By on January 22, 2009

AZcentral.com reports that the Arizona House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has voted 5-2 to recommend approval of House Bill 2106, banning the use of speed cameras on state highways. (The bill does not preclude cameras from city streets.) “This was done in the name of revenue,” pronounced an indignant Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert. Meanwhile, Pinal County County Supervisors voted to end their dalliance with Redflex’s mobile speed cameras. This after their top cop, Sheriff Paul Babeu, declared “I’m against photo speed enforcement completely. Here in Pinal, it’s failed miserably.” Babeu told the panel that the two cameras were activated 11,416 times, from September 2007 through December 2008. The result: 7,290 citations. Of those, only 3,711 were paid. “Babeu said most of the total $134,199.43 in fines and fees from the paid citations covered administrative and operational costs, leaving the county with a net profit of $12,391.58 that Babeu dismissed as paltry. Moreover, Babeu said, total motor-vehicle accidents increased by 16 percent in the same time period, and fatal collisions in the Queen Creek area doubled from three to six.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

10 Comments on “AZ Moves to Ban Speed Cameras From Highways...”


  • avatar

    A small-government Republican? There is hope after all!

    –chuck

  • avatar
    golf4me

    I want the names of the two who voted against the measure.! God, I can’t wait till they ban the damn things. I’m sick of people laying on their brakes in the middle of the goddam freeway because they see a flash ahead somewhere…Man, it’s REALLY unsafe, and it happens ALL THE TIME.

  • avatar
    kansei

    I’m still up in the air about how I feel with this. I live in Phoenix and I love the speed cameras for one critical aspect: They’re stationary. Having lived in NY for the past handful of years, I’m used to being constantly vigilant searching for speed traps, including using a high dollar radar detector.

    Here in Phoenix, my radar detector isn’t terribly useful. Speed cameras here don’t use radar or laser, except for the mobile vans which are few and far between vs the stationary cams. The vans use instant on radar anyway which is very difficult to get an early alert for.

    Here you fork over the dough for a radar detector with integrated GPS w/ speed camera maps, buy a GPS nav unit that can warn you of speed camera locations, or just remember where they are and keep up on news reports about new installations (hint: google maps will report construction delays and are quite clear that the construction is for speed enforcement cameras).

    If I vote against the cameras (not that it was on the ballot in November, since if it was they’d already be shut down), then I need to buy a nice new radar detector since I threw away the old one (it lost calibration and the repair bill is the cost of it 4 or 5 years ago). I also have to live with that constant fear of laser, which you can’t really get an early warning for (but you can effectively block). Honestly, at least for me, the cameras give me huge freedom. Never did I think I would feel secure driving a car without a radar detector running until I moved here.

  • avatar
    BMW325I

    Next toll booths as they are the plaque of an artery.

  • avatar
    golf4me

    kansei…dude, they still have radar TOO. In addition don’t you notice how conveniently the speed limit seems to change right around where the cameras are? Especially the 101 & 202. The other thing is that they don’t catch anyone doing something stupid, especially drunks, until it’s too late. On a freeway where traffic can easily and safely flow at 75, there is no reason to choke it at varied intervals with cameras. The whole thing is silly and reeks of Big Brother. Even though I am not a habitual speeder, and have never been nabbed, I can’t tell you the number of times when I’ve been just going along (safely) with the flow at 70 and BAM all of a sudden people are slamming the brakes to avoid a ticket. It’s just ridiculous.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    One small step for freedom. I might consider moving to AZ if they can figure out a way to plug the border. And do it on two sides to keep the kooks from Kalifornia out.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    One more form on entrapment gone.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    kansei :

    …I’m used to being constantly vigilant searching for speed traps, including using a high dollar radar detector…

    Here you fork over the dough for a radar detector with integrated GPS w/ speed camera maps, buy a GPS nav unit that can warn you of speed camera locations, or just remember where they are and keep up on news reports about new installations (hint: google maps will report construction delays and are quite clear that the construction is for speed enforcement cameras)….

    …Never did I think I would feel secure driving a car without a radar detector running until I moved here.

    How do you justify the ability to speed-without-penalty as “secure feelings”?

    I’m sorry, but it’s not our “right” to break the law. Change it, yes. Break it, no. If we choose to break the law, we have to accept the risk. Risk of being stopped/delayed, risk of being ticketed.

    It’s part of the game, and by choosing to play the game (have a license, drive on our public roads), you have chosen to abide by the rules. Your “secure feelings” shouldn’t be part of that decision.

    I don’t like the cameras, and I don’t like cops writing only speeding tickets. But this is principle-based, not some way for me to figure out how to get by with speeding.

    I still say that principle-wise, the cops (ie, living humang beings) should be required to catch you speeding; anything less is not proof of the accusation.

    But they should also be required to not ignore red-light running, stupid driving, dangerous lane-changes, or weaving in traffic, all of which they never seem to see.

    I also think that one reason we won’t change unworkable or stupid laws (for example, speed limits that are unreasonably low due to low road population, red lights that are not properly timed, etc) is because of lax enforcement.

    We don’t care to bitch about (or vote against) common-sense traffic laws because the stupid ones are inconsistently applied and inconsistently enforced.

    I think that if speed limits (even the stupid ones) were more strictly enforced, the electorate might be more inclined to vote accordingly.

    The Boston Tea Party was held because the tax was being enforced, not just “sometimes” enforced.

  • avatar
    Airhen

    Increased accidents is no surprise. I see that as a possibility all the time when a LEO is on the side of the road and traffic backs up for miles as people slow down to pass him.

    Just last week, I was lucky enough to get on the intestate right behind a LEO that drove just over the set mph across the city. Ahead of him, the interstate was wide open, and it was a parking lot behind him. I’m sure that he was laughing the entire time.

  • avatar

    I love it that the county only netted 12 grand. They tried to make a profit for themselves and the only ones who made money was the contractor.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Gabe Ets-Hokin: Not in the US, dude.
  • dal20402: “Best” implies that getting flung over the handlebars headfirst isn’t a design objective...
  • dal20402: I wasn’t talking about the LY7, but the LFX and LGX. There are a million Traverses and Impalas on the...
  • 28-Cars-Later: I feel the same way Ajla, GM products aren’t even in my consideration save a few and I’m...
  • 28-Cars-Later: No, they really don’t for a variety of reasons. But I have to agree with the overall point,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber