HikeArizona.COM

I got a ticket in the mail yesterday. Here is the "evidence" against me. If I were doing 79 in the 65 as claimed, I would have been in the trunk of the car in front of me. I am car #2 behind the truck. A car from Colorado is passing me, and he may have been going 79, but I don't know. If he was, it looks like I got his ticket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3NTQrE12k

AZDPS and Redflex are clearly lying about the quality control they claim to do, and they have no problems sending a ticket to an innocent victim to help tighten the budget problem and fatten the corporate profits. If they looked at the videos as they claim to do, I never would have gotten this.

Something tells me I am not the first person to whom this has happened. Is anyone interested in starting a class action lawsuit against a company which gathers evidence for the state without a private investigators license, and has profit as its motive behind "law enforcement"?

I haven't had a speeding ticket in over 20 years.

I've never had a photo radar ticket, but I do believe that the founding fathers were on to something when they drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those that disagree have (thanks to our founding fathers) the FREEDOM to: a) lobby to change the Constitution or b) move to a place whose constitution better suits their beliefs. (Try to find THOSE feedoms in most countries)
Our founding fathers were more than familiar with how the various (seemingly slight) erosion of their freedoms deteroriated their overall freedom. Folks unfamiliar with the undue loss of freedom and other burdens forced on the colonists should read up some.
Ol' Ben left us with these words-of-wisdom....
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin

This cash-for-cops program is just another form of tax (isn't there something about 'double taxation' in the Constitution?).
If anyone were SERIOUS about curbing speeding (rather than just a money-grab by the gub'ment and insurance Co,'s); why not institute a 16 hour community service project fine to speeders rather than asking them 'will that be Visa and Master Card'? Further corroberation of this is the fact that tickets issued by ADOT vans/cameras carry no driving privlige penalties; again, it's just 'will that be Visa or Master Card?'. Oh, but wait....... it's all about safety.

I believe that most folks (exclusive of gub'ment folks) believe in 'fair and square', especially when it comes to our so-called law enforcement folks. Citizens are not receiving 'fair and square' in Az., as you can see from the expose'.

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein

Yeah, great, the founding fathers, who all kept slaves, believed women were chattel, even men without property could not vote, and Indians were to be exterminated.

Not saying we don't have a lot of great freedoms in our country, but interpreting the meaning of what freedom actually is changes from one generation to the next. Seems to me we have more freedoms now, due to Suffragettes in the 1910's, Abolitionists in the 1850's, etc. They fought for freedoms that should have been guaranteed all along. Really big, important freedoms, too, not just speeding and red-light-running freedoms.

That being said, I don't like the cameras. In Britain they have a lot of street crime, and they apparently have cameras set up on the streets (not private business security cameras but law enforcement cameras) to watch people all over the place in the cities. I wonder if Americans would stand for something like that? Hope not...but maybe if street crime were bad enough they would let that freedom erode. I suppose they could have been watching me from satellites, riding my bike to Molina Spring and back, although I saw no humans all day on that trip...

The number of traffic accidents doubled at locations where red light cameras were installed in Peoria, Arizona, according to data released last week at a city council study session. City data also indicate that more recent changes in intersection yellow timing have reduced the number of red light violations. So far, the financial impact of the program has been substantial. On January 31, 2008, the city authorized an Australian company, Redflex Traffic Systems, to issue automated traffic violations at four city intersections. As of June 30, 2009, Redflex had mailed 25,706 citations worth $5,501,084. A before and after comparison of two year's worth of accident data -- from July 2007 to June 2008 compared to July 2008 to June 2009 -- proved to be far less positive. The data are somewhat clouded by an overlap of a few months of ticketing in the 'before' period chosen by the city. In addition, the 'after' period also includes a few months in which the duration of yellow warning times increased by a half-second at three of four intersections. The timing change was made as an experiment on March 1, 2009. "The engineering department agreed to go back and review our yellow light timing, especially at the red light camera intersections, to determine if they were as effective as they could be," Engineering Director Andy Granger explained. "We just wanted to increase it a half-second to see what the impacts would be." Despite the data limitations, the intersection-by-intersection results were significant.

* At 91st Avenue and Bell road, accidents increased 100 percent, including a 120 percent jump in rear end and "stopped for red light" collisions, in the year after red light cameras were installed. In the four months after the yellow light was increased from 4.0 to 4.5 seconds, violations immediately dropped 80 percent on the eastbound approach and 70 percent westbound.

* At 75th Avenue and Thunderbird Road, accidents increased 480 percent. The number of right-angle and head-on collisions increased from 4 to 20, while rear-end collisions also jumped 400 percent. After the yellow light was increased from 4.0 to 4.5 seconds, violations decreased 45 percent eastbound and 26 percent northbound.

* At 83rd Avenue and Union Hills, where only left turns are monitored by cameras, accidents increased just 11 percent. (Note the politico spin below from Hildebrandt about re-routed traffic & such. What? The traffic skipped Union Hills and all went to T-Bird? I don't think so.)The yellow light increase from 3.0 seconds to 3.5 seconds yielded an immediate 57 percent drop in violations
(Now even the blind can see that longer yellows decrease red-light running, not cameras. And that Redflex, and by association the very cities that we hire to protect us, are actually selling our safety for money, all the while feeding us full of 'cameras increase safety'.

* At 83rd Avenue and Thunderbird Road, accidents increased 29 percent, including a 300 percent jump in rear-end collisions. This location serves as a control intersection for considering the effects of not increasing the yellow duration. Unlike the three other locations, violations increased 111 percent at this intersection where the signal timing remained unchanged at 4.5 seconds.

Taken together, accidents increased a total of 103 percent at all four intersections. This result is consistent with the findings of a number of independent studies on the effect of photo enforcement (view studies). At the three intersections with yellow light increases violations dropped an average of 42 percent. Peoria officials got the message about the importance of yellow timing. "You can see there is a significant decrease in the violations," Granger said. "It is a big impact." Beginning this week, the protected yellow phase at every intersection in the city will rise to 4.0 seconds. This stands in contrast to neighboring cities like Glendale and Scottsdale which cling to short, 3.0 second yellow times for all left-hand turns -- the bare minimum amount permitted under federal regulations. (as you can see, it's all about 'safety')
Despite the evidence from 83rd Avenue and Thunderbird, Granger (blind to the evidence presented to him) insisted that the cameras should share the credit for the reduction in violations. Police Commander Doug Hildebrandt (also reached into HIS rhetoric bag) likewise asserted that red light cameras were not responsible for the significant increase in the number of accidents. Instead, he blamed construction in Glendale for pushing traffic onto Peoria streets.
Councilman Ron Aames (who at least has SOME remaining logic and/or integrity) questioned this rosy analysis of the cameras' performance. "It makes me think, before we had the red light cameras we had noticeably less collisions than we have now with the red light cameras," Aames said. "A lot of the (accident columns) before we had the red light cameras were zero, zero, zero. Now we are seeing accidents. I thought we were doing this test to see if it was going to reduce accidents." Deputy City Manager Susan K. Thorpe interrupted to make the point that the accident numbers were dynamic and include a number of different variables. With a limited amount of data, it is not possible to isolate a single cause. "I'm thinking if these numbers were reversed and in the prior period we had 73 and in the current period with the red light cameras we had 36, I probably wouldn't hear these other ways of explaining it. I would probably hear, 'The red light cameras did their job.'"
In 1991, residents voted by a two-to-one margin to oust a photo radar program from Peoria. The city council ignored the expressed sentiment toward photo enforcement in re-imposing automated ticketing. (Of the people, for the people and by the people?)

So, even when there is indisputable evidence that red light camaras INCREASE accidents, we hear in the news and press releases "the cameras are increasing safety". I'm not so much upset about the cameras as I am about these run-amok politicians thinking that we are daft enough to believe their spin. I guess that since we allow them to get away with it, we ARE.
Remember... the government can't give you anything that it hasn't taken from you first.

I'm glad to see some else besides me so fired up over this. I'll be glad when we can vote it out of existence in November.

@hikeaz
Interesting data, and not too surprising.

As the city of Fairfax, Va. prepares next week to become the first in Virginia to resume the use of red light cameras, the history of a county intersection offers an important lesson regarding the area's first experiment with photo ticketing. Of the thirteen intersections where red light cameras were used in Fairfax County, only the intersection Route 50/Lee-Jackson Highway and Fair Ridge Drive reported a significant accident reduction, according to figures provided in a 2007 report by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (see page 75).

It is also a location where the length of the yellow signal was both shortened and lengthened, providing a rare glimpse into the real world effects of each change. Back in 1998, Route 50 and Fair Ridge had a serious problem with collisions. About 74,000 vehicles passed through the busy intersection on a typical day, including a significant number of commercial vehicles. VDOT engineers met with representatives of the Fairfax County Fire Department on August 4 that year to come up with an action plan to improve safety at the location. "They decided to take several steps to reduce the number of red light runners which they felt were a factor in the crash problem," a VDOT official explained in a 2002 email obtained by TheNewspaper. "These actions included... increase the amber time following the Route 50 through movement to 5.5 seconds." The engineers updated the signage at the intersection and enhanced signal visibility.

The 1.5 second increase in yellow duration was implemented on August 12, 1998. The accident situation improved significantly. About a year later, on October 11, 1999, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors signed a contract with Lockheed Martin IMS (which now does business as Affiliated Computer Services) to issue photo tickets at ten county intersections with the expectation that the company would generate a total of $13 million in citations over the duration of the three-year agreement. Just four days later, the yellow signal timing at Route 50 and Fair Ridge was shortened back to 4.0 seconds. According to VDOT, the shortening was accidental (yeah... riiiight) , but it did prove useful in making the county's red light camera program appear more effective. The shorter yellow helped the "before" data for the intersection show 362 crashes per year for every million vehicles passing through, placing it back once again among the worst in the county. When the red light camera was activated on February 9, 2001, violations were also high at 250 per month, generating a steady flow of revenue. Six weeks later, on March 26, 2001, VDOT decided to increase the yellow timing from 4.0 back to 5.5 seconds. The impact was immediate and dramatic. Average monthly violations dropped from 250 to between 20 and 30 per month -- a 90 percent decrease. The violation rate remained low until the Virginia legislature shut down red light camera programs statewide in 2005. After all red-light cameras were shuttered the number of accidents dropped to a rate of 290, reflecting a 20 percent decrease. (Oh yeah.... 'it's all about safety')

"Those that give up essential liberties to obtain temporary safety dererve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

I just want people who drive like a striped-butted ape and run red lights to get a ticket for once in their miserable lives. I couldn't care less if a camera or motorcycle cop does it...

For the experimental NJ locations, the Redflex cut is 40%. Is that what it is in Phoenix?

big_load wrote:For the experimental NJ locations, the Redflex cut is 40%. Is that what it is in Phoenix?

From what I read I believe that the Phoenix municipal photo speeding fine is +/- $200 and a photo red light is $250 + traffic school. (Anyone who has first-hand knowledge, please correct these numbers if apropos). A portion of this goes to the state & county, but the city keeps the vast majority. Their costs are below.

Report of three (3) bids received by Purchasing on April 3, 2009, for the
purchase of services for photo red light and photo speed enforcement for the Phoenix
Police Department on an “as needed” basis during the three (3) year contract
period beginning on or about July 1, 2009 and ending June 30, 2012.
Following is a tabulation of the lowest bids received.
Bidder
Cost Per Paid Citation

Redflex Traffic System, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
$34.25*

American Traffic Solutions
Scottsdale, AZ
$35.00

Gatso USA
Beverly, MA
$58.35

It is recommended by the Deputy Finance Director and the Police Chief that the
bid of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., as asterisked, be accepted as the lowest
responsible bidder.
Funds are available in the Police Department’s budget. The estimated
expenditure for the three year contract term is $678,000. The contractor will not
be paid until the City is paid for each citation.
Provisions of the agreement include an option to extend the contract up to two
additional year(s), in one-year increments, which will be exercised by staff if
considered in the City’s best interest to do so.

OK, so that's 13.7% on a photo red light, or about 1/3 of their percentage in NJ. I expect it would come down, but not after the experimental program and probably not until after the first non-experimental contract. NJ has a long history of getting totally robbed on big contracts of this type. Outsourced vehicle inspections and automated toll collection ended up costing taxpayers over $2B in capital investments, a third of which will be abandoned in a few months. We can't afford any more efficiency improvements for a while, but with a 40% take, Redflex can afford to give the politicians whatever they want.

Northern Virginia's streets are set to become more dangerous as a new law takes effect enhancing the profitability of red-light-camera schemes.
The robotic ticket machines are already flashing in Arlington and Alexandria, but Arlington next month will become the first northern jurisdiction to issue tickets. Based on the program's dismal results from 1999 to 2005, there will be more people, not fewer, in area hospitals and more cars in body shops.

Take the intersection of Lee Highway and Lynn Street, where a machine once again will send traffic citations through the mail. According to the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC), the total number of accidents jumped by a third when the camera went live a decade ago - including a 21 percent increase in right-angle collisions. They weren't just fender-benders, either, as the number of injuries climbed 14 percent.
That intersection was one of the better performers.
Adding the rest of Arlington's camera-monitored intersections, rear-end accidents soared 139 percent overall. Red-light-running crashes jumped 159 percent. Red-light-running crashes involving an injury increased 65 percent. Angle crashes increased 53 percent.
All types of injury crashes increased 89 percent. Total crashes increased 65 percent.
There was no decrease in any type of accident studied. VTRC's analysis took advantage of the most sophisticated techniques to adjust for the influence of all relevant factors, including traffic volume. Over the same period, accidents at camera-free control intersections dropped.

A spokesman for the Arlington County Police Department said that though she was not familiar with the VTRC report, "other studies" have shown decreases in accidents. (Yeah.. good luck with that one.. it's not as if the numbers were even CLOSE)

No doubt those "studies" were provided (bought-and-paid-for) by the Arizona-based private vendor American Traffic Solutions, which stands to make millions on this contract. Arlington's first three years of photo ticketing generated 70,050 tickets worth $3,525,250. Since then, technology has advanced to the point where ticketing vehicles making safe right-hand turns on red provides significant new revenue potential.
Other cities are counting on short yellow times to deliver big green. Alexandria, for example, dropped the yellow time at South Patrick and Gibbon streets from 4 seconds to 3 seconds with criminal disregard for the negative effect that change will have on safety.

It is painfully obvious (in more ways than one) that these intersection cameras are dangerous - not to just the red-light-runner (who I have little sympathy for) but to the unsuspecting driver who is just minding their P's & Q's..... WHAM! The worst part is that we are PAYING the city gub'ment to effectively DECREASE our safety (especially when they shorten the yellow lights merely to increase revenue at the expense of our safety); all-the-while they still whisper in our ear that red-light cameras increase safety. How dumb ARE we?

Off-rant.

That area of VA already had some good safety technology. They were the first place I know of that widely deployed red lights that incorporate flashing blue/white strobes. It's pretty hard to miss one of those.

big_load wrote:That area of VA already had some good safety technology. They were the first place I know of that widely deployed red lights that incorporate flashing blue/white strobes. It's pretty hard to miss one of those.

Likely they weren't making any $$$$ from the strobes, so they figured they'd sell a little safety.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PHOENIX -- An anti-photo radar group is planning a legal challenge that could call into question thousands of photo-enforcement tickets issued by Redflex Traffic Systems.

Redflex runs photo enforcement for the Arizona Department of Pubic Safety and many Valley cities.

Redflex is being sued by their main competitor, American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

The lawsuit, filed in U. S. District Court in Phoenix, alleges that Redflex falsely advertised radar units that were not certified and unfairly won contracts because of it.

In court Thursday, Redflex executives admitted that prior to August 2008 radar units were not properly certified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
"Every ticket Redflex issued between 1997 and 2008 is now in question," said Shawn Dow of CameraFraud.com, who was at the hearing.

Dow said facts unveiled as a result of the lawsuit could provide legal grounds to challenge thousands of Redflex photo radar tickets issued before August 2008.

"Photo radar was used in Paradise Valley, Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, Tucson (and in other Arizona cities)," said Dow.

Dow said many photo radar critics plan to challenge tickets issued by Redflex, nation-wide. "We’ll be challenging the contracts," he said.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Arizona Official Confirms Redflex Falsified Speed Camera Documents
Arizona Secretary of State blasts Redflex notary for falsifying speed camera certification document.

Jan Brewer last week confirmed that documents used to convict motorists of speeding in Lafayette, Louisiana contained elements that had been falsified. Brewer revoked the license of Cheryl Krough, notary public for photo enforcement vendor Redflex after concluding that she violated four Arizona laws while purporting to certify a speed camera deployment form for use in official hearings.

"The notary executed a notarial certificate containing a false statement, providing the secretary grounds for a suspension or revocation," wrote Joann Cota, an assistant director with the secretary of state's office. "Therefore, the secretary of state has determined to revoke the notary's commission effective immediately."

At issue was the form used in an attempt to convict motorists Mark and Phil Abshire of speeding on October 10, 2007. Krough signed this document, certifying that van driver Scott Michael Bernard had sworn to the truth of the document's contents in her presence. The secretary of state's office saw no evidence that this ever took place.

"It cannot be determined whether the signer was in the notary's presence when the notary notarized the form," Cota wrote.

Krough, who worked in the Scottsdale, Arizona office for Redflex, was 1400 miles away from the Redflex employee who drove the van that day. The secretary of state's office expressed a certain amount of indignation that in response to an investigation of the matter by the Arizona Attorney General's office, Krough, "wrote a short response to the complaint on a post it note."

This scofflaw attitude at Redflex led to four legal violations, according to Cota. Krough was guilty of ignoring laws requiring the proper keeping of a journal, forbidding the notarization of a document containing blanks and, in general, "failing to faithfully discharge the duties or responsibilities of a notary public."

The Abshires had notified Brewer's office in January about the situation (details) and were thrilled to be vindicated. Krough likely had certified thousands of such forms throughout Lafayette and the rest of the country in violation of the law. The twins called on Lafayette council members to refund citations issued based on the questionable documentation.

"All fines collected by Redflex in Lafayette, Louisiana in 2007 and 2008 that were illegally notarized in Arizona should be voided," Mark Abshire said in an email yesterday. "Restitution by refunding fines to the affected individual citizens of Lafayette, Louisiana should be made immediately as it is unethical and unconscionable to collect fines by violating the laws of due process."

The Abshires were also vindicated in a January hearing where each was found not guilty after arguing the city had not followed the guidelines of its own speed camera ordinance (details).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tempe Police were called mid-Friday after CameraFRAUD activists observed a “photo radar” van breaking the law.

The van, owned and operated by beleaguered Redflex Group, often surveils drivers eastbound on Elliot Road near the Loop 101.

CameraFRAUD activists measured out the spacing of the signs to determine they were not in compliance with the law, which specifies the warning sign closest to the photo radar van be must be placed “approximately 300 feet” away:

At least two signs shall be placed in a location before a photo enforcement system. One sign shall be in a location that is approximately three hundred feet before the photo enforcement system.

Tempe Police confirmed the sign was posted at 743ft, (yeah... 300 feet... 743 feet.... just a slight misjudgement ... thieves!) and the van was removed from operational status pending the investigation. In addition, both of the warning signs appeared to be placed deliberately behind trees and shrubs, preventing proper notification to oncoming traffic as required by law.

Despite the clear violation of the law, no immediate citation was issued by Tempe Police to the Australian company (this is how you spell 'cahoots'). The fate of any “notices of violation” generated by the van while it operated outside of the law (more than usual) remains unclear, with the expectation that the burden of “guilty until proven innocent” applies even in the event of municipal and vendor error.


Accidents increased 40 percent one year after red light cameras went live in Baytown, Texas.

Baytown red light camera ticketAfter a year of use, red light cameras have failed to deliver the promised safety benefits in Baytown, Texas. The Houston suburb activated the majority of its cameras on July 13, 2008. Since then, the number of accidents at eight camera locations has increased 40 percent, contrary to predictions from city officials.
The increase in accidents has notbeen in minor "fender benders," as is frequently claimed by photo ticketing advocates. Rather, the number of collisions resulting in an injury jumped 75 percent. Rear end collisions increased 39 percent. Results from comprehensive, independent studies elsewhere in the country have yielded similar results.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

New traffic system might just make lead foots ease up on that pedal when they hit Superior

09/02/10
Cindy Tracy

Fixed traffic cameras are now located to reduce speeding through the center of town on U.S. 60. One camera in each of two sets on the highway photographs the front of the car and one the license at back.

Two sets of Redflex Traffic Systems stationary traffic cameras are permanently up and operating on U.S. 60 in Superior and it is all about safety. (Oh... geez... they oughta get a new script)

"The whole intent of the program is to get people driving through town to slow down," said Superior Police Lieutenant Mike Campbell last week. He noted that approximately 13,000 people die annually in the U.S. from speed related accidents. (How many in Superior? Traffic fatatilities in Arizona dropped from 1071 in 2007 to 920 in 2008.

