Photo Radar Advice (Scottsdale, Wickenburg, Carefree: DMV, salary, live in)

[Rick Lee]

But I've gone faster than 188 mph in a car before. How would they measure that? Or are you just as busted at 200 mph as at 188 mph?

[osat]

Originally Posted by osat

The other day I drove east bound on Shea Blvd. We all know there is photo radar and everyone driving quite slowly. Just to pass radar zone….
Anyway, my speed was 57 mph, believe me, I know. Nice tiny blink …. And hey, a few weeks later I got a ticket with nice photo. I realized my care is so nice, but they are cheating just to collect more money.
I need to repeat: my speed was 57 mph and on photo was, guess what, 62 mph.

I paid my ticket,.......

And I received refund .....

[TurcoLoco]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But I've gone faster than 188 mph in a car before.

On a public road? Please...

[AZParents]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

What you're suggesting about needing both cameras and more cops amounts to nothing less than a police state, and I simply don't want to turn Arizona's highways into a police state. Bigger government is not the answer to our problems.

The photo radar cameras are nothing more than a revenue gathering scheme by the municipalities and the state. Their presence has absolutely NOTHING to do with promoting safety. In fact, if the rumors are true that they slow people down, how safe is that really? Slower doesn't always mean safer. I've had a few near misses by inattentive slowpokes who pulled out in front of me, or attempted to get into the exit lane at the last second because they almost missed their exits. Slower speeds generally result in longer commute times and more stress for the average driver. Besides, speed isn't the primary cause of most accidents. Inattentiveness is.

The obvious counter point to this is that if we're going to have inattentiveness causing accidents, wouldn't we rather have it happen at a slower speed? You're right that speed isn't the primary cause of many accidents, but it is the primary cause of the severity of the injuries & damages. I adjusted auto insurance claims for years and saw, first hand, exactly what happens in an accident to a car and it's passengers as the speed increases.

If accident-related injuries go down while the photo radar's turned on (which they did in Scottsdale), then it's a good thing regardless of whether the government put them there just to raise money.

[blisterpeanuts]

Originally Posted by AZParents

The obvious counter point to this is that if we're going to have inattentiveness causing accidents, wouldn't we rather have it happen at a slower speed? You're right that speed isn't the primary cause of many accidents, but it is the primary cause of the severity of the injuries & damages. I adjusted auto insurance claims for years and saw, first hand, exactly what happens in an accident to a car and it's passengers as the speed increases.

If accident-related injuries go down while the photo radar's turned on (which they did in Scottsdale), then it's a good thing regardless of whether the government put them there just to raise money.

And on that note, after Nixon imposed the 50 MPH highway limit back in '73 during the oil crisis (later raised to 55 MPH after protests by truckers) highway fatalities went down. Even though many people flaunted the law and went faster, it seems that thousands of people owe their lives to the lower speed limit over the 10-15 years that it was in effect. We all hate to drive so slowly on the highway but there does seem to be a correlation with safety.

Maybe we need to emphasize more crash-resistance in cars. I want a car that can protect me from a 60 MPH collision. So cars would cost an extra $10K--so what? I'd rather be in debt than be dead.

[ipsedixit]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But I've gone faster than 188 mph in a car before.

In what car? Most, if not all, cars in the US are electronically limited to 165 or 170.

[BurtsBees]

Originally Posted by ipsedixit

In what car? Most, if not all, cars in the US are electronically limited to 165 or 170.

All cars? Mine stock is limited to 108, but with a laptop and a tuner, its gone.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by ipsedixit

In what car? Most, if not all, cars in the US are electronically limited to 165 or 170.

It was at the Ruf shop in Pfaffenhausen, Germany, a Porsche RGT. My own will do about 160 mph on the track. You can always remove the governing chips, but not really worth it for a street car.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But I've gone faster than 188 mph in a car before. How would they measure that? Or are you just as busted at 200 mph as at 188 mph?

LOL . . . I believe you passed me on The 101 last week!

[Rick Lee]

Nah, I don't do that stuff on the street in the US.