LexFather

PHOENIX (AP) — More than a year after Arizona became the first state in the country to deploy dozens of speed cameras on highways statewide, threats to the groundbreaking program abound.

Profits are far below expectations, a citizen effort to ban the cameras is gaining steam, the governor has said she does not like the program, and more and more drivers are ignoring the tickets they get in the mail after hearing from fellow speeders that there are often no consequences to doing so.

“I see all the cameras in Arizona completely coming down ” in 2010, said Shawn Dow, chairman of Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar, which is trying to get a measure banning the cameras on the November ballot. “The citizens of Arizona took away the cash cow of Arizona by refusing to pay.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us...ef=todayspaper

mmarshall

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not formally accepted any traffic-camera cases yet, there is a significant chance that the Court will take on some of those cases in 2010 and rule on the Constitutionality of them. But, until if and when that happens, like it or not, they are still the law in many states......see my response below.

This is classic Pie-in-the-Sky thinking. Unless the cameras are ruled unconstitutional, there WILL be consequences, even if the system has not processed or delivered them yet (it doesn't always happen overnight). Ignore enough citations, and one can lose his/her driving priviledges in the state. Get caught driving with a suspended license, and you could end up making license plates for your fellow motorists.

The simplest thing to do is simply pay the fine, learn from it, and watch your speed from now on...that's what the sensible person, IMO, would do. Why do I say that? Because a camera ticket, whether for speeding or a red-light violation, usually does NOT add points to your license.....and it usually doesn't zap you unless you are doing more than 10 MPH over the limit, or enter the intersection after the light has actually turned red. The camera usually can't record who is actually driving, so the car's registered owner pays the fine. Nor, in most cases, does it affect your insurance rates. But.....ignore it, lose your license, and you could be in real trouble.

Of course, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules the cameras unconstitutional (a possiblity, of course), what remains of existing fines becomes unclear. That's an issue we'll probably have to deal with in another thread.

Big Mack

iTrader: (1)

I respectfully disagree. In Arizona, the reason people ignore them is because a summons is pursuant to a ticket. They don't mail you a ticket - they mail you a summons. Since you never legally received a ticket, you are not required to respond to a summons. Additionally, since they have no proof you actually received the summons, you cannot be held responsible for it. Keep in mind that they do process serve them as well, however, so if you get served, they do have proof, and then you have a responsibility to respond to a summons to the court. It's a legal wrangle, and I'm not sure how other states have gotten around it (or if they even have bothered, much like Arizona hasn't), so it's not advice for everyone to go out and speed or run red lights. I agree with you below:

I generally stay under their radar, driving close to the speed limit, and try to never pass through a yellow, much less a red. If the yellow cannot be helped, I will be very careful but go through (in other words, not accelerate just to make it), but will certainly do everything to stop if I can. It's just not worth it to me, especially since Arizona is the #1 state for red light runners.

I agree with the idea that they are not effective as stated in the article. I find them to be a distraction for drivers, and for those who are traveling fairly safe along a freeway, the inconvenience of someone running up, then slamming on the brakes is incredibly irritating. If there are "problem areas," the police should simply park a few cars there, ticket the offenders, and watch the rates go down.

Big Mack

spwolf

in my country and my county, cops have to serve these tickets, and after they have installed severall cameras through the city, they got huge backlog ;-). So they are mostly disabled now.

I8ABMR

God I hope they are successful in getting rid of theses cameras. I swear to God that I intentionally floor my car maybe 20 yards after the cameras just on principle. I hate the fact that they even have these things and I am one of the many people out here in AZ determined to show the cops they dont work and they will genearte no real revenue.

Most people in other states are not aware that in AZ they give you a warning like 1/4 to 1/2 a mile before the camera and then another 200 yards before the camera. So the only people they are really going to catch is the occasional clown not paying attention ( not likely since every car in front oh him will slow right before the camera), or people from out of state. This system is a total failure. On the streets its one thing but on the highway its .....well......highway robbery

thanks for sharing the good news. I will keep my fingers crossed

mmarshall

No problem.....you're free to disagree with anything on this forum. You at least do it in a civil manner.

But Court documents are usually sent by Certified Mail. There is a written, computer-tracked trail of what happens to it from the time it is sent till the time you are notified, receive it, and pick it up with a signature. It is hard to ignore.

And even if you get around one or two Certified mail documents, you can't evade them all. The police will notice a pattern...and Contempt of Court could (?) be added to the already existing speed or red-light citations.

mmarshall

You may get your wish, if the U.S. Supreme Court hears petitions this year and outlaws them. But the Court, of course, could go either way on that.


The speed cameras I have seen in MD (Montgomery County has a number of them) also have Photo Enforcement warning signs about 1/4 mile or so before them. You can also see the cameras themselves on the side of the road...they are white or light in color, about 10-15 feet high, and sometimes mounted in pairs....one coming, one going. The new red light cameras, of course, are mounted on the overhead light structures.....the older ones look a lot like the speed cameras and are on the side of road, right before the intersection.

IS-SV

IMO I'm glad they are being abandoned, just like they have done in the largest city in northern CA where I live because violations aren't upheld in courts here.

mmarshall

Someone who gets a camera citation can sometimes get out of it, even in court, by signing an affidavit stating that they were not the one behind the wheel when the camera went off........the cameras usually can't prove otherwise, because they don't have a clear shot through the front windshield.

Of course, that can, in some instances, be outright lying under oath (and not getting caught), but I won't get into the morality or ethical question of that here....that's the subject for another thread. Legally, it is an alibi, and sometimes works......but again, only once or twice. It's not something that you can do every weekend.

toy4two

If I loaned my car to a friend, and later I get a ticket for him speeding, how does that work? How do they prove the person behind the wheel is the owner.

mmarshall

They usually can't prove it......that was the subject of my last post, above. That's why the car owner (under the law, the registered owner gets the ticket) can sign an affidavit swearing that he or she was not driving the vehicle at the time. And that, of course, means that it was either stolen or loaned out to someone.....like your friend. If your friend was driving your car and got a ticket, the way it works in most states, you will be sent the bill. The simplest thing to do, IMO, in those circumstances is to pay the ticket yourself (it doesn't put any points on your driving record, so it's just money) and work out some kind of deal between you and your friend over the money involved. How you two do that, of course, is a private matter and your own buisness, and I won't get involved in that.

If you claim the car was stolen without your permission and someone else was driving (you have that option), that can be a much trickier situation, because then a (supposed) crime will be involved, and the police may ask further questions about it or do an investigation. I myself would not claim that if it were not true.

I8ABMR

I dont think the state is going to fight to much.It cant be bringing in the type of money they intially thought. They should have just thought about it first. I dont feel for the state or the tens of millions it had to spend to set this system up

Big Mack

iTrader: (1)

Thanks. I try.

See, and that's the very problem they are running into - they are trying to circumvent the expense of sending it certified mail. They normally don't, and by law in AZ, once you ignore the first attempt, they only have 120 days to get in touch with you via process server. If you are like me and never answer the door at home and tell everyone in the household that the door remains closed and locked unless there is a pizza expected, then they will play hell trying to get it to me. Of course, there will be very little need since I never get tagged. I know where the cameras are, I know the laws, and I don't venture out at breakneck speeds. I simply don't put myself in the situation, and it works well.

I feel your pain, I8A, but the cost was mostly on the part of redflex, who promised the state significant upward swings in revenues based on their technology. It didn't happen, of course, because the legal loopholes are big enough to drive a truck through. It's the height of ridiculousness, IMO.

Big Mack

I8ABMR

If the tickets is not of the owner then you don't have to pay. I have 2 people at work whos spouses got a photo ticket in their cars and all they did was send the letter back stating that its not them. NO TICKET. I have friends who are professionals who don't pay their photo tickets because they are mailed to them, not hand delivered

LIMS407

interesting stories...