Photo Radar

stever · January 2009

Actually Grbeck defined waste differently from you. Doesn't make him wrong, nor does your definition trump another valid one.

There's wasting gas and wasting time.

(and save the pot shots about which one we're doing in here. :P )

larsb · January 2009

MY only contention about this particular sub-topic is that driving faster and speeding at higher speeds wastes fuel.

There is no other acceptable definition of that. Driving 85 uses more fuel than driving 75, and 75 uses more fuel than 65. That's wasting fuel when your car is capable of going 65 mph instead of 85 mph.

Time is not an issue in that definition. I'm not disputing anyone else's definition.

I missed his definition - which post was that?

stever · January 2009

No, driving 75 uses more fuel.

Whether it's wasted or not depends on your priorities. (post 121).

larsb · January 2009

When you put it that way, then the point becomes that speeders are wasting a valuable resource to all of us and should be called on the fact that they are selfish to the point of saying, "I'll waste fuel if I choose to and you will like it !!"

If they want to get somewhere faster, leave 5 minutes earlier.

I say let them drive as fast as they want - just don't let them complain when they get the Photo Radar ticket. Pay up and zip up.

larsb · January 2009

There are valid reasons to speed, like taking someone to a hospital in an emergency, etc.

This topic is more about the role of Photo Radar.

Isn't there another topic named "Is Speeding Morally Wrong, Illegal, Wasteful, and Stupid, Or Is It Just Me?"

stever · January 2009

"I'll waste fuel if I choose to and you will like it !!"

It's the American way. :shades:

larsb · January 2009

Sad but true I'm afeared.

oregonboy · January 2009

"Is Speeding Morally Wrong, Illegal, Wasteful, and Stupid, Or Is It Just Me?"

It's just you...

grbeck · January 2009

Those links prove nothing...we are talking about using photo radar on LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS. The links do not break out fatalities on limited access highways. If you don't know, then you should realize that limited access highways are different from other roads, and constitute a special category of road.

"Speeding" can mean driving 55 mph on a city street posted at 35 mph. Or driving 80 mph on a two-lane country road posted at 45 mph. We are not talking about those roads.

So those facts you highlighted are worthless to this discussion.

Your second link - which is from a law firm website; a hardly credible source, and I say this as an attorney

- can't even get its facts straight.

It contains these sentences: "The rate of traffic accident fatalities in the State of Alabama has seen an overall increase since 1998. In 2004, the number of fatales (sic) from car accidents in Alabama was 1,154 deaths as compared to a total of 42,636 throughout the United States."

It talks about the "rate of traffic fatalities" but then refers to the raw number of fatalities for one year to supposedly prove its point. The raw number of fatalities and the rate of traffic fatalities are not the same thing.

The fatality rate is expressed in fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Your link doesn't even bother to show the increase in the raw number of fatalities from 1998 to 2004.

The numbers may very well have increased from 1998 to 2004, although we wouldn't know it from the site - given that Alabama is a growing state, there was undoubtedly an increase in both the number of vehicles, and how many miles said vehicles were driven from 1998 to 2004. That doesn't prove that speeding on limited access highways is dangerous. It may prove that more vehicles being driven more miles may result in more accidents.

Maybe those facts can be found by clicking on the "Alabama Auto Accident Information Center"...except that this only takes us to the firm's attorney referral site.

So, that factoid is worthless to this discussion, too.

Finally, your third link proves nothing, as well, except that survey questions can be framed in a manner to get the results sought by those giving the survey. Also note that the surveyors asked about photo enforcement to combat red-light and stop-sign running, which suggests that respondents were thinking of the use of photo enforcement in urban or suburban settings, not on limited access highways. So it's not really relevant to the discussion, either.

And at one time, a majority of people thought that Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit were good ideas, too.

larsb · January 2009

Actually, Um, No, It's Not......That part was facetious.

I found some stats earlier about a study by NHTSA about driver's attitudes and most of them don't like speeders.

And it varies widely by age. Young 'uns like to speed and don't mind other speeders and even get a thrill from speeding.

As you get mature, those feelings go away for the vast majority of people.

Only those with emotional immaturity or low IQs speed into middle age and older.

larsb · January 2009

You could have just said, "You are right" and avoided all that extra typing.

It's OK though. One day when your maturation process is complete you'll understand...............It's OK........

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: MY only contention about this particular sub-topic is that driving faster and speeding at higher speeds wastes fuel.

Which is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Where you go wrong is in your next sentence....

larsb: There is no other acceptable definition of that.Driving 85 uses more fuel than driving 75, and 75 uses more fuel than 65. That's wasting fuel when your car is capable of going 65 mph instead of 85 mph.

Wrong. You're definition is not the only acceptable one.

Many of us believe that that the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved, extra safety and the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways.

That is our OPINION, and it is just as valid as your opinion.

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: And it varies widely by age. Young 'uns like to speed and don't mind other speeders and even get a thrill from speeding.

As you get mature, those feelings go away for the vast majority of people.

Only those with emotional immaturity or low IQs speed into middle age and older.

Um, I'm 46, and when I was in Arizona I was passed this summer by many middle-aged drivers traveling at 80+ mph, including the 60-something couple from California in a brand-new BMW 5-Series zipping along at 90 mph (with an Obama sticker on the bumper, no less).

It might help to actually pay attention the next time you drive...the minimum speed on most limited access highways away from urban areas is 75 mph, and lots of people are driving 80+ mph.

I regularly drive the Pennsylvania Turnpike, with a posted speed limit of 65 mph. Outside of the portions that ring the Philadelphia suburbs, if you aren't driving at least 70 mph, you are blocking traffic.

grbeck · January 2009

When you are right, I most certainly will, but we haven't reached that point yet.

It might be helpful to learn about traffic safety, and how to actually intepret traffic safety statistics, and also learn how to see through a law firm shilling for business.

larsb · January 2009

grbeck says, "Many of us believe that that the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved, extra safety and the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways."

Your statement has three parts:

1. "the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved." - That is a worthy opinion and I would agree with that. I do that on long trips - the faster I get there the better I like it. But I don't violate speed laws to do it.

2. "extra safety" - Complete poppycock. Driving faster is not safer in any stretch, unless driving slower would cause to you get rear-ended.

3. "the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways" - True for some people, but mostly only younger males. When you get older, driving is more of a CHORE than any kind of FUN. The faster you drive, the more you need to pay complete attention to the road, which is why younger drivers who drive fast have more fatal accidents.

larsb · January 2009

You are one of the rare people who still get a "thrill" out of driving fast at age 46. I commend you for that at least.

And I have no problem with people driving 80 in a 75 zone - I do that myself. When you get above 85 though, your reaction time to avoid a potential problem is far far reduced.

stever · January 2009

Y'all are posting too fast for me to pop in and kill the off-topic personal comments, but let's at least try to get back to photo radar and whether it should be implemented or not, and where.

And try to keep it civil.

larsb · January 2009

Steve says, "And try to keep it civil."

I'm trying, but he keeps sniping away at me. ( You know I have learned through trial and error that attacking the person instead of the idea is not proper round here. )

Anyway, I am a fan of Photo Radar and anything else that gets people to pay attention to how fast they are driving.

stever · January 2009

Not to point fingers but some of y'all sound like bald men fighting over combs.

Carry on....

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: 1. "the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved." - That is a worthy opinion and I would agree with that. I do that on long trips - the faster I get there the better I like it. But I don't violate speed laws to do it.

Most people have a more sophisticated understanding of how speed limits work on limited access highways, why they are imposed, and their effectiveness, and therefore do not rank them with the Ten Commandments.

larsb: 2. "extra safety" - Complete poppycock. Driving faster is not safer in any stretch, unless driving slower would cause to you get rear-ended.

If anything, driving too slow can increase inattention. People are driving faster than ever, and roads are safer than ever, so, sorry, your contention that exceeding today's underposted speed limits makes limited access highways dangerous is not being borne out by real-world experience.

larsb: 3. "the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways" - True for some people, but mostly only younger males. When you get older, driving is more of a CHORE than any kind of FUN. The faster you drive, the more you need to pay complete attention to the road, which is why younger drivers who drive fast have more fatal accidents.

Many older people still love to drive, and don't consider it a chore - unless we are forced to toddle along at 65 mph or less to satisfy the slow and the clueless.

If YOU don't like to drive because of your age - although 43 is hardly old today - then I'd suggest moving to the city, selling your car and using mass transit.

larsb · January 2009

grbeck says, "Most people have a more sophisticated understanding of how speed limits work on limited access highways,"

Now, what exactly is that supposed to mean? If that is not an unfounded, totally heinous personal attack, then explain what you mean sir.

larsb · January 2009

Hey, grbeck: my kid needs a 500+ word essay for school.

I'm going to say "Margarine is better for you than Butter" and you give me a rebuttal. Ready, GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

JK....(sorta)..........you do have a propensity for long-winded replies though.

P.S. By the by: "unless we are forced to toddle along at 65 mph or less to satisfy the slow and the clueless." - Is that another personal attack?

fintail · January 2009

:confuse:

larsb · January 2009

I'm not bald yet......in fact not even a thinning spot or a minor recede at age 45.....Lucky Me !!!

grbeck · January 2009

It means that simply saying "It's the law, so obey it" doesn't cut it with many people.

Not all laws have the same gravity. We can figure out that first-degree murder is considerably more serious than driving 80 mph in the 65 zone. Guess what - the law recognizes this, too, which is why the potential penalities, and efforts directed at stamping out these offenses, are completely different.

And most people know the difference. If your child brings home a potential mate, would you rather have him or her say, "I'm on parole for first-degree murder after I shot my neighbor for playing his radio too loudly" or "I just got caught for driving 80 mph in the 65 zone"?

And the difference extends to statutes within the body of traffic law, too. Driving while intoxicated is a more serious offense than driving 80 mph in the 65 zone. You can lose your license automatically for the former, and face HUGE fines just for the first violation.

A police officer who pulls you over for doing 80 mph may let you go based on your demeanor, driving record, condition of your vehicle, etc. If you have a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .10, the police officer will NOT let you go, even if it's your first offense, your car is a brand-new Camry, and you are president of the local Rotary Club.

Speed limits are based as much on political pressure and the need to raise revenue than on actual safety. The simple fact is that when I drive through Arizona, and everyone is driving 80+ mph - and it's not just teenagers in souped-up Mustangs and Civics with coffee-can exhausts - I can judge just how seriously everyone, including the police, take speeding on limited access highways, and how dangerous it really is.

Meanwhile, I didn't notice people shooting each other at the Grand Canyon, or pushing their spouses or children off the edge, so most people apparently think the laws against first-degree murder are a good idea. We also didn't rob any banks or convenience stores while we were there, because we realize how serious those offenses are.

larsb · January 2009

Thanks for your 'splanation of the difference between murder and speeding - never noticed that before. (sigh)

I'm not saying "never speed." Nor am I saying "speeders equate to rapists." Nor am I saying "driving drunk but slow is OK but driving drunk but fast is not OK."

Here's a summation of my views on Photo Radar:

1. It's a good tool to remove a human officer from issuing speeding citations, which is a mundane and mostly time-wasting event (for BOTH parties) in the VAST majority of traffic stops.

2. It's not a violation of privacy in ANY WAY. You are on a public road, and can legally have no expectation of privacy.

3. It's a good way to generate revenue, in an era when cities are struggling to overcome budget shortfalls. It only affects people who are speeding (in most cases) at least 11 mile per hour over the limit. So "casual" speeders are not usually affected. "Arizona DPS reminds drivers that while cameras wont catch you until you go 11 mph over the limit, officers can continue to issue citations at speeds below that threshold." So you are even getting a BREAK if you are in a photo enforcement zone !!!

