[NewsFeeder]

Filed under: Etc., Government/Legal, Safety

Speed cameras are at best a dubious safety enhancement sold on the premise of slowing traffic, while the more important proposition is often the promise of the revenue they can generate. Arizona residents have mostly cut through the bovine feculence around the state's big camera deployment program, one that's been described as groundbreaking. The state installed 76 one-eyed bandits, but profits are lower than projected, and some citizens want the cameras gone.

Further sabotaging the camera initiative are citizens who have taken to ignoring the automated citations in large numbers. A loophole surrounding mailed tickets is allowing many drivers to motor on with impunity, while an anti-camera group is trying to get a ballot measure to ban the cameras underway. The 700,000 tickets that have been issued since September 2008 should have meant $127 million into the coffers, but only $36 million has been collected. At that level, it's not even clear if Redflex, the public scourge firm that runs the cameras, is able to break even.

[Source: New York Times | Photo: Redflex]

Arizona to abandon 'groundbreaking' speed camera program? originally appeared on Autoblog on Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

View the full article

[dfelt]

GOOD! All Speed Cameras and Red Light Cameras should be removed. More problems than they are worth.

[Camino LS6]

About time.

[Cubical-aka-Moltar]

Good... I see these things flash all the time, annoying nonsense.

[FAPTurbo]

Yeah let's all just eliminate those pesky red lights too!

These camera's would not be necessary if people obeyed the rules of the road. A speed limit is there for a specific reason, and if you can't be assed to obey it, then you deserve to be caught and pay up. At least employing a system like this frees up officers for more pressing tasks.

[Cubical-aka-Moltar]

FAPTurbo, on 08 January 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

Yeah let's all just eliminate those pesky red lights too!

These camera's would not be necessary if people obeyed the rules of the road. A speed limit is there for a specific reason, and if you can't be assed to obey it, then you deserve to be caught and pay up. At least employing a system like this frees up officers for more pressing tasks.

Speed limits are frequently set artificially low. They exist for revenue generation more than for safety reasons.

[Croc]

dfelt, on 08 January 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

GOOD! All Speed Cameras and Red Light Cameras should be removed. More problems than they are worth.

Speed cameras, yes, but I like red light cameras. Of course, in California, it is illegal for a municipality to have a yellow light cycle that is short relative to the cycles in comparable intersections in that area if it has a red light camera. Advance warning signs are also posted, and in CA, license plates are attached to vehicles, NOT DRIVERS, so to receive a red light violation, the driver must be photographed so the DRIVER and not just the title holder receives the penalty. This is fair, equitable, and definitely improves red light runs.

[Croc]

FAPTurbo, on 08 January 2010 - 02:52 PM, said:

Yeah let's all just eliminate those pesky red lights too!

These camera's would not be necessary if people obeyed the rules of the road. A speed limit is there for a specific reason, and if you can't be assed to obey it, then you deserve to be caught and pay up.

Oh, fuck off. There are such things as extenuating circumstances sometimes, you know. I'd love to see you go 25mph on a wide 2-lane road in the middle of nowhere because that's the posted speed limit when your passenger injured themselves and is hemorrhaging blood.

[FAPTurbo]

Croc, on 08 January 2010 - 05:05 PM, said:

Oh, f@#k off. There are such things as extenuating circumstances sometimes, you know. I'd love to see you go 25mph on a wide 2-lane road in the middle of nowhere because that's the posted speed limit when your passenger injured themselves and is hemorrhaging blood.

Extenuating circumstances do exist, but how many people who disobey the limits actually have real, valid reasons for doing so? My buddy who is training as a paramedic thinks a lay-person speeding for any reason, including the one you've stated is not a good idea, because you're putting others at greater risk, and that could lead to more injuries yet. And remember that most of us spend time in the cities, so the situation you've described isn't all too great. Plus, people have trouble driving within the regulated limits as is.

My parents were hit on their motorcycle last summer; if the chick who hit them had obeyed the limit, she'd likely have caught herself in time instead of sending them to the hospital, and giving her a hefty insurance increase.

I have no sympathy for those who speed, and get caught. It's all about taking a risk, and if you get caught, you should pay up.

This post has been edited by FAPTurbo: 08 January 2010 - 08:39 PM

[Dodgefan]

Speed cameras are one thing, but red light cameras should stay. If you run a red light (which is illegal) and it triggers the camera, that's your own stupid fault. Running red lights is a serious safety hazard, and why our van was totaled. Some dumb shit who thinks its ok to not follow the rules of the road ran a red light at 30 and hit it. Luckily, my mother and brother were uninjured.

[bobo]

Automated speed enforcement is currently prohibited in California, but Arnold wants to allow the local agencies to use their red-light cameras for enforcing speed limits as well, purely for raising revenue. His candor is refreshing--no pretense that this is for safety--but the idea is another harebrained one of his.

Quote

Governor wants to catch speeders with red-light cameras to help balance budget
January 8, 2010 | 2:11 pm
California drivers could get stuck with speeding tickets even with nary a cop in sight under a proposal tucked deep in the budget Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled today.

The Republican governor wants to let cities and counties install speed sensors in red-light cameras to ticket speeding drivers. Those whizzing by the detectors up to 15 mph above the limit would have to fork over $225 per violation. Those going faster than that would pay $325 under the plan.

Red-light cameras already exist in communities across the Southland, from Beverly Hills to Yucaipa. The governor wants to install speed detectors in 500 of those cameras, which would nab an estimated 2.4 million speeding violators per year, according to the finance department estimates.

