Photo Radar questions (Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale: lawyer, relocate, transplants)

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by sierraAZ

Well, as long as there are ridiculous speed limits on some street (the only reason for setting them being improvement of revenue; there's no other logical reason) we'll be speeding.

That's 100% correct. There are many streets like that in the Phoenix area too: six laned boulevards with speed limits at a mere 40 MPH. Most everybody drives at least 50 MPH on those wide streets, and those who do the speed limit are passed, cut off, or flipped off. Makes no sense to have speed limits that low.

They say speed limits exist for safety, but it's not very safe to move along at a slow rate when the general flow is faster. Plus, it's not very efficient. Slower speeds usually result in longer commute times ... and that leads to increased traffic congestion, and more pollution.

As far as photo radar: I still maintain that its sole purpose is revenue generation. Nobody has yet been able to prove otherwise. Cameras on freeways will not detain the excessive speed demons who do 100 MPH or more. Those idiots need to be pulled over and arrested ... and radar cameras cannot accomplish that. If safety is a true concern, then more police officers are needed ... not robots!

[blisterpeanuts]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Actually, I don't believe the police directly benefit from the revenue collected from the citations. However, local governments are the ones who are pushing this on us. Also, these cameras can generate multiple citations at a time to people driving over the speed limit ... so it's pretty obvious that this is being used as a revenue gathering scheme. Nobody can argue otherwise ... because if they were truly concerned about safety on the roads, they would put more DPS officers on patrol!



It does seem pretty suspicious that Arizonans weren't given the opportunity to vote on this. However, I have a feeling that if photo radar was put to a public vote here, it would pass.

I think one reason many Arizonans favor radar cameras is the transplant factor. Keep in mind that this state has always been a place where most people drive fast on the highways because of the sprawl, and the favorable weather conditions. Plus, most roads are in pretty good shape. However, these whiners who move here from slower regions of the country gripe about how everyone drives too fast for their little pace. When you have a growing populace of these kinds of malcontents, eventually they become the majority. Add to that the TRUE criminal speeders (those idiots who do 100 or more on the Loop 101), and you have a growing intolerance for ANYBODY who drives a little fast. Now, they want to congest the freeways even more with slower traffic ... while the real menaces (the drunks, the slowpokes, and the inattentive) still remain a hazard to those people who use the roads simply to GET somewhere!

Valley Native, I'm interested in this idea that the transplants drive more slowly. I moved here from Massachusetts three months ago and I figured that it's us Eastern trash moving here that brought all our rude driving habits with us!

I was looking forward to driving in a mellow part of the country but I'm finding the streets of Phoenix (and Scottsdale and Glendale) to be almost as mean as Boston. I'll say one thing. When people see you turn on your signal, they usually don't speed up to prevent you from changing lanes--unlike Boston or New York. Maybe it's because there's so many guns around here

But even so I've been experiencing some unpleasant situations. I generally drive about the average speed--if everyone's going 75 on 101, I stay on the right and go about 70-75. Whatever, just going with the flow. But I hate tailgating. I keep my distance both for safety and because there are slowdowns every 2 minutes--why have to slam on the brakes when you can just glide 50 yards? If everyone did it, there wouldn't be so many slowdowns. It's wave physics.

But the tailgaters behind me can't stand my keeping a buffer zone and they will honk, gesticulate, come closer, all but trying to run me off the road. As though closing the 30-50 yard gap with the car in front will get them home even one second sooner. Yesterday I had three separate such incidents--I was going the exact same speed but with a buffer zone in front of me and the motorist behind me was gesticulating, laughing, rolling his eyes, finally passing and gesturing angrily at me as though I was personally responsible for his impotence in bed. And a couple of pickup truck drivers were pretty menacing about it. I'm actually considering getting a concealed carry license because I'm getting concerned about someone following me off the highway and confronting me in the parking lot. It does happen.

I guess the solution is to move into a left lane to let them pass; I'm not looking for trouble. I'm not insecure about my sexuality like some of these guys obviously are But is there any recourse, such as phoning in the license plate? Do the Phoenix police respond to such calls? This is where highway photography is useful. In DC they have installed cameras on the Loop specifically because of all the road rage incidents. I would vote for more cops on the road if it would lead to more civility and respect for the law. Look I'm not in favor of Big Brother. If someone wants to go 120, that's his business (and his funeral). Just don't harass me out there. Live and let live. I thought that was the Arizona philosophy. Am I wrong????

[Greatday]

Here is a recent (yesterday) example of "speed" killing:

After the accident, drivers Robert Van Brakel, 42, and Travis Aronica, 25, were arrested on one count each of second-degree murder.

Police said shortly before 1 p.m. Van Brakel, driving a white Mercedes sedan, and Aronica, driving a black Ford Mustang, were traveling north on Scottsdale Road when they struck Holman's vehicle facing south on Scottsdale Road and turning east onto Eastwood.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...ecrash-ON.html

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Here is a recent (yesterday) example of "speed" killing:

After the accident, drivers Robert Van Brakel, 42, and Travis Aronica, 25, were arrested on one count each of second-degree murder.

Police said shortly before 1 p.m. Van Brakel, driving a white Mercedes sedan, and Aronica, driving a black Ford Mustang, were traveling north on Scottsdale Road when they struck Holman's vehicle facing south on Scottsdale Road and turning east onto Eastwood.

Thanks, Greatday

Maybe this will change the backward thinking of those who feel speed is ok and enforcement of speed limits is only for the God Almighty Dollar.

[sheena]

Originally Posted by sablebaby

What? You don't need to protect your cars from photo radars. The ONLY way to get a ticket is to either run a red light where there is a camera, or speed by a camera on the freeway. If you're not doing either one of these then you are fine. If you are doing this stuff then be prepared to get a ticket. We don't have these cameras on every corner. They are in some areas and some parts of the freeways. If you know where they are, or see them up ahead then slow down or break for the light!

Yep, my son just got one for running the light on Eliott and Az Ave. It's for 190.00 bucks. I hope this teaches him a lesson.

[sierraAZ]

Originally Posted by sheena

Yep, my son just got one for running the light on Eliott and Az Ave. It's for 190.00 bucks. I hope this teaches him a lesson.

We're talking a red-red light, right? Because as far as I know, if it's yellow the rule is "you go if you can't SAFELY stop" and most of the time you can't "safely" stop if you don't wanna be rear-ended. In this case the light might turn red halfway through the intersection... Does that mean you still get a ticket?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by sierraAZ

We're talking a red-red light, right? Because as far as I know, if it's yellow the rule is "you go if you can't SAFELY stop" and most of the time you can't "safely" stop if you don't wanna be rear-ended. In this case the light might turn red halfway through the intersection... Does that mean you still get a ticket?

If you cross a line on the opposite part of the intersection after the light turns red, you get ticketed

[sierraAZ]

Originally Posted by Greatday

If you cross a line on the opposite part of the intersection after the light turns red, you get ticketed

Heh, then that's gonna be very profitable. Half of the city can get such tickets on any given day.

I don't think you're correct. Just searched for it and found an article referring to AZ:

What constitutes running a red light?

It means your vehicle entered the intersection after the signal turned red. In order to know whether you've entered an intersection, you must know where the intersection begins. The boundary is farther out than you might think, and that causes part of the problem. Here's the definition in my state: the intersection boundary (in Arizona) is the extension of the lateral curb lines (of two or more cross streets). The lateral curb line is an unpainted line drawn from corner to corner—just imagine a line drawn from the "point" of each corner (where the outer edge of the sidewalk meets the outer edge of the cross street sidewalk) across the street to the next one. The painted stop line and crosswalk are typically several feet nearer to you than the boundary, and many drivers erroneously believe the last crosswalk line marks the edge of the intersection. This error can result in an extra bit of time for the light to turn red before you actually enter the intersection, resulting in a violation. PLEASE NOTE: The definition of intersection varies from state to state and the differences can be significant—you need to know what the law and definition is in YOUR state.

In my state, if you entered the intersection legally (on a green or yellow signal), you have the right to clear the intersection even after it turns red. You will find that most states have similar provisions so that left turning traffic doesn't get bogged. In all of this, though, the legalities are not the most important issue.

http://www.roadtripamerica.com/Defen...ing/Rule09.htm

I don't quite get this "intersection boundary" mentioned above, though...

[aj661]

"Intersection" is defined as the area within the 'prolongation of the curb lines'. If you cross this "line" before the light turns red, you are legally within the intersection and won't be cited. It has nothing to do with painted crosswalks or stop lines although they do occasionally line up.

Here's a rough sketch that might help. The area within the red dashed lines is the legal intersection. Click on it for a bigger image. Sorry the lines aren't straight, it's hard for me to free-hand this stuff.


This 'borrowed' photo is a great example. If the light turned red at this instant, the car on the right is lawfully within the intersection.

[sierraAZ]

Originally Posted by aj661

"Intersection" is defined as the area within the 'prolongation of the curb lines'. If you cross this "line" before the light turns red, you are legally within the intersection and won't be cited. It has nothing to do with painted crosswalks or stop lines although they do occasionally line up.

Here's a rough sketch that might help. The area within the red dashed lines is the legal intersection. Click on it for a bigger image. Sorry the lines aren't straight, it's hard for me to free-hand this stuff.
Attachment 12326

This 'borrowed' photo is a great example. If the light turned red at this instant, the car on the right is lawfully within the intersection.

Thanks. That's what I've always thought... It even gives more leeway. I considered the painted crosswalk the beginning of the intersection.