Arizona Highway Cameras

[Tiggerlives]

So, basically, no statistics have been given?

I was on the fence about them, but the traffic flowed so well in Arizona it made me reconsider.

Afterall, the highways are public property. The public should have a right to monitor them. And the only people to complain, it would seem, would be the people who like to speed because they don't agree with the law. But agree, or disagree, it is the law.

Of course people don't like them, because no one likes to get a ticket. I was just wondering about statistical merits for reduced accidents (perhaps fatal). That said, I do know that speeding is not the No. 1 cause of accidents (in fact, failure to signal causes more accidents...always signal folks!)

[WrongWay]

The only stats on them are how many tickets issued, how much money they make, and how much slower people drive past them after they start issuing tickets than before.

[Chavez Ravine]

I will say intersection cameras make me think twice before blowing through a yellow light.

I think that would have alot more life saving capability than speeding cameras.

[Tiggerlives]

The only stats on them are how many tickets issued, how much money they make, and how much slower people drive past them after they start issuing tickets than before.

Huh. Obviously these things would be a cash cow. But I felt so much safer driving in Arizona that I began to wonder about the actual safety improvements.

Of course, could just be that Cali drivers are insane.

[Disney Vault]

I will say intersection cameras make me think twice before blowing through a yellow light.

I think that would have alot more life saving capability than speeding cameras.

While I am against the speeding cameras I am all for the red light cameras. AZ is one of the worst places in the country for ppl going through red lights.

[refurbmike]

The issue is that I am unable to confront them. They could be completely inaccurate, and there's no way to dispute them.

I disagree. You can pull the cameras/radar's calibration logs, just as you could challenge a human's training logs or data on the radar device he/she uses.

Cameras are the way of the future. They catch criminal robbing banks and committing over crimes. Should we disregard those tapes as evidence for court?

And as someone mentioned before, these speed cameras (the ones on the freeway, anyway) are all permanently bolted down. Everyone knows where they are and when to slow down. It's a joke.

But people do slow down. Just as though they saw a cop. They slow down, then speed up a mile or two later.

Except people probably don't shoot at cameras for catching them (since they might not know). I know of enough times where cops have been attacked/shot/etc. for doing a routine traffic stop.

[Lacrosse Boy]

I disagree. You can pull the cameras/radar's calibration logs, just as you could challenge a human's training logs or data on the radar device he/she uses.

Not so easy to do with a camera. If I am issued a speeding ticket, and I choose to challenge it, the burden of proof lies on the cop who issued the ticket, and he has to come to trial. You can't very-well pull the camera down each time someone wants to contest a ticket. Or go check on it? And even if you do, what intelligent person going to believe the audit? I don't believe what the government says just because they say it.

Cameras are the way of the future. They catch criminal robbing banks and committing over crimes. Should we disregard those tapes as evidence for court?

We're not talking about cameras catching people committing felonies to prove who did it. We're talking about traffic scameras issuing tickets for petty misdemeanors which appear to violate our rights, and generally seem to be unpopular. At least the true criminals get due process -- not so with the guy or gal speeding down the freeway. Who wanted these scameras in to begin with? Seems like most people don't like them. Why not put the issue up to a vote? Or better yet - strike them down as unconstitutional, as already has been done in Minnesota?

But people do slow down. Just as though they saw a cop. They slow down, then speed up a mile or two later.

A cop doesn't sit in the exact same place, day-after-day-after-day. The cop also looks at the situation, your previous driving record, etc to see how much of an infraction (if any) you deserve. If it's too egregious of a punishment, then you get to take the issue to court. There's no due process with the camera. Due process is what ultimately struck the use of scameras down in Minnesota.

Except people probably don't shoot at cameras for catching them (since they might not know). I know of enough times where cops have been attacked/shot/etc. for doing a routine traffic stop.

People don't have to shoot them down. They can be disabled without violence whatsoever:


Fact of the matter is that the issue comes down to $$$, not safety. Public officials (including former AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano) are on record that this is to generate a new revenue stream, not to improve the safety of the roadways. In my mind, this is crooked politics that this nation should have no room for. Thankfully, it sounds like the AZ Gov. Jan Brewer very much dislikes the scameras.

[WrongWay]

I don't think they will be up for very long here in AZ. People hate them, and the politicians that are looking for a winning issue in these bad times of spending cuts and coming tax hikes, see being against the cameras as an easy crowd winner.

My guess is that they'll be off all AZ freeways in less than 2 years.

[refurbmike]

Not so easy to do with a camera. If I am issued a speeding ticket, and I choose to challenge it, the burden of proof lies on the cop who issued the ticket, and he has to come to trial. You can't very-well pull the camera down each time someone wants to contest a ticket. Or go check on it? And even if you do, what intelligent person going to believe the audit? I don't believe what the government says just because they say it.

You can subpoena the records of the camera, just like you'd do with the cop. And I believe if you wish to contest the citation, somebody has to show up at the court as the 'plantiff'. From what I understand, there is somebody who verifies the pictures and mails them out, so that person is responsible for defending the system.

And if you're paranoid enough, you can conduct your own 3rd party audit.

We're not talking about cameras catching people committing felonies to prove who did it. We're talking about traffic scameras issuing tickets for petty misdemeanors which appear to violate our rights, and generally seem to be unpopular.

First, driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Second, I'm willing to bet that speeding tickets are generally unpopular; should we thus eliminate cops from handing out speeding citations in general?

At least the true criminals get due process -- not so with the guy or gal speeding down the freeway. Who wanted these scameras in to begin with? Seems like most people don't like them. Why not put the issue up to a vote? Or better yet - strike them down as unconstitutional, as already has been done in Minnesota?

Have you even been to traffic court? Due process doesn't apply, even with a human present.

And if they're as unpopular as you claim they are, you should be able to circle a petition to get a proposition on the ballot or elect some officials that'll support you.

A cop doesn't sit in the exact same place, day-after-day-after-day.

Granted, they don't do it EVERY day. But there are very common speed traps, where cops frequent.

The cop also looks at the situation, your previous driving record, etc to see how much of an infraction (if any) you deserve.[/QUOTE]

WHAT?!?! Cops assign fines on the spot now? and cops can look at my entire driving record to see if I truly deserve the ticket??

People don't have to shoot them down. They can be disabled without violence whatsoever

You're right. I'd rather people 'disable' the cameras than shoot cops. Wouldn't you?

[WrongWay]

Have you even been to traffic court? Due process doesn't apply, even with a human present.

What? It sure does apply.

The cop presents the charge and supporting information. You then get to rebut this. You then can make a counter argument. You get to make closing statement and the state makes its closing.

There may not be lawyers, a witness box, or formal objections.... however, the rules of due process do apply.

I went once for a bogus charge. I got lost trying to follow a detour, and the cop gave me a ticket for using provate property to avoid a traffic control device...... I got a ticket for getting lost. The judge dismissed based on incorrect and insufficient signage. Even then, he told the cop that it would have been dismissed or procedural since I'd presented inaccuracies in the cops initial statements that would have negated his testamony.


While I was sitting and waiting for my turn, there were 2 other cases dismissed on procedural concerns. One, the cop forgot to say it was the accused that was the driver of the vehicle. The other, the cop didn't show up.


You get to face your accuser. You get to cross examine the evidence against you. You get to present a defence.

Due process does apply.


In the case of the traffic camera, I do not know who presents the case against you or what evidence they have to provide to support the charges, but I guarantee there is evidence presented and you get the oppertunity to cross examine the presenter.