That would net cash-strapped California about $337.9 million through June 2011. Every year after that, the program would generate nearly half a billion dollars, the finance department says. Local governments would get a cut of the proceeds.

http://latimesblogs....ked-deep-i.html

[Croc]

I'm not trying to be a massive dick here, but really, this post is chock full of logical fallacies:

FAPTurbo, on 08 January 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

Extenuating circumstances do exist, but how many people who disobey the limits actually have real, valid reasons for doing so?

Completely irrelevant. If extenuating circumstances exist by your own admission, then how in the hell can you be for an automated enforcement mechanism with NO direct human involvement, with no ability to declare a valid extenuating circumstance? The computer neither knows nor cares that your passenger is hemorrhaging, it simply calculates speed via radar and takes a photo if greater than X. You are naive if you think a judge would buy your valid extenuating circumstance months after the fact.

Quote

My buddy who is training as a paramedic thinks a lay-person speeding for any reason, including the one you've stated is not a good idea, because you're putting others at greater risk, and that could lead to more injuries yet.

Huh? My driving 60 in a 55 on an empty freeway at 2am is putting others at risk and could lead to more injuries yet? Really? Gee, I thought it had more to do with driving AT ANY SPEED in a manner that is inappropriate for the present conditions. I better tell the DMV they need to correct their manuals...

Quote

And remember that most of us spend time in the cities, so the situation you've described isn't all too great.

Huh. I live in a megacity, and someone within my social circle has been expedited to the hospital due to an injury on at least 5 occasions in the past year, simply because calling 911 can result in being put on hold, and the ambulance has to make a round-trip, while a private vehicle only makes a one-way trip. Precious seconds, and all.

Quote

Plus, people have trouble driving within the regulated limits as is.

Have you ever thought about why this may be? Are you familiar with the 80th percentile standard? What about road design standards?

Quote

My parents were hit on their motorcycle last summer; if the chick who hit them had obeyed the limit, she'd likely have caught herself in time instead of sending them to the hospital, and giving her a hefty insurance increase.

So by your own admission she wasn't paying attention to her driving, right? Speed didn't cause the accident; inattentive driving and/or failing to drive appropriately for the given conditions was the real factor. Had she been paying attention and driving appropriately, she'd never have needed to "catch herself."

Quote

I have no sympathy for those who speed, and get caught. It's all about taking a risk, and if you get caught, you should pay up.

Not looking for sympathy, but simply asking for a bit of logic and thought on the subject. It's like abortion for the rape & incest people--if it's OK some of the time, it cannot be stringently illegal all of the time.

This post has been edited by Croc: 09 January 2010 - 07:09 AM

[Croc]

Dodgefan, on 08 January 2010 - 11:15 PM, said:

Speed cameras are one thing, but red light cameras should stay. If you run a red light (which is illegal) and it triggers the camera, that's your own stupid fault. Running red lights is a serious safety hazard, and why our van was totaled. Some dumb shit who thinks its ok to not follow the rules of the road ran a red light at 30 and hit it. Luckily, my mother and brother were uninjured.

In California, the camera simply requires you to stop. If you run the red light after stopping for a second or two (I forget exactly which), nothing happens.

[Croc]

bobo, on 08 January 2010 - 11:49 PM, said:

Automated speed enforcement is currently prohibited in California, but Arnold wants to allow the local agencies to use their red-light cameras for enforcing speed limits as well, purely for raising revenue. His candor is refreshing--no pretense that this is for safety--but the idea is another harebrained one of his.


http://latimesblogs....ked-deep-i.html

Haha yes I read this, and thought the same thing. The potential revenue is soooooooo paltry, and there's NO WAY this would fly. See, in Arizona, the people were stuck with it, but something like this would last no more than 12 months in California even if it somehow manages to pass simply because people would easily be able to raise enough signatures for a ballot initiative to ban these permanently.

[Dodgefan]

Croc, on 09 January 2010 - 07:04 AM, said:

In California, the camera simply requires you to stop. If you run the red light after stopping for a second or two (I forget exactly which), nothing happens.

Really? I wonder if it's like that for all red light cameras or just where you live. We have none of them in MA as far as I know. I think for lanes that aren't "right turn on red allowed after stop" it should still go off if they run it.

[Camino LS6]

Money-grubbing,impersonal, and invasive, such cameras need to be permanently outlawed.

[Croc]

Dodgefan, on 09 January 2010 - 10:24 AM, said:

Really? I wonder if it's like that for all red light cameras or just where you live. We have none of them in MA as far as I know. I think for lanes that aren't "right turn on red allowed after stop" it should still go off if they run it.

This is to remedy situations with faulty loop detectors, emergency vehicles, etc. Practically no one of John Q. Public knows this.

[loki]

everyone that thinks that lights are good, signs are good, must think everyone with a license is a child.

i think i posted it here, but there are a growing number of cities in Europe that are taking signs down, and lights down too, while making sure people are paying attention to what and who is around them...turning into a "community". having to negotiate with other drivers makes the many of them more polite. studies before and after has shown a decrease of incidnets, even with bikers and walkers on public roads. also has shown a lower average speed while moving, but the average commute has also decreased.
we take a test to be legal drivers, a test to show maturity with a 2 ton rolling rock. if we cannot be mature enough to do so in a safe and courteous manner, maybe the test needs to be changed, cause i'd love to be treated like i'm a rational adult while operating my property so as to not injure anyone else or damage other's property.

I know not all "rules" could be wiped from the slate, but like the late night at a red light times. an adult would look around, no one coming, and continue... not like some child that needs baby sitting and has to wait the 1- 5 mins till the light changes so they feel safe to continue on their way.

[Satty]

America isn't Europe, America is full of Americans.

[Camino LS6]

Satty, on 09 January 2010 - 05:28 PM, said:

America isn't Europe, America is full of Americans.

By which you mean to imply that Americans are inferior drivers?

Or thinkers?

Possessed of an inferior capacity for reason?