I agree with your opening sentence completely. “Speeding” and “speed limits” are an arbitrary device that takes none of those things you mentioned into account. Who decides the speed limit?
Just because a motorist is traveling above the speed limit does not make them unsafe or negligent. In AZ, this is especially true because we have such wide open spaces and pretty much constant weather and therefore road conditions.
There is no one crossing the street on I-8 or I-10 where some of these cameras are (hopefully were) located. If anything, the cameras on I-10 have caused higher traffic congestion, as well as accidents due to the sudden shift in rate of travel. Not to mention, the limit is already 65mph, not much of a difference at the mileage rate most people “speed” over that limit.
Also, depending on the time of day and what route, the roads are empty most of the day, or have sparse traffic at best. SR 85 is a good example since I travel it frequently. There shouldn’t even be a speed limit on this route, rather driver’s discretion on his own safety all the way up to Buckeye. AZ being a desert landspace, you wouldn’t hit much off road in most places either (and I’d take responsibility for my own driving behavior).
There is no doubt in my mind that the cameras in AZ were a revenue generator, regardless of whether it was for the state or the company. “Coincidentally”, I also read that the representatives that were proponents of the sytems also had tight “relations” with the company that manufactures the cameras.
Virginia politicians tried to tell us that intersection accidents would decrease, there would be less fatalities, etc, etc after the installation of red light cameras.
Fact was fatalities stayed about the same, and total accidents and damages spiked tremendously. So much so that Virginia recalled the red light camera program.
Fact is, something like red light camera creates more people slamming on their brakes instead of proceeding through the intersection cautiously as expected. Raising rear-end collisions way up, and creating some fatalities. T-bone MVA’s did not decrease as expected because many (probably most) of those are caused by drunk or other inattentive driving, not willfully concentrated running of red lights to beat the light. In other words, the camera would not modify behavior because there was impairment to both the situation (red light) AND the camera’s presence due to outside influences like alcohol, drugs, texting, phone calls, radio adjustments, eating, etc.
This post is so full of misinformation and biased, uneducated assumptions it is ridiculous.
Cameras do NOT eliminate officer discretion entirely. We have had some videos where we choose not to process the violation because of extenuating circumstances. As I said, in my town, every violation is reviewed by an officer before being approved to make sure a violation actually took place. And considering most of our cameras are in 35 or 45 zones, you won’t find many officers who would be giving breaks at 11 over the limit anyway (which is what the cameras trigger at.) Patrol customarily doesn’t give breaks on red light runners either, as it is a pretty serious violation.
Also, there IS a deterrent factor in that my city uses a photo enforcement van which changes locations every day. And just because there are cameras in certain locations doesn’t mean patrol officers aren’t still enforcing traffic laws throughout the rest of the town, acting as a deterrent. And because of the reduced number and severity of collisions, we have been able to spend less time investigating accidents and more time on aggressive DUI enforcement, drug interdiction, etc.
As for the arguments about highway cams being arbitrary because of the variations in traffic flow, I get that. Especially the way some of them are set up in the Phoenix area, I would agree SOME of them are “traps.” But it isn’t an issue for people who are paying attention. Cameras as less about catching people who are actively, knowingly speeding, but catching people who aren’t paying attention. Which is plainly obvious by the footage, as most violators are digging around in purses, talking on cell phones, etc. People who are paying attention don’t get flashed.
As far as I know (judging by talking to citizens, as there hasn’t been a formal study) there is mostly support for the cameras. It seems the opponents believe they are a majority, simply because they are more vocal.
All I can speak to is my own town. I don’t know about other places, but here, the difference is real. I couldn’t say without closely examining the studies, but I would guess that places which saw an increase in collisions implemented their systems a lot differently than my town has, or the study itself is flawed. There is no other reasonable explanation for the difference.
From July 1, 2008 to April 28, 2009 there were 263 accidents. From July 1, 2009 to April 28, 2009 there were 194 accidents. This is a difference of 69 accidents or a 26% decrease.
(It should be noted during this time the amount of traffic on the roads has remained static. The only difference was the implementation of photo enforcement.)
If anyone is seriously interested in checking this information out, PM me and I will let you know where I work so you can confirm the validity of what I posted. While I won’t post my workplace on a public forum, I am more than willing to point people towards the information if they are truly passionate about the issue and do not want to just take my word for it.
Tell me what exactly it is you want to know and why you want to know it and I will be more than happy to oblige. So far all you’ve posted is drivel anyway, so I’m not exactly sure what it is you’re looking for.
First you complain about “Big Brother,” so when I shut down that nonsense, you move on to something else instead of supporting your original position.
So instead of it being a “Big Brother” issue, now it is an officer discretion and deterrent issue. I address that, so instead of a counter argument, you complain that I’m not telling you where I work. Are you actually going to support any of your arguments, or just keep propping up new straw men for me to knock over?
Our personal positions are well entrenched. You like it and I don’t. You think it’s a great way to police and I think it isn’t. You think it improves safety (and it may in your circumstance) and I’m completely skeptical.
You’re the one who keeps saying it’s safer and have stats to back it up, but all you’ve posted so far is unverifiable heresay from your agency. If you’re so proud of your program, you shouldn’t have any problem with posting a link to the info or providing some way to verify the information.
Quite frankly, a small town of 12,000 residents isn’t exactly a bustling metropolis like Phoenix and it doesn’t encompass an area the size of AZ. Extrapolating your town’s data to a more statistically significant model likely wouldn’t mean much.
Nothing I’ve posted is drivel, it’s an opinion. You may like pissing on it, but I think it’s a tell on your comfort level with your position. All I’m asking you to do is own it rather than pretending to.
The problem is you continually refuse to defend any of your opinions with any sort of information. You think its “Big Brother,” but provide no information to back it up. You think it completely eliminates officer discretion, which is just an uninformed assumption on your part. You think it has zero deterrent effect, which just shows a general complete lack of understanding traffic enforcement in general. By your logic, we shouldn’t have traffic cops on the road at all because people will just assume that once they have passed one, they are safe to speed again. It doesn’t make any sense. By your logic, why have any enforcement at all?
The problem is you are acting as if the cameras are a replacement, but it isn’t that simple. The cameras AUGMENT existing enforcement practices, not replace it.
So you think because I wouldn’t post the name of my employer I just made stuff up. Okay, fair enough, but I offered you the chance to send me a PM for contact info to verify what I posted, and guess what… ZERO PMs. Are you afraid you might find out just how off base you are in making such accusations?
But according to you, that doesn’t matter anyway. You say that the size of my town doesn’t work as an effective example. Okay, sure, lets say you are a 100% correct. But you have you even BOTHERED to look at stats from large cities like Scottsdale, Tempe, and Prescott Valley? I think we both already know the answer to that question…:rolleyes:
When you say you are “entrenched,” is that your subtle way of saying your mind is made up and you won’t change your mind no matter what information is given to you? You should have just come out and said, “I just don’t like them,” and left it at that, because your arguments just don’t have any credibility at all. I didn’t like them at first either, but when I bothered to learn something about instead of just sticking with my knee jerk reaction, things changed.
What you’re failing to understand for the umpteenth time is that I’m an American Citizen first and a LEO second. I don’t need to back up my opinion because it’s exactly that, an opinion. Or am I no longer allowed to have that because you have “statistics” on your side?
What I’m telling you is that I don’t believe in that type of enforcement. I have no issue with a flesh and blood officer enforcing traffic laws, so long as they’re not participating in speed traps. My state actually has laws against one horse towns creating speed traps. If their general revenues exceed a certain percentage from traffic fines, they loose the ability to write traffic citations and the state takes over enforcement in their town.
Tell me, what is the fine in your town for a traffic cam citation? Less than $50? Less than $100? More? I’ll go out on a limb and bet it’s pretty tasty to the general revenue fund.
I consider traffic cam ticket writing to be exactly that, a speed trap. When your town decides to implement progressive enforcement rather than a “whack em’ if you can” policy, then come talk to me. Until then, it’s chickenshit. JMO, YMMV! :rolleyes:
How is it a “whack em if you can” or speed trap system when there are multiple signs warning the photo enforcement zone is coming? Less of a “trap” than a squad car or motorcycle is…:rolleyes:
Also, most of the money from traffic enforcement here (photo or otherwise) goes to the STATE. The city doesn’t get much money at all from each citation. Once again, wild speculation and assumptions instead of actual arguments. Also, gotta love the "one horse town snobbery. I don’t care if you want to say that about where I work, but try telling that to Scottsdale or Tempe.
Also, you are more than welcome to your opinion. I’m just pointing out your opinion is completely unsubstantiated, uninformed, and based on a complete lack of knowledge or experience with photo enforcement. Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it?
If your argument is so solid and everyone there thinks it’s a great idea, then why not make every public road in town a 100% photo enforcement area? Why have any public roadway sections that aren’t photo enforced? You could do away with the spotty and less effective method of putting a cop behind a radar gun. Why stop at 26%? You could shoot for a 50% or more reduction. Your citizens would all love you then and perhaps they’d put you in charge of health care next!
The point is that not everyone wants or needs to be nannied, particularly by obnoxious Ralph Nader types. You can slam my opinion all you want, but it really doesn’t help your case. It just showcases your arrogance.
I don’t have a problem with your opinion. I just have a problem that you lack the intelligence or integrity to stand up for your opinion. All you’ve been doing is distracting from your own hollow points after I point out their flaws.
Once again, instead of supporting any of your assertions with counter arguments, you prop up a ridiculous straw man argument saying we should have cameras everywhere. Nice try.
I guess it is rather arrogant of me to continuing arguing with someone utterly unwilling (or more likely, incapable) of supporting an opinion with reason. If you want the last word, go ahead and make another post, but it is looking to me like this is going nowhere.
