Speed photo enforcement revolt

[dpricenator]

So Clint and I agree here. Saying the camera make the roads or intersection more dangerous is a ridiculous. When someone sees they are going to run a light, they either hit the gas or hit the brake. It does not matter that there is a camera there. So the moral of the story is pay attention, and you won’t be put in the position to run a light, and get a ticket.

On the highway, there is a law, and it is on the Black and White sign that says SPEED LIMIT. If you go over the number on that sign you are breaking the law and will be fined for such. So don’t speed and you are good.


However you want to look at the situation, they are money making machines, and an added tax on the citizens of the area.

 

[openendstraight]

All tickets are a way for the state, county, or city to increase revenue.
Last month I got a ticket for running a stop light on a deserted road at 4:30 A.M. in the morning. At said intersection there is a flashing yellow light that warns you about 100 yard prior to getting to the light.

The officer pulled me over two miles after said light and said that I ran the light, so I go to court to fight it, and the scheduled a court date. At said court date a court official got up and said everyone here for a moving violation please move to the left of the room. Then we were called up one by one, and every single one we were given the option to have it reduced to a non moving violation that will not show up on our records, and pay $150 fine, but if we decided not to accept, and were found guilty, we could not request traffic school to have said infraction removed form our driving record.

So the only reason I can come up with is that they just want the money from said infraction.
I did not run that red light, but it would have been my word against the officer, so I took the deal. The only reason I ask to fight it the first time was because a friend had the same thing happen, and he told me what he did.

 

[Mr.Erskine]

I completely agree with Clint. It's like I tell my students--if you do something wrong, just take responsibility and move on. I love how many people feel justified to do things that they know they are not supposed to and then get mad whenever they get in trouble and things are put in place to curtail the actions.

That said, I have a speeding ticket, and I routinely speed by a large margin on my motorcycle. When I got my ticket I didn't argue because I knew I was speeding, and the cop actually trimmed MPH's off of the speed I was going.

 

[swat253]

I don't like the red light and speed limit cameras... It was always much more fun chasing down the violators!!! :hammersma

 

[openendstraight]

Laws are supposed to protect society not generate cash flow for a bloated bureaucracy

This law is laws in place to make people safe, not to make money, the speed camera is there to make money, so this agrument doesn't work in this case.

Keep in mind I agree that most speed limits are 10 to 15 mph to low.

 

[WMGF]

So Clint and I agree here. Saying the camera make the roads or intersection more dangerous is a ridiculous. When someone sees they are going to run a light, they either hit the gas or hit the brake. It does not matter that there is a camera there. So the moral of the story is pay attention, and you won’t be put in the position to run a light, and get a ticket.

No way sir, quite a few studies have been done that they cause more accidents than they prevent.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

Even if you're paying attention that won't stop the guy from rear ending you when you stop on a yellow to avoid a ticket. Cities have also been known to lower the yellows to the very minimum amount of time in order to collect more money instead of lengthening them for safety.

This law is laws in place to make people safe, not to make money, the speed camera is there to make money, so this argument doesn't work in this case.

I agree that speed limits are in place to keep people safe, but the way they're used (lower to make money) and cameras (on those same roads to make money) make the roads less safe.

 

[kockroach]

Cities have also been known to lower the yellows to the very minimum amount of time in order to collect more money instead of lengthening them for safety.

Yeah, Chicago is one of them....how about 2 seconds at best.

 

[swat253]

No way sir, quite a few studies have been done that they cause more accidents than they prevent.

Not arguing here WMGF; was the logic that people see the camera and either speed up to beat it or slam on their brakes to keep from running the light? I'm in the business, but I don't deal with traffic and misdemeanors any more, so I haven't kept up with the bureaucracy surrounding the devices.

 

[WMGF]

Not arguing here WMGF; was the logic that people see the camera and either speed up to beat it or slam on their brakes to keep from running the light? I'm in the business, but I don't deal with traffic and misdemeanors any more, so I haven't kept up with the bureaucracy surrounding the devices.

Yeah - most of the accidents (from what I read) were from people slamming on their brakes to avoid a ticket.

Just from my experience - If you see a yellow from 50 ft away it's not a big deal to slow down, but if you're closing in under maybe 15-20 feet and it turns yellow you have about a second to check your rear-view mirror for cars following (rear end) and to guess how long the yellow light is going to be. Most often I just stop because it's easier to get into an accident that isn't my fault than it is for me to fork over hundreds of dollars to the city.

Since there is no standard length (only minimums and maximums) you could safely go through the light if it's 3-4 seconds, but there's no real way of knowing how long a light is going to be so I just assume the worst.

In any case, I just avoid those intersections if I can because when faced with the prospect of an expensive ticket or an accident every time I go through the damn thing I'd rather not deal with it. Of course everyone who blows through red lights knows this and goes to the other intersections so it's a zero sum gain for me.

 

[Clint]

Posted by WMGF:
This law is laws in place to make people safe, not to make money, the speed camera is there to make money, so this argument doesn't work in this case.

I agree that speed limits are in place to keep people safe, but the way they're used (lower to make money) and cameras (on those same roads to make money) make the roads less safe.



Quick question...If the law already exisits, how in the world can you say that a device designed to catch people (and make money) is suddenly unfair?
Yes, if a law is created with the sole purpose to make money, then I see your argument. That is NOT the case here! The law existed before the camera...Either way, if you choose to ignore a law, then prepare to open your wallet and pay. Camera or not.

 

[WMGF]

Quick question...If the law already exisits, how in the world can you say that a device designed to catch people (and make money) is suddenly unfair?
Yes, if a law is created with the sole purpose to make money, then I see your argument. That is NOT the case here! The law existed before the camera...Either way, if you choose to ignore a law, then prepare to open your wallet and pay. Camera or not.

I'm saying the idea of the law is sound, the implementation is not. The camera just reinforces the idea that they're interested in money first and foremost. The study I linked to showed cities placing their speed limits below the 85th percentile (what's usually considered safe) and this can cause more accidents. A speed limit set lower than it should be drives up the number of people breaking the law (over half) and makes the road less safe. The idea of speed limits is a good one, but their implementation has been poor in some areas and using a camera to profit off of that poor implementation if unfair.

They're psychological speed traps. The cities/states know how fast you're actually going to go using studies like the one I linked. They also know if they set that speed limit lower then you're going to be more likely break the law (even if what you're doing isn't hazardous,) driving up the amount of revenue they get from tickets (or in some cases allowing the police to pull over someone as a reason to conduct further investigation - though there's nothing wrong with this.) That kind of implementation of a speed limit is unfair and using a camera there only makes it more so.

 

[Phiberglass]

I'm going to agree with WMGF here. I do however agree with Clint on regular citations, speeding (not via camera), no front plate ticket, tint, etc. I've seen multiple accidents occur due to cameras around here, and I personally am not a fan, especially when their main reason for having them in generating income.

I haven't gotten a ticket in years, thanks to my eyes and especially my radar detector saving me over thousands of dollars. I tend to avoid red light camera intersections as well, and have them all plugged into my GPS device for when I travel out of town. If they did install cameras around the city street and freeways I would just remove my rear plate, and run with no plates on my car at all. A $25 fix it ticket for that is much cheaper than a couple hundred dollar ticket in the mail and an insurance bump.

I'm all for taking responsibility of your actions, especially speeding, no front plate, tickets, etc since that was your choice, you pay the consequences. But I find red light cameras and speed cameras on the freeways to be ridiculous.

 

[dpricenator]

2 Words DEALER PLATES

Much less conspicuous than no plates.

 

[kockroach]

Here's why Judge Keegan says it is unconstitional:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2671.asp

Actual court order:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/az-arrowhead.pdf

Basically, it comes down to a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2 of the Arizona State Constitution. It comes down to equal protection....there is a completely different fine for the traffic cameras compared to the fines given out by uniformed officers.

So, in it's current state, I totally agree that it is a bunch of crap. If it were implemented properly, where the fines matched up for a camera-given or officer-given ticket, then there should be no issue at all. However, I don't particularly like a private company be given the ability to "hand" out the tickets. I am not in favor of giving private companies the control....just like the parking meters in Chicago being controlled by a company now.

 

[Phiberglass]

I'd probably just run a europlate on the rear. I don't mind getting no plate fix it tickets, as it's only $10 and a quick trip to the CHP station. Dealer plates are definitely more though inconspicuous though, but I ended up getting pulled over more often with dealer plates than a europlate in the first year of owning my car.

 

[openendstraight]

(thread jackstart)

The tint laws pisses me off here. All our cars have tint that is too dark, but in the summer it really helps with temps inside the car, so I just pay the damn fine and keep it on.

(thread jack end)

 

[Phiberglass]

I agree. I often drive with my windows down, especially if there is a LEO present. I only have 35%, so they don't give me trouble most of the time. Anything darker than that you're likely going to have trouble in California.

 

[Clint]

I'm saying the idea of the law is sound, the implementation is not. The camera just reinforces the idea that they're interested in money first and foremost. The study I linked to showed cities placing their speed limits below the 85th percentile (what's usually considered safe) and this can cause more accidents. A speed limit set lower than it should be drives up the number of people breaking the law (over half) and makes the road less safe. The idea of speed limits is a good one, but their implementation has been poor in some areas and using a camera to profit off of that poor implementation if unfair.

They're psychological speed traps. The cities/states know how fast you're actually going to go using studies like the one I linked. They also know if they set that speed limit lower then you're going to be more likely break the law (even if what you're doing isn't hazardous,) driving up the amount of revenue they get from tickets (or in some cases allowing the police to pull over someone as a reason to conduct further investigation - though there's nothing wrong with this.) That kind of implementation of a speed limit is unfair and using a camera there only makes it more so.

Saying "The camera just reinforces the idea that they're interested in money" is ludicrous.

Let me sum it up simply: If everyone obeyed the law, the cameras would not generate a cent....Period. Cry all you want, but if you nbreak the law, you need to be completely willing to pay the consequence.

Nothing is unfair here...Don't speed, and you won't get caught, and you won't have to pay a cent.

 

[Greg]

Usually, in these cases, it's an entity that's separate from the jurisdiction involved, and it's most likely a private contractor who employs, monitors and calibrates these devices.

I see conflict of interest.

 

[WMGF]

Saying "The camera just reinforces the idea that they're interested in money" is ludicrous.

Let me sum it up simply: If everyone obeyed the law, the cameras would not generate a cent....Period. Cry all you want, but if you nbreak the law, you need to be completely willing to pay the consequence.

Nothing is unfair here...Don't speed, and you won't get caught, and you won't have to pay a cent.

You're subconsciously motivated to drive a certain speed on a certain road and whether or not there is a sign there generally makes little to no difference. Most people naturally make the same judgement and drive around this speed. This is averaged out and the speed limit is set at whatever the 85th percentile of everyone is.

The speed limits are unrealistically low in some places and just because it's "the law" doesn't mean it's rational or fair. They're setting up people to be ticketed and if you don't believe that then tell me the rationale behind it. Many studies have shown that lower speed limits and slower drivers cause more accidents than the average speed (85th percentile.) It's not for safety and I have a hard time swallowing "it's the law" as an excuse when it's not making anyone safer. Edit: Especially when folks are making money off of this hand over fist.

They're about as fair as a down hill speed trap.