Arizona’s controversial — and widely despised — highway speed cameras are coming down.
The state’s Department of Public Safety sent a letter to the cameras’ operating company this week, stating that its 2-year contract would not be renewed. The agreement ends July 15, and the cameras will be turned off the next day.
The cameras, paired with radar devices, photograph vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more on state highways. A notice of violation — with a fine of $181.50 — was then sent to the address of the vehicle’s registered owner.
Motorists and lawmakers protested that the cameras were impractical in a state where people are accustomed to driving long, lonely stretches of road at high speeds. Citizens covered camera lenses with Silly String or Post-it sticky notes. Pressure had been mounting in the Legislature to end the program, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer had denounced it.
A spokeswoman for Redflex, which has camera contracts in more than 240 U.S. cities, said the company was “undoubtedly disappointed” in the decision. The matter isn’t related to the company’s performance or services, spokeswoman Shoba Vaitheeswaran wrote in an e-mail.
Lt. Jeff King, who oversees the program, said that the decision was a policy matter within the Department of Public Safety, but that he could not comment further.
Shawn Dow, chairman of a group supporting a November ballot initiative to ban photo enforcement statewide, said the decision wasn’t surprising. “We’ve seen this coming,” Dow said. “We were just waiting for the formal letter to be sent.”
John Keegan, a judge for the Arrowhead Justice Court, had called the cameras unconstitutional and dismissed more than 8,500 photo-enforcement tickets.
Keegan said Thursday that the program was never done correctly. The decision, he said, will relieve a “tremendous logjam” in the court system of motorists appealing their citations.
These things always get passed as “safety measures” then are viewed as cash cows. DC was touting theirs(stop light cameras actually) as a safety measure. Later admitted it was for funding. I hate these. Glad this went that route.
Good for AZ. I hate those stupid things. They do very little to reduce speeders or red light runners and end up being nothing more than revenue generators. Which is all they were ever intended for anyway. There have been a number of suits over their abuse and manipulation so I don’t have a problem with doing away with them and replacing them with more cops.
I just saw on the news they are putting one on I-95 in SC at the GA border. They are claiming it is for safety, I couldnt believe the guy said that with a straight face.
Only the cameras under the Highway Patrol contract are going down. Others under contract with smaller municipalities are here to stay, at least for awhile.
I can’t speak for the way other cities operate their camera systems, but I support them 100% at my department. Every single violation is reviewed by an individual officer before being approved, to make sure mistakes aren’t made. And we have seen a dramatic decrease in collisions, and severity of collisions. And at an anecdotal level, I can personally say it is a lot harder for me to find speeders.
Also, all the money our department has seen is going back into traffic safety programs, like additional traffic officers, signage and other engineering improvements, and education.
The roads are certainly safer because of the cameras where I live and work, and I would be disappointed to see them go. I’m sure the primary motivation some places is money. But in my town, all you have to do is look at how much safer the roads have become and where the money is going, and you can immediately see money isn’t the goal here.
What town do you work in? I’ve seen quite a few “oh shit!” incidents that almost lead to accidents on the AZ freeways due to people slamming on their brakes coming up to a camera. I prefer to a live in a free society where my movements aren’t recorded and Big Brother’s not staring down at me. If it’s about safety then why don’t we put a speed limiter on cars that won’t exceed the highest national speed limit? I believe the highest is 75mph and then the problem would be solved. It’s all about generating revenue from everything I’ve seen and read. From 2008: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2180.asp
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano announced on Friday her expectation that the state’s new freeway speed cameras would generate $90 million in net profit for fiscal year 2009, plus $34 million for the private companies selected to operate the program. In the following year, what the state labels “non tax increase revenue generation” will jump to $120 million, plus $45 million more for the ticket vendors, for a total of $165 million. After 2010 revenue is expected to exceed this amount significantly as the program grows beyond 100 fixed and mobile speed cameras and high occupancy vehicle lane (HOV) ticketing cameras are brought online.
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.
The “oh shit” moment you describe are all rooted in another traffic violation - following too closely. If you are following another vehicle so closely you can’t hit the brakes and come to a complete stop at a moments notice, you are following to closely. This is common sense and a basic safety precaution taught to all new drivers. Most people simply choose to ignore it and blame the guy in front of them instead of driving responsibly.
The freedom argument is nonsense, seeing as how footage isn’t actually saved unless you commit a violation. If you don’t speed or run red lights, you won’t be recorded.
Your speed governor argument doesn’t work either, because violations aren’t only committed at higher speeds. All of the speed cameras where I work trigger at 56 or lower.
Also, you have got to consider your sources. The links you posted are all from an outlet that is staunchly anti photo enforcement. If you took the time to explore other sources, you would find there are several studies out of Arizona universities showing decreased collisions and less severe collisions.
Yes, it is true places make money from photo enforcement programs. But it is NOT just a money grab. People who deny there are any safety benefits at all are lying to themselves.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Regardless of their dubious safety benefits, they smack of Big Brother and should be an abomination. When the people abhor them to the point they will commit acts of vandalism to eradicate them, you are tempting the good will of the people a little too much.
Perhaps you should consider moving to England where the subjects have no voice in their use?:mad:
Which “liberty” would your misapplied quote be referring to? The right to privacy on a PUBLIC road? Oh, wait, there is NO such thing as a right to privacy on a public road.
Go ahead and try the “Big Brother” argument when the government has cameras on private property. In that case it would actually have some weight. Go ahead and read 1984 while your at it so you understand the catch phrase you are misusing.
As for the “dubious” safety benefits, I’ll get some info from work when I go back tonight and post the information when I get back. I can’t speak for other places, but the roads are MUCH safer here, period.
Im glad the cameras are gone. My big problem is the lack of human presence and overview. With the red light cameras at least the picture will show if the light is red or not. If the camera was out of whack it would be easy to see.
Not so much with the speed cameras. Scottsdales cameras on the loop 101 were off for a while and they ended up throwing out a bunch of tickets. But how many people paid their fine before that?
If my radar gun (i actually dont have one but my boss does) is off, I would be able to tell if it says a guy I see driving 30, is doing 50.
One of my coworkers went and fought the photo radar ticket and the Redflex guy stated they were 94 percent accurate. So that 6 percent of people who get a ticket they didnt deserve. Thats not right.
Added to that, there are several judges out here who believe the photo radar tickets to be unconstitutional because they carry a different punishment than those issued by officers. The fact that there is no points given and no punishment for avoiding the ticket or court, shows that they are one big revenue generator.
Like I’ve said before, I can’t speak for other jurisdictions, but I can tell you that the problems you bring up certainly do NOT exist in mine.
The cameras save footage from six seconds before the violation, and six seconds after. The traffic officers in my department review the video to make sure the recorded footage wasn’t some sort of electronic error.
Also, it is a pretty easy for an experienced officer to see in a video if a car is going more than 11 over the posted limit, just as easily as seeing if a light is red or not.
Like I said, I can’t speak for the level of oversight and human involvement other places. But where I work, all the things you mention are not an issue. Also, my agency DOES issue points for violations;). If done right, there is nothing the slightest bit illegal or unethical about the cameras. I think the problem is that some places aren’t holding themselves to a high enough standard.
During my studies at ASU, I may have been “flashed” on the highways. I was certainly never served… and that, I believe, is the legal mess behind the traffic cameras.
Quite frankly it think it’s a chickenshit way to generate revenue. It eliminates officer discretion and does not take into consideration road conditions or driver alertness and attitude. When you’re sitting there reviewing camera footage, do you have the discretion to issue a warning instead of a citation? Can you make a judgement call as to whether a warning will get the message across or whether a citation is all that will work when reviewing the video?
How about the reduced number of officers pulling over speeders in camera zones? Where is the deterrent factor there? In reality, you are permanently posting a stretch of road for the area where the camera covers, and ignoring the areas the camera doesn’t cover. Those who know where the cameras are will simply speed in other locations, while the unaware are paying the fines. It sets up a double standard.
Like I said, chickenshit way to police citizens if you ask me. :rolleyes:
Why don’t we ask the tax-paying citizens if they want red light cameras, speed cameras, or even security cameras in the public areas of their own communities?
well, the private companies were making the $$$, not the cities. once you figure in the companies cut, then the process server and finally court time, how could the city come out ahead? anybody have an actual breakdown of how much the companies cut was, the price for the process server and the hourly rate for the courts to be run?
