A new state law requiring cities to change the wording on mailed photo-enforcement tickets to clearly reflect a speeder’s rights and obligations to pay them doesn’t appear to be putting the brakes on the East Valley cities issuing citations.
Senate Bill 1398 is Arizona lawmakers’ latest attempt to hamper photo enforcement. The state ended its experiment with speed cameras along freeways last summer, when the Arizona Department of Public Safety chose not to renew its contract with Phoenix-based vendor Reflex.
But cities vow to keep issuing the controversial tickets — and when offenders don’t pay up, they’ll keep sending process servers in an attempt to hand-deliver a court summons.
With SB 1398 on the books, it remains to be seen how many people will stop forking over fines for a ticket, ranging from $171 for motorists traveling 11 mph over the speed limit to slightly more than $250 if they’re going 19 mph or faster over the speed limit. On average, one third to one half of speeders are paying them now, while speed and red-light photo enforcement for cities throughout the East Valley have been operating at losses to the tune of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars being drained from general funds. Cities differ in how they tally the costs of their photo-enforcement programs, some adding it in to the costs of staff hired specifically to process the tickets or identify the people behind the wheel of the vehicle flashed by the camera.
Mesa, the East Valley’s largest city, has experienced nearly an $800,000 loss through its speed photo program the last three fiscal years, according to information from the city. Phoenix, which has limited speed photo enforcement to red-light cameras and radar vans in school zones, is in the black, netting $458,951 last year after raking in $1.4 million, but paying a portion of that to the state and to Redflex, its vendor.
KEEP SMILING
SB 1398, is co-sponsored by state Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert — who is no fan of photo enforcement. It does not require the people who receive citations in the mail to respond to them or be forced to identify the person driving their vehicle. The bill, which was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week, more or less just confirms the rights people have when it comes to responding to the tickets.
Biggs has said that the way tickets are worded now implies that people have to respond to them and identify the driver of the vehicle if it isn’t them.
“It’s intended to raise revenue, not to provide a deterrent to speeding,” Biggs said.
Biggs also has contended that the tickets are not issued by an officer, but generated by machines at Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems, thus, not making them court documents. Mesa, Chandler and Tempe contract with Redflex.
If individuals can dodge a process server for 90 days after receiving a ticket in the mail, that ticket is dismissed. But, if a process server catches up with you, speeders and red-light runners will wind up paying $37 extra (if they are residents of the county they are caught speeding in) or $50 for out-of-county residents to offset the process serving costs to the city.
The new law, which goes into effect July 20, also adds $13 more in surcharges. Eight dollars will go to the state, four dollars will go to the law enforcement agency overseeing the photo-enforcement tickets and one dollar will go to the county where the ticket is issued.
Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, who co-sponsored the bill with Biggs and received a photo citation in Pima County three years ago (and said he paid it), said his goal is to completely rid the state of traffic cameras.
“Photo enforcement is a huge infringement on the liberty of citizens in the state because they monitor one’s movement,” Antenori said. “I don’t want it to be a money maker, but people need to be properly served. Under the current way tickets were being sent out, when people receive a photo ticket in the mail, they believed they officially were being served a summons and they were not. People are not compelled to respond until they are properly served.
“If cities are saying they are using photo enforcement for safety reasons, that’s fine, but if it’s being used to generate revenue, it isn’t,” Antenori added. “There’s a lot of flaws in photo enforcement. They aren’t discretionary and those who get them are denied due process because you can’t cross examine your accuser. The state Legislature never went through the proper process of reviewing it or debating it. These photo-enforcement companies quietly came in and just started up.”
Municipal court officials contend that photo enforcement never has been as great a source of revenue as many people believe.
“I don’t see any significant impact the law would have on us,” said Lenny Montanaro, deputy administrator for Mesa City Court. “We’ve always made it an option for the person receiving the ticket to identify the driver, not a requirement. There’s no law to say that they have to. But, people have to respond to these, and they will get processed served — that’s per rule. Did the state Legislature say we can’t process serve speeders?”
Rick Rager, administrator for the Tempe City Court, echoed Montanaro’s sentiments about the law.
“I don’t believe the law will have any effect on what we do,” Rager said. “There’s people out there who are going to pay or they’re not going to pay. It would have been nice if the state would have sent us a sample of the verbiage or wording we’re supposed to put on the ticket. On ours, we always said, ‘If you’re not the driver, you can nominate the person who was driving your car,’ but we never said you shall or must. Our wording was somewhat of an advisement, but we will make the verbiage change.”
OPERATING AT A LOSS
Montanaro, who has worked for Mesa City Court since 1992, said speed photo enforcement was implemented in 1997 more as a deterrent than a way to pad the city’s coffers.
“Photo enforcement is not the cash cow everyone thinks it is,” Montanaro said. “Speed photo enforcement is a way to shape the driving behaviors of our city. People need to slow down and obey those driving devices.”
For the last three fiscal years, Mesa’s speed photo enforcement has been deep in the red — operating at a $289,311 loss for the 2009-10 fiscal year, a $309,342 loss for the 2008-09 fiscal year, and a $196,446 loss for the 2007-08 fiscal year.
“Photo enforcement was never intended to be a money-making thing, but a break-even thing,” Montanaro said. “It has enlightened people in the sense that if their driving behavior doesn’t change, they’ll continue to get cited. We’re getting the numbers to be where they need to be.”
In Chandler, speed photo enforcement was operating at a loss to the city of $23,123 for the 2010-11 fiscal year through Jan. 31 — money that goes toward its vendor Redflex, Cox Communications and personnel costs, according to Carla Boatner, administrator for Chandler City Court. For the 2009-10 fiscal year, the city’s speed photo enforcement also operated at negative balance of $22,514, but it made $149,329 in the 2008-09 fiscal year. That was the year the city added cameras to intersections, Boatner said.
Of the 9,000 filings in Chandler through March 30, 2,346 people paid the tickets averaging $225 in full, and 1,540 went to traffic school, according to Boatner. For the court’s 2009-10 fiscal year, there were 12,174 speed photo-enforcement tickets, of which 4,737 were paid in full. There also were 2,904 offenders who went to traffic school, according to information from the court.
In an email to the Tribune, Chandler police Sgt. Joe Favazzo said that nothing would change in their photo-enforcement program and they plan to continue using it.
“The city will send out a notice of violation, and if the person chooses not to respond, and personnel can identify them through a driver’s license photo, a complaint will be sent to them in the mail,” Favazzo said.
Chandler police have an officer dedicated to weeding through the photo-enforcement tickets that Redflex issues to compare the speeder to the driver’s license photo of the vehicle’s owner. If they can be identified, that complaint will be mailed to them — but if not, the ticket will be sent to the owner of the vehicle asking them to identify the driver.
However, if that person ignores the complaint and dodges the process server for 90 days, that ticket, too, will be dismissed.
In Phoenix last year, there were 14,725 photo-enforcement tickets filed with 12,143 of them being for red-light violations and 2,582 of them being speeders in school zones. Of those tickets, 8,285 of them were paid, according to information from the city.
Gilbert does not have enforcement cameras in its jurisdiction and will not be affected by the new law, said Sgt. William Balafas, a Gilbert police spokesman.
• Contact writer: (480) 898-6533 or msakal@evtrib.com
vladeckk posted at 8:24 am on Mon, Jun 27, 2011.
I obey traffic laws. I've never run a stop sign in my life. I keep within 5 mph of the speed limit. I did accidentally run a red light once ten tears ago when my kids were squabbling - whew thank goodness there was no cross traffic and no harm done. I've never been in a traffic accident.
So WHY during the last 6 months in Tucson have I been flashed twice making legal right turns (once on what SHOULD have been a yellow if the time hadn't been illegally reduced from 3.5 to 3.1 seconds, once after coming to a full stop and then making a right turn on a light that had just turned red).
The answer - for whatever reason, money, unreliably, inattention, civic governments are unable to run an automated ticketing system that works..
BAN PHOTO TRAFFIC LIGHTS. They are unjust, inefficient, and unfair.
mythbusterz posted at 3:54 pm on Tue, May 10, 2011.
*correction
There's always gotta be 'idealists' as well as 'realists', and even though idealists make realists mad, the idealists are the ones that realists are stepping on to get to the top of whatever they are doing. All while the idealists are drunk on their own ego/self pride.
mythbusterz posted at 3:51 pm on Tue, May 10, 2011.
Believe it or not, you sticking to a speed thats slower then most others is actually more dangerous and causes more crashes than speeding. Im guessing your the guy everybody has to drive recklessly just to get around. I see it all the time, the "self proclaimed hero's" who think they are on some high horse... Get real, yea your not the one driving recklessly but your directly inducing others to do it. But thats ok, keep doing what your doing. There's always gotta be 'idealists' instead of 'realists', and as idealists make us realists mad, they are the ones that we are stepping on to get to the top while they are drunk on their own ego. Have a good day.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 3:33 pm on Tue, May 10, 2011.
I sure hope they're making money off the fools that speed around town. I want these people to pay for as much of the costs and more as we can stiff them for. If you don't want to be one of the fools then by all means either leave or slow down. Either way I could care less. This morning I'm driving down 60 in the next to the slowest lane out of 5 lanes. Even though there are 3 lanes to my left, dozens of people passed me on the right, driving 70 or faster in the slow lane. People in Phoenix are some of the worst drivers I've experienced anywhere, and I driven in Los Angeles and Manhattan and many other places such as those. Phoenix drivers are the worst. Coming from 60 east onto the 202 south the ramp is 50 mph. There are motorcycle cops with speed guns pointed at drivers on the ramp and these guys are raking in the speeders. Everyone does 65 or higher on these ramps. Makes me happy seeing all those idiots getting nailed.
mythbusterz posted at 1:18 pm on Tue, May 10, 2011.
Let me set a couple things straight here.
This whole article is a misrepresentation of the photo radar system finances, and I can't believe the article writer fell for their deceptions. The entire system is a profit for the city, just because the department 'claimed a loss' doesn't mean they actually did. Its all misdirection.For example,
I own a company that fixes houses. If the system was as simple as you guys think it is, the company would have profited 1 million dollars. Instead, I also own 10 other companies that 'work' for this main company. So when I have a project, I hire my plumbing company to do the plumbing and my parts company to buy the parts. So the profits actually go to them. So even though my fixing houses company made 1 million, in reality I declare that it has LOST money!
This is exactly what these departments are doing, as their latest tactics to make the programs seem like they aren't money scams. They are making huge profits, but purposes redirect them to other departments, so that they can declare its for safety and no profit is made.
I can't believe so many people are letting them pull the wool over their eyes so easily
Poorman posted at 9:35 am on Mon, May 9, 2011.
Good deal,i hope they keep the radar,i must admit i speed now and then,but in the last 2 wks or so i have had the occasion to have three different drivers?,just blow by me at a very high rate over the posted limit,one also through an intersection.We still need it for sure.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:33 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Are speed limits based on the 85th percentile traffic speed appropriate?
Not always. Advocates of this approach argue that measuring the speed distribution of a roadway and then setting the speed limit so that 85 percent of motorists would be in compliance reduces the need for enforcement and, at the same time, reduces crash risk by narrowing variation among vehicle speeds. However, numerous studies of travel speeds on rural interstate highways have shown that 85th percentile speeds increased when speed limits were raised to 65 mph and then continued increasing. The 85th percentile is not a stationary point. It is rather a moving target that increases when speed limits are raised. If speed limits are raised to meet a current 85th percentile speed, a higher new 85th percentile speed will soon result.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:31 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Another very good reason to keep speeds low is in fuel conservation. When the speed limit was lowered, our dependence on foreign oil decreased dramatically. With more oil exploitation here and stringent fuel conservation, we could beat the stranglehold OPEC has over us.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Some claim that higher speed limits would reduce crashes. Is this true?
No. Advocates of higher speed limits have claimed that research on speed variation indicates faster speeds are not hazardous. They cite David Solomon's research from the mid-1950s that seems to show an increase in crash likelihood among drivers traveling slower than the average speed and a minimum of crashes at 5-10 mph above the average speed. However, the speeds of the crash-involved drivers in these studies were based on self-reports. It is well known that drivers exceeding speed limits are likely to deliberately underestimate their speeds. Such underestimation can account for much of the apparent under involvement of moderately high-speed drivers in crashes. Later research found that simply removing the crashes involving intersections and turning maneuvers from the Solomon data eliminated the over involvement of slower drivers in crashes. More important, the Solomon research addressed only speed variation, not speed limits.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:25 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
How has abolishing the national speed limit affected fatalities?
Institute studies show that deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987. In 1989, about two-thirds of this increase — 19 percent, or 400 deaths — was attributed to increased speed, the rest to increased travel.
A 1999 Institute study of the effects of the 1995 repeal of the national maximum speed limit indicated this trend had continued. Researchers compared the numbers of motor vehicle occupant deaths in 24 states that raised speed limits during late 1995 and 1996 with corresponding fatality counts in the 6 years before the speed limits were changed, as well as fatality counts from 7 states that did not change speed limits. The Institute estimated a 15 percent increase in fatalities on interstates and freeways.
A 2002 study by researchers at the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand also evaluated the effects of increasing rural interstate speed limits from 65 mph to either 70 or 75 mph. Based on deaths in states that did not change their speed limits, states that increased speed limits to 75 mph experienced 38 percent more deaths per million vehicle miles traveled than expected — an estimated 780 more deaths. States that increased speed limits to 70 mph experienced a 35 percent increase, resulting in approximately 1,100 more deaths.
A 2009 study examining the long-term effects of the 1995 repeal of the national speed limit found a 3 percent increase in road fatalities attributable to higher speed limits on all road types, with the highest increase of 9 percent on rural interstates. The authors estimated that 12,545 deaths were attributed to increases in speed limits across the US between 1995 and 2005.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:23 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
What was the effect of the national maximum speed limit?
The National Research Council attributed 4,000 fewer fatalities to the decreased speeds in 1974, compared with 1973, and estimated that returning the speed limit on rural portions of the interstate highway system to pre-1974 levels would result in 500 more fatalities annually, a 20-25 percent increase on these highways.
How has abolishing the national speed limit affected speeds?
Most states raised speed limits in response to the 1995 abolishment of the national maximum speed limit, and the higher limits were associated with immediate increases in travel speeds. Within one year after speed limits were raised from 55 to 70 mph on three urban freeways in Texas, the percent of passenger vehicles traveling faster than 70 mph increased from 15 to 50 percent; the percent exceeding 75 mph increased from 4 to 17 percent. On California urban freeways where speed limits were raised from 55 to 65 mph, the percent of motorists traveling faster than 70 mph increased from 29 to 41 percent. A more recent Institute study examined longer-term changes in traffic speeds on roads where limits were increased following repeal of the national speed limit. Ten years after speed limits were raised from 65 to 75 mph on rural interstates, the proportion of passenger vehicles exceeding 80 mph tripled in Nevada and nearly tripled in New Mexico. By comparison, declines in travel speeds were observed on urban freeways in California and Nevada, where there also were large increases in traffic volume and development of surrounding areas.
In 2006 Texas raised the daytime speed limit for passenger vehicles on segments of I-10 and I-20 from 75 to 80 mph. During the 16-month period following the speed limit increase, mean speeds of passenger vehicles on I-20 increased by 9 mph relative to the comparison road, where no speed limit change occurred and traffic speeds declined. On I-10 mean speeds increased by 4 mph relative to the comparison road.11
In 2007 the Institute monitored travel speeds on interstates in 8 metropolitan areas (Albuquerque, Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Los Angeles, Omaha, Tampa and Washington, DC). On urban interstates, the average speed of passenger vehicles exceeded the limits in all 8 metro areas. On suburban and rural interstates, average speeds were faster than the limits in half of the metro areas. The proportion of passenger vehicles exceeding 70 mph on urban interstates ranged from 1 percent in Denver and Tampa to 38 percent in Albuquerque, while the percentage exceeding 75 mph on suburban and rural interstates ranged from 6 percent in Los Angeles to 49 percent in Tampa. The same study examined segments of rural interstates located 30-50 miles outside 3 of the metro areas (Washington, DC, Atlanta, and Los Angeles). Outside Washington, where limits are 70 mph, 19 percent of passenger vehicles were logged exceeding 70 mph, and 3 percent surpassed 75 mph. Speeds were much faster on the Los Angeles intercity segment, where 86 percent of passenger vehicles surpassed the 70 mph limit and 35 percent traveled faster than 80 mph.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 5:17 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Speeding is a factor in about one-third of all fatal crashes, killing nearly 900 Americans every month. In 2009, speeding was a factor in 31 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths, killing 10,591 people. Based on a nationally representative sample of police-reported crashes, in 2009 speed was a contributing factor in about 17 percent of property-damage-only crashes and 22 percent of crashes involving injuries or fatalities. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that the economic cost of speed-related crashes is more than $40 billion each year.1
In a high-speed crash, a passenger vehicle is subjected to forces so severe that the vehicle structure cannot withstand the force of the crash and maintain survival space in the occupant compartment. Likewise, as crash speeds get very high, restraint systems such as airbags and safety belts cannot keep the forces on occupants below severe injury levels.
Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways:
* It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.
* It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once the driver starts to brake.
* It increases the crash energy by the square of the speeds. For example, when impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.
For practical reasons, there are limits to the amount of crash energy that can be managed by vehicles, restraint systems, and roadway hardware such as barriers and crash cushions. The higher the speed, the higher the likelihood that these limits will be exceeded in crashes, limiting the protection available for vehicle occupants. To put this into perspective, note that the government runs crash tests for occupant protection at 30-35 mph — speeds considered to be severe impact speeds.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 4:53 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Regardless of the safety factor, the law is the law, and I obey the law. However, I'm always willing to look at data that is counter to what I've seen, so if you would be so kind as to point me towards data that shows motor accidents decreased after the 55 national speed limit was repealed and that 85 mph is the safest speed I would be most happy to read them. Germany's Autobahns are in fact built differently to our highways. The German Autobahn, has taken on an almost legendary mystique. The reality is a little different than the legend. The myth of no speed limits is countered by the fact that Tempolimits are a fact of life on most of Germany's highways, and traffic jams are common. Signs suggesting a recommended speed limit of 130 km/h (80 mph) are posted along most autobahns, while urban sections and a few dangerous stretches sometimes have posted speed limits as “low” as 100 km/h (62 mph). The fact is that Germany’s autobahn system is an extensive network of limited-access freeways that can usually provide a driver with a speedy route from city to city. Limited-access is something worth considering here perhaps? Having off and on ramps located so closely is a problem with speeding on American highways.
PhotoRadarScam posted at 1:43 pm on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Nothingbutthetruth, Juggernaut is right, you are clueless. When the 55 national speed limit was repealed, everyone predicted bloodbaths on the nation's roadways. Instead, deaths continued to decline. Studies show that the 85th percentile speed is THE SAFEST speed, but unfortunately most of our roads' speed limits were set by politicians, and not using proven scientifc traffic safety engineering methodology.
Juggernaut500 posted at 10:52 am on Sun, May 8, 2011.
Nothingbutthetruth,
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Look at Germany's Audobahn, few accidents and no speed limit. What causes accidents in the Arizona is inattention and people who are too stupid to drive a car. I see people texting, drinking (alcohol) and a number of other moronic activites.
Modern cars are designed to operate at higher speeds and, intelligence permitting, keep us out of accidents.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 9:57 am on Sun, May 8, 2011.
I respect the law and always obey the law, and I know from the past when the national speed limit was 55 that studies proved lower speed limits saved many lives. I don't have any problem with speed guns or photo enforcement. What I do have a problem with is drivers who drive recklessly. Ten miles or more over the speed limit is reckless when you consider how little time this reckless behavior saves. Most people are always in such a hurry that they don't consider the danger represented by trying to save a few seconds or minutes by speeding to their destination. People caught in these traps should be paying for the many accidents this type of behavior causes, and not those of us who try to drive safely and defensively.
ArizonaCentral posted at 2:35 pm on Sat, May 7, 2011.
City of Phoenix hired a consulting firm that stated some 70% of the department could be reassigned or cut back because of inefficiency issues, over staffing and lower crime rates. Now that these same cities want to hire an outside company not even a lawenforcement one to handle speeders and redlight runners, just shows that we can cut back on the huge public safety budget even more. We the taxpayer are paying twice for public safety when it comes to speeders, redlight runners...etc
Juggernaut500 posted at 11:15 am on Sat, May 7, 2011.
Photo radar is nothing more than an ATM for these cities.
PhotoRadarScam posted at 9:45 am on Sat, May 7, 2011.
At least this change makes the program slightly more honest, but we all know that photo enforcement is about EASY money. And even if the cities aren't getting rich, the camera companies are in the pockets of the officials that vote for and approve the camera contracts. And even if the program operates at a loss, the program is draining millions from the local economy all while creating distrust and contempt for the government.