Arizona Drops Redflex Freeway Speed Camera Contract

by The Newspaper

Published: May 6th, 2010

arizona drops redflex freeway speed camera contract

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s administration has officially canceled the state contract that authorized Redflex Traffic Systems to issue automated freeway speeding tickets. The program, started in 2008 by Brewer’s Democratic predecessor Janet Napolitano, will be terminated according to statement issued earlier today to Australian Securities Exchange investors.

“Redflex has now received formal notification from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that the contract will not be renewed,” Redflex stated.

Although the official contract expiration date is July 1, inside sources expect speed vans to be pulled off the highways much sooner. As a result of the lost revenue stream, Redflex said it would take a $5 million loss on top of a previously announced $4.9 million loss arising from residents realizing that tickets sent in the mail can be safely ignored. A 1992 appeals court ruling declared void any attempt to impose a fine without personal service ( read opinion).

Intense public pressure against photo enforcement in general spurred the decision to end the contract. While the loss of the statewide ticketing program is significant in terms of revenue to the state and other interested parties, the industry hopes to relieve the pressure that has been building to outlaw the far more lucrative red light camera and speed camera programs in local jurisdictions.

“Even if the program does continue in early FY2011, a number of groups opposed to photo enforcement are trying to have a referendum put to voters in November 2011 to effectively end photo enforcement in the state of Arizona,” a Redflex statement issued last month explained. “Whether this referendum occurs, and the likely outcome, are difficult to predict at this stage.”

Referendum organizers insist that they will press forward with their effort because there are no guarantees that the freeway cameras will not make a comeback after the elections. Municipal cameras, moreover, issue just as many tickets as the statewide cameras and raise all of the same constitutional and safety issues.

“Arizonans know that these cameras increase accidents ( view studies),” Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar representative Shawn Dow told TheNewspaper. “Now it is time for the red light cameras to come down.”

On top of the contract difficulties, a lawsuit by competitor American Traffic Solutions has brought the Redflex legal bill for the year to $6.2 million. The company reported a pre-tax profit of $13.4 million last year. In April, Redflex reduced the expectation to $7 million. The latest announcement dropped the figure to just $2 million.

The jury trial in the case ATS v. Redflex will commence at 9am on May 11 before US District Court Judge Frederick J. Martone. The trial is expected to last six days.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

#Crime&Punishment #Government #Redflex #Safety #SpeedCameras #Traffic

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 12 comments

Windswords on May 06, 2010

Maybe the feds can buy up the camera trucks and put them on the borders. Ironic that citizens are under more and more surveillance but we can't do the same to the borders.

Like Reply
- Contrarian on May 06, 2010
  
  Excellent suggestion, and point.
  
  Like
Pete Zaitcev on May 06, 2010

This is it, I am moving to Arizona. They removed my principal objection to living there (well, there's also John McCain but I hope him dying of natural causes soonish).

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?