U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2010, 02:58 PM
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
7,140 posts, read 10,423,806 times
Reputation: 8460

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Wishful thinking. The only statement in the article is the anti-cam group thinks they will be taken down. Ha ha ha!
I'm getting in a little late on this topic ... but if Brewer gets her way, the entire speed camera program will be allowed to expire, and the issue might go to the ballot so that the people can decide once and for all! Therefore, the concept of the state's photo radar program being abandoned is very much a reality ... more than just wishful thinking at this point.
Brewer Would Let Speed Camera Program Die (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/traffic/brewer_budget_photo_radar_011510 - broken link)

It really makes sense for Brewer to get rid of photo radar. After all, it was Napolitano who forced this boondoggle on everyone who drives the highways ... and she even suggested herself that it would draw in the revenue to relieve the budget deficit that she helped create. Turns out that speed cameras haven't improved safety at all (contrary to what DPS and the camera advocates want you to believe), and the revenue generated from the citations hasn't made any kind of a dent in the massive deficit.

Moderator cut: rude

Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 02-05-2010 at 01:11 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2010, 03:18 PM
 
17,843 posts, read 39,941,251 times
Reputation: 10544
Moderator cut: orphaned par of post
It does sound like the governor is strongly considering just not renewing the contract. That would be a lot simpler than going through an election on it, although the election would presumably keep the cameras from coming BACK under some scenario.

I strongly believe in speed limits and in regulating speed on the highways, but it's becoming more and more clear that the camera system as constituted is not the best way to do it.

Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 02-05-2010 at 01:12 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 08:40 AM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,055,751 times
Reputation: 1208
"Don't speed and you will not have any concerns with the cameras."

The video portion of the cameras are always on and recording. I think the original idea of that is the information could be used to 1) market to insurance companies (maybe you weren't speeding when you went by the cameras, but it should have taken you 30 seconds longer to reach the next camera, so you were indeed speeding at some point inbetween) and 2) give citations for other traffic violations (seatbelts is what I heard, I'm sure that's just the beginning).

I don't like the idea that big brother and his contracted company are video taping me. I also don't like the idea that they are keeping that information for long periods of time. And I especially don't like not knowing who has access to that information and what he/she may be doing with it. But most of all, I don't like that politicians saw this as a money grab, and with dollar signs in their eyes, put these things up (mostly) against the will of the people. Turns out the money wasn't there, and, because the same politicians had been irresponsible with our money, our state budget is in a world of hurt.

Oh, and I don't like the idea that a machine is issuing tickets. A machine can't use good judgement and discretion. For the cameras, it's all black-and-white, no matter the situation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,737 posts, read 1,551,343 times
Reputation: 2479
While speed cameras and red light cameras may sound good in theory.....anyone who's driven in an area with them will attest to the fact that they do not work and in most cases (at least in my opinion) increase the potential for accidents and make it terribly inconvenient for drivers. Anyone who'd driven on the 101 in Phoenix knows that if you're in one of the left lanes and looking to exit with several busy lanes to the right of you zooming by and you're trying to angle over to the right you have only two choices.....slow down and try to wedge you way over.....or speed up and try to wedge you way over. Slowing down in the left lanes is terribly frowned upon and increases the chance of a rear end collision from the people behind you who should be able to assume that you're not going to slow way down to find a spot to merge over. If you speed up and try to merge which makes way more sense traffic flow wise.....you're in danger of the speed camera. Soooooo.....having been in this situation so many times I can't count....I can tell you that in real life traffic cams are a disaster just waiting to happen at any given time.

Also....red light cams cause some drivers to panic when they see a yellow light and jack on the brakes to come to a screeching halt again increasing rear end collisions which is a demonstrated fact in any of the statistics I've read anyway. Again....it just makes commen sense that they would casuse some drivers to panic and jack the brakes. Drivers running red lights are a problem and I'm not denying that (as speeders can be a problem)....but in this case you've got to make sure your "cure" is not worse than the disease. Perhaps with the red light cameras if they only were triggered by the egregious red light runners....those who enter the intersection more than one second after the red light they might actually work. But it seems they are set to trigger by anyone who is not entirely through the intersection by the time the light is triggered and they end up causing panic in many drivers.

Same with the speed cameras. If they want to really increase safety on the freeway, set them to catch those few drivers to zip down the freeway at 95 miles an hour. Why are we so concerned with the folks keeping up with traffic at 80 mph in a 70 zone. If you're going with traffic that's the safest thing to do....let's catch those morons who are weaving in and out at 25 miles an hour over the limit.

But...as we know, this isn't so much about public safety as it is about revenue generation and if we did what I suggested above it certainly would increase public safety....but wouldn't generate the millions of dollars in profits that the state wants.....so I'm just pointing out the lie and disingenuous nature under which this program was started by the state and the companies who run the cameras.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 01:12 PM
 
2,942 posts, read 6,055,751 times
Reputation: 1208
Oh, yeah, let's not forget that annoying BRIGHT flash. I've never got a ticket from a camera, but I've sure been "blinded by the light" when someone else has! I believe that to be highly dangerous and distracting.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 01:15 PM
 
10,494 posts, read 25,155,606 times
Reputation: 6698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchie_az View Post
"Don't speed and you will not have any concerns with the cameras."

The video portion of the cameras are always on and recording. I think the original idea of that is the information could be used to 1) market to insurance companies (maybe you weren't speeding when you went by the cameras, but it should have taken you 30 seconds longer to reach the next camera, so you were indeed speeding at some point inbetween) and 2) give citations for other traffic violations (seatbelts is what I heard, I'm sure that's just the beginning).

I don't like the idea that big brother and his contracted company are video taping me. I also don't like the idea that they are keeping that information for long periods of time. And I especially don't like not knowing who has access to that information and what he/she may be doing with it. But most of all, I don't like that politicians saw this as a money grab, and with dollar signs in their eyes, put these things up (mostly) against the will of the people. Turns out the money wasn't there, and, because the same politicians had been irresponsible with our money, our state budget is in a world of hurt.

Oh, and I don't like the idea that a machine is issuing tickets. A machine can't use good judgement and discretion. For the cameras, it's all black-and-white, no matter the situation.
It is nice too see we finally fully agree on something for once.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2010, 11:52 PM
 
260 posts, read 459,639 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchie_az View Post
Oh, yeah, let's not forget that annoying BRIGHT flash. I've never got a ticket from a camera, but I've sure been "blinded by the light" when someone else has! I believe that to be highly dangerous and distracting.
In my opinion the photo cameras will also keep people away from Arizona, but the Arizonians may have to deal with the cameras for the rest of their lives. If Obama will build the super trains, and super buses all over Arizona, I think that will be very good for every body, and a lot of people will come and visit from around the World. I would like to see Arizona from a super train, or fly over the Grand Canyon in a Custer channel wing plane, and join in a fox hunt, with dogs, and horses, if there are fox hunts in Arizona.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2010, 11:55 PM
 
2 posts, read 2,240 times
Reputation: 10
All I do is slow down when they are close and then go back to the speed I was at. What I hate the most is when people are going 55 and slow down to 50 to make it. I hope they realize that in a 55 they can drive up to 65.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,592 posts, read 22,941,698 times
Reputation: 9930
YAAAAAAY!, that'll save me $362 a year. I usually get nailed twice. I've been noticing that about half the time they are just parked unoccupied anymore.

We still need a Ballot Prop banning their use
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,106 posts, read 37,174,086 times
Reputation: 4924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
YAAAAAAY!, that'll save me $362 a year. I usually get nailed twice. I've been noticing that about half the time they are just parked unoccupied anymore.

We still need a Ballot Prop banning their use

They are unoccupied since someone shot, and killed, the vans operator.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top