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"?

Maybe they're gonna put up feral cat habitats on top.

chumley wrote:The Tempe cameras were finally taken down. I noticed it Tuesday. They left all the posts up though.

Seyler addresses that in the second half of her letter....... So far (after a one year delay) the work is matching up with her stated schedule. Although she does not get specific on the time-frame for the infrastructure removal.

hikeaz wrote:"All lights are certified without a problem," Christie said. "All the lights, the red light cameras, are certified."

Oops, maybe not. It wouldn't be the first time he tried to bluff his way through. Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth) didn't believe it could have been accomplished so quickly, so he hired an out-of-state engineer to conduct an independent study. As reported in the Newark Star-Ledger on 8/2, he found questionable timing at five intersections in the first two days of testing. Two of them he found to be at least half a second too short by their criteria. One of those two produced 17,000 camera tickets last year and was the subject of the first class-action lawsuit regarding the cameras.

chumley wrote:The Tempe cameras were finally taken down. I noticed it Tuesday. They left all the posts up though.

It's a little late, all 3 of my little speeders are out of ASU. I hated those cameras.

I don't mind the cameras as much as the hassle of never answering the door when the bell rings. :A1:

Some new numbers are in, and there are no surprises. (From today's Newark Star-Ledger)

Crashes balloon with red-light cameras
They were installed at dangerous intersections to reduce the number of crashes, but New Jersey's controversial red-light cameras have actually seen an increase in the number of collisions, according to a new state report.
A New Jersey Department of Transportation analysis of two dozen intersections that have the automated traffic cops for at least a year have found that accidents - particularly rear-end crashes - have increased, and the collisions are more costly.
Rear-end collisions at the intersections were up by 20 percent, from 286 the year before the cameras were installed to 343 the year after, according to the report made public yesterday. Overall, accidents increased from 577 before the cameras were installed to 582 the year after. The crash severity cost - which takes into account vehicle and property damage, emergency response and medical care - increased by nearly $1.2M after the cameras were installed

.

I guess the ray of hope is that side-impact crashes were done somewhat, but they were more than offset by the increase in rear-ends, as was the overall cost.

Baltimore issues speed-camera citation to a car that was standing still.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... 9038.story

Wow, that beats my experience any day. I always figured they were just cashing in on having the guy from Colorado passing me, and since I had the local tag, they were going to send me the ticket and hope I caved, but that shows they simply are lazy, incompetent, and care only about sending out tickets to cash in, hoping people won't notice how incredibly corrupt and criminal their false allegations of people breaking the law, actually are. It seems to me that the only reason a politician would invite traffic camera is that they themselves are corrupt, and getting a political campaign or other illegal financial kick-back from these companies. If they were really interested in law and safety, they would hire new officers specifically for traffic enforcement at the locations they place these cameras.

chumley wrote:Baltimore issues speed-camera citation to a car that was standing still.

Oops!

Jim_H wrote:Wow, that beats my experience any day. I always figured they were just cashing in on having the guy from Colorado passing me, and since I had the local tag, they were going to send me the ticket and hope I caved, but that shows they simply are lazy, incompetent, and care only about sending out tickets to cash in, hoping people won't notice how incredibly corrupt and criminal their false allegations of people breaking the law, actually are. It seems to me that the only reason a politician would invite traffic camera is that they themselves are corrupt, and getting a political campaign or other illegal financial kick-back from these companies. If they were really interested in law and safety, they would hire new officers specifically for traffic enforcement at the locations they place these cameras.

Ya mean it's not 'all about SAFETY'!? As these cities continually claim (on their way to the bank to make a deposit of tens of thousands of 'economic downturn' dollars? ) :STP:

@chumley
Nice! And as it turns out according to the article, that the ticket was issued to a Lawyer....

chumley wrote:Baltimore issues speed-camera citation to a car that was standing still.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... 9038.story

I once got a parking ticket for a street I had never driven down, let alone parked on, at a time it would have been physically impossible for me to be there. (That, or I would have had to drive 115mph for two hours, each way, to do it.) It was dismissed ... plz:

hikeaz wrote:

chumley wrote:The Tempe cameras were finally taken down. I noticed it Tuesday. They left all the posts up though.

Seyler addresses that in the second half of her letter....... So far (after a one year delay) the work is matching up with her stated schedule. Although she does not get specific on the time-frame for the infrastructure removal.

