Speed Camera Van Fails To Prevent Another Crash in Tucson

ABC15 News is reporting yet another failure of photo enforcement to protect itself from being crashed into.

TUCSON, AZ – A man is in custody in Tucson after allegedly crashing his car into a parked photo radar van.

Tucson police say 25-year-old Matthew Jones is being held on suspicion of felony criminal damage and driving under the influence.

He was arrested after the New Year’s Day accident in the midtown area.

Police say Jones’ vehicle veered off the road and struck the radar van.

Just another example of the ineffectiveness of photo enforcement.

Emphasis on Speed Questioned, and Rightfully So

It’s worth pointing out a recent article at TheNewspaper.com about the former Australian road safety official who questioned the emphasis on speed for improving safety. We agree and have always been troubled with this obsession. Especially in light of the NHTSA report that says that “speed too fast” causes fewer than 2.9% of crashes.
The reality is that measuring speed is the easiest and most obvious violation to observe and prosecute, along with red light running which makes it an easy target for public perception and to fill government coffers. Lane violations, distracted driving, and driving under the influence are much harder to identify and have no automated ticketing solutions.
It’s important to remind everyone again that “speed-related” and “speeding” can often mean “too fast for conditions” and does not mean “above the posted limit” which is the only violation a camera can effectively detect. Meanwhile there are several engineering measures that can be employed to improve safety, such as rumble strips and ensuring that speed limits are appropriate to begin with, along with public education. How about switching some revenue from the seatbelt PSA’s to messages about distracted driving and driving in poor weather conditions, as well as messages to clear up misconceptions about driving laws?

Chicago Corruption Reveals New Evidence To Prove the Scam

Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported several ethics violations by Redflex consultant Marty O’Malley that resulted in the company’s bid for a huge new photo enforcement contract being deemed ineligible.

Now, the Chicago Tribune has revealed that Marty O’Malley introduced Redflex to a Bryan Wagner who later became the consultant hired in Jefferson Parish, Lousiana. And just like in Chicago, there have been allegations of corruption which has led to an FBI investigation which is still ongoing. But perhaps the most revealing is this comment by O’Malley:

Yes, that’s correct. I introduced them,” O’Malley told the Tribune. “Bryan Wagner and I worked together when I worked for an environmental abatement company in Louisiana in the 1990s. I knew Redflex was having trouble making any headway there, so I mentioned that I knew somebody down there that might help if they were interested.”

This comment says everything we need to know. If photo enforcement was as great as claimed, why would it be necessary to hire politically-connected consultants to land contracts? This means that city/parish officials were uninterested in photo enforcement for genuine reasons of improved safety. City officials weren’t interested until they were persuaded by a well-paid consultant to begin a lucrative photo enforcement program. Our best guess is that no other photo enforcement companies were ever seriously considered for the contract and the bidding process was fixed. What else would you expect from Redflex? This is standard operating procedure.

New Device Foils Photo Enforcement Legally

A new license plate frame foils photo enforcement by triggering a flash when it detects a flash from a photo enforcement camera. The unit is not yet available for sale but is expected to sell for $350.

El Mirage Up to More Tricks

A little late, but still worth a comment… The Phoenix New Times has an excellent article about the shenanigans going on over in El Mirage. A few miles of highway known as US60 runs through El Mirage, and last year El Mirage decided to cash in on it by installing speed cameras. The problem is US60 is a highway and so installing cameras requires authorization by ADOT. ADOT’s policy is that cities must justify the installation of cameras in order to get a permit, but no report was ever provided by El Mirage. This article uncovers that the justification was given verbally.

And now that the cameras have been in place for a while, we’re curious to see how much more dangerous the road has become. There was a request for data from the city from a council member, but this request was stalled and will not be released until AFTER the upcoming election. Hmmmm, what does that mean? The numbers must not be pretty. Because the people who ran on the safety aspects of the cameras would probably face a tough re-election if the numbers don’t show any improvement in safety. If the numbers looked great, they’d be anxious to report them. What are they hiding?

We see it time and time again, photo enforcement breeds corruption and dishonesty and brings nothing but bad news to the cities that use it. El Mirage is just the latest example.

But city officials are supposed to justify the need for the cameras, according to an agreement they have with the Arizona Department of Transportation, the state agency that grants individual cities permits needed to put photo-enforcement cameras on state highways.

ADOT doesn’t have any traffic reports from El Mirage. And city officials have refused New Times’ repeated requests for copies of the traffic studies and crash data they were supposed to provide to ADOT.

Speed Camera Van Fails To Prevent Officer’s Crash

The complicit press always seems surprised when a speed camera fails to prevent an accident, and here we have another case of this happening. A police officer plowed into a scam van after braking and losing control after coming over a hill and approaching the camera van. Details are purposefully omitted from the article, but is seems likely that the scam van caused the panic braking which lead to the crash. Most police officers undergo extensive driving training to avoid reactions like this. But if a highly trained officer reacts this way to a scam van, how does the average Joe have a chance? Perhaps this is why crashes tend to INCREASE when cash cameras are installed.

And if that weren’t enough, clearly this shows that manning a speed camera van is a dangerous activity and low-paid workers are put in extreme danger in order to raise cash for their municipalities. Typically the danger the comes irate drivers who choose to approach scam vans and their operators including several shootings being reported worldwide in recent years. But as this article shows, the danger isn’t just dangerous drivers, it is also incredibly hazardous to maintain a position on the side of a busy road just for the risk of collision with a passing car.

Iowa DOT Takes Honest Approach to Traffic Safety, Angers Windsor Heights Officials

IDOT recently rejected a request by Windsor Heights to install speed cameras on a stretch of highway. This upset officials who planned to cash in on the highways’ deficiencies with automated ticketing. IDOT referred to several planned roadway improvements that will improve safety for the road including ramp metering, widening a shoulder, and a new auxiliary lane. IDOT also suggested an increased police presence.

But Windsor Heights officials are determined to cash in on this potential gold mine. Officials plan to appeal the decision insisting that their political and law enforcement background is superior when it comes to improving traffic safety compared to the guidance that the professional traffic engineering team at IDOT can provide. Why fix a problem with engineering to achieve natural compliance and safety when you can implement the cash-generating illusion of improved safety with automated ticketing machines?

More information available at the DesmoinesRegister.com.

Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits

Here’s another great article written by Jack McKay that appeared at GreaterGreaterWashington.org. Beautifully written, this piece helps to explain the reality of speed limits and driving habits. Of course, nothing compares to the widely publicized guide that can be found on the Arizona DOT website. These guides explain that basically, people are safe drivers by nature and that everyone drives at a speed that is naturally comfortable and safe. This is why the 85th percentile speed is often the best speed limit for a given road.

Both ADOT and McKay explain how it’s not surprising that people drive above the posted speed limit on roads where the 85th percentile speed is significantly higher than the posted limit. Is it that a vast majority of the population has complete and utter disregard for traffic laws? No! Is everyone in such a huge hurry on the roads? No! People are simply driving at a natural and comfortable and SAFE speed:

Now, an example, namely Porter Street/Klingle Road between Cleveland Park and Mount Pleasant. This looks like a bit of interstate highway plunked down in the middle of the city, evidence of a long-forgotten plan to make Piney Branch Parkway into an inner-city crosstown highway. It’s a four-lane divided roadway, limited access, no residences, no businesses, no crosswalks, no cross traffic, and it’s no wonder that drivers speed up at this point, not because they’re crazy speedsters, but because the road is clearly built for higher speeds.

The 85th-percentile speed for this road is 41 mph, as indicated by the 2006 Speed Study Map. Hence, the speed limit should be 40 mph, or maybe, if we’re being conservative, 35 mph. But in actual fact, the posted limit is 30 mph, which is more than “slightly lower” than the 85th percentile. It comes as no surprise that the speed camera placed at this location has been a bountiful source of speeding tickets.

It’s no surprise that traffic engineering has played virtually no part in the decision to set the speed limits and in the decision for the best solution to the alleged speeding problem. According to the engineering guidelines here, the speed limit should be higher which would eliminate most of the technical law violations with no impact or even an improvement in safety. But instead, the city chooses to CASH IN on this engineering deficiency rather than correct it and truly do something to improve safety and respect the motorists who drive there.

It’s Not About the Children – the Photo Radar Scam

This article appeared about 6 weeks ago in the Star Democrat and I wanted to mention it  because it summarized the photo radar scam quite accurately. Rick Kollinger had a few gems (below), but it’s worth reading the whole article:

In recent years, I’ve become suspicious of anything politicians do when they add, “it’s for the children.” It’s rarely for the children and is yet another revenue enhancement stream.

People rarely challenge the tickets they’re given because they’re only 40 bucks and no points go against your license and your insurance company is not involved. If you should challenge the ticket, you have to call the company and request a court date, and should you like a representative from the company there, you must request it in writing. However, should you take the time, you’ll win the case because the documentation for these radar devices is extremely lax, with out-of-date certification, no on-site calibration, and the fact that the cameras can be manipulated from Illinois. In other words, instead of towns leasing these cameras and policing them themselves, they’ve allowed an out-of-town entity to run them even though it’s in the company’s interests to give out as many tickets as possible. A clear conflict of interest (not unknown in Maryland).

Redflex Driver Violates Multiple Traffic Laws

Redflex is no stranger to violating the law, and today was no exception. A Redflex photo radar van was spotted violating multiple traffic laws today on its way back to headquarters in North Phoenix. The first traffic violation is ARS 28-751 which requires drivers to turn into the first available lane when making turns. This van does this twice, despite the clear illustrations available in the Arizona Driver’s Manual. In addition to making this violation twice, the scam van also exceeded the posted limit on Deer Valley road by as much as 10mph as reported by the driver who took this footage. The video also shows the driver veering outside of his lane.

Of course, Redflex believes it is above that law so this doesn’t stop the company from behaving as they please. Do you think Redflex will pay the photo ticket we send them, or throw it in the trash like many other Arizonans do with their tickets?