Results 1 to 58 of 58
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748

    OT: Traffic Cameras on I-10

    While crossing the CA/AZ Border I noticed traffic cameras pretty much right away. They were not finished yet, but they are installed. They also had several of the mobile photo stations between the border an Phoenix snapping photos. Do these count as points against you yet?

    I have not noticed them on 1-40 between Kingman and Flag yet. Are they going border to border with these things?

  2. #2
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,182
    Quote Originally Posted by JrockFeltaz
    While crossing the CA/AZ Border I noticed traffic cameras pretty much right away. They were not finished yet, but they are installed. They also had several of the mobile photo stations between the border an Phoenix snapping photos. Do these count as points against you yet?

    I have not noticed them on 1-40 between Kingman and Flag yet. Are they going border to border with these things?

    they know what you are doing.
    they know what you have done.
    you cannot escape.

  3. #3
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Given the monetary shortfall that Az. is experiencing I should think that income generating cameras will become very prevelent .

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    they know what you are doing.
    they know what you have done.
    you cannot escape.

    I have nothing they want or don't already know.

  5. #5
    nobody
    Reputation: wookalar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    490
    Driving back from Sedona on I-17 a couple weeks ago I saw a mobile radar camera positioned near the top of the hill and just over the rise (in a blind spot, of course) at about the spot where most people would have speeded back up after passing the camera was a DPS officer. Pretty sneaky. Watch out or they'll get you....and I'm pretty sure you get points for those.
    I'm what Willis was talkin' about

  6. #6
    How do I do that?
    Reputation: Tuff Gong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    561
    I don't think they have any effect on your points......yet. They've been trying to pass some laws that would change that with the obvious support of the insurance companies.

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/140650

    http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ph...l2yiyUzCw.cspx

    So I guess they'll keep bending the laws somehow to now also allow money to be made by the insurance companies They must have been itching for this since these things came out

  7. #7
    Shred...it's the new drug
    Reputation: latedropbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,844
    Wish regard to the camera's on the border of AZ and Phoenix, and cameras on the city limits of phoenix and flagstaff...I heard that they will be snapping photos of everyone leaving phoenix and either going out west and up to flag and calculating the time it should take and comparing it to your time to see if you were speeding on the way out of town. They'll ticket you if you are under the normal time. Kinda like a time trial...

  8. #8
    How do I do that?
    Reputation: Tuff Gong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    561
    Thats sort of what some states with tolls do from what I've heard. I'm not sure it's done but one can receive a toll stub with a time stamp at the beginning, travel to the destination exit and they calculate your average speed and possibly give you a ticket if you obviously made it in record time.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation: cesslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,111
    That is an excuse to not only speed, but take safety breaks along the way.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kortface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    328
    Yeah, safety breaks, LOL!!!!


    .
    Eating meat is murder, yummy yummy murder!!

  11. #11
    AKA shitbird
    Reputation: eabos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,342
    I love weekend road trips cause we put the bikes over my tailgate shielding my license plate and I can speed through the cameras. FLASH, FLASH....I pretend that it's the paparazzi and I'm their target, it feeds the ego of the fantasy world going on in my mind
    JRA

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    This has nothing to do with safety. It's strictly revenue.

  13. #13
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by eabos
    I love weekend road trips cause we put the bikes over my tailgate shielding my license plate and I can speed through the cameras. FLASH, FLASH....I pretend that it's the paparazzi and I'm their target, it feeds the ego of the fantasy world going on in my mind
    +1! I leave my hitch rack on all the time, even with no intentions of trying to speed. I had an idea to put some SOLAS tape on my license plate holder, but that kinda would be dangerous to people behind me. Hopefully all this crap will get voted down by the ballot ref in 2010.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,341
    1984.

  15. #15
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by JrockFeltaz
    This has nothing to do with safety. It's strictly revenue.
    Prove it.

    There are always options, but why rebuild entire sections of road, invest in new protection systems, increase education, increase enforcement, hire more DPS officers, when you can get the same result with some cameras. You say it's just about revenue, but I say it's about trying to reduce deaths and horrific accidents like we have on I-17 each week. How do we do this? Line the entire road with nerf-rails and pads? Require cars to push out huge airbags like the mars lander? How much would the other solutions cost? Who's going to pay for it? Sounds nice on paper and all, but we have some pretty bad accidents out there.

    Everybody is always thinking "I can do whatever I want any time I want", but there have to be limits. Cars are becomming ever-more powerfull and capable, and cruising at 100+ is well within the capability of many cars. There is probably a good mountain of evidence that people are driving faster and faster, and lowering the speed limits doesn't do much in a sparsely populated state, and then there's the problem of getting to accident scenes in a sparsely populated state.

    Seriously, what is your solution to address the above problems? How are you going to find money for it?

    I don't understand the people out there crimially speeding (above 85mph) all the time. I realize that for temporary periods of time you might go that fast if you are passing someone when the speed limit is 75, but I've seen some horrendous accidents on I-17 (between Flagstaff and Phoenix). If someone has to sustain those kinds of speeds they have serious issues IMO. I remember one accident not too long ago on I-17 that involved an Acura NSX that was ripped to shreds. The passenger-compartment was intact, but most everything else was gone, and due to the car rolling around (end over end), the occupants could have easily died from this. The thing is that people are driving at these insane speeds in cars much unsafer than an NSX. At those speeds you also eat up gas like crazy.

    You can go ahead and say "well they drive 340mph on the highwas in California and New Jersey", but we have some pretty specific issues, such as little to no ermergency vehicle response over huge stretches of land.

    I noticed the cameras as I came back into the state today on 40, although they didn't look like speed-cameras, they looked like some sort of inspection-camera. There is no inspection-stop like in California (where all vehicles are forced to exit off the highway), so I was speculating that one purpose for the cameras would be to "catch" any trucks not entering the station, but I have not heard about the speed thing.

    Are people responsible enough to drive safely at slower speeds without these types of enforcement? I think the air above Phoenix is a good indicator of how "responsible" we are as a whole. There are an endless amount of examples. I'm not a fan of increased government control and "big brother", but our need to live (and drive) in excess is making that happen.

    I don't know if the state's cameras are the same way, but in Prescott Valley the system is engineered to just break-even, so it's not adding revenue or reducing it, but it is reducing the accidents at the intersections/stretches where they installed it. The emergency response, hospital stuff, and so on is where they say money is saved.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  16. #16
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Prove it.

    There are always options, but why rebuild entire sections of road, invest in new protection systems, increase education, increase enforcement, hire more DPS officers, when you can get the same result with some cameras. You say it's just about revenue, but I say it's about trying to reduce deaths and horrific accidents like we have on I-17 each week. How do we do this? Line the entire road with nerf-rails and pads? Require cars to push out huge airbags like the mars lander? How much would the other solutions cost? Who's going to pay for it? Sounds nice on paper and all, but we have some pretty bad accidents out there.

    Everybody is always thinking "I can do whatever I want any time I want", but there have to be limits. Cars are becomming ever-more powerfull and capable, and cruising at 100+ is well within the capability of many cars. There is probably a good mountain of evidence that people are driving faster and faster, and lowering the speed limits doesn't do much in a sparsely populated state, and then there's the problem of getting to accident scenes in a sparsely populated state.

    Seriously, what is your solution to address the above problems? How are you going to find money for it?

    I don't understand the people out there crimially speeding (above 85mph) all the time. I realize that for temporary periods of time you might go that fast if you are passing someone when the speed limit is 75, but I've seen some horrendous accidents on I-17 (between Flagstaff and Phoenix). If someone has to sustain those kinds of speeds they have serious issues IMO. I remember one accident not too long ago on I-17 that involved an Acura NSX that was ripped to shreds. The passenger-compartment was intact, but most everything else was gone, and due to the car rolling around (end over end), the occupants could have easily died from this. The thing is that people are driving at these insane speeds in cars much unsafer than an NSX. At those speeds you also eat up gas like crazy.

    You can go ahead and say "well they drive 340mph on the highwas in California and New Jersey", but we have some pretty specific issues, such as little to no ermergency vehicle response over huge stretches of land.

    I noticed the cameras as I came back into the state today on 40, although they didn't look like speed-cameras, they looked like some sort of inspection-camera. There is no inspection-stop like in California (where all vehicles are forced to exit off the highway), so I was speculating that one purpose for the cameras would be to "catch" any trucks not entering the station, but I have not heard about the speed thing.

    Are people responsible enough to drive safely at slower speeds without these types of enforcement? I think the air above Phoenix is a good indicator of how "responsible" we are as a whole. There are an endless amount of examples. I'm not a fan of increased government control and "big brother", but our need to live (and drive) in excess is making that happen.

    I don't know if the state's cameras are the same way, but in Prescott Valley the system is engineered to just break-even, so it's not adding revenue or reducing it, but it is reducing the accidents at the intersections/stretches where they installed it. The emergency response, hospital stuff, and so on is where they say money is saved.
    oh please.

  17. #17
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,251
    You all ever drive north from London to Scotland.......that's in England folks.....close to Europe...permanent speeding cameras every few kilometers.

    It's not hard to drive the speed limit once you have that kind of enforcement....in fact, it made the trip much more enjoyable since everyone was driving roughly the same speed....I never once felt I had to gun it to overtake anyone....or slam on the brakes because I was going much faster than anyone else....plus the traffic circles every 20km or so to let traffic off to eat at the Little Chef made it "sporty"....but I digress

    I don't like the idea of 1984 anymore than anyone else....but as long as folks continue to gripe about unimportant crap like this...the folks close to the power lever are going to have their way on the issues that really matter.....lf you don't like it....roll out to vote in 2010.




  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,618
    I noticed the posted speed limit on I15 in Utah is now 80mph. That means most cars will be doing 85-90.

  19. #19
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    You say it's just about revenue, but I say it's about trying to reduce deaths and horrific accidents like we have on I-17 each week. How do we do this?
    Arizona can start by actually teaching people to not drive like tards. This state has some of the worst drivers I have ever seen and it has nothing to do with speed limits (hell most of the time people don't even do 75mph on the 17) and everything to do with people thinking its ok to make right hand turns from left hand lanes while yapping on cell phones.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ECEGatorTuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Arizona can start by actually teaching people to not drive like tards. This state has some of the worst drivers I have ever seen and it has nothing to do with speed limits (hell most of the time people don't even do 75mph on the 17) and everything to do with people thinking its ok to make right hand turns from left hand lanes while yapping on cell phones.
    You want to see horrific driving? Go drive around Miami for a day and let me know how that goes. I grew up in Miami and when I moved to AZ a few years ago, first thing I said was "WOW, people can actually drive here!" Beleive me... it's much worse in other places. The snowbirds do make things worse here but overall, the driving here is WAAAAY better in comparison to other cities!

  21. #21
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ECEGatorTuro
    You want to see horrific driving? Go drive around Miami for a day and let me know how that goes. I grew up in Miami and when I moved to AZ a few years ago, first thing I said was "WOW, people can actually drive here!" Beleive me... it's much worse in other places. The snowbirds do make things worse here but overall, the driving here is WAAAAY better in comparison to other cities!
    Yeah, Miami is pretty bad, but for a big city, PHX is just as bad, maybe its a warm climate thing.

    I think I just got spoiled driving in a major city where people actually had to deal with real road hazards like ice and snow and still managed to do so without all the stupidness.

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation: cesslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,111
    Miami is a terrible place to drive. Nothing like being stuck behind a gray hair driving a Mercedec SL500 going 20 under the speed limit.

  23. #23
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Arizona can start by actually teaching people to not drive like tards. This state has some of the worst drivers I have ever seen and it has nothing to do with speed limits (hell most of the time people don't even do 75mph on the 17) and everything to do with people thinking its ok to make right hand turns from left hand lanes while yapping on cell phones.
    Will it work? How do you teach people that are just driving through our state from CA to somewhere else? How exactly would "teaching people" stop them from doing the 90 or greater mph cruise?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KavuRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Will it work? How do you teach people that are just driving through our state from CA to somewhere else?
    Meh. Trying to teach people by enforcing rules like this accomplishes nothing.

    I have not noticed anyone driving any safer with the cameras.
    I have noticed that people are constantly forgetting about them and then you have 4 lanes of traffic slam on their brakes in unison so they won't get a ticket. Yeah, way to go...

    I think the cameras are 1) for revenue and 2) to give the "illusion" of doing something to improve safety.

    fwiw, I rarely ever speed. I hate driving, mostly because people just don't seem to be aware that they aren't the only ones on the road.

  25. #25
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by KavuRider
    fwiw, I rarely ever speed. I hate driving, mostly because people just don't seem to be aware that they aren't the only ones on the road.
    Same here, no real point in speeding. Between PHX and Flag it might save you 15 minutes of time. I am just not in that much of a rush to care about 15 minutes.

    The people slamming on their brakes at ever camera is really annoying and dangerous. I had a girl slam on her brakes and STOP in front of me in the middle of Priest the other day when she saw the camera flash. She just sat there an looked around like "Did it take my picture"

  26. #26
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by KavuRider
    I have not noticed anyone driving any safer with the cameras.
    I have noticed that people are constantly forgetting about them and then you have 4 lanes of traffic slam on their brakes in unison so they won't get a ticket. Yeah, way to go...

    I think the cameras are 1) for revenue and 2) to give the "illusion" of doing something to improve safety.

    fwiw, I rarely ever speed. I hate driving, mostly because people just don't seem to be aware that they aren't the only ones on the road.
    They would argue though that the cameras do exactly what they are supposed to, keep people from going 60mph through those intersections or cruise at 90 or more on those freeways. They realize there will be crashes, but they can keep them from being as serious and have less of them with slower traffic. I think that some people tend to think that the law-makers are trying to pawn this off as some sort of "perfect solution". It's obviously not and I think they know this as well. As I said before, cars have become more and more capable since the 1960s. Humans on the other hand do not evolve anywhere near that fast, so our capabilities are fixed for the most part. Technology (expensive) can help, but it's expensive. So how does this get addressed? How do we keep from having horrible accidents on the freeways of the state? They will still happen even with the speed cameras, but it's easy to justify if the number is less. Even if the numbers are the same it's a decrease per capita (as population continues to increase).
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  27. #27
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Prove it.

    There are always options, but why rebuild entire sections of road, invest in new protection systems, increase education, increase enforcement, hire more DPS officers, when you can get the same result with some cameras. You say it's just about revenue, but I say it's about trying to reduce deaths and horrific accidents like we have on I-17 each week. How do we do this? Line the entire road with nerf-rails and pads? Require cars to push out huge airbags like the mars lander? How much would the other solutions cost? Who's going to pay for it? Sounds nice on paper and all, but we have some pretty bad accidents out there.

    Everybody is always thinking "I can do whatever I want any time I want", but there have to be limits. Cars are becomming ever-more powerfull and capable, and cruising at 100+ is well within the capability of many cars. There is probably a good mountain of evidence that people are driving faster and faster, and lowering the speed limits doesn't do much in a sparsely populated state, and then there's the problem of getting to accident scenes in a sparsely populated state.

    Seriously, what is your solution to address the above problems? How are you going to find money for it?

    I don't understand the people out there crimially speeding (above 85mph) all the time. I realize that for temporary periods of time you might go that fast if you are passing someone when the speed limit is 75, but I've seen some horrendous accidents on I-17 (between Flagstaff and Phoenix). If someone has to sustain those kinds of speeds they have serious issues IMO. I remember one accident not too long ago on I-17 that involved an Acura NSX that was ripped to shreds. The passenger-compartment was intact, but most everything else was gone, and due to the car rolling around (end over end), the occupants could have easily died from this. The thing is that people are driving at these insane speeds in cars much unsafer than an NSX. At those speeds you also eat up gas like crazy.

    You can go ahead and say "well they drive 340mph on the highwas in California and New Jersey", but we have some pretty specific issues, such as little to no ermergency vehicle response over huge stretches of land.

    I noticed the cameras as I came back into the state today on 40, although they didn't look like speed-cameras, they looked like some sort of inspection-camera. There is no inspection-stop like in California (where all vehicles are forced to exit off the highway), so I was speculating that one purpose for the cameras would be to "catch" any trucks not entering the station, but I have not heard about the speed thing.

    Are people responsible enough to drive safely at slower speeds without these types of enforcement? I think the air above Phoenix is a good indicator of how "responsible" we are as a whole. There are an endless amount of examples. I'm not a fan of increased government control and "big brother", but our need to live (and drive) in excess is making that happen.



    I don't know if the state's cameras are the same way, but in Prescott Valley the system is engineered to just break-even, so it's not adding revenue or reducing it, but it is reducing the accidents at the intersections/stretches where they installed it. The emergency response, hospital stuff, and so on is where they say money is saved.

    I do that drive at least twice a month. People still drive in excess of over 100. Now they just slam on their brakes now that they have enough warning for the cameras.

    I can justify the uses in areas like the 101 where douchebaggery prevails on the road

    Passing on the right is a much greater of a problem than speeding.

