The Tucson Photo Enforcement program by any objective standard has been shown to be unfair to drivers. The shortened Intersection Definition in Arizona is in conflict with the Federal Standard that includes the area from the normal stopping point, including the crosswalk, to the much smaller prolongation of the curb lines definition that is used only in Arizona and Alaska. This definition results in about 50 percent of the citations that otherwise should never have been detected.
The length of the Yellow Light is far too short to allow a driver to reach the unfair Intersection Definition line in many situations. This produces an entrapment zone that "creates" Red Light violations that in reality do not exist. There are parameters that could have been adjusted for fairness, but the city officials and the camera vendor have refused to implement any fairness concepts.
The traffic courts rely on hearsay evidence handed from the camera vendor to a police representative (who does not testify) and then to another police officer who testifies without any first hand participation in the case. The police "witness" is allowed to act as prosecutor and witness together. The magistrates generally "presume" guilt in a process that is substantially rigged against the defendant.
The safety claims by the Tucson Police appear to be highly exagerated over more soundly produced studies that show single digit safety benefits or in many cases an increase in accidents. The consistent results of most valid studies nearly always show a near neutral safety result.
The clear incentive for the camera vendor and the city is the revenue factor. All parameters including location choice, traffic light timing, expected traffic volume, and likelihood of violations is to maximize revenue. The empirical data used for safety claims is far out-shadowed by the desire for revenue.
Even in this election campaign, the opposition to camera removal appears to have implemented unfair practices in campaign sign destruction. The current Tucson election has seen more than 100 signs for "YES on 201" removed or destroyed. Many were simultaneously removed from multiple approaches to a camera intersection. They cannot even allow a fair election process by the public to determine the future of the cameras.
Voting "YES on 201" is the only answer to restore fairness in Traffic Enforcement, due-process in Traffic Court, and rational revenue to the
City of Tucson.
—Mark Spear
