Redflex and DPS have never paid a lot of attention to the laws that regulate photo enforcement on our state’s highways, and that was evident again this week on the Westbound Loop 101 at Scottsdale Rd. CameraFraud has documented over 5 violations so far:
They know that the less chance of drivers seeing the sign, the more revenue the Talivan will generate. ARS 28-654 (c) specifies that:
Signs erected by a local authority or agency of this state as prescribed in this section shall contain a yellow warning notice and correlate with and as far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD) for streets and highways adopted by the director pursuant to section 28-641.
Page 582 of the latest MUTCD (Dec 2009) specifies that temporary signs such as the signs used at mobile speed vans must be at least 1 foot from the ground. Clearly, the sign in the photo is touching the ground. We didn’t measure, but it also appeared that the sign was less than 300ft from the talivan as required by the law.
The motives behind the decision to use this form of temporary signage (cloth) are also suspect because these signs are not appropriate for all types of weather, as shown in the next picture:
Our recommendation to anyone challenging their talivan photo tickets in court: Bring these photos and the MUTCD with you, show them to the judge, and then ask for first hand knowledge or witness that the signs were not just in place at the time of your alleged violation (not just at the beginning or end of a deployment), but specifically that they were displayed properly. Ask and demand to know at what height and distance the signs were displayed and if the technician actually measured or just eye-balled it, or if the sign was blown over at the time of the photograph. Do not allow speculation or generalities. If they cannot answer this question, demand that your ticket be dismissed under section D as they cannot demonstrate compliance with ARS 28-654.