4. It's a 100% avoidable violation.

5. You can argue the ticket in court if you challenge it.

6. It HAS slowed down freeway traffic in the Phoenix metro area and reduced accidents and saved lives, according to the latest statistics.

7. The DPS Web site says that nearly 50 percent of all speed-related crashes are single-vehicle accidents and that "the risk of death and injury is directly proportional to the level of speed."

8. Photo radar is as much of a deterrent  to slow you down  as they are "gotcha" tools to trip you up. If you know they're there, you'll watch your speed.

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: By the by: "unless we are forced to toddle along at 65 mph or less to satisfy the slow and the clueless." - Is that another personal attack?

Did your time with the Marines make you paranoid...? If it doesn't apply, it shouldn't bother you.

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: I'm not saying "never speed." Nor am I saying "speeders equate to rapists." Nor am I saying "driving drunk but slow is OK but driving drunk but fast is not OK."

You are simply saying "It's the law" when confronted with the fact that the majority of people speed on limited access highways, as though all laws are equal, and given equal weight by not only the public and those charged with their enforcement, when they are clearly not.

larsb: 1. It's a good tool to remove a human officer from issuing speeding citations, which is a mundane and mostly time-wasting event (for BOTH parties) in the VAST majority of traffic stops.

Absolutely not, unless you are adocating increased police protection of Dunkin' Donuts franchises, which is where most of the police will probably congregate.

Police on patrol do more than stop speeders. They also deter petty crimes that are not monitored by photo radar. Photo radar isn't going to stop someone from vandalizing your car, or snatching grandma's purse.

Photo radar can even backfire regarding traffic safety. When we visited London in 2006, one of the complaints of bicyclists was that the heavy reliance on photo radar for traffic enforcement had made the roads MORE dangerous for them...with no police around, drivers were becoming MORE reckless, especially around bicyclists, and photo radar could not stop this.

larsb: 3. It's a good way to generate revenue, in an era when cities are struggling to overcome budget shortfalls. It only affects people who are speeding (in most cases) at least 11 mile per hour over the limit. So "casual" speeders are not usually affected. "Arizona DPS reminds drivers that while cameras wont catch you until you go 11 mph over the limit, officers can continue to issue citations at speeds below that threshold." So you are even getting a BREAK if you are in a photo enforcement zone !!!

Traffic enforcement should not be about raising revenue; this only increases cynicism and disrepect for all traffic laws.

larsb: 6. It HAS slowed down freeway traffic in the Phoenix metro area and reduced accidents and saved lives, according to the latest statistics.

Accidents and fatalities have been down throughout the nation for 2008, because of reduced driving brought on by higher fuel prices and the economic downturn - and the great majority of municipalities and states don't use photo radar.

lasrb: 7. The DPS Web site says that nearly 50 percent of all speed-related crashes are single-vehicle accidents and that "the risk of death and injury is directly proportional to the level of speed."

You do realize that "speed-related crashes" can include driving too fast for conditions (going 55 mph in an ice storm, for example), driving too slow, or even driving too fast while intoxicated? If a legally intoxicated driver kills someone while driving 75 mph in the 65 zone, it is considered a "speed related crash," even though the root of the problem was the drunk driving.

Do you also realize that state government websites regularly post phrases with sentences that say things like, "the risk of death and injury is directly proportional to the level of speed" without it necessarily being true? Especially since there has never been any proof of this. There is a difference between boilerplate to fill space and facts.

larsb · January 2009

grbeck says, "Traffic enforcement should not be about raising revenue"

Well, it was to some degree even before Photo Radar came around. Now it's just more in the open.

larsb · January 2009

grbeck says, "Police on patrol do more than stop speeders. They also deter petty crimes that are not monitored by photo radar. When we visited London in 2006, one of the complaints of bicyclists was that the heavy reliance on photo radar for traffic enforcement had made the roads MORE dangerous for them...with no police around, drivers were becoming MORE reckless, especially around bicyclists, and photo radar could not stop this."

That's why Photo Radar will never completely replace human traffic enforcement.

It's just another helpful tool.

xrunner2 · January 2009

If I understand Post # 1 correctly, this board was set up to discuss photo radar on all types of roads, interstate as well as city/suburban/rural.

To extent that photo radar enforcement is identified with signs on roads when used, then it is fair. Anybody complaining about it just underscores that they are really inattentive drivers and don't pay attention as they should to all types of traffic signs as required by law. If they are caught by camera having 10 mph fudge leeway, then they deserve the ticket.

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: Well, it was to some degree even before Photo Radar came around. Now it's just more in the open.

It was wrong before, and it's wrong now. If it's more out in the open, instead of celebrating it, we need to take the correct approach and stop it.

grbeck · January 2009

xrunner2: To extent that photo radar enforcement is identified with signs on roads when used, then it is fair. Anybody complaining about it just underscores that they are really inattentive drivers and don't pay attention as they should to all types of traffic signs as required by law. If they are caught by camera having 10 mph fudge leeway, then they deserve the ticket.

I'd rather have drivers pay attention to the road and other traffic than sign announcing photo radar. And I don't want drivers on interstate highways suddenly slowing down for photo radar. That hardly improves safety.

And a "10 mph fudge leeway" is hardly adequate for today's conditions on limited access highways, especially where the speed limit is 65 mph.

It's time to take the modern, informed approach and accept that the MINIMUM speed on many of those roads is 70 mph, and many people drive 80-85 mph, and those who don't like it will just have to get used to it. People who want to toddle along like grandma in her Buick Century should perhaps stay home...

pat85 · January 2009

"the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways" - True for some people, but mostly only younger males. When you get older, driving is more of a CHORE than any kind of FUN. The faster you drive, the more you need to pay complete attention to the road, which is why younger drivers who drive fast have more fatal accidents.

I am a young 63 year old. I personally find it more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways. I do not consider driving a chore.
You are not authorized to speak for anyone but yourself,
BTW I have Fresnel lens covers on my license plates so they can't get a picture of them.
One more item, no matter how fast or slow you drive, one should always pay complete attention to the road.

cz75 · January 2009

Speeding doesn't CAUSE accidents. Rather, it exacerbates them. I can and have driven an average speed well in excess of the posted limit and wasn't in danger from just my speed. However, my reaction time to the mistakes of other drivers was dramatically reduced with regard to being able to compensate. Also, at some point, speed will exceed the margin of safety built into the vehicle, with regard to handling and driver ability.

If speed was a cause, it would be a forgone outcome that any time one exceeded the posted limit, one would have an accident. The Autobahn effectively disproves this, since speeds are far higher and the death rates significantly lower than in the US. Coincidentally, the limits of highways are quite low considering that they were designed for higher speeds when they were built in the 50s-70s, a period when vehicles and tires were far less capable.

larsb · January 2009

I was speaking "as a rule."

Every rule has exceptions, and you are one of them

Congrats.

larsb · January 2009

cz75 says, "Speeding doesn't CAUSE accidents. Rather, it exacerbates them."

Well, as a rule, yes you are correct. Speeding makes an accident worse in almost every case.

But speeding CAN be a CAUSE also.

Example: You are driving 40 in a 25 zone. A kid's ball bounces in front of you, and you brake and swerve toward the curb to avoid it. At 25 mph, you might stop before the curb or just bump it. At 40 mph, you more than likely will jump the curb and plow into whatever is there. Thus an accident which would not have occurred without speeding now has occurred because of speeding.

That's one example that just came to me, but you know there are many others.

But yes, as a rule, SPEEDING BY ITSELF rarely causes accidents. True.

cz75 · January 2009

Speeding wasn't the cause, the child with the ball was the cause. I save the calculated risk of exceeding the speed limit for limited access highways with little congestion so I can avoid such exigencies; urban driving is far too congested and unpredictable during most hours.

larsb · January 2009

Well, we are getting in semantics a little bit there.

The point remains that lower speeds can help you avoid accidents.

larsb · January 2009

My guess is that if the swerver had taken out a light pole or a pedestrian, crime scene analysis would have determined his/her speed as "excessive" and he/she would most likely have been charged with "unsafe speed" at the very least.

You drive 25 in a 25 zone, and the cause would be the kid's ball. You drive 40, and excessive speed becomes the culprit.

andre1969 · January 2009

You drive 25 in a 25 zone, and the cause would be the kid's ball. You drive 40, and excessive speed becomes the culprit.

Depends. You could be driving 40 mph and be paying attention to the road ahead, and end up stopping in time. Or you could be yakking on the cell or playing with your Ipod or putting on makeup at 25 mph, and still end up causing a big mess.

euphonium · January 2009

it provides investment income to purchase more PRs until the motorcycle cop hiding behind the billboard can be replaced and do something more than mundane ticket writing.

The investment income can be allocated to filling pot holes,fixing guard rails, and building attitude adjustment chambers.

The only monetary concern of the violator is not where the fine money goes, but how the fine originates. When the violator doesn't want to come up with the fine, he can always submit to the law. It's another "Pay as you Go" idea.

grbeck · January 2009

You are getting off track here. We are talking about limited access highways. In Arizona and in the other 49 states, children are not playing ball along limited access highways. People aren't driving 70 mph through subdivisions, and no one here is advocating that they do, so it may be useful to put that red herring back in the water where it belongs.

fezo · January 2009

Man oh man this is going around in circles.

I'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.

I should go agreeing with larsb if only so grbeck can invite me for lunch. Unlike lars i could get to Harrisburg on one tank of gas.

I think the age observation isn't accurate. I'll be 58 tomorrow and the only thing slowing me down was adjusting to $4 gas over the summer. My cheapness won out over my thrill seeking.

Where the heck do you get fresnel lenses for license plates anyway?

grbeck · January 2009

Now, andre, stop bringing logic and real-world experience to this thread!

fezo · January 2009

Absolutely! It doesn't fit.....

larsb · January 2009

Wasn't even addressing any point you made.

I was addressing the gentleman who mentioned that speed does not cause accidents and pointing out to him in a NICE MANNERLY FASHION that yes, sometimes it DOES cause accidents.

Go Photo Radar !!!

fintail · January 2009

The investment income will be used to give more above-market perks to worthless public sector executives, and to engage in more asinine useless projects like the WSP and WSDOT combining their collective room temperature IQs to blow tens of thousands of dollars on big dots for I5.

When well connected crony capitalist camera operators skim off fortunes from ticket revenues, the taxpaying citizen has every right to know where the money goes, and should take legal or less than legal action against any irresponsible politoco who tries to hide it.

If one doesn't want to pay the fine, simply fib your way out of it. Easy as pie :shades:

andre1969 · January 2009

The investment income can be allocated to filling pot holes,fixing guard rails, and building attitude adjustment chambers.

Wait, didn't we spend four years trying to overthrow a regime like that back in the 1940's? :surprise:

As for that "investment income", rest assured it would go into some politician's pet project, or a pyramid scheme somewhere, and we'd still have just as many potholes, broken guardrails, etc, as before.

oldfarmer50 · January 2009

"...The investment income can be allocated to filling pot holes, fixing guard rails, and building attitude adjustment chambers..."

You do realize that you're talking about government officials and politicians, right? More likely the money is spent to hire someone's idiot brother for a no-show job or to pay for that no-bid contract they just gave to a campaign contributor. PR is at least partly a money grab and like all the other money the government grabs, I don't trust that it is spent for my benefit.

BTW, is an "attitude adjustment chamber" a bar or a jail?

Photo Radar

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles