Petition to ban Photo Radar from the State of Arizona.

We have received many, many, many requests from supporters that wish to sign the petition to ban Photo Radar from the State of Arizona.

Here are some preliminary details; On January 12, 2009, the grass roots origination,, will file the proper paperwork with the Arizona Secretary of State, Jan Brewer, to Ban Photo Radar from this state. We will be notifying the media as well as our supports of locations where the petitions can be signed.

“We the People”….Get involved! It’s your civic duty.


40 Responses to Petition to ban Photo Radar from the State of Arizona.

  1. Robert Rowley says:

    Put me down to circulate petitions in Tucson.

  2. Jim Mulligan says:

    It is more government control run amuck, inventing punitive measures to generate revenue to offset debt caused by fiscal mismanagement.

  3. Diane Melillo says:

    Put me down for circulating petitions in Peoria and Phoenix.

  4. Roscoe says:

    I hate these cameras but somebody needs to apply the brakes to this initiative. It is HORRIBLY written. As I’ve explained elsewhere, this measure defines every digital and video camera to be a “Photo Enforcement System.” It prohibits any civil OR CRIMINAL charges (not just the use of the photo evidence) in any case where “the alleged violation was detected through the use of a Photo Enforcement System.” The term “detected” is not defined, but would probably be construed to mean “to show the violation” or “to collect or constitute evidence.”

    So, basically, this well-intended measure grants complete immunity in every traffic-related case, criminal or civil” where a video or still camera’s product would have value as evidence at trial. To cite a readily foreseeable example, every drunk driver whose field sobriety tests are recorded on video would be immune from charges. And depending on how broadly the courts interpret “violation … relating to the operation of a motor vehicle,” it could grant immunity to a car-jacker who is photographed using the victim’s card at an ATM.

    I’m sorry and a bit reluctant to point this out, but this is a problem. I hate the way these cameras are being used, but even I could not vote for this measure as it’s now written.

  5. Robert Rowley says:

    Then don’t, we’ll get them banned statewide anyway.

  6. Roscoe says:

    You’ve apparently misinterpreted. I support a ban. I hate the cameras. But if someone who hates the cameras as much as I hate them still can’t vote for it, this measure doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of being approved by the voters. It goes way beyond what they’ll tolerate.

    ATS and Redflex must be laughing up a storm looking at that language. I can see their campaign commercials in my mind’s eye already – images of gruesome accidents, video of cute, orphaned kids, and mug shots of the drunk drivers who would be completely immunized by this language.

  7. Robert Rowley says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but both of these companies are from out of state correct? You might be surprised how many people in this state are tired of out of state groups and companies trying to control our laws. People may not be willing to believe two out of state companies who have a proven and vested interest in the cameras staying up when they tell the Arizona voters that we not only need them but that we are screwed without them.

  8. Bill Conley says:


    This is what happens when Government abuses the trust of the people. I have ZERO confidence that these cameras will be used properly…therefore they must all come down.

  9. Roscoe says:

    Bill, my sympathies are with you. I want them all down, too. The problem is that this measure goes beyond that. WAY beyond that.

    There are three glaring flaws in this measure.
    1) I grants 100% transactional immunity, not just an exclusion of the photo evidence.
    2) It applies in every civil OR CRIMINAL case where the violation involves the use or or operation of a motor vehicle, including auto theft, carjacking, vehicular homicide, etc. No mention is made of the essential elements of the violation, so all that matters is that the violation involves use or operation of a motor vehicle. So, if the vehicle is a bicycle, all is well.
    3) The term “detected” is not defined at all; and
    4) The term “photo enforcement system” is defined so broadly that it includes every digital camera and every video camera, not just photo radar cameras or those that are installed at intersections. It includes, just for example, the video cameras mounted in many patrol cars, the cameras in ATM machines, and even the digital camera used to take a mug shot at the jail. The definition should probably have referred to a “speed sensor,” not just a “sensor” being linked to a camera. But as it is, this definition includes EVERY camera that is linked to ANY “sensor,” and that includes every digital camera and every video camera.

    So now you stop a drunk driver, and the video on the dashboard captures video of him shooting you. That guy has immunity from prosecution under this measure. That criminal violation involves the operation of a motor vehicle, and is “detected” by the video camera, and that video camera falls squarely within the definition of “photo enforcement system.”

  10. Roscoe says:

    OK, four. I forgot to go back and change that, but I hope you get the point.

  11. Bill Conley says:


    Yep! We understand what we wrote..
    Shows you how much faith the people have in DPS and the State of AZ to do the right thing.
    It also shows how far DPS and the State went to piss people off. We can’t toloerate this type of abuse. If the state would have acted “Reasonably”, none of this would have happened. This is a direct reaction to the late Gov attempt to balance the budget on the backs of drivers…bad move are her part.

    – BC

  12. Bill Conley says:


    In the example you gave refernce the Drunk driver…Dash cam’s don’t detect anything. It’s the police office’s observations that allow for PC, not the camera.

    I think it a bad argument…

  13. Roscoe says:

    Bill, I am seriously trying to be helpful at a time when it’s not too late to make corrections.

    Your last answer assumes that the courts will define undefined terms as you would like. But probable cause is 100% irrelevant. If any violation was detected throught the use of a camera or other device that is capable of recording any image of a license plate or driver – and regardless of whether it actually does so – no charges can be filed. No one can be prosecuted for that offense, even if the offense consists of running over five or six little kids at a bus stop. Period. You can have PC in abundance; you can have a signed confession in triplicate (as long as it isn’t on video). The measure plainly defines every functional camera that uses a sensor to be a “photo enforcement system.” It doesn’t matter who owns it or operates it, where it was located, or how it came to be present or used. If the perpetrator himself decides to shoot a photo or video of the offense (not that hard to imagine in this YouTube era), he or she is absolutely immune from prosecution, because the offense was detected by a photo enforcement system.

    The problem, of course, is that the term “detected” is not defined anywhere in Arizona law. Nor is it defined in this proposal It is, however, a well-defined term in the realm of optics, photometry and sensor technology. To say that “dash cams don’t detect anything” just ignores the common meaning of the word. That’s exactly what cameras and sensors of all kinds do. An event or object is “detected” if the sensor reacts to it. Does a Geiger counter not detect radiation? I know of no context in which it has any other clear or common meaning, and since this provision deals with photo technology, I cannot imagine that the courts will use any other definition.

    I don’t like pointing these things out, believe me. But you have to get this approved by the voters to make it law. Once ATS and Redflex launch their advertising campaigns, and point out how broad the grant of total immunity is under this proposal, I don’t believe it can get enough votes. I honestly believe that a majority of the voters hate those cameras and would vote for a measure that had reasonable bounds. But the electorate is not as wild or stupid as many believe. Note the recent defeat of the payday loan initiative. They figured out what it meant, and they wanted none of it.

  14. alison geleide says:

    So I have a CDL…what do I DO? It will give me points I can NOT ever take off…I need any info that might help my situation. I will meet every one..where and when.

  15. Tucson’s red light cameras continually videotape
    Associated Press – January 28, 2009 3:04 PM ET

    TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) – Tucson has cameras at four intersections to nab motorists who run red lights or speed.

    Digital photographs only are activated during a violation.

    But Tucson television station Fox 11 (KMSB-TV) says the cameras videotape constantly, whether the vehicles in the intersection are violating any laws or not.

    It also says that video’s stored and accessible for up to four weeks by employees of American Traffic Solutions, the Scottsdale firm under contract to operate the system.

    The company’s Josh Weiss contends the video’s too low quality to be a privacy issue. He also says it shouldn’t be a surprise because it’s in the contract and it’s done like this across the country.

    But Tucson Vice Mayor Karen Uhlich says the City Council was never told the cameras would be videotaping constantly.

    Information from: KMSB-TV

  16. Amber says:

    Taping my every move in the intersection, all the time?? If the quality is that “low” then why are the videos stored and accessible for up to four months??? Why waste the tape, money, and personnel?

  17. Amber says:

    Excuse me four WEEKS

  18. Ed Foster says:

    Count me in!! If you want someone to circulate the petition in quartzsite I’m here

  19. Jason Blalock says:

    Signed and I hope that there is hope that this will actually happen.

  20. jesse dosett says:

    i JUST got flashed last night in Tucson. I could not understand or figure why they did this. I dd not know what it was at first. It was leaving Tucson at night and the speed limit was 70 or so i thought .i was going 70. i did not see the new diffeent me they are nothing but speed traps and just another way for the state of arizona to fleece visitors. It is so unfair and it should be illegal.

  21. James Howard says:

    Ernest T. Bass, sometimes the speed limit changes and the sign is behind a semi-truck, so you miss it. If you are going an indicated 65, but actually 67, and you miss the drop to 55, you get an expensive ticket. A cop with radar would be understanding of this.

    Cover your face! I hold my baseball cap over my face just below my sunglasses, and put the sun visor down.

  22. robert sacks says:

    this is a travesty in justice these camers on this idiot states freeways are a joke it is like living in nazi germany or communist no korea with these cameras and with this arpaio guy i just recd 2 tckets never bein served in person and clocked at low speeds of 76in a 65 on the 10 and 70in a supposed 55 on the 101 both by these unconstitutional money making camersa i am a senior citizen and a driver for 50yrs with a perfect record and no speeding tickets while driving as a sales rep for 40yrs in a great state like new york

  23. robert sacks says:

    get rid of the cameras i will help inany way i can pity th epeople just trying to make it in this economy and a hijacked by this financially strapped state many folks refuse to visit this place because of the driving with these cameras following you thats where they will lose revenue these geniuses even lost an effort by donald trump to build amega hotel and casino in scottsdale because they tried to push him aroung and he left and went back to newyork and stated to the press what a intelligence they have in this dump

  24. Zebra says:


    I was in the same position. Over 35 years with a spotless driving record. Then they put that trap up on River/Oracle. You know you weren’t doing anything dangerous, reckless or even avoidable.

    I’m guessing you decided that you couldn’t safely stop before the stop bar before the yellow arrow faded. You proceeded safely through the intersection at about 15mph, and they caught you with their phoney “intersection line” gambit. (That’s the line marked WAIT of all things.) If you had only gunned it, you would have made it.

    It’s unfair, and you won’t win in court at this time. The special Traffic Magistrate is the wife of the assistant TPD Chief.

    But make it cost them more than they get. Throw the ticket you got in the mail away. If you have responded, or get served, make them give you a court date. Change the date. Call the police and ask for statistics. Waste as much of their time as possible.

    Get a petition and take it to work, class, the library, your church. I have gotten over 100 signatures without even trying, and NOTHING BUT positive feedback.

    Read the talking points. Educate your friends. Write letters to the editor. Vote against the Tucson Council or Pima Board who support the cameras.

    Don’t take this lying down. You are right to be outraged.

  25. Zebra says:

    Oops. I just realized you got a ticket in the speed trap, not the red light trap. I don’t know which court you will go to, and how that will play out. I only know about the Tucson Court.

    Everything else applies, however.

  26. robert says:

    recd my ticketon the i-10 and the other on the 101 both speed traps and the one on the 101 has different speeds listed every fe hundred feet it seems like

  27. robert says:

    bring those camersa down and let them go to hell with that former moron governor they use to have maybe put her in to arpaios tent city what a way to run a supposed state in the usa pathetic

  28. Ernest T. Bass says:

    folks…reality is….. cf is failing…. the petitions are not being circulated enough and the required signatures is not anywhere close to where they need to be…. the enthusiasm is about dead and everytime the anti camera crowd turns around they suffer another defeat !!! you can stay on this titanic or get off before it sinks !!!

  29. Oscar Houser says:

    I’m a professional signature gatherer and am wondering if you still need circulators. If you do email me and I could possibly send several petitioners your way.

  30. Ryan H. says:

    I’m a Tucson Medic. The studies show these cameras make intersections NO safer. They only manipulate the types of accidents from T-bone collisions to rear end collisions. The ONLY proven reducer of overall accidents is increasing the length of a yellow light signal. This knowledge leaves only one other reason for these cameras. $$$$$. I’ve gladly signed the petition against this corruption.

  31. Tod Carter says:

    Where do I sign the petition? I support law enforcement; however, these cameras in my opinion violate your right to face your accuser. It’s about time the people tell the government where to stick it.

  32. jesse says:

    i’ll sign – send me petition. thanks

  33. jesse says:

    howdy all,

    i’d like to say a little more. in the old days the bandits who stole from travellers were called highwaymen. the speed cameras have brought technology
    to the game. one could fight the highwaymen and we should fight the speed camera enforcers. but do it the right way.

    that guy roscoe is correct in suggesting the use of correct language. find a lawyer who’s pissed off about the cameras and let him/her compose the petition.

    thanks, jesse

  34. Michael says:

    Can some one help me in locating a petition to sign and help collect signatures on?

  35. Cathy says:

    “Zebra” is the contact person here in Tucson. (Our last signature-collecting event was at the 4th Avenue Street Fair.) Try emailing her via the camerafraud meetup site.

    Also, it’s my understanding that a group from Phoenix is planning to come down to circulate petitions at the Tuccon Air Show on March 20th. That might be a good way to connect with Phoenix-area camerafraud members.

    Hope that helps.

  36. I have been a victum of this outrageous camera situation at Valencia and Nogales Hwy. It was either go thru the intersection or crash into oncoming traffic because of vehicles behind and to the side of me. How can I help to end these damn things? Also, what’s the latest news on re-newing the contract on these things? Thanks.

  37. By the way, the City of Sierra Vista now wants to install 4 of these intrusions into our life in the city. The time to voice the outrage is now. Flood the City Council with e-mails. The town is so broke it now resorts to outright theft to cover its inept decision-making.

  38. best ipad data plan…

    Petition to ban Photo Radar from the State of Arizona. « CameraFRAUD Tucson – The Cameras are Coming Down…

  39. erica saldivar says:

    Our roads cannot be fixed, but there is money for these expensive cameras….sad

  40. robert sacks says:

    ban this fraud i have a lisrt of 17states who already ha banned them including ny where my son is a police dtective and said they tried installing them in nt however the people there wont stand for it and they revolted in a great state and they were ruled unconstitutional to stupid and gutless here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: