Photo Radar

andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
Like most states, Arizona is desperately seeking additional revenue. They have recently begun installing photo-radar units (mobile and fixed) on highways throughout the state and it has had the effect of generating additional revenue.

Those who don't like it have taken matters into their own hands, vandalizing cameras, pushing for special initiatives to ban the cameras and/or putting polarized covers over their plates.

Some restrictions apply to camera enforcement:

-Fines are levied only on the registered owner of the vehicle, no license points are accrued and insurance companies are not notified. $165 for less than 20mph over, 250 for more than 20mph over.
-Cameras are set to record only cars traveling at 11mph over the limit (55 or lower zones) or 10mph over (65mph or higher zones).

What do you think?

2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

Tagged:
«13456738

Comments

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I have "longtime" been an advocate of getting people to slow the heck down.

    Speeding is dangerous, illegal, wasteful, and unfortunately, WIDESPREAD.

    There have already been articles in the Phoenix newspaper about how people are noticing the slower-moving traffic on the freeways and how people who have always wanted the "flow" to be slower are loving the stress-free drive.

    Even if it "IS" only a money grab, which is fine with me because they are not going to grab any of MY money, I'm all for it.

    Lower speeds mean more survivable accidents, more time to react to problems, less wasted fuel, and less stressed drivers.

    If the speeders want to pay $157 a pop for the right to drive 11 MPH over the limit, then let them.

    I'll not be with them.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    More idiocy from the modern British school of societal management, more politicos who deserve to be introduced to a gallows.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    and find myself in the middle on this subject.

    -IMO Civil Disobedience should stop at the point of vandalism, wrecking speed cameras is never justifiable. OTOH I have no problem w installing a polarized "blocker" cover over the plate.

    -Photo Radar is clearly a revenue enhancement measure with limited safety benefits but since there's no points on the license or insurance surcharge it's actually cheaper to get a ticket from the robot than to incur the insurance surcharges from a ticket issued by a police officer. The State is going to get it's piece whether thru photo radar fines or increased taxes--at least you can avoid fines.

    -Contrary to Laserb, Arizonians do not drive that fast, especially considering the excellent highway network. Average speeds are no higher here than back home in NH.

    -From what I have seen, unlike in many areas, Arizona speed limits are reasonable of the most roads. They are often close to the 85th Percentile Speed which is where most traffic engineers say it should be.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    They issued 40,000 tickets in a 60-day span.

    That seems like a lot of speeding to me.

    Maybe not for some areas of the country I'm sure. If they put them in SoCal, they might get 40,000 tickets in an HOUR !!!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    Aren't these revenue creation masquerading as safety infractions easy to fight? Something along the lines of signing an affidavit stating you weren't the driver?

    "Uh yeah my friend Bob was driving the car that day...I can't remember his last name...he lives three towns over" :shades:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,457
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    Rules of process and evidence vary from state to state. What might get you off scot free in one jurisdiction could be of no importance in another so I would argue against taking those article points too seriously.

    Having said that, I once got a photo ticket for running a red light in Boston. Since I go to court on every summons (sometimes even parking tickets) I appeared in Boston District Court.
    The magistrate came in and asked those who had gotten a photo ticket to raise their hand and about 6 of us did so. Then and there she dismissed all of them. Apparently she felt that at least some of the points in the Business Week article where applicable to Massachusetts law.

    BTW- in 45 years of driving that's the only time I've ever been cited for running a light or a sign.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,457
    My wife got a ticket years ago for going 25 in a 20 zone. The ticket was easy to beat because the speed limit sign visible in the photo said 30 mph. D'oh.

    The guy running the mobile camera got fired and the city ended the photo radar contract early.

    On the other hand, my elderly mother got a ticket a few months ago for going about 45 in a 30 mph zone - she was just trying to "keep up with traffic." She paid it and then sold her car. :shades:
  • carnaughtcarnaught Desert SWMember Posts: 3,136
    -Fines are levied only on the registered owner of the vehicle, no license points are accrued and insurance companies are not notified.

    My buddy tells me that if it is 85mph or over in Az., it is a criminal vehicular offense and therefore license points are levied.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Let's see, the photo company gets a rake each time a ticket is issued - tell me these cameras aren't rigged with a short yellow light, or a few extra mph to increase the photo company commisions. If a city uses the cameras, the city should run them and there should be no cut to the photo company to insure it is honest. Face it, how frequently do you read about crooked business deals any more.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    ..We've all heard the phrase 'speed kills', and it's been widely applied to situations both apt and not. A recent study conducted by the NHTSA examining over 5,400 crashes across a nearly three-year period presents some evidence that excessive speed, while it may cause more serious injuries, is not a leading cause of accidents.

    Adopting a simplified linear model of an accident's timeline, the most frequent 'critical pre-crash event' cause is driver inattention. The 'critical pre-crash event' is defined as the action or event that puts the vehicle on an inevitable collision course - the point of no return.


    Got that, driver inattention, not speed causes most accidents.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Higher speed crashes due to driver inattention are more serious, dangerous, and costly to insurance companies than lower-speed crashes.

    Slowing down is good for EVERYONE.

    Except the states trying to drum up income from the speed cameras.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    So then we should all go no more than 40 or so :sick: :lemon:
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I will if you will...............;)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,457
    "A speed camera is located out in front of Wootton High School, providing a convenient location for generating the false tickets. Instead of purchasing license plates, students have ready access to laser printers that can create duplicate license plates using glossy paper using readily available fonts. For example, the state name of "Maryland" appears on plates in a font similar to Garamond Number 5 Swash Italic. Once the camera flashes, the driver can quickly pull over and remove the fake paper plate. The victim will receive a $40 ticket in the mail weeks later."

    Maryland Students Use Speed Cameras for Revenge (theNewspaper.com)
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    What ever happened to police actually patrolling the roads???? One well placed police officer can slow traffic down very easily.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    One well placed surplus car with a mannequin behind the wheel can slow traffic too.

    Just more to show these cameras are for moneymaking - for desperate municipalities and well-connected crony capitalist camera operators.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    link

    I've stated before that I do not go along with destroying enforcement cameras but this strikes me as a creative, amusing and relatively harmless method of civil disobedience.

    Tempe Police are investigating, may prosecute.

    Tempe is the home of Arizona State University, and residents are no doubt used to student hi-jinks. Investigating and prosecuting this prank will cost the taxpayers much more than simply removing the boxes.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Member Posts: 3,425
    What is important is that the enforcement tool be used to catch Red light runners and any other law breaker especially those who think they can drive too fast and safe at the same time.

    The big brother argument is bogus. "Catch em if you can and any way you can, but catch em."

    Force discipline back into driving any way that is effective.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    Force logic and reason back into the rulemakers - via any means possible, civil disobedience or less than civil actions. They can be done away with.

    Speed cameras solve no problems other than giving more money to the big government self-titled conservatives claim to abhor. And I can't forget they aid the illicit fortunes of crooked crony capitalist camera operators, who are untouchable in this dying society and are the biggest threat to any kind of viable future.

    What logic is used by automatically dismissing the windfall profits reaped by those who do not deserve their ill-begotten wealth? Talk about "bogus"...
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Member Posts: 3,425
    "civil disobedience" is defined as the Liberal's tantrum .

    "windfall profit" is defined as the Liberal's jealousy of the Capitalist's earnings.

    The logic of
    automatically dismissing the profits reaped by camera companies is that they are effective at making transportation safer than otherwise.

    If the liberal driver was as concerned about his safe driving as he is about other's profits, photo cameras would not be as necessary as they are today.

    Most Libers have never held a job that wasn't paid by a taxpayer. As such explains their acceptance of "profits".
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    Your bait is stale, pops :P

    Speed cameras have not been proven effective in the insane Orwellian surveillance grid police state of England, which has the most of any nation in the world and has pioneered the ideal of camera driven revenue creation based on arbitrary speed limits set by cowardly politicos who deserve to meet a noose in the middle of the night. But maybe the cameras will be different on this continent - right. Useless laws and shameless cash grabs by weak minded public sector dolts are the same no matter which nation is at hand.

    Most silent generation "capitalists" have exaggerated fortunes built on either inheritance, cronyism, a complete vacuum of ethics, or a decidedly yellow combination of either. Most are unwilling to face these facts about those who are truly creating the problems in society, and who have dodged accountability for decades.

    The inbred hicks one sees speeding around in their clapped out jacked up SUVs and pickups aren't "libers"...

    Merry Christmas! :D
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,653
    Most Libers have never held a job that wasn't paid by a taxpayer.

    Statements like that, which are obviously wrong to anyone paying attention, cast doubt upon everything you say... rightly or otherwise. :(

    I have to think that both you and fin are too extreme in your views. Certainly there is some safety benefit from speed and red light cameras.

    And revenue generation is unquestionably a major factor in their implementation. But I don't believe that is sufficient cause to advocate vigilante lynching in the dead of night.

    Personally, I am greatly annoyed by the "me first" types who steal time from the cross traffic by continuing to stream across the intersection after the light has changed. But I believe that the robotic enforcement of traffic law is in violation of constitutional protections, to be able to confront our accusers. So put my name in the "against" column.

    Happy Holidays,
    James (oregonboy)
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Member Posts: 3,425
    "But I believe that the robotic enforcement of traffic law is in violation of constitutional protections, to be able to confront our accusers.

    You are correct in Criminal cases, but violating a photo radar device is not a criminal, but civil class of infraction, not requiring your criminal application.

    A showcase example of Libers being supported by the taxpayer, give a close look at the incoming President, his staff and his advisors. Sprinkled with a few Academia nuts as well. All of them never met a tax they didn't like.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    A showcase example of Libers being supported by the taxpayer, give a close look at the incoming President, his staff and his advisors. Sprinkled with a few Academia nuts as well. All of them never met a tax they didn't like.

    There's another statement that diminishes your credibility. Aside from the fact that it is an untrue stereotype and that many of us think Obama and his "Libers" will do better than the outgoing "Cons" it has no bearing whatever on the matter at hand.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    All of this is for moot - from everything I have seen on this continent, the legal loopholes for these cash grab cameras are as wide as the butt on the average neocon GOP crony capitalist - simply contest the ticket, using blatant lies if need be, have it be tossed out, and be on your way. No harm, no foul :P

    "A showcase example of Libers being supported by the taxpayers"

    Really hard to get credibility there coming from someone who worships at the throne of military-industrial profiteers and the inheritance elite (aka the past 8 years of hell we've endured).
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Member Posts: 3,425
    I reside in the Peoples Republic of The Northwest & some others are not citizens, but they retain their old country values while taking advantage of being here. ;)
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    I just saw a reporters roundtable discussion on political prospects for the coming year in Arid-zona. The panel was nearly unanimous in declaring that neither the incoming Governor, or the legislature, all conservative republics would move to curtail photo enforcement beause the state desperately needs the revenue.

    How can that be if it's all a Liber plot? :confuse:

    I predict they'll increase the number of cameras, this isn't about Left or Right it's all about the "Cha-Ching"! :shades:

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 18,376
    Now, let me get this all straight here.

    The libs are against cameras because they will take away their cushy government money and the cons want them so they can fund a war in some arab country?

    I think you guys are making the wrong arguments here. It's not the libs or the cons that want to suck your wallet dry...IT'S BOTH OF THEM. The only difference is where they waste it once they get it. I don't think either side spends the money they take from me in my interest as it is. I sure don't want to give ANY of them any more.

    I'm kind of torn on this issue. I get angry every morning when I come up to a particular stop light on the way to work and people are still zooming through after I have had the green light for several seconds. I also don't like the possibility that in the future I will be cited by some robot every time I drift 1 mph over the speed limit.

    I guess I see the need for traffic enforcement but I think that cameras should be use ONLY at documented problem sites, ONLY on a temporary basis, and ONLY after signs are put up warning people that they are liable to be cited.

    As to the political argument, write a check to your favorite bunch of crooks.

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2004 Chevy Van, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJMember Posts: 10,379
    Glad to see some folks coming to the correct conclusion - when it comes to free money into government coffers there's no difference between liberal and conservative. They'll argue about how to spend it but will always be in favor of having more of your money.

    I hear you on wanting to catch the real offenders but I don't think that's going to happen with photo enforcement.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Member Posts: 3,425
    "I hear you on wanting to catch the real offenders but I don't think that's going to happen with photo enforcement. "

    I remember the same opinion was offered to oppose the parking meter, radar, and the breathalyzer, but they have come to be accepted as will, hopefully, photo enforcement.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 18,376
    "...the same opinion was offered to oppose the parking meter, radar, and the breathalyzer..."

    True. But don't all those methods have a human involved as a witness? One of the things that makes me uncomfortable about these robot devices is that you can't confront your accuser.

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2004 Chevy Van, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,457
    Coming soon (?) to a city near you:

    Remote parking meters

    These things are out there already, but more as a deterrent I guess:

    What is a Car Breathalyzer?

    But you could see where the interlock could phone home and dispatch a cop.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    OldTimer50 says, "confront your accuser."

    What's the big deal of "confronting your accuser?"

    Either you were speeding or not.

    The same "challenge" you would make to a human officer can be made in court if you dispute the ticket.

    The judge makes his/her decision either way.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    What's the big deal of "confronting your accuser?"

    It's a constitutional right and arguably one of the most important.

    The same "challenge" you would make to a human officer can be made in court if you dispute the ticket

    A camera cannot testify as to when the accuracy of it's radar was last calibrated, nor car it testify to the state of weather. traffic etc at the time of the alleged offense.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Like I said: confront the Judge. Same difference.

    The state of the weather, traffic, etc does not matter. A Speeder is a Speeder is a Speeder.

    There are no "legal exceptions" to the speeding law.

    If there were extenuating circumstances like "I was taking my sick to the " then you can bring that up when you challenge the ticket.

    You'll get your say, and will only have to argue with the judge, not both the judge and the officer.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    Don't forget the ample loopholes for these revenue schemes masquerading as safety,. Just claim you weren't driving. End of story.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    It's obvious that you have no concept of the basis on which legal proceedings are conducted in the US of A.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    The judge will seldom let you off because they are part of the whole revenue game. After all, those revenues also pay the judge's salary! I seriously doubt the devices aren't rigged since they have to give a cut to the camera company. We've seen how rampant corruption is in both governemnt and business these past few months.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 22,055
    I know from personal experience that the system is not as rigged or corrupt as you say. I have contested traffic citations at least a dozen times in numerous jurisdictions, I have been able to get a reduced fine or dismissal 50% of the time.

    If everyone were to do what I do and contest every summons, the sytstem would quickly collapse from over load. ;)

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, you are right in that I don't have PERSONAL experience. I have never stood up before a judge in real life.

    But I do know about debating and arguing - THOSE I am good at.

    And I have friends who have gotten photo radar tickets. They ARE ALLOWED to contest the ticket in court before a judge and have their say.

    That is no different in process than contesting a ticket issued by a human, except that you have one less person to argue with.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    The latest Phoenix-area photo radar stats were announced.

    Injury accidents - down 17%
    Fatalities - down 29%

    In the first 80 days of the program, about 7 fewer people died than usual.

    Photo radar CAN save lives and DOES reduce speeds.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 18,376
    "...But I do know about debating and arguing..."

    At last, something we agree on. ;) Have a happy new year.

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2004 Chevy Van, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    Where is the proof of causation?
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Member Posts: 3,425
    and what was its reply when you confronted the parking meter? ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    fintail says, "Where is the proof of causation?"

    Common Sense-ation.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    So in other words, nothing. Thanks ;)

    Such cameras have widely been defined as ineffective in England - the state that invented the Orwellian surveillance grid and has more of these cameras than anywhere else. But maybe results are different in the land of logic and reason known as Arizona.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "ineffective."

    If the goal is to slow down traffic, I think that is working here. That part is the only part that needs to be effective - because all the other "good" things come from that basic step.

    Just by slowing people down, traffic collisions and injuries and deaths are reduced automagically.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,720
    So why not then simply reduce all limits to maybe 40? Casualties would drop off the charts and fatalities would almost vanish. Problem solved, right?

    Still no positive relationship between cameras that truly exist to make money for desperate municipalities and well connected crony capitalist camera operators and any wide ranging improvement in road safety.
Sign In or Register to comment.