Fatal crashes down 29% in Phoenix, all accidents down 10%...speed cameras being credited... (Scottsdale: home, university)

[Vinny536]

while it could be a credit to the speed cams, i feel the number of over sized SUV's that are off the road has a huge impact on accident stats.

While I'll never advocate a ban on suv's, and i own one I feel they aren't for everyone. When gas prices went up many people traded their huge, heavy, sloppy handling SUV with poor visibility for a small, nimble, maneuverable light weight car with excellent visibility and breaking. Personally i think this is a HUGE factor. but the timing of the speed cameras has overlapped this change, and naturally our government will want to hype their unpopular product.

[drb85650]

After 20 years in Phoenix, moving away to Sierra Vista, making return visits lately, traveling the 10 to 101 or 17 north.....some observations.
speed is down trememdously.
traffic is definitely less "hectic"
not as much cutting in and out, tailgating.
I drive a "suv", drove for a living while living in Phx, was used to doing 75 at least thru Phx, or jumping into the hov lane and stayng at 80, so I'm not a old 55mph and that's it guy.
Whether it's cameras, illegals leaving, less suvs(not),gas prices or the alignment of Jupiter to Uranus, I gotta admit it's better. And really, traveling 15-20 miles across town at 65 vs. 75-80...the increase in commute isn't a big chunk of your lifetime.
If the money collected is thought to be a "rip off", and it may well be....I'll choose to not give them the opportunity and keep my speed down.
Save it for the interstate.

[artvandelay]

My house has dropped in value by 40% in the past 2 years. Right about the time my daughter was born, values began to plummet. Therefore, I attribute the reduction of my home's value to my daughter living in it.

They can correlate the speed cameras to whatever suits their interests. But I do like the more sane highway driving.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

I don't know for a fact, but I assume these statistics are available somewhere. Do you really think they would skew the data?

Skewing data is what pencil pushing, government bureaucrats do the best! Besides, it's quite obvious that there isn't enough data to measure just how much these cameras have impacted accidents ... being that the widespread use of freeway cameras is a new concept. You have to consider also that cameras are not in use on all of the freeways yet. Are they counting the number of accidents on those cameraless freeway sections too? Another thing to consider: Paradise Valley, Tempe, and Scottsdale have been using photo radar on their STREETS for many years. I haven't seen any data citing reduced accident rates in those cities.

Originally Posted by artvandelay

My house has dropped in value by 40% in the past 2 years. Right about the time my daughter was born, values began to plummet. Therefore, I attribute the reduction of my home's value to my daughter living in it.

HA HA! I love it! Conjuring up fuzzy math to state that photo radar has reduced the number of accidents is basically the same twisted logic of those who claim that air bags in cars reduce the number of accidents. In reality, the accident rate increased since the implementation of air bags. Speed cameras don't make any more of a dent in the number of accidents than air bags do.

At this point, we can only hope that when more people begin retaliating against these ridiculous robotic devices, our leaders might wake up and take notice that this entire concept is wrong. Slower doesn't mean safer!

[Bummer]

I hate to be "The Poop Head" and disagree here but . . .

Even if the data is skewed, which I strongly doubt, and the cameras have saved ONLY ONE LIFE . . . THEY ARE WORTH EVERY PENNY.

Our Society would be in horrible shape (yes, even worse than it is today) if all citizens obeyed only the laws they preferred or were advantageous to their own personal agenda.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Bummer

Our Society would be in horrible shape (yes, even worse than it is today) if all citizens obeyed only the laws they preferred or were advantageous to their own personal agenda.

It's already that way, Bummer. The actions of the numerous corrupt politicians and CEOs who think they are above the law should set a perfect example. The Illinois Governor, to cite only one person, signed many bills into law ... but was so arrogant & crooked that he couldn't even adhere to his own state's laws. Arizona's Governor isn't much better. She went over the citizens in this state and forced photo radar on us without allowing a public vote on the matter ... not to save lives on the roads, mind you, but to draw in revenue to pay down a massive deficit in the state's budget which she & the Legislature couldn't come to terms on. It's nothing more than a tax on drivers without actually labeling it a tax.

In the past, you have been pretty logical about most things ... however, lately, I regret to say that it has been quite the opposite. You favor implementing unauthorized robotic speed cameras on all the highways with the mere hope of "saving only one life" ... but when a punk kid takes the life of his own father, you have espoused a much more passive, liberal attitude. I really think that you need to be educated on the difference between driving over the speed limit and committing murder. Hint: one is civil that is punishable by a fine, and the other is criminal & heinous that can (and should) be punishable by death.

[Vinny536]

Originally Posted by Bummer

I hate to be "The Poop Head" and disagree here but . . .

Even if the data is skewed, which I strongly doubt, and the cameras have saved ONLY ONE LIFE . . . THEY ARE WORTH EVERY PENNY.

Our Society would be in horrible shape (yes, even worse than it is today) if all citizens obeyed only the laws they preferred or were advantageous to their own personal agenda.

thats a 2 way street. my problem with cameras issuing fines is that it eliminates a job for police.
I was in chandler one day when someone ran a red light with an officer stopped waiting for the green on a perpendicular street. the vehicle that ran the light was flashed, and the officer did not pull this person over. As we all know MANY arrests of violent offenders and drunks occur during "routine" traffic stops such as speeding and failing to stop for a red light.

Now, there is a good chance this person was free and clear, but using your one life logic it also could have been a wanted murder, child rapist, or a drunk that could slam into a school bus at the next intersection. But the perp may not even realize he ran that light for a few weeks when the fine shows up in the mail. That is not safety, in fact it doesn't do squat for people who don't care. a speeder on the freeway can remove, switch or obscure his plate and blast passed all the cameras he wants and never get a ticket, but if an officer was there he would be stopped, possibly saving lives. If i go out and steal a plate from a car similar to mine i can rack up A LOT of fines for someone in a very short time. but getting stopped by one officer would identify the issue immediately.

If the state wants revenue from enforcing traffic violations replace all the cameras with real live people whose only job is to enforce speed, red lights etc. that would create revenue AND jobs!

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

My house has dropped in value by 40% in the past 2 years. Right about the time my daughter was born, values began to plummet. Therefore, I attribute the reduction of my home's value to my daughter living in it.

They can correlate the speed cameras to whatever suits their interests. But I do like the more sane highway driving.

I don't know...I mean, what else changed about the freeways that can correlate with the lower accident rate and lower speeds? The cameras were designed to do exactly that, they went up, and the figures went down.

You can attribute numerous market related changes to the drop in value of your house. Your analogy exists in a bubble...your house was not the only one to drop in value, therefore it would be unlikely that the birth of your daughter was the impetus behind the decline in value.

If we have a comparison of Phoenix highways (or even other highways) with comparable drivership, speed and accident figures against the ones with speed cameras on them, I'd say we're getting fairly reliable information...improved even further by similar demographics.

[Vinny536]

Originally Posted by zenkonami

I don't know...I mean, what else changed about the freeways that can correlate with the lower accident rate and lower speeds?

high fuel prices made people change their driving habits so they drive less, and drive slower.
a slow economy laid off a ton of people in phx metro, that now are out of work
people abandoned their big vehicles for smaller, more efficient ones.
Many are spending less money going out and shopping, and they are opting to stay home instead....

Lots of things really.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by 61scout80

high fuel prices made people change their driving habits so they drive less, and drive slower.
a slow economy laid off a ton of people in phx metro, that now are out of work
people abandoned their big vehicles for smaller, more efficient ones.
Many are spending less money going out and shopping, and they are opting to stay home instead....

Lots of things really.

Actually, don't you have that opposite, further suggesting that the speed cameras are the reason for less fetal accidents?

Fuel prices have dropped dramatically in the past 2-3 months when these figures were taken. Fuel was actually more expensive last year during the same time period, wasn't it?

People are opting for smaller cars, but with the economy the way it is, I doubt many can buy a new car. On top of that, with gas prices back down, people are probably using their big cars again whereas late last year they may not have.

The fact that less people are working can contribute to less accidents, I agree...but how how do you explain that fatal accidents dropped 29%?
Wouldn't it make sense that if all accidents dropped by 10% (say to less people driving) then fatal should also drop by the same percentage?

For the fetal accidents to drop at a rate of 3X as much, it makes sense that of the accidents that are still occurring, people are driving slower therefore the severity of the accident is less, no?