected representatives voted to put them in place. It didn’t go to the ballot because your elected representatives voted for you. Speed cameras are an available tool to enforce laws that are already established. And they are effective in catching violators of those laws.

      Your argument about Redflex and the ability to video tape people and read all the license plates to compile traffic patterns. How about this, would you be against the cameras if they did not issue citations, but only compiled and sold the data to insurance companies? I mean, that way, a private entity would not be enforcing laws, just confirming you are a liar when you claimed to your insurance company that you only drive 5 miles to work daily and actually drive 25.

      • Mike says:

        Wow, Redflex must be hiring full-time trolls now.

        In answer to your question to Dr Jett, yes I would be opposed to insurance cameras also. Just as I would be opposed to GPS tracking on vehicles by insurance companies. It’s an invasion of my privacy – it’s not the government or any private corporation’s business where and when I drive my vehicles.

      • Dr Jett says:

        Pro cam,
        READ THIS; Ex-Gov Dyke Napolitano passed this through the legislature without the necessary majority to pass laws of this type. Oh my God, FRAUD WAS THE BASIS for implementing the photo radar enforcement program in Arizona. I didn’t give my elected officials the right to alter the laws so that they could make up for their lack of ability to balance the budget; did you?
        Do you think that I would trust or believe anything that an insurance company does? Have you ever heard of AIG? The first thing that they did with their government bailout money was take all of the Corporate leaders on an expensive vacation at the taxpayers expense. That was not the purpose of the money for a company that failed to balance their books and run an ethical company. They should have had all of the money taken back at that point.

      • To set something straight – no elected officials voted on the State (DPS) photo enforcement program. Nappy stuck it into a budget bill. There NEVER a debate or opportunity for our elected officials to vote on this topic.

        • ProCamera says:

          They voted on the budget bill. That is your elected officials. They didn’t sneak it by on you. Your elected reps voted on it. Sure, it wasn’t a bill because it didn’t require up front money and it was treated as a tool to be used by DPS for traffic enforcement.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Procam, I’m just curious as to why there are thousands of Arizonans who work in law enforcement, driver’s education, ADOT, and the scamera companies, but yet only you and a couple others are the only ones here defending the scamera industry. It seems you guys have been abandoned by the potentially large number of people who should be joining you in your debate against us. Don’t you guys feel a little bit lonely out there? Seriously…

        • ProCamera says:

          I’m not here that much either.

          Maybe it’s because when you give a point about how photo enforcement is utilized in other places, and the reply is “Why don’t you move there” instead of addressing the information, people start to ignore your site, just like they ignore the ballot initiative.

          In reality, I hope you guys succeed in geting it to a public vote. Because if/when it gets to a vote, the truth about the initiative will come out. Facts about how it will get rid of school zone enforcement and red light cameras will come out. And the 10 people with various names on this blog, you will be in the minority when the vote comes in.

          You keep claiming it’s a TAX on the citizens, but law abiding people think it is ok to apply a stupidity tax on law breakers.

          You say it violated privacy. But fail to realise that you are on a Public Road, in a Publicly licensed vehicle, with a public required driver’s license, and in a vehicle that has to meet standard like a clear front window.

          You say the founding fathers would hate this. But you fail to realise that you are on a public road, and the PUBLIC should be safe on those roads. Safe from the people unlike Dr Jett that believe they are invincible and can drive 90 on the freeway. But have no regard to others that they share the road with.

          As for accidents and red light cameras, given the choice between a person stopping short and getting in a rear end collision, or a person running a red light and getting in a T-Bone collision, well, I think you can tell which one would cause more personal injury.

          Get this thing to a vote, and you will see how the public percieves the cameras. And you will see just how small your voice is when the annonymous vote comes out. The program may mostly be in place to generate money, and contrary to your beliefs, you are going to find out how many voters actually think it is a good think that speeders foot that bill.

          • Mike says:

            Yes, because photo radar succeeded so well in the other 14 states it was voted on. …oh. wait… No it didn’t. It has never survived a public vote.

            But hey, thanks for giving us a peak into your employers propaganda campaign before they officially roll it out. We appreciate that!🙂

          • Dr Jett says:

            Pro cam,
            Do you need some help finding a reading comprehension class? As usual, you put your version of what you misinterpret that you think I said in your warped little mind. I never said anything about doing 90 MPH. I was talking about driving at a level that it is obvious that you don’t understand like most people. I was close to 2 potential accident situations coming home from Phoenix in 1 night. I rely on exceptional driving skills that I have developed and keep practicing over the years to avoid people like you that just get by with very minimal driving skills to avoid getting hit. I have to drive at a higher level to protect myself from people like you who aren’t aware of what is happening around them. Your statement above about who gets hurt more in a T-bone accident or a rear end collision is really stupid. Both situations can cause considerable damage to the occupants of a car. I have permanent back damage from a rear end collision when I was only a passenger and the car I was in was hit by a drunk driver with a drink still in her hand.
            It is no secret about what the initiative says. I have had people read it before they sign it. If you didn’t work for Redfux, you wouldn’t continue to make lame statements like it isn’t a tax on the citizens. Well duh, what do you think a law that is slipped into a budget bill and surreptiously slipped past the legislature is about other than REVENUE to pay for Janet’s pork barrel projects and all of the excessive government employees? Why do you think that 14 states have outlawed photo radar? If Philly has laws that you like, then that is the perfect city for you because we don’t need more Redfux employees making fools of themselves on our site. You could do it in Philly and state their laws as evidence as why it makes sense. That would be a win/win situation for you. I’m trying to help you make a decision that would reduce the stress in your life. Besides, ‘Philly is known as the city of brotherly love’ so maybe you could get some love there. Here you expect everyone to bend over and take it in the ass like you. That is fine if that is your preference, but you don’t need the rest of us to join you in your sick activities. Do it on your own.

          • LoneWolf says:

            Well, if they’re ignoring this site, then why aren’t you? Why are you taking it so seriously? Why are you so concerned if there are only 10 of us? I think the real answer is because you and your company (Redflex) feel threatened by us. Why else would you put up your defenses here?

          • Don’t you mean alleged speeders (who aren’t wearing a helmet, have their vehicle registered to their spouse, business, family trust or have a PO Box listed for their address) are footing the bill.

  8. Dr Jett says:

    Camera Hater,
    Unfortunately, although we have driver education, it only teaches the basics and any moron can pass our driving tests. The majority of Americans don’t have a clue about the driving skills I’m referring to where your vehicle and you become one and you practice the skills that will save you in an emergency. Motorcycle riders have more advanced training classes and track days available that are ways of learning these skills. The only reason that I’m alive riding a motorcycle is avoiding all of the bad drivers while living in one of the most dangerous cities in America to drive in consistently over the last 30 years.

  9. Sure says:

    We had two DPS officers come up to our booth at the fair and let us know they oppose the cameras. They said they would have signed the petition, but they were in uniform.

    • Will Kay says:

      I had one off duty DPS officer sign the petition a few weeks ago at the Gun Show and he specifically said PR has nothing to do with safety, that it’s all about the money. At the NRA Convention I had a retired DPS officer tell me the same thing and that it’s the worst thing to ever happen to law enforcement.

    • metelhed says:

      It’s too bad we couldn’t get some of the many various municipal police officers and DPS officers to go on record (and perhaps even on video) opposing the cameras, but we all know they would most likely lose their jobs if they spoke their minds. I’ve run into a few (in a peaceful manner, mind you) and I have yet to have one tell me they’re in favor.

  10. RPr says:

    Redflex slashing the cost of a ticket LOL
    http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9017749

    According to the Kingsport Police Department, red light camera violations in Jonesborough cost $88.75; in Knoxville the cost is $50 if the person mails the fine in or $118 if the person goes to court; in Selmer, Tenn., the fine is $138.75 and in Morristown and Murfreesboro the fine is $50, but if the person goes to court the fine jumps to $103.50 and $163.50 respectively. If an officer issues a red light citation, the fines range from $117 to $135, according to the KPD.

  11. AZbiker says:

    I recently wrote to the AZ Dept of Weights and Measures (email below) and received the following response:

    ===============

    Hello to all –

    Having traveled our Metro Phoenix highways extensively, I have noticed that several speed cameras appear to be calibrated incorrectly, based on my own speed and those driving around me.

    Shouldn’t the calibration of these cameras be the responsibility of the Department of Weights and Measures? At least there would be some accountability for the calibration and not be left up to a private company with what could be less than honorable motives.

    I hesitate to contact local politicians about this issue due to the fact that their campaign funds receive contributions from this violation of our Sixth Amendment rights.

    I believe that this is a valid point to make or I wouldn’t waste your time.

    District 11 registered voter

    ==================
    AZ Dept of Weights and Measures response:
    ==================

    I appreciate your concern however, the Department does not have the resources to test or certify photo radar. When Dean Martin was in the State Senate he asked me to research the costs to certify photo radar. The cost was astronomical, including a new building, technicians, PHD’s and equipment. In these times of 15% budget cuts it is not likely we will ever receive funding to regulate photo radar.

    Dennis E.Ehrhart, CPM
    Deputy Director
    Arizona Department of Weights and Measures

  12. Jason says:

    I think that email to weights and measures and their response would be great info for a story….

  13. Steve says:

    Procamera

    so if you think it should be handled like a parking ticket can i borrow your car and speed on the highway and stick you with the ticket?

    wait…. that doesn’t seem fair!

    • Supposedly he’d be happy to pay the ticket.

    • ProCamera says:

      Don’t expect me to lend out my car to you. If you steal my car, I report it stolen. If I sell you my car, I report it sold. All of which make me no longer responsible for your actions. But if I do happen to lend you the car once, and you speed and get me a ticket, I don’t get points assessed, and if you are truely a friend, you pay for the ticket that you caused me to receive. Or I simply never let you borrow the car again and pay for your ticket myself and chock it up to having picked bad friends.

  14. who says:

    So who was the oh so Classy CF woman, out in front of the ELEMENTARY school today, screaming obscenities about PE infront of ELEMENTARY aged kids?! Geez I would think IF you had a child that went to that school, you’d appreciate any type of effort to provide a safer environment around a school! If I had a young child at a school, I would be glad to have a PE van sit out front to help slow people down, regardless of what a fraud CF says it is But no, oh SO Classy CF woman has to be out their talking nasty infront of children making a scene…. Very classy… Seems like someone who just loves being a general PITA, probably makes trouble with the school too, just to be a PITA.
    I had to go around the block and look again just to see if I was really hearing and seeing what I saw!
    Why don’t you all go do a petition drive and protest at some elementary school. You could set a great example for little children, and convince the other parents to sign your petition to ban photo radar in school zones! I mean, won’t someone think of the poor children!

    • LoneWolf says:

      Personally, I’d rather see real cops around school zones. If some perv tries to kidnap a kid, what’s PR going to do? Snap a pic of the car for America’s Most Wanted? Gotta love your mentality… I’m pretty sure the presence of real cops would deter speeding, crazy driving, and attempted kidnapping.

      • who says:

        Yes LW,
        I would prefer a cop also! But there aren’t enough cops to be everywhere at once, nor unfortunately a budget to do so. At least the PE van was there, which didn’t cost the city anything and does deter speeding! Sometimes you gota appreciate what you do get.

        • LoneWolf says:

          There’s a lot more cops than there are schools, at least in AZ’s larger cities. Parents would also be releived if real cops patroled the schools. Other reasons they should be around includes drugs & violence..

      • ProCamera says:

        Lonewolf,

        A police officer stationed at the school costs money to pay him/her to patrol the school. And they only stop one person every 10 minutes.

        PE cameras catch all violators and their presence slows down the majority of law abiding drivers. Sure, the camera doesn’t catch the kidnapper, just like a police officer doesn’ make me bacon and eggs for breakfast. The cameras are not intended to catch kidnappers, they are intended to catch speeders. And the cameras did not replace officers. Officers still have the ability to patrol schools and catch kidnappers.

        • LoneWolf says:

          And as long as cops are patroling the school zones, their presence would deter speeders and other criminals. Honestly, I don’t mind paying the extra tax dollar to put cops around school zones. Where childrens’ safety is concerned, it’s well worth it. And if someone is speeding or driving crazy through school zones, wouldn’t it make more sense to nail the person right then and there before someone gets hurt? Face it, PR is nothing but a big illusion that serves no purpose other than to fake safety and make money.

        • photoradarscam says:

          “PE cameras catch all violators and their presence slows down the majority of law abiding drivers.”

          Why do you insist on lying like this? We are not fools. PE does not catch anywhere near all violators. It may photograph half of them at best, which is different than “catching” them. It does not “catch” people driving rental cars, corporate cars, cars with blocked plates, missing plates, masks, etc., etc. Get our of your fantasy world and recognize that PE can only be used against those who drive their own cars and don’t hide their faces or have blocked plates.

    • I would rather NOT see a van there. That way people would pay attention to little kids running out into the street rather than their speedometer.

    • RPr says:

      who

      you tipped your hand. the video has not been posted yet.
      you either work for Redflex or you are close to an employee.

      now you could be one of the cops that showed up, but a cop would never lie in writing. the video will show that no foul language was used.

      • who says:

        Sorry RPr, Just driving by!
        Much like CF people sometimes happen to be at the right place at the right time… I was to!
        Oh and sure, I was not gonna get out and say something, I’m not gonna contribute to making a scene in front of children!

        • LoneWolf says:

          I’m just waiting for the board to be flooded with complaints from whoever was at the school supposedly hearing this. If there was, in fact, someone screaming obscenities in front of children, I certainly wouldn’t condone it. But for some reason, I highly doubt this was the case. Or perhaps you had your wife or girlfriend go out there and pose as one of us so you can play the blame game again.

        • RPr says:

          time and location of said event?

          • LoneWolf says:

            Who??? Is this what you were referring to??? I’d be mighty embarassed if I were you and this was the one you were talking about. Wow! Dude, if this was the one you were referring to, you got OWNED!!! Total “CONTRADICTION” to your side of the story.

            • who says:

              hm, funny, that van was there around 7:30 am, before the kids were arriving…

              • LoneWolf says:

                That’s not what she said. She watched as the kids arrived at 8:30 am but the van didn’t get set up until 8:45. Nice try. Why is the vanstill there? Where are the children in the video?

          • LoneWolf says:

            Photogal needs to take a chill pill and understand that these scameras are not there to protect the children. They’re intruding upon REAL police territory and they’re only there for the MONEY! Photogal needs to see our posts for the reasons why REAL cops should be posted around school zones. Not SCAMERAS and WANNABE law enforcement that runs these scam vans. And Photogal also remarked that she hopes Arizona Sean’s kids would get run over to prove the effectiveness of these scam cams. Way to go, Photogal. I hope you don’t have kids yourself because what person in their right mind would EVER wish death upon a child??? You’re sick, get help!!!!!

          • Ernest Hater says:

            I love the way several phoenix pd officers were pulled from their real duty to come to the aid of this scam van operator. I saw, what, 4 or five patrol cars? Very nice use of taxpayers money.

            Also, I noticed that the scam van operator was a fatty like all the ones in the redfux office video.

    • Sure says:

      What neighborhood was this in? And why didn’t you get out and say something if you were so worried?

      Obviously, you are a lying Redflex employee who was never there.

  15. Dr Jett says:

    Too funny PRS & Lonewolf!

  16. Dr Jett says:

    Who,
    Are you blind? How many times do we have to explain that PE has nothing to do with safety. Uh, duh are you some kind of mental midget? Join Pro cam and take reading comprehension together. Heck, you can even hold hands if it will make you feel safer. “won’t someone think of the poor children” Did ETB teach you that line? There are much better places than elementary schools to get petitions signed; even you should be bright enough to figure that out. Are you going to wear your Troll outfit for the ‘poor children’ on Halloween?

    • who says:

      You keep bashing we have no ‘reading comprehension’.. Well quite blaming ‘reading comprehension’ on our lack of believing every word you say.
      Next time you say you don’t believe something I say, I’m gonna blame it on your lack of ‘reading comprehension’. I know your dying for us to drop to our knees and follow you like ‘sheeple’, but it aint happenen, and it has nothing to do with ‘reading comprehension’

      RPr, you say you have the video, so you know the time and date. Don’t ask stupid questions you know the answer to.

  17. RPr says:

    http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20091021/OPINION03/910210314

    The intent of the traffic cameras was to increase revenue.

    A referendum on Redflex red-light and speed camera equipment in Chillicothe, giving you and me the indisputable right to express our opinion on the subject.

    Go to the poll in your voting precinct Tuesday, Nov. 3, and let your voice be heard by voting.

  18. Jokn says:

    “Going to the polls” is the correct thing to do remember elections have consequence’s……….

  19. AZbiker says:

    As I stated in my letter to the AZ Dept of Weights & Measures, PE is a violation of OUR Sixth Amendment rights. We have the right to face our accuser in court and that is not possible when the “accuser” is an electronic device. How can that possibly be argued?

    • ProCamera says:

      The camera did not accuse you. The Auditor that issued the notice of violation from the evidence gatheed by use of a camera is your accuser. Subpoena them to court to testify of what they saw in evidence. And don’t be surprised when they bring maintenance records and violation rates for the camera, and video of what certain speeds look like on video at the site, etc… as evidcen against you.

      • LoneWolf says:

        The cameras may as well accuse people. The only witnesses in these cases are people who witnessed photographs, not actual violations.

      • Will Kay says:

        ProCam,

        It is not considered Due Process unless you are PHYSICALLY SERVED by the one who WITNESSED the alleged incident, not a photo or streaming video clip of it. Know your Magna Carta based Constitutional rights. Is that “auditor” a sworn officer or agent of the state? By Arizona state law they must be. That ARS has been posted on this site several times.

  20. Sure says:

    Who, you are such a liar. What time was the incident and where were the children?

    Have you ever read the Ten Commandments? Lying is wrong, but since you work for Redflex there is no doubt you are a liar and the slime of the earth. When you get to hell the devil is going to rip your arms off and shove em your ass for such blatant lying.

  21. B says:

    110+ comments?

    I guess the word “failure” struck a chord with a couple of pro-camera types.

  22. Sure says:

    Redflex emplyoees are a perfect example of bad parenting as evidenced by Who. They haven’t any idea what integrity means.

    • who says:

      Then neither does any of the CF posters here that lie huh?! I remember how JGUNN had to get called out on a couple of his lies before he finally stopped, that was funny! Oh and ya, I’m going to hell… oooohhhh scared because SURE says so! I’m shaking like milk and crying so hurt because sure says I’m going to hell. Bully.
      Haha!

      • LoneWolf says:

        I remember when who was asked a lot of questions he never seemed to get around to answer. Hilarious! Did JGUNN stop because he was full of lies or did he stop because he realized how hopeless it is to say anything to trolls because they tend to take little things people say and blow them way out of proportion since (as weak as it is) it’s the only defense trolls have? You know, some people here have better things to do than feed the trolls all day long.

        • who says:

          Well, same reason I don’t reply to alot of nonsense, because it’s pointless to continue!
          You seeing yet how many things can go both directions?

          • LoneWolf says:

            But there’s a difference here. You see, we’re against cameras. This website is all about Camera Fraud. You are pro-camera. You need a website of your own to counter this one. There’s nothing you can say or do to change anybody’s mind. You’re just beating a dead horse here.

  23. LoneWolf says:

    From Ohio: Citizens speak out in county fair survey
    http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/4691271
    Quote: “Photo enforcement of traffic laws received about 30 percent support, with nearly 54 percent opposing and 16 percent with mixed views. The question was, “Do you support the use of photo enforcement, such as red light cameras, for traffic law enforcement?”” Of course, if they knew what we know about PE, the opposition would be much greater.

    • photoradarscam says:

      Thanks Lone… just in case people missed the first message for article…😉

      • LoneWolf says:

        Amazing how this figure differs from the make-believe Mickey Mouse polls. A simple yes/no question gets a completely different response.. who would’ve thought?😉

  24. photoradarscam says:

    Here’s another case of failure. Accidents increase 124% due to red light cameras: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2936.asp

    Of course, it’s a TN article so Procam will probably refuse to believe it even though the city’s report is attached to the article and available for download.

    And get this, the city wants MORE accidents on their streets. They are addicted to the revenue.

  25. mike says:

    I have a trial date set for next week for being ticketed by speed camera while driving a company truck. The truck I was driving is equiped with a govener which prevents vehicle from exceeding 60 miles per hour. The ticket claims I was photographed doing approx. 66 miles per hour. How do you suggest I present this in court and is it enough to drop the charge and dismiss?

    • LoneWolf says:

      That one could probably be tossed out. I’m no legal expert and I don’t know much about governors but I believe all you need is proof from your employer that the governor exists, the speed it’s set at, and if the vehicle is capable of reaching 66 mph whether on a slight downhill grade or flat stretch of road. They might request testing the truck. Your employer should help you out here. (Please don’t take this as legal advice.)

    • Jason says:

      At what location did you get the notice from? If you let everybody know that the particular camera is defective, really all tickets issued by that camera should be thrown out!

      Jason

    • Flexyemployee says:

      what the video. sometimes they have mutiple cars in the frame so they use the one with the best picture. they should be dismissing this as mutiple cars in the frame per the procedural manuel

  26. Steve says:

    i really hope no business hires former redflex employees. They should all be blacklisted. I would neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr hire anybody with ATS/Redflex on there resumes

  27. Jokn says:

    I’m against photo camera’s in any form I was just in show low and I swear I seen them Installing new camera’s just before you get to route 60 on 260 If this Is such a big failure why the new equipement……

    • Ernest Hater says:

      Show Low is also using the cameras to track the movement of vehicles throughout Show Low. All the cameras being installed there are going to have APNR – Automatic Plate Number Recognition – in them which is going to link to a central database for tracking movement.

  28. who says:

    Jokn,
    If speeding and redlight running were not an issue, there would be no camera’s! It doesn’t take a vote to get rid of cameras, it just takes people slowing down and actually stopping at reds! Easy huh?

    • LoneWolf says:

      Same ol repetitive BS. If you’re wondering why some of us give up responding to posts like this, it’s because we’re tired of repeating the 21 other reasons why we oppose it. http://files.meetup.com/1275333/21%20reasons%20to%20oppose%20photo%20radar_V1.doc

      • who says:

        Repetitive BS?
        So if camera’s are all about the $$$, then how is people slowing down, and stopping at reds bs? If there’s no violations, there’s no buisness, there’s no camera’s… no money….no camera’s, no violations, no money, no camera’s… getting it yet?

        • LoneWolf says:

          You’re the one who doesn’t get it. Many articles were posted on this website that points out the negative aspects of red light scameras. Need I repeat them? You’ve seen them but yet you discount them because in your mind, fraud doesn’t happen. More accidents don’t happen because of the red light scameras. Nobody ever runs red lights anymore since the scameras are there. Scameras never malfunction. Need I say more? You’re an idiot if you believe in the false stats made up by both a money-hungry state and a profit-driven company that runs these things.

  29. vee says:

    I don’t have time to read through all the comments online regarding this issue (146), but I am very interested in working a petition for anyone who is opposed to Redflex. Currently, I’m working to gather signatures for the Arizona Medical Marajuana Act. I am very MUCH interested in working more than one issue at the same time. If anyone reading this could steer me towards the group or person who I could contact that covers this issue, it would very much appreciated. Thank you!!

    • LoneWolf says:

      There’s a join tab up on top. Just sign up and you can meet others on the meetup forum for Camera Fraud. But just a small note about who we are.. we’re opposed to photo enforcement in general which includes Redflex, ATS, Gatso, and whatever other company is out there.. We currently have a petition going to get photo enforcement on the ballot so registered voters can decide for themselves whether photo enforcement goes or stays in Arizona.

  30. vee says:

    I meant to say…it would BE very much appreciated. Thanks!!!

  31. Mike McDooby says:

    Looks like people in Ohio are gearing up to vote down photo radar: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2937.asp

  32. Chris says:

    Hi Everyone –

    I just received my first photo speeding ticket in the mail from the city of El Mirage. I have been doing a lot of research about this topic: Do I need to take care of the ticket now or wait to be served by an officer of the court?

    I have already reviewed the video on the website and scheduled defensive driving class. I guess all the “mumbo-jumbo” on the ticket scared me at first.

    Can someone lead me in the right direction?

    Thanks.

    • The Keeper of the Seven Keys says:

      >>> I have already reviewed the video on the website
      huh… you shouldn’t do that. I guess you’ve entered some kind of unique ID (password, link, whatever)which might be provable known only to recipient of notice and server obviously flagged that.

  33. jim says:

    if you viewed the video on the website you acknowledged service

  34. Chris says:

    But reviewing a video is not an officer of the court, correct? Sure, I understand I acknowledged the receipt of the ticket (if that is true about the website), but I thought AZ law states you need to be served by an officer of the court for a ticket to be valid?

  35. Freedom says:

    I heard that in Australia (home of RedFlex) that if you don’t pay the ticket they send someone to your house and they will take your flat screen TV or something of value equal to the ticket amount or court fine you owe. The items are stored in a wharehouse until you pay. Well now that is just not going to work that way here! Go back to Australia! Let FREEDOM ring!

  36. Freedom says:

    I heard that the ticket information is electronically fed to the Superior Court from Red Flex. I believe if you can avoid the process server for 120 days, the court sends a letter and then — its “auto magically” dismissed! Can anyone confirm this information?

  37. […] Other recent failed ticketing robberies include beleaguered Redflex Group’s statewide Arizona effort. […]

  38. Chris says:

    But reviewing a video is not an officer of the court, correct? Sure, I understand I acknowledged the receipt of the ticket (if that is true about the website), but I thought AZ law states you need to be served by an officer of the court for a ticket to be valid?

  39. […] Let us not forget or allow any politician from this day forward in any city, in any state, to ignore what even Redflex’s own investors referred to as “an expensive failure.” […]

  40. 14 MP Digital Camera…

    […]Redflex Investors Call AZ Program “Failure” « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

  41. Garmin ForeRunner 305 Moins Cher…

    […]Redflex Investors Call AZ Program “Failure” « CameraFRAUD.com – The Cameras are Coming Down[…]…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: