|
Maricopa360
|
 |
« on: 15 July 2010, 08:28:42 » |
|
At midnight, on July 15, 2010, the statewide highway photo enforcement program contract will expire.
· A request for proposal pursuant to enabling legislation in 2008 implemented the first statewide highway automated speed enforcement program in Arizona.
· On July 15, 2008, Redflex Traffic Systems was selected as the program vendor for a two year contract by the Arizona Department of Public Safety
· 78 cameras were deployed through the course of the program, including 42 mobile photo enforcement vehicles and 36 stationary photo enforcement cameras.
· The stationary cameras were placed along freeways only in the Phoenix metro area. The mobile cameras were stationed throughout the state, including areas in metro Phoenix.
· As established by the Arizona legislature, the typical fine for a civil speeding violation from a Photo Enforcement camera was $181.50
· During the course of the program, 1,105,935 Notice of Violations/Citations were mailed. Of those, 432,367 Notice of Violations were paid. In addition, there were 2,758,700 camera activations. An activation is caused anytime a vehicle passes the sensors at 11mph or more over the speed limit.
· On July 15th at midnight, all stationary photo enforcement cameras will be shut off. The equipment will be removed by Redflex over the 120 days following the July 15th shut off date. All mobile photo enforcement vehicles will be taken off the road on July 15th
· Arizona Department of Public Safety officers will utilize all measures available to enforce the posted speed limits on the federal and state highway systems just as they did prior to the photo enforcement program. The motoring public should remember that DPS patrolmen do not have an 11mph threshold similar to the photo enforcement system. Any unsafe and unlawful speeds can be cited.
· Redflex Traffic Systems and DPS will continue to process all citations issued up to the end of the contract until they are adjudicated in court.
· The contract grants Redflex Traffic Systems 120 days from the end of the contract to remove all remaining above ground equipment and return the sites to their original configuration. ADOT will replace the photo enforcement signs with messages regarding safe driving.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vinny
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 15 July 2010, 09:10:54 » |
|
2,758,700 people were flashed? so, presumably almost 3 million cars passed the cameras at least 11 mph over the limit. kinda sounds like we need a higher speed limit!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
" He is your friend, your partner,
your defender, your dog.
You are his life, his love, his leader. He will
be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat
of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of
such devotion."
Unknown
|
|
|
|
Tempting Fait
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 15 July 2010, 11:04:06 » |
|
Kinda sounds to me like 3 million people need to take their foot off their f'ing accelerators!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The world would be a nicer place if everyone took a chill pill.
It would get even better is some just choked on it.
|
|
|
|
Fat Girl
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 15 July 2010, 11:54:40 » |
|
Probably more like 500,000 folks needed to take the foot of the accelerators....
It seems from the news articles and stuff on the actual number of violators for that 2,000,000+ activiations there were many "frequent flyers"
The guy in the monkey and giraffe masks had like 50 violations himself...
Some chick in the EVO had more than that....
VArious sports folks made the news with multiple violations...
THen there was all the ruckus about all the activations being sent for various policing entities and government vehicles over the speed limits....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mallardisme
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 15 July 2010, 11:57:22 » |
|
At least the photo van was responsible for one DUI arrest.....
That would be the driver of the van that was so hammered he kept smashing into the curb after his shift.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Desert Dweller
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 15 July 2010, 12:28:55 » |
|
Speed limits are arbitrary. Okay, having said that, of course we need some guidelines otherwise people would be doing 85 on residential streets. However, to take an arbitrary number and then criminalize a person for going over it doesn't contribute at all to safety.
Example: Someone has a 1973 Corolla. It has brake problems, three different sizes of tires, worn suspension, and it's been in at least four collisions. This car is unsafe at any speed. Handling is compromised as well as the ability to stop. However, as long as this guy stays below 65 MPH, he's legal right next to you on the 347.
Another Example: Gertrude is 87. She has glaucoma, macular degeneration, arthritis, and mild dementia. She hasn't taken a driving test in 45 years. The last time she renewed her license in Arizona, Bing Crosby was still alive and her license is still valid. Gertrude is more of a hazard at 25 MPH than most drivers would be at 95 MPH. If the goal is to improve safety, test drivers with a written test and physical skills test at least every five years.
My point is that how safe a vehicle is on the roadway at a given speed is directly related to the design and condition of the vehicle and the experience and skill of the driver. While we certainly need speed limits, we can't be treating them as if they are absolute. They're not. That's a really good reason to have citations issued by a human being rather than a machine. He will be able to see that Gertrude needs some intervention and act accordingly. He will also be able to issue a hand full of equipment violations to the guy driving the Corolla. Both of those citations will do something ti keep you safe. Flashing someone and giving them a ticket for going 11 MPH over the speed limit will not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tempting Fait
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 15 July 2010, 12:43:33 » |
|
I'm not at all a supporter of photo tickets. I'm also not a supporter of raising the speed limits.
Yes, some professionally trained people can handle 95 mph, but VERY few of us can safely do that. No matter what speed limit is set people are going to drive 10-20 over it because they think they can, then they get in a txting fight with their spouse and they kill people!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The world would be a nicer place if everyone took a chill pill.
