Hey, it’s not like we want people to speed or anything. But, despite the assurances that former Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano gave KLPZ when we asked her about the rollout of state-wide photo radar speed enforcement, traps have begun to spring up even in our own neighborhood in the form of these mobile DPS units equipped with (we presume) Redflex technology, designed, some say, to enhance revenue for the State.
This one is making its second appearance in the past couple of weeks in the 45 mph zone by the river north of Parker, and is marked by signs indicating a photo enforcement zone.
Some may feel that speed cameras are to be welcomed as deterrents to speeding, and there have been good arguments made here on Parker Live to that effect. But websites like CameraFraud.com disagree, as do some elected officials in the Arizona legislature (including the current Governor), and some law enforcement authorities (Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, for example, who believes speed cameras are “corrupting law enforcement”).
What do you think? Have you been ‘flashed’ by this camera yet? If you feel photo enforcement is justified, would you be happy to see them placed permanently up and down all the roads of La Paz County and surrounding area? If you don’t feel it is justified, do you intend to fight any ticket you receive?
Parker
61°
10 comments ↓
1 PF // Oct 28, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Finally.
2 Mark Andrews // Oct 28, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I hate it! It is a vilation of our privacy and nothing more than a money making device for the state, which in the end will probably cost the state, just with the follow up process servers. Arizona is supposed to be a place where freedom and privacy are valued, but instead it is just the almighty dollar that is valued by our state!
3 Robb // Oct 29, 2009 at 9:18 am
I understand speeding being dangerous, especially in that area. It is a residential area and people should slow down for the safety of those who live there.
The road should be wider, and people safer, but this is the situation we have.
I too believe it’s a violation of privacy and think it sh0uld be stopped. Unless and until though, people start acting responsibly, there will always be the state trying to step in and “spank” us for being bad.
4 John Wright // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:17 pm
PF- Do you think there’s a limit to how many of these should be placed?
5 PF // Oct 29, 2009 at 11:34 pm
What is the expectation of privacy in a vehicle that you are driving on a public road? The courts have ruled the expectation of privacy in a vehicle is less than the expectation of privacy in a home. But really, what privacy are they violating? That the cameras took a picture of you?
So even with the area being “dangerous” and the photo radar slows vehicles down to help ensure the safety of the residents, it should be stopped? So people have a right to safety just as long as that safety is not made by photo radar? And IF people acted responsible, then get rid of photo radar and other laws because there would be no need. But people don’t act responsibile, which is why we have laws.
John – Yes. I believe the limit should be to use the least amount of photo radar as possible to correct driving behavior. The more widespread the poor driving behavior, the greater the need for photo radar. The more responsible people drive, the less need for photo radar.
6 PF // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:15 pm
You may not like it, but it seems to be working… ttp://www.azdps.gov/Media/News/View/?p=124
7 Duane // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:46 am
The cameras are recording license plates and correlating the data. Do you know what they do with that data? This gives them the ability to know everywhere you go, especially if you live or travel in metro Phoenix. You may have no problem with that PF but I do not believe my government’s job is to do that. I have a higher expectation of privacy than you, evidently.
In response to your link proving that photo radar ‘works’,
http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/dps-corrupted-from-photo-radar-cash/
8 PF // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:07 am
Seriously? Do you believe that the government has nothing better to do than to worry about where Duane has been driving? If you are worried about the government knowing where you are or what you are doing, I would stop using your computer. There is an IP address that identifies your computer that they can have access to. I would stop using your cell phone because because they know who you were talking too, what text messages you sent and can trianglate your location with cell towers if not the exact location using the 911/gps feature common in most phones. I would stop using your credit cards too. If you are worried about the government invading your privacy, then photo radar should be the least of your concerns.
I don’t think your expectation of privacy is any higher than mine. I just have a better understanding of it. What exactly is your right to privacy when you are in public? You can watch TMZ or read any tabloid magazine for your answer.
The article was interesting to say the least. Please do not believe that I believe that the statistics DPS has listed are solely due to photo radar. The statistics are a correlation that is seen consistently when photo radar is used. Did photo radar play a part in the stats, of course. I think it is also important to notice the stats opponents of photo radar fail to mention. The stats that show photo radar does not work. I have not seen a stat which shows an increase in speeds or deaths due to photo radar. The lack of those stats add to the credibility of photo radar.
But two points with the article. First, the article and comments talk about the flash. What about cell phones? How bright are they at night? Definitely bright enough to affect your night vision. I wonder if camerafraud will be going after cell phone manufactures next. It seems to me that if camerafraud would be more successful by attempting to change drivers behavior. Second, the article talks about two collisions that may or may not have occurred due to photo radar. Of the millions of vehicles that drive by photo radar daily, there have been only two accidents that were allegedly caused by photo radar? So if millions of people can drive by photo radar successfully each day without colliding with another vehicle, what were these two people doing or not doing (ie not paying attention) that caused the collision? I would say the lack of collisions counters opponents argument that photo radar causes collisions.
9 Mike // Nov 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I’m bringing my photo radar to the superior court, I just filed my notice of right to appeal. The trial court of scottsdale is filled with garbage, just like the city of scottsdale.
These process servers are white trash scum bag liars, who work for unethical businesses. Trust me, you will see me change the history of these photo radar tickets. I also have some great legal counsel behind me helping me fight this issue.
10 John Wright // Nov 6, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Mike, I’d be fascinated to hear more about this. Could you drop me an email at johnwright@klpz1380.com? It might be fun to hae you on the air to talk about it if you’re comfortable doing it.
Leave a Comment