Photo Radar: Discredited, Pt. 1

itsfraudCameraFRAUD is proud to introduce Photo Radar: Discredited, a new series dedicated to factually debunking the automated ticketing industry’s half-truths and misinformation.

This series will pose common arguments used by proponents of automated ticketing and allow YOU to submit your response in the comments section. The best comments and responses will later be added to the original article, creating a powerful reader-created collaborative work available for future public reference.

Part One: The Claim: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.”

The Facts: –discussion is open, submit your response below in comments section—

73 Responses to Photo Radar: Discredited, Pt. 1

  1. Will Kay says:

    Whatever I’m not doing, and it’s not likely at all to be illegal, corrupt, unethical, or even immoral, no form of government has the right to monitor my actions or judge me in ANY way. I am not perfect, but I sure as hell don’t need to be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

  2. metelhed says:

    Who’s to say I’m not doing wrong yet still receiving a ticket two weeks later? Not many people have the time or the money to properly fight an undeserved ticket. I know of two people (One is an extremely cautious 71 year old man) who have received violations they didn’t deserve but decided to pay after being served as they knew the odds were stacked against them.

    For-profit companies are for-profit for a reason.

    • ProCamera says:

      In this case, I would suggest that your friend. The 71 year old man. He should contact “3 on your side” to do their investigation of the matter. Let them get inside info on the camera company. let them use their legal devision to get FOIA requests on equipment maintenance and Calibration readings (Variances between checks,etc…) Let them do the legwork to find the errors that you all are quoting are happening in the system.

      You know that any reporter worth their salt would gladly take on the request to show the corrupt cameras in the light of day.

      Or has that already been done and found to have no basis with reality? That even though the people hear claim there is fraud inherrent in the system, it actually doesn’t exist.

      • metelhed says:

        If you had read my comment all the way through, you would have read he had already been served and decided it was cheaper to just pay the ticket than fight it in court. And before you dare call this man a liar, he is my father, and I’ve watched him drive (and been in a vehicle with him) for years now. The machine that ticketed him was a camera that has been in place for months and he had intimate knowledge of its placement, as it’s on his way to church. I’d place everything I own on the line that his word is true, so consider any reply of yours carefully. The other person is a co-worker, so while I don’t have the years of relationship, I do know the person well enough to know they’re honest enough to tell the truth about something like this.

      • metelhed says:

        I neglected to point out your suggestion to call “3 on your side” is ludicrous. It’s one man’s word against a multi-national corporation with a vested interest in preserving their profits, and much of the media (as well as the politicians) in this state has shown a reluctance to fairly report on this matter. Where was the coverage of Peoria’s unbiased study on the cameras they’ve installed? Why is it Phoenix has never released statistics on the cameras they’ve installed? Why did the media fall over themselves repeating the DPS press release that stated the cameras were responsible for the drop in fatalities in 2008 but neglected to mention the other important factors such as gasoline prices, the economy, unemployment, etc? That DPS press release was discredited by even AAA, an organization IN FAVOR of the cameras. Americans are blinded by and to the corruption that runs rampant in our country, and it continually surprises me how ignorant people can be.

        • Will Kay says:

          metelhed, ProCamera is a traffic company employee. The IP address that PC uses comes from Mesa. Anything that he/she says is gonna have a bias to it because of where the paycheck comes from. I wholeheartedly agree with you that these cameras malfunction, as the same has happened to me and friends of mine, and why wouldn’t they since no one is there to say otherwise? The Dept. of Weights and Measures won’t even touch their equipment, citing lack of funds for resources. That says a lot to me.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Where there’s money involved, the less the public knows about equipment malfunctions and bad calibrations, the better. It increases their chances of making that money no matter how dirty it is. How often does the state or the scamera companies report these issues to the public? They figure that we’re just a bunch of unsuspecting suckers who’ll never notice. And I don’t think 3 on your side would devote someone to specifically focus on scamera issues minute after minute, hour after hour, and day after day. By the time we’d wish to report something (after receiving the ticket 14 – 30 days after being flashed) the equipment would probably be fixed.

  3. This is the kind of myopic viewpoint that has our country into so much trouble right now. The assertion assumes that these cameras are reliable and never make mistakes. They do, and innocent drivers are ticketed all of the time.

    The assertion assumes that the camera companies are honest. They are not, and they have been found guilty of falsifying court documents and altering equipment, as well as breaking state and federal laws.

    The assertion ignores the fact that the program is illegal (unconstitutional) to begin with and that due process rights are severely diminished.

