People who hate the speed cameras... (Phoenix: photo radar, real estate, crimes)

[HX_Guy]

I haven't been able to chime back in until now but listen...

The cameras are 100% for revenue, there is no denying that. However, I do think that people driving slower is a byproduct. I know for myself personally that now I drive no more then 7-8 miles over the speed limit, and not just where I know there are cameras, but everywhere because the mobile units are out there too.

People seem so pissed off that it's for revenue...but it's not like it's the only thing out there that generates revenue and does not affect safety. Think about parking meters as an example...they generate revenue and what other purpose do they serve? Why aren't people yelling and screaming about those?

[roundball]

I think that the cameras do have some positives. The main negative that I experience is when traffic is going a nice 70-75, and a few idiots brake to 60 creating havoc.

[joninaz]

There's actually a larger concept involved here... this is an unprecedented change to our judicial/legal and enforcement systems. For the first time in our history we're basically giving the right to accuse and issue criminal warrants to a machine. In this case, a camera/computer system (which raises an entirely different argument as to who owns and operates these systems). Until now, there's always been a human element involved in the decision to levy charges... but now it's software and circuitry. That's a fundamental shift in legal concepts.

In the 6th Amendment to the constitution, it stipulates that those accused have the right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” It’s kind of hard to put a camera on the stand and ask questions of it. Just recently the fellow whose job it was to callibrate the cameras in Tempe was arrested for DUI - on the job. It's kind of scary to think that the machines he set up had the authority to issue criminal charges against anyone who drove by them... people who might have been arrested, put in jail, etc. based on those camera's "decisions" alone.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

I haven't been able to chime back in until now but listen...

The cameras are 100% for revenue, there is no denying that. However, I do think that people driving slower is a byproduct. I know for myself personally that now I drive no more then 7-8 miles over the speed limit, and not just where I know there are cameras, but everywhere because the mobile units are out there too.

So how is driving slower an improvement? I've witnessed the slower traffic on the southbound 51 freeway at the three permanent camera locations. The first location is near the Bethany exit, just shortly after the speed limit reduces to 55 MPH. During non rush hour times, traffic often moves along at 70 MPH in the left lane, and isn't dangerous. Now, with the cameras, traffic abruptly slows to less than 55 MPH. I got behind some sheepish drivers who braked to around 45 MPH at the Bethany camera site. How is this safe???

Why is there such a cry for everyone to drive sooooooo SLLLLOOOWWWW? As I've stated before, we live in the type of environment that allows for faster driving. Our weather is clear much of the time, and roads are generally wide & in good condition. Also, since we're one of the nation's sprawl capitals, people tend to drive faster to reduce the longer commute times. It all makes sense. We've always driven faster in Arizona. Why can't the transplants, and our idiotic Governor (who is a transplant herself) realize this???

[HX_Guy]

Most cars and most roads can handle much higher speeds. The problem is the people.

Yes, I agree that if we had the training and the education they get in say Germany to get their license, then higher speed limits would be ok. But when you have people texting, eating, doing their make-up, etc etc...then is it really better to drive faster?

[Rachiie]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Why is there such a cry for everyone to drive sooooooo SLLLLOOOWWWW? As I've stated before, we live in the type of environment that allows for faster driving. Our weather is clear much of the time, and roads are generally wide & in good condition. Also, since we're one of the nation's sprawl capitals, people tend to drive faster to reduce the longer commute times. It all makes sense. We've always driven faster in Arizona. Why can't the transplants, and our idiotic Governor (who is a transplant herself) realize this???

I personally don't want everyone to drive slow, I do wish everyone drove the speed limit. If the speed limit was increased by 10/15mph I would be fine driving at that speed also. Until they do, I will continue to drive around the legal speed limit as I do not want a ticket.

A large variation in speed between the fast drivers and the slow drivers creates a high possibility of accidents. Some studies have shown that by increasing the speed limit it reduces the amount of accidents by effectively letting the law abiding drivers "catch up" with the speeders. I suppose this is the go with the flow technique that we keep hearing about.

There will always be people like myself that do not wish to speed and unless they plan to increase the speed limit (doubtful) it seems the only safe option is to get the speeders to slow down.

Regards,
A.Transplant

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Most cars and most roads can handle much higher speeds. The problem is the people.

Yes, I agree that if we had the training and the education they get in say Germany to get their license, then higher speed limits would be ok. But when you have people texting, eating, doing their make-up, etc etc...then is it really better to drive faster?

I completely agree ... especially the part about those who "multi task" behind the wheel. However, those are the types who (in my experience) tend to drive a little slower ... but that certainly doesn't make them any safer! Besides, radar cameras can't pull over & cite the inattentive drivers who multi task and are inattentive as a result. Nor can cameras do anything about the impaired drivers, or the annoying ones like the tailgaters. They are simply in place to cite people who drive a little fast so that the state can make up for its budget shortfall.

I've already given examples of what traffic does on the 51 at the camera sites. Many drivers slam on their brakes, often reducing their speed to a ridiculously slow 45 MPH as a kneejerk reaction to the cameras. Then they speed up again, only to slam on their brakes at the next camera location, which is Indian School Road if I'm not mistaken. This is safety???

[ranman469]

we were on a motorcycle ride the other morning 3 bikes going 62 in a 55 and the cameria blinked 2 times?? i had my cruse set and i run a gps to check speed. i will see if a ticket shows up

[Finger Laker]

Originally Posted by joninaz

There's actually a larger concept involved here... this is an unprecedented change to our judicial/legal and enforcement systems. For the first time in our history we're basically giving the right to accuse and issue criminal warrants to a machine. In this case, a camera/computer system (which raises an entirely different argument as to who owns and operates these systems). Until now, there's always been a human element involved in the decision to levy charges... but now it's software and circuitry. That's a fundamental shift in legal concepts.

In the 6th Amendment to the constitution, it stipulates that those accused have the right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” It’s kind of hard to put a camera on the stand and ask questions of it. Just recently the fellow whose job it was to callibrate the cameras in Tempe was arrested for DUI - on the job. It's kind of scary to think that the machines he set up had the authority to issue criminal charges against anyone who drove by them... people who might have been arrested, put in jail, etc. based on those camera's "decisions" alone.

**ding**

it's not about speeding people - arguing about that is simply a red herring to get people emotionally charged and distracted from the real issues

governance by machine and terrible fiscal responsibility from our elected reps

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

But when you have people texting, eating, doing their make-up, etc etc...then is it really better to drive faster?

No, it's better to have a mandatory 30 days in the tent city and one year of no license for anyone convicted of driving while distracted. That would put an end to the problem pretty quickly. When lawmakers start taking this stuff as seriously as they do DUI, we'll be on our way to safer roads. I have nearly been killed several times by people in cars with cell phones. I'll take my chances any day with a drunk driver before a cell phone chatter/texter/make-up putter on.