Under the Radar

One of the most bizarre gimmicks that Governor Napolitano used to balance the state budget was to put 100 photo radar cameras on state freeways and then claim that they would bring in $90 million a year.  This claim was suspect from the beginning and is now proving to have been wildly exaggerated.

In addition to being a revenue bust, the program makes me uncomfortable on civil libertarian grounds because the cameras not only take pictures, but they also constantly roll video.  I also find it outrageous that state DPS arrests some of the suspected violators without a warrant.  Since the violation is a misdemeanor and doesn't take place in the presence of an officer, DPS is Constitutionally required to get a warrant before arresting a suspect--a requirement that DPS routinely ignores. 

Of course, Janet Napolitano wasn't a civil libertarian while she was in AZ and she has shown a disdain for individual rights while at DHS as well.

Now the national media is reporting that the program is in trouble. 

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.

 

The "citizen effort" hasn't drawn much media attention, but the Camera Fraud guys are well on their way to betting the signatures they need to a proposal to ban the cameras on the ballot.  It's extraordinary when a group can get the required signatures with an all-volunteer effort.

 

This year's electorate is likely to have Republican bent, but much of the passion seems to actually be anti establishment sentiment.  The anti Camera initiative will certainly capitalize on that sentiment and will probably add to it.  When I do my turnout estimates for 2010, I'm already factoring in a bump of so called NASCAR voters who will show up to the polls just to vote against the cameras.  They are also likely to vote for Republicans...of course, they are just as likely to vote against all the incumbents.

 

Frankly, legislators of both parties would do well to repeal the cameras now instead of waiting for the people to rise up and do it for them.  

Comments

[Jim Torgeson]

Dead on. I also believe that there are massive failures in the recording of spped. Seems everyone I know gets ticketed for 66mph just inside the 55mph spped trap.

[Thane Eichenauer]

And if you are still thirsty for some more good news about camera radar after reading Mr. Patterson's article, take a look at:

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/

[Tod]

Happy with the results, not with the method ...

I personally do believe the freeways are safer since the cameras have been put in.

I believe that most people have lowered their normal highway speeds and are more aware of their speed since the installation of the cameras.

With that said, I'm not a big fan of Big Brother watching and attempting to correct/control everything that we do.

Nor am I a fan of Big Brother using cameras as a profit center.

But, I do feel that generally the freeway speeds are safer.

[todd]

I recently read that only about 25% of people respond to the 'citations' they receive in the mail. The Times story claims the number is not possible to ascertain but this large act of civil disobedience deserves some more attention as well.

In addition to Greg's points above, what also really bothers me is that DPS, etc basically send out notices that apparently amount to little more than fraud. I know it has been found that the police can lie but I find this action to be highly offensive. Governments should not be allowed to lie to citizens.

Tod above makes the point that the freeways are safer, and I think there are statistics to back this up. I wonder if the cameras are removed will there be a will to higher more DPS officers to patrol freeways?

[todd]

Um 'higher' should be 'hire' in my last sentence.

[RPr]

Nevada had the same reduction in accidents

Nevada has already banned photo radar

less people driving means less accidents

[nick]

Why not split the difference?

Write a ticket for speed above
78 mph.
Charge $150 for each excess mph
over 78.

[Banphotoradar]

You can believe the freeways are safer all you want, but DPS has never come out with any study in regards to whether or not accidents are down or up in the camera locations.

I know one camera location on I-10 had two rollover accidents in three days. A three year old girl was ejected in one of the acccidents.

Same thing with the last camera on I-17 going north. Two accidents in a couple days with firetrucks and ambulances being called out.

[Benson]

"the cameras not only take pictures, but they also constantly roll video".
So?

[Blackbird03]

Benson,

I am not paranoid but...these videos can be used to track (i.e. conduct surveillance) any individual with either license plate recognition, facial recognition or other video scanning software. Looking for a guy in a red coat in the area around a particular time, no problem - just scan the videos from cameras in the area. What are the rules for accessing or using the video for "other than stated" purposes? Who has access? How easy is it to intercept a feed? Does someone need a warrant to use? How long is it retained? The government, whether City, State or Federal, has no business tracking our daily business. I thought we had a few constitutional protections left. These cameras need to go or the rules need to be much better defined for their use.

[Conway]

I don't mind the government following our movement with the cameras as much as them tracking us with these damned implants they are secretly putting in our brains through the use of vaccinations.

[Simon says:]

Most people believe that monitoring the thoughts of paranoid schizophrenics is solely a federal responsibility. But I think that there is more that can be done at the state level to supplement the Feds work. Their failings (some targets easily circumvent federal monitoring efforts by simply wearing make-shift foil helmets, for instance) really require our state to step up.

[Brenda Barton]

As a House candidate for LD-5 my position on photo radar may be found at:

http://www.barton4az.com/index.php/issues/law-enforcement.html

[Sandra K]

DPS may have suspect stats Camera Fraud, but anyone who drives rush hour on the 51 knows things are safer since those things went in. Now, I am all for removing them and never wanted them there in the first place, but there has just GOT to be a way to nail those assholes that ride your ass 2 feet off your bumper, change lanes, pull in front of you with a foot to spare and do that all the way down the 51. I would say every 3 days that would happen on the morning commute down the 51. And I drive fast in a fast car.

[Falcon9]

Nick understands the issue. Forget making them profit centers. Set the camera speed at 80 mph - that gets rid of slamming on the brakes.

The reduction in accidents is a huge benefit, it saves everyone enormous time.

[Benson]

Now Sandra, there you go blaming the poor driver who has a constitutional right to drive however they want. Don't you know it is the road that kills and injures people?
Ok, now on a serious note: I'm not a lawyer - but I'm pretty sure there is case law that established that you do not have a right to privacy on a public road. I or even a law enforcement officer can stand out there and video drivers all day long. I may be wrong...but I don't think I am.

[Blackbird03]

Benson, are you suggesting that it is OK for local law enforcement (i.e. the Government) to collect information (I think that's called spying) on its general citizenry especially the majority who have done nothing wrong without a warrant?

Despite Conway's and Simon's cute assertions to the contrary, I am not some paranoid wacko. I am deeply and instinctively troubled by this program. Particularly troubling is that the rules for what LE keeps, who has access, how it is secured and how it is used are not well defined. And all of this with no warrants! It is ripe for abuse.

What happened to "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I am not a lawyer either but I know that is wrong. Greg - any thoughts?

[Paul S]

"I personally do believe the freeways are safer since the cameras have been put in."

"I believe that most people have lowered their normal highway speeds and are more aware of their speed since the installation of the cameras."

"...anyone who drives rush hour on the 51 knows things are safer since those things went in."

Can we PLEASE stop citing anecdotal evidence or personal beliefs and cite some, you know, actual studies that back up your assertions?

Gee whiz - facts are pesky things!

[Sandra K]

There really are not any real easy ways to gather facts since LUCKILY the government doesn't watch the freeways at all times and thus you can't quantify it. And voters don't vote for things based on facts. They vote how things play out in the real world.

[Falcon9]

There was a huge reduction in accidents immediately upon the cameras being put in place. However, the economy was crashing too and congestion on our streets was dropping dramatically. The accident reduction would have to be adjusted for that phenonmena. We need another state or national data to do that.

Question is, can we get all that time savings from accident reduction if we set one standard speed limit (80 mph) and quit nailing people by having photo radar in 55 mph zones?

Also, does the accident reduction stop once people learn where all the cameras are?