With CameraFraud.com failing to reach the necessary signatures to get on a Citizens Ballot Initiative, there will be no citizens voting on the use of Photo Radar statewide.
Would you have voted to ban photo radar statewide if it came up for a vote?
Submitted by nsneufeld@yahoo.com on Sun, 2010-08-08 12:10.
When the photo radar was installed on 60, I noticed a significant reduction in speed of drivers. It felt so much safer to drive it. We were gone from May til the end of June, and the first time we drove 60 again, I mentioned how much faster the traffic seemed, then we say that the cameras had been turned off. Duh! They need to be turned back on! I would never vote to ban them.
Submitted by Skywanderer on Fri, 2010-07-16 19:55.
I wish we could vote on the issue of photo's doing the policing so we could voice our dislike of the cameras. I believe we would vote to get rid of them. Big Brother wants to keep them, of course, but give us a chance to vote on Big Brother and we could all say "goodbye to B. B. too. The problem with this issue as with most is that Big Brother so many hands in the "cookie jar" and no hands want to be pulled out empty.
I wanted it on the ballot so that I could have voted to KEEP IT IN EFFECT like the majority of drivers want. The only changes that I would like to see would be to put more teeth into it like suspending the licenses for the idiots that feel they have the need and right to go as fast as they want. The freeways have been a lot safer and more pleasant to drive.
What I can not believe is that our Governer and her new DPS head are actually going to remove them. It is obvious that is not what the majority of citizens want. I guess that the only way to get their attention is by voting against them in the fall.
I'll bet that the same people that want to ILLEGIALY DRIVE MORE THAN 10 miles above the speed limit are also ones that say that ILLEGIAL IMIGRANTS ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Maybe we should also deport ILLEGIAL SPEEDING IDIOTS TOO.
If the state is going to use Photo Radar, put it at intervals that will catch the speeders. Not at every mile or more.
What's the sense of having it if the person speeding can just speed up till they get to the next device and slows down causing others to brake due to the speeders ignorance of the laws and other people's safety.
I don't like Photo Radar anymore than the next guy, but it damn sure makes you slow down when you get that $180 dollar (or whatever amount) ticket in the mail with your mug attached to it.
I also don't believe the monies from photo radar should leave the state and enter the coffers of those providing the equipment. The equipment should be rented by the state and they keep the proceeds that are collected.
Unfortunately, Photo Radar will be a necessary evil as long as we have people that do not obey the speed limits and put others lives at risk. In fact, if you get a Photo Radar ticket, I feel you should pay a stiff fine AND attend Drivers school again for as many times it takes to drill it into your head NOT TO SPEED. I mean come on folks, they give you a 10 mile buffer. Sheesh!!! For some people THAT isn't enough so I say you SHOULD get a ticket going 11 miles above the speed limit. You deserve it!!!! My two cents!
I have been in AZ for 2 and a half years now and with photo radar in place the speeders no longer own the road. I love photo radar. The bottom line is speeding is breaking the law. I don't care that it a revenue generator for the state and I don't care about seeing my accuser in court. It's the law and the lawbreakers no longer own the road!!!
Mcharb, we ALL break motor vehicle laws at some time or another, and may unknowingly break them everyday. From the unsafe lane change, failing to signal to turn, rolling thru red lights on right turns, stopping past the stop line at intersections, the list goes on and on. If the state was serious about reducing collisions because of speed, then the only way to stop it is to put photo radar on EVERY 1/4 mile of the highway. And furthermore, why post that photo radar is up ahead? Do police officers post warning signs that they are running radar at a specific location? No. The one rule and law regarding traveling on highways that drivers constantly ignore is slower traffic keep right. I have come up behind many a driver on rural I-10 where the posted speed limit is 75 MPH and they are doing 65 MPH, and the driver fails to move over to the right or slow-speed lane. I then have to make a lane change to get around them when it was their responsibility as a driver to move over. Even if a driver is going 75 MPH in the high-speed lane, they need to move over if another vehicle is gaining on them or is right behind them. Police officers, like photo radar, give drivers a 10 MPH over the posted limit cushion, except and rightfully so in school zones. My advice to you is to stop worrying about how fast another driver is going. You are not the police, and if speeding drivers upset you that much, then become a police officer so that you can stop those speeders & write them tickets. Let the speeder go by & perhaps you will pass by him/her a few miles up the road when an officer has them stopped.
