People who hate the speed cameras... (Phoenix, Scottsdale: condo, house, wedding)

[amthomps]

Originally Posted by esselcue

If you are not speeding, then why do you care? If you are speeding, then you should not complain if you get photographed doing so and cited for it. It always amazes me when people whine and complain about being held responsible for obeying laws...no matter how that law in enforced.

Even if you are going the speed limit, you can be blinded by someone around you who is speeding. I've gotten lights in my eyes more than a few times driving to work on SB 51 because some idiot in the next lane decided that 55 wasn't fast enough for them. And let me just say those flashes seem so much brighter at 2 or 5 am. It's destracting, and one of these days will cause an accident.

[schadenfreude05]

Originally Posted by deckdoc

I also believe that lawbreakers are lawbreakers ~and those that teach their kids they don't need to obey the laws put speeders is a category about the same as serial murderers!

I do hope this is simply poorly executed sarcasm.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

I've got a question...

If each speed camera was replaced by a live police officer, would you be ok with that? Do you really feel that it's unfair that you can't fight the ticket in court?

This is just me...but I have a feeling people use that excuse because they know the city could never deploy that many cops to just traffic duty, and even if they do, they know that officers let you slide every now and then, but that still doesn't change the fact that you were speeding. I feel I can speak on this because I've had literally 15+ speeding tickets in my years of driving...and I've been let off quite a few times, but the times I haven't, I've never once been able to win in court aside from the office not showing up on one occasion.

I'm not trying to justify the cameras, I think they are a pain in the ass...but I do think it's 100% the driver's fault. I mean it's simple, if you don't go over 10 MPH above the speed limit, then you won't get caught. Pretty cut and dry. It's not like they don't give you any leeway, they give about a 20% above the limit leeway. (And I don't believe when people say they got caught going 7 MPH...I'd have to see the citation to believe that. Going by your own judgment of course you're going to be bias)

The question is are the set limits realistic to the conditions? I do not mind cameras when the limits are set to a reasonable limit and they are placed and enforced equally on highways that both locals and thru traffic (out of staters) use. But I think too many states will drop a 70 mph limit to 50 and set the cameras in places where mostly out of staters tend to drive. But if it is done with the following guidelines, I do not have a problem with them:

1. The speed limit where such devices are placed shall have remained the same for at least 1 mile and any change in the past 10 miles shall have been announced with no less than 3 signs.

2. No more than 50% of the revenues of such devices can be generated from residents of other states. 50% shall be generated by residents of the state placing the device.

3. No citation shall be issued nor any fine collected from any motorist exceeding the speed limit by less than 15% of the posted limit (for example, 58 mph for a 50 mph limit and about 81 mph for a 70 mph limit.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

While correct in principle, what is wrong if everyone is going 65 without any problem? You've got a city that takes an hour to cross and we've got to obey a sign that says go 55? If I want to get out of town, going 70 feels right and I'm sure everyone else would agree. If someone doesn't like the speed on the road, get off! Take the side streets! The roads are meant to get people from one place to another. To punish those in a hurry--who have not endangered others and not caused accidents--is foolish. If you can't drive your car on a road with a speed of 70 then you shouldn't be driving. "You" here is meant as a generalization, not you specifically.

Speed limits should reflect what is resonable. On a country interstate, 70 or 75 for day, 60 or 65 at night would be reasonable in most places.

[cap1717]

Originally Posted by RCR

I feel sorry for the person who feels speeding on the freeway is part of their basic freedom.....

Yeah, I'll second that! Driving is not a right but a privledge! Breaking the law while driving is illegal, and much of the speeding, red light running and other illegal actions that I see regularly on the local freeways puts the lives of innocent people in danger, and, in fact, kills a good many of them! I am very happy that the speeding and red light running cameras are there (and I say this as a person who got "caught" going 4 miles over the limit, in a school zone, with absolutly no other persons or vehicles in sight! I guess I'll be more careful next time. . . .

[Greatday]

The Photo Radar is set to go off when the motorist exceeds the speed limit by 10 mph or more (the highest recorded was 134 in a 55 on the 101).

The Interstates, outside of the city limits, have speed limits of 75mph - day and night. 65MPH closer to the city and 55MPH often within congested areas. There are no differences between day or night.

[tyrbo52]

Originally Posted by KevK

The question is are the set limits realistic to the conditions? I do not mind cameras when the limits are set to a reasonable limit and they are placed and enforced equally on highways that both locals and thru traffic (out of staters) use. But I think too many states will drop a 70 mph limit to 50 and set the cameras in places where mostly out of staters tend to drive. But if it is done with the following guidelines, I do not have a problem with them:

1. The speed limit where such devices are placed shall have remained the same for at least 1 mile and any change in the past 10 miles shall have been announced with no less than 3 signs.

2. No more than 50% of the revenues of such devices can be generated from residents of other states. 50% shall be generated by residents of the state placing the device.

3. No citation shall be issued nor any fine collected from any motorist exceeding the speed limit by less than 15% of the posted limit (for example, 58 mph for a 50 mph limit and about 81 mph for a 70 mph limit.

I agree with 1 and 3 but not 2. There should be no prerequisite on the state of the vehicle registration.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Greatday

The Photo Radar is set to go off when the motorist exceeds the speed limit by 10 mph or more (the highest recorded was 134 in a 55 on the 101).

The Interstates, outside of the city limits, have speed limits of 75mph - day and night. 65MPH closer to the city and 55MPH often within congested areas. There are no differences between day or night.

Those are very reasonable limits and if the camera gives you an extra 10 and you are over 86 MPH you should get creamed!

[KevK]

Originally Posted by tyrbo52

I agree with 1 and 3 but not 2. There should be no prerequisite on the state of the vehicle registration.

It is not where an individual vehicle is registered but rather to prevent states from using speed cameras to snag out of staters while letting their own residents (and voters) skate. If these things become common, and I think they will, states must not be allowed to use them as a revenue generator rather than the stated purpose of public safety.
Here in Georgia I have little doubt that if they were here today the state would place the things all over I-95 because that traffic tends to be out of state traffic going from Florida to New York. On the other hand, I-16 is almost all in state going from Savannha to Atlanta and you would see no cameras there. States do not mind taking money from people that don't vote in that state and traffic safety should not be used for that reason. If it is unsafe to go 95mph on I-95, it is on I-16 too. That is a law requiring that 50% of the revenues be generated from in state residents would prevent that from happening.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Greatday

The Photo Radar is set to go off when the motorist exceeds the speed limit by 10 mph or more (the highest recorded was 134 in a 55 on the 101).

The Interstates, outside of the city limits, have speed limits of 75mph - day and night. 65MPH closer to the city and 55MPH often within congested areas. There are no differences between day or night.

Yes and no: Tucson has lower night time speed limits on its surface streets-------Grant Ave come to mind.

Then again: Tucson is 'different'...........to be polite.