PHOENIX -- Arizona drivers may get a bit of leeway in trying to make the light without getting nabbed by a camera for running a red light.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 8-4 Tuesday to recraft in state law exactly what constitutes an "intersection.'' HB 2557 redefines it in the state's traffic code to include a much broader area.
That change is significant.
It specifically means the pavement sensors that trigger red light cameras to record violations have to be moved. More to the point, it means driving activities that now result in citations would no longer be illegal under state law.
Tuesday's vote came despite opposition from the city of Phoenix which provided statistics saying their red light cameras as currently operating have reduced deaths and injuries at intersections.
But Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs said the testimony of a Phoenix police commander, while interesting, is meaningless. The Gilbert Republican said the only evidence that would convince him the change will make a safety difference would have to come from traffic safety engineers, which is an entirely different specialty.
The move is a victory for Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, who has waged a campaign against all forms of photo enforcement for years.
Under Arizona law, an intersection is defined as an area within what would be imaginary lines extended from each curb. That creates a box, with communities that use red light cameras putting their sensors just inside that box.
But Antenori told colleagues only Alaska uses that same definition. His legislation would bring Arizona into conformance with 38 other states.
As approved, HB 2557 says the intersection starts at any painted "stop'' line or at the first crosswalk line a vehicle would encounter going into an intersection, whichever comes first.
From a practical standpoint, that means if a driver already is in the crosswalk when the light turns red, there would be no violation.
Under current law, the driver might be in the crosswalk when the light changes but then would trigger the red light camera after entering the box that now defines the intersection.
Antenori said that's only fair.
"Many motorists do not know where the intersection begins and ends,'' he said. "And many are already under the impression that the stop line is the intersection line.''
The result, Antenori said, is they get a ticket -- unfairly, he believes.
Antenori said he believes cities like the current system precisely because of that, saying it's designed to generate as much money as possible.
Phoenix lobbyist John Wayne Gonzales disputed that.
"It does not pay for itself,'' he said. "It is not a profit maker.''
Phoenix Police Cmdr. Joe Klima said this is a safety issue.
"By extending the intersection to the crosswalk line or the stop line, that could be anywhere from 24 to as far as 38 feet outside the intersection as we know it today,'' he told lawmakers.
Klima said in 2010 there were 1,587 people injured and seven killed in Phoenix by those who run red lights. And he said most of those are caused by "aggressive'' drivers trying to speed through the light at the last minute.
Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, said that's fine. But his concern was how often the cameras catch "technical violators.''
Klima acknowledged some of those who are ticketed do fit that category.
He said often includes people waiting in a left-turn lane who have entered the crosswalk but are waiting before going any further to be sure that opposing traffic has stopped. They get cited when making that turn after the light turns red because they had not yet entered what the state now defines as the intersection.
But Klima said the change will only make matters worse.
"Now you have four vehicles that could actually be in the (redefined) intersection to make a left turn when it cycles to red and now they can make that left turn,'' he said. And that, Klima said creates its own new hazard.
Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, said his concern is bringing the law in line with motorist expectations that they are required to stop at the crosswalk or stop line.
"That's the line that they're shooting for,'' he said.
Klima conceded the point. But he said those who have been through driver education classes or have attended defensive driving school are told that the intersection is the curb line and not some earlier point.
If Antenori's measure becomes law, it will require cities to not only move those sensors embedded in the pavement but also adjust the cameras.
In Tucson, city spokesman Mike Graham said he had no idea of the cost. But he said the contract with American Traffic Systems require the city and the company to negotiate how the expenses would be divided.
The legislation is a bit of a belated victory for Dianne Patterson, a researcher at the University of Arizona, who fought a 2009 red light ticket she got in Tucson.
Patterson told a city magistrate that the lines Tucson uses to trigger the red light cameras are not in compliance with the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. She even got an official from the Federal Highway Administration to write a letter saying that the lines painted by the city to show where a violation occurs were not in compliance with federal standards and the city had failed to get the required approval.
But City Court Judge Mitchell Kagen said all that is irrelevant.
Patterson had no better luck in her appeal.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Lee. He said the federal manual regulates traffic control devices, not traffic violations, and that the Legislature is entitled to define in law when a violation occurs.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:39 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.
Butters,
I'm not surprised that Mesa is loosing money. That explains why they seem to always confict. Chances are that between fines, and the cost of avoiding fines by taking the city's class, the money just isn't enough. Hence many are cited but none are turned loose. Stay out of Mesa!
I called the state to find out how yellow light duration was determined. The response I got was that where there was no Federal standard, each municipality got to set their own standard. Please tell me more.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:35 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.
Juggarnaut8000,
If one goes to traffic school [unless of course he's taken it too recently] no points are assessed and the driving record remains "clean." There are certain exceptions but red light running is not one. However if one fails to plead guilty and trys to argue with the court unsuccessfully, one gets the fine, the points and still has to take a driving class, a slightly different one, but a half day or so long one regardless.
There is no difference between what happens if ticketted by police or by photo radar. If photo radar, the prosecuter shows up with the pictures. If police, the cop shows up personally. My daughter got off once when the DPS cop failed to show! DPS are notorious no shows.
So if one would avoid the points and the fine, one merely agrees to take the class and pay for it. It ain't cheap. If one thinks he's been wronged, or has taken the defensive driving course too recently, after being found "responsible" he gets the fine, he gets the points and he still has to take a class, a slightly different class, but a class none the less.
P.S. the first class is given by the city so the city gets the money. The second class is given by county sponsored instructors so they get the money. Over the hears, having taken both classes, I can attest to the second class as being the better class. I can also attest to the nearly complete lack of understanding on the part of my fellow attendees as to what they did wrong.
One lady swore that when ticketed for turning left, she having been in the interestion for perhaps 10 seconds while waiting to turn left, she was still ticketed for running the light. It was a cop not a camera. Even the instructor had no explanation for this incident.
And one man swore up and down that with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 he was stone cold sober. I explained that where the standard is one's ability to control his vehicle not be impaired to the "slightest degree" and where everyone's reaction time, and hense ability to hit the brakes is slowed above 0.05, he was not stone cold sober. DUI is one of the exceptions to defensive driving school. When school and fines were added to his having to drive with a breathalizyer, this man had paid more than $1,100. And that did not count his attorney! He almost lost his job over being suspended from driving for a while. Taking the bus is not easy!
P.P.S.
Slabside's legal advice is dangerous. Most cameras can id the driver. If the court thinks your mug matches the mug on your driver's license, not showing up gets you convicted anyway. So if you're driving your own car, you'd better show up. If the ticket arrives and you were not driving your own car, showing up to explain who was is not a bad idea either.
samkat posted at 6:17 pm on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.
Our trusty legislators do not have time to develop jobs, an environment of capturing new business (think Apple as the most recent instance), resolving unemployment problems, fixing our CPS problems or providing incentives for prospective parents to adopt the more than 10,500 unwanted children languishing in state custody but they do have time to implement new draconian laws infringing on our personal and religious liberties.
They claim to support less government intervention but they can push 1400 new laws each session as opposed to paring down the existing morass of patchwork laws in existence.
They can cut our public school funding while pushing more state funds into charter schools and grant even more tax exemptions for their special interest friends, some of whom are in our legislature and proposing as well as voting on these loopholes.
They can gut our state civil service laws so they can put their friends and family members into coveted positions yet they cannot implement stronger ethics rules for themselves and restrict taking unaccounted for special interest money. Go figure.
Slabside posted at 2:22 pm on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.
Red light cameras are a farce. Jugger hit the nail on the head above. If you receive a photo ticket in the mail... toss it. As long as you don't sign the clipboard of the server that will show up on your doorstep several weeks later the ticket will be dismissed. End of story.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 11:19 am on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.
Dale,
I have a backround and career in physics and am quite sure getting a fine in the mail three weeks later will not prevent a vehicle from entering an intersection through a red light.
If these contraptions are about safety, why aren't points assessed on the license of an offending motorist along with a fine? If a cop sees me blow a red, I get a fine and three points. A photo radar ticket is just a fine?
I look forward to hearing your response.
Butters posted at 9:50 am on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.
Dale, Mesa got into trouble with the state a few years back for the shorter cycle time of yellow lights in intersections that have photo radar. The office of the state's traffic safety engineer and not the city's, now sets and enforces the cycle times for those yellow lights. Mesa's city court clerks were also not exactly being honest and forthcoming when it came to vehicle owners who were summoned to court but who were not the drivers caught on camera. Seems many of those clerks neglected to tell the vehicle owners that it was "optional" for them to identify who the driver in the photo was, once again forcing the state to make changes in the law.
Did you know that Mesa is losing money on photo radar and red light enforcement? Why have it at all? Studies have been done that show a higher level of accidents in intersections with photo enforcement. Many of us motorists in Mesa have jammed on our brakes when approaching an intersection when the yellow light cycles on, because panic sets for fear of getting a ticket. Yellow lights were designed to give a motorist entering an intersection some time to safely clear it, not jam on their brakes and cause an accident. Proper timing for yellow lights and then a delay for red to green is how to correctly and safely control traffic in an intersection, not play with timing cycles in order to issue more citations that also generate more revenue.
It took some time once the photo radar cameras were removed from the 60 Freeway, but I have noticed that traffic moves rather smoothly, compared to when the cameras were operating and traffic would bunch up because of all of the motorists who would jam on their brakes each time they got close to a photo radar unit. I don't know if there are less accidents now that the cameras are gone, but it sure seems like it.
Did you know that the photo radar system that was used on the freeways on our state was NEVER approved by the F.C.C.? Seems the Australian company never bothered to get F.C.C. Part 15 certification, instead making up phony certification reports. This came out in court during a lawsuit by a competitor who lost out on being award the contract by Nappy's crew. Just imagine what non-compliance for F.C.C. Part 15 certification could mean. You're driving in your car and the photo radar that was constantly emitting signals might cause your pacemaker to suddenly stop or misfire, or bring down an aircraft using digital fly-by-wire controls. Think that can't happen? Back in the '80's, when the US Army began to put more and more Blackhawk UH-64 helicopters into service, they had a number of them crash causing fatalities. Seems radio and microwave signals were causing interference in the UH-64's fly-by-wire control systems. It was fixed by retrofitting shielded cabling into the helicopters, but not before lives were already lost.
DrJCA1 posted at 9:08 pm on Tue, Mar 20, 2012.
While I'm not a big fan of red light camers or the government sticking their disgusting noses into our business, what about the other side of this issue? You mean to tell me that driver's don't know if a light is turning red? Yellow lights mean stop if you can, and was created expressly for the purpose of keeping people from running red lights. I do not defend morons who drive like adolescents. Every one of us knows what an intersection is, and when the lights are changing. If you choose to drive dangerously and not behave behind the wheel like a responsible adult, then you should be walking everywhere. this goes for speeding, drunk driving, and weaving or tailgating.
Rich posted at 6:59 pm on Tue, Mar 20, 2012.
"intersection is defined as an area within what would be imaginary lines extended from each curb. That creates a box..."
An 'imaginary' box, that isn't a problem? 'imaginary lines' you're fined for crossing? By what? an inch? a foot? How long does it take to travel a foot at 35 MPH? And how do you judge an 'imaginary' line at that speed, without even a standard time, indicated by a yellow light, to judge where it might be? Especially given that the curb line comprising the 'imaginary' is invisible from the driver's seat of a car until any normal reaction time would make it impossible to stop behind it at ten mph. It's a con job from beginning to end, proven with a digital photo that can be altered with a couple keystrokes and a private company is paid to do just that out of the fine. The government and private companies have stolen millions from the people of Arizona with this phony nonsense. It isn't safer, it's criminal activity.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:53 pm on Tue, Mar 20, 2012.
Juggernaut8000,
Just what background, training and/or experience has made you an expert on why people run red lights? None, right!
Did you know that the duration of the yellow light bears on this problem? If a driver is accumtomed to a normal duration yellow light, about 4 to 5 seconds, then comes upon a shorter duration yellow light, there is a good chance he could enter the intersection thinking he'll be doing so on the yellow light and hense will be ok.
I was sited for entering the intersection of Southern Ave while traveling north bound on Mesa Dr. In Chandler, our yellow lights are all at least 4 seconds long. That light at Southern was less than 3 seconds long and I entered the interesection 0.06 seconds or about 4 feet too late! I explained all of this to the judge and he responded that it just was not his problem!
When I took my drivers education class, all others sited for red light running had pretty much done the same thing, most while attempting to cross Southern. The instructor had been seeing this problem for years.
Next, I noticed the bus drivers slowing down as they approached interesections in Mesa. So I asked about this and was told that Valley Metro knows yellow lights in Mesa tend to be shorter than elsewhere.
With this new law put into effect, hardly anyone would be running red lights! I ask "Can the cities afford this loss of revenue?"
My advice to drivers? Don't go into Mesa! Counting up the fines and the class, the cost is about $250. Going into Mesa just ain't worth it!
Now, I repeat, "just what background, training and/or experience has made you an expert on why people run red lights?" None, right!
ArizonaCentral posted at 3:15 pm on Tue, Mar 20, 2012.
"Legislation pushed to aid drives in fight against photo tickets" Wow, guess spell checker worked on this one, what about grammer check: Is it not DRIVERS not DRIVES .. Doh Haha
"Legislation pushed to aid drivers in fight against photo tickets"
Juggernaut8000 posted at 2:06 pm on Tue, Mar 20, 2012.
People don't deliberately run red lights...it is usually beacuse they are drunk or not paying attention. These stupid photo camera's only send the offender a fine in the mail 3 weeks later. This does nothing to stop a vehicle from entering the intersection through a red.
Photo radar is just more proof that the State uses its citizens as cash machines.