    The assertion ignores the fact that these cameras are an invasion of privacy, and not in the way that you are thinking. Supporters don’t seem to mind the fact that the the driver is the registered owner only 72% of the time, and thus the cameras punish the wrong person more than 1 in 4 times.

    Finally, ALL DRIVERS are affected by the HIGHER accident rates caused by scameras.

    • Sure says:

      Recnetly, DPS came out to the media and said that photo radar cameras decreased accidents by 22%. I think that is what they said. Has anyone looked at that data?

      • The data is incomplete and hardly comprehensive. Primarily, it reflects similar trends seen in nearby states that DO NOT use cameras, such as Nevada.

        Second, without traffic volume consideration, it’s really difficult to tell if reductions are a result of less traffic, less-dense traffic, or recent laws like harsher DUI laws and laws affecting young/new drivers.

  4. mike says:

    Funny no one mentions all of the ADOT cameras that have way better resolution on our hwys running 24/7. That news coverage showing police pursuits, yep not photo radar, ADOT! Why hasnt CF picketed ADOT? These cameras are more of an invasion for the “non violator” then photo radar. No warning signs, no governing details on how long they store this data or what they use it for?? And what about the states plate readers? (no not photo radar, seperate cameras not related to any of these vendors) You guys need to focus on ALL cameras.

    • AFAIK, the ADOT cams are not attached to automatic ID tracking and monitoring systems. This is the big, critical difference.

    • The Keeper of the Seven Keys says:

      >>> ADOT cameras that have way better resolution
      That statement does not reflect reality. Most of ’em aren’t able to capture stream or stills with resolution good enough even for recognition of vehicle make – they are monitoring _flow_ of traffic.

    • who says:

      I would challenge anyone to find one of the videos released by the PE companies, and pick out a face through the windshield or a plate on a car. There simply isn’t enough resolution to do either. Especially in a vehicle that’s moving. The video’s are there for the same basic reason the ADOT camera’s are in place. To show video of the vehicle that violated the speed limit, moving past the PE vehicle.

      Adot camera’s are the same, low framerate, low resolution, just a wider eye higher in the sky.

      Plate recognition camera’s are obviously much higher resolution, but do not record video. It’s video stream goes straight to a computer with optical character recognition, that does only that, not record video.

      • Glyph says:

        I would challenge anyone to get a copy of video from a PE company, period! They’re not exactly forthcoming with things like that, and I doubt that the video one gets of their ‘violation’ is in the original resolution.

        • who says:

          Well, there’s been video released to the public of a car hitting a bus head on, there was still shots and video released of the guy’s vehicle that murdered Doug G. a great guy who was just trying to support his family. I’m sure there’s a few more, but those two come to mind. Oh hey, and you brought up a good one, check the video’s of your violations. Could you recognize a face or plate from those video’s? Oh ya and there’s the video’s from redflex’s own sight showing red light runners.

          • LoneWolf says:

            One thing that you need to realize about those videos is that when a video is posted on a website, it is highly compressed, downsized, and resolution is decreased. This is so the video can download quickly on the internet and without using up too much bandwidth. The original video is a large file, is much clearer, and finer details can often be seen.

    • Brent says:


      ADOT cameras are run by ADOT, not RedFlex or ATS.. This alone makes them significantly less of an issue. And they’re not high-resolution; just there to detect and veiw traffic backups and wrecks.

      • mike says:

        So if the state owns the camera now its ok to video tape me?? NO! All that means is redflex or ATS can sell the equipment to the state like some contracts already are and its ok? And they do the same thing as the video from the camera people. It videos me going by from the rear of my car. Niether one has my plate, neither time did I do anything wrong. But for the state its Ok??

    • LoneWolf says:

      See my response under Mrs B’s post. There’s a link you might check out to see what kind of images those cameras produce. I’m not in the least bit concerned about them.

    • metelhed says:

      In addition to the above comments, ADOT cameras also only face one direction (AFAIK). As Arizona has not mandated license plates be mounted in front, the cameras are practically useless for identification purposes.

      • mike says:

        and this is different from the photo peoples video cameras how??? The photo camera videos only tape the rear of my car same as ADOT

  5. Geoff says:

    Hold on a second Mike. The Adot cameras are placed fairly high above the freeways, and last I checked they took “still” images. Regardless of the resolution, the vantage points of most of the Adot cameras are much further away and cannot identify your license plate, or you. They provide a general view of the freeway for commuter use, and to dispatch emergency responders to accidents quicker.

    Redflex’s cameras stream 24/7 up-close video of you and your car. The Redflex cameras simpy put are far more invasive.

    Camera fraud has posted at least one article on the plate readers, and I agree with you on that.

    • mike says:

      obviously you havent seen an actual video from a photo camera. Its not up close, you cant make out a plate, and its from the rear so you cant see who’s in the car.

      Both operate 24/7, both record, whats the difference??

  6. Christy Brand says:

    Maybe I’m missing something here… but I’ve gotten about 40 of these “Tickets” since I moved here 3 years ago, and never even considered paying one of them. Suffice to say I have a crystal clear driving record. Maybe if people would stop paying for tickets that weren’t served on them, they would stop this anyways because of the lack of funds coming in.

    • Jason says:

      Christy, I am glad that you have not paid your scam tickets sent to you by the state and Redflex. The problem is that you run the risk of being served by a process server. I have been served unfortunately. It is best to not open your door to people you don’t know during the last 60-120 days of when you can be served. The judge can also approve something called alternative method of service governed under rule 4.1 and 4.2 of the Civil rules. This has actually happened to some drivers and they went around not knowing that their lisence had been suspended. So, Great job not paying them, but it would be wise to join in the fight to bring them down since it sounds like you believe as we do that the cameras are nothing but a money making scam. And I for one do not approve of surveillance upon the people. We have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and surveillance is a search!

  7. Stephen says:

    You have everything to worry about. You have a device that is DEPENDENT upon violations for its very existance. Just like the RLC where the vendors and cities have been busted shortening yellow lights, there has been evidence on this very site of warning signs of photo enforcement moved, “temporary speed limit reduction” signs put up for no aparent reason (even hidden). Even towns like Mesa that not only reduced their speed limits but their trigger speeds by 5 mph. This was not for safety, it was done to churn tickets! In fact in RedFlex’s home country, the camera vendors are routinely ticketing people for 2 to 3 mph violations. Beyond any drivers ability to comply.

    • Camera Hater says:

      Right on the money, Stephen!! In fact, here in my state in the penal colony of Australia, the tolerance is 2 km/h (slightly over 1 mph). So if you exceed the limit by 2 mph, even for a second, you will get a ticket. AND, even worse, they have point to point cameras on some major interstates that have NO TOLERANCE WHATSOEVER. Digital licence plate recognition technology registers the time you drive up the on-ramp, and the time you exit. If at any stage you have exceeeded the limit by so much as 1 km/h, you will be mailed a ticket (and no rules regarding service – once Redflex puts it in the mail you are deemed to have been served). These b*st*rds are so greedy, we have even had people convicted of running red lights, when all they were doing was getting out of the way of fire trucks and ambulances! (i.e. entered, but did not cross, the intersection)

      So keep fighting, Camera Fraud!! And God bless America!! At least Americans have the backbone to fight this crap!

  8. Cathy says:

    “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you don’t have anything to worry about” implies that all common-sense traffic engineering solutions have been implemented.

    However, in the case of red light cameras (at least in Tucson), traffic engineering solutions are INTENTIONALLY ignored so as to provide unpredictable, ill-defined intersections with short yellow lights, so as to ticket thousands of drivers a month who UNintentionally “run” the red light, so as to create massive amounts of revenue.

    I would encourage anyone who thinks they have nothing to worry about since they follow the law to frequent the corner of Oracle and River. That intersection has a way of changing people’s minds.

    • I drove down to Benson yesterday and it was ridiculous. I tried to catch ever speed limit sign but there were still several places where I was unsure if I had missed one and didn’t know what speed I *should* be driving. I also can’t count the number of times where the speed limit dropped for no apparent reason for a few miles, only to be adjusted back upward again. A few times my passengers asked, “why is the limit so low here?” as well as plenty of other comments about the sheer number of speed cams and what is definitely some kind of ridiculous level of obsession over revenue generation, I mean speed enforcement.

      • LoneWolf says:

        I come across that quite often too. I remember a few roads leading out of the city where the first speed limit sign I’ve seen was something like 45 mph but then a couple of miles down the road, cars are flying past me. Then a few more miles down the road, I see a sign with 65 mph. Did I miss a sign in between? If I’m on some unknown road, I always look for the speed limit signs.

        The signage certainly sucks in various places throughout this state. I’ve also found myself making last minute left or right turns because there were no signs posted in advance giving me direction to certain freeways, cities, or attractions. People who find themselves in these predicaments could become easy prey to photo enforcement.

  9. Marc 85901 says:

    I have heard rumors that Homeland Security AND the National Security Agency has contracted with photo-radar outfits to use their cameras to SPY on we the people. Is this true?

    It would definitely generate an ongoing revenue stream for these outfits—especially if enough people raise enough of a stink so they DON’T dare to set their cameras to trip right at or even BELOW the posted speed limits!

    • Will Kay says:

      That’s exactly the kind of actions that the government is taking against its citizens, and it won’t stop, yet most still choose to believe we at are nothing but a bunch of tin hat wearing kooks.

  10. Mrs. B says:

    Thank you CameraFraud for all you’ve done in uncovering Redflex’s sorry track record. It helps me to answer Claim #1:

    –These cameras malfunction (or are ‘allowed’ to malfunction) a huge percentage of the time creating thousands of false tickets which no one can refute because the camera is the only source of information.

    –It’s too easy for corrupt systems to rake in extreme amounts of cash without anyone knowing except the individuals ticketed, who have no way of contacting one another or creating oversight.

    –Redlight cameras aid and abet political crime.

    The ADOT cameras… does anyone know where the feeds go? Who is watching them? What are they looking for? How is the data logged? Can we be sure the information will not be used by a political regime now or in the future?

    I will be investigating this in my corner of AZ where they just installed them on top of high light poles at a major intersection. We have a right to know who is watching us. And why. And who else could potentially have access to the feeds or the data they create.

    The entire ‘justice’ system is ‘just the opposite’. (hello ‘1984’) It’s completely money-based, from traffic tickets up to incarceration. Corrupt governments and their corporate cronies benefit financially at every tier. It’s in their best interest to find ALL of us guilty of something and eventually lock us up in their incredibly profitable prison systems. Revenue, it’s all about revenue.

    Read former HUD secretary Catherine Austin Fitts’ online book at www-dot-dunwalke-dot-com to see how the prison system is tied to HUD which is a giant slush fund for money laundering of federal drug running profits at every level in every community in America. Publically-traded private prisons are the backbone of the stock market and the whole economy. Slavery is always the most profitable enterprise.

    • LoneWolf says:

      The traffic cameras just take an overhead shot of the freeways. I don’t see those as a threat of any kind. Their purpose is mainly to monitor the flow of traffic, watch for accidents & other hazardous conditions, but certainly not to issue any tickets. Whether or not they’d use the cameras for tracking, I don’t know. But I doubt it since most shots are wide angle and it’s hard to see vehicle details. You can see pics from these cams by clicking on the traffic camera tab and then hovering your mouse over the camera icons.

  11. Dan G says:

    There is much to be feared from the mentality of government going after its citizens when government is fiscally irresponsible.

    “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” with a responsible government is an accurate phrase.

    With an irresponsible government like we now have, the phrase needs to be corrected to read, “If you’re not doing anything wrong, we’ll change the rules until you are…”

    For example, take a look at some of our intersections with huge honking cameras on every corner. Are they trying to catch criminals or create them? I contend they are trying to create criminals. The cameras need to come down!

  12. Jeff M says:

    Question–how short a distance is it from a speed camera mounted on the side of the road to a
    traffic control monitoring device’ mounted inside our car that sites us for everything form tailgating to close, not coming to an absolute complete stop at a every stop sign, to sneezing to loud while driving, etc.? I mean seriously, that’s the next step…right?

    It’s amazing the amount of data that a cars computer gathers these days and we already have cameras on cars, motion sensors (backup warning and auto parking), and ‘On Star’. Combine all of these technologies together for government purposes???? It wouldn’t be difficult folks.

  13. Dr Jett says:

    If you’re not doing anything wrong, then consider this: ‘In 2005, the city (Costa Mesa, Ca) lost a major court battle when the California Supreme Court declined to overturn a decision slamming the city for ignoring a state law regarding red light camera warning periods. The city was also caught issuing tickets at an intersection with an illegally short yellow time. (creating dangerous intersections)
    The police department recommended that the city council consider returning to traditional enforcement with live police officers.’
    Southwest Quick Throttle Magazine 10/09
    This is only one example of the many violations by cities and states around the country reported by a motorcycle publication about stomping on citizens rights. There are SO MANY EXAMPLES OF FRAUD that have been exposed by different news agencies that it is interesting to look at the news archives to read more of them. Our ‘legislative hacks’ just want to guarantee their salaries at the expense of the citizens and these CROOKS need to be replaced with representatives that uphold the rights of their constituents.

  14. LoneWolf says:

    This phrase gets tossed around a lot by alleged law abiding citizens. “Don’t speed and you won’t have anything to worry about”. “Don’t run red lights and you have nothing to worry about”.