    90 - 100 is acceptable on empty, open stretches of road.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: u2metoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,901
    My biggest aggravation is, not knowing what the speed limit is at all times, and the stress builds when I get into a camera zone.
    I have a tendency to drive slower when I donít what the speed limit is, which for a safety aspect is a good thing, but isnít exactly practical either.

    Speed limit signs usually appear following an on ramp and when the route demands a different speed ahead, but I can sometimes go for miles without seeing the posted speed sign. And usually a warning sign is posted if the speed limit is reduces ahead, but I donít always notice when the speed increases.

    Iíd say that some of that revenue from the tickets should be used to purchase more speed limit signs. At the very least they should have to post a speed limit sign along with the already legally required Ďwarning photo enforcement aheadí sign.

  29. #29
    Saucy Size
    Reputation: Paul B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,482
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Same here, no real point in speeding. Between PHX and Flag it might save you 15 minutes of time. I am just not in that much of a rush to care about 15 minutes.

    The people slamming on their brakes at ever camera is really annoying and dangerous. I had a girl slam on her brakes and STOP in front of me in the middle of Priest the other day when she saw the camera flash. She just sat there an looked around like "Did it take my picture"
    Ahahaha!
    Don't be that guy! Read the forum guidelines.

  30. #30
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by JrockFeltaz
    I do that drive at least twice a month. People still drive in excess of over 100. Now they just slam on their brakes now that they have enough warning for the cameras.

    I can justify the uses in areas like the 101 where douchebaggery prevails on the road

    Passing on the right is a much greater of a problem than speeding.

    90 - 100 is acceptable on empty, open stretches of road.
    Well, they don't always. Sometimes they are distracted and do not see the cameras. Yeah, sometimes they slam on their brakes, but every once and a while they do get caught. Over 85 is criminal and means "go to jail", although sometimes it's marked down. Not to mention that when there's a lot of traffic, having a "choke point" is going to slow it all down. You may be rationalizing that they are slowing from 70 or 75 to 65, passing the camera, and then going back to that speed, but that's a lot slower than 90 and the overall effect is taking the speed down.

    90-100 is not acceptable. That's a rediculous rationalization. What happens when an Elk, or hell a porcupine or just a large squirrel comes out of nowhere on to the road? Do you realize what hapens when you hit something at that speed and then go out of control? You said "on empty stretches of road". so how's the emergency response "on empty stretches of road"? How does the capability of a BMW 335 compare to the POS saturn I saw doing those speeds? So how do you account for the vastly different capabilities of the vehicles? There are plenty of vehicles that shouldn't be going those speeds, not to mention you can't plan for the unexpected things like potholes and animals. Your rationalization of 90-100 is just rediculous. Do we have the infrastructure to allow that? Are the roads inspected for hazards? Are they designed to keep out animals? There are a myriad of areas where our vehicles, infrastructure and capabilities are insufficient. Just because you can go 90-100 on a certain stretch does not mean it is a good idea for everybody on all of these empty stretches. That is flat out irresponsible and unsafe.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  31. #31
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Well, they don't always. Sometimes they are distracted and do not see the cameras. Yeah, sometimes they slam on their brakes, but every once and a while they do get caught. Over 85 is criminal and means "go to jail", although sometimes it's marked down. Not to mention that when there's a lot of traffic, having a "choke point" is going to slow it all down. You may be rationalizing that they are slowing from 70 or 75 to 65, passing the camera, and then going back to that speed, but that's a lot slower than 90 and the overall effect is taking the speed down.

    90-100 is not acceptable. That's a rediculous rationalization. What happens when an Elk, or hell a porcupine or just a large squirrel comes out of nowhere on to the road? Do you realize what hapens when you hit something at that speed and then go out of control? You said "on empty stretches of road". so how's the emergency response "on empty stretches of road"? How does the capability of a BMW 335 compare to the POS saturn I saw doing those speeds? So how do you account for the vastly different capabilities of the vehicles? There are plenty of vehicles that shouldn't be going those speeds, not to mention you can't plan for the unexpected things like potholes and animals. Your rationalization of 90-100 is just rediculous. Do we have the infrastructure to allow that? Are the roads inspected for hazards? Are they designed to keep out animals? There are a myriad of areas where our vehicles, infrastructure and capabilities are insufficient. Just because you can go 90-100 on a certain stretch does not mean it is a good idea for everybody on all of these empty stretches. That is flat out irresponsible and unsafe.

    did you write the book "Unsafe At Any Speed"? Or was that someone just like you?

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    did you write the book "Unsafe At Any Speed"? Or was that someone just like you?
    No, I'm going to write the book "Don't whine like a sissy when they raise the taxes or we run out of money again, you asked for it".
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  33. #33
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    No, I'm going to write the book "Don't whine like a sissy when they raise the taxes or we run out of money again, you asked for it".
    The only reason we (or, should I say, the impractical and irresponsible State Government) runs out of money, is the complete and utter disregard for history. The little cameras you are so proud of are a result of this mismanagement and do nothing but bolster the bottom line for a silly Australian company as well as stress people out where there should be no distractions like flashing lights in your face.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KavuRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    The only reason we (or, should I say, the impractical and irresponsible State Government) runs out of money, is the complete and utter disregard for history. The little cameras you are so proud of are a result of this mismanagement and do nothing but bolster the bottom line for a silly Australian company as well as stress people out where there should be no distractions like flashing lights in your face.
    What the...I actually completely agree with you...

    Jayem - I am only referring to the speed cameras, not the red light cameras.

    Although...with the red light cameras...those who blow the lights are going to do so regardless...and I'm willing to bet they aren't going to pay their ticket either.

