Phoenix adds speed cameras as GOP lawmakers try to ban them. The photo radar debate explained

Photo radar is back in Phoenix. The city announced recently it’s installing 17 cameras at various locations known for speed-related crashes. Another eight will be in school zones.

At the same time, Republicans at the state Capitol are moving to ban photo radar on Arizona roads. A Senate committee has approved a resolution sponsored by GOP Sens. Wendy Rogers and Mark Finchem that would let voters decide if we should ban photo radar for speeding or running red lights.

So, is this a public safety issue, or an individual liberties one? It’s been seen as both in the bumpy history of photo radar in Arizona.

Longtime Arizona Republic reporter Ray Stern joined The Show to find out more.

Full conversation

RAY STERN: Paradise Valley was the first photo enforcement city in the country. After that, several Valley cities, as well as some places like Flagstaff and other cities, began to use it.

For various reasons, they pulled back. Sometimes it’s a money winner for cities, and like Scottsdale makes about $2 million a year on their program, but other cities don’t make money on it sometimes.

And the vendors that provide the photo enforcement, they’re going to charge a fee. And if not enough tickets come in or if too many are being ignored, as we’ll talk about, then it may be a money loser for a city. Plus there’s public reaction and public opinion about it that is kind of going back and forth sometimes.

LAUREN GILGER: Right. Which is always interesting to watch where public opinion falls on this. So right now we’re talking about this because two kind of big things are happening, and simultaneously.

You’ve got the city of Phoenix announcing they’re kind of bringing this back. Speed cameras will be back on various roads around the city.

And you’ve got at the same time, Republican lawmakers at the state Legislature attempting to ban photo radar, which is something they always do pretty much every year.

STERN: Right. They have tried.

GILGER: But they’re doing it a little differently this year, right?

STERN: They are. Well, they’re taking a tack that they tried last year but didn’t work just because some lawmakers had taken vacation right at the end of the year when the bill came up. And so this could have been on the ballot already or be headed for the 2026 ballot.

But if this bill passes, then we’ll see a potential photo enforcement ban on the ballot in 2026.

GILGER: OK.

STERN: Has to first pass the Legislature.

GILGER: This is to go around the governor, essentially, who has vetoed this kind of legislation before.

STERN: Right. Yeah, she’s vetoed it twice when it was just bills that were sent to her because she says that this is a public safety issue and she believes in it.

GILGER: So let’s talk about the debate here, the both sides of the argument stuff, because law enforcement is generally and maybe entirely supportive of measures like this, right?

STERN: They are, and they were certainly supportive of it in this hearing that I went to last week in the Senate. They consider it sort of a force multiplier. So there aren’t enough officers to just ticket people who are speeding. Of course, speeding and running red lights can result in very serious accidents, sometimes fatal.

I don’t even remember when a police agency was against this.

GILGER: Yeah, but you have public sentiment on the other side. Often it’s gone back and forth. But I would assume if you put something like this on the ballot, a lot of people are gonna say, “Man, I hate those cameras. Yeah, let’s ban them.”

STERN: Right. And that’ll be interesting to see because there’s a lot of opinion on it both ways. People don’t like the fact that it’s automated, and it’s usually set to 11 miles an hour over the speed limit. And so even on a nice clear day, no one’s around you. You can get a ticket for going 11 miles an hour or over that.

And people wonder, would a police officer really give me a ticket for that? And so people see this as automated law enforcement. Is that really fair?

Amber Victoria Singer/KJZZ

GILGER: Interesting. What do the lawmakers have to say about this? Like, does this kind of get into individual rights, Arizona libertarian kind of territory?

STERN: Yeah, I think it does. I haven’t talked to lawmakers recently about exactly why they are for a possible ban, but when you listen to what they’re saying in the committee hearings, they talk about how it’s not fair.