The reply I received today from the Tempe asst. attorney when I asked how the 'work' ( a.k.a. 'slow-boat-to-China') is coming along...... (I guess that I should get a law degree so that I can write 'bla-bla-bla', but have it consume a paragraph.)


"Tempe is working with Reflex regarding the removal of its equipment that was installed as part of the photo radar contract. Legal issues regarding the contract that need to be addressed have delayed the removal process. I apologize that you have been impacted by that delay. Tempe and Reflex have already agreed that the poles will be removed and locations restored to match the surrounding area, but the resolution of more complex legal issues have prevented the finalization of the global agreement. We hope to have everything resolved in the next 30 days as long as the parties can reach an amicable agreement. We can let you know when the agreement is finalized.

Sincerely,

Catherine M. Bowman
Assistant City Attorney"

@hikeaz I bet she could round up some free help. (There might be some extra depreciation involved).

big_load wrote:@hikeaz I bet she could round up some free help. (There might be some extra depreciation involved).

My neighbor has a backhoe and I offered its use in my first go-round with the City on having the cameras removed. They declined. (Seems that the only segment of the workforce that is avoiding any layoffs is gub'ment).

It seems that RedFlex is the one on the hook to remove the crap and return the area(s) to its 'pre-camera condition'.
Now if I left my junk laying around on City property for 20 months, we all know that Tempe would be at my house (with backhoe(s), removing whatever they considered to be 'trash'. ("Hey.. that car just LOOKS decrepit - I'm gonna restore that one day - it ran the last time I drove it" (of course kennedy was president at that time). But of course I a mere 'citizen', and not a carpet-bagger, money-grabbing 'entity'.

In Tempe's case the snafu is: Tempe did not want to pay RedFlex it's 'pimp cut' on folks who went to traffic school vs. paying the photo surviellence fine. (There is a whole other money-grab associated with the privately-owned traffic schools, (but that is another thread altogether - although most of the priciples are the same).

Redflex sued the City re. the terminology 'successfully prosecuted' because they felt entitled to some dough even though the citizen never was found 'guilty' (for out-of-Az.-folks; the traffic school is a sort-of diversion program where, if after you receive a traffic citation you complete the class, the traffic citation is dropped. Each licensed Az. motorist is able to do this once every two years.)

Anyway - Tempe thought that because the citizen paid for the school that he/she had, as Barney says, 'paid their debt to society'. (Think 'Group W' bench)
RedFlex, et al did not agree, so they sued the city.

OH... but wait........ I forgot......that's right........ it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. (maybe safety of your annual bonus)

Profit and law enforcement, or punitive enforcement of the law, belong together like kindergartners and pedophiles. Only an idiot would think that a for profit company would really be in it for safety enforcement.

About 15 years ago I was contacted by police because they had information a car I owned was the getaway car used in an armed robbery. I invited them to come out and take a look at the car because it had not moved in 6 months. When they came out and I showed them the huge crusty snowbank they didn't believe a car inside. So I dug enough until they could see the front license plate. I had to dig until they could also see the rear plate as well. Only then would they believe neither the car nor the plates were anywhere near the armed robbery the night before.

So much for 'eye-witness' accounts in the midst of an armed robbery.

Redflex would simply have issued a warrant for your arrest, with the "armed and dangerous" qualifier, to allow anyone who encountered you to shoot first and ask questions later, much as they operate. ;)

Update from Tempe:
"Tempe has finalized all issues with Redflex and that the parties were signing the paperwork next week. I anticipate the poles will be removed in less than 60 days, possibly much sooner.

Cathy Bowman
Tempe Assistant City Attorney"

(note: the cameras have been inop since July 2011, removed off the poles August 2012) - this (above) merely pertains to their obligation to return the multiple pole 'yard art' blight on any of the affected corners to its pre-camera condition - Can you believe it? A year-and-a-half....)

It looks like the NJ state legislature is taking up a bill introduced late last year that sets sensible speed-based minimum durations for amber lights at intersections with red light cameras. It has 20 sponsors and cosponsors, and is surprisingly reasonable in that particular regard. However, there's one provision that might not survive: it caps the fine at $20 for any type of violation detected by a red light camera, while explicitly excluding other means of detection from that limit. Most fines for those types of violations are about five times higher. This might be aimed at making the cameras financially unsustainable, or at least curtailing their attractiveness as a revenue source.