View Full Version : Arizona to shut off highway speed cameras.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/06/nation/la-na-speed-cameras-20100507
Arizona's controversial — and widely despised — highway speed cameras are coming down.
The state's Department of Public Safety sent a letter to the cameras' operating company this week, stating that its 2-year contract would not be renewed. The agreement ends July 15, and the cameras will be turned off the next day.
The cameras, paired with radar devices, photograph vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 11 mph or more on state highways. A notice of violation — with a fine of $181.50 — was then sent to the address of the vehicle's registered owner.
Motorists and lawmakers protested that the cameras were impractical in a state where people are accustomed to driving long, lonely stretches of road at high speeds. Citizens covered camera lenses with Silly String or Post-it sticky notes. Pressure had been mounting in the Legislature to end the program, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer had denounced it.
A spokeswoman for Redflex, which has camera contracts in more than 240 U.S. cities, said the company was "undoubtedly disappointed" in the decision. The matter isn't related to the company's performance or services, spokeswoman Shoba Vaitheeswaran wrote in an e-mail.
Lt. Jeff King, who oversees the program, said that the decision was a policy matter within the Department of Public Safety, but that he could not comment further.
Shawn Dow, chairman of a group supporting a November ballot initiative to ban photo enforcement statewide, said the decision wasn't surprising. "We've seen this coming," Dow said. "We were just waiting for the formal letter to be sent."
John Keegan, a judge for the Arrowhead Justice Court, had called the cameras unconstitutional and dismissed more than 8,500 photo-enforcement tickets.
Keegan said Thursday that the program was never done correctly. The decision, he said, will relieve a "tremendous logjam" in the court system of motorists appealing their citations.
These things always get passed as "safety measures" then are viewed as cash cows. DC was touting theirs(stop light cameras actually) as a safety measure. Later admitted it was for funding. I hate these. Glad this went that route.
Scotland had them for a time, but the biggest offenders were their police/gov't/safety vehicles. I think the turned them off for good too.
Good for AZ. I hate those stupid things. They do very little to reduce speeders or red light runners and end up being nothing more than revenue generators. Which is all they were ever intended for anyway. There have been a number of suits over their abuse and manipulation so I don't have a problem with doing away with them and replacing them with more cops.
whiterabbit05
05-09-10, 17:32
Another win for AZ. :cool:
dookie1481
05-09-10, 22:09
AZ is quickly becoming a place where I would move .
Jay
I just saw on the news they are putting one on I-95 in SC at the GA border. They are claiming it is for safety, I couldnt believe the guy said that with a straight face.
toasterlocker
05-09-10, 22:41
Only the cameras under the Highway Patrol contract are going down. Others under contract with smaller municipalities are here to stay, at least for awhile.
I can't speak for the way other cities operate their camera systems, but I support them 100% at my department. Every single violation is reviewed by an individual officer before being approved, to make sure mistakes aren't made. And we have seen a dramatic decrease in collisions, and severity of collisions. And at an anecdotal level, I can personally say it is a lot harder for me to find speeders.
Also, all the money our department has seen is going back into traffic safety programs, like additional traffic officers, signage and other engineering improvements, and education.
The roads are certainly safer because of the cameras where I live and work, and I would be disappointed to see them go. I'm sure the primary motivation some places is money. But in my town, all you have to do is look at how much safer the roads have become and where the money is going, and you can immediately see money isn't the goal here.
I'm sure the primary motivation some places is money. But in my town, all you have to do is look at how much safer the roads have become and where the money is going, and you can immediately see money isn't the goal here.
What town do you work in? I've seen quite a few "oh shit!" incidents that almost lead to accidents on the AZ freeways due to people slamming on their brakes coming up to a camera. I prefer to a live in a free society where my movements aren't recorded and Big Brother's not staring down at me. If it's about safety then why don't we put a speed limiter on cars that won't exceed the highest national speed limit? I believe the highest is 75mph and then the problem would be solved. It's all about generating revenue from everything I've seen and read. From 2008: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2180.asp
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano announced on Friday her expectation that the state's new freeway speed cameras would generate $90 million in net profit for fiscal year 2009, plus $34 million for the private companies selected to operate the program. In the following year, what the state labels "non tax increase revenue generation" will jump to $120 million, plus $45 million more for the ticket vendors, for a total of $165 million. After 2010 revenue is expected to exceed this amount significantly as the program grows beyond 100 fixed and mobile speed cameras and high occupancy vehicle lane (HOV) ticketing cameras are brought online.
From 2010: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3054.asp
Avondale, Arizona last week decided to terminate its contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS) for the operation of red light cameras and speed cameras. The city council made its decision primarily on financial grounds after the program failed to deliver on its promise of enhanced safety and substantial profit. With Avondale facing a $3.8 million budget deficit, officials decided the cameras had to go.
"The largest reduction in budgeted appropriations comes from the camera traffic enforcement program," Avondale Finance Director Kevin Artz wrote in a February 8 memo to the council. "The police department has assessed the effectiveness of the program and determined that potentially the program costs outweigh the benefits. With the total costs of the program exceeding the revenue and little change in accident rate, staff recommends that council consider eliminating or suspending the program."
The city allowed ATS to deploy two red light cameras and one mobile speed camera van. Over the past two years, ATS issued 6326 photo citations, with the number of tickets issued down 46 percent in 2009. While some cities would trumpet this reduction as evidence of the benefit of camera use, Avondale provided a different explanation.
"In June 2009 the decision was made to discontinue photo enforcement at intersections for failing to stop turning right on a red light," Police Chief Kevin Kotsur wrote. "This was based on a review of the previous year's accident rate that revealed there were no traffic accidents caused by a vehicle failing to stop on a red light turning right at an intersection... This decision appears to account for the majority of this decrease."
Since the economic recession took hold in 2007, traffic volumes have dropped nationwide. As a result, traffic fatalities have hit all-time lows. Since the beginning of the recession, fatal crashes have dropped 14.7 percent across the country. The half-mile radius surrounding Avondale's camera locations only saw a 7 percent drop in accidents. Areas farther from the cameras experienced a more significant drop in the number of crashes.
The city budget did estimate that cameras would generate $318,610 in net revenue for the city, but Kotsur noted that indirect costs associated with the program would mean the city would wind up losing $80,000. Avondale's contract was set to expire on September 19, 2010, but an early termination clause allowed cancellation without penalty to the city.
toasterlocker
05-10-10, 17:44
What town do you work in? I've seen quite a few "oh shit!" incidents that almost lead to accidents on the AZ freeways due to people slamming on their brakes coming up to a camera. I prefer to a live in a free society where my movements aren't recorded and Big Brother's not staring down at me. If it's about safety then why don't we put a speed limiter on cars that won't exceed the highest national speed limit? I believe the highest is 75mph and then the problem would be solved. It's all about generating revenue from everything I've seen and read. From 2008: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2180.asp
From 2010: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3054.asp
The "oh shit" moment you describe are all rooted in another traffic violation - following too closely. If you are following another vehicle so closely you can't hit the brakes and come to a complete stop at a moments notice, you are following to closely. This is common sense and a basic safety precaution taught to all new drivers. Most people simply choose to ignore it and blame the guy in front of them instead of driving responsibly.
The freedom argument is nonsense, seeing as how footage isn't actually saved unless you commit a violation. If you don't speed or run red lights, you won't be recorded.
Your speed governor argument doesn't work either, because violations aren't only committed at higher speeds. All of the speed cameras where I work trigger at 56 or lower.
Also, you have got to consider your sources. The links you posted are all from an outlet that is staunchly anti photo enforcement. If you took the time to explore other sources, you would find there are several studies out of Arizona universities showing decreased collisions and less severe collisions.
Yes, it is true places make money from photo enforcement programs. But it is NOT just a money grab. People who deny there are any safety benefits at all are lying to themselves.
PM inbound.
I just saw on the news they are putting one on I-95 in SC at the GA border. They are claiming it is for safety, I couldnt believe the guy said that with a straight face.
Ugh. As if I-95 isn't bad enough through Georgia and SC...
Good for Arizona to ditch (at least some of) these things. The so-called "safety" argument is waayyyy overstated. The profit motive is not however.
The "oh shit" moment you describe are all rooted in another traffic violation - following too closely. If you are following another vehicle so closely you can't hit the brakes and come to a complete stop at a moments notice, you are following to closely. This is common sense and a basic safety precaution taught to all new drivers. Most people simply choose to ignore it and blame the guy in front of them instead of driving responsibly.
The freedom argument is nonsense, seeing as how footage isn't actually saved unless you commit a violation. If you don't speed or run red lights, you won't be recorded.
Your speed governor argument doesn't work either, because violations aren't only committed at higher speeds. All of the speed cameras where I work trigger at 56 or lower.
Also, you have got to consider your sources. The links you posted are all from an outlet that is staunchly anti photo enforcement. If you took the time to explore other sources, you would find there are several studies out of Arizona universities showing decreased collisions and less severe collisions.
Yes, it is true places make money from photo enforcement programs. But it is NOT just a money grab. People who deny there are any safety benefits at all are lying to themselves.
PM inbound.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Regardless of their dubious safety benefits, they smack of Big Brother and should be an abomination. When the people abhor them to the point they will commit acts of vandalism to eradicate them, you are tempting the good will of the people a little too much.
Perhaps you should consider moving to England where the subjects have no voice in their use?:mad:
toasterlocker
05-11-10, 17:06
Regardless of their dubious safety benefits, they smack of Big Brother and should be an abomination. When the people abhor them to the point they will commit acts of vandalism to eradicate them, you are tempting the good will of the people a little too much.
Perhaps you should consider moving to England where the subjects have no voice in their use?:mad:
Which "liberty" would your misapplied quote be referring to? The right to privacy on a PUBLIC road? Oh, wait, there is NO such thing as a right to privacy on a public road.
Go ahead and try the "Big Brother" argument when the government has cameras on private property. In that case it would actually have some weight. Go ahead and read 1984 while your at it so you understand the catch phrase you are misusing.
As for the "dubious" safety benefits, I'll get some info from work when I go back tonight and post the information when I get back. I can't speak for other places, but the roads are MUCH safer here, period.
Im glad the cameras are gone. My big problem is the lack of human presence and overview. With the red light cameras at least the picture will show if the light is red or not. If the camera was out of whack it would be easy to see.
Not so much with the speed cameras. Scottsdales cameras on the loop 101 were off for a while and they ended up throwing out a bunch of tickets. But how many people paid their fine before that?
If my radar gun (i actually dont have one but my boss does) is off, I would be able to tell if it says a guy I see driving 30, is doing 50.
One of my coworkers went and fought the photo radar ticket and the Redflex guy stated they were 94 percent accurate. So that 6 percent of people who get a ticket they didnt deserve. Thats not right.
Added to that, there are several judges out here who believe the photo radar tickets to be unconstitutional because they carry a different punishment than those issued by officers. The fact that there is no points given and no punishment for avoiding the ticket or court, shows that they are one big revenue generator.
Its not for safety, its a cash cow.
toasterlocker
05-11-10, 20:39
Im glad the cameras are gone. My big problem is the lack of human presence and overview. With the red light cameras at least the picture will show if the light is red or not. If the camera was out of whack it would be easy to see.
Not so much with the speed cameras. Scottsdales cameras on the loop 101 were off for a while and they ended up throwing out a bunch of tickets. But how many people paid their fine before that?
If my radar gun (i actually dont have one but my boss does) is off, I would be able to tell if it says a guy I see driving 30, is doing 50.
One of my coworkers went and fought the photo radar ticket and the Redflex guy stated they were 94 percent accurate. So that 6 percent of people who get a ticket they didnt deserve. Thats not right.
Added to that, there are several judges out here who believe the photo radar tickets to be unconstitutional because they carry a different punishment than those issued by officers. The fact that there is no points given and no punishment for avoiding the ticket or court, shows that they are one big revenue generator.
Its not for safety, its a cash cow.
Like I've said before, I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but I can tell you that the problems you bring up certainly do NOT exist in mine.
The cameras save footage from six seconds before the violation, and six seconds after. The traffic officers in my department review the video to make sure the recorded footage wasn't some sort of electronic error.
Also, it is a pretty easy for an experienced officer to see in a video if a car is going more than 11 over the posted limit, just as easily as seeing if a light is red or not.
Like I said, I can't speak for the level of oversight and human involvement other places. But where I work, all the things you mention are not an issue. Also, my agency DOES issue points for violations;). If done right, there is nothing the slightest bit illegal or unethical about the cameras. I think the problem is that some places aren't holding themselves to a high enough standard.
During my studies at ASU, I may have been "flashed" on the highways. I was certainly never served... and that, I believe, is the legal mess behind the traffic cameras.
Which "liberty" would your misapplied quote be referring to? The right to privacy on a PUBLIC road? Oh, wait, there is NO such thing as a right to privacy on a public road.
Go ahead and try the "Big Brother" argument when the government has cameras on private property. In that case it would actually have some weight. Go ahead and read 1984 while your at it so you understand the catch phrase you are misusing.
As for the "dubious" safety benefits, I'll get some info from work when I go back tonight and post the information when I get back. I can't speak for other places, but the roads are MUCH safer here, period.
Quite frankly it think it's a chickenshit way to generate revenue. It eliminates officer discretion and does not take into consideration road conditions or driver alertness and attitude. When you're sitting there reviewing camera footage, do you have the discretion to issue a warning instead of a citation? Can you make a judgement call as to whether a warning will get the message across or whether a citation is all that will work when reviewing the video?
How about the reduced number of officers pulling over speeders in camera zones? Where is the deterrent factor there? In reality, you are permanently posting a stretch of road for the area where the camera covers, and ignoring the areas the camera doesn't cover. Those who know where the cameras are will simply speed in other locations, while the unaware are paying the fines. It sets up a double standard.
Like I said, chickenshit way to police citizens if you ask me. :rolleyes:
Why don't we ask the tax-paying citizens if they want red light cameras, speed cameras, or even security cameras in the public areas of their own communities?
well, the private companies were making the $$$, not the cities. once you figure in the companies cut, then the process server and finally court time, how could the city come out ahead? anybody have an actual breakdown of how much the companies cut was, the price for the process server and the hourly rate for the courts to be run?
Robot Police... you lose.
Quite frankly it think it's a chickenshit way to generate revenue. It eliminates officer discretion and does not take into consideration road conditions or driver alertness and attitude. When you're sitting there reviewing camera footage, do you have the discretion to issue a warning instead of a citation? Can you make a judgement call as to whether a warning will get the message across or whether a citation is all that will work when reviewing the video?
How about the reduced number of officers pulling over speeders in camera zones? Where is the deterrent factor there? In reality, you are permanently posting a stretch of road for the area where the camera covers, and ignoring the areas the camera doesn't cover. Those who know where the cameras are will simply speed in other locations, while the unaware are paying the fines. It sets up a double standard.
Like I said, chickenshit way to police citizens if you ask me. :rolleyes:
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.
TPeople who deny there are any safety benefits at all are lying to themselves.
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.
Photo radar on interstates just makes me go ---> :confused::confused::confused::confused:
toasterlocker
05-12-10, 18:25
Quite frankly it think it's a chickenshit way to generate revenue. It eliminates officer discretion and does not take into consideration road conditions or driver alertness and attitude. When you're sitting there reviewing camera footage, do you have the discretion to issue a warning instead of a citation? Can you make a judgement call as to whether a warning will get the message across or whether a citation is all that will work when reviewing the video?
How about the reduced number of officers pulling over speeders in camera zones? Where is the deterrent factor there? In reality, you are permanently posting a stretch of road for the area where the camera covers, and ignoring the areas the camera doesn't cover. Those who know where the cameras are will simply speed in other locations, while the unaware are paying the fines. It sets up a double standard.
Like I said, chickenshit way to police citizens if you ask me. :rolleyes:
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.
toasterlocker
05-12-10, 18:33
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.)
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.)
Mind if I ask what city and state we're discussing here?
toasterlocker
05-12-10, 20:43
Mind if I ask what city and state we're discussing here?
I prefer not post my employer on a public forum.
Nothing personal. I will tell you it is a city with about 12,000 permanent population and a larger summer population, if that helps.
I prefer not post my employer on a public forum.
Nothing personal. I will tell you it is a city with about 12,000 permanent population and a larger summer population, if that helps.
No, it doesn't. Feel free to withold the information, but it doesn't help at all.
John_Wayne777
05-13-10, 06:58
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.)
Ummm....either your dates are incorrect, or you're arguing that 193 accidents in 4 months is somehow an improvement over 263 accidents in 8 months.
toasterlocker
05-13-10, 09:22
Ummm....either your dates are incorrect, or you're arguing that 193 accidents in 4 months is somehow an improvement over 263 accidents in 8 months.
Second April 2009 should read 2010. Typo.
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.
toasterlocker
05-13-10, 09:35
No, it doesn't. Feel free to withold the information, but it doesn't help at all.
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?
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. :D
toasterlocker
05-13-10, 19:45
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. :D
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.
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:
toasterlocker
05-13-10, 21:30
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?
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. :(
toasterlocker
05-14-10, 05:02
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.:p
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.
I would still like to see how the citizens feel about installing/removing red light camera's.
John_Wayne777
05-14-10, 07:25
Enough bickering already.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.