New Fixed Photo Radar Camera in Prescott Valley (Tucson, Chino Valley: construction, price)

[BriansPerspective]

Originally Posted by sh418

I was driving on Glassford Hill Rd a few weeks ago and the camera light flashed. Does that mean I will get a ticket? I was only going 3 or 4 miles over the limit. If so, how long does it take to get the ticket in the mail?

You were probably coming from 89A and you probably thought the speed limit was 45 mph. The speed limit changes to 35 mph before the camera. So my guess is that you were going 48 mph, which is 13 mph above the limit. There are three 35 mph signs and two photo enforcement signs prior to the camera. If I am wrong, I appologize. I'm just making an educated guess.

[LADY_DI2010]

prescott valley is money hungry,

[Esenjay]

Originally Posted by LADY_DI2010

prescott valley is money hungry,

Just about every town/city is...this isn't a shocking revelation. Economy sucks, film at 11.

[BriansPerspective]

Originally Posted by LADY_DI2010

prescott valley is money hungry,

If you talk to the town council or the town manager, they will tell you that the photo radar is a net break even to the town. The council and manager view the radar as purely a behavior changing tool to reduce accidents.

Now redflex might be raking in the dough. I have no idea about that.

[wretched wrench]

Originally Posted by BriansPerspective

If you talk to the town council or the town manager, they will tell you that the photo radar is a net break even to the town. The council and manager view the radar as purely a behavior changing tool to reduce accidents.

Well, what else would they say?

What other city and county fees are for behavior changes? Most are for revenue, pure and simple. I believe PV has the biggest building permit and related fees around here. Is there some particular behavior pattern unique to PV that they have to modify?

Or is it revenue?

Yavapai county building related fees took a huge jump a few years ago, too. Same question.

Every now and then, here and there across the country, police will cut WAAAAAY back on ticket writing to make a some point or other. The city officials have a fit over the revenue loss. BTW, the fatality and injury rates do not rise, because the police still go after the really dangerous ones.

[Zonie5]

i have stayed out of PV . not sure why . last few months i have been doing some shopping in AT&T, Frys and a couple more . driving different roads has been confusing as the speed limit changes for no appereant reason . the other day i pulled out from Frys and went East on Florentine Road. stpped at a red light to turn North on Glasford road . light changed for left turn and i stayed with the speed of other vehicles . we all passed the SUV parked on side with the radar . i admit i was about 7-8miles pver the posted limit . i did not know what the limit was , i kept up with the traffic .have not received a ticket yet , but it dampned outlook about PV and have not been back since . the SUV was parked just before the posted 45MPH sign . i do not care what the police department says about it . to me that was done with a malicous thought . up until that i was thinking of doing more shopping in PV . maybe from now on i will look more towards Prescott . yes, i traveled on Roberts road too . the speed limit there is set to entrap unsuspecting motorists . maybe the town fathers should realize they are not living in Mayberry era .

[Low Roller]

Originally Posted by Zonie5

i admit i was about 7-8miles pver the posted limit . i did not know what the limit was , i kept up with the traffic .have not received a ticket yet , but it dampned outlook about PV and have not been back since . the SUV was parked just before the posted 45MPH sign . i do not care what the police department says about it . to me that was done with a malicous thought . ... yes, i traveled on Roberts road too . the speed limit there is set to entrap unsuspecting motorists .

Yes, I've seen more than one instance where an SUV was set up with obvious malicious intent - as when one was parked in a business parking lot among other cars next to a busy street, hoping passerbys would not notice it. That's the modern equivalent of a motorcycle cop hiding behind a billboard.

If you're sure you weren't over 10mph of the limit, then you shouldn't have to worry about a ticket.

Yes about Robert Road, there's no reason for it to be 25 other than as a speed trap. I try to avoid it if possible.

I got flashed there well over a month ago, and have not gotten a ticket. For you lawyers out there, I have an interesting scenario:

I am 6'4", and a friend theorized that I might have dodged the ticket because I sit up very high in my truck seat, so it's possible that the camera couldn't catch my face through the windshield (the cameras being set at a certain angle for "average"-sized drivers.)

Might this be a way of Constitutionally challenging the cameras? I'm not sure of the proper legal argument, but perhaps it might violate the equal protection clause or something like that? I would think it would negatively discriminate against shorter drivers if I was able to avoid tickets merely because I was taller. Maybe an argument like that would be a way to kill these things.

Anyway, just a thought.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Low Roller

Yes, I've seen more than one instance where an SUV was set up with obvious malicious intent - as when one was parked in a business parking lot among other cars next to a busy street, hoping passerbys would not notice it. That's the modern equivalent of a motorcycle cop hiding behind a billboard.

If you're sure you weren't over 10mph of the limit, then you shouldn't have to worry about a ticket.

Yes about Robert Road, there's no reason for it to be 25 other than as a speed trap. I try to avoid it if possible.

I got flashed there well over a month ago, and have not gotten a ticket. For you lawyers out there, I have an interesting scenario:

I am 6'4", and a friend theorized that I might have dodged the ticket because I sit up very high in my truck seat, so it's possible that the camera couldn't catch my face through the windshield (the cameras being set at a certain angle for "average"-sized drivers.)

Might this be a way of Constitutionally challenging the cameras? I'm not sure of the proper legal argument, but perhaps it might violate the equal protection clause or something like that? I would think it would negatively discriminate against shorter drivers if I was able to avoid tickets merely because I was taller. Maybe an argument like that would be a way to kill these things.

Anyway, just a thought.

Sorry, neither taller than average nor shorter than average people, are considered "protected classes" for equal protection/constitutional purposes.

[BriansPerspective]

Supposedly if they cannot identify you, they cannot ticket you. That's just heresay though.

[wretched wrench]

Originally Posted by Low Roller

Yes about Robert Road, there's no reason for it to be 25 other than as a speed trap. I try to avoid it if possible.

It's all tore up. 15 mph limit in a lot of it.