There’s a “reasonable and prudent” statute in the law that basically makes speed limits, unless you’re talking about criminal speed — which should be like 85 or over or 20 miles an hour over the speed limit. In Arizona, if the conditions are perfect, then you technically can exceed the speed limit as long as you’re driving reasonably and prudently.

And so the cities that use photo enforcement, they’re gonna set their cameras at, like I said, 11 miles an hour over. That kind of, in their minds, gets rid of the reasonable and prudent aspect.

And, yeah, there’s like a libertarian or sort of freedom issue that the Republicans have. And this is really coming down on party lines as well.

GILGER: Yeah. So this has gotten very controversial in Arizona in the past. There was a man shot because of this, right?

STERN: Yeah. Very tragic situation when Arizona had photo enforcement on freeways. And this was back in the early 2000s. It was very unpopular. And there was a guy who just saw a van that was doing the photo enforcement, and he claims he didn’t know anybody was in there. But there was, and he killed a man by shooting into this van.

GILGER: Yeah. Yeah. So lots of debate for a lot of years about this in kind of on both sides. What do you think might happen, like, if this goes to the ballot? Do you have a sense of where public sentiment lies right now?

STERN: I really don’t. I mean, I think it’s really split down the middle in so many ways. People I talk to, some people really hate it, and they’re ready for this ban. Other people think that it is definitely a reasonable law enforcement machinery.

GILGER: Yeah. Do we have any idea how well it works, Ray? Like, does it slow people down? Does it deter people from speeding? Does it save lives?

STERN: There are statistics that show that it does reduce accidents after you install it. Scottsdale talks about how it reduced accidents by like more than 20% in these areas. You do often hear that it does reduce crashes, both red light and speeding-related crashes.

AAA in the committee hearing last week basically mentioned that there’s a little bit of controversy on that.

And I haven’t analyzed all of the crash data. But Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff), who is sponsoring this photo radar ban that could go into effect, she claims that the city of Scottsdale especially is lying. And that during the committee hearing she quoted from some statistics that showed that in general Scottsdale crashes are up over the last few years.

GILGER: OK, so a debate there. Let’s talk lastly then, Ray, about the sort of, I guess, “news you can use” aspect of this. Because I remember this: When there were a lot of photo radar cameras around the Valley, people would say if you get a ticket from one of those in the mail, you don’t have to pay it.

STERN: That’s correct. Yeah. This is one of the reasons I’m fascinated by it because it’s really the only sort of law that just by ignoring it, you could potentially get out of it, right? But that’s the way it works in Arizona.

And what the situation is with that is when they send you a notice of violation, that is not an actual ticket, it’s just a notice of violation. If you read the really tiny fine print in there, it says sign here to waive your right to proper service under the law. These traffic tickets are not actually traffic tickets until they’re either properly served, you waive your right to service.

And if you just ignore the notice of violation when you get it, then the city has a timeline according to state law that they must adhere to. And if they do not serve you within 90 days of the ticket entering the court system, then it must be dismissed.

GILGER: And so serve you means like an actual process server coming to your door and handing the ticket?

STERN: Most of the time. Yes. And so what usually happens is they hire these process serving companies and sometimes they come to your door, sometimes they don’t. It’s hard to know exactly why I did get a photo enforcement notice, I’ll just confess, a couple years ago. And I just kind of believe that why would I waive a right to something that could help me?

I wouldn’t hide from a process server. If they come, then I would pay the ticket. But in that case, they just never came.

There is something called alternative service, though, that Scottsdale and other cities have used. If they think that you’re evading the process server, the process server has been out to your house a few times and knocked. Maybe they think someone’s home and they’re trying to dodge them. They can actually just tape it to your door and consider you served at that point.

But in 2016, they passed a law that said you can’t get your driver’s license revoked if you got served by alternative service. So yeah. There’s all these little quirks.

GILGER: OK, OK. Lots of quirks. And here goes the debate. We’ll leave it there for now. That is the Arizona Republic’s Ray Stern joining us. Ray, thanks as always. Appreciate it.

STERN: You bet. Thank you.