Jan Brewer Signs Bill Designed to Fight Photo Radar, Which Hardly Fights Photo Radar

phodar-highway.jpg
autoblog.com
Governor Jan Brewer has signed a bill into law that's supposed to cut down on the number of photo-radar cameras in the state, which probably won't happen.

See, according to House Bill 2477, a city or town can't put a photo-radar system on a state highway . . . unless it "proves that the photo enforcement system is necessary for the public safety of the state."

See also:
-Redflex Execs in Phoenix Resign Over Corruption Investigation
-El Mirage: Data Belies Officials' Claims that Cameras on U.S. 60 Are About Public Safety

According to a Senate fact sheet, a city or town has to prove to the Arizona Department of Transportation that speeding and vehicle accidents in the photo-radar area prove the need for photo radar.

There's no specific threshold, but ADOT gets to be the arbiter of what's "necessary for the public safety of this state."

Consider a few examples of this law's uselessness.

Folks who frequent the Scottsdale area undoubtedly will remember the speed cameras on Loop 101. That ended only because the city decided to let DPS take over operation of the cameras, but they had to be removed in 2008 due to construction. DPS ended up letting its photo-radar contract expire, so the cameras were never put back.

However, Scottsdale has the proof, if it wants to put the cameras back.

According to a legislative brief, "An Arizona State University research team, led by internationally recognized civil engineering professor Dr. Simon Washington, issued a preliminary report stating that the Loop 101 Freeway cameras had lowered average speeds by approximately ten miles per hour and reduced the overall number and severity of collisions."

So, technically, there could be more photo radar on state highways with this law, although there's no indication that Scottsdale's thinking about its 101 cameras again.

For another example of the law's uselessness, consider the town of Prescott Valley.

It has two fixed photo-radar locations, and it still puts out the radar van wherever it pleases.

The only thing that could be affected by this law is one of the fixed cameras, which is on State Route 69. According to a previous media report, the town assured one reporter that camera has the statistics behind it to keep it going anyway.

The law doesn't affect any current contracts cities or towns have with photo-radar companies, either, so there's another weakness.

More information on HB 2477 can be found here.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
31 comments
Edward Anthony Green
Edward Anthony Green

No Francisco Cortez you are the "Liberal" idiot my friend....not only that, after reading your prior posts it is plain to see you are also a RACIST! .....move back to California, you belong there.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

Photo Radar is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

One of the tenants of our legal system is the ability to face your accuser - how do you call a photo radar site into court to testify?

If you get a ticket from a cop with a radar gun, you have the right to immediately request that the radar gun that was used be taken out of service and tested for calibration - how can you do this when you get the ticket in the mail weeks after the supposed offense? Again, no ability to challenge your accuser.

Also, it's already been ruled that you have to be SERVED, as in by a process server who is registered with the court - a police officer is this which is why the ticket they issue is technically a summons to court, not a judgement.

This is why if you do not pay a photo radar ticket you have gotten in the mail they have to actually serve you, since it's not possible to verify you actually received the ticket/summons. Yet the county does not have enough process servers or the money to pay enough of them, to actually serve everyone who got a photo radar ticket.

If you ever get one of these bullshit extortion demands in the mail, ignore it, make them serve you like the law states.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

The two specific locations where municipalities have overstepped their bounds (neither of which are mentioned in this article) are Star Valley and El Mirage.  Both will be hard pressed to show ANY data sufficient to justify their fleecing of drivers wallets.

TaxpayingVoter
TaxpayingVoter

I think Redflex is doing a better job of keeping cities from installing these cameras than any legislation ever could.

Nobody wants to pay more than they take in.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

From what I gather from reading previous articles, Snotsdale putting up new cameras would mostly affect former Republican State Committee chairpersons who receive simulated BJs in parking garages.

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

GED Jan proves yet again how illiterate and clueless she truly is through this latest round of bullshit. And the TeaBaggers wonder why sane Arizonans want her out of office...

Hawaiiguy32
Hawaiiguy32

@Flyer9753  Actually the accuser is the redflex guy that looks at all the videos first before sending it to the police to log onto the website and review it and select whether or not to accept it as a valid ticket.  So the accuser is the redflex person.  They are the ones that decide whether or not to send them to the police department. Since police officers require training and certifications to be able to issue tickets, what are the qualifications of the redflex employees?

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 You can request whatever you want, however, no officer is obligated to take their radar gun out of service and immediately have it calibrated.  dumbass

Radar guns are have scheduled capibrations and the records of those calibrations can be requested at the time of trial by the defendant.  Not before then.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@yourproductsucks Maybe Arpaio wanted to use the traffic cams to look for the sex offenders he IGNORED in El Mirage!

Hawaiiguy32
Hawaiiguy32

@TaxpayingVoter El Mirage does.  Those morons in charge are losing money hand over fist and had to hire about 6 more people to handle all the tickets. Even Surprise took a 200K loss and finally got rid of them but I guess since El Mirage has the old finance guy who botched the city hall deal, I guess he will just move money around to cover it I guess.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@MaskedMagician1967 I'm guessing by your attack on the Governor that you are in agreement with Hendley's comments. 

How many fatals occurred at the intersection of Primrose and Grand in ten years prior to the implementation of El Mirage's photo radar system.  The same system that has spurned multiple ethical questions by those who made the decision to beseige the US 60 from the SouthWest.

The more pointed question to you would be, what do the people of Springfield, Massachusetts think of photo radar in El Mirage?

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753 

Actually you are wrong, as has been established in court precedence. I know since I have successfully argued that very thing in court, and won.

Requesting it at trial defeats the entire purpose of a calibration since the trial can be months after the incident, how can anyone certify a Radar Gun was accurate at the time of the incident? They cannot.

This is established legal precedent, backed up by case law, look it up.

Dumbass

Hawaiiguy32
Hawaiiguy32

@yourproductsucks @MaskedMagician1967 Actually when they wrote the first article about a year ago, there were ZERO fatal accidents at that intersection and only 18 minor accidents from the data I pulled from Raidsonline for El Mirage.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

So your 'source' is another person who is not directly involved in the investigation, since they are not part of the team in Flagstaff that is leading this (you state he is in the Maricopa area)

So bluntly, your source related to you something that was hearsay when he heard it, from whomever he heard it from........

yeah..... that's valid and reliable.... ROFL!!!! 

Game over for you, as Whoknows said, go back to your pet couch and licking yourself and stop trying to parade nothing more than rumors as fact

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

Well since I have argued this in court and won, you are clearly wrong, which is nothing new.

No matter, I'm not giving you anything else until you level the playing field and state your source, like I have.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

My source is case law and precedent, which is much more information about my sources than you have given about yours.

Go do your own research and prove me wrong.

See you have that option since I gave you my sources, but you don't give anyone else that option since you won't give your sources.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 no you haven't..prove it

One who states case law as a source, typically state THE specific case law that they are referenceing.  Making the statement, "case law" alone does nothing to prove their case. 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753 

I have stated my source, case law and precedent.

You have not stated anything other than "some guy told me so, yuk yuk..."

Yeah, I see there is a BIG difference

See you can go research case law to find the answer, but you refuse to allow anyone else the same, you just claim someone told you.

BTW - Your answer is hearsay, not admissible and worthless

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks @Flyer9753  

ROFL!!!! In 5 minutes you looked.. uh huh.... spin another fantasy tale for us.

Either way, clearly since I HAVE argued this in court and won, so clearly you didn't look close enough. 

I guess you missed that part of the original comment, but that is not surprising, you miss a lot.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 @yourproductsucks You are asking for me to give you the name of the person I received the information from.  I am asking you to provide the case law you state exists.  You do see the difference, don't you?

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@yourproductsucks  

btw - I have already stated my sources, case law and precedent

Go do your own research, I have already pointed you in the right direction but I will not do your research for you.

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@Flyer9753 state the case law.  It doesn't exist. 

The calibration checks are done routinely.  The records of the checks are accepted by the courts during the hearings...I know this because I've participated in such hearings on a regular basis. 

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

@JohnQ.Public it's meaningless.   Springfield, Mass seems to creep into just about any conversation Jason enters into.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...