Accident in Photo Radar Zone

After all the accidents we’ve seen right in front of the scameras, this was the first that we were able to get some clear pictures of. A CameraFRAUD volunteer spotted this accident scene on March 17th at about 4 p.m. on the 202 San Tan Freeway and was able to snap a few photos of it.

(click picture to enlarge)

Accident occurs in Photo Extortion Zone; debris on shoulder

Red coupe had rear ended another vehicle

Watching scene while pulled over

Another eyewitness reported that 15 minutes after these photos were snapped, the accident and its debris had been completely cleared away.

FOIA anyone?

18 Responses to Accident in Photo Radar Zone

  1. B says:

    As a person that drives that stretch everyday, I have to say that those cameras are NOT making that stretch of road safer. Instead, they are making driving conditions more dangerous… and this accident should come as no surprise.

    Background for those of you who don’t drive that stretch of road:

    They have recently placed two mobile camera units in the two most dangerous spots they can along that stretch of road, and both positions were selected to maximize revenue. Why do I say that? Look at the positions:

    A) Right after the bottom of the longest, curved decline along the entire Santan (i.e. where speed naturally goes up), just past the McQueen overpass. Redflex people have obviously figured out that there’s more money to be made there because people are naturally speeding up due to gravity. Nevermind that 1) the unit itself is hidden a little more due to the actual overpass, and 2) the first “Photo Enforcement” sign is WAY off to the right due to the curve and design of the road there. As cars come up on it, at least HALF of them are hitting their brakes – not gently tapping like other cameras areas… hitting… Sometimes their speeds are dropped from 75MPH+ all the way down to 55 MPH or less (in the 65 zone). And remember the road is curved. It’s a recipe for accidents… I guaran-freaking-tee that that spot is now MORE dangerous to drive now that that unit is there, and there WILL be a rear-end accident there that I witness, sooner or later, and I hope that the accident victims sue Redflex for it.

    B) Over the crest of a small hill, just past Lindsay Rd – the site of this accident. (Yesterday, this camera SUV was positioned behind a concrete barrier. I noted that it had been moved from its previous position of right on the highway, and that move was probably because of the accident).

    If the cameras stay up for the long haul, you can bet your bottom dollar that fixed camera units will be going up all along that stretch of the Santan between Price and Val Vista, especially there at the bottom of the McQueen area… Screw safety – they’re DYING to print themselves more money.

    • Thank you for sharing that. If not for the backlash against this system, there probably would be fixed cams in that area already.

      I find the mobile van right after the on ramp to the 202 at 44th Street in Phoenix to be dangerous also. Just when you are trying to accelerate to merge in to traffic BOOM, Scamera Van! It doesn’t matter how fast you are traveling, those things always cause a distraction.

    • who says:

      Geez, there going 75 plus and they see a van and hit their breaks? Maybe they should be doing the speed limit? I guess they didn’t see the speed limit sign, or the two big reflective yellow signs that say ‘photo enforcement zone ahead’

      • That speed would have been extremely difficult in the right lane in those traffic conditions. It was probably a 55 zone, but either way, the vans are a distraction.

        An ASU professor who was actually endorsing photo radar use in specific cases warned against this type of deployment. EVEN THOSE IN FAVOR SAY THIS IS DANGEROUS.

      • B says:

        “Maybe they should be doing the speed limit?”

        AGAIN – At the McQueen camera van site, there’s a steep decline in the freeway, which naturally speeds cars up that aren’t set on cruise control. People that are going the speed limit naturally speed up to 70-75 during that half mile decline, and the van is waiting at the bottom to catch them.

        Because the road is also curving there, and people are driving in heavy traffic, they are watching the road more important than their speedometer. Add in the fact that the 1st yellow ‘photo enforcement zone’ sign is WAY off to the right – more than usual do to the engineering of that strip of road, and the road is turning left, making it even less likely to be seen (especially in rush hour traffic) – and you have a recipe for people slamming on their brakes much more than usual.

        So AGAIN – IF YOU’D READ MY ORIGINAL POST AND USED YOUR BRAIN instead of being a stupid troll – You wouldn’t have posted your obviously ignorant reply.

        Seriously – Where are your reading comprehension skills? You should be embarrassed at how stupid and lazy you just looked…

    • kandaris says:

      You know it’s interesting that you post this now. I’ve been thinking about this album a lot lately… some 28 years on… You probably know that when this first came out it was literally banned in the USSR. Could there be any question as to why? I liked it then but I didn’t completely grasp all of it’s concepts, and only now have I come to truly appreciate the genius of it. I used to live in the misguided comfort that this could never apply to a place like the United States. Sadly that is no longer true.

    • When it comes to photo radar, the Bloodhound Gang’s parody version of this song seems more appropriate to me.

      Bonus points for anyone who knows the lyrics to that one….

  2. Sure says:

    Increases Information overload. Prof. Simon Washington (and colleagues)
    Department of Civil and Engineering ASU:

    Design of [photo zones] should consider the element of surprise to drivers and should aim to minimize it.

    For example, the placement of cameras in close proximity to high information load locations (e.g., on- and off-ramps, underpasses, billboards, weaving sections, directional signs, etc.) should be avoided.

    Placement of cameras in sight-restricted locations should be avoided.

    Click to access AZ684.pdf

  3. Sure says:

    And to think, DPS officers are going along with this scam.

  4. If there are any clearer pictures with either of the license plates from either care involved in the accident, someone contact me and I’ll do the FOIA.

  5. B says:

    As of today, they’ve removed that McQueen camera vehicle. Either it was rotated out to another “trouble spot”, or maybe they realized that what they were doing was really dangerous (and possibly litigious?)

    The reason it could be the latter is because they haven’t abandoned that potentially lucrative stretch. There’s still a unit at Lindsay Rd (on the other side, though in a slightly less dangerous position than it was).

  6. […] official, we have our first officially documented accident caused by photo radar. In a follow-up to an article a few weeks ago, we obtained the accident report for the accident in the […]

  7. Hayden Turi says:

    *This is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!

  8. […] official, we have our first officially documented accident caused by photo radar. In a follow-up to an article a few weeks ago, we obtained the accident report for the accident in the […]

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: