The truth about cars as an article on civil disobedience in Arizona where speed camera's have been defaced with post-it notes:

Over the past month other cameras have had their lenses covered with multiple yellow notes with the phrase "honest mistake" written on them. This is a subtle dig at camera operator Redflex

Courtesy of Australia's early foray into speed cameras, Redflex, an Australian company, has won the contract to put speed cameras throughout Arizona. Governor Neapolitano wanted the cameras to aid in revenue shortfalls. Taxing people more is politically impossible in the US, consequently, governments raise money through means where people have no moral stance; speeding is one. Added bonus, nearly everyone speeds.

Australia is not dis-similar and has massive fines for speeding - up to $700. Fines are so large that Queensland has a mechanism where you can pay it back bit by bit. Kind of like lay-away (lawby for Auians) for taxation. If someone has to enter into a repayment scheme over a speeding ticket then we are in unfair and unjust territory.

The Arizona speeding cameras were nearly put on the recent electoral ballot as a citizen initiative but Napolitano managed to halt that action. The cameras are exceptionally unpopular and viewed as cynical revenue raising mechanisms. I doubt they would have survived a popular ballot.

One of the fellows I work with had forty-five minutes to kill while waiting for his car, so he went and stood infront of a mobile camera van. He said he managed to stop two speeding tickets being issued as they got a shot of his back rather than the car.

The fellow in the van called the police on him. He said his heart was pounding in his chest when the policeman pulled up. But the policeman said to him, "You aren't obstructing traffic, and you aren't being a public nuisance, so nothing I can do." The bloke I work with and the policeman had a chat about how they hate the speed cameras and then policemen went on his way. My workmate was getting waves and honks of the horn the whole time he was doing. Good on him.

Via KFYI. Civilly disobedient Santa's were gift wrapping speed and red light cameras.

In Maryland teens have been making a mockery of the red light cameras by printing up copies of their frenemies number plates and then speeding through red lights. This kind of surveillance is being mocked. Government has no place doing it. They should be removed.

More on the Maryland teens using the red light cameras for revenge, quoting:

"I hope the public at large will complain loudly enough that local Montgomery County government officials will change their policy of using these cameras for monetary gain," the parent said. "The practice of sending speeding tickets to faceless recipients without any type of verification is unwarranted and an exploitation of our rights."

Via autoblog.

Pinal County has turned its back on speed cameras. The county is just south of Maricopa County, the latter includes Phenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa et all. Pinal County's council voted to terminate the contract they have with Redflex for the cameras. Redflex is an Australian company that is listed on the Australian stock exchange. From the article:

He reported Wednesday that the two cameras were activated 11,416 times from September 2007 through last month. Of those activations, 7,290 resulted in citations, but only 3,711 were paid.

Babeu said most of the total $134,199.43 in fines and fees from the paid citations covered administrative and operational costs, leaving the county with a net profit of $12,391.58 that Babeu dismissed as paltry.

Moreover, Babeu said, total motor-vehicle accidents increased by 16 percent in the same time period, and fatal collisions in the Queen Creek area doubled from three to six.

So basically they fail as revenue raising, make the areas more dangerous than safe, and people don't pay them because they think they are unjust. Instead the county is adding two more police patrol officers.

The lower house in Texas has passed a bill for private speed fine collection and red light cameras. Like Arizona it will allow private companies to act in the traditional role of police for speed and traffic law enforcement. I don't think this is a good thing. From the article:

The House had introduced the longer yellow provision as a safety measure in response to a Texas Transportation Institute study that documented a 40 percent decrease in collisions after testing the benefits of increasing the yellow (view study), but photo enforcement companies and local jurisdictions opposed the provision because it would have reduced ticket revenue.

We have been told for years that speed cameras are for safety, which no-one believes anyway, cynicism of the political process and fee collection for revenue purposes is justified. We are seeing two new policies from government; one, raising revenue through fines such as traffic infringements, and two, the use of private companies to capture and collect those fees.

I think the first one is politically possible because legislatures have been unable to raise taxes, so instead they are raising additional revenues through fines. Secondly, it is politically hard to defend speeders, though everyone hates the speed cameras and the private company deployment of them.

Massachussetts is trying to pass legislation that would use red light cameras for revenue raising purposes. It appears the move is very cynical:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) on Thursday outlined his plan to reduce the state's $600 million deficit and help struggling municipalities by, among several other revenue raising measures, installing red light cameras. The governor's proposed fiscal year 2010 budget amendments would eliminate an existing state law forcing police officers to issue traffic citations personally. Under the new legislation, any jurisdiction in the commonwealth could give private, for-profit companies the right to issue $100 traffic tickets.

Arizona has started serving people by mail for photo infringements rather than in person. Previously the notice was sent by mail and people ignored them. If you don't get served - usually by someone handing it to you - then you can get out of the ticket. Arizona is now going to a judge and getting permission to serve you by mail.

Massachussets has stiff penalties for non-payment including suspension of license after the second ticket and in some cases police can seize that car as payment it seems.

Update More on cameras and citizen initiatives to remove them.

It appears that Arizona is going to abandon the speed camera program which outsources speed control to the Australian company Redflex. One of the reasons is that people aren't paying the fines as you can avoid being served on them (I paid mine fwiw) and there is an issue of legitimacy. Additionally the Governor does not like the program and there is a signature collection out so the program can be stopped by referendum. One of the arguments for them is:

Lt. Jeff King, photo enforcement district commander for the Department of Public Safety, said his agency just wanted drivers to go the speed limit and did not understand all the backlash.

Which is facetious. I have a 3.7 mile commute each day to work according to maps.google and the speed limits I go through in that distance are:

45
35
20
35
40
45
40
30
40

I am not kidding. Try to keep changing your speed that many times in that small a distance so that you never do seven over the limit and get caught on a camera. Phoenix is highly grid-like and the same cross streets such as Thomas or Indian School will be 40/45/50 etc without rhyme or reason. Same with the highways, they will go between 55/65 pretty quickly and that can put you over the speed limit so that a camera will catch you.

When people come up to a camera it does slow them down, everyone throws on the brakes, traffic compresses and you end up doing 10-15 mph under the speed limit until you pass the camera and then everything speeds up again. I don't think they are the godsend that is being claimed. I think they are more dangerous and interrupt traffic flow more than anything else by adding uncertainty into the trip. Ironically there is an economic impact:

The camera operator, Redflex, may not even be breaking even. It cost the company $16 million to install the cameras, and it got back $4.6 million from September 2008 to June, Lieutenant King said.

What may kill the privatization of state responsibilities is that it is unprofitable. Serves Redflex right in my biased opinion. Until the cameras disappear I am not holding my breath. I dislike speed cameras though and I think they are beyond the state's reach as to what constitutes just governance.