Speed cameras and radar in Arizona

[LAGO RUNNER]

They send me a picture of my LP and a ticket, I'll send them a picture of my Money

 

[Wolfhound]

There are permanent speed cameras at both ends of Star Valley (East of Payson) that are spittin' out pics at a high rate of speed. Weren't there last year.

 

[HotRodZilla]

Here in the good 'ol city of Albuquerque, we have 20 "Red Light" cameras up and running. About 2 months after the "Red Light" cameras went up in 2004, the city added a speed function to them that also catches speeders; hence the quotes around red light. The violations do not count as a moving violation since the city had to make the law part of the Nuisance Abeytment Act. Basically, a speeding car that runs a red light is a nuisance to the safety of the city. The city later followed up with two speed vans that they park on the freeways and on random streets and take pics of speeding vehicles. Although I know NM law very well, I am not that famaliar with AZ. In NM, for a citation to count under state statute, the violation has to be witnessed by an officer. The city ordinance gets around that. If you contest the citation, you go before a hearing officer who was hired by the Mayor. If you tell the officer you were not driving your car, you are required to give the name and address of the person who was so that the citation can be sent to them. It is all a little big brother-ish, but I gotta say, the intersection closest to my house used to be a gamble with your life. Now that the cameras are installed, it seems much safer. Its easy not to get a ticket; just don't speed or run the light. On a recent news note: The state legislature decided to take a cut of the city's money from the red light camera program. The Mayor thew a hissy-fit and shut down the program 4 three days before resinstating it. During those 3 days, the red light and speeding violations through the intersections went up 27%.

 

[RonBB]

This stuff only spreads & gets worse. Yes in some cases safety is improved; but in many, if not most, it becomes all about the $$. I don't know anything about the laws or polices in AZ but personally I would be working with the opponent of any polititian who pushes this type of big brother legislation(regardless of party); both with donations & letters. e-mails, etc. In my mind there is no doubt that this will eventually become the way it is everywhere (all states). The only question seems to be: "Will it be everywhere in my lifetime, yours, the kids, or grandkids?" There always seems to be some know-it-all self important "do-gooder" (??) trying to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. Those of you who have followed the forum for several years will note that this is my only rant in all those years-please excuse it- The subject just hit a "Hot button" with me. Damn Do-Gooders anyway. Ron

 

[keithaba]

From the original post it was stated that the camera's "WORK."

If they "Worked," they wouldn't be projecting profits from the tickets given, because there would be steady decreasing trend in the number of tickets given.

After all, working, means that every person who got a ticket would no longer engage in speeding to avoid another ticket.

In my opinion, the individual who stated the camer's "work," misconstrued the term with "work to raise money."

After all, the same person projected that the funds from the cameras would increase which would actually reflect an increase in the numer of fines bing give, which reflect more people speeding? :headbonk:

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Maybe it's just 'hopeless'?

A short (recent) story: A couple weeks ago S.O. witnessed a speeder (black Ford Fusion) passing recklessly on a two-lane mountain US highway while on a, frequently taken, 100 mile trip. When approaching one of the few small towns along the route she noticed a sheriff's vehicle off on the shoulder looking like he's finishing paperwork; she thought, "Wonder if he stopped that gal in the black car?" Leaving that small town she saw the resident State Trooper on the side of the road w/black car pulled over.

As luck would have it, we were at an event at the fairgrounds days later where the State Trooper was in attendance. I happen to know him, a little (he's a motorcyclist). I introduced S.O. and she just had to ask about the black car. He also wanted to tell the story: in 150 miles she was given 5 tickets -- 4 different stops. Young woman apparently in a hurry....? Can't imagine all the costs involved. :blink:

 

[Wolfhound]

Luckily the legislature here is trying to get the speed cameras up for a vote in the coming election. The red light cameras IMO should be here as it's a big problem & I don't have a problem with that. Putting cameras all over the state is just for making money, not for safety, especially on secondary roads with very light traffic.

 

[C&C]

There was an editorial in "Car and Driver" magazine (I think it was Patrick Bedard's column) in which he stated that there had been some truth that the Red light cameras, in Arizona, were not clearing enough profit (as the Red Light Camera Company gleens their take from the amount of citations written) so what they did was shorten the yellow light by one second (or some other time) to incrase the number of violaters caught. Sounds like a revenue source to me; not for safety. (I'm the first one, that gets ticked off when I see a red light runner, but when the State cheats, that makes me more furious.)

 

[Checkswrecks]

You have something like 2 in the State? Bwahahaha, we have a half-dozen in the County!

A study was just completed on the effectiveness of the things here and the following is a link to what your politicians will be reading:

IIHS Study

Basically, there's up to a 70% reduction in speed, the things pay for themselves, and the county plays a shell game in moving the Ford Windstars that contain the cameras which is essentially a force multiplier. What politician can argue against that? For the most part, we locals know what to look for and where they are generally located. This has been a county program but now Maryland is talking about putting some on highways and back-roads with accident rates related to speed.

Beats me what grounds you fight the things on.

 

[Bounce]

Anybody who get's a ticket from these camera's should fight it in court, (even if you are guilty).
Kinda takes away the profit margin from Big Brother.

they're done as a civil citation instead of a moving violation because there was no officer to verify WHO was driving at the time. they fine the owner (don't loan your car/bike to anyone) as registered via the dmv. sell your car and get a bunch of tickets when someone doesn't bother to xfer title.

it costs cash but doesn't go on your driving record (see above).

 

[Grumpy]

The folks that get rich off these are the folks who own the cameras! It's just like the insurance folks who get rich by buying the highway patrol the lasers.

jim

 

[Wolfhound]

The two portable units are a pilot program to see how they like them . . .Pretty sure you get points on your license here & even had a sport biker jailed for repeated high speed passes in Scottsdale area (on hwy) . . . .Once they caught Him . . .

 

[HotRodZilla]

There was an editorial in "Car and Driver" magazine (I think it was Patrick Bedard's column) in which he stated that there had been some truth that the Red light cameras, in Arizona, were not clearing enough profit (as the Red Light Camera Company gleens their take from the amount of citations written) so what they did was shorten the yellow light by one second (or some other time) to incrase the number of violaters caught. Sounds like a revenue source to me; not for safety. (I'm the first one, that gets ticked off when I see a red light runner, but when the State cheats, that makes me more furious.)

That shortening of the yellow light nonsense is pure urban myth. Yellow lights are timed for the speed of the road they control. IE: The length of a yellow light on a 35mph road will be shorter than the lenght of a yellow on a 55mph road. What happens is the people who are the ones that blow the red light .001 seconds after the light turns from red to yellow begin to cry because they get tickets. If the yellows really were shortened by as much as a second, some of these intersections would become really dangerous. In my experience, it wouldn't matter if someone lengthened the duration of the light to something as ridiculos as 10 seconds, some ass-hat would run the red trying to beat the yellow to save 35 seconds of light cycle time.

The folks that get rich off these are the folks who own the cameras! It's just like the insurance folks who get rich by buying the highway patrol the lasers.

Unless this happens in the East, I have NEVER even heard of it happening here. If an agency can't afford a laser or even some of the newer radars, usually, the state's traffic safety adminsitration will "loan" or give them to a department on a "grant." I can't imating the **** storm generated by me citing a person with a laser purchased by their own insurance company. If they are doing this somewhere, I don't know how they get away with it. The total problem with all this, especially the cameras, is that because of a few idiots, the rest of us are punished.

 

[Checkswrecks]

The folks that get rich off these are the folks who own the cameras! It's just like the insurance folks who get rich by buying the highway patrol the lasers.jim

DC and MD jurisdictions own thew devices and Lockheed runs them and sends the citations. No points, but if unpaid you lose your registration and that will be one of thew first htings to pop up on the computer for the next officer who pulls you over. THAT is bad juju.