Photo radar & speed cameras: Are they in your town? (pic)

[niss]

They're not unconstitutional.

It's that, depending on the type of infraction, service of the Summons by mail is not (or may not be) constitutional.

My recollection is that the courts in Arizona have held that service by mail of a Summons resulting from speeding caught by a camera is NOT VALID. While that may not mean much to folks who live in Arizona, who probably will be tracked down when they fail to answer the mailed summons (and who probably will face added penalties for refusing to cooperate with the State's "attempt to minimize expenses"), those of us who live outside of Arizona probably can safely take one of these that we receive in the mail and trash it.

[HionelLutz]

[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with these is that they're run by a for profit company.

It's essentially free money for the police. The company owns, installs, maintains the cameras. They handle the ticketing and billing.


They deduct a "small" monthy fee, rent on the cameras, and write a check to the police.

Everyone wins here but the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is absolutely spot on. As was Boris'. I am totally fine with red light cameras, but speeding cameras make me want to fly to scottsdale and bring a chainsaw.

Also, while Sucker is right about the cameras just being a cash grab for businesses, we should think that police who sit behind a bush catching speeders all day are pretty much just a cash grab without a care in the world for actual safety.

Also, a private company writing us tickets is CERTAINLY unconstitutional. What is the path of appeals against a private company who only wants money?

[Triumph36]

police are worse vultures than poker players. unless these speeding cameras are posted in areas where there's pedestrians around, it's probably just a naked cash grab.

red light cameras i'm in favor of, although i still don't know how they work in gridlock-ish traffic.

[mosdef]

I think the anger in this thread against the devices is terribly misguided. If you want to go faster than the speed limit, you should oppose the level of the speed limit not the violation detection device.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the anger in this thread against the devices is terribly misguided. If you want to go faster than the speed limit, you should oppose the level of the speed limit not the violation detection device.

[/ QUOTE ]

those aren't changing.

i can watch for cops - i can't watch for these guns.

[4 High]

Do these things give leeway like actual cops, or do they ticket at 1mph over the limit?

[tuq]

Howard,

If you're talking about the ones on Shea Blvd., wow those are well disguised. I went out to Fountain Hills to golf a couple of weeks ago and a friend told me he got snapped by those. I noticed them on the way back though.

It's in a 50 MPH limit, is a six lane road with a continuous median, there's no retail or commercial or other reasons for cars entering the road for quite a stretch in either direction. In other words, a really unlikely place for an accident to happen. So this is not a deterrent, it's a cash grab plain and simple.

Red light cameras yeah, who isn't for those? BUT greedy cities will set them up not at dangerous intersections, but at intersections where they can make the most money.

EXAMPLE 1: they'll set them up to catch people rolling through left turn arrows because that's a very common thing. It's also a very low-risk thing as opposing traffic is looking right at you and isn't going to go until you've cleared.

EXAMPLE 2: the "intersection" starts WAY later than most people think. It's certainly not the end of the crosswalk. In fact, crosswalks are sometimes set well back from the intersection for safety purposes. If you look to see where the sensors are set, you may be surprised.

Bottom line, the vast majority of accidents happen at intersections, so enforcing laws at them is fine, but photo radar is pure greed, and even a lot of the cities running the red light cameras are more interested in revenue than safety.

[youtalkfunny]

When a cop gives you a ticket, you have the right to a trial. You can cross-examine the cop, and look for a hole in the chain of evidence (did he follow proper procedure, is he competent in the operation of radar, is the radar accurate, can he prove the radar is accurate, etc).

I can't imagine anyone being found guilty in a trial where the evidence was presented by a machine. If the defense challenges the accuracy of the measuring device (the radar), the burden is on the prosecution to PROVE that the device is accurate. This means calling a witness who can be cross-examined.

No witness, no case.

Amiright?

[tuq]

Oh yeah, I also want to add that I liberally use cruise control in cities with photo radar. So should all of you. I have the habit of keeping it in the 5-10 over range, but if not paying attention can drift a bit faster, so if traffic is light enough put it in cruise and don't worry.

Howard, did you realize that I think it's been 20 years now since photo radar was introduced, and I believe it was here in Paradise Valley? Since that time almost every suburb of Phoenix has implemented photo & red light systems. This is why I give huge props to the City of Phoenix for only using photo radar in school zones (where you should never be speeding anyway) and only using red light running cameras at the intersections that have proven the most dangerous.

And yeah, I was back in Iowa recently and it was awesome to see all their cameras shut down, at least for now. I know for a fact those companies get a huge chunk of change for each ticket - I guess it would vary from contract to contract, but the number I have typically heard is 50%. So when you get a $125 ticket in Scottsdale, the company is making $60 off your back. Sweet, huh?

[ThaSaltCracka]

You guys should be more alarmed by these things. Our government using cameras and radar detectors to get people in trouble. Our civil liberties are being [censored] on left and right. You guys are right, these cameras are all about money.