    It sounds like such an easy solution if only there was a such thing as consistency across every single city and every single state. As an example, in Phoenix, people turning left go first. In Scottsdale, they go last. I can imagine there’ve been incidents in Scottsdale where drivers thought their turn was up and ran the red arrow. Another example is that yellow lights tend to be longer on side streets than they are on main intersections. Drivers are left with little expectation on how long the next yellow light they come across will last. The same holds true for green and red lights. Some last a lot longer than others. Then poor engineering takes place at some intersections. Where there’s high traffic, every light should have turning arrows. For intersections that have no right turn on red, there should be right-turn arrows that turn red since a lot of people tend to miss the sign that says no turn..

    What is the waiting time when you come to a stop on a red light and are going to make a right turn? A rolling stop is illegal but I’ve heard from some that it’s supposed to be 15 seconds. Others have said 5. I thought it was 3 seconds. Cameras shouldn’t be set up to flash people making right-turns. In most cases, people just go as soon as they see an opening. There shouldn’t be any tickets issued on left-hand turns where there is no arrow. Here again, there’s inconsistency on left-hand turns. I’ve heard from some people who’ve taken the classes that you’re not supposed to pull out in the intersection when making a left turn. I’ve heard others say you can pull out but no more than a car length. The way I was taught in driver’s ed years and years ago was to pull out a little ways into the intersection and then make the turn when safe to do so. People often get honked at when they don’t pull out into the intersection.

    Speeding: What happened to reasonable and prudent speed? Going with the flow? More inconsistency.. Most of our freeways have 3 lanes. There’s a right lane for turning off of the freeway or just going slower for whatever reason. There’s a middle lane which acts as a happy medium for normal flowing traffic and for merging left or right. Then there’s a left lane, often referred to as the hammer lane. Each lane has its own specific flow of speed. The right is supposed to be the slowest just as the left is supposed to be the fastest. There’s nothing more frustrating than having a slow-poke driver in front of you when you’re in the hammer lane. Where people complain about speeders, speeders complain about slow-pokes. Slow-pokes pose a danger to those who are in the hammer lane. They disrupt the flow and cause many to slam their brakes because slow-pokes are often unpredictable with their driving habits. Photo enforcement, on the other hand, disrupts everything. The normal ‘comfortable’ flow comes to a halt as soon as people approach the scameras. Some people drive way under the speed limit because they’re very shy of these things. I’ve seen them flash at people doing the speed limit so it’s a no wonder why some people go under the speed limit. The inconsistency also lies in the fact that only a portion of a freeway is being enforced. When cops patrol the freeways, they go anywhere and everywhere. People see the cameras in certain spots and then slow down. But they speed back up to the normal flow as soon as they pass them. The cameras serve no purpose other than to disrupt a normal flow of traffic.

    Because of this inconsistency and bad engineering, it’s obvious that the cameras are set up to prey upon mistakes that people make. Most people just want a normal system that they can rely on to be the same no matter where they go. Cameras make a lot of people nervous although many have just learned to ignore them. Don’t do anything wrong and you have nothing to worry about certainly doesn’t apply here. People have expectations and the scam companies together with the gov knows about this so what better way to exploit peoples’ mistakes than to make a profit off of them?

    • LoneWolf says:

      And I forgot to mention that this is only one point of view. I agree with the other problems people here are pointing out as well.

    • ProCamera says:


      Ignorance of the law is not a defense. It is your responsibility, as a driver, to know the laws and abide by them. So if you don’t know the stop times required for turning right on red, then you need to look it up before you get caught.

      • LoneWolf says:

        I did look it up. I must be blind because I didn’t see it under ARS anywhere. Same with pulling out into the intersection when making a left-hand turn. If these are actually written as city ordinances rather than state laws, then this is exactly what I’m referring to when it comes to consistency. Is it at all possible that people learn differently just as lots of judges have their own interpretation of various laws? Is every judge consistent from one case to the next?

        I live in Phoenix. If I wish to drive through Scottsdale, why should I need to know or learn a whole new set of additional traffic laws? If I drive across the country, why should I need to know all the laws of every single city and state I drive through? Sure, the basics are the same. Red means stop. Green means go. But there are other variances in traffic laws that aren’t consistent with those of other cities and states. In some states, you can’t make a right turn on green. In some states, the front plate is still mandatory. And why is it that a ticket from PE is only $50 in some states but here it’s $200? Wouldn’t “consistency” make more logical sense? Would it help reduce accidents? Is it possible that the number of citations might go down across the country if every city and state was consistent with the traffic laws?

      • metelhed says:

        Believing every law is black and white with no room for extenuating circumstances is ignorant in itself. People make mistakes. People err. That’s part of being human. Installing soulless machines to watch over humans and issue citations for petty mistakes that, for the vast VAST majority of the time, don’t produce any troubles or issues with anyone else is going to pressure people into making more mistakes. As far as the “stop times” go, there isn’t anything more specific than ARS 28-645(b) “The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.” There is nothing specific about time, one just needs to come to a complete stop.

        • LoneWolf says:

          Procam should take us for a ride sometime. I could just imagine how many mistakes he’d make because of nervousness knowing that he’d have to follow the law to the “T” just like he claims to when he posts here.

  15. Camera Hater says:

    You make some great points, Lone Wolf. A very thoughtful and well-argued post. I think the other aspect of the “don’t speed and you have nothing to worry about” is the issue of arbitrariness in speed limits. Sorry to keep quoting the Australian example, however we seem to have the worst “traffic Taliban” in the world, so we represent the threat of what things could be like in America one day.

    The arbitrariness issue is critical, in generating a continuing revenue stream for Redflex (and the Government). What happens here is that cameras go up, and people eventually get used to them, and the revenue tapers off. Then some (camera revenue funded) academic calls for lower limits, using manipulated statistics as a justification. Limits come down, and in come the dollars again. And so it goes.

    The end stage is that limits get so low as to be unsustainable, and EVERYONE is forced to break the law. Sounds alarmist, but here we have a heavy push for 20 mph main road limits and a 30 mph limit on ALL freeways (even those designed for 80-90 mph traffic!). It’s being driven by an unholy alliance of the camera companies, greedy politicians, academics on the take, and a consortium of wingnut anti-car groups like cyclist organisations and pedestrian lobbyists. They have made it crystal clear that, like Scandinavia, they are aiming at a ZERO road toll, and are prepared to do whatever it takes, however maniacal, to achieve that impossible goal.

    “Don’t break the law and you have nothing to fear” is a smokescreen, straight out of Germany in the 1930s. It ignores the fallibility and greed of government, the ethical vacuum that is so many corporations, and the fact that the avalanche of fine revenue is distorting the machinery of enforcement.

    • LoneWolf says:

      That’s terrible. Don’t Australian citizens have the right to stand up against this tyranny or are they all afraid of the Australian gov? Or could it be that they’re brainwashed by a gov & corporation that keeps insisting it’s all for safety’s sake? I’d suggest we resort back to the horse and buggy days but riding a horse or stagecoach has its dangers too. We could also do like some Asian countries and just ride bikes. That way, it’ll be much harder for us to leave our communist countries… but there’s safety issues with those as well. I lost count of all the skinned elbows and knees I got from riding them. But seriously, people need to wake up and understand what exactly is going on here. People need to take control of their governments, not the other way around.

      The couple of brainwashed sheep we have posting here certainly don’t mind it if the gov takes total control. These are the same people who’d gladly sell our liberties to the communists. If the day ever came where we the people waged war against our gov, people like that should stay far far away from those of us who like to excercize our second amendment rights. I hope that time never comes but if these sheeple keep pushing it, it will.

      • Camera Hater says:

        Hey, Lone Wolf. That’s actually a VERY good question you ask. For all the Crocodile Dundee b/s about Australians being laid back, individualistic and “lovable rogues”, nothing could be further than the truth.

        There’s a real submissiveness to Government and “the Law is the Law” (however ridiculous) mentality here that they don’t put in the tourism ads. I do think the problem lies in history – Australia wasn’t settled by maverick Puritans, or rugged individualists. It was established by the British Government.

        Sadly, we do have a lot of brainwashed sheep here, prepared to let the Government do their thinking for them, and respond with a “how high, sir?” when the Nanny State says “Jump!”

        As for that especially sensible act of the Founding Fathers, the Second Amendment – my guns, along with those of millions of other law abiding Aussie shooters were forcibly confiscated back in 96. Swords, bowie knives, and even sharp screw drivers in your trunk are illegal here (believe it or not).

        Needless to say, I LOVE my trips to the US, and have been known to regale my fellow drinkers in bars in places like Chicago, NYC and San Fran with the “sad reality”. (And yes, if I was 20 years younger and single, I WOULD be seeking to emigrate!).

  16. Just do what they ask and you have nothing to worry about.

    Just take this vaccine and you have nothing to worry about.

    Just carry your ID and you have nothing to worry about.

    Just pay your taxes and you have nothing to worry about.

    Just move into our FEMA camp and you have nothing to worry about.

    • LoneWolf says:

      Nicely put. Basically, just surrender your freedom along with the constitution then let the government control your life completely and you have nothing to worry about.

      Just die and you’ll never have to worry about anything ever again.

  17. ProCamera says:

    I guess this would be the wrong place to mention that you don’t have a right to privacy on a publicly funded roadway in a publicly licensed vehicle that is required to have a clear windshield and is limited on the amount of tint that can be used on side windows.

    Driving on public roads is a Priveledge, not a right. You pay for that priveledge by paying for, testing, and obtaining a driver’s license. You also pay for it by paying for, having the vehicle inspected for safety devices (Lights, mirrors, emmissions) and displaying that sticker on the license plate that is renewed yearly. Violation of the rules governing use of the roadway will cost money and can revoke the priveledge to use those roads.

    Cameras help enforce those rules that you agree to obey when you obtain a license.

    • gimme a break says:

      You have got to be kidding me… the idea of driving aka freedom of movement, being a privilege has been distorted for years just to allow and create legal loopholes for speed traps and other money grabbing scams. The real law of the land says I have the “RIGHT” to travel freely (See US constitution…), the right, not the privilege, and the more we listen to the hogwash about freedom of movement being relegated to a “privilege” in this country the worse things like this are going to get. Its a complete lie that serves only the tellers not America as a whole. If you tell a lie long enough some people are bound to start believing it.

      • Will Kay says:

        Pro Cam, read your Constitution. If you don’t like what it says, or even understand it, go live somewhere where there is no Constitution and the government tracks every move you make, say, Britian or Austrailia. I am WELL AWARE of my rights and freedoms, and they are GUARANTEED to me in my beloved Constitution. I don’t need a government telling me when I am right and when I am wrong. My tax money allows me to use the roads that are built for the benefit of all, and I sure as hell know FOR A FACT that being tracked and monitored is a clear violation of my rights. I have a right to privacy WHEREVER I GO!!!

        You, your cameras, and the company you work for can all fuck off!

    • Dr Jett says:

      Pro cam,
      Scameras have 1 purpose; REVENUE. I made it easy for you by including the source of the article about the FRAUD being perpetrated by the City of Costa Mesa, Ca in my earlier response. You can even check out the California State Supreme Court Rulings showing how Costa Mesa is desperately trying to justify their FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES.
      ‘The (city) report cherry-picked data. Even with cherry-picked locations, the total number of accidents increased 13% while the camera-free intersections experienced a 5% decrease. Rear end collisions also jumped 20% with cameras and dropped 10% without, a finding consistent with a number of independent studies of the effects of red light camera use.’
      As independent studies show, cameras help enforce rules that make driving more dangerous in Arizona, therefore if we REMOVE CAMERAS then we can make driving SAFER IN ARIZONA.

    • Yes, but I DO have a right to travel about our city, state, and country without being tracked and recorded. Why does the government or anyone need to know where and when I go somewhere? The information is no one’s business.

      • Pink says:

        soon we’ll be wearing barcoded t-shirts so the cameras can call us by our proper names

        • Camera Hater says:

          Or we’ll be micro-chipped, and tracked, so that every single moving violation can be identified and fines levied… Oh, and they won’t have to worry about serving you… the chip will lead them right to you.

    • LoneWolf says:

      So you honestly don’t mind driving along and some trucker looks down at your wife’s panties. Or you don’t mind if some perv drives by and snaps a picture of your kids in the back seat. And you wouldn’t mind if someone follows you around so they can listen in on your conversations. Just because you’re driving along a public road doesn’t mean you have no privacy. Should we all have a cop ride along with us to make sure we’re doing everything legal? Since you’re not private, wouldn’t you want one? You might put a little thought into these things before you jump to conclusions…

    • Cathy says:

      Which rules do the cameras enforce, ProCamera? The one that’s stated in the Arizona Drivers’ License Manual that says you are required to stop at the stop mark for red lights? Or maybe ARS 28-641?

      Please enlighten me. Because in light of the photo radar cameras, I see no signs at all of various pertinent “rules.”

      • LoneWolf says:

        Procam and who like to hit and run. Neither one of them like to answer questions that, with a little bit of research, contradict their pro-scamera hype.

    • B says:

      “I guess ..(ill-placed, pompous monologuing).. you don’t have a right to privacy on a publicly funded roadway…”
      Where’s this argument going to be when speed cameras are put up on privately funded toll roads?

      “Driving on public roads is a Priveledge, not a right. ”
      Two things, ProCamera:

      1) This has nothing to do with the original topic (i.e. the “Part One”).
      2) This statement is self-evident and has NOTHING to do with the pros/cons of photo enforcement.

      On your, “Cameras help enforce those rules that you agree to obey when you obtain a license,” statement, it isn’t a statement of fact… For example, since when did cameras help us drive a speed that is “reasonable and prudent”, which is an Arizona “rule” about speed?

      Therefore, it is only your opinion.

      BTW – that entire line of arguing is so simplistic and beneath the intellectual level of most other arguments that are presented here that it is really nothing more than trolling. (And no, “simplistic” != simple yet elegant truth…)

      I tell you what PC – Why don’t you just save us your memorized, peeped, plagiarized, and previously debunked arguments, and just blurt out how you really feel in frustration: “ALL YOU CRIMINALS JUST WANT TO SPEED!!”… Can you do that, so we can pat you on the head and give you a toy from the $0.99 store so we can move on to “Part Two”?

  18. B says:

    “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.”
    That is a dangerous – and quite frankly, stupid and short-sighted – assumption to make.

    Why? Because the assumption that the “power” (in this case the government) that decides what is “doing anything wrong” always has a moral system that 1) is flawless, and 2) agrees with you about what is wrong.

    What happens when you and the government don’t agree? In the end it doesn’t even matter whether you or the government are right or not because the government will have been allowed to hold all the power – IF nobody stands up to them.

  19. James says:

    I see another issue with cameras. Let’s just say, everyone drives 5 MPH below the speed limit and cameras are not able to take anyone’s pictures.

    Cameras are up and someone needs to pay to keep them running. Who will it be? Taxpayer? That does not sound right, cameras cannot be used for public benefit, let’s say for arresting a violent criminal or handling a domestic disturbance, for example.

    Who would pay for the cameras if they are not able to bust anyone?

    On the other hand, if police officers are not able to ticket traffic violators, we still need police for many other needs. In one example, if a traffic light is broken, officers are usually there directing traffic, possibly preventing an injury or worse. If a vehicle is broken and sits in a middle of a road, again, police comes to direct traffic around it to prevent more problems. Can a photo enforcement do any of that? I think not.

    Having police officers justifies spending tax dollars. Having photo cameras does not.

    • LoneWolf says:

      Yup, freedom to drink and drive with no cops around for miles gives off such a wonderful sense of safety to all those families that drive the roads in the White Mountains, doesn’t it? No wonder some people would rather see more cameras than cops. The last time I checked, cops have radar too…

    • LoneWolf says:

      Umm.. fewer than a dozen people do visit that website, don’t they? I see no more than 1 comment under several articles and none under his… no praises, no opposition, no nothing. I’d be scared to comment there for fear I’d wake up the dead.

    • malfeasant says:

      speed cameras make me drive faster

  20. Stephen says:

    And don’t forget, you have everything to fear from when the police get part of the booty too. Just like in confiscation laws where they get to keep part of the proceeds, when you let Law Enforcement become about money, it becomes less about going after people acting dangerous and more about how much can I get.

    I remember a few years ago about this town in Louisiana where the police officers wanted to get a passing motorists cash (he was afraid of wires). When the motorists was able to prove the funds were legitimate, they instead placed drugs in his car in the police lot. (Fortunately for the motorists, the dirty cop forgot his dash cam was on. That tape later disappeared according to 60 minutes).

    • Malfeasant says:

      I remember hearing about that I think… wasn’t he carrying this large amount of cash to pay for his mother’s funeral?

      I think that drives the point home- if someone can’t imagine why I might want to do things in an unusual way, that is more a reflection of their lack of imagination than a sign of my being up to no good…

  21. Camera Hater says:

    That’s an excellent point Stephen, and a terrifying example. I suspect that in the little gulag in which I am domiciled, the top traffic cop gets a “piece of the camera action” in terms of bonuses….

    All part of the “road safety industry” cancer…

  22. Joe Magill says:

    I too live in Victoria Australia, and the introduction of cameras was used tosave money by taking police off the road. At least in America you have a consciousness about your liberty and are prepared to fight for it. WE in Australia seem to like being spied on and lectured.

    ANd everyone should fight tickets. People don’t fight them because they are afraid of court. But if even 10% of drivers who receive tickets elected to contest the system would collapse. And the extra cost here in Australia is about $40 to the driver, but it costs the government a fortune. Keep up the good work.

  23. Camera Hater says:

    Gidday, Joe!!

    Agree 100%, mate! And I think you’re spot on about the difference between Americans and Australians. Frankly, I don’t know what’s wrong with us! We have local government and the Heart Foundation pushing the maniacal 30 km/h proposal. Ken Lay and the Herald-Sun are promoting the ludicrous (lifestyle altering) 0.02 BAC proposal. They’re about to drastically increase the price of booze and smokes (yet again!). We even have wingnut vegetarians getting serious coverage for a proposed 50% supertax on all meat products. Yet the average Victorian just sits there and cops it. As long as he’s got his footy and his plasma TV to watch it on, the average Aussie seems utterly apathetic to the Guvmint crapping on him.

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: