Photo Radar Debate Update

Posted on | November 18, 2009 | 7 Comments

: Photo Radar – Safety or Profit?

Photo Radar Debate Update

Update on the special installment of our Hot Topics and Lunch series to be held Thursday, Nov. 19 from 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. at Four Points by Sheraton, 1333 S. Rural Road. The subject of the event is Photo Enforcement / Photo Radar. Learn more or register here or by calling (480) 967-7891.

This event keeps getting bigger and bigger! We’ve learned that this will be the first time that Redflex has publicly spoken in an open discussion format about its role in photo enforcement. In fact, calls have come in from as far away as Washington, D.C., New York and California asking for details about this event.

We’ve confirmed that Jay Heiler, Director of Government Affairs with Redflex, will represent the “for” side of photo enforcement at this event. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is the company that installs and maintains the cameras in Arizona and 20 other states.

Our panelist representing the “against” position is Shawn Dow, chairman of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar. This organization is circulating a petition throughout the state that would force photo enforcement to be put to a public vote.

Additionally, a representative from Arizona’s Department of Public Safety will be present to respond to DPS-related questions.

We expect media coverage of the event to be extensive, and KPHO Channel 5 broadcast a segment on its nightly news report on Tuesday.

At the event, our panelists will tell you everything you need to know about radar and red light photo enforcement on the Valley’s streets and highways. These experts will explore the pros and cons of this highly charged issue. Is it making us safer or putting us in harm’s way? Are accidents increasing or decreasing as a result of their presence? Learn what the program is all about, what it means to you, and whether or not you really have to pay those tickets.

We still have seats available at this event to the public but advance RSVP is requested here or to (480) 967-7891.

Comments

7 Responses to “Photo Radar Debate Update”

Cecilia
November 18th, 2009 @ 10:21 am

Like so many other people out there, I am horribly disgusted by the photo radar cameras that are being placed on our streets and highways. I view them as a public nuisance and a complete invasion of privacy. Most importantly, they do not seem to eliminate accidents, but perhaps create them as drivers are more prone to brake quickly to avoid getting flashed.

Apart from all this, how can it be proven that the photo radars are reliable? I personally got flashed by the camera while going 7 miles UNDER the speed limit. How do you contest the validity of the radar cameras in court?

I am very anxious to hear how Jay Heiler of Redflex and the DPS reps will defend photo radar against Shawn Dow. I have heard him speak before and this should be quite interesting. If you respect your privacy as a citizen, I encourage you to attend if you are able.
Stacey
November 18th, 2009 @ 11:13 am

Hundreds of millions of American dollars have been funneled to Redflex (with its Australian shareholders) and stagnant local governments. This is money that would have been spent at local businesses, which create jobs. Consumers also avoid areas with the cameras.

Residents of Heath, Ohio and surrounding areas responded to photo enforcement by boycotting local businesses and eventually voting out photo enforcement and the city council members responsible for the implementation of it. You can read their responses to the cameras at the link below:
http://www.meetup.com/camerafraud/messages/boards/thread/8094738

Duane Goodwin, who helped put the referendum on the city ballot, cited Redflex traffic counts that showed 58,754 fewer automobiles had traveled on camera-monitored roads – a 27 percent decrease in traffic – as a result of out-of-town motorists avoiding the cameras by shopping elsewhere.

“Our little town revolves around business,” Goodwin said. “It’s a crushing blow.”

A survey of six national chain stores that operate in Heath as well as nearby Lancaster and Zanesville showed that Heath sales were off nearly 14 percent compared to a 2 to 3 percent drop in the other cities.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2945.asp
Stacey
November 19th, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

Reasons to oppose photo radar:

http://www.meetup.com/camerafraud/messages/boards/thread/7496696
Jennifer
November 19th, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

I attended the debate today and I thought it was very interesting to hear both views. I don’t really have a problem with the cameras, but then again, I don’t speed either and have never received a ticket. I do think that I’m more aware and that others seem to be as well when the cameras are around and that is a good thing.
I will continue to support the camera use, especially for the red-light running aspect.
Stacey
November 20th, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

Cities, including Paradise Valley, Dallas, Lubbock, Baytown, Beaverton, Union City, Springfield, and Chattanooga, have all been caught shortening yellow lights to increase profits from red light cameras. Bethesda left a yellow light at a photo radar intersection at 2.7 seconds for a year after the public complained, even though every other yellow light on the street was 4 seconds.

According to a Peoria police study, the accident rate went up substantially in the year after the placement of photo radar cameras at four intersections.

At 91st Avenue and Bell road, accidents increased 100 percent, including a 120 percent jump in rear end and “stopped for red light” collisions.

At 75th Avenue and Thunderbird Road, accidents increased 480 percent. The number of right angle and head-on collisions increased from 4 to 20, while rear-end collisions also jumped 400 percent.

At 83rd Avenue and Union Hills, where cameras monitor only left turns, accidents increased 11 percent.

At 83rd Avenue and Thunderbird Road, accidents increased 29 percent, including a 300 percent jump in rear-end collisions.

Multiple American studies show an increase of accidents with red light cameras.
mort stillman
January 4th, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

Re: AZ photo radar.
Does anyone know if there’s a statute of limitations between the time when the photo was taken, and when the “supposed infractor”(who me?) is served?
admin
January 5th, 2010 @ 7:18 am

The law states that you must be properly served notice (by a process server at your door) within 120 days of the infraction date listed on your notice. I looked online and found this site you might visit to learn more. I’m sure there are others as well. http://www.meetup.com/camerafraud/messages/boards/thread/7364666 .

Tempe Chamber Of Commerce

Your Success Is Our Business

Photo Radar Debate Update