Redflex Corruption

[Jim]

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"?

[Thoreau]

I have never seen one north of Flag. I guess not enough chances to make money on 89, even leading to the Canyon huh?

Considering my 2nd to last trip to the Canyon, I can only say thank GOD they didn't put any up that way. They would've caught me doing some triple-digit, open road, fun-time throttle-testing =)

I've only ever been snapped by any camera systems once before, and that was northbound on Tatum through PV MANY years ago. Got hit by a fixed unit at an intersection. Paid it, and somehow I've managed to never have that problem again. *knocks on wood*

[hikeaz]

Speed is not a great determinate in most so called 'accidents'. Inattention is. (The leading crash is a rear-ender) The problem is that inattention is hard if not impossible to prosecute unless there's a crash, so in order to make $ they cite on things that can be easily quantified.

The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.

"Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. Both hand-held and hands-free cell phone use was studied and there was no significant difference whether the cell phone use was hands-on or hands-free. None of the drunken drivers crashed."

Full context here >>http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognit ... hapter.pdf

[azbackpackr]

I drive a school bus and can't afford to get any kind of moving violation. I am very careful. I drive like a little old lady. Oh, wait, I guess I AM a little old lady! 57 in one week!

[hikeaz]

There is too much money at stake for this to be over (you can bet that RedFlex and their competitors will be showering politicians with $$, as they did Napolitano), but in the mean time......



Arizona to eliminate speed-enforcement cameras on freeways
By Casey Newton - May. 6, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Arizona's controversial experiment with speed-enforcement cameras on state freeways will come to an end this summer, when the Department of Public Safety allows the program to expire.

The DPS sent a letter to camera operator Redflex Traffic Systems this week, informing officials that their contract will not be renewed.

The 78 fixed and mobile photo-enforcement units around the state will be turned off after July 15. Decisions on when and how the cameras will be removed have not yet been made, Redflex officials said.

City photo-enforcement contracts, which deal with speed and red-light cameras, are not affected by the move.

The program incited vandalism against traffic cameras and even violence since its inception two years ago.

Vandals took Silly String, sticky notes and pickaxes to cameras after they were installed.

Last year, Thomas Patrick Destories was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting of Redflex technician Doug Georgianni as he sat inside a DPS-owned photo-enforcement vehicle. Destories has pleaded not guilty.

Advocates of the cameras, including some DPS officials, have released studies indicating that the cameras save lives and reduce crashes.

Those studies have been vigorously disputed by camera opponents, who argue that the cameras increase collisions while infringing upon constitutional rights.

In its letter to Redflex, the DPS said that ending the contract represents "a change in the agency's focus," said Shoba Vaitheeswaran, a Redflex spokeswoman. The DPS on Wednesday did not respond to a request for the letter, nor would it comment on the issue."We're undoubtedly disappointed in the decision," Vaitheeswaran said.

She cited a DPS study from October that said the cameras resulted in a 19.2 percent drop in fatal collisions*, saving 24 lives. The same study said the cameras allowed DPS officers to make more traffic stops and arrest more criminals. *(2 things… 1) One year is not long enough to arrive at a statistical conclusion, 2) who says the reduction was a result of the cameras ?– recession, lost jobs, less travel, high gas prices, mass transit, better vehicles – Were none of these a contributor? What's that saying? ... 'There are lies, dam lies and STATISTICS')

The DPS has scheduled a complete audit of the system's impact on safety and driving behavior to be completed in the fall. Photo-enforcement supporters had hoped the review would be complete before state officials made any decision about the system.

Opponents of photo enforcement cheered the decision.

"We're happy that DPS will no longer be violating Arizona citizens' constitutional rights," said Shawn Dow, chairman of a November ballot initiative to ban the use of photo enforcement statewide.

Financial motives
Controversy has swirled around photo enforcement on state roads ever since then-Gov. Janet Napolitano included it in the 2009 state budget.

Napolitano envisioned a system of up to 100 cameras that would generate $90 million in revenue a year. She said the program was designed to improve traffic safety, not make money.

But the idea of the cameras as moneymakers drew strong criticism, and they did not meet revenue projections.

The cameras snapped more than 2 million times in an 18-month span from September 2008 through the end of March and issued more than 1.2 million citations.

But only about 30 percent of the citations were paid, generating about $63.5 million in revenue, which went into a fund the Legislature controlled.

Among those who criticized the financial motives of the system was Gov. Jan Brewer, then-secretary of state.

"She did not support the state photo-radar system because it appeared from the beginning to be designed exclusively as a revenue generator," Paul Senseman, a Brewer spokesman, said in an e-mail.

At one point, Brewer had leaned toward letting voters decide whether to keep the cameras.

But after Brewer became governor last year, she appointed a new DPS director, Robert Halliday, who said photo enforcement's reputation was damaged from the start after Napolitano publicly touted the program as a revenue generator.

Halliday also wanted an independent analysis of the program's safety benefits, which he thought were overstated.

Legislative opposition
Even before Brewer appointed Halliday, the program had been the subject of numerous attacks from conservatives in the Legislature.

In the session that ended last week, lawmakers sent Brewer a bill that would ban photo enforcement within 600 feet of a posted speed-limit change, with the exception of a school crossing. It also would prevent a traffic complaint from being filed in court unless a person was personally served with that complaint.

Given the DPS' move this week, the bill would be moot on state freeways. But it would still affect programs run by cities.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, also would ban people from applying any covering or substance to their license plate that makes the plate illegible.

Brewer has until Tuesday to sign or veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law without her signature. The measure, if it became law, would go into effect July 29.

Meanwhile, opponents of cameras are still gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would ban the cameras statewide. The signatures will be filed July 1, said Dow, the campaign chairman. "The cameras are coming down," he said.






“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' “
Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

[big_load]

Even if their AZ presence is reduced, a juggernaut has been created. Redflex has contracts to operated a few test sites in NJ, and their goal is to become ubiquitous. Of course NJ bought into it based on the unrealistic projections, because the simple, clear vision of hype is easier to sell than messy experience. They probably knew that they had to close the deal before too much actual data was in hand.

[chumley]

Depends what kind of data they're trying to collect. Traffic safety statistics or state revenue?

[big_load]

State revenue, or course. My issue is that they sell the program based on bad projections. They assume that violation rates won't change once the fines start, so fine intake will stay high forever. They also assume there won't be any down time anywhere due to technical problems (local equipment, network, billing) or losses due to lawsuits. This inflates the overall value of the program, so it inflates what they're willing to pay Redflex up front, so their profit is locked in by the rosy picture. In real life, people stop speeding when they get fined often enough. The equipment breaks, losing revenue and raising repair costs. All kinds of "unexpected" legal costs arise because of billing errors, contracting problems, etc. The real revenue is less than expected, and often by quite a bit. This is what happened with EZ Pass, which was supposed to pay for itself with a steady stream of $18 toll violation fines, but ended up costing taxpayers many millions of dollars.

[Jeffshadows]

I'm curious...If we plastered all of these places with enough motorcycle cops to nail everyone breaking the law in the same way these cameras do would everyone still complain??

[azbackpackr]

People would complain, but not in the same way. If a human catches you speeding fair and square, that is different than a mechanical device. Both can make mistakes, of course, but I think people know that sometimes cops will target a certain area and catch a lot of speeders.

Since a Democrat decided to try this program and a Republican wants to get rid of it, so now it is suddenly a liberal/conservative issue? I don't think so, not amongst the public! Almost no one likes the cameras, and that is that.

[allanalxndr]

Since a Democrat decided to try this program and a Republican wants to get rid of it, so now it is suddenly a liberal/conservative issue? I don't think so, not amongst the public! Almost no one likes the cameras, and that is that.

I don't think there are any political points gained or lost in this decision. If it were political it would have been done right when Brewer took office...(IMO).

[azbackpackr]

Could be, but also could be they had to wait for the contracts to expire?

[Jeffshadows]

I love the idiot lady at my local farmer's market with her "Red light cameras are unconstitutional" t-shirt. Please, someone, tell me where in the constitution it says that the government cannot enforce the law?

[wallyfrack]

Please, someone, tell me where in the constitution it says that the government cannot enforce the law?

Joe!! Help!! I think the governor killed jeff and hacked his account!

[nonot]

Enforcement of the law isn't illegal, what was illegal was convicting and fining you for a crime without proper judicial procedures. We are not guilty until proven innocent in this country....yet.

[big_load]

It's scary when someone has a profit motive for claiming that you violated the law. Law enforcement power should be strictly vested in the government that is accountable to the voters and not delegated to private individuals, especially if they may not be subject to the restrictions or avenues of redress as the government.

[te_wa]

so, based on an educated guess, i decided to test a popular theory... without a photo of a face, no citation will be issued. As i was purposefully speeding on the eastbound 202, to test this theory, the nice DPS Ford Escape snapped a photo of me hiding behind my sun visor.. but they got a nice clear shot of one of my fingers..

that was 2 mo ago, and no form has made it to my mailbox.. ;)

[azbackpackr]

No no no, they don't care about your face, it is only the license plate they care about. My son was driving my minivan, ran a red light in Mesa, guess who got the ticket. I fought it and made sure he paid and not me.

[SuperstitionGuy]

Our vehicle is registered to a family trust with no personal names listed. Who are they going to ticket should there be a violation? :-({|=

[chumley]

Family trusts, corporations, etc. are the best "defense". A ticket will be sent to whoever is listed as a contact for the organization that registers the vehicle, with the request that the driver be identified. But there is no legal obligation to do so.

Second best is a post office box for an address. A process server can't serve a PO Box.

[big_load]

Won't they eventually impound the vehicle?