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"?

Just a note that if you do get served, I've been told that the cost of (successfully) serving you the ticket must be paid besides the original ticket itself, which can inflate your total costs by 50%. It's kind of a gamble to just ignore it.

nonot wrote:Just a note that if you do get served, I've been told that the cost of (successfully) serving you the ticket must be paid besides the original ticket itself, which can inflate your total costs by 50%. It's kind of a gamble to just ignore it.

It's also kind of a gamble to do 85 in a 65, but it sure gets me home sooner ;)

For me, when I was driving the school bus, even if I got a speeding ticket in my car I'd have to report it to my boss. She'd report it to ADOT. I think I could have gotten one moving violation and not lost my CDL and my job, but definitely not two.

I haven't had a moving violation in 23 years.

nonot wrote: I've been told that the cost of (successfully) serving you the ticket must be paid besides the original ticket itself, which can inflate your total costs by 50%.

That's the problem with "being told"... That type of info is usually inaccurate. It's written in the law (Rule 4.1c) that you will pay an additional $20 for the cost of being served.

These things must be a good source of revenue for some communities... Just ran across this article:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/scot ... ement.html

Can't seem to shake the darn things in our neck of the woods.

Yep, that's Paradise Valley, the first city in the US to get stoplight cameras.

I'm curious about the:
HALO: A collision-prevention system that predicts when a driver could run a red light and delays the green light for opposing traffic.
I sure hope this doesn't start folks running more red lights with the thinking "HALO will keep it green for me so why stop now?"

When I moved to AZ in 2002 Scottsdale had only 10 single-direction stoplight cameras and sent out over 30,000 tickets. While they may not ALL have been actual red-light runners, that number was almost the equal of 100 times EVERY DAY someone ran the red light... in one direction... add in the other directions and how much a gambler are you?
Personally, I'm ALWAYS looking up side streets whether a light is green for me or not.

Maybe the cars will just be made to be smarter and 'see' the red light and stop the car for you?

CannondaleKid wrote:I'm curious about the:
HALO: A collision-prevention system that predicts when a driver could run a red light and delays the green light for opposing traffic.
I sure hope this doesn't start folks running more red lights with the thinking "HALO will keep it green for me so why stop now?"

I suspect it would extend the red for opposing traffic, but not extend the green for the potential violator, so the lights in both directions would be red for a while. That way they could also get i$$ue a ticket.

What is almost never mentioned in these 'articles' is the consistent (and sometimes dramatic) increase in injury accidents resulting AFTER the installation of the red light (speed on green) cameras.
The ca$h-grabbing municipalities are effectively selling the health of their motorists, all-the-while spewing the Redflex (et al) drivel to anyone who will listen. Shame on them.

paulhubbard wrote:

nonot wrote: I've been told that the cost of (successfully) serving you the ticket must be paid besides the original ticket itself, which can inflate your total costs by 50%.

That's the problem with "being told"... That type of info is usually inaccurate. It's written in the law (Rule 4.1c) that you will pay an additional $20 for the cost of being served.

And the problem with randomly citing something without a reference is that it paints a wildly inaccurate picture. Rule 4.1c is issued by the Arizona Supreme Court and applies to state courts. So a photo ticket issued by the state (DPS) would be subject to a $20 fee for service. But the state no longer operates photo enforcement, so Rule 4.1c is irrelevant with regards to a discussion on photo traffic enforcement.

The courts in the municipalities that operate photo enforcement can establish their own service fees. So the fee for service may vary greatly depending on the municipality that issues the citation, and the associated court jurisdiction.

Anybody wanna bet that the Star Valley court charges more than $20 for service?

chumley wrote:The courts in the municipalities that operate photo enforcement can establish their own service fees.

Despite my best Googling, I can't seem to find any info on rules for municipalities and $$ for serving. So maybe the rules are: there are no rules. Scary...

I wonder if a rule is set by the state, for the state (or by/for the Feds), can a muni be forced to abide by that rule? I really don't want to hire a lawyer, but if I do get served I just might. Even though it may cost more than the ticket, knowing for a fact that I was NOT speeding though that zone I have a difficult time bending over to fund their town through their little money-maker system.

I'm sure no one here ever worries about traffic cameras. But here is one more thing not to worry about in Pima County
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... rizona.php

"Reviews of the program by the Pima County Department of Transportation and the Pima County Sheriff's Department found no conclusive evidence that fixed stand-alone cameras effectively and consistently reduce speeds or crashes because drivers tend to decrease speed near the camera and then accelerate after passing," the county says in a statement.

The cameras are owned by American Traffic Solutions, and the five-year contract with the company expired on Monday.

"[The county transportation department's] review found that the crash rate at the 11 camera locations decreased only 13 percent during a three-period (maybe they mean " a three YEAR period" ?)when the crash rate for the entire County road system decreased 19 percent," a county statement says. "The severity rate of crashes at the 11 camera locations decreased less than 1 percent while the severity rate of crashes systemwide decreased 11 percent. Unfortunately for those in the Phoenix area, several cities around the Valley still utilize the cameras."

Another way to say this is that a motorist had a 6% GREATER chance of being involved in a crash at a photo-surveillance intersection that a non-surveilled one. Oh- and when you are involved in that crash that you are 6% more likely to have, you have a 10+% GREATER chance of being seriously injured in that crash at surveilled intersections.
Like Reagan said - "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
The especially sad part is that some cities are still drinking the 'free money' Kool-Aid at the expense of their citizen's wishes, health and well-being. It is criminal, but who's to prosecute them?

It's not speeding that causes crashes, it is unpredictable behavior: Sudden acceleration or deceleration, or running red lights / stop signs. (Though the latter, especially in Phoenix, is unfortunately predictable ...)

Update: I never replied or showed up in Star Valley, and my case was "Dismissed without prejudice." I guess Star Valley hopes people will pay but doesn't chase them if they don't. Note to self: Always pull the visor down in Star Valley so the camera can't see your face.

paulhubbard wrote: "Dismissed without prejudice."

How did you find this out?

The Eagle wrote:paulhubbard wrote:
"Dismissed without prejudice."


How did you find this out?

Supreme Court Website: https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/Public ... ookup.aspx
10/23/2013 CASE COMPLETED/CLOSED D 1
10/23/2013 ORDR DISMISSAL/CASE W/O PRJDC D 1
7/9/2013 CAL: ARRAIGNMENT/APPEARANCE
6/10/2013 COMPLAINT FILED-UNIFORM CITATN D 1

I was just about to say, watch for Star Valley (it's on 260 near Payson) both directions. And watch for Show Low as well. I think both highways coming in from Phoenix have one, 260 and 60.

I could not afford to get any tickets whatsoever, being a commercial driver. So, I did not get tickets in Arizona. Now I have a Class C California license. But I can't afford a speeding ticket, either! I haven't had a moving violation since 1990. I was leaving San Diego, going along with traffic near Buckman Springs (near PCT crossing) but mine was the only Arizona plate, so I'm assuming that's why the CHP guy picked me. I didn't pay it, but kept getting letters from the court, I finally had to pay a higher amount. It was not fun.

paulhubbard wrote:Update: I never replied or showed up in Star Valley, and my case was "Dismissed without prejudice." I guess Star Valley hopes people will pay but doesn't chase them if they don't.

I know for a fact that Star Valley sends process servers to your home (even if you live in the valley) to serve those "ignored" tickets. When that happens the fine is higher.

It's up to you to make sure that nobody is home every time the server stops by.

I have also never paid a photo ticket, and all have been dismissed.

chumley wrote:I have also never paid a photo ticket, and all have been dismissed.

I never paid for any photo tickets either. Of course I never got any in the first place... must be I pay enough attention that don't have that problem.

Brick Township becomes the first NJ municipality to dump red light cameras.

Mayor John Ducey: "I'm not convinced that our intersections are safer, and therefore, come Feb. 18, 2014, there will no longer be red-light cameras here in Brick Township" (from the Newark Star-Ledger). Brick Township has cameras at three intersections, and rear-end crashes and right-angle accidents increased at two of them after cameras were installed. Accidents doubled at one of them. This wasn't just a transient increase, either. They've been in place for three years. The mayor noted that the cameras were the top source of citizen complaints he received while campaigning door-to-door. "And it didn't matter whether or not they got tickets or they didn't get tickets; either way they weren't happy that they had red-light cameras in town".

Brick is a fairly small town that gets a lot of traffic to and from the Jersey shore. The tickets brought in $830k last year, mostly from out-of-town drivers, yet the people still wanted them gone.