Photo Radar

larsb · December 2008

I'd personally drive 40 mph all day long. My TCH can maintain battery-only mode at that speed.

And I'm not against the city/state/county making money on speeders. If you want to speed and add risk and danger to your life, you may pay $157 for the privilege, each time.

oldfarmer50 · December 2008

"...and what was its reply when you confronted the parking meter?..."

LOL It took the 5th and remained silent. The meter maid on the other hand agreed that when I put another quarter in and the meter still read zero, that it might be broken and voided the ticket.

fintail · December 2008

Can you imagine driving across a wide open rural area or on a modern superhighway under ideal conditions at 40? It's illogical and repressive. It isn't 1930 anymore.

Camera ticket me all you want, I'll simply lie my way out of it...lying to liars isn't a sin, right? :P

larsb · December 2008

fintail says, "It's illogical and repressive."

Exactly. So why did you bring it up?

I'm not condoning or recommending 40 mph speed limits.

I'm recommending that people keep their speed at least 10 mph or less over the speed limit if they want to avoid a Photo radar ticket.

If you want to drive 11 mph or more over the limit, then prepare for the financial consequences.

fintail · December 2008

You're the one so concerned with eliminating casualties...you're the one who would love to dawdle in your backwards turtle at 40

An even easier task than paying the bill is simply getting a license plate cover or claiming someone else was driving...

larsb · December 2008

fintail says, "You're the one so concerned with eliminating casualties"

Um, I would hope that EVERYONE HERE is concerned about reducing casualties and injuries and deaths and property damage !!!!

andys120 · December 2008

Um, I would hope that EVERYONE HERE is concerned about reducing casualties and injuries and deaths and property damage !!!!

I'm sure everyone here does, you can get off your high horse now. Everyone here except you is also aware that driver inattention is far more important as a factor in causing accidents than speeding, this was the conclusion of a recent NHTSA Report.

You may think there are a lot of speed-crazed drivers in Arizona but I don't think so. You ought to try driving from Boston to New Hampshire on I-93 North, no matter how fast you're going someone will pass you within the next five minutes. They drive too fast, Zonians do not. I am seldom passed by anyone in AZ while traveling within 5 mph of the limit, almost never if I push it to 8-10 over,

fintail · December 2008

Simple improvements to driver training and education would do more than anything imaginable to address those problems.

"Speed kills" accomplishes nothing.

larsb · December 2008

I'm not on a high horse. I live this way. I'm always working to make life for everyone around me better.

's How I Roll.

larsb · December 2008

I'm not blindly preaching "Speed Kills."

But it does. And it makes a bad wreck worse.

If people want to pay the piper, then they can speed on, brother.

Until they injure or kill someone I love ; at that point, their azz becomes mine.

fintail · December 2008

That's really intimidating...I am sure the speeders out there are shaking in their boots

Some claim speed kills...but reality doesn't line up with that. Of course, wannabe authoritarians don't live in reality.

larsb · December 2008

Believe me, I'm not trying to intimidate anyone.

Just pointing out that unnecessary speeding kills young people and old people and average people and is a ridiculous and stupid cause of death.

Anyone who harms anyone else during an act of stupidity SHOULD be ready to face the family of the injured and take society's punishment. And if the courts don't deal out proper justice, then..................?

Speed does kill. The physics related to increased vehicle speed makes for more severe human tissue damage, and that directly causes death.

It's just common sense. Saying speed does not kill is just a cop-out from people who want to speed.

You don't believe me? Take a friend and the two of you get in an old car each without a seatbelt or airbag and drive into the same wall. You drive your car 60 mph and let your friend drive his car 20 mph into the wall.

See who comes out in better shape.

Speed doesn't kill....Puh-Leeze........

fintail · December 2008

The inability to drive attentively and handle speed is what kills. Speed cameras address nothing but revenue shortfalls created by ineffectual public sector sucks, and the desire for money grabbing by scheming self-titled entrepreneurs with friends in the right places.

Saying speed kills is a simple cop out by those who can't handle driving that requires driver inputs.

The courts never dish out proper justice. Deal with it, you have no choice and no recourse. It's the American way.

If you want to drive at the same speed as a Model T driver, just keep your backwards turtle in the right lane, where you belong.

oregonboy · December 2008

Actually, 20 mph into a solid wall in an old car with no seatbelt or airbag would probably be fatal.

larsb · December 2008

I'm sorry that you think the roads ought to be NASCAR-sanctioned and that only "good" drivers can drive fast safely.

