Good evening and welcome to Arizona Horizon.

I'm Ted Simons.

Propositio 319 is among the ballot measures to be decided on by voters in November.

A prop 319 prohibits stat agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement systems to identify violators of traffic laws.

Speaking against the proposition, joining us tonight is Will humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association.

We should note tha we invited State Senator Wendy Rogers, the main backer of the proposition, to speak in favor of the measure.

But she couldn't appear on this stat and declined further attempts.

Well, good to have you here.

Thank you so much for joining us.

What exactly does prop 319 call for?

So it what it does is essentially prohibit any future jurisdiction, city, town from doing any kind of photo enforcement, whether that's red light cameras, the intersectio cameras or regular speed cameras if they don't have a contrac already to do that enforcement.

So, for example, Phoenix and those cities that do have photo enforcement and and they let's say they still want to do it, if this passes, they'd have to go to the ballot and have the voters approved that after two years and then every ten years after that.

So it essentially locks out cities that don't already have photo enforcement.

Tucson's a good example.

Tucso does not have photo enforcement.

Now, if this passes, they could never, ever do it.

Ever.

Right, right.

So in other words, existing systems would need voter okay to remain new systems verboten.

I should have said that.

Right?

Well, let's see what else you have to say about this.

This is a controversial issue and I know that the proponents, they say it's a controversial issue and thus should be decided by voters.

Are they wrong?

I agree with that.

I'm totally fine with the direct democracy.

Part of the proposition that if you're going to do something like this in your town, why not ask the voters in that town if that's what they really want to do?

I'm fine with that.

What I really don't like is the fact that cities that don't currently have it could never do it.

So take a town now that's really small, doesn't need any photo enforcement of anything.

15 years from now it might be a really busy.

They might have some really dangerous intersections.

City council, the traffic, the law enforcement, they're all on the same page that they need a red light camera at a certain intersection.

They will not be able to do it at this passes.

Okay.

So so your idea is that citizens should have.

I'm fine.

With that because that's one of the main arguments.

I'm good with that side.

Yeah.

All right.

Let's talk about the the idea of due process.

That's another argument here that law enforcement officers should have discretion and there should be someone witnessing this, a human being as opposed to a camera and an algorithm.

Does that make sense?

I think that does make there's some checks and balances within the jurisdictions that have the system.

Now I think some of those could be more robust.

They could actually there could be some better guardrails around, you know, where these cameras g and the decisions that are made and the due process, parts of what you're describing.

But the idea that that it should only be made by law enforcement officers.

Why is that a bad idea?

Well, it is reviewing these.

But I mean I mean, at the moment, at the.

Time, at the moment, yeah, well, certain jurisdictions didn't do it that wa if that's what they want to do.

Okay.

I mean, and the voters in that city could decide that's the way we're going to do it.

You're speaking of very, very well.

Pro 319.

That's what I said.

It's like I'm not 100% against this thing.

What I really object to is that it it prevents cities that don't have it now from ever doing it ever in the future.

And this would be voter protected.

So it's the legislature could never undo it.

Let's okay.

One of the reasons that this is on the ballot, and one of the reasons people don't like this kind of thing is because they think i prioritizes fines over fairness.

Do they have a point there?

In some jurisdictions they do have a point.

So here I'm doing pro and con.

I feel like we've got the bait on.

Both sides.

No.

Let's take Paradise Valley for example.

Like they've got some roads in Paradise Valley.

McDonald is a good example.

It's got a really low speed, like 25 miles an hour and there's a, there's a road, a speed camera every 300m.

I mean, it's it's over enforced.

And so there are jurisdictions like Paradise Valle that I think are overdoing this.

And it's like it's a drive through kind of town.

A lot of people use Tatum and those things people.

And you drive down Tatum, there's five of them.

They're all dressed like cactuses aren't.

Well I think there's no they're not.

That's something else.

Okay.

All right.

Let's talk about the safety aspects.

Good.

All right.

The idea that red light cameras people knowing especially for intersections and such, they'll slam on their breaks.

It causes crashes, rear end collisions and particular.

They have a point.

So you did your homework.

So what the.

Here's the thing.

I'm an evangelist for the red light running intersection.

That's the one you want to see.

That's the.

That's the one I want to keep.

That's the public health value.

This the speed cameras an the speed traps that are set up.

That's there's very little public health value for that except in school areas.

It's the red light cameras that save lives.

And here's how they do it.

The red light cameras.

So this is a national study of seven different cities with a couple of hundred intersections.

They looked at that and they found that when you have a red light intersection camera, it cuts down on those really violent, explosive T-Bone crashes that kill people by 25%.

So that's a big decreas in really dangerous collisions.

Those ones where someone's turning left and you plow into them, or you go, you got the green and someone runs a red light into you.

So it reduces those things by 25%, but it also increases the in that study, it increased the slow rear ending crashes by 15%.

Interesting because.

But those are injur free crashes for the.

Most part.

But I would think that this would.

And the argument is that it increases erratic driving when you're so busy.

We're looking aroun where's the camera?

What's this?

What's that?

You're not getting consistent driving here.

Well, all I can tell you is when they did the study and there was a robust study with lots of cities, it showed a big reduction of violent, dangerous crashes, those T-Bones in those intersections and saved a lot of lives.

And what you're saying is you put this on the ballot and it passes.

That's that's that's a done deal.

And that's a done deal forever.

Forever.

Yes.

So a city like Tucson who doesn't do or Glendale that doesn't do, photo enforcement now would never, ever be able to do it, no matter how dangerous their intersections get.

One last chance here to support your side as opposed to the pro side.

Senator Rogers calls photo radar a scam.

Her quote is it's not a safety program but a business built on fines.. In some jurisdictions.

That's true.

But but look at what it look at what it can do at these intersections.

And by the way, I wouldn't even be debating this and I wouldn't be arguing against 319 if this had just gone after photo radar with the speed cameras.

It's the intersection cameras that I care about.

Okay.

All right.

And I think we had a chance to have a link here on the screen to go if you want to read the full proposition.

There it is right there, the full proposition.

We got all of them up there.

Go ahead and take a look at that.

And you will see arguments for and against.

My goodness gracious I hate this.

I gave arguments for and against today.

Yeah.

All right all right.

We'll humble again.

Prop 319 A photo radar traffic enforcement.

Good to have you here.

I don't need someone to debate with you.

Do it yourself.

Yeah.