The Tucson Photo Enforcement program by any objective standard has been shown to be unfair to drivers. The shortened Intersection Definition in Arizona is in conflict with the Federal Standard that includes the area from the normal stopping point, including the crosswalk, to the much smaller prolongation of the curb lines definition that is used only in Arizona and Alaska. This definition results in about 50 percent of the citations that otherwise should never have been detected.
The length of the Yellow Light is far too short to allow a driver to reach the unfair Intersection Definition line in many situations. This produces an entrapment zone that “creates” Red Light violations that in reality do not exist. There are parameters that could have been adjusted for fairness, but the city officials and the camera vendor have refused to implement any fairness concepts.
The traffic courts rely on hearsay evidence handed from the camera vendor to a police representative (who does not testify) and then to another police officer who testifies without any first hand participation in the case. The police “witness” is allowed to act as prosecutor and witness together. The magistrates generally “presume” guilt in a process that is substantially rigged against the defendant.
The safety claims by the Tucson Police appear to be highly exagerated over more soundly produced studies that show single digit safety benefits or in many cases an increase in accidents. The consistent results of most valid studies nearly always show a near neutral safety result.
The clear incentive for the camera vendor and the city is the revenue factor. All parameters including location choice, traffic light timing, expected traffic volume, and likelihood of violations is to maximize revenue. The empirical data used for safety claims is far out-shadowed by the desire for revenue.
Even in this election campaign, the opposition to camera removal appears to have implemented unfair practices in campaign sign destruction. The current Tucson election has seen more than 100 signs for “YES on 201” removed or destroyed. Many were simultaneously removed from multiple approaches to a camera intersection. They cannot even allow a fair election process by the public to determine the future of the cameras.
Voting “YES on 201” is the only answer to restore fairness in Traffic Enforcement, due-process in Traffic Court, and rational revenue to the
City of Tucson.
—Mark Spear
This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 4, 2015.
Yesterday was election day here in Pima county. And while most of our ballot choices were about bonds there was one other issue on the ballot, one that everyone in the city seems to have a staunch take on, the issue of course, was Prop 201, to ban Red Light Cameras. The ban was more than just approved, it was a veritable mandate. 65% of Tucson voters voted to get rid of Red light cameras, that’s 42,526 people who Care more about getting away with a crime than the lives that will be saved. I wanted to take a moment to Voice my concern on what Tuscon residents have just done.
If I were to break into your house while you were not home with a can of spray paint and vandalize your house. If I were to rob a convenience store clerk and gun point and shoot that person dead or if I were to steal a car from an underground parking garage while no one was looking or any of a thousand other possible crimes and the only proof of what I had done was a video tape from a hidden camera, should I be brought to justice for my crime? The answer of course is yes. Why, then, do we want to allow people to get away with another crime? I know that it seems like comparing running a red light to vandalism or even murder seems like a stretch, but it isn’t.
Studies have been done that show that the presence of Red Light Cameras can reduce the possibility of fatal accidents at effected intersections by as much as 26% over five years. That is a number that translates into lives saved. As a simple statistic that means that 11,057 of those people who voted to ban those cameras would be too dead to vote. The question I am asking here is, why is a couple extra minutes on your morning commute worth that many lives?
An argument against the red light cameras states that legally an officer has to issue you the ticket and a camera doesn’t serve as an agent of the law but this argument is full of holes. In this scenario the cameras are not issuing the tickets, they are simply providing evidence of a crime. As in my earlier examples, if you are caught committing a crime by a video camera in any other situation it can be used against you, why should these cameras be any different. It should be noted that every one of the pictures taken is reviewed by three different officers who have to agree that a crime has been committed before a ticket is issued.
That’s right, just because the camera flashed doesn’t mean someone is going to get a ticket.
I drive through an intersection with a red light camera several times a day. I live next to the one at Wilmot and 22nd. Before the cameras were installed I remember seeing shattered glass at that intersection at least once a week, and being held up almost as often because of an accident. Since the cameras have been installed the number of accidents at that intersection alone have gone down drastically.
Let me assure you all, like many of you, I have been caught by the red light cameras. When I got my ticket I was angry and I wanted to fight it. However, the bottom line is. When I was caught by the camera I was breaking the law. I made a mistake. The camera didn’t force me to make a mistake, it simply provided proof that I had. An interesting thing happened after I got that ticket though, I started to be more careful at those intersections. I got a ticket and because of it I started to pay more attention to my driving. Instead of getting a ticket and wondering how I could get out of it, I got a ticket and I learned my lesson which is what a responsible adult should do.
The vote to ban the red light cameras shows a complete lack of willingness on the citizens part to take responsibility for their own actions and frankly it sickens me. The people of Tucson should be ashamed of ourselves. We brought down a very effective safety tool and for what? We want to be able to run those red lights, we want to get to work that much faster. Now the cost of that is something we all have to live with. As the fatal accidents begin to return I hope those 42,526 people who voted to Band the cameras can sleep well at night, because as far as I am concerned they have blood on their hands.
While that may all be true, the red light cameras had the misfortune of being part of an election revolt against lying, cheating and stealing politicians. The country has watched their government do the wrong thing for the wrong reason and it’s citizens are saying ENOUGH.
Why else would Ben Carson be leading Hillary Clinton by 10 points in national polls? The trust has been violated and the backlash effect is started to move.
10 years from now it might be accepted as a great idea, but to be honest the blood may be on the hands of the mistrusted.
They started the ball rolling.
I was conscientiously driving East on Speedway when at Kolb the light changed suddenly. I couldn’t stop safely so I sped up to stay in traffic flow ahead of me. I didn’t get a ticket in the mail for running a red light (which was my primary concern in that instant), but I did get one for speeding. It was a lose-lose situation for me, and a very expensive payout to the system. I thoroughly enjoyed voting against these electronic monsters. There definitely will be a reduction in legal entrapment, specifically of older drivers.
I was trapped by that same camera when the car in front of me stopped for no reason and I was stuck between the lines but too far out to back up. I now avoid that intersection, and with traffic problems it makes it even harder to get across town trying to avoid these traps. An officer never would have cited me if he had seen it. The fast yellow and the long intersections gave them the opportunity to add speed sensors. It feels like entrapment.