  35. #35
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Well, they don't always. Sometimes they are distracted and do not see the cameras. Yeah, sometimes they slam on their brakes, but every once and a while they do get caught. Over 85 is criminal and means "go to jail", although sometimes it's marked down. Not to mention that when there's a lot of traffic, having a "choke point" is going to slow it all down. You may be rationalizing that they are slowing from 70 or 75 to 65, passing the camera, and then going back to that speed, but that's a lot slower than 90 and the overall effect is taking the speed down.

    90-100 is not acceptable. That's a rediculous rationalization. What happens when an Elk, or hell a porcupine or just a large squirrel comes out of nowhere on to the road? Do you realize what hapens when you hit something at that speed and then go out of control? You said "on empty stretches of road". so how's the emergency response "on empty stretches of road"? How does the capability of a BMW 335 compare to the POS saturn I saw doing those speeds? So how do you account for the vastly different capabilities of the vehicles? There are plenty of vehicles that shouldn't be going those speeds, not to mention you can't plan for the unexpected things like potholes and animals. Your rationalization of 90-100 is just rediculous. Do we have the infrastructure to allow that? Are the roads inspected for hazards? Are they designed to keep out animals? There are a myriad of areas where our vehicles, infrastructure and capabilities are insufficient. Just because you can go 90-100 on a certain stretch does not mean it is a good idea for everybody on all of these empty stretches. That is flat out irresponsible and unsafe.
    I get passed by CHP officers all the time while doing 85 on I - 5. I have never been cited for reckless or criminal driving. I drive a finely tuned german driving machine. If I drove some american POS then I would understand doing the speed limit.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KavuRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by u2metoo
    My biggest aggravation is, not knowing what the speed limit is at all times, and the stress builds when I get into a camera zone.
    I have a tendency to drive slower when I donít what the speed limit is, which for a safety aspect is a good thing, but isnít exactly practical either.

    Speed limit signs usually appear following an on ramp and when the route demands a different speed ahead, but I can sometimes go for miles without seeing the posted speed sign. And usually a warning sign is posted if the speed limit is reduces ahead, but I donít always notice when the speed increases.

    Iíd say that some of that revenue from the tickets should be used to purchase more speed limit signs. At the very least they should have to post a speed limit sign along with the already legally required Ďwarning photo enforcement aheadí sign.

  37. #37
    aka Diesel
    Reputation: CoyoteKis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Arizona can start by actually teaching people to not drive like tards. This state has some of the worst drivers I have ever seen and it has nothing to do with speed limits (hell most of the time people don't even do 75mph on the 17) and everything to do with people thinking its ok to make right hand turns from left hand lanes while yapping on cell phones.
    100% agreed. Between the snowbirds and the exceptionally POOR drivers (not fast, poor), I actually sold my Harley, and gave up riding for now. I used some of the money to buy lycra and become a roadie, which, hmmm... wait a minute.... lateral move???
    "People do not lack strength; they lack will" (Victor Hugo)

  38. #38
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CoyoteKis
    100% agreed. Between the snowbirds and the exceptionally POOR drivers (not fast, poor), I actually sold my Harley, and gave up riding for now. I used some of the money to buy lycra and become a roadie, which, hmmm... wait a minute.... lateral move???
    Yeah, thats a pretty lateral move. At least on the Harley they should be able to hear you. I'll stick to taking my chances on the mountain, at least there the only poor judgement is usually my own.

  39. #39
    aka Diesel
    Reputation: CoyoteKis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,249
    Haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this, but here's the problem I have with the cameras (well, besides being picked-off and ticketed, refusing to pay the ticket, getting my license suspended, and ending up paying the ticket anyway, which ultimately doubled, for non-payment... go me ), but, it just seems that all the cameras do is make everyone hit their brakes and almost rear-end each other and swerve all over the place. Is it SOLVING speeding, or just creating dangerous pockets? Given my experience, I'd say it's the latter.
    "People do not lack strength; they lack will" (Victor Hugo)

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brianc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,040
    Quote Originally Posted by CoyoteKis
    but, it just seems that all the cameras do is make everyone hit their brakes and almost rear-end each other and swerve all over the place. Is it SOLVING speeding, or just creating dangerous pockets? Given my experience, I'd say it's the latter.

    my take on the cameras is not the common one. on a section fo I-10 that I drive a lot (west bound from Broadway curve to deck park tunnel) they actually RAISED the speed limit after the installation of the cameras. that only means that number of accidents dropped with cameras in place.

    and in my part of town, people are finnally figuring out that they can go the speed limit and even faster adn not trigger the camera. One just has to be aware fo the changes to limit.

    I really wish they had to post the speed limit *with* the notification of a camera zone. that would be the best of both worlds.
    b

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: u2metoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by brianc

    I really wish they had to post the speed limit *with* the notification of a camera zone. that would be the best of both worlds.
    That's what I'm talking about!

  42. #42
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,220
    I have definintely noticed drivers slowing down to the low 70's on the 202. This road is usually not real heavy traffic, so to some degree the cameras are working. I'm actually in favor of that. But its also a highway I know well so am aware there are speed traps on it. My gripes are the inequitable ways the law is enforced (see earlier threads). Out of state, corporate, motorcycle - you are free to go. Criminal speeding - you have to be presented with a witness. Or in my case, blocking my plate with my bike rack.

    If they make them have points on your license, you are going to see a huge increase in the number of people fighting them as well as more people registering their cars to corporations, po boxes, their spouse's names etc so they never get served. We just dont answer our door without knowing who it is, period. This culture of loopholes that the cameras have already created is the worst part - a law that makes ordinary people act like criminals is a bad law. All the technowonks and marketing a$$holes sitting in meetings coming up with nifty new applications to Big Brother technology is just not what our country should be about, imo.

    I am more in favor of the red light cameras, but have my doubts there too due to it not being a strict correlation between safety and revenue. Mesa's website on the subject is pretty informative and gives the impression the whole thing is about reducing accidents and that they are glad to see citations falling rather than counting on revenue. However, I've heard where contractual obligations with RedFlex have prevented setting the lights to "safer" settings. There is absolutely no denying that the program's origins are in revenue generation - see any of the many articles in the AZ Republic about how Napolitano snuck it into law.

    Agreed that the speed limit should be posted right next to the "Photo Radar" signs, that would improve the safety.

    Cameras like the one outside of Payson are everything wrong with this technology. A 2-way speed trap at the bottom of a hill where the speed limit changes.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  43. #43
    How do I do that?
    Reputation: Tuff Gong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    561
    I don't mind red light camera's and the speed camera's don't really bother me since I rarely speed but I still feel it's done for revenue more so than safety.

    Like others have mentioned, correcting the poor driving habits such as talking on the phone or just not paying attention need to be addressed and ticketed IMO. Aside from the fools who drive recklessly all the time and the folks who have no clue behind the wheel, most of the spaz' I see are usually on the phone. Just yesterday, as I was in the HOV lane on the 51, I was driving behind a guy in an Audi as we were all traveling around 65-70 and I literally watched him answer his phone, slow down to about 50 and started veering a little as he was fumbling and looking at paper work He held this speed for a few miles as all of us behind him were forced to slow down car after car and various drivers started to change lanes to get around the tool, which, IMO, causes much more havoc on mulitlane highway then everybody doing a steady and smooth 10 -15mph over the limit.

    A steady 65-75 in the left lane when everyone is paying attention and slower drivers on the right lane where everybody passes on the left is far safer IMO. This is pretty much a lost cause since so many can't drive to be safe but it's just ridiculous how many other bad driving habits are tolerated now. It seems the authorities leave the ticketing to machines and turn a blind eye to plenty of other dangerous infractions. I actually like red light cameras since that is a serious safety issue IMO but I have read that some cities reduce the yellow light durations on some of these intersections once a camera is installed? Why, simple, more money.

    Anyway, although this has nothing to do with our state, it's interesting to see how the politicians in Nassau county, NY decided not to install red light cameras at some promising intersection since they realized the county wouldn't be getting the money. It pretty much tells us that they claim it's done for safety but it's definitely done for revenue.

    3 more red-light cameras going into operation

    Red-light cameras go into operation at three more intersections in Nassau County Thursday, bringing the total to five, with 45 more to come by mid-January, officials said Tuesday.

    At 12:01 a.m. Thursday, the cameras were scheduled to click on at the intersections of Merrick Road and Milburn Avenue in Baldwin, Merrick Road and Bellmore Avenue in Bellmore and Merrick Road and Merrick Avenue in Merrick, the officials said.

    The county expects to get about $20 million in revenue from fines against red-light violators next year and the cameras should reduce serious accidents, according to Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi.

    The kickoff of the program last week was marred when county officials learned that one of the first three intersections to go online, at Merrick Road and Park Boulevard, was within the boundaries of the Village of Massapequa Park.

    After a quick review, the county found that another intersection on its list, at Atlantic Avenue and Ocean Avenue, was in the Village of East Rockaway.

    Both those locations were scrapped because the tickets would be adjudicated in village justice courts and the county would not get the money.


    http://www.newsday.com/news/correcti...tion-1.1364714


    Well, my pointless rant is over. Pay attention to all the tools on the road and be safe everybody

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: berzerker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    350
    There are bright yellow warning signs before the cameras. If you're paying attention while you drive, they're easy to spot.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: u2metoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by berzerker
    There are bright yellow warning signs before the cameras. If you're paying attention while you drive, they're easy to spot.
    Yeppers, lawfully they are supposed to post these signs, but they usually don't post the speed limit in conjunction with the photo enforceent area.

  46. #46
    I'm with stupid -------->
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by u2metoo
    Yeppers, lawfully they are supposed to post these signs, but they usually don't post the speed limit in conjunction with the photo enforceent area.
    Really, they have to legally? Did anybody tell PV that? Those guys hide their vans behind trees and such so you can't see them until you are right on top of them.

  47. #47
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by jdpowers
    Really, they have to legally? Did anybody tell PV that? Those guys hide their vans behind trees and such so you can't see them until you are right on top of them.
    Then take a picture and share it with the newspaper.

    The locations of the vans are in the papers each week.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  48. #48
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuff Gong
    Like others have mentioned, correcting the poor driving habits such as talking on the phone or just not paying attention need to be addressed and ticketed IMO. Aside from the fools who drive recklessly all the time and the folks who have no clue behind the wheel, most of the spaz' I see are usually on the phone. Just yesterday, as I was in the HOV lane on the 51, I was driving behind a guy in an Audi as we were all traveling around 65-70 and I literally watched him answer his phone, slow down to about 50 and started veering a little as he was fumbling and looking at paper work He held this speed for a few miles as all of us behind him were forced to slow down car after car and various drivers started to change lanes to get around the tool, which, IMO, causes much more havoc on mulitlane highway then everybody doing a steady and smooth 10 -15mph over the limit.
    That's also the entire point. As someone said earlier, the cameras force you to pay more attention to the road. I noticed this mostly on I-17, but overall my awareness is increased. If you're talking on the phone you're likely to get distracted and not notice the "at least 2 sets of warning signs and posted speed limit". The "talking on the cell phone" thing is almost impossible to enforce, but the speed cameras do a great job of enforcing "pay attention to the road!". People seem to be centering on specific situations rather than what may be happening overall.

    Anyways, it's obvious in this thread that most people only care about what they do or how things directly affect them. There seems to be little thought to others or to the population as a whole. I'm not a fan of speed cameras and the such, but most of the rationalizations in this thread are pretty rediculous. People want the laws changed or modified to suit their personal likings, rather than to benefit the general public.

    I also noticed the signs comming back into AZ that said to either pull into the other lane or slow down for emergency vehicles. This has also been a problem, but now that we are "forced" to pay attention to the road, maybe people will see these signs? It's kind of a common-sense rule to not whiz by a cop or ambulance on the side of the road, but evidently it was still enough of a problem.

    One thing that amazed me in the last few days was how there's been very little infrastructure development in CA in the last 10 years. Maybe I didn't go to enough places, but it seems like there've been a lot more widening/new highway projects in Phoenix than I noticed where I traveled in CA. The problem is that in AZ we're always on the backside after the demand has been created, but maybe all of this is related. With so much growth and traffic (look at the projects in the last 10 years, and heck they're even widening the 202 now!) the system can't deal with the amount of traffic well. There's also the problem of distance, Phoenix is spread out so much more than most other places, so the solution that most people use is to just go faster. Maybe we need a REAL commuter train service?
    Last edited by Jayem; 08-12-2009 at 05:18 PM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  49. #49
    I'm with stupid -------->
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Then take a picture and share it with the newspaper.

    The locations of the vans are in the papers each week.
    Honestly, I don't care enough to do that. I really don't speed and if I do and get caught, well that's the price you pay. Only been hit by photo radar once 5 years ago and I was honestly distracted and deserved it (knock on wood).

  50. #50
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    That's also the entire point. As someone said earlier, the cameras force you to pay more attention to the road. I noticed this mostly on I-17, but overall my awareness is increased. If you're talking on the phone you're likely to get distracted and not notice the "at least 2 sets of warning signs and posted speed limit". The "talking on the cell phone" thing is almost impossible to enforce, but the speed cameras do a great job of enforcing "pay attention to the road!". People seem to be centering on specific situations rather than what may be happening overall.

    Anyways, it's obvious in this thread that most people only care about what they do or how things directly affect them. There seems to be little thought to others or to the population as a whole. I'm not a fan of speed cameras and the such, but most of the rationalizations in this thread are pretty rediculous. People want the laws changed or modified to suit their personal likings, rather than to benefit the general public.

    I also noticed the signs comming back into AZ that said to either pull into the other lane or slow down for emergency vehicles. This has also been a problem, but now that we are "forced" to pay attention to the road, maybe people will see these signs? It's kind of a common-sense rule to not whiz by a cop or ambulance on the side of the road, but evidently it was still enough of a problem.

    One thing that amazed me in the last few days was how there's been very little infrastructure development in CA in the last 10 years. Maybe I didn't go to enough places, but it seems like there've been a lot more widening/new highway projects in Phoenix than I noticed where I traveled in CA. The problem is that in AZ we're always on the backside after the demand has been created, but maybe all of this is related. With so much growth and traffic (look at the projects in the last 10 years, and heck they're even widening the 202 now!) the system can't deal with the amount of traffic well. There's also the problem of distance, Phoenix is spread out so much more than most other places, so the solution that most people use is to just go faster. Maybe we need a REAL commuter train service?
    having recently attended traffic school, I learned some facts that AZ is among the most road fatalities in the country, and it has been growing - even though the fatalities as % of population has been decreasing. There is both a public safety and political aspect behind these cameras.

    To some degree your point about the cameras being necessary is valid. But the inconsistencies in their enforcement and the conflict-of-interest behind the motivations gut your argument. Only when the politicians and contracts can stand up to scrutiny over their revenue motivations will people look at the benefits - and imo that is how it should be.

    Its ridiculous to suggest for a second that the politicians behind this do not have mixed motivations and its strictly a public safety issue. A few months ago AZ chose to not ban texting while driving, based on "personal freedom". About 2 weeks ago cnn.com ran a story about how the US Senate is considering withholding highway funds from any state that does not specifically ban texting while driving, based on a study that says you are 2x more likely to crash while texting than if you drive with a .08 BAC. Yet AZ is just about the toughest state in the nation for dui laws (note again, you can be convicted of DUI with *any* BAC under .08). Its all politics, and the lawmakers hiding behind the banner of public safety just make themselves look like liars.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  51. #51
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,427
    Quote Originally Posted by jdpowers
    Honestly, I don't care enough to do that. I really don't speed and if I do and get caught, well that's the price you pay. Only been hit by photo radar once 5 years ago and I was honestly distracted and deserved it (knock on wood).
    I've gotten hit 2 times when I was speeding, and once when I was making a turn at an intersection that set it off. The first time was when Scottsdale was doing their "test run", and that's when I learned to be carefull when passing vehicles. The second time was when I had my DH bike on the back of my car and the speed limit dropped to 55 for road work and the 101/I-17 interchange. That was blocked, but it got my attention. I got flashed once in PV when I made a left turn at the intersection, but it was legal.

    Everybody is going to bend the rules. What is reasonable and what is just flat out excessive? I pay way more attention to the road and the limits and I'd bet most people do the same now, even if they wouldn't like to admit it.

    On the PV note, I don't know if they have to post the speed limit, this is the city of PV, not Phoenix.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  52. #52
    caninus xerophilous
    Reputation: SunDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer
    You all ever drive north from London to Scotland.......that's in England folks.....close to Europe...permanent speeding cameras every few kilometers..

    Isn't your little island part of Europe.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: u2metoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by jdpowers
    Really, they have to legally? Did anybody tell PV that? Those guys hide their vans behind trees and such so you can't see them until you are right on top of them.
    well sorta, I believe they do when the enforcement area is above 40 mph. Which is why PV are a bunch of sneaky bastids.

    I emailed AZDPS a while back and they responded with this:

    28-654. Photo enforcement zones; signage; standards; citation dismissal
    A. Except as provided in subsection F of this section, every local authority or agency of this state using a photo enforcement system shall adopt standards and specifications that indicate to a person operating a motor vehicle that a photo enforcement system is present and operational.
    B. The standards and specifications adopted pursuant to subsection A of this section shall include both of the following:
    1. At least two signs shall be placed in a location before a photo enforcement system. One sign shall be in a location that is approximately three hundred feet before the photo enforcement system. Placement of additional signs shall be more than three hundred feet before a photo enforcement system to provide reasonable notice to a person that a photo enforcement system is present and operational.
    2. Signs indicating a photo enforcement system shall be removed or covered when the photo enforcement system is no longer present or not operating.
    C. Signs erected by a local authority or agency of this state as prescribed in this section shall contain a yellow warning notice and correlate with and as far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways adopted by the director pursuant to section 28-641.
    D. If the standards and specifications prescribed pursuant to this section are not in effect during the operation of a photo enforcement system, the court may dismiss any citation issued to a person who is identified by the use of the photo enforcement system.
    E. During the time a vehicle containing photo enforcement equipment is being used to identify violators of this article and article 6 of this chapter, the rear of the vehicle shall be clearly marked to indicate that the vehicle is functioning as a photo enforcement vehicle. This subsection does not apply to a vehicle that does not contain a photo enforcement system and that is used by a law enforcement officer.
    F. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a mobile photo enforcement vehicle during the time a mobile photo enforcement vehicle is deployed on streets with a posted speed limit of forty miles per hour or less.

  54. #54
    I'm with stupid -------->
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by u2metoo
    well sorta, I believe they do when the enforcement area is above 40 mph. Which is why PV are a bunch of sneaky bastids.

    I emailed AZDPS a while back and they responded with this:

    28-654. Photo enforcement zones; signage; standards; citation dismissal
    A. Except as provided in subsection F of this section, every local authority or agency of this state using a photo enforcement system shall adopt standards and specifications that indicate to a person operating a motor vehicle that a photo enforcement system is present and operational.
    B. The standards and specifications adopted pursuant to subsection A of this section shall include both of the following:
    1. At least two signs shall be placed in a location before a photo enforcement system. One sign shall be in a location that is approximately three hundred feet before the photo enforcement system. Placement of additional signs shall be more than three hundred feet before a photo enforcement system to provide reasonable notice to a person that a photo enforcement system is present and operational.
    2. Signs indicating a photo enforcement system shall be removed or covered when the photo enforcement system is no longer present or not operating.
    C. Signs erected by a local authority or agency of this state as prescribed in this section shall contain a yellow warning notice and correlate with and as far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways adopted by the director pursuant to section 28-641.
    D. If the standards and specifications prescribed pursuant to this section are not in effect during the operation of a photo enforcement system, the court may dismiss any citation issued to a person who is identified by the use of the photo enforcement system.
    E. During the time a vehicle containing photo enforcement equipment is being used to identify violators of this article and article 6 of this chapter, the rear of the vehicle shall be clearly marked to indicate that the vehicle is functioning as a photo enforcement vehicle. This subsection does not apply to a vehicle that does not contain a photo enforcement system and that is used by a law enforcement officer.
    F. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a mobile photo enforcement vehicle during the time a mobile photo enforcement vehicle is deployed on streets with a posted speed limit of forty miles per hour or less.
    Guess that's why their limits are all 40 or less. It all makes sense now.

  55. #55
    How do I do that?
    Reputation: Tuff Gong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    561
    Just a correction about points. I was incorrect in stating that points aren't assessed on to ones drivers license yet. It seems they do

    From Phoenix's site;

    Q: Are there any points associated with a Red Light or Speed violation?

    A: Yes. If you are found responsible for the charge, points are added to your driving record with the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) as follows:

    VIOLATION TYPE

    28-645A3A - Red Light - 2 points

    28-797H - Speed in a school zone - 2 points

    28-701A - Speed greater than reasonable and prudent - 3 points

    https://www.violationinfo.com/AZPHX/html/info.htm


    From Scottsdale's site;

    Are points assessed against my driver's license for photo enforcement convictions?
    Yes. In accordance with Arizona Administrative Code R17-4-404, Driver Point System, points are assessed by MVD for each conviction reported to them by the Court. Each red light conviction is assigned two points, and each speed conviction is assigned three points.

    http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/photorad...nts%20assessed

  56. #56
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuff Gong
    Just a correction about points. I was incorrect in stating that points aren't assessed on to ones drivers license yet. It seems they do

    From Phoenix's site;

    Q: Are there any points associated with a Red Light or Speed violation?

    A: Yes. If you are found responsible for the charge, points are added to your driving record with the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) as follows:

    VIOLATION TYPE

    28-645A3A - Red Light - 2 points

    28-797H - Speed in a school zone - 2 points

    28-701A - Speed greater than reasonable and prudent - 3 points

    https://www.violationinfo.com/AZPHX/html/info.htm


    From Scottsdale's site;

    Are points assessed against my driver's license for photo enforcement convictions?
    Yes. In accordance with Arizona Administrative Code R17-4-404, Driver Point System, points are assessed by MVD for each conviction reported to them by the Court. Each red light conviction is assigned two points, and each speed conviction is assigned three points.

    http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/photorad...nts%20assessed
    my understanding is that the rules and processes for highway speed camera issues is different than municipalities. DMV absolutely finds out about red light running.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  57. #57
    Sup?
    Reputation: honemastert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball
    Cameras like the one outside of Payson are everything wrong with this technology. A 2-way speed trap at the bottom of a hill where the speed limit changes.
    This is what needs to happen to that one!

    http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

  58. #58
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Got popped by the one outside of Payson last year . 6 miles an hour over netted me a $186.00 citation , but I'm sure they just do it for safety reasons not to generate revenue .

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.