Arizona Senate Panel Approves Photo Ticketing Expansion

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The Arizona Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee approved legislation last Wednesday that would substantially expand the size and scope of the photo enforcement program in the state. Lawmakers voted 6-1 to approve legislation allowing the use of automated ticketing machines for a number of new types of violations. Committee Chairman Linda Gray (R-Phoenix) sponsored the legislation after becoming an enthusiastic supporter of cameras.

“I have come to understand with the data that has come in photo radar has provided for safer highways,” Gray said. “So I have a different perspective today than when I first learned of what photo radar is doing.”

Although Gray introduced the legislation claiming it would “reform” the photo enforcement program, the measure was in fact drafted by Redflex Traffic Systems, a firm based in Australia. The company listened to lawmaker complaints and included some mild changes that would not affect the company’s existing practice, such as a change in the signage requirements. The legislation also included a number of items of direct financial interest to the company.

“We appreciate senator Gray for working with us,” Redflex lobbyist Mike Williams said. “We’ve worked with legislators for the past three years.”

Under the current program, for example, a vehicle must be accused of traveling 11 MPH above the speed limit before Redflex can mail a photo citation. The Redflex legislation eliminates this buffer and allows the issuance of tickets for driving as little as 1 MPH over the limit in either a school zone or highway work zone. Signage requirements are gutted by a provision that allows photo radar warning signs to be left up for up to 24 hours when no photo radar is in use. The bill also eliminates the requirement that photo tickets be issued only for speed and red light violations, opening up the possibility that such tickets could be issued for cell phone and other violations. The initial draft of the legislation specifically included language that would allow Redflex to issue tickets to motorists accused of having lapsed insurance or vehicle registration.

Existing law gives photo enforcement companies sixty days to properly serve notice on a photo ticket recipient. The bill would double this to 120 days to address the fact that 73 percent of Arizona ticket recipients refuse to pay. The public’s widespread opposition to the program created the grassroots group CameraFraud.com which is circulating a referendum petition that would ban cameras throughout the state.

“It’s probably going on the ballot,” Williams said. “My understanding is they’re very active in gathering signatures.”

To combat the initiative, the committee also adopted a Redflex-sponsored measure, SCR1059, which would place the exact legislative language already adopted by the committee in SB1443 on the ballot.

“It mirrors what we just voted on — why do we need it?” state Senator Al Melvin (R-Tucson) asked. “It will be a ballot measure in competition with getting rid of them completely. It sounds like the electorate could be confused.”

Senators Melvin and Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) voted against SCR1059. A copy of the legislation is available in a 40k PDF file at the source link below.

Update: State Representative Frank R. Antenori (R-Tucson) issued a statement suggesting he was deceived by the lobbying effort on this legislation.

“In the case of SB1443, I was led to believe that the bill set guidelines for city, county and state use of photo radar and was a bill to significantly limit their use, not expand them,” Antenori wrote. “As I had time to review the full text of bill, I came to realize that I was not presented with all of the provisions contained in the bill… The bill does in fact expand the use of photo radar for the purpose of issuing citations for other infractions besides speeding. Therefore I am pulling my support from this bill and will actively work to defeat it in the State House of Representatives.”

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1059 (Arizona Legislature, 2/17/2010)

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 12 comments
  • Lynn Ellsworth Lynn Ellsworth on Feb 17, 2010

    You "I hate government" people do realize that Arizona's legislature is 80% Republican and 20% Democratic. Arizona, a fast growing state, has been badly hurt by the recession and is deeply in debt. We didn't do a good job of saving for a rainy day or bringing in new business beyond more house building. It seems that when Republicans can't balance a budget they tax the poor with fees and fines. We don't want to tax the rich with plain old income taxes because we do expect money from the rich to trickle down to us any day now:-)

    • BDB BDB on Feb 17, 2010

      This is EXACTLY what happened in Virginia a few years ago with the ridiculous $2,000 or so "abusive driver fees". It was just a regressive tax increase coming out sideways--half the legislature made one of those ridiculous Club for Growth "no new taxes ever under any circumstances" pledges, but they still wanted transportation and education funding. So we got stuck with a fee that was later found to be unconstitutional, anyway.

  • Fvongraf Fvongraf on Mar 04, 2010

    Did you see the DPS Budget report on how much $$$ the Vendors are making on this? Check it out here: http://www.azlegislation.com/content/arizona-dps-reports-photo-enforcement-program-budget-fy-2010 What do you think about the numbers?

  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
Next