UPDATED: Mini Van Hits Redflex Freeway Scamera


Many spotted a downed Redflex scamera on the US 60 near Alma School in Mesa this afternoon. Some alert volunteers have captured some pictures that will be released soon. This one comes from one of our twitter regulars, who looped around to make sure a good clear shot could be taken.

Thanks to alert Citizen Journalist @JGippe on twitter, you have your first look at what seems to be another accident that was, in part, caused by the presence of those soon-to-be torn down Redflex Freeway Scameras. This one is coming down a little sooner than the rest. We can only hope that nobody was hurt in the crash. CameraFRAUD and Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar are calling for Redlfex to begin removing these dangerous distractions and obstructions immediately. This accident should prove as further evidence that they are not making the roads safer.

More pictures courtesy of Walter:

even Redflex's "moron sign" was taken out

Fallen Soldier of Fraud

Photo Radar "Frees Up" DPS Officers

Redflex still has 77 of these dangerous obstructions in place

28 Responses to UPDATED: Mini Van Hits Redflex Freeway Scamera

  1. jury nullification says:

    It’s all about safety.
    Could it have happened by being blinded by the scameras 300 Watt strobe?

  2. Brent says:

    It’s time for Redflex to pack it’s bags.. why wait until the July official goodbye date.. Get ready for those Class Action Lawsuits aussies- you got at least one more in the pipeline.

  3. Glyph says:

    Yeah, no point in putting that camera back up, since it’ll be coming down in a few weeks anyway!

  4. Walter says:

    I like the pic of the DPS cruiser watching over his fallen comrade.

  5. 4409 says:

    I wonder if DP$ will give this fallen comrade in fraud a 21 gun salute and a funeral. After all he was killed in the line of fraud….errr I mean duty.

    Both are out on the highways looting the public so I can only imagine the tears flowing from the officers eyes as he picks up the camera box full of cash and places it in his trunk full of cash!

  6. alucard says:

    I took a stroll by and stopped for this fallen soldier about 2.5 hours ago. It is indeed down, as it were, west bound side of 60, right at the exit to Alma School Rd. I am surprised to see that nobody has yet to claim this soldier for their very own; however, this was probably because the ARP (Arizona Revenue Patrol) was sitting about 1000 feet upstream of the scamera. I may decide to swing by there in the morning to take more pictures.

    I am sooooooo tempted to stand in the exact spot where the scamera was standing with a sign saying “REDFLEX PIRATES 0, CITIZENS 1” or “REDFLEX PIGGY BANK BROKEN HERE!”.

  7. LibertyDefenderAZ says:

    That’s one way to take them down…

  8. Walter says:

    When I drove by this afternoon they were out there putting a new one up.

  9. Nuf-Ced says:

    Ya’ll have often using the freedom of information act, obtained police records. So, why here are you speculating that the accident was caused in part by the camera’s? Why don’t you just go obtain the police report and find out the TRUTH before you go passing blame? Well, nevermind, this is mild compared to the other lies ya’ll have spouted.
    Anyways, I’ll save ya’ll some time. The guy fell asleep while driving on the way home from his overnight job.
    I’ll be waiting for CF to post an official apology for again, smearing the name of photo enforcement with lies.
    But, we all know your admins will delete this post before to many people see it, and your lies.

    • The car never would have hit that obstruction if it wasn’t there. Nuf-ced.

    • Regardless of if what you say is the truth, it is an accident that was NOT prevented by a camera – and quite possibly made worse by the collision with the camera.

      Since you know so much about the accident, why don’t you send us the accident report?

      • The accident occurred when the van collided with that camera stanchion(after knocking down the warning sign). If there was no camera there, THAT collision would not have happened.

        There was no mention that the flash or distraction caused the accident, which also could have played a factor.

        If this driver was just asleep at the wheel, in the absence of that camera, the accident scenario would undoubtedly have played out much differently, probably without a dangerous collision. I don’t know what’s so hard about that concept for these trolls.

        There’s no need to delete your post Nuf, thanks for helping us to clarify our point.

      • jury nullification says:

        He is obviously an employee of a scamera company. I find these posts amusing. Another example of desperation.

        • Your mom says:

          Its a good thing the camera was there or else it would have been another car he hit instead. hmmmm better take the life of a camera then the life of another human being.

          • A car would have been parked where the camera was sitting? How so?

            I’d love to hear your entire theory about this accident.

          • alucard says:

            This carries with it the dual presumption that a) another vehicle would have been parked at the scamera, and thus hit; and b) the resulting collision would have killed someone. Also note that “Your mom” has attributed a human quality to an inanimate object — “the life of a camera….”

    • alucard says:

      We’d love to see a certified copy of the accident report that is required by law to be filed with DPS whenever there is damage exceeding $1,000 or where bodily injury or death occurred.

      Please provide us with the certified copy of the accident report filed in this case.

    • Sure says:

      No,that isn’t what happened at all. The driver in front of him slammed on his brakes and he swerved to miss him.

    • Not Near Nuf-Ced says:

      Nuf-Ced, you sound like a typical inbred lying piece of trash born in Australia. What’s the matter, afraid of losing your jobs as the scamera company when the contract ends in middle of July? Waaaaaaaaaaaaa! You want some cheese to go with that cheap Aussie whine? Know what they call a scamera employee from down under? Answer: Looooooooooooooooooooooser!

  10. alucard says:

    I took another run by the site of this fallen soldier this evening — work prevented me from showing up this morning as planned. There was a heavy-set contractor there who was apparently finishing the setup and testing of the new camera. He was in a white van, with AZ plate RDF 123. Any idea as to which scamera company this van belongs to? 😉

    Anyhow, he finished up his work in the dark and drove off to the nearby shopping center. While I was watching the finishing of the setup, the scamera flashed 13 times. Hence, I can see why they would have paid this person to work overtime until dark to get the replacement scamera up and running — even though the camera is supposed to come down about 6 weeks from now.

    After swinging around once he left (10 min time to do this), I stopped close by to take a few more pictures. Apparently, someone else had the same idea as I did with the “Redflex Pirates 0….” sign, as a similar such legend was fixed onto the pole containing the scamera controller. The sign could be seen from both the highway and the exit ramp. I put 5 pictures in “The Random Photo File” folder, one of which shows the Pirates sign slightly crooked, but in action. I took a few more photos of this for prosperity’s sake.

    Redflex does not believe in erecting the appropriate signage required for its scameras, however. A couple of the pictures clearly show that the “Photo Enforcement Warning” sign is still left laying on the ground, despite the scamera taking 3 more pictures while I took my 5.

    I had my “R.I.P.” sign and flower arrangement ready to go (bouganvillas have such perty flowers), but I was unable to locate the hole where the fallen soldier got knocked down from.

    • photoradarscam says:

      Those camer setups aren’t worth all of the money they claim them to be. Maybe $10k worth of parts, but if you ran one over they’d probably try to get $100k from your insurance company.

      Which is another point… What is the minimum liability insurance required by law, about $30k? I wonder if holding the minimum amount of insurance would be adequate to pay for any damage done by an accident with a camera? And if the minimum isn’t enough to pay for a camera, shouldn’t state minimum insurance requirements be raised if they are going to install these high $$$ pieces of equipment where people can easily run into them?

  11. just thinking says:

    Nuf-Ced You are just spinning your wheels. The Scameras ARE coming down. You had better go find another job NOW and avoid the rush. Otherwise, you could end up having to take IOU’s for paychecks!

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: