FINISHED: Redflex Cams “Coming Down”

Less than two years after the first freeway flash, almost a hundred fixed and mobile Redflex speed cameras will cease operation this week in a bittersweet outcome for both opponents and supporters of automated ticketing.

The disastrous program, which was met with significant resistance and became a political hot potato, was the only statewide program in operation within the United States.

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.”

Even more important to recognize is that not all losses can be accounted for on a balance sheet. The Arizona Department of Public Safety and Redflex allowed private citizens to drive and operate photo radar vans bearing the department’s emblems and likeness.

In April of 2009, Douglas Georgianni was shot and killed as he sat inside of one of the DPS-marked Ford Escapes, with not even a remote chance to defend himself from the attack.

DPS Lieutenant James Warriner then attempted to use the tragedy for shameful political gain by blaming anti-camera opponents, casting fault away from where it belonged: the shooter, and those who put Mr. Georgianni in harm’s way. (In one of the most underreported Arizona news stories of 2010, DPS is now facing a significant survivor’s lawsuit from the family of the victim.)

Business at Redflex continues as usual, with the company encouraging clueless municipal police and sheriff departments nationwide to lend them their insignia for the profitable mobile radar units.

With a ballot initiative to ban automated ticketing statewide failing to gather the required signatures, the return of the statewide freeway program is possible. While state officials cited increased public opposition and the possibility of a ban in their decision to not renew the contract with Redflex, the thought that public officials will do the right thing and avoid entangling alliances with dubious foreign-owned corporations is a pipe-dream.

Don’t let up now. Monitor the news for mentions of Redflex and ATS sneaking into new communities and email the city / town councils a link to this or other CameraFRAUD articles. Make them vividly aware that a vote for photo enforcement is a gamble against their political future, and that the backlash of the “cash flash” can be… fast.

While we celebrate some of the cameras coming down this week, CameraFRAUD won’t be going anywhere until all of… “The Cameras are Coming Down!”

Are you in? Join CameraFRAUD on Facebook today.

57 Responses to FINISHED: Redflex Cams “Coming Down”

  1. Philip says:

    “With a ballot initiative to ban automated ticketing statewide failing to gather the required signatures, the return of the statewide freeway program is possible.”

    What!? Is this excerpt stating that a proposition banning photo radar in the state of AZ won’t be on the ballot this Nov. because of a lack of signatures gathered!? Why hasn’t there been a post addressing this here on CameraFRAUD? Can someone please explain to me how this could of happened when the ballot initiative has been presented as essentially a sure thing for months now.

  2. Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

    The cameras will be back, in more numbers and the loopholes in the laws will be closed up.

    This WILL happen after the November elections.

    The cameras are only being turned off. They ARE NOT being taken down.

    • billybob says:

      The Scamera comp Redflx has 90 days from July 15th to remove the cameras…

      • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

        Actually, the permit filed with ADOT has a November date on it for when the camera hardware must be removed.

  3. Sure says:

    Adversity is our friend! It beckons us to come and play, and we do.

  4. Sure says:

    Raptor Devours Cheerleader!!!!

  5. jury nullification says:

    Ban the scam

    • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

      You will have a very hard time of it after the November elections. The cameras are not going away and will be back stronger than before and with more bite.

      • LoneWolf says:

        Perhaps not. But our fight isn’t going away anytime soon either. It’s only going to become stronger.

        • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

          Then you better get some different leadership for your group. With the way the current losers are running it you will get nowhere!!!
          Besides, the new laws are going to be written in such a way that a petition will not do any good at getting rid of the cameras.
          Good luck, youll need it..

        • oh my says:

          That goes both ways.

      • B says:

        If the cameras come back after a respite, and with more bite (such as more locations, and with more insidious functionality like their point-to-point tracking via license plate numbers, the anger will return…

        • Steve says:

          If the cameras come back with more bite and locations, the people will have even greater reason to get the issue on the ballot. I would say another twenty-five percent more bite and locations should be enough to do the job. That should be enough to get it on the ballot, and promptly voted permanently banned from Arizona state wide. If everyone hadn’t had the ability to trash their tickets (consequence free) that would have already happened.

          • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

            With more bite, more people would be inclined to follow the law and NOT SPEED!!!

            The cameras do work. Brewer has stats and paperwork that show they do!

            GIVE UP YOU LOSERS!!!

            Photo enforcement WILL be back, with bite, and permanent. The proposition has wording in it that would make them permanent and could only be banned by executive order.

        • oh my says:

          BTW, I’ll make just one point.
          While the group at CF kept telling us pro-photoenforcement people to get our own site, and continually insulted us for not having a public forum the expresses our views-the anti camera crowd (sic) work their buts off (ha!) to oppose us and collect signitures and put up video’s and did protests etc. The Pro crowd did not have to do a single thing, and still prevailed!

  6. Dude says:

    Now watch the bodies start piling up. Every one will be on your law-breaking heads……

    • reason says:

      LOL yes because before the cameras arrived down from heaven the roadways resembled Normandy with all the bodies and blood splashing everywhere.

      Oh, wait.. 25 year low in traffic fatalities? Oops, nevermind.

      • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

        The number of fatalities dropped after the cameras went in. I know I notice less speeding since the cameras went in.
        The do make it safer to be on the freeways and a lot less red light running.

        • alucard says:

          It is much more likely that traffic fatalities went down because of reduced road travel caused by the poor economy.

          Of course, we need not mention all the studies done which state that the scameras actually increased collisions, combined with all the jurisdictions (and states) that ban photo enforcement outright.

          Lengthening yellow light times by an additional 1-2 seconds would do much more than the positive impact a scamera might contribute. Doing so would also be a lot cheaper than scameras too.

        • justcurious says:

          Somebody got a good deal on
          “KNEE PAD’S”

  7. Poison says:

    Does anyone know what happens to the tickets that have recently been mailed? Will anyone be served after 7/15?

    • photoradarscam says:

      DPS has referred that question to Redflex, and Redflex isn’t answering… to the answer is probably NO!

  8. Russell Kaufman says:

    What is the current situation re: ignoring tickets rather than “waiving” being served? Are there differences re: jurisdiction, re: cities vs. state?

  9. Sure says:

    I am sure people will still be served after the 15th.

  10. Pro-Camera says:

    Here’s some info that isn’ linked from a pro-camera website (Like Camerafraud always links to “” as if it were an unbiased news source.

    I guess the hospitals in Houston have seen the decline in accident related injuries since the cameras were installed. But remember, the camera have nothing to do with safety.

    • reason says:

      If the cameras worked so well, why do ATS and Redflex INSIST on getting a cut of every ticket instead of selling their equipment outright to cities just like real public safety vendors?

      • Wrong says:

        The cities decide how they want the pricing of the contracts arranged, not the vendors. Flat fees, per issued, per paid, leased, purchased etc. It’s the customer that makes that choice.

      • oh my says:

        There’s cities in Oregon (Beaverton) and Colorado (Fort Collins) that have bought the systems outright, and others where the companies have paid for full installation and maintenance, and in return receive a portion of the fine.
        Anything else I can clear up?

      • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

        reason….. why are there apartments? wouldnt it just be smarter for us all to purchase a house? not all municipalities can afford to purchase the equiptment…then you have to pay someone to fix them and service them.. so you are then either paying a service or you hire your own… if you hire then there are benefits etc. etc.

        and then they may be asked to justify the purchase !!!!

        i dont know for sure but i would imagine most of the camera companies lease the equiptment and pay for the installation…..

    • B says:

      From the article:

      Total reduction in accidents: 11%

      The same article says that:

      – Side-impact or “t-bone” collisions by 16 percent.
      – Rear-end collisions were reduced by 35 percent.

      Now I’m not a math whiz, but just how does the total accident percentage go down by 11%, but side impacts are down by 16%, and rear enders are down by 35%? What data is missing?

      Did fatalities spike or something, to bring the total down to 11%? Or are there other accidents that are being cut out of the study, just like the LAPD was intentionally omitting certain types of accidents to skew the numbers their way? What other factors are playing a role in the declines?

      Also – Insurance companies are working with hospitals to make more money… THEY BOTH WANT MORE CAMERAS. They want any way possible to raise premiums and cut health payout costs. They even trump that “we (i.e. healthcare stock/bond stakeholders) save $50,000 in healthcare costs per accident” when major accidents are avoided TO SAVE MONEY. Nevermind that minor accidents actually go UP at red light camera sites (according to LA data) from a 2009 CBS report… which is passing the cost of deductibles, or new car purchases, and other inconveniences who are caught in minor accidents.

      Finally – “We can and should use breakthrough technology like intersection safety cameras which have been proven to reduce deadly accidents and take some pressure off the county’s healthcare system.”

      1) “Breakthrough”?? – According to whom? I smell propaganda speak…
      2) “Pressure” on the health care system? From fatal car accidents? Are they f’n SERIOUS???

      Insurance companies. Fraud. Illegals and welfare recipients abusing ERs. Lawsuits. THOSE things are putting pressure on the healthcare system. The pressure on the health care system is NOT from fatal car accidents…

      Pro-Camera – you see what you want to see… Another propaganda piece that is just “more proof” that you’re right. How sad.

      I’ll even make you a deal…

      When Redflex/ATS agrees to make common sense reforms (standardized yellow times, slight delays for “close calls” at “orange” lights, etc.), do not collect and store video information or license plate information for other law enforcement purposes, and – most importantly – does not collect a penny from citations (only get modestly paid for the hardware, installation, and maintenance) – since it’s ALL about safety…

      AND – oh yeah – the governments have to pass back ALL the revenue from the cameras back to the registered drivers of each state they’re operating in as an evenly divided tax credit…

      THEN I’ll seriously listen about red light cameras.

      Until then, you can take your propaganda pieces, roll ’em, and smoke ’em… ’cause that’s all they’re good for.

      • photoradarscam says:

        You have to look at what ISN’T shown. How many injuries and fatalities were there? Tempe reduced accidents 16% but increase fatalities 43%. What’s also missing? What were the results in surrounding communities or unmonitored intersections? There are headlines for 2009 having the lowest crime rate in 25 years in many locations, and many cities and states are reporting huge declines in accidents as well even though they do not have cameras!

    • photoradarscam says:

      If you don’t like the story that theNewspaper writes, at least you can follow the links to the original sources and data and draw your own conclusions.

  11. Pro-Camera says:

    Here it is again. lets see if it gets through this time.

    Per your article:
    “DPS Lieutenant James Warriner then attempted to use the tragedy for shameful political gain by blaming anti-camera opponents, casting fault away from where it belonged: the shooter, and those who put Mr. Georgianni in harm’s way. (In one of the most underreported Arizona news stories of 2010, DPS is now facing a significant survivor’s lawsuit from the family of the victim.)”

    Directly from your linked to Case report:

    “The State and DPS had knowledge prior to Doug’s death of opposition to photo radar, physical actions taken by photo radar opponents to damage photo radar vehicles and equipment, and the danger to occupants of the photo radar vehicles. Yet, the State and DPS permitted Doug, a private citizen, not a sworn police officer, to work in a DPS marked vehicle without providing him any training or protection.”

    “As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s (State of Arizona, DPS)combined conduct, described above, Doug’s life was taken, giving rise to this cause of action and resulting in the damages described above.”

    “The conduct of the Defendants (State of Arizona, DPS) was unreasonably careless and breached the duty to Doug and Jean.”

    In other words, because Anti-Camera Nutjobs have previously damaged photo radar equipment, they are claiming that DPS and the state were negligent in providing the deceased with training or the ability to defend himself in his job.

    • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

      They need to arrest the organizers of camerafraud as accessories to his murder.

  12. Sure says:

    Pro, sometimes my post are moderated too. Was it a long post?

    • oh my says:

      Usually telling the actual truth here gets you moderated…

    • photoradarscam says:

      Before you hit submit, I always copy the post somewhere in case that happens. It’s a good practice.

    • ProCamera says:

      In looking at my post, I realise that the post was most likely “Moderated” because of the use of the deceased name in the text of their lawsuit that I quoted. Understandable to do so, if that in fact was the reason for the comment being held up.

  13. reason says:

    Procamera, its most likely a wordpress spam filter. even moderators find their posts getting stuck sometimes.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      pro camera must have been banned…cause you are all referring to something yet i see no post from pro camera regarding his post being moderated…. but thats the way it is here… cant have too many trolls that work for redflex writing posts…. especially when our posts outnumber the CF posts…. that would make it appear as if there are very few CF members who are active… and that would be the truth… which of course is rare here…the truth that is

  14. Dr Jett says:

    Read State of Nevada vs Dornsife.
    Chad Dornsife listed the US Constitutional and Nevada laws that were violated when he beat his speeding ticket. THESE LAWS ARE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

    Click to access NV_10_beatty_dornsife_mtsf.pdf

    We can protect ourselves using the laws listed in this case.

    • Law A. Bidingcitizen says:

      jett…are you going to answer my questions on other threads? thats ok …i didnt think so

  15. […] 14, 2010 in Truth2Freedom Headline Alerts Categories Select Category Christianity and Spirituality Daily News Summary Stock Market […]

    • B says:

      Thx for the link. The interesting thing was the poll at the end (obviously unscientific, but a poll it is), saying that 61% of people think the freeways are going to be more dangerous after the cameras turn off.

      These next few months will be interesting to watch. Will people start driving like a**holes, just because the cameras are off? Will pent up frustration lead to “emotional blood on the highway”? Or will relative civility remain, and everyone will realize the cameras didn’t do much, and that not everyone is an animal.

      I suppose that there will be some jackasses out there who will drive ultra-aggressive through the former camera zones – just because they can – for a few days. I imagine that the strongly pro-camera types will cry out, “SEE THAT? I TOLD you it was a mistake…” and that’s all they’ll remember – how it was a lot closer to the “The Road Warrior” now. (I wouldn’t put it past a couple of psycho, pro-camera radicals out there driving like total morons just to make the cameras look vital…) Hopefully the average Joe, however, will see through that kind of sensationalist tripe, as “Blood on the Highway” doesn’t play out.

      Since the cameras were turned on, a LOT more people have taken to texting while driving. I wonder if those drivers are going to be jarred a little harder when someone zips past them at 80+ in a former camera zone…

      One last thought – I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m really looking forward to the crash statistics for the remainder of the year, after the cameras turn off. If accidents and stupidity spike, we all know what the press and the camera companies will do with their data.

      (At least the recession is continuing on, keeping the number of cars on the road down for a while after the cameras are shut off, so that doesn’t skew the accidents upwards just by sheer volume that would go up during a strong recovery.)

      • photoradarscam says:

        I agree… I think the lower speeds encouraged more cell phone use and texting by drivers.

        The most important safety aspect I think will be lane courtesy. If you have a jerk in the left-most lane doing the limit, then everyone behind him is still going to be taking extra risks to get around the jerk. If anything, I think this righteous “I’m driving the limit and I don’t care about the keep-left law” attitude will be more prevalent for a little while.

  16. photoradarscam says:

    ABC15’s spin: “…and officers had extra time to conduct 50,000 more traffic stops and arrest more drunk drivers and drug offenders than the year before”

    This is not possible! Pulling over a speeder is a traffic stop. The only way you can make more traffic stops is to hire more staff, spend less time per stop, or to simply make more stops. Whether there are cameras or not, it does not affect any of these things.

  17. photoradarscam says:

    Wow, it only took Fox 6 months to notice pick up this story about DPS being sued:

    • bobj239 says:

      amazing… wonder what took them so long

    • Pro-Camera says:

      FYI, might want to read the lawsuit. They specifically blame people against the cameras as causing the Unsafe Environment that DPS and Arizona State were negligent in Protecting the victim against. That’s right, they group PEOPLE LIKE YOU into a class of nutjobs that everyone should be protected against, and since they were not protected, the DPS should pay up for not doing so.

      • Butihave Nothingto Worryabout says:

        I think DPS should get hold of the petitions and investigate every loser that signed them. They will probably find quite a few criminals among them.

        • Poison says:

          Of course you would enjoy that. Someone who yearns for more government surveillance would naturally support the use of Stalinist tactics against political opponents.

  18. […] adventure in legal land, challenging past judgments, and threats from Arizona courts over RedFlex photo radar […]

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: