Photo Radar

andys120

'm pretty much against any camera enforcement of traffic rules. One only need look at the fact that they generally do not carry points to see that deep down they don't believe these are enforceable tickets but, as has been pointed out to a fault here, but revenue enhancers

Fezo-You've spelled out exactly why it doesn't bother me that much:

-The state is going to nick you one way or the other, most have to make their budgets balance. The alternative to this "speed tax" is something that's a lot harder to avoid like higher income, sales or property taxes.

-If you get nailed by a Highway Patrol at 10 over it's going to cost way more you than a buck 65 once you figure in insurance surcharges.

-Arizona speeds limits are generally pretty reasonable, in fact I've found it difficult to maintain the posted speed of 75mph on I-10 from Phoenix to Tucson, so much so that I take the back way thru Florence, a 2 lane posted at 65 (AZ 79 to you Zonians), it's actually faster due to being less crowded. If you're more than 10 over the posted limits here you're probably going too fast.

Back East it's another story, 65 mph is just too low for stretches like I-93 in NH or I-287 in the Adirondacks.

I'll do some research on those polarized (Fresnel) lic plate covers and get back to you.

fezo

I especially appreciate that last sentence.....

To a large extent as long as I know where cameras are for various activities (my county in NJ is full of red light cameras) I can adjust accordingly and they become like tobacco taxes and, to a lesser extent, alcohol taxes. It does keep my other taxes from heading higher.

In principle I'm still against them but I thank everyone who gets caught....

andys120

I especially appreciate that last sentence...

Here ya go>

Cover your plate
or spray on.

I make no representation to the effectiveness of said measures. :confuse:

vinnyny

I received a a photo radar ticket in the mail for a car that my daughter drives at college. Because the car is registered in my name, the ticket was issued in my name. The picture on the ticket was neither of me, nor my daughter. I explained to the court that I was not driving the car and the magistrate informed me that if I would provide drivers' license information of the actual driver that they would be happy to change the name on the summons. I replied that it wasn't my job to catch speeders nor to inform on others (that might have been OK in [non-permissible content removed] Germany, but we have a Bill of Rights here). The magistrate responded that the ticket was rightfully issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. What a load of crap. The judge acknowledged that the picture of the speeder on the ticket clearly wasn't me--that's what we used to call "innocent" in the pre-photoradar age.

carnaught

The judge acknowledged that the picture of the speeder on the ticket clearly wasn't me--that's what we used to call "innocent" in the pre-photoradar age.

So, did you (have to) pay it?

euphonium

Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar . One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill. The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 300 miles per hour. The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off.

Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.
Back at the CHP Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander. The reply came back in true USMC style:

~ ~ ~

Thank you for your letter. We can now complete the file on this incident.

You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.

Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location.

Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.




The pilot also suggests you cover your mouths when cussing at them, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech.

Sergeant Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.

Thank you for your concern.

Semper Fi

stever

There's a UK version involving a Sidewinder missile too (Snopes)

oldfarmer50

"...Before the missile was launched..."

Makes you wish they stocked Sidewinder missiles at the auto parts store. Although to be accurate you should ask for a HARM.

andys120

I'd be curious as to what State this ticket was issued in. This incident confirms my suspicion that it's all about the $$$$$.

Most likely you'll get no satisfaction from the courts but you should collect the amount of the fine from your daughter or whoever was driving at the time.

oldfarmer50

"...This incident confirms my suspicion..."

As it does mine. To take this to an extreme example lets say your car is stolen and used to rob a bank. The bank cameras catch the crook driving away from the scene. The police arrest you and you are sent to jail.

You say to the judge, "but you can see from the photo that it wasn't me driving the getaway car". The judge responds "well, if you can identify the crook and tell us where he lives we'll let you go".

How absurd would that be?

I would tell the OP to fight the ticket as the judge seems really out of line. It would probably cost much more to do that than to just pay up. That may be just what the court is counting on.

berri

Face it, its just a money grab by cities and states that can't live within their budgets.

vinnyny

The critical difference in your scenario is that the thief was driving the vehicle illegally--without the owner's permission. My daughter has permission to drive the car (it's essentially hers).

vinnyny

Yup. The choice was give up the guilty party, pay the ticket, or try running from my bench warrant. So, I paid the ticket and collected from my daughter's idiot boyfriend.

vinnyny

The story is bogus--except perhaps the part where the radar gun picked up the Hornet's speed. Even that part is very questionable--as someone who has flown low-level, 300 knots, directly over highly-motivated, well-armed enemies, a small aircraft is very difficult to lock on to.

oldfarmer50

"...The critical difference in your scenario is that the thief was driving the vehicle illegally--without the owner's permission. My daughter has permission to drive the car..."

I did say that I was using an extreme example to make a point. However, my example still applies to your situation. Your daughter may essentially own the car but is still LEGALLY yours. Unless you gave the boyfriend permission to drive it he was guilty of unauthorized use. Less serious than bank robbery but still illegal.

My original point was that the court should not make you responsible for identifying a violator of the law. That is the job for which we hire police and which is what would have happened if photo radar was not being used as a substitute for a human cop.

vinnyny

I'm with you. If only the people who get paid to interpret and enforce the Constitution understood it as well as the common man. Perhaps if advocates like the ACLU spent more time on issues affecting real Americans rather than terrorists who don't even live in this country, we'd get this sorted out once and for all...
That said, I lived in Hawaii when they first tried the speed vans and the ACLU filed suit. There was such outrage that HI gave up on the photo radar idea.

euphonium

Your daughter has permission to drive YOUR car. "Essential" has nothing to do with who legally has title and ownership. As you are loaning your car to your daughter, you are also loaning her your car insurance and car insurance record.

She has no standing or position to loan YOUR car to anybody as she is not the owner.

xrunner2

Drivers need to pay attention and act as required to "all" traffic and speed control signs posted by street and highway departments. If a driver fails to notice a photo radar sign, does that same driver fail to notice school zone 20 mph signs, Dangerous Intersection signs, Deaf Child signs, speed reduction signs (55 to 30) when coming into a small town, etc, etc, etc?

Anyone getting caught by photo radar, when highway signs are posted warning of same, deserves to be in movies such as Dumb and Dumber. With tolerances of 10 mph given for speeders, one indeed has to be stupid and a dope to get a photo radar ticket.

vinnyny

So you're the genius who slows down when he sees those signs reading: "Speed monitored by aircraft"?

Are you also the guy who thinks he'll go to jail for removing the "Do not remove" tags from pillows and blankets, or do you sometimes get a little wild and tear those annoying tags off?

I guess you never jaywalk when there are no cars anywhere in sight and everybody else is crossing.

You missed my entire argument. Specifically, only the offender is guilty of the offense--and then only after he has been afforded his Constitutional rights. It's lemmings like you that allow the government to turn their children into brown-shirted, jack-booted, informants...

grbeck

Except that driving slower than the rate of traffic also causes accidents, so how is photo radar going to deter them?

grbeck

Lots of people drive 10 mph faster than the speed limit on limited access highways. It's perfectly safe, so there is no reason to give them a ticket. No need to penalize the safer, better drivers.

larsb

Have you even driven on a highway with photo radar cameras? I have, and I do frequently in the Phoenix area. Side streets also.

Not once have I seen anyone dangerously SLAM on their brakes when slowing for the photo enforcement zone. Most people see the sign and gradually decelerate or brake lightly to get within reason.

The people who are speeding their butts off at 15+ over the limit usually don't even blink. They are the ones who earn their $157 ticket and should shut up about paying it.

The next time a photo enforcement zone causes a wreck will be the FIRST time. At least around here there have been zero reports of that happening. Could it happen? Sure, and it probably will.

But it will be a safer accident due to the slower speeds.

Go Photo Radar !!!

berri

I've always suspected that cities and states post speed limits around 10 mph below what is safe accounting for expected speeding and fine money. How else do you account for some of the dumb limits I've seen posted? One of the stupidest is Illinois (what else is new!) where they have trucks clogging up the Interstate with limits 10 mph below cars. Now that's real safe and shows what happens when lawyers and revenue starved cops make decisions based on the profit motive (trucks pay higher fines than cars and since many are out of state they are less likely to be able to go to court). The sad thing is that over time these kind of things make people lose respect for laws and start thinking of troopers more as revenuers than police.

larsb

grbeck says, "No need to penalize the safer, better drivers."

Are you going on record as saying that merely "the act" of driving 10+ mph over the limit makes people SAFER drivers? Because that's what it appears you are saying. Please don't say yes. ( talk about a credibility hit. )

Call NHTSA immediately and let them know you have a super-secret bit of information for them !!! Call the Fraternal Order of Police and let them know their people are wasting time enforcing speed limits !!!

Let's end traffic accidents altogether by just, SIMPLY, telling everyone to drive 10+ miles over the limit !! Heck, if faster is safer, let's just turn the USA freeways into an AutoBahn and get rid of State Troopers altogether ! Traffic fatalities will DROP and think how much extra money the states will have !!!

(puh-frickin-leeze)

larsb

Here is the theory behind slower limits for large trucks:

Because trucks are far heavier than other vehicles, they take longer to stop, are less adept at avoiding hazards, and have much greater crash energy. Therefore, it follows from basic physics that limiting truck speeds could reduce the severity and incidence of truck-related crashes.

In reality, though, since 2/3 of auto/truck accidents are the fault of the car, this has not proven to be a help in reducing accidents. It has potential to reduce the SEVERITY of the accidents, but not AUTOMAGICALLY the number of accidents.

oldfarmer50

"...here is the theory behind slower limits for large trucks..."

That's the trouble when you take theory and apply it to the real world, sometimes the theory doesn't hold up.

My school district has a policy that our school buses can not travel faster than 55mph no matter what the speed limit. This results in drivers routinely rear-ending the buses or causing crashes in their near frantic efforts to get around the slow moving vehicles.

Is it the driver's fault when this happens? Of course, they should be more careful but the accidents would not occur in the first place if the buses were doing the speed limit.

If you make all large vehicles slow down while all other vehicles continue to travel at or above the limit you will have a demo derby.

xrunner2

A neighbor down the road, nice guy but dense, was caught in a clearly marked "aircraft surveillance" zone on a US numbered highway about 5 miles from our neighborhood. How stupid is anyone to ignore very "clearly" marked enforcement areas. Can anyone defend that they were trapped when signs clearly informed them about surveilance? Again, you and others similar are candidates for movie updates on Dumb and Dumber.

Tag from pillows? What the heck does that have to do with this topic?

xrunner2

On my commute late this afternoon on I90, I saw a Chevy Avalanche following a BMW 3 series in left lane at about 75 in a 55 at less than Avalanche car length. The BMW moved over as soon as middle lane traffic (3 lanes) would allow. Somehow these intimidators, this time an Avalanche, need to be punished. Maybe we need the old west as shown in Gunsmoke.

grbeck

You've changed the subject. In response to your post about photo radar, I said that driving slower than the rate of traffic also causes accidents. I see nothing in your post as to how photo radar deters these drivers.

grbeck

larsb: Are you going on record as saying that merely "the act" of driving 10+ mph over the limit makes people SAFER drivers? Because that's what it appears you are saying. Please don't say yes. ( talk about a credibility hit. )

No, I said that, on limited access highways, faster drivers tend to be safer drivers. Your approach - mindlessly punishing the sophisticated, informed drivers who don't believe the stupid "speed kills" baloney - will hardly improve safety.

larsb: Let's end traffic accidents altogether by just, SIMPLY, telling everyone to drive 10+ miles over the limit !! Heck, if faster is safer, let's just turn the USA freeways into an AutoBahn and get rid of State Troopers altogether ! Traffic fatalities will DROP and think how much extra money the states will have !!!

Actually, that is what happened in Montana when it repealed its speed limit after Congress repealed the nationwide 65 mph speed limit.

And telling slowpokes to either go with the flow of traffic on limited access highways or stay home would also improve safety.

For the first time on this thread, you are actually making sense, even if you probably don't realize it.

grbeck

That's an argument against tailgating, not against driving 75 mph. Is photo radar going to stop that practice?

larsb

Photo radar deters speeders. Phoenix is proving that, even if other localities already have proven it or not.

Tailgating is almost ALWAYS a result of someone WANTING TO GO FASTER.

If that person wanting to GO FASTER is of the mind to go 11+ MPH over the speed limit, they will be ticketed as such.

If they want to keep paying $157 every time they want to speed, then if their pockets are deep enough, NO photo radar will not stop them.

But most REASONABLE people, once they get tabbed a couple of timed for $157, are going to watch how they drive in photo radar areas.

That means not tailgating if the tailgating is a precursor to excessive speeding, which is almost ALWAYS is.

So your answer is YES, photo radar can curtail certain instances of tailgating.

xrunner2

Have to stongly disagree with statement that on limited access highways that faster drivers tend to be safer drivers.

On the interstate that I most frequently use, the exact opposite is true. That is, the faster drivers tend to be the most dangerous and reckless. On any given 25 or less mile commute I do, I see numerous incidents of the "faster, fastest" drivers intimidating other drivers in left lane by tailgaiting at perhaps 15-20 over posted limit to push lead driver to move over. If most of these drivers were in 911's or Corvettes, then I might think that they might have some extra abilities to brake, slow down, maneuever. But, that is not the case. Too often the intimidators are in pickups, big suvs, small suvs or ordinary cars not having exceptional braking or maneuverability (per Edmunds or R&:T road tests).

It is not uncommon to see a pack of 2-4,5,6,etc tailgaters, each about one car length behind the other. In 3-lane segment of interstate, these faster-fastest drivers will also do reckless lane changes moving from left to center to rignt back to center or left etc in order for them to go 20-25 over the limit. Wish that somehow there were unposted, not visible photo radar technology that could catch these dangerous speeders-tailgaters-lane changers.

vinnyny

"Tailgating is almost ALWAYS a result of someone WANTING TO GO FASTER"

OR somebody wanting to WANTING TO GO SLOWER. You know, those morons who think the "Slower traffic keep right" signs don't apply to them.

euphonium

OR somebody wanting to WANTING TO GO FASTER. You know, those morons who think the "Speed Limit" signs don't apply to them.

andre1969

Tag from pillows? What the heck does that have to do with this topic?

Well, the tag does say "Do Not Remove Under Penalty Of Law". So evidently it's a sign that must be obeyed.

There was an episode of "Mama's Family" where Rue McClanahan confessed to a judge that she removed such a tag from an Oriental rug. Judge told her that normally it's a serious offense, but if she sewed it back on, he'd look the other way! :P

larsb

53,218 citations issued from one Tempe camera in 2008

Now that the system is broader and issuing more violations, it'll soon be easier to tell if the cameras are making a dent in the accident numbers. There are good signs, Johnson said: In 2008, the number of accidents fell 17 percent.

Think how much Tempe police manpower it would have taken, and the amount of overtime paid, to issue this many tickets by human.

That camera did the work of 10 cops issuing 15 tickets each in an 8-hour shift.

Tempe is already facing a $10 million + budget deficit. The revenue from the cameras is going to be very helpful.

oregonboy

Budget deficit, phase one:
"We need more money, install red-light traffic cameras on every intersection!"
"Yes sir! Will do."

phase two:
"We need more money, install speed traffic cameras every 1/4 mile!"
"Yes sir! We'll get right on that!"

phase three:
"Traffic has slowed down, ticket revenue is down. Reduce the grace-margin from 9 mph to 1 mph!"
"Right away, Sir!"

phase four:
"Still not enough revenue!!! Make the grace-margin a negative 2 mph and cut the yellow on traffic lights to a tenth of a second!!!"
"Okay, if you're certain. We can do that!"

phase five:
"Excuse me, Sir? Sir! There's a mob outside the courthouse with torches and pitchforks."

andre1969

I'm sure the body shops, doctors, lawyers, new car dealerships, undertakers, etc, appreciate the extra business that gets generated by those shorter yellows, too. :sick:

larsb

Very funny. Don't quit your day job though.

fintail

Just another way for the overpaid underworked minions of local government to avoid cutting the fat....and to aid in the illicit fortunes of crony capitalist camera operators.

The situation in England isn't so rosy...but the blindly deferrent and the wannabe authoritarians will emrace no less.

The land of Orwellian surveillance finds problems

But maybe these results will be different in NA

vinnyny

Apparently you've never sat behind that Prius in the left lane doing ten UNDER the limit while the driver yaps away on her cell phone about how she's saving the planet.

It doesn't matter how fast you're going in the left lane--if somebody pulls up behind you, you should move to the right when safe.

andys120

It doesn't matter how fast you're going in the left lane--if somebody pulls up behind you, you should move to the right when safe.

Amen, Keep to the right except when passing is a basic rule of the road that provides for the best safety and traffic movement. If you are in the middle or left lanes of multilane roads you should be passing traffic on your right and you should move over for faster traffic. It is not for you to enforce speed laws by blocking lanes, it violates basic traffic flow principles,and you have no way of knowing if the person behind has a legitimate reason for going fast.

oregonboy

The point that I was making with the 5 Phases of Budget-Driven Social Engineering is that once that door is opened, you can be certain that the applications will become more far-reaching and invasive. The profit-motive is a powerful force and the bureaucratic machine is remorseless. :sick:

larsb

My response to that is "SO FRICKIN/FLIPPIN WHAT?" if they are making money from voluntary contributors ?????

Anyone who

a) knows there are cameras around, and
b) keeps speeding on, brother !!

is a willing and giving participant to the local budget crisis.

If you don't want to be "speed taxed" then just stop excessively speeding. It doesn't get any easier or more straight forward than that.

xrunner2

Would agree that one should pass in left, move to right to let faster drivers move on in left lane. BUT, there are exceptions. Such as in 3 lane interstate with brisk moving traffic in all lanes at tail end of rush hours, but left lane a little faster then middle and right. If I am in left lane and satisifed with speed AND line of cars ahead of me, there will be intimidators who will tailgate and want me to move over to slower lanes. There are many cars ahead of me and I am keeping a tight, but not tailgater small gap with car ahead of me. My opiinion is that initimidator will not be able to go faster than I am, and I will usually not move over for this situation.

dtownfb

has crime gone down in Tempe since the police officers have more time on their hands?

The 17 percent drop in accidents can easily be attributed to Americans driving fewer miles in 2008 or more people using public transportation to save money. I'm not sure one year gives you enough data to support that photo radar is reducing accidents.

grbeck

larsb: Tailgating is almost ALWAYS a result of someone WANTING TO GO FASTER.

First, not everyone who tailgates is exceeding the speed limit. So, if everyone - the person tailgating, and the vehicle in front - is driving the speed limit, or even, say 9 mph over, photo radar will not catch them, by your own admission.

This is especially true on urban and suburban streets, where most people do drive the speed limit or about 10 mph over.

Second, on limited access highways, if someone is WANTING TO GO FASTER, than the proper response for the person in front should be to yield.

That is why limited access highways have multiple lanes, and one is generally called the "fast lane."

Don't see how photo radar will solve that problem.

grbeck

xrunner2: On any given 25 or less mile commute I do, I see numerous incidents of the "faster, fastest" drivers intimidating other drivers in left lane by tailgaiting at perhaps 15-20 over posted limit to push lead driver to move over.

That shows the need for better lane discipline, not photo radar.

grbeck

larsb: Now that the system is broader and issuing more violations, it'll soon be easier to tell if the cameras are making a dent in the accident numbers. There are good signs, Johnson said: In 2008, the number of accidents fell 17 percent.

Maybe for the gullible and uninformed...but not those of us who realize that accidents and fatalities dropped dramatically throughout the nation in early 2008, thanks to reduced driving, brought about by higher gas prices, and then the recession.

That quote "proves" nothing, except that photo radar advocates apparently can only "prove" its effectiveness by latching on to a trend that is taking place throughout the nation.