He said the system is designed so people will be prudent in speed; it is not for any other purpose. He noted that the area on U.S. 60 that the cameras cover is one of the worst for serious accidents and it is hoped the cameras will help.

The Redflex photo safety program was approved by Superior Town Council in 2009, he said. Delays took place in implementing the program but now fixed cameras are located on eastbound U.S. 60 at Mary Drive and westbound U.S. 60 in the center of town. There are two cameras at each location. One takes a picture of the front of cars exceeding the speed limit and one shoots the license plate from the rear. A sensor is located in the street between the front and rear cameras at both the westbound and eastbound locations.

A certified police officer reviews each case before a citation is issued, Campbell said.

To get everyone used to the idea, there is currently a preliminary 30-day "grace period" for the program. Citations will not be issued during this time period. Instead, letters will go out to anyone photographed allegedly exceeding the posted speed limit advising them of that fact.

A red filter has also been placed on the camera, which are clearly visible on tall poles. The filter aids in ensuring that drivers will not be startled by the flash of the camera.

Campbell said the taxpayers of Superior do not pay anything for this program. Redflex technology is "violator funded," he said, e.g., the firm receives a percentage of fines paid. Redflex does not charge the town for installing the equipment and absorbs much of the initial cost of the system.

According to its website, Redflex Traffic Systems is "the longest consistently-operating company in the growing U.S. road safety camera industry, with more than 20 years of experience in partnering with cities on programs to make an impact on dangerous driving behaviors like red light running and speeding." The site () http://www.redflex.com states that Redflex "shares the same vision as your community: to reduce the risk for tragedy on the road."

Campbell said that when Redflex did a one-day, 12-hour traffic survey in 2009 prior to the program being presented to the town of Superior, the data showed that 750 vehicles had exceeded the posted speed eastbound at Mary Drive. A total of 217 of these had exceeded the limit by 15 miles per hour. Westbound at the location in the center of town on the highway, 1278 vehicles had exceeded the posted speed, with 430 of them doing so by more than 15 miles per hour. Hey! Maybe the speed limit is too low?

He said that the cameras will be helpful in a community that does not have the manpower to monitor speed as much as they might in a larger venue. He said this does not replace what the Superior Police Department, Arizona Department of Public Safety and Pinal County Sheriff's Department are already doing.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
These bumpkins on the Superior City Council must not read much.......

Feb. 2010
Arizona: City Dumps Money Losing Traffic Cameras
Avondale, Arizona cancels photo enforcement after it failed to generate accident reduction or profit.

Avondale, Arizona last week decided to terminate its contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) for the operation of red light cameras and speed cameras. The city council made its decision primarily on financial grounds after the program failed to deliver on its promise of enhanced safety and substantial profit. With Avondale facing a $3.8 million budget deficit, officials decided the cameras had to go.

"The largest reduction in budgeted appropriations comes from the camera traffic enforcement program," Avondale Finance Director Kevin Artz wrote in a February 8 memo to the council. "The police department has assessed the effectiveness of the program and determined that potentially the program costs outweigh the benefits. With the total costs of the program exceeding the revenue and little change in accident rate, staff recommends that council consider eliminating or suspending the program."

The city allowed ATS to deploy two red light cameras and one mobile speed camera van. Over the past two years, ATS issued 6326 photo citations, with the number of tickets issued down 46 percent in 2009. While some cities would trumpet this reduction as evidence of the benefit of camera use, Avondale provided a different explanation.

"In June 2009 the decision was made to discontinue photo enforcement at intersections for failing to stop turning right on a red light," Police Chief Kevin Kotsur wrote. "This was based on a review of the previous year's accident rate that revealed there were no traffic accidents caused by a vehicle failing to stop on a red light turning right at an intersection... This decision appears to account for the majority of this decrease."

Since the economic recession took hold in 2007, traffic volumes have dropped nationwide. As a result, traffic fatalities have hit all-time lows. Since the beginning of the recession, fatal crashes have dropped 14.7 percent across the country. The half-mile radius surrounding Avondale's camera locations only saw a 7 percent drop in accidents. Areas farther from the cameras experienced a more significant drop in the number of crashes.The city budget did estimate that cameras would generate $318,610 in net revenue for the city, but Kotsur noted that indirect costs associated with the program would mean the city would wind up losing $80,000. Avondale's contract was set to expire on September 19, 2010, but an early termination clause allowed cancellation without penalty to the city.

Campbell said that when Redflex did a one-day, 12-hour traffic survey in 2009 prior to the program being presented to the town of Superior, the data showed that 750 vehicles had exceeded the posted speed eastbound at Mary Drive. A total of 217 of these had exceeded the limit by 15 miles per hour. Westbound at the location in the center of town on the highway, 1278 vehicles had exceeded the posted speed, with 430 of them doing so by more than 15 miles per hour.

So Redflex does its own 12-hour "traffic survey" before presenting the program to the town? Would anybody be surprised to know that they might have done dozens and dozens of 12-hour traffic surveys, but only presented the one that looked the worst? How many total vehicles were there? 20,000? What's the percentage of speeders? Isn't the speed limit set at 35 because you know that traffic will drive 40-45? So shouldn't anybody driving less than 10 over not be counted? Whatever. Congratulations to Superior.

What has Star Valley done with all their newfound revenue? They now have 4 separate camera locations in a mile stretch. And a strip club with a cow on the roof. Nice place to live. At least the traffic sticks to 45 through town.

Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 28-702 allows the establishment of speed limits on the State Highway System "upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation."

The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices sets the standard. All states must comply.
Section 2B.11 requires an engineering study or Speed by Volume Report be completed for each road or highway. Then, post the speed limit at “the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic, rounded up to the nearest 5 MPH increment.” There remains NO valid excuse to round down on limited access divided highways. A legislated cap (like 65 MPH maximum on urban
highways) is in clear contradiction to the letter and spirit of the law. The 85%ile is the SAFEST speed limit and garners nearly complete compliance. Again, proving the “need” for cameras is a total
fabrication.

Speed zoning in Arizona is based on the widely accepted principle of setting speed limits as near as practicable to the speed at or below which 85 percent of the drivers are traveling.This speed is subject, of course, to downward revision based upon such factors as: accident experience, roadway geometrics, and adjacent development.

Arizona fabricates all sorts of caveats....
Some questions which need to be answered prior to establishing a speed limit are:
Is the section of roadway sufficiently long enough to permit safe accelerating and decelerating for the 85th percentile speed?
Is the alignment, both vertical and horizontal, capable of safely accommodating vehicles traveling at the 85th percentile speed?
Are the lane widths, traffic volumes, and surface conditions compatible with this speed?
Will a vehicle traveling at the 85th percentile speed be capable of making a safe and smooth stop, if necessary?
Has a pattern of accidents developed which would indicate that the 85th percentile speed is not appropriate? (Oh yeah... the guys who stood to profit did a 12-hour 'study'.)
Is a certain speed limit necessary to provide signal progression?
Is development adjacent to the roadway causing a significant amount of turning maneuvers or congestion? (Maybe some 'turning maneuvers' at the strip club, but that's about all ;) )

You know, I haven't noticed a dramatic increase in accidents or speeds driven on I-40 since the Redflex mobile units were pulled as part of the state ending it's contract with them.

Jim_H wrote:You know, I haven't noticed a dramatic increase in accidents or speeds driven on I-40 since the Redflex mobile units were pulled as part of the state ending it's contract with them.

Scottsdale’s Loop 101 recorded ‐26% less crashes in 2005 (297) versus 2004 (403). (A 26% reduction) Yet, deceitfully, speed ticket cameras were installed in 2006.

Arizona interstate/freeway fatal crashes reached a record low in 2007 (188 versus 238 in 2006). Yet, Napolitano did an 'end around' and forced them on us in spite of facts.

So, there remains NO VALID REASON why STCs were installed on freeways in 2006 or 2008.

Plus, I beileve that, @ 75mph, the speed limit on 40 is almost within the 85th percentile - which has the effect of a general adherence to the posted limit. (of course this is something that never makes it into the Arizona Republic [-X )

I never go much over 75 on interstates, and I still pass a lot of people and most trucks on 40, and 17. I get passed by people going pretty fast, but most are going a little faster than me. I would estimate 80 to 85. The ones who pass going 90 or better are few and far between, and probably would have ignored or not cared about camera tickets anyway. Thats my guess at least.