It would get even better is some just choked on it.
|
|
|
|
mallardisme
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 15 July 2010, 12:57:29 » |
|
It is not the speed that kills.
It is the difference.
A car going 76 MPH is not going to be more dangerouse than one going 74MPH simply due to the exact number on the speedometer.
This is why we have officers that are trined to see speeders AND people that are doing a speed different than the flow of traffic. They look for that difference. That difference is what makes a driver more dangerous. He is most likely driving aggresivly and is weaving lanes. He may be tailgating as well. THESE are the things that need to be looked at.
Don't forget doing 65MPH in a 65MPH zone can be ticketable, if the conditions don't allow for that speed.
Yet a few other things that our mechanical overlords have no ability to take into account.
Ba-Bye evil revenue maker. Hello real law enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AzSandSlinger
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 15 July 2010, 23:17:42 » |
|
I find it funny that most of the opponents to photo-radar are in the same population as the "what part of illegal do you not understand" anti-SB 1070 crowd..
"I have to show ID when I get pulled over, what's the big deal?"
akin to: "I have to abide by a certain speed limit.. What's the big deal?"
seems pretty ironic.. dontcha-think?
-Shane
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"What part of ILLEGAL do you NOT understand!"
Really? Well.. What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL do YOU not comprehend?
|
|
|
|
mallardisme
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 16 July 2010, 00:36:02 » |
|
WHY do you have to provide ID when you drive? WHY do you HAVE to submit to a blood test, urine test When driving a car?
Oh yea, you signed up for that when you asked to drive a car. LOL
If you walk on the street, buy something in cash, and don't rob a bank, should you be required to have ID?
No. SB 1070 says the same.
Rhode Island has had this in place for almost 4 years.
It will be fun... If the feds win this case, there will be many laws that wi drop from the books. (California, Texas, South Dakoda....)
Wouldn't this have been easier if the feds enforced law? I truly think that theis is the real isse, and profiling is a side-bar
Just sems like a waste from here, to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tigg
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 16 July 2010, 00:40:14 » |
|
Personally, I like Montana's speed limit on highways (at least it was, not sure if it still is). The speed limit on highways was 'safe and prudent' - that's what was posted and enforced. Speed was judged based on the vehicle being driven, the traffic & weather conditions, and the ability of the driver to maintain control at the speed of travel. Common sense determined if you were speeding.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mallardisme
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 16 July 2010, 00:57:02 » |
|
I know it is whacky, but driving a car is not a right.
You actually sign up for driving and you sign up to allow law enforcement judge you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AzSandSlinger
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 21 July 2010, 22:47:46 » |
|
Oh yea, you signed up for that when you asked to drive a car. LOL
If you walk on the street, buy something in cash, and don't rob a bank, should you be required to have ID?
No. SB 1070 says the same.
Rhode Island has had this in place for almost 4 years.
Rhode Island Law does not throw "innocent until proven guilty" into the trash.. neither does it poop on the 5th Amendment.. Now, driving is a privilege.. not a right.. That said.. a PASSENGER has NO OBLIGATION to carry an ID.. and neither do I if I'm walking (or biking) up to QT to buy a soda.. Oh ya.. per FEDERAL LAW, a LEGAL ALIEN under 14 is NOT required to carry identification.. ... I'll also state that my United States Citizen under-15-year-old-children are not required to carry ID.. but CAN be subject to "lawful stops".. and therefore.. the Officers (pursuant to SB1070) may be REQUIRED to detain them if they "deem" them "illegal".. SB 1070 is a direct violation of all of that.. The faster people stop using "I have to show ID" for traffic stops to justify 1070, the smarter they may become... -Shane |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"What part of ILLEGAL do you NOT understand!"
Really? Well.. What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL do YOU not comprehend?
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 22 July 2010, 01:02:32 » |
|
I'm sorry but those cameras were just dangerous.. people felt the need to slam on their brakes because they were doing 76 and felt they had to drop to 65. Now being a safe driver, I never ran my car into their asses.. but I gtd it did happen and happen often. I'm glad they are gone.. I have a heavy foot, I won't deny it.. but I don't drive 40 plus around the RED parkway, or over 40 in a 35, or go over 15 in a school zone.. but I do speed on the freeway it's different driving.. Anyway.. Shane I'm with you on your post.. but I think you and I are way out-numbered on that one.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AzSandSlinger
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 28 July 2010, 00:28:32 » |
|
Anyway.. Shane I'm with you on your post.. but I think you and I are way out-numbered on that one. There are those that say it is harder to be in the minority when it is right than taking the easy route and joining the mob majority... Our Founding Fathers (you know, those people that "Conservatives-In-Name-Only" like to spout off about in support of their view of patriotism) rejected democracy for the sole reason that they knew that they wanted to prevent "Tyranny by the Majority." SB 1070 is a prime example of what the Founding Fathers would have fought against.. History people.... know your roots and how our country was founded (not directed at you snooze..  ) -Shane |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"What part of ILLEGAL do you NOT understand!"
Really? Well.. What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL do YOU not comprehend?
|
|
|
|