I would have voted against photo radar. Photo radar only slows drivers down in a specific area, and I have found through experience that most drivers who come into these zones slow down to anywhere from 5-10 MPH below the posted speed limit. This in turn can and has lead to unwarranted rear-end collisons. Photo radars are set to activate at 11 MPH over the posted speed limit and drivers were made aware of this prior to the installing of the cameras. Most drivers just increase their speed anyway once they pass the cameras, me included. Speed alone does not contribute to collisions. Unsafe lane changes, inattention, vehicle failure, and driving well below the posted speed limit contribuites to quite a few of urban and rural interstate highway collisions. The other main factor is that both trucks & cars are allowed to travel at the same speed. Large trucks, anything over 20,000 GVW, buses, and vehicles pulling trailers should travel at 10 MPH slower than cars. When everyone is allowed to travel at the same speed, there are no "buffer zones". Everyone is bumper-to-bumper at 70-75 MPH and there is no margin for error. Drivers get right behind an 18-wheeler & they cannot see what is happening in front of the truck. Most commercial vehicles are governed between 65 & 68 MPH in order to save fuel costs. The independent truckers are the ones whose trucks are not governed, and they are the ones who travel at high speed constantly. Reduce these types of vehicles' speed limit to 65 MPH in the rural areas, and 55 MPH in the urban areas and traffic will flow a lot easier. There is no reason for a large vehicle to be in the high speed lane as we have very few left exits from our current freeway system.
The other problem with photo radar is there is no consistant calibrating of the photo radar unit. Police officers are required to calibrate their radar guns prior to use, and re-calibrate them after they have made a traffic stop while using the radar gun. There is also a calibration record available for each & every radar gun, and most officers come to court with these records so that the court & the violator can view them. You, as the accused, have the right to see them & the officer MUST produce them or the court will dismiss the citation. I beat a photo radar citation in Scottsdale City Court in 2006 as the Red Flex representative did not have the calibration records for the unit that flashed me, among other things.
My opinion is that photo radar/speed cameras are only for generarting revenue for the government entity that they are placed in. However, I do feel that red light cameras are necessary at most busy intersections. Traffic collisions at most intersections involve someone either running a red traffic light or turning left in front of an oncoming vehicle. Municipalities could greatly reduce these collisions if they would only put in more left turn on green arrow only lights and cycle those arrows AFTER thru traffic has come to a stop from its cycle. Stats have shown that this type of traffic signal function greatly reduces intersection collisions.
After viewing the video, I must agree with streetsmarts as this guy does not know what he is talking about when it comes to stats. In reference to the City of Peoria stat, Peoria has NO speed enforcement cameras, only red light cameras at either 3 or 4 different intersections, and they are planned for 91 Ave/W. Olive Avenue in the future. To my knowledge, Peoria has never had a fatality at any of its camera installed intersections since the cameras went up. Most of their fatalities happen in the north end of the city or at other locations. As far as the cameras having videos, there is no constitutional violation as a highway or roadway is public property. It's no different than a local news station filming traffic traveling along the highway during a newscast. The video will show what traffic was doing prior to and after the violation. So if someone goes into court & says they sped up to get out of the way of an approaching emergency vehicle, the video will show the emergency vehicle & the court may dismiss the citation based on that evidence. The video can help a driver avoid an unwarranted citation.
To quote the border watchers, "what part of illegal don't you understand". The cameras help us all drive safely. Remarks like, "it's dangerous cuz everyone jams on the brakes when they see a camera"...so why were they exceeding the limit in the first place. How about, "It should be cops making the speeding stops" as if AZ had the money to hire a sufficient number to do that job. The cameras do a necessary job. I think they should be reactivated....now.
Submitted by Dave Lefurgey on Tue, 2010-07-13 12:35.
The speaker uses ad hominen attack to substantiate his points. For example: his visual of Janet Napolitano. He asserts his selected data to make his point.
I would NOT vote against the speed cameras. The issue that I do have against them is that the use of them have been outsourced to a company that is not even from the United States, let alone not being a law-enforcement agency. A law-enforcement agency of the state must be operating the traffic cameras and the entire speed-enforcement system.
Secondly, I have a right to face my accuser. The present system does not provide that.
Thirdly, what about when I have an emergency like rushing somebody to the hospital. If it were a trooper stopping me for speeding, he/she is able to make a judgment call, and would probably escort me to the hospital.
In spite of these reservations, the traffic cameras do bring the speeders under control, and that is important.
The main issue I have is that the whole system has been out-sourced to an non law-enforcement entity.
Dave, you won't find a police officer in the metro area that will escort you to a hospital, as it's against most department policies to do so. They will have the fire department respond to the scene to stabilize the person's condition, and then have them transported to a hospital in an ambulance if necessary.
Submitted by Dave Lefurgey on Tue, 2010-07-13 20:15.
griff2531:
I stand corrected. I guess I am so old that I remember when that would/might have happened and have stories about when it did happen. Thank you for your insightful, corrective comment.
Your welcome, Dave. Years ago, and I do mean years ago, police officers would escort someone to the hospital, but that came to an end when a vehicle being escorted blew a red light while following an officer & it killed 3 people. You are not that old, my friend. Many people still believe that police officers will escort them with lights & siren to a hospital. As a retired officer, I remember very well one early morning at about 2 AM of stopping a vehicle doing 80+ in a 40 MPH zone. Two minutes later I was delivering a baby!! The fire department got there just in time & mother & child were ok.
Submitted by streetsmarts101 on Tue, 2010-07-13 12:03.
NO NO NO I would not vote against photo enforcement! The guy in this video has his facts wrong and provides no data sources for his adverse claims. 400% increase in fatal accidents because of photo enforcement in Peoria? Really! Bogus Claim!!! Another false statement he makes is all right turns on red in AZ are legal. Another bogus claim!!! A USA Today survey released last month shows 64% of American support automated speed enforcement using cameras and radar: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-03-traffic-safety-survey_N.htm
Additionally I met this guy in Tempe last fall while he was trying to get signatures for his cause. When I tried to engage him he simply ran away...
Comments
Photo Radar sucked, it tickets the vehicle not the driver!We need real DPS officers to ticket the Speeding Drivers.
When the photo radar was installed on 60, I noticed a significant reduction in speed of drivers. It felt so much safer to drive it. We were gone from May til the end of June, and the first time we drove 60 again, I mentioned how much faster the traffic seemed, then we say that the cameras had been turned off. Duh! They need to be turned back on! I would never vote to ban them.
I wish we could vote on the issue of photo's doing the policing so we could voice our dislike of the cameras. I believe we would vote to get rid of them. Big Brother wants to keep them, of course, but give us a chance to vote on Big Brother and we could all say "goodbye to B. B. too. The problem with this issue as with most is that Big Brother so many hands in the "cookie jar" and no hands want to be pulled out empty.
I wanted it on the ballot so that I could have voted to KEEP IT IN EFFECT like the majority of drivers want. The only changes that I would like to see would be to put more teeth into it like suspending the licenses for the idiots that feel they have the need and right to go as fast as they want. The freeways have been a lot safer and more pleasant to drive.
What I can not believe is that our Governer and her new DPS head are actually going to remove them. It is obvious that is not what the majority of citizens want. I guess that the only way to get their attention is by voting against them in the fall.
I'll bet that the same people that want to ILLEGIALY DRIVE MORE THAN 10 miles above the speed limit are also ones that say that ILLEGIAL IMIGRANTS ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Maybe we should also deport ILLEGIAL SPEEDING IDIOTS TOO.
You are the most racist person ,to even bring something like this up using photo radar.Stupid!
If the state is going to use Photo Radar, put it at intervals that will catch the speeders. Not at every mile or more.
What's the sense of having it if the person speeding can just speed up till they get to the next device and slows down causing others to brake due to the speeders ignorance of the laws and other people's safety.
I don't like Photo Radar anymore than the next guy, but it damn sure makes you slow down when you get that $180 dollar (or whatever amount) ticket in the mail with your mug attached to it.
I also don't believe the monies from photo radar should leave the state and enter the coffers of those providing the equipment. The equipment should be rented by the state and they keep the proceeds that are collected.
Unfortunately, Photo Radar will be a necessary evil as long as we have people that do not obey the speed limits and put others lives at risk. In fact, if you get a Photo Radar ticket, I feel you should pay a stiff fine AND attend Drivers school again for as many times it takes to drill it into your head NOT TO SPEED. I mean come on folks, they give you a 10 mile buffer. Sheesh!!! For some people THAT isn't enough so I say you SHOULD get a ticket going 11 miles above the speed limit. You deserve it!!!! My two cents!
I have been in AZ for 2 and a half years now and with photo radar in place the speeders no longer own the road. I love photo radar. The bottom line is speeding is breaking the law. I don't care that it a revenue generator for the state and I don't care about seeing my accuser in court. It's the law and the lawbreakers no longer own the road!!!
Mcharb, we ALL break motor vehicle laws at some time or another, and may unknowingly break them everyday. From the unsafe lane change, failing to signal to turn, rolling thru red lights on right turns, stopping past the stop line at intersections, the list goes on and on. If the state was serious about reducing collisions because of speed, then the only way to stop it is to put photo radar on EVERY 1/4 mile of the highway. And furthermore, why post that photo radar is up ahead? Do police officers post warning signs that they are running radar at a specific location? No. The one rule and law regarding traveling on highways that drivers constantly ignore is slower traffic keep right. I have come up behind many a driver on rural I-10 where the posted speed limit is 75 MPH and they are doing 65 MPH, and the driver fails to move over to the right or slow-speed lane. I then have to make a lane change to get around them when it was their responsibility as a driver to move over. Even if a driver is going 75 MPH in the high-speed lane, they need to move over if another vehicle is gaining on them or is right behind them. Police officers, like photo radar, give drivers a 10 MPH over the posted limit cushion, except and rightfully so in school zones. My advice to you is to stop worrying about how fast another driver is going. You are not the police, and if speeding drivers upset you that much, then become a police officer so that you can stop those speeders & write them tickets. Let the speeder go by & perhaps you will pass by him/her a few miles up the road when an officer has them stopped.
I would have voted against photo radar. Photo radar only slows drivers down in a specific area, and I have found through experience that most drivers who come into these zones slow down to anywhere from 5-10 MPH below the posted speed limit. This in turn can and has lead to unwarranted rear-end collisons. Photo radars are set to activate at 11 MPH over the posted speed limit and drivers were made aware of this prior to the installing of the cameras. Most drivers just increase their speed anyway once they pass the cameras, me included. Speed alone does not contribute to collisions. Unsafe lane changes, inattention, vehicle failure, and driving well below the posted speed limit contribuites to quite a few of urban and rural interstate highway collisions. The other main factor is that both trucks & cars are allowed to travel at the same speed. Large trucks, anything over 20,000 GVW, buses, and vehicles pulling trailers should travel at 10 MPH slower than cars. When everyone is allowed to travel at the same speed, there are no "buffer zones". Everyone is bumper-to-bumper at 70-75 MPH and there is no margin for error. Drivers get right behind an 18-wheeler & they cannot see what is happening in front of the truck. Most commercial vehicles are governed between 65 & 68 MPH in order to save fuel costs. The independent truckers are the ones whose trucks are not governed, and they are the ones who travel at high speed constantly. Reduce these types of vehicles' speed limit to 65 MPH in the rural areas, and 55 MPH in the urban areas and traffic will flow a lot easier. There is no reason for a large vehicle to be in the high speed lane as we have very few left exits from our current freeway system.
The other problem with photo radar is there is no consistant calibrating of the photo radar unit. Police officers are required to calibrate their radar guns prior to use, and re-calibrate them after they have made a traffic stop while using the radar gun. There is also a calibration record available for each & every radar gun, and most officers come to court with these records so that the court & the violator can view them. You, as the accused, have the right to see them & the officer MUST produce them or the court will dismiss the citation. I beat a photo radar citation in Scottsdale City Court in 2006 as the Red Flex representative did not have the calibration records for the unit that flashed me, among other things.
My opinion is that photo radar/speed cameras are only for generarting revenue for the government entity that they are placed in. However, I do feel that red light cameras are necessary at most busy intersections. Traffic collisions at most intersections involve someone either running a red traffic light or turning left in front of an oncoming vehicle. Municipalities could greatly reduce these collisions if they would only put in more left turn on green arrow only lights and cycle those arrows AFTER thru traffic has come to a stop from its cycle. Stats have shown that this type of traffic signal function greatly reduces intersection collisions.
After viewing the video, I must agree with streetsmarts as this guy does not know what he is talking about when it comes to stats. In reference to the City of Peoria stat, Peoria has NO speed enforcement cameras, only red light cameras at either 3 or 4 different intersections, and they are planned for 91 Ave/W. Olive Avenue in the future. To my knowledge, Peoria has never had a fatality at any of its camera installed intersections since the cameras went up. Most of their fatalities happen in the north end of the city or at other locations. As far as the cameras having videos, there is no constitutional violation as a highway or roadway is public property. It's no different than a local news station filming traffic traveling along the highway during a newscast. The video will show what traffic was doing prior to and after the violation. So if someone goes into court & says they sped up to get out of the way of an approaching emergency vehicle, the video will show the emergency vehicle & the court may dismiss the citation based on that evidence. The video can help a driver avoid an unwarranted citation.
To quote the border watchers, "what part of illegal don't you understand". The cameras help us all drive safely. Remarks like, "it's dangerous cuz everyone jams on the brakes when they see a camera"...so why were they exceeding the limit in the first place. How about, "It should be cops making the speeding stops" as if AZ had the money to hire a sufficient number to do that job. The cameras do a necessary job. I think they should be reactivated....now.
The speaker uses ad hominen attack to substantiate his points. For example: his visual of Janet Napolitano. He asserts his selected data to make his point.
I would NOT vote against the speed cameras. The issue that I do have against them is that the use of them have been outsourced to a company that is not even from the United States, let alone not being a law-enforcement agency. A law-enforcement agency of the state must be operating the traffic cameras and the entire speed-enforcement system.
Secondly, I have a right to face my accuser. The present system does not provide that.
Thirdly, what about when I have an emergency like rushing somebody to the hospital. If it were a trooper stopping me for speeding, he/she is able to make a judgment call, and would probably escort me to the hospital.
In spite of these reservations, the traffic cameras do bring the speeders under control, and that is important.
The main issue I have is that the whole system has been out-sourced to an non law-enforcement entity.
Dave, you won't find a police officer in the metro area that will escort you to a hospital, as it's against most department policies to do so. They will have the fire department respond to the scene to stabilize the person's condition, and then have them transported to a hospital in an ambulance if necessary.
griff2531:
I stand corrected. I guess I am so old that I remember when that would/might have happened and have stories about when it did happen. Thank you for your insightful, corrective comment.
Your welcome, Dave. Years ago, and I do mean years ago, police officers would escort someone to the hospital, but that came to an end when a vehicle being escorted blew a red light while following an officer & it killed 3 people. You are not that old, my friend. Many people still believe that police officers will escort them with lights & siren to a hospital. As a retired officer, I remember very well one early morning at about 2 AM of stopping a vehicle doing 80+ in a 40 MPH zone. Two minutes later I was delivering a baby!! The fire department got there just in time & mother & child were ok.
NO NO NO I would not vote against photo enforcement! The guy in this video has his facts wrong and provides no data sources for his adverse claims. 400% increase in fatal accidents because of photo enforcement in Peoria? Really! Bogus Claim!!! Another false statement he makes is all right turns on red in AZ are legal. Another bogus claim!!! A USA Today survey released last month shows 64% of American support automated speed enforcement using cameras and radar: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-03-traffic-safety-survey_N.htm
Additionally I met this guy in Tempe last fall while he was trying to get signatures for his cause. When I tried to engage him he simply ran away...
When I am driving 7-8 mils over the speed limit, and some jerk passes me like i'm standing still, u're damn right i would vote FOR photo radar!!
Would have voted against photo radar anywhere within the USA.