I'll believe that COMPLETELY after NASCAR has their first season with ZERO wrecks.

After all, they are PROS who are obviously driving attentively and know how to handle speeds. Agreed?

No matter how "good" drivers become and/or already are, accidents at 75 MPH are more severe and deadly (as a general rule) than the same accident at 55 MPH.

I drive on "speed-camera-guarded" freeways here in the Phoenix area, and myself and others have noticed how much nicer it is to drive when you are not getting passed by QUITE as many jerks going 85 in the 65 zone.

This is one of the famous "Autobahn" wreck pictures. You think this would have happened at 55 mph?

larsb · December 2008

You could very well be correct on that.

I hope you got my point, though.

fintail · December 2008

NASCAR is irrelevant, a weak red herring. Kind of like Phoenix itself...

If you are all about reducing the severity of accidents, then you have no problem supporting speeds where casualties would almost vanish, right? Why stop with a reduction, if safety is the true reason for the embrace of blind authoritarian idiocy that exists in reality to generate money for the least accountable segments of society? 40 or even 35 or 30 would be fine to you, right?

Such crashes as the cheap emotional image you post happen no matter the road or the speed limit.

berri · December 2008

If you're driving under the limit, or going the limit in the left lane, you are probably backing up traffic and agitating everyone. That's less safe than going 10 over the limit and keeping to the right. People going way under the limit, or hogging the passing lane, are bigger accident causers than those going 10 over the limit provided there is no traffic backup or congestion. Ideally, everyone would just drive the posted limit, then traffic would flow better and there would be fewer accidents. The government gets a lot of the blame. They post artifically low speed limits and allow minimum speeds way below the posted limit on expressways. This is where the congestion problem gets started in the first place, so its a little outrageous that they use cameras to nail speeders, but let the people backing up traffic flow get no penalties. Add to that the likelihood of payola or other disingenious methods of rigging the equipment and paying commisions (kickbacks) to the camera companies and you can see why people get upset. I don't trust this "contracting out" the cameras because a day doesn't seem to go by when you don't see another news story about government and/or business corruption. If there are cameras, there needs to be an independent 3rd party like UL verifying they are properly calibrated on a random basis.

larsb · December 2008

That's just it. A major problem in America, one of the reasons we even NEED photo radar cameras, is this ridiculous attitude:

People driving AT or BARELY ABOVE the speed limit are an AGITATION to people who want to OBLITERATE the speed limit.

That's just idiotic. You should never get "mad" at someone for wanting to obey the speed limit laws, make their life safer, and save some fuel.

fintail · December 2008

If you're going to play speed deputy, do it in the proper lane, and make far less people mad.

larsb · January 2009

Actually, the middle lane is best in a three-lane freeway. That gives people two options when wanting to pass me.

carnaught · January 2009

Actually, the middle lane is best in a three-lane freeway. That gives people two options when wanting to pass me.

But, I just love it when I'm in the middle lane going about 7mph over the limit, the lanes around me are empty, yet I have someone tailgating me.

euphonium · January 2009

"speed deputy" may provoke, but it is the provokee who decides to lose his cool, get mad, & commit road rage. Your reaction to stimulus is YOUR decision and YOUR weakness to think you are intimidated.

Not keeping chilled out is the weak man's imitation of strength.

fintail · January 2009

I don't get mad, I simply pass. :P

Vehicular cholesterol in the form of self-righteous hybrids and squishy slow old land yachts piloted by wannabe authoritarians isn't exactly intimidating, either

fintail · January 2009

Maybe they are drafting you to save fuel, and trying to make it so the photo revenue collector nabs you instead of them.

I will say, tailgating when there is easy room to pass is every bit as bad as LLCing.

carnaught · January 2009

I will say, tailgating when there is easy room to pass is every bit as bad as LLCing.

What is LLCing?

dtownfb · January 2009

I guess the fact that Americans drove less in 2008 due to higher gas prices had nothing to with these decreases....

I do agree that excessive speeding does cause accidents but simply having the police do their jobs resolves this. All you have to do is have a few officers drive on the highway during rush hour. It's amazing how people remember to use their turn signal; move out of the left lane; slow down, etc.

stever · January 2009

Left Lane Camping - i.e., not staying in the right lane(s) as required by most state motor vehicle laws. See Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.) for lots of examples.

upstatedoc · January 2009

I swear, 75% of the people that live in my state don't know this is illegal. :mad:

dtownfb · January 2009

You MUST live in MD then.....

upstatedoc · January 2009

NY, then it must be an epidemic...

grbeck · January 2009

larsb: No matter how "good" drivers become and/or already are, accidents at 75 MPH are more severe and deadly (as a general rule) than the same accident at 55 MPH.

Except that raising the speed limit has not resulted in more fatalities and accidents, and there is no proof that drivers traveling at 75 mph are involved in more accidents, or are more deadly, than drivers who travel at 55 mph.

larsb: This is one of the famous "Autobahn" wreck pictures. You think this would have happened at 55 mph?

A red herring argument. Most fatalities occur at speeds below 45 mph, and limited access highways, where speeds are the highest, are among our safest roads.

larsb · January 2009

grbeck says, "and there is no proof that drivers traveling at 75 mph are involved in more accidents, or are more deadly, than drivers who travel at 55 mph."

Ask a first responder if he would rather assist in a 55 MPH wreck or a 75 MPH wreck.

There's your "proof" right there.

It's not rocket science - it's common sense.

berri · January 2009

Wisconsin and Indiana seem like stay left except to pass states as well.

larsb · January 2009

Here is someone who can show data related to speed and accidents and injuries:

European Road Safety Observatory

andys120 · January 2009

of California (Palm Springs/Palm Desert area) reinforces my previously held belief that Arizonians do not drive particularly fast. While maintaining 75mph on the I-10W from Phoenix I passed more traffic than I was passed by (speed limit is 75).

Doing the same speed on the same road in California (speed limit 70) I was passed by as many as I passed (which were mostly trucks) and I see a lot more aggressive driving. If you see a pickup w Cali plates it's likely to be driven aggressively (weaving, tailgating, passing on right, the kind of driving that's a lot more dangerous than going a few miles over the limit).)

larsb · January 2009

Actually, that's kind of funny that you say "Arizonians do not drive particularly fast."

Because there is no way to know that.

You know why? Because almost all "Arizonians" are not FROM Arizona. Most are from other places.

So there is no way to stereotype drivers from this state. It's just a hodgepodge of people who learned to drive in other states, with a sprinkling of maybe 30% of people who were born and raised here.

And yes, as a rule, California highway drivers are excessive speed demons. True dat.

dtownfb · January 2009

Since it's common sense, are you suggesting that all roads should have a speed limit of 45 mph or less???? I think the police should be out on the roads patrolling more instead of relying on machines.

dtownfb · January 2009

"And yes, as a rule, California highway drivers are excessive speed demons. True dat."

Drive on the eastern part of Long Island one time and you'll think California drivers are tame. :mad:

larsb · January 2009

I hear a lot of talk on these boards about "red herrings" whatever they are.

Your argument seems to be one of those.

Anyway, of course I do not think all roads should have 45 MPH or less speed limits.

I just think that people ought to DRIVE THE POSTED LIMITS and not complain if they get caught disobeying the law.

How is it that we raise our kids to "obey the law and respect the police" and yet we (not me but many people ) gladly and happily speed our tails off every chance we get?

Is that not the height of hypocrisy?

My kids are 9 and 12 right now, and I point out to them all the time how idiots speed around me and then PRESTO, 20 seconds later we both end up at the same stop light. Did a lot of good to speed, huh buddy?

dtownfb · January 2009

I don't think anyone has a problem with your argument. It's the fact that they are using a machine and not a real person to catch people. You're fine with that, most of us are not. I believe the police officers should be out on the road and more visible. I believe this would more of an impact than machines doing their job. if it is in a city, cops on the sidewalk can easily radio a police car if they witness someone a moving violation.

Photo radars are put into place for generating revenue under the disguise of safety. If there are problem areas, put police officers there. Sure they can't catch everyone but I guarantee that after a couple of weeks of seeing people pulled over, they'll get the message.

larsb · January 2009

So what if they are "using a machine?" They "use a machine" when they stop you with an officer too - it's called a radar gun.

Speeding is speeding, and whether or not you have to waste an officer's time by forcing him to forego real crime fighting to spend 15 minutes writing you a ticket should be an issue too.

My opinion? Cars ought to have GPS systems which know the speed limits and when you drive they track your speed and when you go 11 MPH over the limit, the satellite issues you a speed limit and it's mailed to you.

THAT would:

A. Free our police to do POLICE WORK instead of babysitting speeders.
B. Avoid court time and associated costs by providing a fool-proof system.
C. Get everyone to understand that you are NEVER EVER going to get away with speeding, so just STOP DOING IT !!!

grbeck · January 2009

Sorry, but that doesn't prove that there are more accidents at 75 mph than at 55 mph. Or dispute that most fatalities occur below speeds of 45 mph.

And I'll bet if you ask a first responder whether he would prefer to respond to a 55 mph wreck or 25 mph wreck, he would prefer the latter.

So your example doesn't prove anything.

grbeck · January 2009

That study involved a very limited number of vehicles, and it was under conditions that were not necessarily duplicative of those on American interstates. Relying on junk research is never a good idea.

It doesn't even support that one should drive the speed limit. Note this sentence:

Some authors have noted that the increased risk from driving at speeds 10-20% above the average for the road is similar to the increased risk from driving at the drink drive limits in the two countries to which the references relate (i.e. a BAC of 0.05 and 0.08). (emphasis added).

The speed "average for the road" is not necessarily the speed limit. It is usually higher, especially on limited access highways. So this study does not prove that driving above the speed limit increases danger.

It also contains these sentences that poke a major hole in your claims:

If on a particular road, the speed variance is high, this will result in less predictability, more encounters, more overtaking manoeuvres, etc. (emphasis added) Therefore, when speed differences increase, the accident risk increases as well. Hence, a countermeasure that results in lower average speed, but in larger speed differences may not have the expected positive effect on road safety. But no reliable quantified relationship has been established for this linkage.

As has been shown repeatedly on this site, lowering speed limits only increases speed variance between the few who obey, and the majority who continue to drive at the speeds at which they feel comfortable. Given that photo radar will only slow people down in the vicinity of the cameras, it stands to reason that even MORE safety problems will be created by the majority of people braking to slow down for the cameras, and then speeding up once they are out of the camera's range.

Unless we are going to have law enforcement personnel regularly change the location of cameras, which is certainly a wise use of our highly paid police forces during difficult economic times. :P

grbeck · January 2009

Or, better yet, we give up this childish obsession with the majority of drivers who are exceeding arbitrary, underposted speed limits on limited access highways, and pour our energy into more productive pursuits that actually improve highway safety instead of raising revenue. That's the more informed approach.

I drove in Arizona this summer - most of the time at 80-85 mph on the rural interstate highways. And I was passed by a fair number of vehicles. It was perfectly safe. If you can't drive at those speeds, or get needlessly worked up about those who do, you should consider staying home, or moving to the city, where you can rely on mass transit.

larsb · January 2009

Hold it there Mr Logical.

If you say, "And I'll bet if you ask a first responder whether he would prefer to respond to a 55 mph wreck or 25 mph wreck, he would prefer the latter."

Then right there you are admitting that he would rather attend a slower-crash wreck.

So your example proves mine it true. Thanks !!!!

oldfarmer50 · January 2009

"...I hear a lot of talk on these boards about "red herrings" whatever they are..."

Red herring is a false argument designed to confuse or distract from the real issue. Comes from an old practice of dragging a fish (a literal red herring) across a trail to confuse hunting dogs.

As a saying it's right up there with "let them eat cake".

oldfarmer50 · January 2009

"...Cars ought to have GPS systems which know the speed limits...Get everyone to understand that you are NEVER EVER going to get away with speeding..."

Along that line of thinking why don't we have the police just drag speeders out of their cars and shoot them on the spot. That would also get everyone to understand that they are NEVER EVER going to get away with speeding. It would cut down on repeat offenders too.

China did that with drug dealers in the good old days and it worked pretty well. Of course some of those bleeding hearts like the ACLU might complain in this country.

larsb · January 2009

Goot Yob !!!

You respond with a red herring right after schooling me about what they are !!

Thanks !!!

I have declared a personal war on speeding and speeders. But with no authority to do anything about it in any way, all I can do is vent on these boards.

Go Photo Radar !!!

dtownfb · January 2009

"Along that line of thinking why don't we have the police just drag speeders out of their cars and shoot them on the spot. That would also get everyone to understand that they are NEVER EVER going to get away with speeding. It would cut down on repeat offenders too. "

LMAO. My office mates are trying to figure out why i am laughing so hard. Love the suggestion.

Seriously though, I do agree that speed kills. Obviously a collision at higher speeds is worst than a collision lower speeds. That is basic physics and indisputable. The real issue is the driver. 99% of all accidents are driver error. Whether it's driving too fast, driving too fast for conditions, crossing the yellow line, inattentiveness, disregard for traffic signs/signals, not using your blinkers, drunk driving, etc.

I generally drive 10 mph over the speed limit on interstate highways (but stay at the the speed limit in town). If traffic is congested, I slow down and don't tailgate.

Photo Radar

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles