Please join the group leading the cause. This is an outrage! You already get a fine and now they want you to pay a fee for you sending them the money.
Announcing a new Meetup for CameraFRAUD.com!
What: ESTABLISH A PHOTO RADAR FEE ---NOT---
When: November 4, 2009 9:00 AM
Where:Superior Court Building205 W. Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/059026-2009-10-06-maricopa-co-board-of-supervisors-sets-public-hearing-11-4.htm
SETTING OF HEARINGS~All hearings will be held at 9:00 am, 205 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, unless otherwise noted~Justice Courts79.
ESTABLISH A PHOTO RADAR FEE Pursuant to A.R.S. §11-251.08, set a public hearing for November 4, 2009 to solicitcomments and consider the adoption of Photo Radar Fee of $20.00 per defendant to beginDecember 1, 2009. The proposed photo radar fee will be assessed against each individualcharged with a civil traffic violation through utilization of photo radar.A.R.S.§11-251.08 authorizes county boards of supervisors to adopt fees for any specificservice the county provides to the public as long as that fee is attributable to and defrays theexpense of the service for which the fee is assessed and the fee does not exceed the actualcost of that service. The Justice Courts estimate the average cost to process each photoradar case to be $21.60. (C-24-10-001-M-00)Learn more here:http://www.meetup.com/camerafraud/calendar/11568981/
This message was sent by Andrea Garcia (agirlsdirt@gmail.com) from CameraFRAUD.com.
Showing posts with label speed traps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speed traps. Show all posts
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Limit photo enforcement to most dangerous speeders
June 23, 2009 - Tribune East Valley
By Robert McCarthyCommentary
Last month , Tribune opinion pages editor Le Templar wrote some negative commentary at his blog, “What I Know,” [http://whatiknow.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/08/sam-crumps-reasons-not-to-hate-speed-cameras/1999] on Rep. Sam Crump’s reaction to a criminal-speed photo enforcement citation issued to the executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. That citation was later dismissed by a justice of the peace.
The legislator’s arguments against the photo enforcement system were nothing new, and they were probably readily dismissed by most readers of Templar’s blog. Be that as it may, Crump did, without a rational explanation of why the current method is unjust, touch upon some serious issues with speed-limits enforcement not witnessed by an officer.
Let an old highway patrolman scratch your gray matter and get you thinking as to why he has mixed emotions about speed enforcement with cameras and only five or six seconds of video. Back in 1997, I wrote a guest column for the Tribune when the subject of photo radar and photo red-light enforcement was being talked about for the first time. My comments pointed out that speeding should morally (and legally, as well) be looked upon as a “continuous violation” and not contained within an effort to pass another vehicle.
In my 40 years of police work, most of which was on the highway, I never cited a driver for a burst of speed over a short distance. The gas pedal is referred to as an accelerator for good reason.
I also pointed out that people and commerce have to move, and if we all drove at 10 mph, nobody would be getting hurt. Accidents are part of the price we pay for progress. Building safer vehicles instead of establishing absurd speed zones is the reasonable alternative.
Nevertheless, if the cameras are here to stay, let’s go after the violators who are the real source of the problem: the criminal speeders. I remember as a young patrolman hearing a wise old sergeant say, “When you reach 90 mph, you’re not driving a car … you’re aiming it.”
The current practice of citing people for 11 mph over the speed limit is ridiculous, especially in the double-nickel zones.
How many folks have been ticketed for passing another car at 65 to 70 mph and then resuming 55 mph after the pass? The national maximum speed limit, dreamed up by Washington in the early ’70s, was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the people of this country. It was done to preserve a so-called “finite resource,” even though the experts knew there are unlimited sources of oil (including shale, coal, etc.) in practically every corner of the world.
I am ashamed of my former agency engaging in speed traps, something we used to accuse small departments of doing to boost a town’s revenue.
Mesa resident Robert McCarthy served for 34 years with the Arizona Department of Public Safety. After submitting this commentary, McCarthy received a photo enforcement citation in the mail for alleged speeding on Interstate 17. He intends to challenge the ticket in court.
By Robert McCarthyCommentary
Last month , Tribune opinion pages editor Le Templar wrote some negative commentary at his blog, “What I Know,” [http://whatiknow.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/08/sam-crumps-reasons-not-to-hate-speed-cameras/1999] on Rep. Sam Crump’s reaction to a criminal-speed photo enforcement citation issued to the executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. That citation was later dismissed by a justice of the peace.
The legislator’s arguments against the photo enforcement system were nothing new, and they were probably readily dismissed by most readers of Templar’s blog. Be that as it may, Crump did, without a rational explanation of why the current method is unjust, touch upon some serious issues with speed-limits enforcement not witnessed by an officer.
Let an old highway patrolman scratch your gray matter and get you thinking as to why he has mixed emotions about speed enforcement with cameras and only five or six seconds of video. Back in 1997, I wrote a guest column for the Tribune when the subject of photo radar and photo red-light enforcement was being talked about for the first time. My comments pointed out that speeding should morally (and legally, as well) be looked upon as a “continuous violation” and not contained within an effort to pass another vehicle.
In my 40 years of police work, most of which was on the highway, I never cited a driver for a burst of speed over a short distance. The gas pedal is referred to as an accelerator for good reason.
I also pointed out that people and commerce have to move, and if we all drove at 10 mph, nobody would be getting hurt. Accidents are part of the price we pay for progress. Building safer vehicles instead of establishing absurd speed zones is the reasonable alternative.
Nevertheless, if the cameras are here to stay, let’s go after the violators who are the real source of the problem: the criminal speeders. I remember as a young patrolman hearing a wise old sergeant say, “When you reach 90 mph, you’re not driving a car … you’re aiming it.”
The current practice of citing people for 11 mph over the speed limit is ridiculous, especially in the double-nickel zones.
How many folks have been ticketed for passing another car at 65 to 70 mph and then resuming 55 mph after the pass? The national maximum speed limit, dreamed up by Washington in the early ’70s, was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the people of this country. It was done to preserve a so-called “finite resource,” even though the experts knew there are unlimited sources of oil (including shale, coal, etc.) in practically every corner of the world.
I am ashamed of my former agency engaging in speed traps, something we used to accuse small departments of doing to boost a town’s revenue.
Mesa resident Robert McCarthy served for 34 years with the Arizona Department of Public Safety. After submitting this commentary, McCarthy received a photo enforcement citation in the mail for alleged speeding on Interstate 17. He intends to challenge the ticket in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
