For those of you who don’t know, the first photo radar system to be deployed in the U.S. was in Arizona.
A typical system works like this; respective municipalities lease the equipment and pay a fee to the photo radar equipment manufactures for the equipment. Manufactures are also typically paid a percentage of what’s collected from fines collected. Manufactures may have the right to move the equipment if target revenues are not met.
According to an article in “thenewspaper.com”, photo radar units on the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona have generated more than $2,894,766 in revenue since the set of six speed cameras were activated on February 22. As of May 3, the city mailed 18,438 citations worth between $157 and $201 each. Australian vendor Redflex takes a $42.48 cut of the profit on each ticket the company is able to generate.
In another article cited by “thenewspaper.com” Officials in Richland Hills, Texas have manipulated the yellow signal timing at the city's lone red light camera monitored intersection. By slicing the amount of warning time available to motorists from 3.6 seconds to 3.0 seconds for several months, the intersection of Glenview Drive and Booth Calloway Road generated an estimated $300,000 in extra photo ticket revenue. Richland Hills Police Chief Barbara Childress admitted that she ordered a private contractor to shorten the yellow signal time.
The argument used my cities to deploy these system is safety…right! So how safe are intersections when yellow light are shortened? Safety my Butt!
Government must think we are stupid. Just follow the money and we can see why there’s such a huge interest on the part of Municipalities to deploy these system.
At one time, IRS agents were paid commissions based on what they colleted…Yea, that wasn’t abusive! (this is sarcasm, under this system millions of U.S. citizens were targets of abuse.).
Under the 6th amendment of the U.S. constitution, you have the right to confront your accuser, in this case, your abuser. So exactly how do you cross examine a radar system? You can’t and these cities know it. They also know the odds of an individual fighting a photo radar citation is small. These are no small fines, they can reach several hundred dollars and judges are quick to side against you.
I would recommend anyone, receiving a citation, present your case in court. It’s your right. Yes it adds cost to the court system. Maybe cities will think twice about the way citations are issued.
At one time, the city of Tucson had two schedules of fines, one schedule if you don’t contest the citation and another if you do, how ridiculous! Government has no business discouraging individuals from their constitutional right fight a citation. Besides, what ever happened to the presumption of innocents?
Now we hear Gov. Napolitano is deploying photo radar systems throughout Arizona. As an individual and as a police officer this upsets me. Why? Because Gov. Napolitano is not deploying Photo Radar because of some compelling safety issue. She’s using the income from Photo Radar to balance the state’s budget. This is nothing shot of a TAX!
Municipalities are depending more and more on the revenues for these types of technologies. Why, because it’s easy. For the most part, people are tired of Taxes and Municipalities know this.
Can speed radar read faulty, you bet. I remember running radar and clocked a tree moving at 20 MPH…and I was stationary.
On a personal note; if I would have known that Gov. Napolitano would have resigned as Gov to accept a position with Obama's Administration...I would have voted for Obama.
She’s been terrible for the State of Arizona. Anyone that resolves budget problems by deploying Photo Radar across the State is Clueless and a poor leader.
This is not the end. My plan is to do something about the abuse…stay tuned.
It's time to kick butt and take names.....
- Bill Conley
1 comment:
Bravo on your insights into Photo Radar camera use.
I remember 12 years ago how I decided to fight a laser radar ticket issued to me by a police officer. He had made a statement to me that he'd aimed his device at every vehicle in my vicinity so that I could not argue about being confused with another car. I decided to argue in court based on probable cause... that he aimed his radar at every car, so he had no cause to measure my speed electronically. Of course, he showed-up in court and lied about having "estimated" my advanced speed, visually (at night).
I lost, but at least I had an accuser with a pulse. An accuser who at least knew the circumstances. I do not believe that we can be accused by a device alone. At least not a device that has no connection to a live human being at the moment of the alleged infraction.
Everyone seems to be willing to completely ignore the constitution on this issue.
As technology gives people more ideas on how to use it to capitalize for themselves, this technology will become more invasive to the point of trampling our rights. Good for you and your views.
James
Post a Comment